theres a line between advice and command. so while we take financial advice from a moneylender, we simply execute commands as enforced by law, the key difference being that for the latter, there is no opt-out. and when looking at the motives of both types instruction coming from a figure of authority, a clear distinction is made that we are given options to improve our lives, but for decisions that could/would degrade the lives of others, free will is taken away.
it is sufficiently clear here for me to conclude that since a governing body is in the business of being in everyone else's business, that they only pass and enforce law that protects people from each other--not themselves. a nanny state to me, is an absurd concept which muddies with arbitrariness the clear waters of what would be a transparent set of civil regulations.
it becomes extremely problematic when a government overreaches itself and tries to lay cultural, financial, social, etc frameworks and then coerce the inhabitants to conform. in such a way, the governing body has overstepped its boundary of sovereign security handling, into the realm of domestic dollhouse mishandling. where the word democracy remains in the name of any particular government, it is no longer in the spirit of the name itself when such a government masterminds decisions for the electorate when instead they should merely be the executors of popularly voted constitutions.
the following is true: people dont really care for much of politics, except for the fact that they want to be able to do what they want to do, what they dream of doing, be it making a name, making a living, or making a family. so when the time comes they collectively realise (by education or advances in comms tech) they have been denied this right, entire regimes collapse overnight.
all because personal freedom was not a priority, and the government wasnt doing the job it was supposed to be doing.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Sunday, December 11, 2011
zero sum
when people talk prosperity, more money, more things, a bigger house, a faster car--these are improvements that come over time as living conditions in a region improve over time. if we take a period of 50 years, or maybe even 20 years, most if not all regions will see some sort of financial prosperity.
but according to the way most people in developed countries see it or want to see it, prosperity isnt an increase in purchasing power from what they used to have in the past; prosperity is an increase in purchasing power over their peers at the present. in this sense, a communist governing system can issue a directive which increases the food distribution for everyone by 5% with a corresponding increase in quality of life, but net 0 increase in level of prosperity as each person sees it. after all, everyone sees the same increase. ok maybe communism isnt such a good base to start an analogy on relative prosperity.
thankfully, people in most parts of the world have their right to own and purchase property/goods/services, etc, and so they do. so what happens when the governing body slashes the sales tax or value-added tax by a couple points? more people get what they want--an increase in life quality no doubt, but is this a measure of prosperity? no: a blanket tax like a sales tax or vat affects the entire economy equally, and so an increase in purchasing power across the board will inevitably cause an increase in prices across the board, a result that negates the move. thats just how markets work...this is why blanket tax cuts will never happen. even the most socialist government will only inject wealth to a partial sector of the economy, most likely the poor or middle class, or both, because as mentioned, giving help to everyone is giving help to no one.
and so we finally touch upon the meat of the issue...wealth discrepancy. prosperity cannot be increased, it can only be shifted around. the recent and impending implosions respectively of the greek and italian economies are merely antipasti to the primo which is the usa deficit shitfest. without pointing fingers for whos to blame, all business bubbles are traceable to the root of evil, which isnt money, but the greed for money. the unfortunate truth is that whether the bubble is growing or recently popped, capitalism leaves in its wake a scorched earth of unequal wealth distribution. to be honest, it isnt capitalism's fault, its just a fantastically convenient term to place upon the preference for "prosperity", or growing that wealth already possessed. the best position for money to be placed is upon the poor, where utilitarian ROI is best realised. this economic system (free capitalism), is ipso facto a tool which generates a need for wealth faster than the wealth itself.
this is why we work over 44 hours a week to be able to owe the banks for 35 years. because those who designed the system designed it in a way to keep themselves out of it. such an outcome, which if, as outrageous as it is, has not caused violent civil war, i would say is perfect show of capitalism, or euphemistically "meritocracy" in the government. 44 hours and 35 years. that is the yardstick that every layman wakes up and goes to bed on, telling himself one day he will do less than 44 for less than 35. that is how he judges his level of prosperity--marking himself against the average. the sorry fact is that he is likely never to do better than that, and if he does, it is only possible if participates in making the rich richer, and making the poor poorer.
enjoy your noble dreams of prosperity and your noble dream profession.
but according to the way most people in developed countries see it or want to see it, prosperity isnt an increase in purchasing power from what they used to have in the past; prosperity is an increase in purchasing power over their peers at the present. in this sense, a communist governing system can issue a directive which increases the food distribution for everyone by 5% with a corresponding increase in quality of life, but net 0 increase in level of prosperity as each person sees it. after all, everyone sees the same increase. ok maybe communism isnt such a good base to start an analogy on relative prosperity.
thankfully, people in most parts of the world have their right to own and purchase property/goods/services, etc, and so they do. so what happens when the governing body slashes the sales tax or value-added tax by a couple points? more people get what they want--an increase in life quality no doubt, but is this a measure of prosperity? no: a blanket tax like a sales tax or vat affects the entire economy equally, and so an increase in purchasing power across the board will inevitably cause an increase in prices across the board, a result that negates the move. thats just how markets work...this is why blanket tax cuts will never happen. even the most socialist government will only inject wealth to a partial sector of the economy, most likely the poor or middle class, or both, because as mentioned, giving help to everyone is giving help to no one.
and so we finally touch upon the meat of the issue...wealth discrepancy. prosperity cannot be increased, it can only be shifted around. the recent and impending implosions respectively of the greek and italian economies are merely antipasti to the primo which is the usa deficit shitfest. without pointing fingers for whos to blame, all business bubbles are traceable to the root of evil, which isnt money, but the greed for money. the unfortunate truth is that whether the bubble is growing or recently popped, capitalism leaves in its wake a scorched earth of unequal wealth distribution. to be honest, it isnt capitalism's fault, its just a fantastically convenient term to place upon the preference for "prosperity", or growing that wealth already possessed. the best position for money to be placed is upon the poor, where utilitarian ROI is best realised. this economic system (free capitalism), is ipso facto a tool which generates a need for wealth faster than the wealth itself.
this is why we work over 44 hours a week to be able to owe the banks for 35 years. because those who designed the system designed it in a way to keep themselves out of it. such an outcome, which if, as outrageous as it is, has not caused violent civil war, i would say is perfect show of capitalism, or euphemistically "meritocracy" in the government. 44 hours and 35 years. that is the yardstick that every layman wakes up and goes to bed on, telling himself one day he will do less than 44 for less than 35. that is how he judges his level of prosperity--marking himself against the average. the sorry fact is that he is likely never to do better than that, and if he does, it is only possible if participates in making the rich richer, and making the poor poorer.
enjoy your noble dreams of prosperity and your noble dream profession.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)