Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres
It's doable.
What's hard is getting past the concept that politics can supercede basic economics principles. Distort economic behavior, yes; abolish the consequences of the distortion, no. Core economic principles are not different for different political systems; they apply equally to theocracies and autocracies, democracies, and tribal groups.
Political discourse is infinite but economics is about finite resources. And it is the limits imposed by the resources being finite that brings politics (and emotion) into the picture. Focusing on theoretical politics is just a way to avoid dealing with the underlying issues of finite resource allocation, the reality that politicians everywhere can only dispense largesse they take from somebody else and that somebody else invariably ends up being their own society, present or future.
Allocation and regulation is not creation; sooner or later the rave ends and somebody has to clean the debris.
|
I very much appreciate your clarity of expression and effort to transcend politics, but the problem still seems to be that the interpretation of economic principles, like a decision regarding allocation on a massive scale, is itself political in scope. For one thing, there's the political interpretation as to which effect of allocation is distorted and which consequence is undesirable. And that's where we descend into politics.
Quote:
|
. . . all within a political spectrum several inches wide.
|
Ding, ding, ding! You win the internet -- that's the exact problem which plagues every side of the American political debate.