[Mind's Eye] Re: Economy

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 -