One of the things that I think is dreadfully underconsidered in the modern understanding of the world and how it works is economics. The supposed concern is politics, or who runs things.
(Yes yes, I know - my rules about politics and all on the site. Hang with me.)
I cannot speak for what they teach in high school now (although my impression is not much has changed), but back in my day economics was not a required class. Yes, you talked a bit about it in World History and American History (Mercantilism, Colonialism, Marxism) but never to the depth of understanding what an economy was or how it world. My college was not any better (again, things may have changed) - I did not take any economics until I had to for my Master's.
We spend all our time in history on politics. We spend our time in politics on politics. Who is in control, what they are legislating (or just outright declaring in the case of dictatorships). And to be fair, it is important.
But economics trumps politics.
A simple explanation I have discussed with my family: our political betters continue to bicker and argue over how much money they will add to the economy as a result of a 2020 Plague Relief Bill. And that may be all well and good - after all, there are legitimate people in need. The part that our political betters are less willing to discuss, of course, is that adding more dollars to the pool means the dollars are worth less. Dollars that are worth less means that things cost more and salaries either go up or are completely eliminated as individuals are laid off and technology improves to replace them (if you do not believe me, do a bit of research on automation. It is coming along faster than you think).
Our political betters may think they are doing the "right" thing. And they may think to reap a reward from it. And they may, for a short time - right up to the point that people cannot afford what they used to or their salary has completely evaporated. At which point, they either become irate and do something themselves or (perhaps more likely) they find someone else to do it on their behalf.
History is littered with dictators and authoritarians that rose on the back of a people in economic despair that were looking for someone to lead them out.
One of my arguments against lock downs (although, as should be acknowledged, I do consider The Plague of 2020 a serious health event) is that it is very easy to turn an economy off - almost brainless, in fact. It is very difficult to turn one back on afterwards, contrary to the belief of our political betters who (for the most part) have never built a business - or lost a business. The fact that we are seriously contemplating a second lockdown is equally as appalling as the first one was - and given it is likely to occur in Winter after a lousy economic year, will make it all the worse.
People financially on the edge - or over the edge - become a desperate people. People that become desperate are willing to do anything to alleviate their situation - or belief anything that will alleviate their situation. And when people are willing to do anything and believe anything to alleviate their economic situation, who is in power matters very little except as a historical note of "who got overthrown".
If you really want to make a study of where the future is headed (and I think most folks that stop by here do), pay attention to the economics. Read a variety of sources, not just the usual "newsy" ones. If signs of an impending issue are anywhere, they will be there.
Politics and economics are one and the same for the most part, the only differences that separate them become apparent at the higher theoretical levels. The same can now be said of science. All are now tools for our leaders to control us. This is why some respond to guns and God like scalded vampires. Another unsavoury political truth needs to be confronted: our leaders hate us. The stuff they inflict on us is not incompetence; they know exactly what they are doing when they sell out Americans by off shoring jobs. Or taking payola from the big corporations in exchange for favours. Or flooding the nation with violent, ignorant human trash from the third world as an imported underclass. They know. They know what the looming depression will do to the middle class and they don’t care. It’s time to stretch necks; those people have forgotten who they are and who they serve and what country they are in.
ReplyDeleteGlen, I am not sure that economics and politics are the same, only from the sense that politics can try to control economics - perhaps in some cases can control economics - but economics is really never under the control of politics. We have not lived through a serious economic downturn, at least here in the US, since the 1930's - not (I would argue) the severe but not at the same level 1987 or the late 1990's or even 2008 which were bad, but not "we are starving" bad. At that point economics will trump politics because people eating takes over all other items.
DeleteAs to leaders hating us: possibly in some cases, yes. What I think is an equally possible scenario is that our leaders consider the people the rule to be foolish and ignorant (which is not the first time a ruler has felt this way) and that they have to "change" us to save us.
As to the other points: for politics, immigration, guns and religion, it is not just political leaders that are doing this. Large corporations do this as well for their own benefit (oddly enough in their case, chasing money instead of power). If it is true that politicians accept the money to make these things happen (and they do), then corporations do it as well because they know that they will get the results they want.
All of that said Glen, I sadly do not see things changing all that much without an economic impetus. People can accommodate more rules. What they cannot accommodate are crushing taxes, no jobs, and no food.
I can see both points of view intermixed. However, Money IS Power. Full stop. Soros is able to do what he has because of the money. His chosen ones are releasing leftist troops as soon as they are arrested and drop all charges. They are inflicting lawfare on folks that protect themselves from the troops. His money is power, raw power.
ReplyDeleteThe economics and politics are so interwoven as to be molecularly bonded now. Water, food and shelter are the basics. Everything else is luxury to one level or another. We have gotten to the point of boredom with the level of luxury we have. And any change is seen as exciting by the hoi polloi. I am pretty firm in my belief that not much will change until we suffer. Suffering is a lens that helps focus on the important.
Higher taxes, green policies, loss of respect for authority, it will all result in suffering. It's on the horizon... and getting bigger.
STxAR - It is true that money is a form of power (force is a form of power as well. As Von Clauswitz says, War is politics by others means). And we have become incredibly jaded with the fact that we live - even for those in the West on limited incomes - far better than anyone prior to say 1950 did.
DeleteAs to suffering, it depends on how it is realized. If it is straight out 1930's Depression style, then yes. If it is shielded from most and only a few are made to suffer, then no.
Amen I say to you. But I had to take 7 credits of college level economic courses for my degree.
