Firstly, what are economics, at all?
Economics aren't so much about the fact, that humans need to satisfy their survival needs at all, nor about how much it is they need. Those questions, can be answered by natural sciences. Economics answer, in the first place, HOW to satisfy survival needs. It's about humans working with figures, but it's also about behavior -- as an individual and as a group. Economics have three components: Granting and taking opportunities, and setting boundaries. Economics are, in the very first place, and in every sense of the word, a question of balancing duality. Secondly, economics naturally never stand still, and, thirdly, difference without judgment, is perhaps key component.
To name a few of the many examples of economic dualism that need to be balanced:
Full Stomach - Empty Stomach
Much - Little
Complex - Simple
Intelligent - Stupid ...?
Large company - Small Business
Macro - Micro
National - Local
Altruism - Individualism (Selfishness?)
You - Me
They - Us
Hunter - Prey
Receiving - Paying
Giving - Accepting
Group - Individual
Debt - Claim
Movement - Stillness
Global - National
Debit - Credit
Male - Female
Old - New
Risk - Security
Dynamism - Stability
Mind - Body
Mind - Heart
Thought - Feeling
Capability - Shortcoming
Self-reliance - Co-operation
Eating - Being Eaten
Solidarity - Individualism
Birth - Death
Blue - Yellow
Competition - Cooperation
Economics aren't so much about the fact, that humans need to satisfy their survival needs at all, nor about how much it is they need. Those questions, can be answered by natural sciences. Economics answer, in the first place, HOW to satisfy survival needs. It's about humans working with figures, but it's also about behavior -- as an individual and as a group. Economics have three components: Granting and taking opportunities, and setting boundaries. Economics are, in the very first place, and in every sense of the word, a question of balancing duality. Secondly, economics naturally never stand still, and, thirdly, difference without judgment, is perhaps key component.
To name a few of the many examples of economic dualism that need to be balanced:
Full Stomach - Empty Stomach
Much - Little
Complex - Simple
Intelligent - Stupid ...?
Large company - Small Business
Macro - Micro
National - Local
Altruism - Individualism (Selfishness?)
You - Me
They - Us
Hunter - Prey
Receiving - Paying
Giving - Accepting
Group - Individual
Debt - Claim
Movement - Stillness
Global - National
Debit - Credit
Male - Female
Old - New
Risk - Security
Dynamism - Stability
Mind - Body
Mind - Heart
Thought - Feeling
Capability - Shortcoming
Self-reliance - Co-operation
Eating - Being Eaten
Solidarity - Individualism
Birth - Death
Blue - Yellow
Competition - Cooperation
Property - Liability
All these, are natural dimensions of life. They all deserve their own merit. Westerners, however, ran into huge trouble, when they started classifying natural dimensions into a moral classification, and then try to fit in humans -- when it should be the other way round. Moral classifications of economics are only justified, when there aren't any conflicting interests -- not only between people, but also between people and any other creatures, and even objects. This is a situation, where no difference exists -- which isn't possible. And, if choices existed. But, nothing is more complex than life and the universe. 'Good <--> Bad' isn't a conclusion we should, each and every time, draw from difference. It's about eating and being eaten. Each creature is programmed in a certain way, with a certain role attached to that. A cat catches a mouse, but never vice versa. That, isn't possible. Does that make the cat a bad creature? And, is the mouse really a victim? What is a victim, at all? The concept 'victim', excludes any thought of a future. Who knows, whether the mouse, or its soul, is better off, being eaten? 'Work' isn't necessarily worse or better than 'not work', if no one gets hurt on its way. Same goes for the difference between rich and poor. Maybe, the poorer person is thankful, being deprived of the stress of large property and responsibilities. What is poor, in the first place, as long as people are able to fulfill their, and their family's, needs. Yet, the average Westerner, is brought up to think, that certain economic situations are better than others. Not being affluent, in this view, is intolerable. It's compulsory to function in a big, formal environment and be organized, whereas an informal environment may yield better result. Economics don't answer or judge questions like which activity is superior. Yet, Westerners strongly believe in an ideal, large-scale, economic structure with ideal jobs, designed into detail by a government or representative. People have to fit into this model, also when they can't, and if they can't, they must change themselves. The ideal person, reinvents him- or herself, or is rejected and stays at the sideline.
