Newsgroups: sci.econ From: jos boersema Subject: Re: Economics is a life or death science: take it serious, or die. References: <6rss0hF36gppU1@mid.individual.net> <6rvbp6F3cvfgU1@mid.individual.net> <982b542d-05aa-47cb-aec3-d2adde904297@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com> <495e6036$0$4879$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com> Organization: www.socialism.nl Reply-To: jos boersema Followup-To: On 2009-01-02, Democracy Highlander wrote: > On Jan 2, 2:06 pm, jos boersema wrote: >> >> Capitalism can degenerate into anarchy from heavy corruption, >> if the corruption consolidates it is oligarchy. > > Any social-economic system can degenerate into anarchy if not properly > driven. > Capitalism is no more or less prone to collapse than any other system. I agree, if with system you mean "any system yet attempted, besides that of the Torah" (which (Torah) is something not on the scope of any economist, despite its interesting economic law system.) I say: my system will fend of a collapse better, because a) it has such a strong democratic system, and b) it collapses the finance power (but not the real economic power of businesses and markets!). You seem to group both finance and the real economy in one group, which is a classic oversight of the political left all the way to the marxists. I say: if you remove the finance issue from the economy, you should find that the power grabbing attacks from the economy become less, and you may even get the reverse: the real economic powers become a positive force unto the Government, who demand honorable and corruptless Government. Why: because well ran businesses want their corrupt competitors to be undercut by effective law enforcement. They hate to see their competitors getting away with skirting the law. This does, however, depend on a certain level of "honorable consumption" from the public. If the public is constantly focussed on lowest possible prices "to hell with everything else," that can stimulate corruption, which is profitable, driving out honorable businesses, eventually collapsing the system. By the way: my system (if done fully) is fixed into 239 laws, I don't think any other "system" has ever been as thorough on its conceptual level (besides the Torah). That means there is a certain bench-mark: start messing with these laws in a big way, then you can't call it my system anymore. Since corruption is usually also erosion of democracy, particularly if it becomes oligargy, there is a hurdle to jump before "my" system can collapse. That hurdle in practice is probably ending up as "stopping to be my system," "stopping to do these laws." That bench-mark is also something you can get back to easily, re-creating "my" model out of either anarchy or oligarchy. > The only force known to be able to prevent the collapse it is a fully > functional democracy. I agree, under my system it is the same, only the democratic level is so much stronger, and has taken out the big enemy: "private for profit finance." > In the capitalism case, the economic power is trying to mangle with > the democracy in the quest of the useless idle to increase their > wealth and power. Once the mangling become too evident, the trust into > the institutions collapse and there is nothing to prevent anarchy. > > And BTW, > The Roman fascia was not a symbol of peace by any mean but a symbol of > discipline (by punishment). The bundle of sticks was used to beat the > recruits who failed to execute the commanders orders perfectly and in > time during training period. In time, it become to be regarded as a > symbol of discipline of the legions: "they act together and listen to > their commanders like a bundle of sticks around the battle axe ". Meant that: discipline prevents internal strife/violence. > What fascism really is, is a totalitarian regime where the business > power (economic power) and political power fuse together in order to > eliminate the democracy and run at will. This is actually what the > communism was too. The only difference between fascism and communism > is not the finality but the means to achieve that finality. > In the case of communism, the communist take the political power by > the mean of a revolution then nationalize the economy taking control > over the economic power as well. > The fascism, the economic power (business elites) agree (by their own > free will or by fear and intimidation) to join the political power in > order to have a coordinated control over the society. In exchenge for > supporting the political power, the business elites get political > support to destroy or take control over competition (smaller > businesses). > > Both of the regimes are guaranteed to degenerate in an oligarchy run > by tyrants, suppress the democracy and to be a destructive force. I agree, except that in communism there is a promise that gets broken: the promise of real bottom-up democracy to run the plan-economy in the public interest. That breaks down, if not in law (which are never formulated but left to chance), then in practice (see East Germany), and then you have more or less the same fascism under a different set of propaganda slogans. Sad, but true. Another difference is that communism appeals more to humanitarian people, who get tricked into it and are then betrayed, while fascism appeals to more violent people, who may realize what kind of game they are in for, although even they seem not to fully appreciate beforehand the breath of the ensuing catastrophe. So what do we need: democracy, full throttle IMHO. Not the half backed democracy we have in the west, with its media-manipulated parties whose puppets have no relation with the public besides the relationship of a demagogue and the ignorant masses, backed by finance.