Represents Sweden in how far it is politically and economically leftward or
rightward. It is more to the left in the latter. Represents South Africa on how far it is
politically and economically leftward or rightward. It is more to the right
economically. As events change culturally then this split will either increase or
decrease. But there is a point at which economics can go no farther either leftward
or rightward in relation to the politics.
As the political component moves leftward or rightward so inevitably will the range
at which the economic component will move leftward or rightward.
Politically and economically things can be very close, like in North Korea or the
United States. While political and economic controls are nearly totally in line with
each other in North Korea, so too, is very little political or economic control current
in the Unites States. They are in close proximity in each country when both
elements are compared.
On the other hand, England has perhaps the widest spread of politically very little
control, while economically a large amount of control. This is probably the biggest
separation.
It is possible to quantify the political and economic components -- and make it the
expression of a mathematical formula. Considerations would be voting, free press,
TV, elections, number and party of candidates, law making, judiciary
independence, military involvement, taxes, expenses, and other elements for the
political component. Ease of opening business, property laws, patent law, copyright
laws, rules of transfer, ownership issues, eminent domain, taxes, permits, licenses
and the like are factors of the economic component. In so quantifying each country
could be seen to fall somewhere on the left right continuum we currently use.
With the idea of socialism so far to the left that it falls outside of the potential range
of an economic system based on the right, or capitalism, as defined in America -- a
middle way is not possible. Indeed, in America it is only economically that we go
politically leftward. The constitution, and our culture, prevent leftward movement
politically as it refers to non-economic component of politics. That is, free speech
and publication and the like. All the Democrats, and to a lesser degree,
Republicans want to do is drag us to the left economically. But again, there is only a
certain distance to the left or right economics can be from politics.
To give just the example of the Press, both politically and economically. In a case
where the culture prevents a shift leftward, or towards less freedom of the press, a
tax policy or environmental policy raising the cost, or interfering in union or worker
agreement, or in getting paper or trees for paper, or in altering the supply causing
the raise in price in publications or materials, will clearly economically control the
level of press freedom. More stringent controls on these economic factors will drag
the economics of publishing leftward, inhibiting freedom of publication. Which is the
political element dragged leftward also. It would be impossible for it not to. There
would be a barrier to either publish or purchase published materials. That is purely
economic seeming, and yet alters a political balance.
This is true in many circumstances. So it becomes possible to incrementally and in
widely different areas, alter the political situation and thereby alter the economic
situation. One can move rightward (new spectrum wise) like Chile or China, and
90% of the world's countries. Or we can move leftward as the US is doing, and now
more so under Democrats.
The second way to explain the difference seemingly between Sweden and South
Africa, especially in the physical violence versus legal violence components is to
look at an economy as a savings account. A capitalist, even in the old Marxist
definition, produces wealth. And it accumulates in the wealth and prosperity of the
nation. As the nation moves leftward there is a corresponding degree of decrease
in additions to the national wealth. Precipitous leftward movement is a precipitous
economic collapse in the making. As the nation moves leftward it begins to draw
down the bank account of national wealth in an effort to be at the socialist ideal.
So Sweden is now facing reality, while Cuba is not. Sweden has slowed the pace
of withdrawals from its formerly very large national wealth per capita, and has
begun to search for new ways to add to that wealth. Lowering taxed to spur
economic activity, loosening regulations on working rules, and the like. Swedes
saw that abyss, and are in the midst of the paradigm shift, going rightward.
Cuba, on the other hand, still draws down the national wealth account. It has more
people and less money to start with than Sweden, and has gone through a more
precipitous change leftward as Castro came to power. (Particularly economically
so, rather than politically, to which Batista was more akin to Castro.) Its bank
account is empty. No new wealth is being created, and no one is in any rush to
change that currently in Cuba.
Each country has that bank account. Its political economic system determines
whether that account is growing or shrinking, and to what degree. Each country is
different in it outward manifestation of culture, religion, language -- but each can be
quantified as to its bank account nationally, and it success at adding or subtracting
to that wealth.
The wealthier a country is at the beginning point of one's analysis, the longer it will
take to eat up the national wealth, if no new wealth is created.
Even the United States is now eating its national wealth as fast as we can create
this wealth. Bigger government will only exacerbate the problem.
It is the transfer of wealth through entitlement programs, the tax system and the
inhibiting of further economic growth through the machinations of the Federal
Reserve Board, and to a lesser extant, a variety of regulations and laws
environmentally, and socially (like health care) here in America that have begun
wasting the national wealth. It has caused a cessation in economic growth, and is
dragging us leftward. These are the second evils of these sorts of programs. The
first lies in immorality of the slavery aspect. The second in the unconstitutionality of
this enslavement. Besides being anti-thetical to our system morally and
constitutionally, the are inherently dangerous to our national wealth.
So long as they remain in effect we are going to have tensions and drift aimlessly.
Such is the insidious nature of these programs. There is little doubt that we are one
of the most peaceful and stable countries on the planet. The more these factors
interfere in the economy the more tension and drift. As so many countries are in that
condition. It is already manifesting itself in the polarization of the political parties
and the inablity for Congress to get things done.
It is the paradigm shift that is coming that will alter these ideas currently holding
sway -- and bring about a more equitable and fair and prosperous society.