ReplyDeleteI would just add that our nation has little hope of setting a stable economic solution with our political system. The necessary things for a solution take a lot of time and political terms are too short. It is just too easy for a politician to pass something that makes him look good in the short term at the expense of the long term economics. One solution is for longer terms or perhaps a dictatorship and I'm not sure that sounds appealing to me either. So the remaining solution is for we the people to rise up and demand long term solutions. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that.
Almost the same as me Ed - Micro and Macro economics to get into the Master's program, then some economics classes once I got there.
DeleteI guess the counter question (you sort of suggest the question) is what would make for better solutions? I do not have the answer either: Longer terms just seem to make for worst politicians and dictators (by and large) seldom focus on economic issues (they tend to be more about the power).
As to people? My only faint glimmer of hope is if everyone - every single adult - was vested in the system (usually that means taxes) in a way that meaningfully engaged them. If you are paying for something, you care. One of the significant long term issues I have is that more and more people pay nothing for the upkeep of the country - or as Tacitus has Tiberias say (paraphrased, of course) "Republics work until people realize that they can vote themselves money out of the treasury. Then, it is all over".
An non-fiat based currency might also be of assistance.
I think one small solution, which coincidentally ties in with your latest post, it to just let economics take its course during times of hardship, i.e. the recession due to the Plague. By allowing the weak businesses to succumb, when the Plague is over and things start booming again, it should really help those that had stronger business models to begin with.
DeleteI don't think we are doing ourselves any favors by passing huge small business relief bills. We are just delaying what is inevitable and creating a huge debt load instead.
Ed, while in theory I agree with you, in fact this country could not handle the extreme chaos that would cause (in my opinion, a la 1930's style). Small and mid size businesses are, sadly, invisible to people. When Airlines, Large manufacturing companies, and Auto Companies start failing it becomes news and the sky is falling.
DeleteAgreed we are not doing ourselves any failures. And maybe new businesses would arise? I am doubtful.
Are we consumers? Are we producers?
ReplyDeleteAre we humans? Are we products?
Who decides?
Just So -
Delete- Yes, I think almost everyone is a consumer.
- Yes, we are also producers (but not so many as the consumers, I think. There are people that just consume).
- Not sure about the humanity. I have questions of some.
- We are products to the extent that we allow ourselves to be the product (e.g., free instead of purchasing things).
- Who decides? In some cases we do, honestly.
Thanks for stopping by!
I think most people have an idea of what politics is, but I'm doubtful that very many now understand what economics is. When I took social studies, the opposite of democracy was socialism. Now, people think capitalism is the opposite of socialism.
ReplyDeleteActually, it seems that nowadays all "isms" are treated as though politics. Maybe because economics is so complicated. From my tiny little view of the universe, politics is just about power, and politicians with their isms will come and go. Economics, on the other hand, is the world religion. Everything we do is ordered around its tenets, and the modern lifestyle is its worship. That seems to be true no matter on which side of the political fence we sit.
Leigh - What an interesting and thought provoking statement. We (the global We of course) think of capitalism and socialism as politics when in fact there are economic systems.
DeleteEconomics are complicated - although to be fair, it has been made this way. I scarcely understand how we can increase the Federal debt year after year and still be considered a going concerned; I do not at all understand things like "derivatives other than they sound like a pretty dangerous thing
I had not thought of it before Leigh, but in a way economics has become our religion. Like any religion, we add or delete doctrine from it - globalism for example, or "green initiatives" - and all who do not comply by word or by action (trying to live outside of the system, for example) are treated as heretics.
"The love of money is the root of all evil" said the Apostle Paul (not money, as smart folks point out), yet we have built a world system on it.
I'd like to add that both capitalism and socialism are only possible because of industrialism. I see them as two sides of the same coin. In my oversimplified understanding, the battle between the two is over who controls the money, the individual or the government? The masses, of course, don't understand this and assume the issue is some sort of equality versus non-equality.
DeleteIf the impossible happened, and the world somehow reverted to an agrarian economy, we would have a completely different ball game.
Leigh, that is an important point (gosh, I wish I knew more about these things). It is very much an argument about who controls the money, the economic engines, and the decisions made about them. People often seem to look at it in terms of "What is in it for me?', ignoring the larger aspects of what it does to the individual and a nation.
DeleteFor every example of a Nordic Socialism, there is a Venezuela. For every example of the U.S., there is China. It is not just as simple as as "Apply the economic system and all will be right with the world". There is a lot more involved that essentially gives the same systems different outcomes (for the record, no-one has explained to me how going socialist, for example, prevents the horrors of a Venezuela. They say "it will not happen here" without explanation.
If we did convert to an agrarian economy, it would be different of course. Unfortunately the agrarian historical examples we have are essentially pre-industrial oligarchies. But it would be a significant change in that most everyone would be worried about growing food instead of the other things things they have time and energy to worry about now.
Have you read Michael Bunker's Surviving Off Off-Grid: Decolonizing the Industrialized Mind? A lot of people don't like him because 1) he's an unapologetic agrarian, and 2) he's an unapologetic Christian. The book presents a very different worldview about these very topics, which make it an extremely fascinating read. Not that I'm going to get corny and say it's a "must read," but for anyone examining where we are and how we got here, it will likely turn on quite a few mental light bulbs.
DeleteLeigh, I have not. I did go read the review and you aright: There is a very clear demarcation between those who like him and those who do not, mostly because of the Christianity in his books (to be fair, if an author warns people up front that this is what is is about, it is on the buyer if they find this offensive. Caveat Emptor). Looks like he has rather quite a lot of volumes. As always, your recommendation weights heavily in his favor.
Delete