Economic normalization of deviance

[a_priori]

Politicians and the electorate are suffering the severe cognitive bias of the normalization of deviance. It is “normal” for government to pay for grandma’s nursing home. It is “normal” to retire from a government job at age 40 and get a monthly check and full health benefits (like me). It is “normal” for politicians to bribe their constituents with money yet to be earned by future generations. Great, except it’s not normal, it’s deviant. We will all be genuinely confused when it comes crashing down. Politicians can indulge their parallax view of reality and economists can churn out abstract metrics all they want. A person with an 8th grade understanding of mathematics and a rudimentary knowledge of economic history (and a small ego) could come up with the solution. But it won’t happen. This entire politician/ecomonist dialog is just a self-serving fantasy.

 

[jimrob]

The problem is democracy. The simple get a vote - even those who can’t count to twenty without taking off their shoes and socks.

Government is about running the country, providing services to the nation and to individuals, and collecting the cost through taxation. However, people generally don’t like taxes - especially the rich.

You can get very rich in the Western world by being a politician. If you claim that you can run a country, fight wars, send men into space and provide services - all without taxation - the rich will vote for you. The rich control the media and they will convince the simple to vote for you. Once in power, the only way you can keep your promises is to borrow - but that’s not your problem since by the time the money has to be paid back, you will be mega-rich and retired.

The problem has been made worse in recent years by the West’s love of cheap manufactured goods from China. China has a huge controlled economy and they can run it in a way that would bankrupt a capitalist state. China has vast reserves of Western currency which they need to invest - and they do so by lending it back to Western governments.

My solution is a wealth tax on all retired politicians. If it’s necessary to bankrupt them to pay off government short term debt, so be it: they grew rich by bankrupting the country.

 

[donsnow]

The problem is democracy. The simple get a vote - even those who can’t count to twenty without taking off their shoes and socks.

Government is about running the country, providing services to the nation and to individuals, and collecting the cost through taxation. However, people generally don’t like taxes - especially the rich.

You can get very rich in the Western world by being a politician. If you claim that you can run a country, fight wars, send men into space and provide services - all without taxation - the rich will vote for you. The rich control the media and they will convince the simple to vote for you. Once in power, the only way you can keep your promises is to borrow - but that’s not your problem since by the time the money has to be paid back, you will be mega-rich and retired.

The problem has been made worse in recent years by the West’s love of cheap manufactured goods from China. China has a huge controlled economy and they can run it in a way that would bankrupt a capitalist state. China has vast reserves of Western currency which they need to invest - and they do so by lending it back to Western governments.

My solution is a wealth tax on all retired politicians. If it’s necessary to bankrupt them to pay off government short term debt, so be it: they grew rich by bankrupting the country.

Good afternoon, jimrob,

I’ve thought of that, coming down on the politicians. But, I can’t get an answer to my question, “How are we going to get politicians to vote to tax themselves and to vote to reduce their salaries?”

Just can’t see a way around it.

God loves you,
Don

 

[donsnow]

Politicians and the electorate are suffering the severe cognitive bias of the normalization of deviance. It is “normal” for government to pay for grandma’s nursing home. It is “normal” to retire from a government job at age 40 and get a monthly check and full health benefits (like me). It is “normal” for politicians to bribe their constituents with money yet to be earned by future generations. Great, except it’s not normal, it’s deviant. We will all be genuinely confused when it comes crashing down. Politicians can indulge their parallax view of reality and economists can churn out abstract metrics all they want. A person with an 8th grade understanding of mathematics and a rudimentary knowledge of economic history (and a small ego) could come up with the solution. But it won’t happen. This entire politician/ecomonist dialog is just a self-serving fantasy.

Good afternoon, a priori,

I had to think on your post a little, before replying.

I think you’ve described the situation aptly.

If the simple were properly educated instead of brainwashed by public education, even they could see through the sham of this present Administration.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m an unaffiliated registered voter, sick and tired of both major parties and suspicious of a lot of the other parties. I think the Tea Parties are so new, that they have not yet been corrupted.

