> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Nick Arnett > Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2006 9:35 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Liberal Capitalist Fundamentalism > > On 4/14/06, Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Do you think that an improvement in the economic system is possible > > without an improvement in human nature, e.g., replacing the emphasis > > on greed with one on honesty and helping others? > > > I'm not sure there is a cause and effect relationship between the two. I > think I'm talking about improvement in the nature of community, not > individual people.
I think it is worthwhile to consider what the main advantage afforded by our present political-economic system: the harnessing of the baser desires of people for the common good. With our political system, this was a deliberate construction by the founders of the US government. By separating powers between the federal government and state governments, and between the branches of the federal government, they planned on the desire for power and influence by one block to perform a check on excessive power by other blocks. One of the strongest advantages of the market system is that it rewards people who take risks to produce something new or do something in a better way. The concept of the creation of wealth through productivity was one of the most important results of market economies. One can look at landed aristocracy as the precedent. As Dr. Brin has pointed out, industrialization has significantly increased the total amount of wealth....allowing the development of a middle class. > This discussion begs the question of what is a "better" politico-economic > system. Is it one in which economic efficiency is highest overall? > Greatest net production? Fairest distribution of wealth? Fewest > injustices? A tide that lifts all boats? There are two parts to this: 1) The desired goals. This cannot be determined empirically. There is no way to prove to someone who thinks that poor people deserve to die if they cannot make enough to live on in a free market that they are wrong. There is no way to empirically prove that someone who things that renouncing technology and going back to "nature" is best (as the antagonist of Earth believes) is wrong. But, fortunately, there is a decent amount of consensus on a number of goals. Increased opportunity for all is generally agreed upon. Making sure no one dies outside a hospital because they cannot afford admittance has general acceptance. Doing what's best for the broad middle class resonates with voters. Many of the differences I see is regarding the 2nd question: 2) What are the likely results of various actions? These can be studied empirically. Data can be used to answer questions such as the response of the economy to Clinton's and Bush's economic policy. It is much harder to falsify theories in economics sociology and political science than it is in a scientific field, like physics, because of the dearth of experimental opportunities, and the difficulty in establishing the arrow of causality with any certainty. Still, we can look at the weight of evidence. Clinton's tax hike is known to have been influential in the Fed.'s decision to lower interest rates and did not cause a recession, as supply-siders argued it would. Planned economies have long term economic disadvantages over market economies. > What is better about liberal democratic capitalism compared with other > systems? I think one answer is "greater freedom," which doesn't strike me > as an improvement in individual human nature, but an improvement in the > nature of community. As you can tell from what I've written already in this post, I agree that the liberal democratic capitalistic systems are not dependant on improvements in human nature. I think that it is a good rule of thumb to require any new system work with people who continue to be as ornery and selfish. That requirement alone can be used to lower the confidence in a number of new systems. I answered this post first because it establishes a couple of principals I will rely on in my answer to the earlier post of Nick. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
