monitoring the abyss

I keep forgetting to post my unified theory of money, which I'm sure will fascinate you, just as everything I write here fascinates you. Isn't it interesting that Alan Greenspan just "announced" that ultimately fiat money is going to have to be tied to gold. (More flim-flam from the pseudo-oracle, who just refuses to resign from his vocation as part-time destroyer of world economies.)

...

But let's move on. Perhaps I have ADHD, but I have a topic du jour for you. And by "you" I mean "me," of course. Oh, and the search-bots.

All economic systems function by withholding resources.

Take a minute to absorb that observation (and take your time trying to refute it.)

I said I have a unified theory of money and now I propose a unified theory of economic "isms." What do "socialism," "fascism," "communism" and "capitalism" have in common? So let's go back to my primary theme -- that human beings are massively over-productive. Which you would never guess, of course, from all of the starving people around the world who also do not have clean drinking water.

But process this: THEY ARE ALIVE.

Every economic system functions by withholding resources.  And, it has been over the course of millenia, a pretty successful system.  If we view a "system" without regard to moral issues, then we judge it by its viability.    The human species is so viable that it can slaughter millions of its own on an annual basis and nevertheless remain on a growth trajectory that inevitably leads to destruction of its own habitat.

So ... highly successful, without a viable self-limitation mechanism.

Once we inject a moral component/judgment into the system, the answer to whether it is "successful" becomes more dicey.  What constitutes "success?"  Are billions of instances of suffering and deprivation the product of a "successful system?"  We can conclude that never in the history of mankind has there been so much suffering and pain, if only because never in the history of mankind have there been so many individuals capable of experiencing suffering and pain.  If there were an abstract being that derived its energy from pain, then mankind represents  a viable energy source for that being.

All commonly promoted economic systems function by withholding resources -- and therefore we can observe that withholding resources is an inherent characteristic of human interaction.  Is it genetic? Is it environmental? And either event, is it behavior that can be modified?  (I suppose we should also ask whether it is behavior that SHOULD BE modified -- modification would presumably be desirable only if it achieved a preferable outcome.)

So, I have three tasks:  (1) to provide evidence for my observation; (2) to conjecture whether in a macro-way, society can improve itself (and how we might assist in that endeavor; and (3) conjecture how we might individually benefit from the awareness that this mechanism functions in EVERY economic system generally proposed by economic/poltical thinkers.

Let's also define the desirable goal(s):  On the macro level, that all people live better and that we eliminate as much as is possible human pain and suffering.  On the micro (personal) level that we eliminate as much as possible the pain and suffering of ourselves and our immediate family members.

I have said that money does not work as a "carrot" but only as a "stick" -- a coercive instrument.  Which I discuss more fully in my unified theory of money, which I haven't bothered to write down.

So, let's take that observation one step further -- money functions as an abstract coercive instrument to further the more concrete coercive instrument of withholding resources.

The bottom line is that as a society, when we withhold resources, we can force others to bend to our will, at least to the extent of their willingness and ability to comply.  As a society, the primary use of this coercion is to generate More Resources.  And when we step back and take moral components out of the equation, much as though we were observing a hive of bees, we can see that history shows us a continuous march forward of resources, the most significant of which is food.  As a result, although many of us quibble about the allocation of the More Resources, virtually all of  us accept the underlying mechanism -- forced labor, coerced through withholding of resources.

I've long been puzzled by the resource allocation of our social systems.   The system does not significantly reward those who work hard, are honest and truthful, etc.  The promoted fallacy says these are the people we will reward.  And indeed, people with those virtues are necessary to the functioning of the system, since without them, the system will fail.  But, they are for the most part not rewarded -- though of course, they are treated better than those who fail to contribute.

If we look at historic hunter-gatherer societies, it seems to me individual skill and effort had a more direct impact on the indivdual's well-being.  In a gift-based society, the more skilled and productive choose whether to share their efforts with those who are less skilled and productive.

But ... our societies are bound up in rules and red tape.  It is not possible to thrive and prosper without acceding to society's rules, because society elects to withhold access to resources as a coercive tool to require the individual to contribute.  As a result, those who are most skilled at manipulation of others receive the greatest rewards; and have the added benefit that large numbers of people are coerced to work explicitly for them.

When you come down to it, the only fundamental requirement for survival is food.  Society is extremely good at producing food -- to the extent that in developed societies, only a small percentage of the public is actually engaged in the process of food production.  Yet, those individuals who work in food production are generally not reasonably compensated for difficult labor -- even though their work is necessary.

They cannot, however, go into competition with their employers, or even function in a subsistence manner, because the necessary land to raise crops is withheld from them through social convention.

Neither are the "owners" of the cropland significantly in control unless they have also achieved substantial financial and political social involvement by which they can protect their position.  Food production is particularly insecure and subject to the whims of marauders, since one can be deprived of the produce, livestock and land by force on a moment's whim.

In its earliest evolution, that risk is simply a strongarm one -- thugs come and take your stuff.  We see that in action in some African nations even at this time.  But 1st world resource deprivation works in a more sophisticated manner -- the land is protected through armies and law enforcement -- but subject to the whims of the financial industry and government (the later through taxation and regulation).  So, except in the instances where food production is in the hands of people who also are largely in control of banking and governmental interests, the individuals engaged in food production do not reap the biggest rewards of their labors.  The "family farm" is always at risk of foreclosure.

The settlers who settled the United States and pushed its boundaries westward inherently understood this.  They were willing, after all, to risk dealing with the unknowns of weather, hostile natives, dangerous wildlife and disease in order to escape the tyranny of society.  That's a rather startling trade-off, when you think about it.  For some, "Civil Society" is scarier and more repressive than the most scary of unknown wilderness risks.  But in today's society, there no longer is a wilderness to move into.  You must either be a social conformist, a homeless person or a prisoner.

"isms" other than capitalism offer nothing different.  They shift the token dialog of who is "in control" to ostensibly a different group -- but the function remains one of withholding resources to coerce specific behavior from members of the society.  Except in the short term, a change of "ism" does not even change the people (or types of people) who rule society.  It merely changes their titles.  Ultimately, those who are best at manipulating social covention to their own advantage and with the least regard to the claimed social ideals are those who excel.  "Capitalists" being propped up with monetary manipulation and tax revenues are not capitalists; "Communists" who live in mansions and travel on expensive jets not accessible to the rest of the public are not "Communists."   Cuba, which has just announced the laying off of 1 million or so public employees with the expectation that they will create a private sector and employment, is not satisfied with its inability to coerce its public employee citizenry into being productive.

My thesis from the outset of this entry was not to quarrel with the "productivity" aspect of coercive society.  As I said, it is a system that has produced sufficient food for the 7  billion or so people in the world and that has fueled the never-ending productivity that threatens to undermine the entire life support system of the planet.  The question is whether society has the potential to move/evolve in a different direction.  And secondarily, what choices we can and should make as individuals to best improve our lives within the existent system.  Lastly, we might ask whether decisions can be made that are compatible with both goals.

We can also identify a certain survival value to the paradigm of "withholding resources."  Today, there is sufficient food for the planet's occupants.  Alternatively, we might observe that the population has risen in step with food production.  But, when there is a shortfall in food, the societies (or members of societies) that are willing to make the (im)moral call of protecting themselves at the expense of others who will inevitably die are those that will survive.

Perhaps that skill or trait becomes unnecessary in a society that can manage resources sufficiently to provide for all inhabitants, irrespective of the visscitudes of crop production.  And yet, it remains the skill set that rules our world and benefits most from it.