The Noble, The Capitalist, and the Socialist. A Case of the Economic Theories.

I wish to talk today about economics. I can’t claim to be a master of economics, but I do consider myself a decent student of history and philosophical arts, in addition to knowledge of the arcane. It is with these skills that I will use to look at the evolution of “economics” in a very basic sense.

Economics are based on Value or Capital. Now, Capital has changed in its nature over the ages, depending on the philosophy of the people living in that time, or perhaps more appropriately, the philosophy of the elites in charge. Now, the vast majority of people writing about this would work from the past and move forwards, detailing why these changes occurred. While I will touch on this, I will be comparing the nature of these three movements, rather than creating a detailed evolution. That is for a different argument for another time. Rather I shall focus on the pros and cons of these movements.

Let us look first at the nature of capital in the three movements.

For the Noble, capital is based on hard, physical objects: land, precious metals, precious stones, art, homes, etc. This value was based on the rarity of an item. There is only X amount of land that can be used for life. There is only Y amount of gold/silver/etc. and the rarer it is the more it is valued. The aesthetic value, based on how beautiful something is gives it value. Also, the utility of a substance can give it value, such as steel in the pre-industrial age, when most weapons and armor were hand crafted by skilled workers.

For the Capitalist, capital is based on money, namely in at this time on paper money that represents a set value, independent of the value of materials that paper is made of. It costs as much to print a one dollar bill as a one hundred dollar bill, but one is valued more based on an agreed upon, psychological construct. Money itself is all but worthless, but it is easier to carry around than a bag of gold coins. Initially, paper money was tied to precious metals and one could exchange it back for gold, though this has changed.

For the Socialist, capital (though they may hate the word/concept) is based on work. More specifically, the time and effort a worker gives on a project. In theory, everyone’s work ultimately is counted as equally important, and thus each base amount of work is of the same value. (At least, this is my understanding of it.) Hence, all workers are equal and should be paid an equal amount or living wage.

Having established the nature of capital, I wish to give the philosophical reasoning behind these three movements, as I see them. I know many will most likely not agree with them, but I humbly ask for consideration of these theories. Also, I will be working on a “Pure System” of how these work. By that I mean a theoretical thought experiment based on each system being regulated only by its nature, outside of local social contexts.

The Noble Economic System, or NES, works on a Pagan/Heathen philosophys, which typically are hierarchical in nature. Each individual, at least in western Heathen religions, had an inherent value, but believed that not everyone was equal. Some people, regardless of gender or race, were better than others due to either being stronger, smarter, or more healthy/beautiful. This can be seen best in the ancient Scandinavian/Germanic pagan ways, though it translates through most of them to various degrees. These people, by dent of their greater talents, became elevated above others into what would become later the Nobility, hence the use of that name for the NES. Additionally, as Pagan/Heathen religions tend to either value the physical world to either a greater or equal degree as any metaphysical world or Hinterwelt, physical objects were deemed very important and the rarer an object the more it was valued. Those individuals who were lifted above the average person gained greater access to the valued materials, as people trusted them to use said materials for the betterment of the community and deemed them strong enough or smart enough to protect and use them wisely. From this arose a system by which bartering over the value of things came into being, as each person valued things differently, but close enough to find common ground. Thus X number of cows was worth Y number of gold coins, or Z number of sheep.