And those ideas are coming as we shall see.
rightward. It is more to the left in the latter. Represents South Africa on how far it is
politically and economically leftward or rightward. It is more to the right
economically. As events change culturally then this split will either increase or
decrease. But there is a point at which economics can go no farther either leftward
or rightward in relation to the politics.
As the political component moves leftward or rightward so inevitably will the range
at which the economic component will move leftward or rightward.
Politically and economically things can be very close, like in North Korea or the
United States. While political and economic controls are nearly totally in line with
each other in North Korea, so too, is very little political or economic control current
in the Unites States. They are in close proximity in each country when both
elements are compared.
On the other hand, England has perhaps the widest spread of politically very little
control, while economically a large amount of control. This is probably the biggest
separation.
It is possible to quantify the political and economic components -- and make it the
expression of a mathematical formula. Considerations would be voting, free press,
TV, elections, number and party of candidates, law making, judiciary
independence, military involvement, taxes, expenses, and other elements for the
political component. Ease of opening business, property laws, patent law, copyright
laws, rules of transfer, ownership issues, eminent domain, taxes, permits, licenses
and the like are factors of the economic component. In so quantifying each country
could be seen to fall somewhere on the left right continuum we currently use.
With the idea of socialism so far to the left that it falls outside of the potential range
of an economic system based on the right, or capitalism, as defined in America -- a
middle way is not possible. Indeed, in America it is only economically that we go
politically leftward. The constitution, and our culture, prevent leftward movement
politically as it refers to non-economic component of politics. That is, free speech
and publication and the like. All the Democrats, and to a lesser degree,
Republicans want to do is drag us to the left economically. But again, there is only a
certain distance to the left or right economics can be from politics.
To give just the example of the Press, both politically and economically. In a case
where the culture prevents a shift leftward, or towards less freedom of the press, a
tax policy or environmental policy raising the cost, or interfering in union or worker
agreement, or in getting paper or trees for paper, or in altering the supply causing
the raise in price in publications or materials, will clearly economically control the
level of press freedom. More stringent controls on these economic factors will drag
the economics of publishing leftward, inhibiting freedom of publication. Which is the
political element dragged leftward also. It would be impossible for it not to. There
would be a barrier to either publish or purchase published materials. That is purely
economic seeming, and yet alters a political balance.
This is true in many circumstances. So it becomes possible to incrementally and in
widely different areas, alter the political situation and thereby alter the economic
situation. One can move rightward (new spectrum wise) like Chile or China, and
90% of the world's countries. Or we can move leftward as the US is doing, and now
more so under Democrats.
The second way to explain the difference seemingly between Sweden and South
Africa, especially in the physical violence versus legal violence components is to
look at an economy as a savings account. A capitalist, even in the old Marxist
definition, produces wealth. And it accumulates in the wealth and prosperity of the
nation. As the nation moves leftward there is a corresponding degree of decrease
in additions to the national wealth. Precipitous leftward movement is a precipitous
economic collapse in the making. As the nation moves leftward it begins to draw
down the bank account of national wealth in an effort to be at the socialist ideal.
So Sweden is now facing reality, while Cuba is not. Sweden has slowed the pace
of withdrawals from its formerly very large national wealth per capita, and has
begun to search for new ways to add to that wealth. Lowering taxed to spur
economic activity, loosening regulations on working rules, and the like. Swedes
saw that abyss, and are in the midst of the paradigm shift, going rightward.
Cuba, on the other hand, still draws down the national wealth account. It has more
people and less money to start with than Sweden, and has gone through a more
precipitous change leftward as Castro came to power. (Particularly economically
so, rather than politically, to which Batista was more akin to Castro.) Its bank
account is empty. No new wealth is being created, and no one is in any rush to
change that currently in Cuba.
Each country has that bank account. Its political economic system determines
whether that account is growing or shrinking, and to what degree. Each country is
different in it outward manifestation of culture, religion, language -- but each can be
quantified as to its bank account nationally, and it success at adding or subtracting
to that wealth.
The wealthier a country is at the beginning point of one's analysis, the longer it will
take to eat up the national wealth, if no new wealth is created.
Even the United States is now eating its national wealth as fast as we can create
this wealth. Bigger government will only exacerbate the problem.
It is the transfer of wealth through entitlement programs, the tax system and the
inhibiting of further economic growth through the machinations of the Federal
Reserve Board, and to a lesser extant, a variety of regulations and laws
environmentally, and socially (like health care) here in America that have begun
wasting the national wealth. It has caused a cessation in economic growth, and is
dragging us leftward. These are the second evils of these sorts of programs. The
first lies in immorality of the slavery aspect. The second in the unconstitutionality of
this enslavement. Besides being anti-thetical to our system morally and
constitutionally, the are inherently dangerous to our national wealth.
So long as they remain in effect we are going to have tensions and drift aimlessly.
Such is the insidious nature of these programs. There is little doubt that we are one
of the most peaceful and stable countries on the planet. The more these factors
interfere in the economy the more tension and drift. As so many countries are in that
condition. It is already manifesting itself in the polarization of the political parties
and the inablity for Congress to get things done.
It is the paradigm shift that is coming that will alter these ideas currently holding
sway -- and bring about a more equitable and fair and prosperous society.
And those ideas are coming as we shall see.
| CHAPTER 13 |
| Jim Hlavac |
The Socialist Era
| Poltics, Theory & Economics |
