Economic Man Versus Political Man
The return of Che Guevara’s body to Cuba after 30 years in an unmarked Bolivian grave represents a symbolic end to the Cold War. Che embodied the ideology of the Communists and Socialists who believed that a society could be created on political structures alone. He raged and fought against what he saw as the violence perpetrated by the Capitalist system and its practitioners against the innocent and powerless. He believed passionately that a new society could be created in which each citizen put the good of the society first and worked toward the ultimate goal of a fair society and practiced this personally. He also believed that the ends justified whatever means it took to get there – and practiced this as well. In the end he died for these beliefs, but, more sadly, in the final analysis he was proven wrong.
A society cannot be built on political structures alone. This belief stems from the view that the basis for all human actions is political in nature. If politics is the foundation on which human behavior is based, then that behavior is susceptible to political manipulation. By creating the proper set of political structures it should be possible to shape whatever society desired. One sees the consequences of this thinking all too well in the recent histories of the Communist countries. It is especially evident in their failure.
They failed because there is another set of fundamental laws that affect human behavior – economics. Economics are a more basic and influential motivation for human behavior than politics and cannot be ignored. The Communist countries tried for 70 years to ignore economic laws and in the end those forces rose up to defeat them. The forces of economics triumphed because in the end they provide the means to operate society and if they are constrained too tightly for too long, the society will collapse upon itself as shortages arise. Political structures can dominate for short periods of time, but if they remain in place too long they eventually give way to the underlying economic forces.
The proponents of unfettered economic forces, i.e. laissez faire Capitalism, should not smile in smug satisfaction at the triumph of their ideology, however. The periods of unbridled dominance by economic forces have not been any more successful than those of political hegemony. Unshackled economic forces have brought us the Robber Barons, the Great Depression, the 1980s financial crisis, and other ills as the pursuit of economic supremacy inevitably lead to a division of the wealth of the population. The number of losers has always been greater than the winners and eventually lead to a political reaction that once again subsumed the economic forces to political power. Ascendant economic power has the effect of strengthening the political forces to serve as a counterbalance.
In the end the fight does not boil down to Capitalism versus Communism or Socialism or any other ism, but to economic man versus political man. The ideological labels merely serve to hide the essential drama of the human striving for success and to misdirect energies into needless ideological warfare. The battle is between whether political man should be ascendant or economic man. The other dramas are merely different manifestations of the same reality, clothed in ideological garb.
Playing politics tends to be the first choice of many, especially the have-nots, because it is much easier, faster, and enjoyable than playing economics. It also may not require much capital to engage in. Economics is hard work, takes a long time, and has deferred rewards. Generally, some amount of capital is required as well. It is far easier to impose a political solution on a problem than it is to work on the underlying economic factors. These quick fixes don’t last, however, and eventually are replaced by harsh economic-based solutions. These solutions tend to underinvest in the people left on the sidelines and lead to political turmoil. A society that does not invest adequately in its people cannot long endure economically.
The economics vs. politics tug-of-war can be seen on smaller stages than the world. It also influences smaller events and policies. A recent example was the fight over welfare reform. Those with a political bent pushed for an expansion of the current, universally acknowledged failed, system arguing that it failed by not going far enough, while those tending to economic solutions wanted to virtually eliminate it. The debate raged between the “Here’s a check, have a nice day” crowd and the “GET A JOB!” fans. The choices were clear and mutually exclusive. In the end a compromise was struck, but the debate aptly illustrates the two approaches, their benefits, and their drawbacks.
What to do if you cannot count on one approach yielding the desired long-term goal of a stable, growing society? As in so many things, somewhere in between the extremes is best. The proper mix should be skewed towards the economic end of the spectrum because those forces are more fundamental and yield the growth engine for any society, but political structures to address the shortcomings of a wide open economy must be created. It can be argued that this will reduce the overall efficiency of the system, siphoning off resources to “non-productive” ends, but in the long-run the society will be better off socially and even materially. The society can grow more smoothly and continuously without periods of political turmoil and reversals of direction. For it is not the degree of free reign given to an economy that will determine its efficiency, any economy will eventually determine the most efficient allocation of resources within a given set of parameters, it is the consistency and duration with which those parameters are applied. Constant tinkering or wholesale changes are greater dangers than applying some proscriptions to the economy. It is important that the restrictions are not too burdensome, but it is just as important that they are there.
It is time for our leaders, especially governmental leaders, to stop playing politics and start playing economics – in its most positive sense. Solutions to problems need to be looked at as to the economic costs and benefits, short- and long-term, for each approach and the best solutions followed to its logical outcome – which may be at odds with one’s ideological view. The solution to poverty is free markets and investment in poor communities, but can that really succeed without accompanying programs to help the poor become trained, care for their children while at work, or even just get to work? Is the answer to crime simply more prisons or programs to address the root problems? Too often we are offered half a loaf – just free markets or just social programs. Both are required to be successful. We need to recognize these competing forces in our society and how they have influenced the outcomes of our programs, and to recognize that economic man must work with political man to jointly build a better world.
