JohnEyler.com

It is my desire to create a work wherein the vagaries of our political and economic systems become less confusing and better defined. Hopefully by doing this some obvious solutions to the problems afflicting these systems (and “us”) will reveal themselves. In terms of systems we have several to look at. We have Free markets, Capitalism, Democracy, Socialism and Communism as the best known forms. Other well known terms that represent political and economic systems include Progressivism, Conservatism, Libertarianism, Federalism, Fascism and Totalitarianism. There are more of course but the first point I want to make is that when you start searching for exacting definitions for the above named systems you will find that they are generally poorly defined. Each are oddly vague and broken down into even more variant types. How can we possibly address the problems we face in a civil society unless we can first find common understandings to build upon. I’m going to establish my definitions for this work by offering a Dictionary.com definition followed by a definition I want you to use while reading this work.

From Dictionary.com – free market
An economic system in which prices and wages are determined by unrestricted competition between businesses, without government regulation or fear of monopolies.

My Definition:
The action of two people making an agreement regarding an exchange of goods or services.

Note: The dictionary definition is an impossibility. You can’t have unrestricted competition between businesses without fear of monopolies A monopoly is the normal result of the Free market. The only way you won’t get a monopoly is if you have government regulation.

From Dictionary.com – capitalism
An economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

My Definition:
Capitalism is more specifically the use of money to make more money. It’s like gambling. You “invest” in a stock or a bond or some other financial product and hope that you will make money off your investment. No actual product or service is involved.

Note: The Dictionary.com definition is rather broad. In truth any entity needs a place to put excess money with the hope that it can grow at least faster than inflation. Country’s routinely buy stock and bonds and in large sums. China buy’s U.S. Treasury bonds. Therefor the Dictionary.com definition has no relationship to any existing system and is even theoretically inept.

From Dictionary.com – Socialism
A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

My Definition:
Socialism gives the State (the community as a whole) complete ownership of everyone and everybody.

Note: Some like to think Socialism is a step toward Communism but it really is much the same thing. You could easily add Fascism, Totalitarianism, and Corporatism to the list as each gives all the power to a select few.

All economic systems argue over one basic question. Who gets to own stuff? That’s what all the fuss is about. Who gets to own what? The actual choice is whether or not to allow an individual to own property and the control over the production of goods and services. Really only a free market allows that and yet even a free market decays into a system where the power a ends up with a select few. One could argue that if all systems lead to some form of totalitarianism then why fight it and lets just pick the best of those. The problem with that concept is the assumption that we might get to choose which form to live under. True power resides in numbers. When you have a big majority of people you have real power. In the end we do get to choose how our lives are governed.

So to summarize:
1. We cannot possibly address the problems we face in a civil society unless we can first find common understandings to build upon.
2. All economic systems argue over one basic question. Who gets to own stuff?
3. In the end we do get to choose how our lives are governed.

If we are really going to examine our systems we need to take a longer look at this question of “Who gets to own stuff?” There are two pure choices. They are individuals or the State. You could mix the two in some way but it really boils down to those two choices.

Let’s look a bit closer at the free market. Again to the definition, a free market is the action of two people making an agreement regarding an exchange of goods or services. I can’t see that it’s definition goes one bit beyond that. Now one hears people attribute all sorts of things good and bad to the free market. Some think that everything would be handled if it was all just left up to the free market while others think that everything wrong in the world is somehow the fault of the free market.

To understand the Free market one only needs to play the game monopoly. At the start everyone can obtain a resource ( i.e. a property). Once one obtains a property one can begin to benefit from it. To really start making inroads one needs a block of properties (i.e. a monopoly). Once one has a block of property one can make improvements, innovate so to speak to maximize profits. In the game others want your properties for themselves and will wheel and deal to get them. To do this a player consolidates his properties and acquires others. In monopoly someone always eventually gets the upper hand in this process and takes over control of everything… they win!. That is how the Free Market works in our world today. It’s how it has always worked. The only difference is that now and then in our world a new property (industry or product) gets added to the game board.

Free markets do a great job of setting prices based on supply and demand and allowing for initiative, innovation and opportunity. That said there is a long list of things the free market does not do well. It does not do a good job providing pensions, medical care, education or job security. Again a Free Market is just the action of two people making an agreement regarding an exchange of goods or services. Now of course one should make sure that their personal needs for retirement and health care and such are a part of their own pricing schemes but the Free Market doesn’t even support that. The Free Market is a battle for market share based on low cost and high quality. Cost is largely controlled by reducing labor costs so getting that little extra for personal needs becomes problematic even when insurance is part of the picture.

In any totalitarian system initiative, innovation and opportunity are stunted. New products must go through a bureaucratic maze, be approved and then regulated. The you must ask – Who would set prices? Who would determine wages? Who would innovate?

