Good morning Platt, Wim and Elliot
This is my response to Wim's "equal reward for equal effort" model.
WIM WRITES:
Wealth creation is a collective activity...
we have to stimulate people to spend their effort more effectively
or more efficiently...
To the extent that people can be motivated to spend
their efforts in line with collective needs (effectiveness/efficiency) by
'rewarding' them with a bigger or smaller piece of the pie, pragmatist
morality (and thus the MoQ) tells us to do so.
To motivate people to use this influence in line with collective needs, it
is not necessary to measure proportionality of effort and reward
objectively, but only to agree on it intersubjectively...
They need creativity to find win-win solutions in which
they can spend their effort in
ways that serve BOTH collective AND individual needs.
ROG RESPONDS:
Adam Smith solved this one over 200 years ago. To quote:
"As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can to employ his
capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry
that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily
labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can."
Adam noticed that in aligning individual gain with value as recognized by
others, individuals are "led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was
no part of his intention."
I suggest we use a system that is proven (and whose defects are known) rather
than recreate a brand new decentralized, distributed control
system. What are the differences between your concept and Adam's? Are you
basically just suggesting that we voluntarily "over-reward" people for hard,
smart work whenever possible? Seems impractical and inefficient to me, other
than in such simple situations as the bonus or tip that you give a contractor
or waiter.
By the way, what is "fried air" and why are people willing to buy it?
WIM:.
The best available solution is a (global) system of democratic governments
on different levels of aggregation
and with different roles (e.g. setting rules and enforcing compliance) that
act as countervailing powers: a global set of checks and balances.
ROG
I would strongly recommend peacefully competing coalitions and organizations
of varying levels of aggregation. Each should offer priveledges of
participation/cooperation and loss of such priveledge if not following the
rules. This establishes a competition of approaches and creates a win/win for
cooperation.
WIM:
It might appear to a lot of people outside the USA (and some within) that
USA government has accumulated too much power in the global arena at the
moment ... The USA is consistently frustrating the building of
countervailing powers at the global level (e.g. supranational institutions
like an international court of justice and agreements to limit global
warming) partly to preserve its own relative power and its large share of
(globally created) wealth.
ROG:
The power imbalance comes partially because the US is so much more dynamic
and creative. The system is more progressive. The other reason is that
almost all the other democratic powers (specifically the Europeans) have
refused to invest in their own military -- instead choosing to free ride off
the US (but with a nifty air of moral superiority). The net result is that
The US, and to a lesser extent GB, are the only modern militaries available
to ensure world peace. And he who pays the bill usually gets to set the
direction. (I read somewhere that our annual INCREMENTAL increase in military
spending dwarfs most major European countries TOTAL budget).
I get a lot of satisfaction at the US's reticence to enter a misguided
international court and a wasteful Kyoto agreement. Global level
bureaucracies and mistakes scare the hell out of me, and I am convinced that
many other nations are ideologically bankrupt. and just waiting to exploit
America's (and other's) wealth/success. For examples, just scroll down to
your suggestions below...
WIM:
Globally speaking we shouldn't want more wealth, I think, not more material
wealth at least. The global ecosystem and global resources are burdened
enough already.
ROG:
There are ample resources (as long as we stop over-producing people). The
global ecosystem is taxed not by wealth, but by poverty. Wealth and
environmental sustainability are strongly correlated. Granted, current
contributions toward theoretical global warming may be an exception to this
rule, but I am absolutely positive that the solution isn't less growth, it is
to invest into different, more environmentally-sustainable types of energy.
Your assumptions are incorrect, leading you astray...
WIM:
Until 'we' have organized wealth creation everywhere in the
most advanced ways (e.g. with the least pollution etc. per unit of material
wealth created), redistribution of material wealth created seems to me a
safer way of alleviating the remaining poverty, health problems etc. in most
of the world than creating even more. The present inequality in global
wealth distribution is so much more than needed to motivate effective and
efficient wealth creation in poorer places, that the resulting international
migration is creating too much problems. It is motivating too much people
NOT to spend their effort better locally, BUT to spend it getting to those
places where the same effort seems to be better rewarded...
