[Mind's Eye] Re: Economy

But communism (in theory) is about every man contributing to the
communal pot, to be distributed by dint of a principle of "equity".

Free markets (or Capitalism, or whatever resonates) is about man
pursuing his own ends, for which an emergent, enabling by-product is
the economy (as we know it); of course, great disparities of wealth
(and power) are an unavoidable (some might argue desirable) feature,
as man has an unequal capacity to create value (and we can get into
the ethics of the "why's" and the "wherefore's"). (Re)distribution is
a political initiative to manage these disparities through taxation.
And yes, you're right, wealth will perpetuate "at the top", but really
as a consequence of an enhanced capacity to create even greater value;
i think that this is what tends to appear as the great "visible hand".

Thing about "growth", rigsy / contemplative, is it's one of the very
few mega non-zero sums around; thats what makes it so beguiling and
difficult to manage; so we swing from boom to bust to boom to...:)

On Jun 27, 2:49 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't agree- unless you are talking about Communism- which flopped.
> Man serves the economy and whichever power happens to be in charge who
> may then decide to redistribute wealth/products but this is not a
> voluntary agreement. But generally, wealth remains at the top for the
> prime reason of maintaining power.
>
> On Jun 25, 3:26 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hmm...fine points all!
>
> > Lets not forget though, that the economy serves man, not the other way
> > round? Just an observation regarding your suspicion of the "growth"
> > imperative in contemporary economics.
>
> > On Jun 24, 9:54 pm, Contemplative <wjwiel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The key phrase for me is "relative homeostasis".  I agree that the
> > > encouragement you refer to
> > > is desirable.  I am unsure of it's possibility. Our belief that growth is
> > > mandatory for our economy
> > > encourages activities and behaviors that, I think, out-pace the ability of
> > > the natural system to
> > > balance itself at its natural rate.  I am not convinced that we have a solid
> > > enough understanding
> > > of our own system to allow us to recognize true key indicators of systemic
> > > health, rationally process
> > > that input, and subsequently make good decisions about the which conditions
> > > we should encourage.
>
> > > To state it bluntly, I think our desire for growth is malignant...
>
> > > I don't mean to be doom and gloom about this, and actually I think there is
> > > reason to be optimistic.
> > > But economics seems to me to have that stereotypical characteristic of
> > > having 20/20 vision through
> > > the rear view mirror.  Economic policy decisions that are both long term and
> > > aggressive(such as increased
> > > home ownership) which use 'tweaks' to the system to achieve the aims are
> > > likely destructive and very
> > > unpredictable.  In a relatively isolated or buffered system, they may be
> > > more predictable, but we are not
> > > in an economy which is either buffered or isolated.  We are comparatively
> > > wide open(global), and playing
> > > in a much bigger sandbox than we have been, say 25 years ago.  ...and from
> > > my perspective, we don't
> > > know the playing field well enough to be aggressive, though we should be
> > > looking long term.  ...and by
> > > long term, I mean more than two quarters out!
>
> > > Thanks for the opportunity to think this through a bit...! :-)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -