Gracie's Economics 101 for political misfits

[GracieRuth]

Sometimes I am just baffled that I have no political party championing what I think are a few simple truths:

1. Fairness means you receive what you worked for, that wealth should be perportional to labor/accomplishment. Any system that thinks a CEO should make 7 figures and his secretary should make $12/hr is just nuts. (BTW that was my pay when I was the executive assistant for one of the VPs of MacDonnel Douglas).

2. Each new generation should have the game reset to START. (a) It is blatantly unfair that some have an advantage not due to their own merits, but the merits of their ancestors. (b) The problem at the end of a game of monopoly is that even the person who wins gets screwed, since no one else has any money to rent his property, pay his taxes, buy his stuff. He has a lot of paper without an economy to use it. The only thing that can be done is to return the money to the general bank, and start the game again.

3. Those who lack the capacity to play the game still need to be provided for. If we want to be part of the community, then we are responsible for those who cannot take care of themselves. We also need to assist those set back by acts of nature. Why? Because we realize this could be OUR house that gets hit by the tornado next time, or OUR Grandchild that is born with a disability.

4. In general, lots of small stuff works better in the long run than just a few large things. When things get too big, the gravitational force of Beuracracy turns them into black holes that suck everything else in and give nothing in return. We need to return to small schools, small towns, small farms, small businesses, small government. And just because you can think of an exception to this rule doesn't mean the rule doesn't exist.

5. Plans should be made based on their longterm fallout. We are only shooting ourselves in the foot if we do things like screw up the planet like there is no tomorrow. That's just one of a zillion examples. I'm sure some complained that Joseph was a pinko commie when he set aside grain for years of drought, but were happy to eat it when the drout came.

6. Diversity is not just aesthetically pleasing -- it is absolutely necessary when humanity becomes threatened. While we do need enough common shared ideas to form workable communities, we should also understand that having many items on the brainstorming board can strengthens the odds that one of those items will work; it can mean the difference between survival and extinction. To that effect, we should encourage different languages, different talents, different religions, different cultures... everything that will produce differences in thinking.

All these things seem obvious to me, and interdependent. How come I don't fit on the political spectrum?

 

[Edith]

2. Each new generation should have the game reset to START. (a) It is blatantly unfair that some have an advantage not due to their own merits, but the merits of their ancestors.

Seriously?? I'm not interested in economics but this really stood out to me. This will never happen, nor should it. I find the idea utterly ridiculous. How do you even suggest something like this would work in reality?

 

[GracieRuth]

Seriously?? I'm not interested in economics but this really stood out to me. This will never happen, nor should it. I find the idea utterly ridiculous. How do you even suggest something like this would work in reality?

In ancient Israel this was accomplished with the Year of Jubilee. All debts were forgiven, all slaves freed, and all land returned to the family that originally owned it so that every family had land to work. (What this meant is that a successful person could only LEASE the land from its owners, and the duration of the lease always ended in the year of jubilee.) The Jubilee Year worked very well for a very long time.

 

[Edith]

In ancient Israel this was accomplished with the Year of Jubilee. All debts were forgiven, all slaves freed, and all land returned to the family that originally owned it so that every family had land to work. (What this meant is that a successful person could only LEASE the land from its owners, and the duration of the lease always ended in the year of jubilee.) The Jubilee Year worked very well for a very long time.

What proof is there that this actually happened? From a quick Google search what I can find is that it was written about in the Bible. I don't believe that the Bible is a completely factual source so that's not really good enough for me personally. I don't see this working in modern society.

 

[GracieRuth]

What proof is there that this actually happened? From a quick Google search what I can find is that it was written about in the Bible. I don't believe that the Bible is a completely factual source so that's not really good enough for me personally. I don't see this working in modern society.

Whether the Bible is infallible is beside the point. I certainly don't think its infallible. However, you basically came on strong telling me that I had a nincompoopiswh idea, when in fact it wasn't my own idea at all. Nor am I advocating a cut and paste into modern times. I simply see the wisdom and fairness of restarting the game. Making it work in our unique time and culture takes someone with a brain specialized for economics.

 

[Edith]

Whether the Bible is infallible is beside the point. I certainly don't think its infallible. However, you basically came on strong telling me that I had a nincompoopiswh idea, when in fact it wasn't my own idea at all. Nor am I advocating a cut and paste into modern times. I simply see the wisdom and fairness of restarting the game. Making it work in our unique time and culture takes someone with a brain specialized for economics.

I didn't come here and say "For goodness sake GracieRuth, YOUR idea is SHIT." I said I disagreed with the idea and find it ridiculous. I still do. I don't think it's wise or fair to "restart the game". It's obviously a matter of perception.

 

[bickelz]

Sometimes I am just baffled that I have no political party championing what I think are a few simple truths:

1. Fairness means you receive what you worked for, that wealth should be perportional to labor/accomplishment. Any system that thinks a CEO should make 7 figures and his secretary should make $12/hr is just nuts. (BTW that was my pay when I was the executive assistant for one of the VPs of MacDonnel Douglas).

Yeah, it's proportional to how much you produce and of what good/service.

