Re: Will Democracy End the American Economy?
- From: mmount <mmount@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 20:34:49 -0800 (PST)
On Nov 28, 5:44 pm, ro...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:20:24 -0800 (PST), mmount <mmo...@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
The question that I have is what is the end of the American economy
when every-one's say is taken into consideration regarding how to use
government expenditures, and what will happen when every-one's opinion
regarding spending government money has been realized in such a way
that the government could never repay the national debt.
History shows that more democratic governments are more fiscally
responsible. Switzerland has the most democratic institutions in the
world, and is a proverbial model of fiscal rectitude. In the USA, the
state with the healthiest democratic insitutions is New Hampshire,
which not coincidentally also has by far the smallest budget as a
fraction of state GDP.
-- Roy L
Hello,
If I understand your point correctly. You are perhaps suggesting that
democracy causes sound money markets. To my understanding however the
founding fathers of america had been afraid of democracy because the
worst educated people would compose the majority, and such people
would be making the decisions for runing a country. If we look at
Ancient Greece during the time of democracy in Athens what we find is
that the disunity that democracy caused resulted in political
instabibility, and the result was that many tyranical leaders
emerged. Political instability is not good for financial markets.
The reason why so called democratic nations today have stable
economies is because most nations of the world hold a large monoply on
viloence. Because many nations have paied military and even necular
capability nations borders remain the same often and economies in
general remain somewhat stable in nations that have the greatest
abilities to cause mass death and distrucion. If everyone in america
had an equil amount of weapons, and if no paied military existed then
markets would be stable as long as everyone agreed upon the same
rules. True democracy however eliminates minority groups who have
just as much rights, and true democracy gives preferences to the vast
majority whom can oppress everyone who does not fit into the main
stream.
I am either for a government that has a national church that
determines the moral matrix for govermnet to operate from, or I am for
a direct democracy that allows all labors to own the means of
production and decide for themselves at the corporate level what and
how much to produce from democratic means (as well as what to do with
the product).
Think for example of how in a perfictly competitive market
descriminating firms are eliminated because of their inefficiency.
Such an example shows how ideals become second place to productivity
as the market reaches a zerrow economic profit for all firms. In such
a case morality as well becomes second place as well because firms
that act moral go out of business due to the fact profit maximizing
firms that are not moral or that do not care about morality are able
to reach zerrow economic profit before moral firms that choose
morality over profit maximization. In the example what is shown is
that people become less and less caring about morals or even each
other and they only care about productivity in the end.
The reason why democracy is bad is because when everyone strives for
efficiency, and when all firms in a perfictly competitive market reach
a zerrow economic profit what happens is that no room exists anymore
for any quality of life that maximizes total social benift other than
what products or services can give. The result is that people no
longer care about each other, so they devide against each other about
all issues except productivity, and the result is eventaly millions of
voices all compeating to be heard and followed (thus doing nothing
constructive). In the end since morality can not be agreed upon or
enforced with law people do whatever they want as along as the harm to
others does not cause retaliation. The end result is that the system
collapses from a lack of a unity of the people and from a breakdown of
moral socal contracts between people.
The question that sums the argument is, "in a democracy do people who
generate a positive social externality in moral terms get rewarded
when people are forced to compete against each other to the extend
that they are all indiffrent upon the choice to be at labor or not at
lobar." When firms are indiffrent about staying in the market or
existing and when people are to because both firms and people realize
that all their revenue equils all their expences and that if a slight
deviation in any way can cause an end to it all, does anyone think
that a moral positive externality by firms or people is valued at
all? Do you think that the end of democracy and a perfectly
competative market is anything more than just braneless survivle?
This is just a thought, your ideas?
Thank you,
Mathew Enoch Mount
mmount@xxxxxxxxxx
.
- References:
- Will Democracy End the American Economy?
- From: mmount
- Re: Will Democracy End the American Economy?
- From: royls
- Will Democracy End the American Economy?
- Prev by Date: Re: Budget deficits and GDP
- Next by Date: Re: Budget deficits and GDP
- Previous by thread: Re: Will Democracy End the American Economy?
- Next by thread: Re: Will Democracy End the American Economy?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
