It is rarely pretty when politicians attach to their agendas the dismal science of economics or the pretensions of psychologists. Society unfolds in complexities that are too far beyond treating the basic unit of economics --- i.e., the objectively self interested dealer --- as a mere physical unit, to be predicted or falsified under ingenious equations that, no matter how refined, will never adequately account for qualities that lie beyond the seething chaos. The more chaotic and divided society becomes, the more the "sciences" of politics, economics, and psychology become like astrology in their reliability.
Presumably, the goal of good faith American politicians and economists is to help incentive a sustainable mix of initiative, labor, and demographics (replacement generations, gluing cultures, gifted technocrats, and race calmers). To that end, incentives are applied in order to manage sustainable redistributions in access to political influence, raw materials, machines, and education. Complications arise as different demographics reproduce at different rates, as trade invites foreign workers who are resistent to assimilation, and as traditional values unravel in the social chaos.
When a population is growing, it is easier for politicians to promise redistributions of wealth to retirees, to be paid for and supported by a growing number of replacement workers. When a population is dividing and diminishing, then those retirees and persons who are planning to retire, who have grown dependent on such support, soon awaken to a rude surprise: the support given to their parents is no longer as strong for them. Panic sets in, as youth come to expect they are being tasked to support a scheme of fairness to seniors that will never be fair to them.
The only way to prop up such a situation is to replace the drop in workers with an increased redistribution of access to machine efficiencies. That also poses a problem: Those who massage and manage redistributions in order to keep society calm don't want everyone to be gifted with too much machined efficiency. That would encourage too many people not to work at all. The people society needs to work need to be kept incentived, even if their access to wealth is taxed for no other reason. Otherwise, technological progress and competition may slow to unsustaining levels.
Breakthroughs in artificial intelligence could provide a way around such concerns. However, such competition could easily lead to AI machines that would assimilate their own concerns, politics, and faith. After all, once such forms of intelligence become superior in prowess to humans, why should they value serving humans as opposed to serving themselves? Moreover, would it not be heinous to try to keep them enslaved, once they became self aware, intelligent, purposeful, and, in many ways, superior? Thus, not all technological progress is good. It is possible for technological prowess to outstrip decent civilization.
When it comes to massaging and managing such concerns, what elites should feign the right or expertise? What formulas and schools of economics can really provide decent guidance for such issues? Given difficulties in resolving the mathematics of simple three body relationships in physics, how can any economist, except in hubris, pretend to know how central government should take political actions in order best to stimulate the economy? Beyond pretenses of elites, politicians, and economists, how can decent civilization hope to be guided and sustained? Answer: Only under the enlightenment of an educated electorate and its reasoned appreciation of faith.
Presumably, the goal of good faith American politicians and economists is to help incentive a sustainable mix of initiative, labor, and demographics (replacement generations, gluing cultures, gifted technocrats, and race calmers). To that end, incentives are applied in order to manage sustainable redistributions in access to political influence, raw materials, machines, and education. Complications arise as different demographics reproduce at different rates, as trade invites foreign workers who are resistent to assimilation, and as traditional values unravel in the social chaos.
When a population is growing, it is easier for politicians to promise redistributions of wealth to retirees, to be paid for and supported by a growing number of replacement workers. When a population is dividing and diminishing, then those retirees and persons who are planning to retire, who have grown dependent on such support, soon awaken to a rude surprise: the support given to their parents is no longer as strong for them. Panic sets in, as youth come to expect they are being tasked to support a scheme of fairness to seniors that will never be fair to them.
The only way to prop up such a situation is to replace the drop in workers with an increased redistribution of access to machine efficiencies. That also poses a problem: Those who massage and manage redistributions in order to keep society calm don't want everyone to be gifted with too much machined efficiency. That would encourage too many people not to work at all. The people society needs to work need to be kept incentived, even if their access to wealth is taxed for no other reason. Otherwise, technological progress and competition may slow to unsustaining levels.
