most of us, having been raised in a capitalist environment, having never been exposed to any other system, i expect find it difficult to imagine anything different. a higher level of government involvement in various industries we can picture, although in many countries even that is distasteful. the government fixing the price of money we are all used to - for some reason the free market ideology doesn't apply to money.
attempt to picture an economy not based on capitalism, i expect most of us would still subconsciously expect market based mechanisms to be involved in the majority of daily interactions. from electricity, to water, to food, business inputs, education, medicine, petrol, there is almost without exception a transaction, even if the markets are sometimes not competitive or free. but how else might it all happen?
one of my many vices is reading, and a good dystopian novel would be one of my favourite genres. one thing i like about them is how, in the post-apocalyptic world in which the novel is set, survivors will sometimes gamble using 'real' money. just months previously, those green dollar bills dictated most everything in life, but with the flick of an apocalyptic switch are suddenly rendered worthless.
money symbolises wealth and value only so long as market participants agree that it does - once that agreement is gone, it is just monopoly money, just paper, no inherent value except maybe for burning, or children's craft (or gambling). this criteria we judge ourselves by, our income, our net worth, which can make or break our happiness, marriage, that can dictate life or death depending on the medical coverage we can afford - all an illusion that remains because we all continue to believe.
the standard definition of money is a medium of exchange, a store of wealth. store of wealth i will go into another time, but a medium of exchange is based on trade, which is still based on capitalism. going back before artificial currency - gold, valuable commodities, or even a barter system, trade is still taking place (in theory) between two willing participants who seek to maximise their profit. if this profit motive is causing economic disparity (as i think, see 'capitalism' post), what other mechanism is available to get required resources where they are needed?
communism, i would suggest, has been tried extensively, and has extensively failed. i have very little knowledge of communism, but in my blissful ignorance would attribute its failure to two key problems: corruption, and the delusion that a government bureaucracy could do anything well. i have worked in government, lots of nice people, not so much stress, not so much urgency to perform, a whole lot of entitlement to a job for life. and i believe much higher levels of stress leave (fully paid) than the corporate sector. go figure.
i recall being instructed by senior management to hurry up and spend the full budget, otherwise we won't be allocated as much next year, which as a tax-paying citizen is just wrong, and best not to dwell on that sentiment being echoed in every department at every level of government in every country in the world. i am sure there are many government workers who truly do try to improve the country and provide the best possible service to the tax-paying public, but they would be the exception. governments are almost as much a parasite as the unions.
so i'm not going to suggest communism. need something new, i would suggest....
No comments:
Post a Comment