On 4/17/06, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 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.
I think we're kidding ourselves when we think greed is the significant component of why our system works. "Greed is good" serves those who focus on wealth and power by giving them an excuse to disregard the reality that politics and markets demand as much cooperation as competition. I think we can already see that more sophisticated systems are based on cooperation (or collaboration) as much as competition. Economic networks, just like digital networks, require collaboration and competition to work efficiently. As bad as we are at modeling economic systems as pure competition, it's even harder to model them as networks, but they show a great deal of promise as better models. 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. And how well does it work when the branches regard themselves as adversarial, as compared with when they acknowledge common goals? It is not a competitive model. Otherwise, the rules would be set up so that one of the branches could "win," accumulating greater power, but that's exactly what the system was intended to prevent. One of the worst things happening in government today is that very sort of nonsense, particularly between courts and legislatures. 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. Do you imagine I am arguing against wealth or productivity? I'm not. Nor efficiency. The richest person on earth got that way thanks to network effects, not supply and demand, according to some very bright economists. Perhaps I'm saying that the way our system measures is flawed, but we are starting to see that networks can measure more efficiently. Networks have multidimensional feedback loops with emergent properties that aren't present in the simple feedback idea of classic capitalism and democracy. > 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. We hardly needed David to point that out. Is a fortune gained from network effects any more appropriate than one that is gained by one's ancestors having land? I don't think so. Hats off to those who figured it out, but for all the good it does, it reveals a phenomenon that liberal capitalist democracy doesn't deal with well. > > 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. I don't understand what this has to do with the future. What I'm saying is that I believe that in the far future, Clinton and Bush will be virtually indistinguishable, both having been enthusiastic participants in an obsolete system. > 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. And altrustic, empathetic, generous, kind and compassionate, which people also are. Look at the various gift economies that are arising, mediated by the Internet. Check out freecycle, for example. It isn't playing by the rules of supply and demand, not at all. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
