Government ramblings

Government: Freedom Reaper

Governments are in the business of taking away freedom. It is impossible for a government to give freedom. Any government exists at the will of its people. Military dictatorships wouldn't even be able to overcome the will of it's people in a situiation where they were overwhelmingly opposed to it.

What would cause a people to willingly give up freedom?
The most important fear leading to the birth of governments was undoubtedly security. "National defense" would have most likely been the first priority of a society organizing a government. An unorganized group would never defeat an (otherwise equal) organized group in battle. Government's first promise was to provide it's people with protection from outside invaders. This service would become important as the development of agriculture and domestication of animals allowed some groups to build permanent settlements, while there were still many other groups whom were nomadic. Government can facilitate the creation and training of a militia to ward off invaders whom want to take the food supply away. Even today, most people would say that security is the most important function of their government. Any government that continually fails to provide security for it's people is overthrown, either through revolution, or some democratic process.

Why did government grow beyond it's initial mandate?

It is my beleif that "national" security is the only service of government valuable enough to warrant the forefiture of any freedom. The other "benefits" of government I discuss will, in my view, simply be attempts by government to ingrain dependence in it's people to secure it's power. Government needs it's people to be unable to imagine life without it. In cases where it fails at it's true purpose of providing security, this artificial dependence can buy enough time for it to correct itself - preventing a revolution. - This characteristic of government leads to a continual need affect upon it's people an ever-inceasing level of dependency. Dependency is nothing more than the inverse of freedom. Government will need to convince society that surrendering freedom is in it's best interest.

How does government take freedom without raising concern?

Government would have to create new fears to protect the people from. In ancient societies this first manifested itself in the form of protecting groups from it's own members. It's a natural progression. Fear of other groups of people violating you eventually leads one to realize that people outside your immediate family could also wish you harm, and eventually even to being wary of people in your own family.

Providing military security for a society initially probally did not necessitate in the forefiture of individual freedom. There were likely many eager to volunteer to serve in the cause of protecting their society, so military conscription was unnecessary. But, a government would have to enact certain restrictions on the actions of it's people to protect them from each other. A quick observation of the earliest known "laws" supports this notion.

Government begins to take away society's job of instilling values

Ancient government charters (The ten commandments, Humarrabi's code, ect) all include a set of guidelines that members of a society is expected to adhere to. It is likely that some of these guidelines existed in the unwritten value system of the societies culture, but permanent settlement has made the family unit more inflluential than the collective group. Slightly different sets of values began to emerge from one family to the other. This made it much easier for government to plant the seeds of fear necessary to create the need for laws.

Certain specific rules seem to exist in most if not all ancient governments. Murder, aldultery, and theft are consistently addressed. Each of the aformentioned "crimes" appeal to people on a very personal level and are more related to "morality" than "legality". This personal appeal and a growing attitude of individualism would make the three aformentioned offenses the perfect target for government.

Obviously, murder is taken personally. No way can the intentional taking of a life be considered anything other than an offense against an individual or his or her loved ones.

Theft has probally existed as long as the existence of Humans, but permanent settlements cause it to become a particulary problematic practice. Nomadic groups were focused on hunting food, eating food, and probally some form of entertainment. This environment does not creat a strong sense of ownership. Even things such as weapons (which i suspect were the most important "belongings" of nomadic people, were just a tool for providing food for the group. Someone taking you spear would most likely just use it to kill an animal which would later be shared with the group.

Permanent settlements eventually caused people to construct dwellings, claim a piece of farmland, acquire or create various tools used for farming, keep animals for either food or labor. These events lead to a strong sense of ownership. Having something that you strongly believe that you own stolen causes a different response compared to losing items that are generally considered community property. This evolution of circumstances posed a problem that was foreign. Problems that were traditionally rectified by the progression of a societies value system now had this new creature (government) to solve this problem.

Adultery is also another very personal offense. Most non-human animals do not closely associate the act of sex with emotional attachment (or love). But humans have come to closely associate the two. A partnership between a male and female was likely also affected by the creation of permanent settlements. The process of creating a dwelling, working farmland together, and raising offspring only serve to further the emotional bond created by a sexual relationship. Also, having to spend less time hunting possibly lead to more idle time and sex is a mighty fine cure for boredom. Also, where before all the sex-capable men would be out together hunting, permanent settlement caused the possibility where one man could be working while another was not. A male (historically adultery rules were only enforced for the benefit of the offended male) whom discovers his female partner "mating" with another male would no doubt feel a significant amount of anger and disappointment. Again, instead of being dealt with by changes in the value system of the society, government was eager to "help"

Government sees this opprotunity to increase it's influence and power. The society just wants to deal with these issues which suddenly have an increase in occurance and impact. Eventually these problems became so common that the people were more than willing to accept the imposition of written rules by government. This would be the first time government acquired powers outside military security. Not wanting to waste this opprotunity, it began to take a life of it's own feeding on freedom.

