http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070529/clinton_economy.html?.v=1
Yes, Hillary, we all know we're in this boat together, and the economic conservatives and social liberals among us libertarians accept that this boat is not in good shape.
I'm also willing to accept that socialism, even strict socialism bordering on communism, is nearly ideal from society's perspective.
However, there are these pesky things called individual consciousness and human psychology. When human societies implement socialist policies, the psychological impact is so traumatic that loss of productivity (and protests, riots, even rebellions) more than offset the overall social gains achieved by those socialist policies. I'll go so far as to say that socialist societies aren't even stable, because there's not enough economic output to sustain the massive governmental bureaucracies necessary to run them.
There's another problem -- one that we might someday overcome, but that day is not today or in 2009 or in 2021. We simply aren't smart enough, even collectively, to figure out which "rules that promote our values" we should implement. We know what our values are, but figuring out the ultimate effects of government policies is very, very difficult. We have no accurate model of society, just as we have no accurate model of the global climate. All we have are the shadows we can see on our cave walls. Basing government policies on those shadows when the issues are non-critical is beyond foolish.
A few Enrons aren't going to cause society to collapse. Individual investors and fund managers will just get smarter. Environmental changes will radically alter the ecosystem, but there are myriad causes of the ecosystem changes we see. Warmer oceans are only a part. There's no reason to believe we can't adapt our lives to changing ecologies. And forgive me if I don't get all panicky about the possibility of coastal megacities getting flooded. It's time states get smarter about urban planning, and sticking millions of people a mere few feet above sea level is not very smart. Large cities can be built inland; all that needs to be right smack on the coasts are shipping ports and supporting industries. And if a few people want to live on the coasts for a nice view of the ocean, fine. But they're on their own if the oceans rise or there's a tsunami.
Yes, Hillary, we all know we're in this boat together, and the economic conservatives and social liberals among us libertarians accept that this boat is not in good shape.
I'm also willing to accept that socialism, even strict socialism bordering on communism, is nearly ideal from society's perspective.
However, there are these pesky things called individual consciousness and human psychology. When human societies implement socialist policies, the psychological impact is so traumatic that loss of productivity (and protests, riots, even rebellions) more than offset the overall social gains achieved by those socialist policies. I'll go so far as to say that socialist societies aren't even stable, because there's not enough economic output to sustain the massive governmental bureaucracies necessary to run them.
There's another problem -- one that we might someday overcome, but that day is not today or in 2009 or in 2021. We simply aren't smart enough, even collectively, to figure out which "rules that promote our values" we should implement. We know what our values are, but figuring out the ultimate effects of government policies is very, very difficult. We have no accurate model of society, just as we have no accurate model of the global climate. All we have are the shadows we can see on our cave walls. Basing government policies on those shadows when the issues are non-critical is beyond foolish.
A few Enrons aren't going to cause society to collapse. Individual investors and fund managers will just get smarter. Environmental changes will radically alter the ecosystem, but there are myriad causes of the ecosystem changes we see. Warmer oceans are only a part. There's no reason to believe we can't adapt our lives to changing ecologies. And forgive me if I don't get all panicky about the possibility of coastal megacities getting flooded. It's time states get smarter about urban planning, and sticking millions of people a mere few feet above sea level is not very smart. Large cities can be built inland; all that needs to be right smack on the coasts are shipping ports and supporting industries. And if a few people want to live on the coasts for a nice view of the ocean, fine. But they're on their own if the oceans rise or there's a tsunami.
