Thread by @brits_gideon

If you are on to the Central Government Money Printing Game may I offer a few thoughts on the broader implications.

[THREAD]

https://twitter.com/brits_gideon/status/1630503953375940608

Economics is one of my passions.

I have studied economics at varsity and through the years thought about it.

I do not propose to have the answers but we can all see the problems.

#MrPattern

The problem with economics as I see it is fundamentally the problem of organising humanity.

Capitalism is linked to one style of organising and Communism to another.

And then you get different versions in between.

These patterns are linked.

I known this getting a bit weird but try and follow the reasoning rather than dissecting 'capitalism' vs 'communism'.

Anyway....

As these patterns are linked to each other they are also linked to the pattern of the individual.

Imagine I declare myself dictator for life over all of humanity 🤣

Will that work? No.

Yet dictators for life exist and have always existed. We used to call them KINGS. How?

The human individual patterns they dictate over agree, mostly and mostly by force, but they agree.

Now taking the pattern of the individual and expand it to society.

Let's have another look at 'Capitalism' and 'Communism' and the degrees in between.

What is communal is force over other human beings.

Surely most of us can agree that the 'Communist' side of the scale exerts more central force on

• The organizational structure
• The economic structure
• The individual

Than the 'Democracy' end of the scale?

If we have a look at the data from our collective experimentation with these structures we find that the 'Democracy / Capitalism' side of the scale produces the best results.

But if we look at the 'Western world' we see that 'Democracy' and 'Capitalism' are also broken structures.

Less broken, but broken nonetheless.

And it would appear that force over human beings by other human beings is the commom denominator.

This offcourse is more or less in line with an ideological idea or pattern called 'Libertarianism'.

I have thought about this, looked at ideas surrounding this '-ism'.

We have all thought about this:

"Can't we all just get along and live in peace?", we ask ourselves.

And then we tend to answer ourselves, "If only so and so would do so and so then we could"

If only we could make (read 'force') others to do so and so and think and realise so and so - then we could all live in peace.

But we all have different ideas as to what 'so and so' must be.

The way I see it the pattern of the Individual human, the human organizations, and the human economy must align as these are merely expansions of the same pattern.

Adam Smith had ideas about humanity, which book I have not read yet.

But I have read the bulk of 'Wealth of Nations'. Several years after years of studying Keynesian economics.

Here is the interesting thing about Smith's thinking.

Smith did not build an ideal model to be enforced for the greater good like 'Capitalists' and 'Marxists' do.

Smith merely recorded his observations as to how free humans behave in a free market.

A free market not burdened with Capitalist Market Interventions.

Market Interventions like Interest rate determinations, central banks, regulations, 'expansionary government stimulus spending'

And yes, to get where we started:

My problem with Libertarian thinking - as I understand it - is that it does not take the essence of human beings into consideration.

The ideal is supposed to be where there is no government, no tax, just Smith's free market.

"Taxation is THEFT!!"

Technically more like:

"Taxation is ROBBERY!!"

It. Is. What. It. Is.

But what, if anything is the alternative? 🧐

Smith build his model from the base assumption, based on his observations, that individual humans act in what they think is their best interest.

Not necessarily what is in their best interest - what they THINK is in their best interest.

It is a model that fits with undeniable human fallibility.

It is also a model build around and for the times Smith lived in.

Can we return or rather go to a model where 'Free Market' economics forms the norm rather than the 'Capitalist Socialism' we lean towards now?

My base instinct is no.

And for the simple reason below.

Newton said different things about something about time than Einstein did.

For Newton time is constant and vectors of force in the same direction add up.

Einstein said the speed of light is constant and has a defined maximum.

Do we now say Newton was wrong and Newton's laws are wrong?

No.

What we now know about quantum physics throws the apple cart into other dimentions nevermind just turning it over.

Perhaps we can also view economics and human organizational structures like this.

Smith is Newton but in a world of increased complexity in human interactions the Newtonian type models are unable to explain all our observations.

We build on top of current inderstanding.

From this point of view a FREE MARKET based on FREE INDIVIDUAL CHOICE remains fundamental, regardless.

This matches our earlier observation on forced behaviour in our organizational structures and economies.

Less force is better for humanity than more.

Fundamental.
#MrPattern