[later adding] It requires a global legal order
that is strong (and independent) enough to prevent even the strongest actors
on the global stage from backing out.
ROG:
This is what scares me. Let's allow those that misunderstand the problem and
that resist and ignore the solutions to confiscate the fruits of our
endeavours. The socialist nightmare maginified to a global scale.
WIM:
Especially in rich countries we should want less wealth in order to be able
to spend more effort on the pursuit of other kinds of Quality. We have much
more material wealth than we need already. We wouldn't be less happy with
half of the cars driving half the amount of kilometers per year, with half
of the square meters of housing per person etc. if we would direct our
pursuit of happiness in less material directions (like we did a century
ago)...
people should strive for..,. enlightenment and other spiritual achievements.
ROG:
NEWSFLASH! Wim has decided that you are all shallow greedy materialists and
that you need to drop your petty pursuits and instead follow his ideals.
By the way, what was the big spiritual advance that you are alluding to a
century ago? And why the fixation on immigration?
WIM:
Contrary to what you seem to think, I am not primarily concerned with fairer
distribution of wealth after it has been created. My main concern is waste
of effort of those 85% to attain a higher quality life AND of most of those
15% because they mistakenly assume that they can get even more quality in
their life by still spending most of their effort on creating wealth. Both
are not able to spare enough effort for self-actualization, enlightenment
etc.. This IS a problem of lack of productivity (inefficient use of effort)
and of unbalanced composition of created wealth (concentration on material
wealth, which leaves some needs unsatisfied) BUT on a global scale.
ROG:
Isn't this the scam the Moonies and Krishna's used? "Your efforts and wealth
are bad for your karma, so let me redistribute them for you and save your
soul."
WIM:
Alleviating the plight of those 85% (which my studies in development
economics prepared me for) requires first of all abandoning the messages
that now incite them to spend their efforts inefficiently:
ROG:
Wim, I like debating with you, and I respect you a lot, but I think your
ideas are WAY OUT THERE. Everything you suggest seems to me to lead to the
exact opposite of your goal.
WIM:
- Even the poorest of the poor get the message via billboards, radio,
television and pictures on products that getting wealthy is NOT primarily
the result of wisely spent effort, BUT of having the right color of skin and
being born in the right place.
ROG:
No, it is about building a progressive culture. Racism (both racial pride and
prejudice) is ignorance.
WIM:
- Selling heavily subsidized agricultural products on the world market (in
order to support the income of our farmers) gives agricultural producers in
the South the message that they won't ever be productive enough to compete
and can better quit trying and move to an overpopulated city or -if
possible- to a rich country.
- Even if the 'say' of the advice to Southern governments about how to
achieve 'good governance' is to create a 'decentralized, distributed control
system', to make trade free, to make government 'lean and mean' etc., the
'show' of the governments of wealthy countries usually points in another
direction. Market protection, regulation of production to protect consumers
and shareholders, departmentalization of government, departments competing
to produce ever more policies (not only for their own country, but for the
whole world) ... We don't do as we preach.
ROG:
You are right, subsidies, tarrifs and protectionism just lowers the modern
countries down to the lowest common denominator, and it sends a very bad
message. On the other hand, IN GENERAL, The Heritage Foundation Economic
Freedom index pretty much disproves your hypothesis. The countries that are
growing and modern and educated really do have more freedom and less
government interference. They don't just preach it. (but i agree we have a
lot more room to improve)
WIM:
It also requires supranational institutions (based on open-discussion- and
best-argumentation-rules-democracy rather than majority-rules-democracy)
that can act as checks-and-balances on powerful states looking primarily
after their own narrow national interests.
ROG:
What is best-argument-rules democracy?
Your wayward American friend,
Rog
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:20 BST