The Theoretical vs. The Practical

In political theory, there's socialism, communism and capitalism--as if these are three competing theories, one of which is right; and the other two are wrong.  I'm here to tell you (so long as I'm alive!) that they are all right and all wrong.  From the practical world, each draws upon human experience as the foundation of its fundamental thesis.  The trouble is they generalize too far--and when they do, they enter the world of absurdity, where nothing exists but fantasies!  I recall sitting in on a lecture on Marxism.  The lecturer was boldly stating without a smile on his face that, as Marx first stated, the world is inexorably headed toward a new era of never-ending peace once capitalism has been overthrown.  No one need do anything to rid the world of capitalism, the forces of history will destroy it.

Now, there are instances when it's important to share equally one's wealth: after a physical catastrophe--a monstrous earthquake, a volcanic eruption of enormous proportions. Survivors help each other out of beneficence.  So too, cooperatives emerge when people find that by pooling their assets, they can support a capital venture they could not afford and so could not benefit from--an "A" for socialism.  And you can't motivate an individual to do something without giving him a reward--the old stimulus-response mechanism, the basic truth of capitalism.  (As in the adage, work hard, and it will pay off in huge dividends!)  So, every one of these theories is right--to a degree. 

You may recall in chemistry or physics class, the mathematical equation of a law or principle was written on the board, and the professor expounded on its meaning.  But the application made in the laboratory turned out to be a mere approximation of what was its precise meaning.  In other words, a demonstration of a particular principle produces rarely the findings anticipated from its formula derivations.  The "close enough" empirical, laboratory findings to the formula derivations are explained as variations due to the inability to sufficiently control the conditions of testing in the laboratory situation.

In other words, the world of thought, of intellectual perfectability is never that of the real, physical world.  The chemist or physicist aims at producing findings in the laboratory that are only approximations, given the variances of testing conditions, to his theoretical expectations.

That same conclusion occurs in other contexts.  For instance, interior home design.  The interior decorator produces on his laptop a design of a room that contains the elements he wants to put in it at some physical location approximating what he believes are the home owner's expectations.  But a property owner won't know if that's really the way he wants the room to look until he starts living in it!  For instance, the interior designer may think the plasma TV will look great over the mantelpiece, distant from where the inhabitants will sit to see it; but in actuality, it's not in a location viewers will find comfortable to watch.

Similarly, computer system designers will schedule several re-iterations of coding based upon their dissatisfaction with how the programs actually mesh together into a coherent, systematic whole in practice.  That is to say, systems design can't really achieved until it's beta-tested in various situations where it is to be used.

So, the perfect can't be a theoretical structure; but the physical, real instance of its application is by definition, perfect because it is real--which counters Plato's thesis of the real world being the ideal conceived in thought!  Thought captures merely the repetitive elements of what occurs in reality.  Another way of saying this, the practical world of physical things in interaction controls how we can change the world as we would want, our conceptions being sometimes no more what history can tell us regarding our past success in relating thought to action.

I think that's what I mean!

 

                

Tea Partiers vs. High Rollers

Since the founding of the United States, there's always been an isolationist tendency.   Europe and Asia are far away lands, so it's really difficult to think of the US as intimately tied to countries continents away.  In today's politics, the Tea Party, to my mind, is of isolationist persuasion.

I am sympathetic to its message that the United States should be concerned with the ways it spends its monies.  It ought not spend beyond its means of what it can afford.  But here is the rub.  Citizens think of the US economy in ways similar to their own financial situation.  In a way, that can be a good thing: the bank where they put their money will tell them when they're overdrawn, the stores where they shop will tell them when they have exceeded their credit limit.  The financial institution where they want to take out a loan for a house, boat, etc. will tell them how much they can borrow.
The point is it's not the family that decides what their financial limitations are--it's those with whom they seek additional financial resources, even if those be their own monies entrusted to some bank that provides them with a monthly statement of cash flow.

Now, it is the Tea Party who's proclaimed what the US' credit limits should be.  Encouraged by sundry economists, to whom they turn for reassurance, and armed with their tried-and-true common sense (drawn from their limited financial experience),  these would-be-do-gooders have judged that the US is spending too much, as if they really knew what the limits of credit are for the United States Government of America.  I submit to these Tea Partiers who think the US has borrowed too much that they turn their attention to what our creditors think are its limits and to note what they believe when such limits have been exceeded, viz., when the US bonds are no longer in demand for purchase on the open market.

Contrast their knowledge of economics with that of the high rollers.  These are the CEOs of giant corporations that deal on the international transactions on the open markets.  They engage in investment speculation based on their empirical forecasts of the economic value of the good faith and credit of US on stock exchanges worldwide.  They are betting that the worth of US assets is far greater than its debts.  Accordingly, they, including banks around the globe, buy US treasury bonds for their portfolios; and more importantly, they exhibit confidence in the US ability to repay what it has borrowed.  Now, if that confidence were found to be ill-founded, the markets where our bonds are exchanged would act much differently than they are:  it's up to the markets to decide what are the limits to US credit; it's not for the Tea Party (despite their experiential knowledge base and the opinions of economists who advise them) to decide.

What the Tea-Party people don't take into account is what the US actually does on the international scene.  It's as if the US government should  aim to do solely what pleases the Tea Partiers!  It should conform the US international and national transactions to their budgetary narrow interests and knowledge-base.  So, no Obamacare--it's too expensive to save many more US citizen lives through a national health care program.  So, bring the US military home; get rid of the nearly 1000 US military installations around the world and keep bases on home territory!  That's the opinions, I would aver, the Tea Partiers would hold, if anybody were foolish enough to want to know what such opinions are, given the foundations.  Well, the plain fact is that because of the US military presence around the world, we, globally, have entered an era where there is more peace and prosperity than heretofore witnessed on the planet.  And, the President accepted the Nobel Peace Prize, as he said, on behalf of the US military for their much needed and appreciated endeavors around the world!  That acknowledgement of US value in the world is translated, I believe, into economic confidence around the world that the US will pay off what it owes others, and specifically, will not default this month or at any future date.

So, what's this about the debt ceiling being debated in Congress?  (a question posed in the style of John Stossel)

It seems that Congress would influence the interest rates on US Treasury bonds and notes by attempting to set its own "debt ceiling" and by, furthermore, instituting austerity measures as a coherent plan, such as the sequester, to give the impression to High Rollers that the US is reining in on US spending.

Nice try but no cigar!  My bet is on the High Rollers, who through the marketplace exchanges will continue to determine the US credit limits for national and international transactions. Too bad, Tea Partiers; and too bad, US administration and Congress.