Showing posts with label Landreform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Landreform. Show all posts

Saturday, October 28, 2017

Quatras Politicas, A Muslim suggestion on how the West can end its debt crisis

What is it, Westerners should let go of, in order to become a less indebted society? That would be the fear of self-reliance; the exaggerated specialization; the fear of individualism; the fear of small-scale; the fear of humble labor. Is there a thing as humble labor, anyway. They should let go any glorification of co-operation and doing things 'together'. All-in: Developing a more positive, proud concept of human nature, and their own populations, in general. Many, many nations on this Earth, have survived with small governments that don't plan an entire economy and have less bureaucracy, though their people have had to rely on their own capcacity to take care of their families and property. This is possible, because individual citizens are allowed ownership more than food, cloths, furniture, books, and decorations only. They can inherit their family home, or family business, and the land on which it is built, without having to pay huge taxes. They are allowed to build their own home and business, even if it's only as simple as a tent of a shed. They are allowed to be self-reliant and humble, in other words. Let's remember, that a humble start, even more so with family or neighborhood support, may very well grow and develop into sophistication. The West should, really, abandon centralized housing and real estate. It's former colonies, such as countries in the Islamic world; Africa; Latin America; Asia, have carried out landreforms, in many cases. They dismantled large landownership and gave the land back to those who live and work on it: The average citizens. It's true, that this hasn't always been a peaceful process. Zimbabwe is example of a country that made the right choice at great cost and with much bloodshed. They should have allowed white landowners a reasonable patch of land for themselves, like everybody else, and others could have put their expertise to good use. This is a valid question to ask. Yet, Zimbabwe made the right choice, towards genuine independence, in spite of the difficult transition it no doubt had to go through.

Arriving at sophistication, starts with hard work and building experience, and it can't always be delegated to others. The fashion industry is a good example. It's for a reason, that some Asian peoples are the world's clothes manufacturers: They realize, good clothes come with a price, which is hard labor and gaining skill, in small-scale business. In the West, many people receive several years of education to become a fashion designer, but what happens, after they finally get their degree...? Usually, they haven't got a clue, how to produce and sell the cloths and other fabrics they design. And end up doing something, they weren't educated for. Such a pity! This is, because actual production, is an overlooked aspect in all those years of education. The West should arrive at a better balance between education and gaining skills in work. This needn't be cruel or abusive. More manual work and more trading skills, would be needed in this example. Humility, is overlooked.

What kind of society and governance, will land reform lead to? 

It will lead to a society with more personal freedoms. That, is sure. But, also, with more personal responsibility. One may choose between producing themselves, or buying. It will create markets with many participants, both suppliers and buyers. Prices will lower. There's more space for competition. There will be healthy chaos: The chaos of an active and roaming population. This can be an envigorating force in society. People are allowed to develop themselves freely and keep more benefits to themselves. And because they don't have to pay half their earnings to the state, or more, they can also affort to not work. Those who own a  modest estate, can afford to reduce their work efforts. This is beneficial in times of illness, and may lead to more modest spending. Or, if they want to spend time and effort on another business, job, or hobby, as well. This, is good. It may lead to less stress -- whereas Westerners can't easily take a break from work, because they live in debt.

A society with small-scale ownership, needn't be a society wholly without regulating or protecting government, but government can be smaller. Also in a society with less difference between those who own nearly everything and those who own nothing but debt, Satan is still roaming. There still is crime and abuse. And, there may be threat from abroad. So, a government is still needed. Government exists to make sure, that existing legislation for economic life, is carried out. That those who enherit, buy, own, sell, initiate, produce, etc, indeed get what they are entitled to. That truthful standards are maintained. For instance, that people indeed sell the product they say it is, in quality and in quantity, and that sanctions exist to those who transgress. A product can be an apple, but also a complete college education. Government is there for those jobs that can't have owners: Communal tasks, such as infrastructure, the military, protection of the environment, geographical planning. And, government is needed for those tasks, where the private sector cannot always step in. It needs to take care of those vulnerable people (and other creatures) who have nobody to take care of them. It's good, that state education and health care exist. But, is it necessary to keep all education and health care in state hands? I'd say, it isn't. Quality of institutions, isn't always a matter of size or finance, nor of private versus public. So, a society with small-scale ownership, will still need taxes and bureaucracy, but considerably less than in the West. Not the entire people, needs to be kept hostage by the sheer thought, that there's always a small group of truly vulnerable people who need protection. That thought, is neglected in the West.

There will be a sharper separation between public and private tasks. Also that, is a good thing. Montesquieu invented trias politicas: A separation between legislation, governance, and justice. This plan isn't completed, yet. Montesquieu was child of a feudal society. Not even the French Revolution, has ended the feudality, for the French and other Westerners. Let's introduce something else: Quatras Politicas. Legislation, Governance, and Justice belong to the State, and Business, Residence, and Production belong to the Citizens :) @}}- A sharper separation between citizens and state in economic life, will lead to bringing back tasks to those where they naturally belong: The direct users and producers. It will lead to market balance, because monopolies and oligopolies will be broken. Markets will have many participating suppliers and buyers. Prices will lower; choice will multiple; there will be freedom of choice. And, specialization needn't end. Those who are trained for the job, will have success in their efforts. So at the individual's level, specialization will continue. But, it may also be easier, to have other, extra activity. There will be more separation between public and private money flows. The advantage of this is, that public debt has smaller impact on the private sector. State money creation stays within a smaller circle. Now, Westerners have lost sight of everything that matters to them, because there's huge conflict of interest between public and private tasks. And high taxes, make state money creation indispensable. The state would swallow its own citizens, otherwise.  Government is everything, does everything, either directly, or through privatized institutions, that have one owner only: Government. Noted should be, that not all Western nations are full feudalities, or welfare states. South European nations have much small-scale ownership and business, have a smaller welfare state, and lower taxes.

Also in democratic systems, government needs to go back where it belongs: In the ivory tower. Let it be three ivory towers, the smaller angles of the green, brown, yellow and blue cube of life and nature.

Western Economics Are Based On Fear, And Fear Creates Debt

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 like 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

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.

Truth is, the average Westerner, has very little 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.