A very interesting read, Stephen, since I studied economics and I do understand the value of money real well. It has many faces.
At the heart of things, you make sense, but it is more complex than you present with your solution. I'll go over a number of points real quick here.
A/ Money is a nothing because you can't eat or drink it. It has value only because we accepted it has value and we learned that it is super-handy; money is a way to structure society, but not the only way and not and never all the way.
B/ Decisions are still going to be made, that is obvious to the both of us. And as we know from history, single decisions never last and new ones will be made over time.
The real choice is how we want to organize the process of making decisions. There are two basic choices.
Pyramid A
It has a pointy top. All movements in society are captured by the sloping sides up and the top is a lonely place.
Pyramid B
It has a flat top. From four sides, people in society climb the pyramid to where the top is flat. That is where they negotiate about the direction of society.
That is the choice and the USA has pyramid A, not pyramid B.
Pyramid A does anything for the win, and is willing to spin and spin.
Therefore, an example about money and spin.
- The international definition for poverty is 50% of the median income.
- The EU definition for poverty is 60% of the median income (so they can capture more folks as living in poverty).
- The US definition for poverty is (translated) 40% of the median income (so we, well, make that they, can capture fewer folks as living in poverty).
In the eyes of the EU, we have more than one third of the population living below poverty level. We don't tell that to ourselves, we use the definition in which fewer people are counted, so we don't get a revolution on our hands.
Spin, and one can win; it’s the USA way.
The Gini Index shows the distribution of wealth per nation in the world. The USA isn't doing all that well.
USA: 40-45% slant
Sweden: 25-30% slant
- USA: winner-take-all, House, Senate, and President.
- Sweden: proportional voting, One House.
The voters, Stephen, the voters are the basis. And when the system has voters compete with voters like we have here, and when the system has voters vote for three institutions that can then fight with one another like we have here, then the voters are weak.
In Sweden the voters are strong because they vote once, and voters do not compete with voters for representation. All are represented by their own choice. That one House makes all the decisions. Sweden is one of the happiest nations in the world. Immigrants to Scandinavia are the happiest immigrants in the world.
There is a 3D political world out there we were told nothing about.
Thank you, Stephen, for your very interesting read. I am not disagreeing with you, but I claim there is more out there than one approach can fix. We need diverse groups being represented by themselves and not corralled in by the two parties like we have here.
