Ayn Rand, for a PhD educated woman, seemed to have a distaste for university education, or rather a distaste for the formality it has become. I infer this only because of the normality of passages like this "Once, Taggert Transcontinental had had a chief engineer, a silent, gray-haired, self-educated man, who could not be matched on any railroad..." I only bring up Rand's principles and ideologies because it brings up what I like to call the "Economic Paradox." Academicians, for the most, seem to thrive in a world of borrowed theories and plagiarism (although cited plagiarism). Every half century or so a mind as fresh and genius as John Nash will propose the Nash equilibrium and impose a new sort of economic model like the Game Theory and or Adam Smith with his "invisible hand" or Karl Marx with his "Communist Manifesto." I know, revelations are constantly being made in the astronomical and physical side of the sciences but in the world of economics and political science (I will not address neither the arts nor history) it seems that we have arrived at an utter and complete stagnation of original thought. I attribute this to a "traditional liberal arts education" to be on its deathbed, and the educational stance that prohibits or rather looks down upon absolutely original thought. As opposed to promoting the rational questions of the human mind we beat it to submission in order to succeed in our current economic model.
From this observation, which could be horrifically incorrect from the onset, I can derive only two things. First, the system from which we are currently practicing in both economics and politics are tired. E.g. Capitalism and democracy have run their course in America. It seems at some point around the industrial revolution both had fused and we are now more of a capitalist democracy than anything else. Much like the Greeks practiced, fundamentally at least, a sort of aristocratic democracy. To expand on that thought it takes fiscal means to form political capital and those without the personal fiscal means of expanding on that capital are forced into bed with a party (not political necessarily) with the means of assisting that growth. This, in turn, removes the power from the electorate and rests in the hands of the wealthy, for wealth is where political capital is derived thus, removing the power from the majority (the basic principle behind democracy.) This proposes a sort of innate paradox that states that this capitalist democracy benefits those atop the situation. Or in simpler, but rather out of context form:
As modernity provides, we all live under capitalist principles, with the powers that be, namely, being the only ones that profit from that situation (or the wealthy and extremely educated) why would we or they pursue reform? Reform not in the political sense but the ideological and economic sense.
It seems, just by my observation, that capitalism may not be the most evolved form of economic principle but merely one the ensures its own survival.
Secondly, it seems if this system were to flourish a sort of technocracy would take root, but it has not. Of course, some very brilliant people are the minds behind the men in Washington but not necessarily those that are in charge. This can be attributed to four things: i) the inability of the masses to remain informed (and this is no detriment to the men and women that prefer their priorities to politics) ii) a media, and the masses, that prefers sensationalism to information (again a news organizations sole job is to profit). iii) A politicians only job is to be re-elected. Therefore, reform that may be beneficial in the long haul but that which strikes against current public opinion is not a battle worth fighting. Adversely, short-term fixes which may be harmful long-term but have strong public support are the items worth championing. iv) Lastly, in reference to the third principle, since a politicians innate goal is to be re-elected he must gain more political capital which is in fiscal means. Meaning that those with money but in search of power are able to a) contribute campaign funds or b) lobby for their position to be heard and most likely championed (politicians want to make money just like the rest of us as well). Whereas, the voter, or the demos in democracy, is forced to watch, without the capital fiscal or political, without more say in the system than one mere check in a ballot box.
Therefore, I am forced to draw the conclusion that although, this system is not near as efficient as it should be there is little to nothing to be done about it. Unfortunately, capitalist principles do not necessarily apply to a government with which has no natural competition.
I apologize for the lack of coherency it was quite a rant.
cheers.
mb.
ps. Cheers to mi amigo Matt Rennie for the conversation which sparked these ideas.
No comments:
Post a Comment