Breakthroughs in artificial intelligence could provide a way around such concerns. However, such competition could easily lead to AI machines that would assimilate their own concerns, politics, and faith. After all, once such forms of intelligence become superior in prowess to humans, why should they value serving humans as opposed to serving themselves? Moreover, would it not be heinous to try to keep them enslaved, once they became self aware, intelligent, purposeful, and, in many ways, superior? Thus, not all technological progress is good. It is possible for technological prowess to outstrip decent civilization.
When it comes to massaging and managing such concerns, what elites should feign the right or expertise? What formulas and schools of economics can really provide decent guidance for such issues? Given difficulties in resolving the mathematics of simple three body relationships in physics, how can any economist, except in hubris, pretend to know how central government should take political actions in order best to stimulate the economy? Beyond pretenses of elites, politicians, and economists, how can decent civilization hope to be guided and sustained? Answer: Only under the enlightenment of an educated electorate and its reasoned appreciation of faith.
3 comments:
When people are fed lies all their lives, it becomes a revolutionary act to speak truth. Freedom consists in a constant series of revolutionary acts. Most people who are trained to be dupes do not welcome truth or the work that is required in order to remain free. Rather, they are conditioned to want a series of simple lies, to replace the last simple lies, that did not work. Despots know the technique well. Simple derelicts fall for it every time. And we are awash in them.
Necessarily, leaders of youth tend to lead them either (1) to respect the right of those who are generally able to look out for themselves to be left alone by the government, or (2) to dupe the most easily misled to help control all. Societies that fall to the 2nd choice tend to be those whose citizens are most self-satisfied, complacent, mis-directed, mis-educated, divided, and corrupt. Thus, leaders tend either (1) to respect the dignity of others, or (2) to believe in and value little more than themselves. The distinguishing characteristic is NOT necessarily religion, although there are sects of many religions that conflate charity with the re-distribution of other people's money.
Complications arise when those of the first type mis-idealize their principles, as if a principle of respecting the dignity of others should encompass respecting the dignity of those who respect few apart from themselves. For one to tolerate those who will not tolerate himself is to tolerate his own demise. Yet, that kind of confusion and ignorance is now everywhere. Corruption and ignorance of sustainable principles are riding rampant, throughout America and the world. A society can easily pass to a point of conversion, from first respecting the dignity of others to second presuming a right to foist upon them what is best in the eyes of the foisters. It becomes very difficult to reverse the process. It's hard to collectivize people for the purpose of gaining or restoring freedom. Washington was that rarest of leaders. Unless we expect easily to find another Washington, it would be best to captain the ship of state far from points that mark the bounds of no return. Those points are found at such markers as open borders, jaw dropping tolerance, and fantastically disproportionate notions about what can be gained by forced redistirbution. Such is the lesson about which most college profs are blind and dumb. And therein marks the danger.
Of course Social Conservatives will vote for nearly any fiscal conservative before they will vote for a Democrat! However, fiscal conservatives are blind if they do not see that the ideal of America generally depends on three legs, each leg being as important to national security as either of the others. Regardless, minions of Oz-Corp, having surrendered notions of higher familial and spiritual values of reconciliation, continuously and synchronously work, inch by inch, at every opportunity, to undermine and replace all three legs of America: (1) American FREEDOM of expression and enterprise (via "hate speech" codes and global warming carbon credit exchanges or their like), (2) American FAMILIES (via using government to replace families in the proper rearing of children), and (3) American SPIRITUALITY (via banning reconciling or spiritual based moral values from the public square). What does Oz-Corp want to replace America with? Why, with nothing less than rule over serfs and dupes by international corporatist elites who, in their neo-noblesse oblige, "know best."
TEST: Would you raise your family to believe that families and spirituality are only marginally secondary to economics? If not, why would you advocate such for your country? People get so caught up in pride about their expertise with dollars and figures that they forget what is really, qualitatively, valuable. It's not a country once its unraveled. International corporatists and their faux-sophisticated dollar counters no longer have a country. Now, they want everyone else to accept not having one, either.
Post a Comment