On 01/14/2014 02:07 PM, Steve Smith wrote: > Using a physical system metaphor (fluid flow), I believe in using > whatever mechanisms are available to encourage laminar flow between > highly disparate layers (wealth, opportunity, values being roughly > pressure, temperature, velocity vectors).. (top 1% vs homeless, first > world vs starving 3rd world) rather than to seek to *separate* the flows > and *engineer* very contrived connections (e.g. Social Service systems, > US AID, World Bank, etc.) between the two to try to relieve the > stresses.
It sounds like you're laying out an implicitly multi-scale government technique. If so, that would be in direct opposition to something like "trickle-down", which (I assume) relies upon some sort of assumed natural "physics" of economics. A managed -- even if only encouraging -- coupling between the various categories would fall directly into a tax-and-spend liberal view of good government. A laissez faire perspective would suggest no need to pay it forward or to systemically encourage paying it forward. The interesting part of your proposal would lie in discovering when government managed couplings were needed and when they weren't. -- ⇒⇐ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
