Syria and economics

[costard]

Emrys, I've included an excerpt from a discussion I'm having with my brother here (he's doing some research into the history of European law). He accused me, gently and accurately, of engaging in teleological reasoning in my proposed solution of nationalising the MIC.

Curiously, turning to Syria, we can may observe a place in our current time where temples are still the political parties of the society! The alawites are a sect, right? And so are the sunnis, and the shiites, and most every other group in the middle east. I think it is interesting to look at Islam through the same prism as we've looked at rome, because there is no doubt that the islamic world is riven by various cults disputing political turf in the most violent ways imaginable.

At the same time, temples in the west have evolved into modern political parties, and these have come to resemble actual temples in most every way. The leaders speak in tongues and claim the most outrageous things as gospel, and the industries they own benefit from the share of revenues they procure. Insofar as they do not mass murder each other, they have modern morality. Insofar as they generate foreign wars to keep their industries profitable, they ape the most barbaric habits of Julian dynasty.

In the end, I wish to establish the link between plurality in the political economy and economic growth. I wish to show that more diversity leads to lower taxes, because the game theory drives this result through self interest. A reduction in diversity leads to increased taxes and wastrel government spending (my bold), again as a consequence of the same rules of game theory.

If I can make this case. it will follow that the most advantageous form of government is the Swiss model of direct democracy, for it splits the political power of the state into the greatest number of individual parts possible. Every individual is weighing the cost and benefit of every law, and this results in only laws that are most generally beneficial, and in taxes that are supported and oftentimes completely ameliorated by the investment proceeds they generate.

In this way, I wish to prove what I see, which is the great wealth and peacefulness of Swiss society, by way of historical examples and patterns, but also through the logic of game theory.

As I see it, a monopoly already exists in the US MIC. The nationalisation I propose provides a legally defensible mechanism to break the monopoly and restructure it - eminent domain is a tested and recognised form of property and wealth distribution, with benefits to the state the aim of such a drastic move.

I made a similar case for the instigation of universal health care in the US: what I didn't foresee was the outright corruption of the process whereby the interests of the populace were disregarded by their elected representatives: the ultimate design entrenched and magnified the power of the banks, insurance companies and health care providers, to the absolute detriment of the populace. In my defence, I could say that I expected too much; in actual fact the wiser heads, promoting a different point of view, understood that the cure was likely to be worse than the disease. I regret showing myself to be the naïve fool that I am.

[dieseltaylor]

I regret showing myself to be the naïve fool that I am.

We all have hopes otherwise we might aswell be dead or join the Darkside.

I think having reflected on what you say that you are right and probably the worst result possible has been achieved for the American people. But then lets face it the people are regularly screwed over there - other than financial frauds of course.

In disgust they drink sodas which seems to me a very slow and expensive way to die.

[baron Jacquinot]

There is a sickness in the West and it manifests itself in the behaviour of its leaders: they represent "a clear and present danger" to human civilisation.

Agree with you.

[Vanir Ausf B]

As for the US the level of corruption and special interests being served is also not that clever.

Now in China there is every chance a party big-wig will be executed for corruption and I suspect the vast majority of non-politicians the world over will think is a very good idea. The Chineses system also bring stabilit with a large amount of consensus and long enough terms - 10 years that pandering to short term populist goals can be avoided.

Unfortunately I cannot see a corollary between democracy and other forms of government.

As to corruption in public services the US has is 19th with 18 more honest countries - curiously eleven of them are constitutional monarchies.

China ranks 80th.

[Vanir Ausf B]

US - worlds 2nd largest economy - democracy - worlds largest debtor.

It total debt, yes. But a more accurate measure of the real economic relevance of debt is in terms of % of GDP, by which the US ranks 15th -- slightly worse than France and Belgium, much better than Ireland and Japan.

BTW, in terms of purchase power parity:

6. USA

.

.

.

93. China

.

133. India

[Saferight]

I wonder what the world would be like if nations (Murika #1) put a good portion of their military spending into other areas that might benefit their citizens... :confused: I look at the costs of weapons systems alone and it boggles my mind. I wonder what that would do to the economy...

[Michael Emrys]

I wonder what the world would be like if nations (Murika #1) put a good portion of their military spending into other areas that might benefit their citizens... :confused: I look at the costs of weapons systems alone and it boggles my mind. I wonder what that would do to the economy...

It seems to me that defense spending is inherently inflationary to at least some degree. It's pouring money into the economy but seldom producing anything that can be obtained and used by consumers in their daily lives. Yes, I know that is a simplification and I also know that as long as external threats exist some defense spending is not something we can afford to neglect. But for the reason stated in my second sentence, it is in economic terms inherently wasteful. I think the best hope for the human race and the global economy is for nations and non-governmental groups to stop threatening each other with violence, but when that day will arrive not even a crystal ball will reveal. Meanwhile, we are all locked in this darkened room cudgeling one another for all we are worth because we don't know what else to do.

Michael

[agusto]

I wonder what the world would be like if nations (Murika #1) put a good portion of their military spending into other areas that might benefit their citizens... :confused: I look at the costs of weapons systems alone and it boggles my mind. I wonder what that would do to the economy...

Actually afaik (it has been a long time since i last checked, so i might be wrong) the USA only spend a very small percentage of their BIP on defense today, like 5-10%. That is not extraodinarily much and much less than for example during WW2 (~50% in 1944, IIRC). America isnt like North Korea, where money is spent on a military of a size that cant be afforded.

[Saferight]

It seems to me that defense spending is inherently inflationary to at least some degree. It's pouring money into the economy but seldom producing anything that can be obtained and used by consumers in their daily lives. Yes, I know that is a simplification and I also know that as long as external threats exist some defense spending is not something we can afford to neglect. But for the reason stated in my second sentence, it is in economic terms inherently wasteful. I think the best hope for the human race and the global economy is for nations and non-governmental groups to stop threatening each other with violence, but when that day will arrive not even a crystal ball will reveal. Meanwhile, we are all locked in this darkened room cudgeling one another for all we are worth because we don't know what else to do.

Michael

Very well put Michael.

[Saferight]

Actually afaik (it has been a long time since i last checked, so i might be wrong) the USA only spend a very small percentage of their BIP on defense today, like 5-10%. That is not extraodinarily much and much less than for example during WW2 (~50% in 1944, IIRC). America isnt like North Korea, where money is spent on a military of a size that cant be afforded.

$682 billion for 2012 while a small amount percentage wise out of the GDP still is a insane amount when looking at the other problems plaguing the US. The #2 spender in the world China spends $516 billion less.