The Muse is Silent

... Or else I would post a poem. Instead I shall post my thoughts on the two major economic schemes which are claimed to be in use.

1) Capitalism (Republicans tout as their way); ie. What our country was built upon. The idea that, in essence, what is good for companies either large or small is good for everyone else. The logic is more less this, if, for example, a large company increases its profits by a significant margin then it will necessarily grow in order to meet the demands. To grow a company must hire and give promotions, with these the work base expands and people are better paid. People with more money tend to heighten their cost of living and because of this, other companies receive more money. It has a ripple effect, lessening as it falls down.

My response, four stars out of five. This system is great! There are a few weak points where the logic does not necessarily have to follow (although it still CAN). A company would be insane not to grow when it had the chance, but some companies prefer to remain small (a small percentage). The company does not HAVE to pay people better when the workforce is larger (Ie. promote more to managerial positions etc.) but it would be a very bad idea for management to give people more authority but not increase their payroll (this happened to a friend of mine, he quit). People with more money can also tend to save instead of spend (this is my inclination) but history has shown that unless times are hard people like to spend when they can (or even when they shouldn't).

In the end what really plays into this scenario is the employer's ability to get and train new hires to be up to par with those who turned over. Why? Two reasons and outcomes. Reason one, if they want to grow they have to hire, too much on one person's plate just makes quality poor. Reason two, if they want to grow but don't want to pay more they can expect people to quit, and therefore need to have an efficient training program. It's funny how much Capitalism is based on grass roots becoming more like trees and bushes.

2) Liberalism (Uhh, you know who): ie. taking the economy by the horns and channelling it. Basic concept; imagine you have a small country, for this example Sweden. Now Sweden has a stable economy, good income, and is in most areas a pretty good place to live (from a purely monetary and safety perspective). Since Sweden is established it would be fairly easy to track the economy and tax it accordingly. With these taxes programs are established, welfare, social security, health care, etc. Anything that is applicable to the people is what Liberalism applies money to. In a nutshell, the government takes some money and then uses it to help people who can't or won't do things for themselves.

My response, 1 star out of 5. Liberalism takes this as true, you don't really know what's good for you. Which in some cases may actually be true, the mentally retarded, the insane, the suicidal, the list could go on. But by and large people have the capacity to figure out what they want and need to survive. Food, somewhere to live, and a stable job. Those are the very basics but included in this domain is also, health insurance and retirement plans. Any human who had the ability to think cognitively should be able to find a way to make these things reality. Not all will do well at them, not all will do them even if they can but that doesn't mean society at large must be burdened with those who are either lazy or simply don't seek counsel.

In our world this is a bit of a pipe dream. If we had a government of no corruption, a people with very few lazy and/or mentally deficient parts, and an economy that could bear the weight of the taxes then (and only then) could this system work in perpetuity. It breads dependence on government, usurps freedom, and in the end causes division in the country at its core. Between those who have and those who have but "have not" and want more. It should have never been.

Historical view (Basically what everyone thinks is second nature, but really isn't); ie. the blood sweat and tears movement. What starts a country? What makes it successful? Thrive? Or even make it survive the hard years in the beginning? The purely scientific answer, blood, sweat, and tears. Hard work is what makes a country firm, striving and grasping to be significant. Laying the cornerstones of the economy and society. Only through endurance, much studying, inventing, patenting, accomplishment, distributing, producing, and above all selling can any country make itself successful.

My response 5 stars out of 5. In essence this view isn't a "practical" way of applying economics. It isn't a handy dandy formula. It isn't even a real answer. But what it certainly is, is a philosophy. It's a manner in which things should be done. As soon as a country gets comfy, things go south. It's true, it's been proven countless times in history only when the populace in general is willing to get up and get active does a country galvanise itself against self-destruction through slumber. In my opinion the most direct way to do this is in semi-pure capitalism (No one can have all the power but the people themselves. So corporations must have a check to them, you can decide what it is because for this point I don't have a specific opinion) but that's just me.

So in conclusion, Yay for hard work, boo for a middle man in my money, and please let's just go back to the things that worked.

Dt