Constructive criticism?

aristofon posted on Sat, Oct 25 2008 6:56 PM

rated by 0 users

I would be very pleased if those of you who are well-read would proof read my 'essays'. More than anything, these are little blurbs, and are best taken as 'ideas' more than anything else. If I demonstrate a lack of knowledge, I ask that you correct me in a friendly manner. Thanks.

On 'Tampering”

I, on a serious, logical, and adult level see the world in terms of 'stimulation'. A person may set goals, or enjoy certain things—peoples company, products, whatever. Individuals crave whatever stimulates them in a positive manner. Individuals exist as preferences and formed ideas: they are static. They, after enough of seeing what they fancy, test their limits of luxury and indulgence. If their situations please them, then they are content. To relate this philosophic input to the market: if the stress of calculation & action is allowed to be delayed, more often than not, an illogical calculation will take place. This aforementioned illogical calculation is a symptom of self-delusion: an individual will lie to his or her self to allow positive stimulation. “I can afford this, because I will work harder next month and earn more money.” The individual, based on self-examination, is aware that it is impossible to earn more money immediately. They simply are not capable of it now, and, for all intensive purposes, have not been capable of saving the appropriate amount of money to satisfy their current demand. Why should this situation change, and what lifestyle change must accommodate this purchase? The 'calculation' is put off, because it is not feasible in the present. Because the individual has [depending on the time frame of a loan] already enjoyed (and thus been positively stimulated by) the product or service purchased, they will be less apt to work to repay the lender later on. If a society saves less, then it inherently is not worthy of more credit than is currently allowed. If a lender takes on more risk, they should naturally charge higher interest rates. This regulates the demand for credit: those who can pay a high amount of interest are not surprised when, after a great while, the cost of their debt increases. This would also allow for the purging of creditors who mislead their customers: money does not grow on trees, and it is not harvested by government. It originates in the market place, and has a real function.

Through the evolution of modern day capitalism, people have changed the nature of the market place, and therefore, what situations can take place. Frivolous, incalculable transactions are made possible by trading petty incremental value for petty incremental value. The value of currency has been reduced to allow the accumulation of debt, the debtors being both citizens and government. The amount of credit available has been increased, allowing further malinvestment to take place. Both the government and citizens of this nation constantly interfere with the market, making adjustments, tampering.--seeing what they can enjoy, thinking only of themselves and their constituents. Citizens lobby the government as a mob, using their power of majority to fatten themselves [and people like them]. The politicians are trained aristocrats, and their function is to get the mob into pure frenzy.

On the “arithmetic” of Lord Keynes

Keynesian economics strikes me as a mechanical, pretentious, lifeless, sort of examination of human behavior. It usually presupposes illogic, and uses fragmented mathematics to demonstrate & establish irrational causal relationships. To suggest that one has modeled in enough variables to apply to real life, is to suggest that one is all-knowing. To predict the future based on past events, in finance, is to speculate. When a government presupposes future expenditures—and especially income—it utilizes Keynesian economics in a speculative manner. However, Keynesian economics leaves much to be desired in terms of specific, useful, economic observation. One must understand that recessions happen for a reason, and to give the general umbrella of 'government spending' a green light during a business contraction cycle is not very specific, and further more: it is dangerous. If we spend money through eventual taxation to suppress a business cycle, we inadvertently encourage individuals to ignore market signals and invest foolishly. This in itself is unsustainable. We also allow government to hide its true operational expenses by means of debt. This same problem is demonstrated in the individual: irrational decisions seem logical because they are allowed to happen when they would, absent the availability of credit, be impossible. Is it possible that Keynesian economics has produced consumers [or rather, allowed them to exist]? Have lifeless models, instead of demonstrating or predicting the future, actually mathematically allowed a certain future? I fear that socialism has touched a philosophical nerve within society. What do you do with people that cannot exist as themselves? The ones that turn to drugs, the ones that cannot hold jobs?—the ones that organize and plan crime? Do you subsidize their existence? Do you scoop enough from the determined individuals, and carefully divide up the capital of other men, thinking, “I will steal from the rich and give to the poor. I will be god; I will make this just.”? To use the poor & incompetent as an excuse to plan an economy is weak; even with government aid, the incompetent individual remains incompetent. I fear that Keynesian economics has disrupted the market place & its most natural feature: natural selection. The most competent genetic mutation is promoted in nature: is it promoted in the modern day economy? Does discipline, in our 'free-market', pay off? Does it act as a natural consequence to irrational behaviour?

