comparative politics and the lessons of the ages.

[_Z_]

comparative politics and the lessons of the ages.

here i don’t want to discuss any specific form of politics, but the overall result of them as applied in the world throughout time.

i’ll start with a basic and simple view of how i think it all works...

in 14th century England we had a limited monarchy, in France they had an absolute monarchy. in effect what this meant was that the people of Britain were comparatively richer ~ had a reasonably large middle class, than those of France which instead had a rich king and lots of poor peasants! we could jump forwards to communism and see it as similar to 14thC France just without a rich king.

simply put it appears that if you distribute wealth too much you get lots of poor people, then if you don’t, you get a few very rich people. the answer is all in the redistribution of wealth; today in capitalist Europe we say that it is ok to make the rich richer as wealth trickles down to the rest, perhaps though we should ‘make’ it flow down to the multitude!
rich people are of little use in and of themselves, sure they buy products and employ some people, sometimes they invest [after buying their yachts etc], but society must eventually stop the flow upwards and redistribute fairly.

extravagance doesn’t achieve much on the greater scale of things, i think most of us find it deplorable and with with just cause, perhaps there should be a maximum wage as well as a minimum wage, then that the latter should be increased over time. i don’t know how that could be applied but there is always a way, eventually all things even out, so i would think that the world economy will.

i can’t wait until there is no way for ‘them’ to get cheap labour to keep the rest of us down [as i have experienced in the construction industry], and that people power will come back ~ but hopefully without trade unions having too much power!

maybe there is more to talk of rich men and camels passing through the eye of a needle eh. the lessons of the ages to which their respective ethics are built, have real meanings as seen by what happens when people are greedy ~ my oh my arent we re-learning that lesson all over again!

discuss.

 

[Paladin]

We have seen that the Milton Friedman model of economics simply hasn't worked there has been no "trickle down" Even Greenspan had to admit he was wrong all these years.
It didn't work for Pinochet either as in the years following its inception the economy of Chile became a disaster. We are now seeing the fallout from the economic policies that the Neo-cons were so very fond of.
This is not to say that a free market cannot exist, and the good things that it can bring are obvious but complete de-regulation is just not good business.

 

[_Z_]

hi paladin

yes i agree, its about limits as well as redistribution, taking chances is not something we should do with the ‘main-frame’ of our economies. personally i think the banks should be fully nationalised. it is strange how we have to keep re-learning lessons in life, ones that should have been realised many centuries ago. i must admit i am not at all fond of selfishness in society especially when it is advocated as something we should be like.
.
maybe i am a bit of a commie, but i think that a nations wealth belongs to the nation, in some instances businessmen are little more than thieves. for far to long we have been told that anyone can make it and be rich, but that is not the practical reality, if we all become businessmen then who would do the actual work! i say that and i am a small businessman, but i work hard too and muck in - so to say, to get jobs done.
.
the difference is that capitalists can ‘make it’, sure they work hard as we are always told yet if it was about hard work then bricklayers and labourers would be millionaires. however most people don’t make it, life for the majority is a continuous struggle, then we are led into recession by the very people who get all the money ...and we have to pay for it!
i could rant on about snobbery, oneupmanship etc but i’ll stop there for now. lets just say that; ‘truth when played out in real terms, reveals itself fully’ [Z]

thanks for your reply!

 

[Paladin]

What gets me Z is that the big money makers are the ones who make money by the movement of money from one place or another, these become as parasites to those of us who earn money by providing goods and services.

 

[_Z_]

oh i agree entirely, they call it a market economy yet there has always been market economies. the difference is that, in ancient times a farmer took his goods to market and sold them, now there are a whole host of middlemen creaming profits from their hard work ~ as you say, to the detriment of actual producers.

i think money should have some degree of bartable value, in fuedal japan they used rice [koku] for money, this gave money real worth and limited inflation ~ which is another tool used to keep our spending capacity down.

 

[Paladin]

Of course! Is it any wonder the "greenback" was discontinued? The bankers couldn't control its worth.

 

[Joedjr]

Hi _Z_

i can’t wait until there is no way for ‘them’ to get cheap labour to keep the rest of us down [as i have experienced in the construction industry], and that people power will come back ~ but hopefully without trade unions having too much power!

I'm not to sure I want to experience the labor pool for the whole earth at equilibrium. It might sound like a noble ideal, but there is a reason why companies move operations to where there is cheap labor. It's not to raise the standard of living for the workers they are trying to employ.
As a long time construction worker myself (but never in a union), I see them (the unions) as part of a "check and balance" of the system of work and workers but not just union workers. The idea is good, but seems to need an overhaul to make itself useful today.
The trouble is human nature doesn't find fairness all that easy.
Joe

 

[_Z_]

joedjr, hi

It’s not to raise the standard of living for the workers they are trying to employ.

no its to make them, ergo we in the west, richer, is that ethical? equilibrium isn’t what is desired, more fairness. what i meant was that a coupple of years ago we could charge good rates [which does need to be balanced], then they got a load of cheap labour from poland mainly and it made us keep our rates down. what happens to capitalism when they can’t get cheap labour from anywhere?

i think if things were not controlled so much a ‘natural’ equality would be arrived at.