Cap and Dem 2

Regarding capitalism and democracy, here’s a perspective to consider.  
Sometimes they go well together, since they share the premise of individual choice, unencumbered by government mandates – with the outcome determined by the aggregate choices of the participants.  

The key difference in premise is that democracy is founded on ‘one person, one vote’, while capitalism is founded on ‘one-dollar, one vote’.  In Democracy it’s the aggregate votes of people that decide; in capitalism, the aggregate dollars.  

Capitalism and democracy play best together when the endowment of dollars-per-person has some modicum of parity.  Because of the intimate linkage between governance and economy, a radical skewing of wealth distribution inevitably bleeds over into a skewing of political power in the same direction. 

This skewing can be particularly severe in a mass-media environment where sharing ones message to an electorate requires significant economic resources.  

Beyond a certain degree of wealth distribution skewing, any remaining semblance of democracy is just an illusion.  

Cap and Dem

Here are three statements that are taken as axioms by many in our society: 

1.       Democracy is the best form of government

2.       Capitalism is the best economic system

3.       Democracy and capitalism always, or generally, work hand in glove together to improve the lot of participants. 

I generally agree with these statements in principle, but consider any concepts this foundational to be worth testing periodically.  As with many ideas taken as self-evident, they may suffer from lack of close examination, and uncritical acceptance.     

At their best, democracy and capitalism are environments within which individual aspirations can be pursued freely, unencumbered by government-imposed political or economic tyranny.  Individual actors may vote as they please, and direct their investments however they choose.  In aggregate, the person, or proposal that gains the most favor is elected or becomes law; and the investment that appears most promising to the most people is successful in attracting funding – often bidding up its price in the process.  At their best, no system better translates attractiveness into success – at the expense of less attractive candidates, policies, and investment opportunities. 

In order to attract investment and increase profits, enterprises are driven to the lowest-cost source for identical factors of production and distribution.  This, in turn, encourages efficiency on the providers of these factors, and generally throughout the entire value chain – and drives inefficient, high-cost providers out of business, and lowers the cost of goods and services to consumers.   

MAKE MORE COMPACT - One person, one vote, vs. One dollar, one vote

Je Suis Charlie

Je suis un parisien. 
Je suis français. 
Je suis juif. 
Je suis musulman. 
Je suis chrétien. 
Je suis un citoyen du monde.

Je suis Charlie.  

F-35 and Military Spending

We are experiencing the same effect that killed the Soviet Union, as military spending crowded out domestic.  In our case, though, it is not a technologically superior foreign enemy driving the excess, but simply the need for quarter-over-quarter increases in profit for the military-industrial complex. 

The advantages provided by the F-35 could have been gained with a much lower investment, but for a number of factors.  The arcane rules that require different specifications for the various service branches added incredible complexity and cost to place on a single platform.  Obviously the revolving door between the senior ranks of the military and the executive ranks of the contractors who serve them provide a powerful disincentive to those who would do anything to risk profitability.  Combine these with the Keynesian benefits to a local economy of the engine provided by a sealed military contract—and the strategic way in which savvy military contractors target the Congressional districts in which they locate development and production—and you have an irresistible recipe for an intentionally expensive military budget.  

Once built, these weapons can’t just sit in warehouses and hangars, so—as with the boy and his new hammer, to whom everything looks like a nail—we seem to find ourselves irresistibly drawn into a steady stream of conflicts.