To quench this increasing appetite for control, government would add in many other "rules", making sure to attend to enough of the people's true concerns to keep them from being opposed to other more "minor" larcenies of their freedom.

Government's move toward complete opression

The appetite for freedom has transformed government's role of providing military security, which was unquestionably beneficial to all members of the society, to include protecting the society from it's own members, which necessitated the forefiture of indivudual freedom to a code of rules imposed by government. Government was becoming a living entity, with it's own goals and cravings which will be the stimulus for the eventual role reversal that led people to be hamstrung by their dependency on government resulting in government controlling people in oder to protect itself rather than the people inventing government to protect themselves.

How would government balance it's requirement to continue it's self-perserving consumption of individual freedoms, with a natural human instinct of viewing individual freedom as a prescious commodity?

There are a couple of ways to solve this problem. Government would either have to convince (trick) the people that any increase in regulation was created by their collective responisbility to protect and improve their society, or government would have to create a situiation where rules came from someone or something that was so unquestionably powerful and good that the people's respect (or fear) for the source removed any need to question.

The farce of the democratic process

Government could trick the people into believing any government extraction of their individual freedoms were a result of a descision their society arrived upon in order to acheive some greater good. Often this occurs in a situation where the government is structured in a way that allows for some level of democratic participation by the people. This democratic activity leads to certain individuals suggesting ways to improve their society.

Eventually, it is discovered that some of the people are much better at convincing others to support their ideas. These people become leaders in the government. These leaders are usually working under the assumption that they are providing a great service to their society and earn a feeling of pride which often leads to the birth of an ego hungry for power. The leader, who is now at the mercy of his hunger for power on some level, has no idea that his actions are being dictated by government which has invaded his spirit disguised as the feeling of pride. Government allowed the leader to enjoy this pride enduced satisfaction long enough to earn the loyalty and respect of the people before it took control of the puppet strings. The leader created through the ability and desire to create good, is now nothing more than a puppett doing the bidding of a freedom binging monster called government that they had created, but were unable to tame.

While the puppet show performed in the democratic manifestation would allow government to eventually have complete control, it was limited by the communication prowess of the puppet being able to overcome any reasonable opposition presented in the democratic process. Also, the onset of the puppet show was not instant, and the process of the leader becoming self-absorbed enough to allow government to infect him causing his transformation to puppet must be repeated each time the puppet is replaced due to death or other circumstances.

The dictator is not the tyrant

Another common way for government to steal freedom from people without having to provide much in return is through a fear or awe based entity that is usually believed to be superior in every way to themselves. What person would possess the bravery to question someone or something that the whole society views as a superior being that they are all duty-bound to respect and protect in return for it's unquestionably wise advice and it's unconditional affection for the society it uses it's unimaginable talent to guide. Any opposition to such an entity would undoubtedly be met with violent opposition or be completely discounted by the vast majority of the society.

In most cases such a powerful leader would be expected to select his successor or more often the family of the leader were all understood to have special abilities or power and authority was a birthright. Government would have a much easier time enacting it's will under this situiation, any impositon on freedom was accepted as the gift of a superior being, and the process allowed for a more permanent revocation of power by the people to a line of rulers.

The abuse of human spiritualism

***Disclaimer*** - Any refrence to the concept of religion are non specific and only express my presumptions and are completely removed from any views I may or may not have in regard to religion. This is not an analysis of the validity of any particular religon, or even a commentary on the existence or nonexistence of any god. Simply a suggestion that it is possible religion has been used as a means of control at times, independent of the valadity of religion ***



There is no power that can be realized by humankind greater than the omnipresent power weilded by an entity that has the ability to create everything in existence, change the weather, bring about disease, causing the success (or failure) of their crops, and determining their fate once they exhaust the whatever amount of time granted by this great diety.

This would of course be through the implementation of a (or modification of a current) religion. Ignorance (lack of knowledge) or unexplainable questions will often be satisfied with any answer that is proposed. Government would simply need some sort of vessel (prophet) to spread the belief of and speak for this creation. This would be so-perfect a tool that the people would not only allow government to take freedom, they would beg for it to be accepted as a gift in an attempt to gain the favor of the best puppet government has ever had. The command of such a great force would become the most important motivation for every thought and action of the society.

Government enjoy's retirement

So far, I have described an evolution which transformed government from an idea created by people to help facilitate their security through defense to an out of control beast. This beast now poses a much greater threat to the society than that of the potential invaders that provided the need for the protection that led to it's conception. The society is left in a state of unrecognized subversion to an opressor that is neither human nor divine. The pandora's box that has been opened will continue to increase it's acquisition of their freedom which only serves to contribute to the progressively accepted dependence the people have not only come to accept, but take comfort in.

