Someone wrote in ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} dpodbori, |
Starting over
Some of my ideology.
The economy is a convective cycle, with energy in the form of labor, materials and ideas rising up, while wealth, civil order and social security precipitate down. Supply side theory has created a situation where far more has been rising then is effectively used or precipitating down and the results are huge storm clouds of surplus wealth boiling over a parched economy. For reference, consider where the money the government borrows would go, if it were not being recycled through the public sector. The investment and asset markets are awash in cash, so additional investment would just increase the inflationary effect.
Bob Dole had a campaign slogan, "We want you to keep more of your money in your pocket." My thought was, Thank God it isn't my money, or it would be worthless." As a medium of exchange, money is actually a form of public commons, much like the highway system. If every time a new road was built, everyone tried to claim as much as possible, the result would be that everything would be paved over and no one would be able to get anywhere. We are reaching that situation with our monetary system, as every aspect of life is judged according to the bottom line and the economy is still about to seize up.
I first started questioning economics when trying to figure out how Paul Volcker cured inflation by raising interest rates, therefore slowing the introduction of fresh money. According to the law of supply and demand, you need to increase demand to solve an oversupply, not just slow the growth of the surplus. By raising interest rates, his solution for this oversupply of money raised the cost of using it. The economy and demand for money slowed. How do you absorb surplus currency by slowing the economy? Government borrowing is the most logical explanation for how inflation was really brought under control. As public spending supports private investment, rather then competing with it, the effect was compounded. Given the government currently expands the money supply by buying its own debt and contracts it by selling debt, this isn't really a mystery.
A way to fix the line item veto would be to break the bills into their constituent 'items' and have each legislator assign a percentage value to each one. Then re-assemble them in order of preference and have the president draw the line between what is funded and what is not. In lieu of a veto over-ride, everything over 66% would pass automatically. Not only would this break up the log jams, but it would take away a lot of the power the leadership has accrued to itself and return it to the level of the individual legislators. Specific proposals would have to appeal to the broad spectrum of legislators, not just a few power brokers. It would require the leadership to lead by inspiration, not just herd the rest around like so many cattle. The time is coming when this country will have to limit its spending and some method of prioritizing the budget will be essential.
I see liberalism as social expansion and conservatism as civil consolidation. Those institutions which expand knowledge/power, such as education, media and sciences tend to be inherently liberal. Those which consolidate this energy, such as business and government, tend to be inherently conservative. The government social programs of the last century created a form of conservative liberalism, aka PC. The reaction to this was a liberal conservatism, aka libertarianism, which sought to redistribute civil control back to local level. Having been based on rejection of government, this movement is now in trouble because it lacks a serious civil philosophy, leaving its social conservatives and economic conservatives little more than a toxic coalition of greed and cultural rigor mortis.
Money and government are two sides of the same coin. One is rights, the other is responsibilities. Money is like processed sugar, so if we were to learn to maintain a more organic, wholistic society and maintain wealth and value within every aspect of our lives and not continually drain reductionistic units out to put in some bank, then government would be forced to organize itself along similar lines.
brodix@earthlink.net
Some of my ideology.
The economy is a convective cycle, with energy in the form of labor, materials and ideas rising up, while wealth, civil order and social security precipitate down. Supply side theory has created a situation where far more has been rising then is effectively used or precipitating down and the results are huge storm clouds of surplus wealth boiling over a parched economy. For reference, consider where the money the government borrows would go, if it were not being recycled through the public sector. The investment and asset markets are awash in cash, so additional investment would just increase the inflationary effect.
Bob Dole had a campaign slogan, "We want you to keep more of your money in your pocket." My thought was, Thank God it isn't my money, or it would be worthless." As a medium of exchange, money is actually a form of public commons, much like the highway system. If every time a new road was built, everyone tried to claim as much as possible, the result would be that everything would be paved over and no one would be able to get anywhere. We are reaching that situation with our monetary system, as every aspect of life is judged according to the bottom line and the economy is still about to seize up.
I first started questioning economics when trying to figure out how Paul Volcker cured inflation by raising interest rates, therefore slowing the introduction of fresh money. According to the law of supply and demand, you need to increase demand to solve an oversupply, not just slow the growth of the surplus. By raising interest rates, his solution for this oversupply of money raised the cost of using it. The economy and demand for money slowed. How do you absorb surplus currency by slowing the economy? Government borrowing is the most logical explanation for how inflation was really brought under control. As public spending supports private investment, rather then competing with it, the effect was compounded. Given the government currently expands the money supply by buying its own debt and contracts it by selling debt, this isn't really a mystery.
A way to fix the line item veto would be to break the bills into their constituent 'items' and have each legislator assign a percentage value to each one. Then re-assemble them in order of preference and have the president draw the line between what is funded and what is not. In lieu of a veto over-ride, everything over 66% would pass automatically. Not only would this break up the log jams, but it would take away a lot of the power the leadership has accrued to itself and return it to the level of the individual legislators. Specific proposals would have to appeal to the broad spectrum of legislators, not just a few power brokers. It would require the leadership to lead by inspiration, not just herd the rest around like so many cattle. The time is coming when this country will have to limit its spending and some method of prioritizing the budget will be essential.
I see liberalism as social expansion and conservatism as civil consolidation. Those institutions which expand knowledge/power, such as education, media and sciences tend to be inherently liberal. Those which consolidate this energy, such as business and government, tend to be inherently conservative. The government social programs of the last century created a form of conservative liberalism, aka PC. The reaction to this was a liberal conservatism, aka libertarianism, which sought to redistribute civil control back to local level. Having been based on rejection of government, this movement is now in trouble because it lacks a serious civil philosophy, leaving its social conservatives and economic conservatives little more than a toxic coalition of greed and cultural rigor mortis.
Money and government are two sides of the same coin. One is rights, the other is responsibilities. Money is like processed sugar, so if we were to learn to maintain a more organic, wholistic society and maintain wealth and value within every aspect of our lives and not continually drain reductionistic units out to put in some bank, then government would be forced to organize itself along similar lines.
brodix@earthlink.net