Spiritually, some of our population are not as strong in the faith as their parents and grand parents were; although, on the other hand, there are a lot of young people picking up the pro-life torch.

My own dour opinion has it that this country will collapse as a result of present educational standards and economical experimentation from the White House and Congress. After that, maybe … maybe, the citizens can get Congress off this Socialist track onto a different economic philosophy.

Socialism has been tried and failed in the USSR, NAZI Germany, the EU and now here in the USofA. Unregulated capitalism has shown its bad side in the Second and Third World countries. So, I wish that Economists would look into and support the Distributist (NOT distribution nor redistribution) philosophy of economics and give it global support. That philosophy has done quite well in Mondragon, Spain, since the 1920’s. Here’s a link:

distributistreview.com/mag/2010/06/mondragon-and-the-global-economic-meltdown/

People of faith need to support each other and reinforce each others’ faith. Because, these times are a sore trial of faith.

Schools need to resume teaching self-responsibility, and parents need to become parents, instead of being afraid of their children or afraid of making their children unhappy for the sake of a right teaching.

It’s easy for me to write all this. It’s not easy to live through the deterioration of the America I love.

God loves you,
Donb

 

[Bob_Aliano]

One of our problems and blessings is that we do not have a popular Democracy, in the US we have a Representative Democracy. Our politicians can and do tell us all manner of lies to get elected knowing that once elected they will be beyond our control. Our politicians are enabled by our form of government to speak for us and are not bound to pay attention to our wishes. On the other hand a popular Democracy would be unmanageable in a country a vast as ours.

We have to find a way to elect ethical, moral politicians but I don’t expect that to happen before we collapse either economically or through anarchy, we have already collapsed morally.

 

[a_priori]

Good afternoon, a priori,

I had to think on your post a little, before replying.

I think you’ve described the situation aptly.

If the simple were properly educated instead of brainwashed by public education, even they could see through the sham of this present Administration.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m an unaffiliated registered voter, sick and tired of both major parties and suspicious of a lot of the other parties. I think the Tea Parties are so new, that they have not yet been corrupted.

Spiritually, some of our population are not as strong in the faith as their parents and grand parents were; although, on the other hand, there are a lot of young people picking up the pro-life torch.

My own dour opinion has it that this country will collapse as a result of present educational standards and economical experimentation from the White House and Congress. After that, maybe … maybe, the citizens can get Congress off this Socialist track onto a different economic philosophy.

Socialism has been tried and failed in the USSR, NAZI Germany, the EU and now here in the USofA. Unregulated capitalism has shown its bad side in the Second and Third World countries. So, I wish that Economists would look into and support the Distributist (NOT distribution nor redistribution) philosophy of economics and give it global support. That philosophy has done quite well in Mondragon, Spain, since the 1920’s. Here’s a link:

distributistreview.com/mag/2010/06/mondragon-and-the-global-economic-meltdown/

People of faith need to support each other and reinforce each others’ faith. Because, these times are a sore trial of faith.

Schools need to resume teaching self-responsibility, and parents need to become parents, instead of being afraid of their children or afraid of making their children unhappy for the sake of a right teaching.

It’s easy for me to write all this. It’s not easy to live through the deterioration of the America I love.

God loves you,
Donb

Thank you Don. I think your points are well taken. We will have to begin to act more like an interconnected community if we are to survive the long haul. The habit we have of behaving like autonomous, forever self-sufficient individuals cannot be sustained. I suspect that will become obvious. I will need more time to take a look at distributism. If I recall correctly, G.K. Chesterton was an advocate of this system. I will check out your link soon.

Thanks again.

 

[a_priori]

One of our problems and blessings is that we do not have a popular Democracy, in the US we have a Representative Democracy. Our politicians can and do tell us all manner of lies to get elected knowing that once elected they will be beyond our control. Our politicians are enabled by our form of government to speak for us and are not bound to pay attention to our wishes. On the other hand a popular Democracy would be unmanageable in a country a vast as ours.