The second problem, Westerners created for themselves, as a group, is their low appreciation of the individual person. How does this effect average people? 'An ordinary person isn't able to take respondibility for his, and more so, her own life.' 'Only extrodinary people can take responsibility for fullfilling the people's needs'. 'Competition causes unemployment'. 'Only cooperation leads to secure improvement'. These thoughts, or rather, fears, led to economic specialization, as I said in my previous economics-blog: A work- and society concept, where people fill their daily task with only one, same assignment. If they want something else, be it a job or a product, they must outsource, against payment. The hope is, that everyone doing the best they can in their specific job, leads to a perfected group performance as a society. It leads, however, also to a society, where people need a lot of cash to fulfill almost all their personal needs, because they can't, or aren't allowed, to self-produce those items that don't belong to their job description. A society based on patronage, has thus emerged. Specialization and patronage, are main components of a feudality, because specialization isn't restricted to work only, but also to ownership. Only a few people own a nation's real estate, and the mass of the people and businesses, must rent their residence from this small group of owners. The deal is, that these owners have the specialist knowledge to maintain and improve the estate. And the problem is, one or two ordinary persons, take decisions for thousands of people. These thousands of people are perfectly capable of taking decisions for themselves, and these one or two leaders, are usually ordinary people with average character flaws. Sometimes, those flaws make them loose, or run off with, large quantities of money or property. The whole group is left empty handed, then. They must take decisions for too many people. In many cases, that's above their league. This structure has had great consequences for the West itself, but also for other parts of the world, as I said in my previous economics-blog.
All these, are natural dimensions of life. They all deserve their own merit. Westerners, however, ran into huge trouble, when they started classifying natural dimensions into a moral classification, and then try to fit in humans -- when it should be the other way round. Moral classifications of economics are only justified, when there aren't any conflicting interests -- not only between people, but also between people and any other creatures, and even objects. This is a situation, where no difference exists -- which isn't possible. And, if choices existed. But, nothing is more complex than life and the universe. 'Good <--> Bad' isn't a conclusion we should, each and every time, draw from difference. It's about eating and being eaten. Each creature is programmed in a certain way, with a certain role attached to that. A cat catches a mouse, but never vice versa. That, isn't possible. Does that make the cat a bad creature? And, is the mouse really a victim? What is a victim, at all? The concept 'victim', excludes any thought of a future. Who knows, whether the mouse, or its soul, is better off, being eaten? 'Work' isn't necessarily worse or better than 'not work', if no one gets hurt on its way. Same goes for the difference between rich and poor. Maybe, the poorer person is thankful, being deprived of the stress of large property and responsibilities. What is poor, in the first place, as long as people are able to fulfill their, and their family's, needs. Yet, the average Westerner, is brought up to think, that certain economic situations are better than others. Not being affluent, in this view, is intolerable. It's compulsory to function in a big, formal environment and be organized, whereas an informal environment may yield better result. Economics don't answer or judge questions like which activity is superior. Yet, Westerners strongly believe in an ideal, large-scale, economic structure with ideal jobs, designed into detail by a government or representative. People have to fit into this model, also when they can't, and if they can't, they must change themselves. The ideal person, reinvents him- or herself, or is rejected and stays at the sideline.
The second problem, Westerners created for themselves, as a group, is their low appreciation of the individual person. How does this effect average people? 'An ordinary person isn't able to take respondibility for his, and more so, her own life.' 'Only extrodinary people can take responsibility for fullfilling the people's needs'. 'Competition causes unemployment'. 'Only cooperation leads to secure improvement'. These thoughts, or rather, fears, led to economic specialization, as I said in my previous economics-blog: A work- and society concept, where people fill their daily task with only one, same assignment. If they want something else, be it a job or a product, they must outsource, against payment. The hope is, that everyone doing the best they can in their specific job, leads to a perfected group performance as a society. It leads, however, also to a society, where people need a lot of cash to fulfill almost all their personal needs, because they can't, or aren't allowed, to self-produce those items that don't belong to their job description. A society based on patronage, has thus emerged. Specialization and patronage, are main components of a feudality, because specialization isn't restricted to work only, but also to ownership. Only a few people own a nation's real estate, and the mass of the people and businesses, must rent their residence from this small group of owners. The deal is, that these owners have the specialist knowledge to maintain and improve the estate. And the problem is, one or two ordinary persons, take decisions for thousands of people. These thousands of people are perfectly capable of taking decisions for themselves, and these one or two leaders, are usually ordinary people with average character flaws. Sometimes, those flaws make them loose, or run off with, large quantities of money or property. The whole group is left empty handed, then. They must take decisions for too many people. In many cases, that's above their league. This structure has had great consequences for the West itself, but also for other parts of the world, as I said in my previous economics-blog.