Capitalist Economic System or CES, on the other hand, is slightly more complicated. It acts as its own philosophy, but it is also a transitional one which leads to socialism. The biggest reason for this is the birth of Christianity and its rise to power. Christianity focuses more on metaphysical realms, or realm, namely that of Heaven. It is a religion based not on the land and elements, but on ideas and feelings. While Christianity dominated the west from roughly 1000 CE, give or take, it was a religion that worked from the top down and the transition was not smooth. Remnants of Pagan/Heathen culture and traditions lasted and influenced the non-elite heavily for several more centuries. With the Enlightenment and a desire to turn away from the ancient Western ways, and its spread through all levels of society, the face of Western Economics also changed. Here we see the rise of Capitalism, though it had existed alongside the NES since Roman times, commerce was still based on hard exchanges of gold or materials and more closely resembled the NES, because the Nobles were in power. This practice or hard currency would continue on till the Revolution Age, starting with America. What happened in the Enlightenment was the true rise to power of the Middle Class. The Middle Class rose from the non-Noble peoples, and thus were not tied as closely with the land as the Nobles, in bother physical and spiritual terms. Where Capitalism truly took off was when the creation of paper money came about. Suddenly, one didn’t have to carry around heavy objects in order to trade them, one could carry paper/cloth slips that were agreed upon to have set values that could theoretically be traded for physical objects. The debate that raged over the use of paper money over physical currency in America and elsewhere represents the ideologies of the NES and CES seeking to triumph over each other. Ultimately, CES won for reason I will talk about in a minute, as we all know, but vestiges of the NES can be seen in our modern coinage system that goes with the Paper system. Still, CES forms a bridge or fusion of the Pagan NES and the true end result of Christian economic theory which is the Socialist Economic System.
Socialist Economic System, SES, is born out of the true end result of what Christianity is about, on several levels. Modern Science plays a major role in this, but as it is born out of Christianity’s desire for Ultimate Truth, which ultimately leads to the current conclusion that there is no God or Gods. However, Christian philosophy has become such a part of civilization in the West at this point that the denial of god doesn’t remove the ideas put forth by that God. One of the central principals is that Everyone Is Equal. No one is better than another, we are all the same in God’s eyes and only God is superior. People grew used to relying on a supreme being and once God was Dead, Governments took over that place (but that is a different discussion). Another remnant, and this is closely tied to both Christianity and CES, is the idea of non-physical value assignment. In the SES, this translates as Work, or the Worker’s Work.

Now, work has always had value, and this is important to keep in mind, but it has had value based on different things. Under the NES, work produced physical objects, like grain or metals which had value and the corresponding value of another physical object. In other words, work was valued based on the product’s value, not the worker’s. War, being the most dangerous and glorious as it protected or gained physical objects, was valued highest and hence the nobles being of greatest value (when they did their jobs right). Under the CES, this was changed to the value assigned to an object in money rather than another object, especially in the time of paper money. Industry also contributed to the ultimate change, because now objects could be produced faster and by unskilled workers and in larger quantities. Combined with the nature of paper money, this meant a worker was paid for his work with a substance he could later trade for an object, but which held only an agreed upon value rather than an inherent value. Now work, which had once had a physical value only held a theoretical value. Also, objects now held theoretical value as opposed to a physical value.

Added to this is the ultimate nature of Christianity, which is embraces, a bottom up social order in which everyone is equal in value. It is the meek, weak, and poor who are valued over the proud, strong, and rich. About the time of the Industrial revolution, these ideas had finally been absorbed by society itself on all levels. This is when we first see the rise of Socialist Economic Systems or SES, as a theory and slowly being put into practice up to today. The SES is at its heart the perfect Christian (based) Economic Theory.

With the SES, as stated before, the thing that is valued is the Worker’s Work, or just the Worker as a person in that it values what they can be used for, or more appropriately as a group. Now, as the Worker is the most valuable thing in the system, as opposed to a physical object or currency, it is the worker which is the basis for the value of everything around it, just as objects were under the NES and currency was under the CES. Since everyone is equal, and thus no one is worth more than another, then any and all things that have a value must be based off that equality. What this leads to is the concept that everyone should have the same amount of valued items, be they objects or currency. This also leads to no one can be greater than anyone else, if all are to be equal as they should be. This translates in theory to the concept that if Adam has a gold ring, Adolf should also have a gold ring, as should Shakira, Heather, Chun Li, or any one else, and that all rings ultimately would be the same lest one ring be better than another. This is all well and good; it would work in a perfect world that is either theory or the hinterwelt of Christian thought/ideology. But, it will instantly hit a road block of massive proportions.

This is where we come to the pros and cons of each system, which are very often the same things at the same time.

With the NES, value is based on physical objects and what a person is/does, as is right under a Pagan/Heathen system which values the physical world. The Pro is that one can hold a physical object in their hands and know it is real and that its value can be agreed upon based on how limited the supply is. The Con is that there is a limited number of each object, some objects will always be worth more than others, and not everyone can have an object, so those with the greatest talents come to obtain them.

With CES, value is based on currency that is traded for objects. In the early stages it slightly resembles the NES when currency was based on objects, but as paper money was taken off the Gold Standard, it was its own value based upon agreements between people. The pros of Capitalism is that there can, in theory, be an unlimited amount of money (which isn’t true) and that everyone has an equal chance of becoming rich or poor based on their work, skills, and luck. The Cons are that money is not physical and if people don’t always agree on the value of money, that it is mostly theoretical, and that currency isn’t infinite, (despite the beliefs of some Governments and they’re populaces).