2. Each new generation should have the game reset to START. (a) It is blatantly unfair that some have an advantage not due to their own merits, but the merits of their ancestors. (b) The problem at the end of a game of monopoly is that even the person who wins gets screwed, since no one else has any money to rent his property, pay his taxes, buy his stuff. He has a lot of paper without an economy to use it. The only thing that can be done is to return the money to the general bank, and start the game again.

This is just a bad idea. It would inhibit growth. And it's not fair to take what people earned when they were trying to give their children and grandchildren better lives with it.

3. Those who lack the capacity to play the game still need to be provided for. If we want to be part of the community, then we are responsible for those who cannot take care of themselves. We also need to assist those set back by acts of nature. Why? Because we realize this could be OUR house that gets hit by the tornado next time, or OUR Grandchild that is born with a disability.

Agreed.

4. In general, lots of small stuff works better in the long run than just a few large things. When things get too big, the gravitational force of Beuracracy turns them into black holes that suck everything else in and give nothing in return. We need to return to small schools, small towns, small farms, small businesses, small government. And just because you can think of an exception to this rule doesn't mean the rule doesn't exist.

Nope. That's what the Romans tried to do, that's what the Anti Federalists tried to do and it's what James Madison shot down when he wrote our constitution. Look up pluralism. The more, the merrier.

5. Plans should be made based on their longterm fallout. We are only shooting ourselves in the foot if we do things like screw up the planet like there is no tomorrow. That's just one of a zillion examples. I'm sure some complained that Joseph was a pinko commie when he set aside grain for years of drought, but were happy to eat it when the drout came.

Plans should be made to prevent long-term fallout but why deny ourselves things if we know how to prevent something bad from happening in the future?

6. Diversity is not just aesthetically pleasing -- it is absolutely necessary when humanity becomes threatened. While we do need enough common shared ideas to form workable communities, we should also understand that having many items on the brainstorming board can strengthens the odds that one of those items will work; it can mean the difference between survival and extinction. To that effect, we should encourage different languages, different talents, different religions, different cultures... everything that will produce differences in thinking.

Well this isn't really economics but it does sort of contradict what you said in #4 because places with the most diversity are going to be the biggest. Small towns tend to be fairly homogeneous.

All these things seem obvious to me, and interdependent. How come I don't fit on the political spectrum?

What about the green party? I used to think I identified with them but I decided to major in economics and started to see through some of their points.

 

[GracieRuth]

Hey Bickelz!

The Green party is an interesting suggestion, and something I've considered. I nixed it for a couple of reasons. First, the USA doesn't have a parliamentary system, so a small third party never really wields any power--pragmatically, it's simply a more constructive use of the vote to try to sway one party in your direction (primaries) or to help decide which of the two candidates will actually be in office. The second thing is that I'm not totally "Green Party" material -- some things about the Greens I like muy mucho, and other things I find offensive-- you might say that on some issues I'm actually anti-Green. For example, I'm into saving whales, babies seals, spotted owls, and other endangered species, but I find the idea of using abortion as a method of population control deeply offensive.

Regarding your point on diversity:
Diversity develops when groups of human beings are seperated from each other over long periods of time. You think that cities are diverse, but if you watch a city over a period of time, it slowly homogenizes. Without "new blood" it is the inevitable future of city dwellers to adopt a common culture. Hmmmm... I'm looking at what I just wrote and thinking, "You learned that in biology class regarding evolution. Why apply it to behavior?" I guess because I think there is an evolutionary componant to behavior. I also admit I'm not sure how this can be achieved unless somehow a virus kills off about 5 billion people -- I'm still working on the solution part, I confess -- I just know that a single global culture puts our species at risk.

Thanks Bicks! You made me think a little further down the road.

 

[magister343]

It was quite common in antiquity to mandate the forgiveness of all debts from time to time. It is well documented in Babylon, Rome, etc. These were however greatly inferior to Israel's practice, because they were subject to political whims rather than following a regular and predicable schedule.


I think it would be a good idea to find and implement a modern analogue not only to the Year of Jubilee, but also to Gleaner's Rights. These work fabulously in an overwhelmingly agricultural society, but I admit they could be very difficult to adapt to a post-industrial one.



My political views tend to be quite similar to those advocated on this site, although I do disagree with its author on some things and don't particularly care for the style in which he presents.

 

[GracieRuth]

I think it would be a good idea to find and implement a modern analogue not only to the Year of Jubilee, but also to Gleaner's Rights. These work fabulously in an overwhelmingly agricultural society, but I admit they could be very difficult to adapt to a post-industrial one.

It's easy to see the ideals and principals behind these ancient laws -- translating them into something workable for post-modern 21st century is where it gets tricky. Under Jewish law, if I'm hungry I can walk into any private field and pick whatever I need to satiate my hunger --BUT I can put anything into a basket to carry out, meaning I can't take enough to make a profit. If I'm harvesting my field and drop some on the ground, I am to leave it there for gleaners. We were discussing this at synagogue one day -- how do we make this principal a workable reality in the modern world. If someone is hungry, can they walk into a grocery store and take an apple to eat? If I'm pulling money out of my purse, and a $10 bill falls to the ground, should I leave it there for the poor? I suspect that all these sorts of things make more sense within the Jewish community, as we really function as an extended kinship group. I'm not so sure they will work in a mega society where people don't accept each other as extended family.