Furthermore, Western economics have an important second concept, as I mentioned in my previous economics blog: Leverage. (Forgive me any repetion) Leverage is the balance between property and debt. Like specialization, leverage is seen as a key tool of Western economics. Making a debt suggests a granted right to pay a sum for products and services afterwards, in order to keep cash in hand. That cash in hand, is seen as a source of income. The cash is due for later payment, but thanks to granted delay, it can be used now. This is basically true, but it's also a dangerous concept, in case other sources of income suddenly stop before the debt has been paid. Leverage is a universal economic concept, however, Western economics have gone further in employing it as a tool than most other economic systems. Lending property at large scale is only possible in a situation of trust, or of concentration of property among the few. This is a risky, contradictory situation. It has benefits, but it certainly has great dangers also, as soon as things spin out of control.
A situation of large scale debt also leads to the third big component of Western economics: Interest. When liability outgrows property, a gap arises, that needs filled at some moment. This is the reason, why an extra duty had to be introduced: paying an extra sum in surplus of the debt.
Truth is, the average Westerner, hasn't got much free property. A Westerner, firstly, in many cases, is unable to continue an inherited family business. It must be sold, because inheritance tax must be paid first. The 'poor' and the huge state bureaucracy that takes care of the citizens, must be paid, after all. Same applies to many other investments, Westerners face this problem in many of their decisions, in order to lead a regular, natural life. A big example, is buying a house. The price of that house is huge, because of the taxations that come on top of it. And, because construction real estate is often government monopoly, or in the hands of large landownership. And, usually, because less than half the nation's land is available to small-scale, individual, private owners. So, a Westerner, usually, has to start his or her working life from scratch, without much help from a family estate. And, in many cases, then fails. Result is, that Westerners must receive back from the state, what they had to pay for: A rent house; social security money; a state-created job; food handouts. This is, how redevision of wealth works. People are forced to buy or rent at a price, and, if they can't afford it, they must receive state income support. Those in good health, or those who finish their education well, may very well succeed in finding a job or income source, and, thus, sufficient income, but those who fail, end up under financial state protection. Truth is, that latter group is economically bankrupt. And, this is a big group -- not a small group. It may very well be half the population, if we are honest enough to really face reality. The problem isn't limited to individual cases. Because many thousands of people rely on only a few employers, or on the state, they end up in serious financial debt, should the employer, or the state, suffer loss of income -- which is part of economic reality. So, in Western economy, times of decreased income, lead to severe crisis of the entire economy. In the West, recession is a disaster.
The West's third problem, is that economics are perhaps the only field of human activity, where it thinks, it can't learn from foreign systems and cultures. Call it a last remnant of superiority-ideas. Or, difficulty to identify with outlandish philosophy. So, those who want to make suggestions, should also use names from Western culture.
Truth is, the average Westerner, hasn't got much free property. A Westerner, firstly, in many cases, is unable to continue an inherited family business. It must be sold, because inheritance tax must be paid first. The 'poor' and the huge state bureaucracy that takes care of the citizens, must be paid, after all. Same applies to many other investments, Westerners face this problem in many of their decisions, in order to lead a regular, natural life. A big example, is buying a house. The price of that house is huge, because of the taxations that come on top of it. And, because construction real estate is often government monopoly, or in the hands of large landownership. And, usually, because less than half the nation's land is available to small-scale, individual, private owners. So, a Westerner, usually, has to start his or her working life from scratch, without much help from a family estate. And, in many cases, then fails. Result is, that Westerners must receive back from the state, what they had to pay for: A rent house; social security money; a state-created job; food handouts. This is, how redevision of wealth works. People are forced to buy or rent at a price, and, if they can't afford it, they must receive state income support. Those in good health, or those who finish their education well, may very well succeed in finding a job or income source, and, thus, sufficient income, but those who fail, end up under financial state protection. Truth is, that latter group is economically bankrupt. And, this is a big group -- not a small group. It may very well be half the population, if we are honest enough to really face reality. The problem isn't limited to individual cases. Because many thousands of people rely on only a few employers, or on the state, they end up in serious financial debt, should the employer, or the state, suffer loss of income -- which is part of economic reality. So, in Western economy, times of decreased income, lead to severe crisis of the entire economy. In the West, recession is a disaster.
The West's third problem, is that economics are perhaps the only field of human activity, where it thinks, it can't learn from foreign systems and cultures. Call it a last remnant of superiority-ideas. Or, difficulty to identify with outlandish philosophy. So, those who want to make suggestions, should also use names from Western culture.
Comments
Post a Comment