With the SES, value is based on Equal Workers regardless of what they are/do, as is right under a Christian system which values the non-physical world. The pros of this are theoretically that everyone being equal, everyone would have an equal amount of benefits, objects, and money wouldn’t be needed (as it “Divides People”) since everyone would work and receive equally, no matter what work they do. The Con of this, however, is the same thing that gave rise to the original NES: that there are a finite amount of objects in the world. There is not enough of each object for every person to have one. Probably the best example of this is fertile land to grow food on. What this will ultimately lead to is two things, the denial of certain to everyone (since zero is the ultimate even number), or a reduction in population to the size were everyone can have an equal amount of an object. The problem of the second option is that it leads to extinction or degradation of the species, not to mention it would be very difficult to get everyone on earth to agree to that option. Then the only viable option is the first result, the denial of objects to people because not everyone can have them. A perfect example of this can be seen in the USSR, especially before its fall. An early stage of this process can be seen in the new Healthcare Bill in America, where everyone will be forced to by a carbon copy policy that offers the exact same protections at the exact same price to everyone, regardless of their needs. Also, as we are still working mostly under a CES, the currency has to come from somewhere, as people don’t yet agree with everyone’s Work being Equal or as the primary value of society. And to further the idea that All are Equal as it is in an SES, one is forced to go along with the actions dictated by the bill or pay a fine, thus generating capital for said bill’s use of SES based economics. Details of this can be seen in the link below:

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=528137

In conclusion, which economic system is best? That is almost impossible to say, for an Economic System has a value set by an agreement of peoples and is determined by that which it and those that follow is value most. The Governments of the Modern Era in Asia, Europe, and the Americas seem to value the SES most. The people who live in America seem to value the SES as much as they do the CES, which seems to be true in most “Modern” countries at this point as far as civilians go, based on people working Capitalist jobs and paying (fairly) Socialist taxes.

Individually, they break down like this:

SES leads to the greatest level of equality for all peoples, in its purest form. This is due to the fact that individual skills aren’t what are important, but rather what the person can do for “society.” While many, myself included, would argue that this is the equality of everyone having either nothing or next to nothing, it still remains the most equal.

CES leads to a more equal society, and possibly to the greatest levels of wealth in those societies. However, I will admit that it does tend to drain people of their lives as they work for theoretical gains in a consumerist system.

NES leads to an unequal society, with a potentially wide gap in wealth (though this is not really an issue in small groups, but rather larger groups). It does, however tend to lead to a greater valuing of both the physical world and of the people in it, based on their talents. I will admit it is what many would consider a “cruel system,” where the weak serve the strong, but it is one that lasted for thousands of years before Christianity.

I shall end with real world examples of each system at its best and let you decide personally which was best. For the NES there are the Greeks, Romans, and Norse. For the CES, there is the British Empire and America (pre-WWI). For the SES there are the USSR, China (present day government), and America (Obama administration.)

Do you Command, or are you Commanded?

This weekend, watching the major news channels cover the vote on Healthcare Reform. As is an often happens to me, I fantasized about appearing before the Representatives and putting forth my views on this massive bill that has been at the heart of so much controversy. Yet, ultimately, beyond any epic speech I could have given, one question hit me hard and I wished more than anything I could have asked it of that Body.

Do you command the American People, or are you commanded by them?

And, even though I did not get to ask my question in person, I did receive my answer last night. The Bill was passed and is set to become law, in spite of about two-thirds of the American people not wanting this to be passed.

Pelosi, a woman who is arguably as hated at Palin, spoke with joy of the historic moment upon the bill’s passage. Indeed, the line “historic moment” was probably used a historic number of times. But, I will agree with Speaker Pelosi. This was a historic moment.

But probably not for the reasons she thinks it is.

What will come in the future, I cannot say. What I can say is that it will not be pretty. Even as I write this, I’m sure there are massive protests being waged both online and off. Celebrations are being held, backs are being slapped. And, in dark places, the proverbial sword is being sharpened.

My question was answered last night. The government, and those who lead it, see that they command the American people.