 

[Faye]

You don't fit on the political spectrum for the same reason that there is not a political party dedicated to creating a society according to what Plato advocated in his Republic.

Governments exist, more or less, to keep things unequal and to perpetuate the myth of meritocracy. That is their function.

 

[bickelz]

Regarding your point on diversity:
Diversity develops when groups of human beings are seperated from each other over long periods of time. You think that cities are diverse, but if you watch a city over a period of time, it slowly homogenizes. Without "new blood" it is the inevitable future of city dwellers to adopt a common culture. Hmmmm... I'm looking at what I just wrote and thinking, "You learned that in biology class regarding evolution. Why apply it to behavior?" I guess because I think there is an evolutionary componant to behavior.

I think it could go either way to be perfectly honest. The different cultures could either blend together or people will be hell bent on keeping their identities. It all depends on the social climate of the place. I guess "new blood" could come from a lot of different aspects and diversity doesn't just mean racial/ethnic ect., it could mean ideas and theories. This actually does sort of tie into the concept of an oligopoly or monopoly in economics in a way. Because oligopolies and monopolies make markets inefficient without any sort of competition which can be likened to a diversity monopoly in a civilization(?).

Does having this sort of monopoly make a society bloated and inefficient in a way? Then would it be important only to stir the pot and bring in "new blood" for progress's sake and for the cause of moving humanity forward? That sorta makes sense but it'd be hard to back up.

 

[magister343]

Perhaps, but remember that Gleaners Rights are explicitly guaranteed for aliens sojourning in the land, not just children of Israel. The landless from any tribe, including gentiles, were to be treated like Levities. The point is not to emphasize kinship among Jews, but remind us that the Earth is the property and handiwork of the the Lord, lent to humanity as a whole to support us. We can never really have ownership, only stewardship.

Since resources are generally scarce, taking possession of the Land deprives others of the opportunity to do the same. (Note that, as an economic terms, Land denotes all natural resources.) The poor would be better off with access to uncultivated land to forage than surrounded with well tilled fields monopolized by others. Claiming ownership of land is robbing others of their foraging opportunities, and under the law a thief must pay back four (ok, this number varies in different circumstances) times what was taken in restitution. The greater productivity of cultivated land allows the farmer plenty with which to compensate the rest of society.


Classical Liberalism began with the aim of creating a just society, rising above the violent arrogation and territorialism of lesser animals. Most people seem to understand John Locke's homesteading principle as saying that since we own our bodies, we own our labor, and we own any property with which we mix our labor. That is not really correct. He recognized that all land has some value before it is cultivated, and that our labor gives us no claim to that value. To Locke, we only ever owned the improvements, such as the crops we tended. Furthermore, we could only own it while actually in use. No one had a right to hoard or demand payment for land he wasn't using. He was quite clear that when there is not a plentiful supply of land of equal quality, that monopolizing it was taking from society. He said that in small communities a farmer would have to bribe his neighbors with produce in order to deserve his monopoly, and that in large societies courts of law and systems of taxation are created to make this unnecessary. Classical Liberals were very much in favor of property taxes. The problem with this however is that property owners end up not paying restitution to those they have robbed, but paying to be protected from having to pay their victims back.


Modern Liberalism, Neo-Classical Liberalism, and Libertarianism tend to stray away from the principles of their predecessors. Many proponents are adamant about value deriving not from work, but from whatever you can convince others to give you. Geo-Classical Liberalism resists this trend. We tend to associate Geo-Libertarianism with Henry George and his Single Tax, but plenty of classical liberals arrived at similar conclusions independently. (I personally started to lean very much Geo-Libertarian after reading half of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.) Thomas Jefferson and especially Thomas Paine were among them. Modern Geo-Libertarians often focus more on taxing mineral wealth and Pigouvian taxes on destruction of natural capital though pollution than on strict LVTs, but the central issue is still that rent for the monopolization of natural resources should be paid to society rather than horded by a few individuals. Most don't have a problem with landholders charging come rent for maintenance and whatnot, but at least think that paying Land Value Taxes should be required for any monopolized land. An LVT differs from a property tax in that it does not include the value of improvements, so a residence is charged no more than a vacant lot. These taxes don't change the total rent, but they do change who collects it and they do drive land prices down to the point where more people can afford to buy property without going into debt. Some think the rent should be collected by the government and used for social programs, while many others are distrustful of the nanny state and think the best way is just to hand out free cash to whoever wants it. Many support the idea of guaranteeing a basic income, not enough to live on comfortably but enough to survive. It still isn't quite as good as gleaning though, as gleaning lets the poor work to support themselves rather than relying on handouts.


The game of Monopoly was actually invented as propaganda by a supporter of Henry George. The original version, called The Landlord's Game, included the option for the players to vote to implement an LVT and make everyone better off.

 

[invisible]

perhaps you might be interested in social democracy?