A society cannot be built on political structures alone. This belief stems from the view that the basis for all human actions is political in nature. If politics is the foundation on which human behavior is based, then that behavior is susceptible to political manipulation. By creating the proper set of political structures it should be possible to shape whatever society desired. One sees the consequences of this thinking all too well in the recent histories of the Communist countries. It is especially evident in their failure.
They failed because there is another set of fundamental laws that affect human behavior – economics. Economics are a more basic and influential motivation for human behavior than politics and cannot be ignored. The Communist countries tried for 70 years to ignore economic laws and in the end those forces rose up to defeat them. The forces of economics triumphed because in the end they provide the means to operate society and if they are constrained too tightly for too long, the society will collapse upon itself as shortages arise. Political structures can dominate for short periods of time, but if they remain in place too long they eventually give way to the underlying economic forces.
The proponents of unfettered economic forces, i.e. laissez faire Capitalism, should not smile in smug satisfaction at the triumph of their ideology, however. The periods of unbridled dominance by economic forces have not been any more successful than those of political hegemony. Unshackled economic forces have brought us the Robber Barons, the Great Depression, the 1980s financial crisis, and other ills as the pursuit of economic supremacy inevitably lead to a division of the wealth of the population. The number of losers has always been greater than the winners and eventually lead to a political reaction that once again subsumed the economic forces to political power. Ascendant economic power has the effect of strengthening the political forces to serve as a counterbalance.
In the end the fight does not boil down to Capitalism versus Communism or Socialism or any other ism, but to economic man versus political man. The ideological labels merely serve to hide the essential drama of the human striving for success and to misdirect energies into needless ideological warfare. The battle is between whether political man should be ascendant or economic man. The other dramas are merely different manifestations of the same reality, clothed in ideological garb.
Playing politics tends to be the first choice of many, especially the have-nots, because it is much easier, faster, and enjoyable than playing economics. It also may not require much capital to engage in. Economics is hard work, takes a long time, and has deferred rewards. Generally, some amount of capital is required as well. It is far easier to impose a political solution on a problem than it is to work on the underlying economic factors. These quick fixes don’t last, however, and eventually are replaced by harsh economic-based solutions. These solutions tend to underinvest in the people left on the sidelines and lead to political turmoil. A society that does not invest adequately in its people cannot long endure economically.
The economics vs. politics tug-of-war can be seen on smaller stages than the world. It also influences smaller events and policies. A recent example was the fight over welfare reform. Those with a political bent pushed for an expansion of the current, universally acknowledged failed, system arguing that it failed by not going far enough, while those tending to economic solutions wanted to virtually eliminate it. The debate raged between the “Here’s a check, have a nice day” crowd and the “GET A JOB!” fans. The choices were clear and mutually exclusive. In the end a compromise was struck, but the debate aptly illustrates the two approaches, their benefits, and their drawbacks.
What to do if you cannot count on one approach yielding the desired long-term goal of a stable, growing society? As in so many things, somewhere in between the extremes is best. The proper mix should be skewed towards the economic end of the spectrum because those forces are more fundamental and yield the growth engine for any society, but political structures to address the shortcomings of a wide open economy must be created. It can be argued that this will reduce the overall efficiency of the system, siphoning off resources to “non-productive” ends, but in the long-run the society will be better off socially and even materially. The society can grow more smoothly and continuously without periods of political turmoil and reversals of direction. For it is not the degree of free reign given to an economy that will determine its efficiency, any economy will eventually determine the most efficient allocation of resources within a given set of parameters, it is the consistency and duration with which those parameters are applied. Constant tinkering or wholesale changes are greater dangers than applying some proscriptions to the economy. It is important that the restrictions are not too burdensome, but it is just as important that they are there.
It is time for our leaders, especially governmental leaders, to stop playing politics and start playing economics – in its most positive sense. Solutions to problems need to be looked at as to the economic costs and benefits, short- and long-term, for each approach and the best solutions followed to its logical outcome – which may be at odds with one’s ideological view. The solution to poverty is free markets and investment in poor communities, but can that really succeed without accompanying programs to help the poor become trained, care for their children while at work, or even just get to work? Is the answer to crime simply more prisons or programs to address the root problems? Too often we are offered half a loaf – just free markets or just social programs. Both are required to be successful. We need to recognize these competing forces in our society and how they have influenced the outcomes of our programs, and to recognize that economic man must work with political man to jointly build a better world.
posted by BNitemoves at 4:36 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home