There were many, many speeches last night, by people from both sides of the Party line, neither of which I felt much love for. (I can be classified as an Independent, and have as little love for Republicans as I do Democrats). Yet, perhaps the greatest speech by a living politician I’ve ever heard was given last night.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj4tH6mCd-w&NR=1

Rep. Boehner, it seemed, got the true idea of what a democracy was meant to be. He got, at least in my eyes, what it meant to represent the American people. He portrayed himself as one who is commanded, not who commands. Now, I’m sure there’s plenty of evidence that he has not done this, that he is as bad as every other politician, but I’m not interested in this at the moment. It was his words, right then and there, that said more than anything.

Yet, his words seemed to fall on deaf ears. I’m not going to discuss the costs or wording of the Bill. That has been done ad-nausea and will continue to be so. Rather, I would like to talk about what I think it means, for me and every other little person on the bottom of the pile.

We will now be ordered, by law, to buy health insurance. Now, buying health insurance is a good idea, but it should be a persons choice. This Bill was sold to America as a way to insure the uninsured. I’m not going to get into the numbers of who is uninsured or why, plenty have done that. But forcing people who don’t have health insurance to buy it, regardless of if they want it or not, regardless of if they can afford it or not, is wrong. Speaking for myself, I rarely go to the doctor, and paying tons of money for insurance that I may not even need is not an expense I want, especially in light of all the other expenses I already face entering the world on my own. I have had dreams of starting my own business, if just a small one, but now I face the problem of providing health insurance to any workers I hire. Now, I don’t know about other businesses, but the one’s I’m interested don’t really produce a lot of capital in the initial stages. Indeed, most small businesses don’t, and every expense incurred in the early stages is something that makes it that much harder to succeed. The economy is already down, people are still losing jobs, and the jobless rate, counting the unreported, is probably in the mid to high teens. Business are having to cut expenses to stay afloat, making the buy healthcare or pay fines is only going to crush the little ones.

Also, I am now going to end up paying more in taxes to cover the bill for people who can’t afford health insurance but must now still have it. I don’t care about Government number crunchers telling me this new law will save money. I’ve been studying history in collage for over four years and covered Governments all over the globe. Every single one of them cost more to run than it ever made. Previously, there was always the ability to invade and gain more resources in order to balance the expense of government, but as that is no longer socially, legally, or UN excepted, I doubt we can invade anywhere to get more wealth. And, since America is pretty much the top of the wealth game anyways, I don’t know of anywhere with the resources to justify such an action economically.

Obama and his administration have now succeeded in creating a debt so massive as to be incomprehensible. It is in the trillions of dollars. It is in the double digits of the trillions of dollars, and it’s only going to get higher. 10,000,000,000 is a big number, and it isn’t even the correct amount of the debt. To put this in terms people can maybe grasp, I’ll use the example of LEGO bricks. A 2x4 brick, the standard size, runs about an inch long by half an inch high by half an inch wide. Placed so that each bricks is stacked on top of each other we would get a tower 5,000,000,000 inches high, or 78,914.14 miles high, roughly half the distance to the moon. As a wall, half an inch thick and 6 feet high, you’d get a length of 2893518.52 feet or 548.01 miles. I’ll let you come up with something that is that long.

And the ink isn’t even dry and already there are calls to get immigration reform done. I hate to even think about what that will entail or cost. Suffice it to say, however, that it will indeed cost.

I am left with a rather sour taste in my mouth, and not from anything I’ve eaten. What happens now? I’m not sure. I do know that at least 38 states have prepared legislation to counter this bill. I know it will be an ugly, drawn out fight in which more than feelings are likely to be hurt and people will be used as political, and maybe even literal, cannon fodder depending on how it goes down. The bill itself is enough to overburden the government’s empty coffers, which seem to have inverted the meaning of positive and negative numbers to begin with. Obama will be lauded as a great hero and even greater villain. The Republicans will most likely sweep the next elections, but in all fairness they can reverse it nor halt it. People around me who didn’t like Obama have said he’ll be a lame duck president, but at this point he’s been anything but. He has fulfilled his biggest campaign promise. He brought Change to America like we haven’t seen in a hundred years. It’s not a change I wanted though. The government controls more each day, and that means I have less control. As much as people like to say everyone’s equal, this isn’t true, because in a finite system there will always be those who have and those who don’t. Arguably, Obama and Co. are working to change this, but it looks more and more like equality equals zero.

The government stated that it Commands the people. Now we’ll see if the people will be willing to give up Command of their government. It will be historic, the only question is in what way.