We have to find a way to elect ethical, moral politicians but I don’t expect that to happen before we collapse either economically or through anarchy, we have already collapsed morally.

I like your point that democracy can be a problem or blessing. It might be more a function of the quality of character and the expectations of the average citizen. It seems to me that great civilizations grow on the virtues of industry, thrift and continence. Civilizations fall when these values are abandoned. As the saying goes, it ain’t lookin’ good.

 

[donsnow]

Thank you Don. I think your points are well taken. We will have to begin to act more like an interconnected community if we are to survive the long haul. The habit we have of behaving like autonomous, forever self-sufficient individuals cannot be sustained. I suspect that will become obvious. I will need more time to take a look at distributism. If I recall correctly, G.K. Chesterton was an advocate of this system. I will check out your link soon.

Thanks again.

Good afternoon, a priori,

Thank you, for your response to the musings of an aging man.

I agree, we cannot live as if we were self-sufficient, because Christians aren’t self-sufficient, we rely on Christ and each other.

Well, if G K Chesterton saw something good in Distributism, then I’m in good company.

God loves you,
Don

 

[manualman]

One man, one vote may actually be rather naive. Especially the way they do voter registration drives these days. (My MIL has been an election judge and seen busses full of seniors pull up full of confused voters totally unaware of who they are voting for - repeatedly asking the poll judges who to vote for!) I’ve often wondered if we’d have better leaders if voters were all required to write-in their choice; no multiple choice ballots and no cheat sheets, no straight tickets. If you don’t care enough about the election to learn the name and spelling of the one you want, you aren’t qualified to vote. Too bad!

 

[a_priori]

Good afternoon, a priori,

Thank you, for your response to the musings of an aging man.

I agree, we cannot live as if we were self-sufficient, because Christians aren’t self-sufficient, we rely on Christ and each other.

Well, if G K Chesterton saw something good in Distributism, then I’m in good company.

God loves you,
Don

Very well said Don!

 

[a_priori]

One man, one vote may actually be rather naive. Especially the way they do voter registration drives these days. (My MIL has been an election judge and seen busses full of seniors pull up full of confused voters totally unaware of who they are voting for - repeatedly asking the poll judges who to vote for!) I’ve often wondered if we’d have better leaders if voters were all required to write-in their choice; no multiple choice ballots and no cheat sheets, no straight tickets. If you don’t care enough about the election to learn the name and spelling of the one you want, you aren’t qualified to vote. Too bad!

The way we do it now certainly does have its implications. All the manipulation is sad.

 

[Abu]

Donsnow #4
Socialism has been tried and failed in the USSR, NAZI Germany, the EU and now here in the USofA. Unregulated capitalism has shown its bad side in the Second and Third World countries. So, I wish that Economists would look into and support the Distributist (NOT distribution nor redistribution) philosophy of economics and give it global support.

Not only has socialism failed, but so has the Welfare State – more importantly, both are condemned by the Church.

What the Catholic Late Scholastics developed is the principles of free enterprise for which they were called the first real economists. Free enterprise enabled untold millions to be released from poverty and the first examples of free enterprise appeared in the great Catholic monasteries, about the ninth century. (John Gilchrist, The Church and Economic Activity in the Middle Ages, St Martin’s Press1969, I; cf. op. cit (Stark) p xii, 55-58).

The affirmation of the reality of these economic principles has come from Bl John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.
“Capitalism” is a derogatory term coined by Karl Marx, and that’s perhaps why Bl John Paul II dislikes it, as he makes clear as he affirms free enterprise in Centesimus Annus, 1991:
CA 42. ‘If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy”.
‘CA 43. The Church has no models to present;’

Free enterprise is affirmed also here: “Society does not have to protect itself from the market, as if the development of the latter were ipso facto to entail the death of authentically human relations…Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility.” (Caritas in Veritate, Benedict XVI, 2009, #36).