While the Free Market certainly allows for winners, by its very nature it creates even more losers. Just like monopoly you have four players and three will lose. In the real world the losers become employees. The whole focus of the Free Market is to compete, to keep quality as high as possible and costs as low as possible. The first and primary cost that gets cut in the Free market is the cost of labor. Add to this the process of consolidation, acquisition and monopoly building and more individuals end up as employees as opposed to independent vendors or contractors. As this process continues competition is suppressed and real wealth becomes controlled by fewer and fewer individuals. This is just how the Free Market works. It’s not pretty and yet it is the only system that we have. And we all know this. So rather than just rail against the injustices of the Free market perhaps we could find ways to strengthen what we like about the Free market and weaken what we dislike.

It is interesting to see what man has invented as a response to what the Free Market doesn’t do well. I’m talking about anti-trust laws, unions and even Socialism and Communism, each are direct responses to the shortcomings of the Free Market. Add Social Security, Medicare, and an increasingly long list of “entitlements” that governments around the world have developed. Again these are responses to what the Free market just doesn’t do well.

So where I’m going with this is that with all the problems facing the world today, there are solutions to be had if we focus on solving the right problems. We need Free markets and we need governments. Free Markets work best when there is competition. Governments work best when Free markets create wealth. People need health care and pensions. The trick is in finding a way to maximize the potential benefits, and minimize the hazards of the Free market. This can be done and it isn’t so hard, Thinking in terms of right or left ideologies is not the answer as both fail to address the actual problems that the Free market gives rise to. These can be addressed to the benefit of everyone. Well, except those who currently hold monopolies – but who cares about them…

Many believe that we must choose between free markets or some form of a totalitarian system. We can inherently understand that for our civilization to keep growing expanding and innovating we must have a free market functioning. Governments do not think or create or market products well. They can throw money at research and from time to time get something right but it is the exception not the rule. Governments exist to ensure order and protect rights. Free markets exist to innovate and improve on the products and services we rely on.

We can see from our own experience under a free market system that acquisition, consolidation and monopoly have kept wages low, made pensions unsustainable and caused health care costs to soar beyond the reach of the average citizen to pay for.

We can see in societies that have quelled free market forces that growth, innovation and quality of life have been stunted.

While apologists for both sides of the free market or socialist narrative are ready with well developed excuses for the failures of their respective ideologies, the obvious fact is that flaws exist in both ideologies that obviously lead to problems and failures. We’ve had over 200 years to watch and learn from our experience with free markets and socialism. We’ve seen both fail us. Granted the more we’ve stuck with the free market the longer we’ve lasted but now with the corruption of the markets, their commingling with government we see that cycle coming full circle. One could therefore surmise that we are left with a choice of two failing ideologies and no other options. We have instead two different systems that have really never been integrated. Therein is where we should concentrate our energies.

Okay, here’s the thing. Four years ago I pretty much quit contributing to the blog scene as I watched Republicans fall first for Fred Thompson – then Rudy – then for Mitt – then lastly for John McCain. To this day I can’t understand how anyone could support John McCain – and frankly the rest of those “acceptable” choices were underwhelming at best. Now I keep hearing that Republicans see Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney or Rick Perry or Sarah Palin or Mitch Daniels (if he runs) as  ”acceptable” choices. Well maybe Mitch Daniels… but as for the rest of this crowd “pleeeeeaase”.

Pawlenty speaks only in tired cliches.  I am suspect of public speaker who can’t figure out that boring his audience to death is a bad result. Mitt Romney is a mechanic. He fixes things. We don’t need fixes – we need redesign. When Mitt redesigns you get Obama Care. Rick Perry is only slightly a better speaker than Pawlenty. That said he manages to make George Bush look like the educated Texan. Sarah is a great cheerleader but she has never shown the breadth of understanding necessary to hold the highest office in the land. Mitch Daniels at least speaks well and can deliver a speech that sounds like he graduated High School.

Some want to say that this is not a weak field but it is. I want nothing more than to have Obama defeated in 2012 but here a year out it doesn’t look promising. The only Republican candidates I could support at this point are Paul – Cain and maybe Daniels. I simply have no faith in the rest of them. Paul knows his stuff and would push Americans to start thinking like Americans again. Cain – so far has acquitted himself elegantly and shown a penchant for honesty. That can’t be said of the rest of them. Daniels I don’t know yet. He gave a great speech at C-Pac I can give him that.

It’s been some years since I “blogged” – I quit the political blogging to work on a local arts and entertainment website. That project was tons of fun but it just didn’t look like it would make enough money to sustain its existence.

I’ve always coded my sites myself but I’ve also wanted to learn to use WordPress and other “cool tools” – so I’m taking this time to learn about this part of the computer publishing world.

Politically, while I’m still an advocate for small government I’ve got some issues with a number of conservative views I will over the next few months document those views and offer them for debate and/or discussion. But for the moment I’m just going to play with this new toy…