[Grovenet] What makes a city livable?

[Ron D'Eau Claire]

You wrote, "Communists and Capitalists both see economics as the moral
yardstick for measuring all actions. I disagree."

I see communist and capitalists as those who use economics as the yardstick
for measuring their actions. Not a "moral yardstick" but *the* yardstick.
Morality is a personal decision based on personal choices that are largely
based on one's cultural values. I submit that anyone who assumes that others
have the same moral values, especially when considering the diversity of
cultures around the planet, is going to be disappointed. 

That's why we like our families, communities and even our countries. As
humans it seems to me we *need* some place where we understand our
neighbor's value system, his/her sense of morality, in order to be truly
comfortable. To the extent people are dependent upon a fantasy that the rest
of the world should think like they do, they become intolerant of others.
That's the weakness in both the radical Christian and the radical Muslim
movements. It's the same weakness radicals of any type share. 

You offer theoretical data about how a global economy *should* work, but
it's never happened that way and I don't see anything going on now that
would change things. The fact is that, historically and currently, we deal
with huge imbalances in trade that must be addressed in some way. But they
must be controlled, not balanced, for our success as a country. 

For example, it's why Britain led to the opium wars in the 1800's. China had
been demanding payment for their goods in silver, particularly tea which
Britain hadn't learned how to cultivate on their own. The British were low
on silver with which to buy what they wanted so the British addicted huge
segments of the Chinese population to the opium (which the British got from
their slave labor plantations in India) then demanded payment in silver to
keep supplying opium to the Chinese addicts. Balance of trade restored. We'd
like to think that what the drug cartels, from the mega-labs in central and
south America to the dealers on the streets of America, are some sort of
aberration in society, but they are simply employing capitalistic economics
in exactly the same way the British did and enjoying the benefits of a huge
imbalance in trade: they are draining the addicts, the addicts' families and
the addicts' society.

I do not consider their actions moral, but that has nothing to do with their
success nor does it speak to what those working in the drug trade believe.
I'm sure many of those in the drug business see their enterprise as
completely moral by their standards. That's why, when observing how economic
systems work, I feel it's necessary to set "moral issues aside". 

Getting back to my point and the subject, I see globalization of our economy
as very good for the peoples of the world at large and not good for the
United States as a country. We survive on an imbalance of trade, but it has
to be in our favor to maintain our standard of living. As the USA becomes a
poorer nation, that balance is shifting and we are experiencing a steady
drop in our standard of living as other nations become more affluent. That's
why the state-of-the-art of everything in medicine, science, and technology
is being developed in other countries around the world and not in the USA.

Our cities are "livable" to the extent we are comfortable in them. We have
some confidence that our neighbors agree to the same basics of human
behavior that we do. It's not comfortable when they don't. For example, when
drivers of automobiles seem not to care about those riding a bicycle. Or
when someone pours chemicals into a storm drain, or who creates an unsightly
mess in their front yard that everyone must see. To the extent we minimize
these disruptions, we make our communities and our country livable. 

But now those issues are moral issues, and  have little or nothing to do
with economics. A bicycle rider can be as safe, or as much in danger, on the
streets in a communist state as he/she can in a capitalist society.

Ron D'Eau Claire  


 
-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of David Morelli
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 10:02 PM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] What makes a city livable? Was: ACTION ALERT: Call
for Measure 37 Suspension & Hearings



On Dec 14, 2006, at 7:53 AM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:

> David wrote:
>
> Saying that we are dependent upon China is like saying that we are
> dependent upon Columbia.  It is true, but it is not desirable.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Isn't that the old "globalization" vs. "non-globalization" issue?
>
> Is China responsible for our heavy dependency upon them for
> manufactured goods?
>
> Is Columbia responsible for our heavy dependency upon them for
> cocaine?
>
> Moral issues aside, those both sound like good examples of
> "American-style" capitalism at work. Find a need, fill the need,  
> and look for ways to expand the need to make the market grow,  
> whether it's computers, HDTVs or "nose candy".
>
> I agree the globalization is not good for nationalism. It does
> threaten the USA's self-appointed position as the world's remaining  
> superpower.
>
> Ron D'Eau Claire


Ron,

Moral issues don't move aside.  People choose to ignore moral issues.

Don't limit it to a question of "globalization" vs "non- 
globalization".  The basic question to me is, "is economic utility  
the final arbitrator of our actions?"  Communists and Capitalists  
both see economics as the moral yardstick for measuring all actions.   
I disagree.  Economics only deals with the study of economic goods,  
so economic theory can only describe economic values.  Economic  
theory ignores the rest of the non-economic world.  That is not a  
flaw in economic, it is a recognition that economic theory has  
limited applicability.  The flaw comes when people insist that  
economics is sufficient and complete as a human standard of action.   
That is like saying that physics or mathematics can describe and  
measure love or poetry.

Economics is appropriate in its sphere.  Science is appropriate in  
its sphere.  Philosophy is appropriate in its sphere.

American-style capitalism is still capitalism.  It is amoral.  It  
doesn't care if the slave is a human, it doesn't care of the  
prostitute is human, it doesn't care if the unemployed worker is  
human.  We are human, it is our job to care, because we are more than  
economic entities.  That may be part of my objection to the legal  
fiction that corporations are "legal persons".  Corporations are  
strictly economic entities, and corporations cannot respond to the  
non-economic realities of the world.  That makes them sub-human, and  
they should be subservient to human needs, not superior.

As to our dependency upon China, that is due to a variety of reasons,  
one of which is the relative devaluation of the Chinese currency  
relative to the American currency.  Since that is an economic issue,  
it deserves an economic answer based upon economic theory.  The  
dollar should be devaluated relative to the Chines yuan and the  
devaluation should be sufficient to roughly balance the economic  
actions between the two trading partners.

The economic rationale is pretty straightforward.  Chinese people are  
paid in yuan, while Americans are paid in dollars.  The free market  
will place the exchange rate at a value where Chinese spend the  
dollars they receive in trade by purchasing American products, and  
Americans spend the yuan they receive in trade by purchasing Chinese  
products.  If either side generates a surplus of foreign currency the  
desirability of holding money that you cannot spend should cause a  
decline until a dynamic balance is reestablished.  Not national  
politics, just macro economic theory.  If we had a world wide  
currency the situation would be a bit different, but we don't have an  
international currency.  The dollar is a national currency that is  
circulated world wide, which is different.

David
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet