Posted on 06/27/2005 2:50:14 AM PDT by jeffers
The government of New London, Connecticut, isn't evil, or corrupt, or even greedy, they are simply wrong. They think they are doing the right thing, but their actions will produce the precise opposite of the very goal they seek.
To understand why requires a short bit of background.
In college, one of the subjects we studied in Economics class was the concept of utility. It is not a difficult concept, it is simply a method by which one can compare the expected benefits of one choice over another. Being the inquisitive soul I have always been, I took the equations home and played around with them, moving the variables from one side of the equal sign to the other, in accordance with the rules of algebra, seeing what happened. In very short order, I managed to "prove" that Communism was a much more efficient way to run an economy than democracy. You get a much higher utility out of your apples and oranges when a central authority decides how many of each should be produced. If you rely on a free market instead, you almost always end up with either too many apples and not enough oranges, or vice versa, and the extra quantity goes to waste, benefiting no-one.
The first Professor I should my work to dismissed me quickly and angrily. He did not like the implications of the formula I showed him, and he basically ordered me out of his office as soon as he understood the point I was making.
The second Professor I showed my work to agreed with me immediately. He further said that it was well known in Economic circles that a totalitarian society always able to manage production more efficiently that a society where production is "controlled" by a free market. He also told me that I hadn't proved that Communism was better, that I was missing an important element. He refused to tell me what I was missing, instead telling me to figure it out for myself.
I thought about it a lot, and was able to work out a very vague answer that satisfied me at the time and then forgot the whole episode.
Until now.
The answer I arrived at then, was that Communism didn't take into account human nature. People don't like being told what to do, they don't work as hard, and eventually, the whole system fails.
The events in New London have forced me to look at my previous answer and improve it. Yes, the Utility equations show that a dictatorship or other totalitarian government can indeed plan more efficiently, but there are more equations that come into play than just production planning. Right off the bat, you have to look at the equation which determines how MANY apples and oranges the people produce, not just how many of each you ideally need.
If you force a man to work picking apples, he will hate it, solely because he didn't get to choose.
If you left him alone to decide for himself, he might choose to pick apples all by himself, and think he had the best job on earth, but as soon as you take away his freedom to choose, he immediately realizes you don't care at all what he wants, and the very next thing he realizes is that HE no longer cares what YOU want. He no longer trusts you. He thinks you are screwing him, and immediately sets out to screw you.
He piles up his apples so that a few look like a lot. He comes in to work late and leaves early. He takes longer and longer lunches and invents illnesses so he can stay home for days on end, and he reports more hours than he actually worked on his time card. Instead of taking care of company equipment, he takes pleasure in ruining it.
He treats you the same way you treated him. He tries to nullify any benefit you receive from the work you force him to do.
The fact that Communism is mathematically efficient doesn't tell the whole story because you can't get the whole story from one equation. A lot of equations come into play, and this is precisely what New London has forgotten.
They want their city to grow. They know a city can't grow unless there are jobs available for new people to fill.
They are correct.
No one will move to a city that has too many people and not enough jobs.
But that is only one equation.
You cannot improve a bad situation by only looking at one equation any more than you can prove Communism is better than Democracy by one equation. You have to see the bigger picture.
There is not one person in the entire United States now that reads the newspaper who would move to a city who takes people's house away and gives them to rich companies.
New London is not going to grow. New London, in only looking at a single equation, and implementing it, has committed economic suicide.
Any person now living there knows that the largest single investment of his life is now at risk of being taken from him, and not only will no new people move to New London, the people living there now are going to try to escape just as fast as they possibly can.
Their entire life's work is in emminent (get it?) danger.
It is common knowlege that a person can make up to $1000.00 per day providing convoy security in Iraq, but most human beings run AWAY from danger, no matter how high the paycheck is.
So too, they will run from New London.
Eventually, when Pfizer has to increase salaries to ridiculously high levels just to hire one new employee to sweep the floors, they too will realize that something is wrong, that they aren't making any money at that plant, and they will close down that facility and transfer the work to some other place. They probably won't even know why things didn't work out, some bean counters wil simply say the facility is unprofitable and the new CEO, whoever he is when the red ink starts spilling from the ledgers, will order it shut down.
At that point, the long lingering suicide of New London, Connecticut will accelerate into high gear. The new hotel will pay zero taxes because no one will have reason to stay there. The new shops will close because with the main employer long gone, no one will have any money to buy anything. The city won't even have the tax money they collect from the homeowners because they ran away from the emminent danger.
New London, Connecticut, will become Gary, Indiana.
And if that was all there is to this equation, I wouldn't spend five minutes worrying about it. Ignorant people screw themselves, in the long run, that's the way the world works. That's what happened to Russia, because they weren't smart enough to look at any more than the one equation that gave them the answer they wanted to hear. Russia deserved exactly what happened to them, just as New londoin deserves exactly what is going to happen to them.
But New London, and the consequences of New London's ignorance are the least of my concerns.
In the process of instigating their ignorance into concrete reality, they co-opted the Supreme Court of the United States.
Now, every house in the whole country, from alaska to Florida, from Hawaii to Maine, is in emminent danger.
Now, the largest single purchase the average person makes can be taken and given to someone else.
Now every American's entire life's work is in emminent danger and they will respond exactly as the Russian workers did.
None of us trust our government now.
All of us recognize that those we trust to lead us are trying to screw us out of our hard work.
It's not just New London that's in emminent danger, the very foundation of the public's trust in the United States government, that covenant which welded 13 separate Colonies into a Nation, strong enough to defeat the world's greatest power, has been broken.
The Constitution of the United States is a guarantee. It guarantees the right to Life, the right to Liberty, and the right to the pursuit of Happiness.
But the guarantee is only as strong as the people who back it up, and five members of the Supreme Court, in looking at one narrow equation, have declared the guarantee null and void.
If the Constitution is all that guaranteed our right to property which we paid for in sweat and tears and pain is no longer the highest law in the land, then none of the other guarantees are worth a fiddler's damn.
If our government now says it's ok to take our property away, then our freedom of speech is at risk, our freedoms from illegal search and seizure is now at risk, our very lives are now at risk.
Now, it becomes a race.
With no guarantees, only the swiftest and shrewdest and greediest and most ruthless will have anything at all that's worth having.
And even they won't have it for long.
It's not just a land grab now.
It's a grab for anything and everything.
There is no longer a guarantee.
There no longer is a Constitution.
The Covenant has been broken.
Now the Law of the Jungle will rule until only the jungle remains.
The awkward period is over!
Your point regarding human nature is valid, but far too limited!
It is also "human nature" to try to get the most out of any position. Thus, corruption seeps into the untility formula which leads to those responsible making decisions based not on the utility of a "general welfare" concern, but instead, on the amount of money that will line thier own pockets!
Exactly correct.
I would not be surprised to see New London reconsider its shortsighted decision.
Does anyone know if there are plans for a boycott of New London?
...I managed to "prove" that Communism was a much more efficient way to run an economy than democracy. You get a much higher utility out of your apples and oranges when a central authority decides how many of each should be produced.The author lost all credibility when he made the above assertion. It is common knowledge (from practice, even!) that Communism results in TREMENDOUS waste of resources.
With regard to the recent Supreme Court decision - last week they effectively reduced the value of every home in the country.
"If you rely on a free market instead, you almost always end up with either too many apples and not enough oranges, or vice versa, and the extra quantity goes to waste, benefiting no-one."
While I agree with your conclusion that this will ultimately fail, I disagree with your logic. You see, communisism is the system that is inefficient producing too much of the wrong product and too little of the right product. This is a fact inherent to centralized planning. The planners simply do not have sufficient information to forcast demand since they do not have the market to provide crucial pricing informatioin.
That said, your conclusion should be that the centralized planning will produce too much of the wrong product and will collapse from inefficiency. You are also correct though in determining that most folks will work harder for themselves than for the central government.
"It is common knowledge (from practice, even!) that Communism results in TREMENDOUS waste of resources."
Your statement is correct. This is one of the reasons why the word "prove" was originally in quotes. Later in the piece the ambiguity is addressed by making "Communism" coincident with "Totalitarian" and by limiting "efficiency" to that definition only synonymous with "Utility".
The utility equations are correct. Centralized planning, if properly executed, offers the mathematic opportunity of higher utility, provided that the negative aspects of a totalitarian regime result in any production at all.
"With regard to the recent Supreme Court decision - last week they effectively reduced the value of every
home in the country."
With a home being the largest single purchase most people ever make, the Supreme Court reduced the value of every LIFE in the country.
To zero.
All I know now is that there is a big rally planned for 6:00 pm 7-5-05 in font og the New London city hall.
"Does anyone know if there are plans for a boycott of New London?"
Heavens no!
As I understand it, all who truly oppose this travesty are about to zoom their economy right through the roof.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1431116/posts
With the polls I've seen indicating 90+ percent of the American public vehemently opposed to this dismemberment of the US Constitution, I forecast a temporary increase in New London's population on the order of some 331 million persons.
;-)
He meant "prove", as on paper, not in the real world. In this case, the quotation marks mean the word is being used in a special sense.
New London is also a tourist destination here in Ct.A well orchestrated publicity campaign against the city could scare them ,dont go to New London ,Tyranical towards the common man.
"No one In America who plans on owning property in New London will move there."
The problem is this: EVERY LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS A POTENTIAL LAND MINE. Where do we move? Who can we trust?
Did you write this?
Incorrect.
Only the free market gives you a rational price system to clear markets.
well, sir, I like the way your posting ends but I take exception to your initial premise based on your "equation"... and the conclusion that Communism, or Fascism or any sort of totalitarian, state-controlled economy is more efficient than a free-market economy.
GIGO - Garbage in; Garbage out.
or basic biology, K-101 (as in kindergarten)... Fish swim, Man can swim; Man is Fish.
By no means am I the definitive expert on the above. After all, you can dismiss my above as mere opinion from a layperson. Others far more qualified have written and proven the above; see Adam Smith, or Fredrick Hayek; Milton Friedman or Thomas Sowell for thoughts eminently more qualified than mine on this.
But you're on the right track, i'll grant u that...
Congressman Billybob
This will be the touchstone of the revolt against these attacks by the Court. We will have to force the congress to stop the Court from killing our American dream.
If we don't, this great experiment in self government is over.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.