Nothing wrong with your reply, Benjamin, the information is correct by itself. What I do notice is there appears to be (and I am using my analogy) no yellow in your overall perspective. I hope I can make that clear (while acknowledging you do agree with me to some extent already).
From a political perspective, it does not matter if one of the two parties moves to the extreme right, or hijacks it to the left (as FDR did). It remains an economic-political field captured by two sides only.
Therefore this analogy: Where the US economic picture is framed by two sides, it is normal for most ordinary pictures to be framed from all four sides. The conclusion from this simple image is that the two US powers trying to keep the image in the frame can never do an outstanding job; there is always something that cannot get framed, always something that cannot get captured.
Said differently, if we have an XYZ plane for our realities, then the American economic-political plane has an X and a Y to manipulate itself in. Yes, XY can move back and forth on the Z axis, but this requires collaboration. I hope you recognize how that is not our strong suit. Actually, we suck at collaboration because our system is based on the opposite: competition. Only in the most extreme cases do all politicians stand together and sing the national anthem.
— -
What one can also see in the US built environment, for instance, is that instead of having three layers of development, we tend to have just two layers. We have the ‘simple’ basic layer (cost effectively, we do what is cheapest), and we have the fantastically extreme well-built-out layer (cost effectively, requiring expensive investments but worth it in the long run). We are missing a decent middle layer (where collaboration between parties deliver their results, or where economics optimizes for all). Planning costs money, organization costs money; the middle layer is often not attained because growth can be had for cheaper elsewhere, and when the economic needs are very strong we go full force and that middle layer gets skipped.
Phoenix comes to mind as an extreme example with a downtown high-rise of impressive stature sitting right next to a single family home with a yard on four sides. If we get out of the box (of the simple level), we tend to do it with much force. The in-between approach doesn’t get done much.
There is no orange, yellow or green in the United States’ decision making process. And it shows: in the built environment, in the economy, in life expectancy, in prison population, in public transportation, in our health system, in education, in etcetera. We have two sides to the frame, and it holds up the picture okay, but it gets frayed on the sides without the support. We do not have four sides to our frame that would protect all sides from damage.
— -
Okay, picky about just one word, Benjamin, I hope you’ll let me say this: I would not call economics a pseudo-science. I’d keep that in my pocket. It is like saying economics is a pseudo-religion or a pseudo-philosophy; these words are not helpful and perhaps a bit meaningless. I get the point you are trying to make. I’d say: economics is economics. It stands on its own two feet, has two hands, and we all hope it has a head.
But money is indeed not real. It is a man-made commodity, and while it is awfully handy in many respects, it is artificial. If we do not control the artificial, then it will gallop toward unrealistic locations that can benefit a few lucky ones, but it is then not a benefit for society. We need some kind of malleable framing.
— -
Thank you for your reply. I appreciate it. Again, good article, I am glad you wrote it.