Bubbles are quite obviously a consequence of unhealthy economic growth. Or: aggregate demand is stimulated by means of credit expansion. We see the consequences of irrational business practice within bubble-based economies. We witness a social symptom of malinvestment: a wide spread misunderstanding of the laws of economics. Often times, we witness an irrational hope that regular market forces will fail to act upon a popular investment. I believe market forces to be impenetrable: businesses, individuals, professions, academia.. no one is safe from the irrationality that is induced by the excessive availability of credit. Instead of sound, logical ideas, individuals propose seemingly ridiculous ideas for profit. One should adopt a contrarian approach to identifying bubbles: if the public is shouting about a bubble, then it is not so. A bubble will be identified by a vast majority of people being unaware of its existence. One must be aware of the possibility of widespread irrationality, and this will only be achieved by the individual resisting collectivist philosophy, and delusional, herd-like mentality. One must ask society, “Is your use of Keynesian economics allowing you to best contain capitalism? Is it even allowing you to keep academia informed? Does it allow the public to be aware of the failures of government [in regards to its economic impacts]? Does it direct its informed scientists to first check the health of its currency before making absurd, irrelevant, and sleep-inducing 'models'? Erroneous mathematical parameters have allowed the illogical to take place. As I drive past a strip mall, as I pace to and fro in a shopping mall, I see it. I can observe our economy as it is; malfunctioning and lopsided. I can see the size of Walmart; I can grasp the international monetary distortion. The size of these SUV's... can't Americans tell that there is change waiting for them? They know nothing of the world, they know nothing of economics.

On the modern “left”

Most anti-establishment individuals in America remain consumers; they go to the grocery store, they watch television, they exhibit brand preference in magnitudes that have come to define the consumer. Thus, they retain the need for corporations. If America's left could grasp economics, they might understand that the protection they seek from corporations could probably be realized by collective action. They fail to realize that they themselves have phones, computers: the ability to not purchase something. If this country had individuals that relied on themselves for food production, transportation, and action against corporations, I might approve of the movement that that individual was involved in. This would come to define a true Marxian approach to fixing society: collective action. I realize that not every 'democrat' (or liberal, for that matter) is a socialist—but one must eventually ask the other: what does it take for you to fix something yourself? The politicians promise reform, but the aristocratic nature of free-market politics should be accepted: if these corporations are so malicious, why not boycott them? Why must the government intervene into the matter and further complicate the issue? One politician fixes the problem, his successor makes it worse: he too has the means to intervene, but has a slightly different view on the matter. I feel that, essentially, the political 'left vs. right' stage show is inherently logical. There should be a party that is defined by restraint of the power of the free market; regulation is probably necessary to maintain a healthy market—however, for different reasons than most realize.

Regulation of the market should be done at a local level. If large corporations have to tailor to each state individually, they are made to deal with the task of adaptation. They can no longer come to define the consumer, because they do not market to one sort of individual so easy. This fact of smaller, community based economies, is one of logical observation. If a business has to tailor its operations to the specific laws, preferences, beliefs, and vision of one state [opposed to an entire nation that agrees on mostly all issues of importance], it will inherently be more competent. Individuals in one nation should agree with its overall purpose and law, and where they live should more specifically explain them. If parents agree with a states law on abortion, their children should be forced to accept that law until they can move out, and live in a state where women have the right to choose.

I fear that American politics has, in many ways, turned into a market of sorts. I am reminded of 'slogans' that campaigns use: “Country First”, or “Yes, we can”. When seats of power in the government include the power to regulate industry, one should realize that a sort of auction is then created. Who will propel a candidate to stardom first: the corporation or the nation? The highest bidder. Campaign donations alone are a great example of business intruding upon policy. It should be up to people themselves [to a large degree] to regulate industry. They should decide whether they approve of the practices of one business versus the other. This practice will also force those unfriendly businesses out of operation. If the individual contemplates the safety of the product, they must ponder the individuals behind the product, not instead be reassured that all business practice is monitored perfectly, and is inherently safe.

Do not be fooled, big business and big government have one thing in common: they need to grow. They will help themselves accomplish both tasks, and ignore every other. This fact is even more apparent when one examines the individuals of a nation: do they serve any interest but self interest? Further more, does their government? Is there a relationship? In a democratic republic, is the relationship causal?