Re the fiscal cliff and kicking the can down the road:
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
. . . They will keep kicking that can down the same road in basically the same direction because that is the road our current system has built for them. There are not other roads on which to kick it, unless they build new ones or find their way back to a good one--you know--the one that begins with a capital letter C.
|
Is that too radical to say? We know that they WILL kick the can down the road . . . the same road . . .debt ceiling will be raised . . . an agreement will be reached which both sides will claim as a compromise victory . . . it will be revisited in another 6 months or a year . . . the debt will continue to rise . . . and so on. But is that road irrevocably built into the system. Not in the same repeated manner, but, yes, in the same direction.
The can being kicked is not merely a budget, or tax reform, or even (though most importantly) reducing the national debt. It is the system itself, and the method of maintaining it, that progresses a trajectory or vector (as Spence might call it) down the same, irrevocable road to an unsustainable end which may finally force a change. Two facets of the system go hand-in-hand to drive us down that road.
The first is the type of system. It is a top-down authoritarian system that has no real legal restraints and is only restrained to a gradual pace by those who govern (to appease residual pretences of constitutional, legal, and beneficial niceties) toward an eventual openly unlimited but beneficent and efficient administration of the "needs" of the people. One might, to borrow another Spencism, see the process as a
mega trend. And, of course, as Spence says, mega trends always trump partisan politics.
The second is the means of maintaining the power to drive us down this road. That would be the appearance of a democratic process of elections. Winning elections in a system whose objective is to administer to the needs of the people requires that you define those needs and convince the populace that you will attend favorably to them. Of course, various groups have different needs. So you cater to each with promises and legislation that claims to satisfy those needs. It is important that large or influential groups are identified and are made aware of what it is that they need. If you leave it up to individuals, for one, the diversity would be too great and contradictory to put forth a seemingly coherent policy. So, because most people are not expert enough to understand what is truly beneficial for them, you tell them, and then you deliver. Some outnumbered sectors will necessarily be left out of the government largesse, but they are usually the ones who would balk at the system, and, besides, they can take care of themselves. Until the end of the road is reached, and they too will need the system to provide.
Now once you have established this system and the means of maintaining power, you cannot reverse course or veer in a different direction. Not only do the people become dependent on the system, the system is dependant on their approval. So the system, and the road on which it travels cannot change. Or, as Spence might say, there are no do-overs.
It is a closed system that can only move in one direction. The promise of this system is an eventual fair and equitable distribution on Marxian or socialistic lines. I know we're not supposed to call it socialism, but obviously that's what it is. There is talk of "mixed" economy, and it certainly started that way. But there is that trajectory thing. Stasis is not the order of the universe. Change is inevitable. That is, more so, the order of the universe and life itself. The present central, top-down, system of government depends on a rigidity in the relation of the people to it. It doesn't lend itself to evolutionary change except toward greater centralized power and control. Experience to date informs that socialism evolves from moderation in government power to unlimited power. Milton Friedman said that everyone agrees that socialism "doesn't work" but that we keep drifting toward it. But maybe that's OK. If we keep going in that direction, people may consider it good. If it keeps giving us stuff with less effort on our part, that must be good. But, the Hegelian dielectic on which Marxism and our present administrative state are founded, does not end. Utopia cannot be a final never ending change. Hegel's process of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis continues. This closed system which can only move in one direction will be blasted by the philosophy that brought it into being. If there is enough elasticity left to allow market forces to drive a vibrant economy, the system can go on. But for how long will the growing welfare aspect of the state be sustained by a shrinking free market that progressively becomes a command economy? If the system must become financially stable, can it survive the means to power--delivery of all the people's needs by government?
The system that was discarded, constitutionalism, provided for individuals to create the market to reflect their private needs and desires. It thrived through a high degree of personal motivation to survive and prosper. And, deriving its power from the diverse individual interactions, it was potentially more evolutionary, thus more capable of lasting. And it limited the central power's ability to dictate the needs of the people. And prohibited the ability of central government from taxing, borrowing, confiscating the wealth of the nation and driving it into unpayable debt.