Government has now fashioned tools that are invaluable to it's existence. The confience granted by this accomplishment is the last ingredent required to make the already excesive confidence of government to manifest itself into full blown arrogance. Any concern focused on keeping the needs of the people satisfied are no longer present. The people have by now lost the sense of individual responsibility and can no longer even remember a time when they were able to make philosophical judgements. In fact, some are beginning to lament the fact that they must make basic everyday descisions on their own. Government has achieved such a great level of success that people are now asking to give up rights, not in an offering to a higher power, but from simple addiction to dependency. Government no longer needs to take freedom and can simply be fed by its people. The resulting mutual dependency will lead to the death of government.

The unsustainable nature of mutual dependence

The specific design used to facilitate the process of government is irrelevant at this point. Government structure is basically just a costume, and not matter what form it is using, the results are the same. The people are now demanding that government take their offering of freedom because it has become a burden. Eventually so many rules (which by their very nature, rules can only work by consuming freedom) are enacted that the population of lawbreakers exceeds the lawful citizens. Government has consumed it's entire supply of sustinence (freedom) and is faced with the prospect of starvation.

Too little, too late

Government can prolong it's existence by tapping into new sources of freedom. Offensive military action is the most common method used to accomplish this objective. This method requires government to go beyond the cruel practice of stealing freedom and instead impose conscripted military service of it's people. Volunteers are likely sufficient to provide defensive protection, but an aggressive invasion of another society will require many more resources to be successful. The people have likely noticed the onset of government's starvation and are possibly questioning the ability of it to maintain their level of dependence. To supress this seed of doubt government must either promise a future increase of services to feed people's dependency addiction, or convince the people that they owe government this service as restitution for the centuries of care they have been provided. A military victory gives the government a new food source (conquered peoples), as well as a renewed level of respect and servitude from the people. Government will continue this process until suffering a military loss (which results in government dying and being replaced by the government of the victor), or the external sources of freedom eventually disappear as every society falls under it's pestilence. Which returns government to the aformentioned state of starvation, which is unavoidable for even the most successful government. The demise of government is an unavoidable consequence of the same conduct that allows it's domination.

Autopsy Report

The natural cause of government's death is the extinction of freedom.

There are two possible scenarios resulting from the extinction of freedom:

1. Government slowly dies resulting the the society having a steadily accelerated resupply of freedom created by the birth of future generations each being further removed from the oppresive traditions that were the legacy of their ancestors.

2. The people's addiction to dependence leads to a demand for a continued expansion of government support. The famished state of government makes the fulfillment of this demand an impossibility. This leads to an enraged population turning against government in a revolution that easily overcomes and eradicates a once omnipotent government that is now in a state of complete frailty.

The rest of it.....

Epitaph

The inception and eventual demise of government is what I believe to be the unavoidable life cycle of government. This cycle occurs at different speeds depending on the values of a particular society, and the method used by government to consume the freedom of people. Certain systems of government binge on freedom to such excess that the cycle ends relatively quickly, other systems utilize a more deliberate and forward thinking diet which produces a much longer, but less powerful life. I will concede that in practice, the cycle is usually interrupted before completion. There has usually been a group of people in each society with special leadership skills and the ability to recognize the signs resulting from a government faced with imminent starvation and managed to inspire the people to give birth to a new government, which replaces the old government with a new one which resets the cycle. The people have an unwarranted optimism that the new government is better than the old and this false sense of accomplishment creates a new sense of freedom. Like all cycles, this one is in a state of constant motion, with only a few minor variations in it's detail from one government to another.

The unfortunate conclusion

Humanity will not allow an absence of government control. The passage of time has only strengthened this. The legacy left by thousands of years of government is a lack of community responsibility that is beyond repair. The disregard for others created by the lure of individual success has become too rampant. The innate responsibilty to the society that freedom requires is too rare.

Education: Why It’s Broken and How to Fix it

Education/knowledge/intelligence...ect is the most valuable possession we have. Not only is it the most valuable, but it is one of the very few things that can NEVER be taken from us once we have it.

This is why I chose to become a teacher. I was idealistic and naive enough to believe that I would be able to convey this message to students and we would live happily ever after in academic bliss.

My naivety was widespread. I failed to factor in things like: the rigid structure of the public education system, the effect of years and years of failed education practices on student ability, and the apathy of parents, students, and other educators to name a few.

My idealistic optimism quickly turned into devastating hopelessness, and eventually unabated rage and hatred. By the time I left teaching, I felt like my next day would be the one where I was the star of a Breaking News Special Report: Sadistic Teacher causes School Hostage Crisis that interrupts Judge Judy. Much to the chagrin of my students’ parents who were dying to find out if Mary Jo was going to have to pay for Jennifer’s window after Mary Jo threw a rock at her baby’s daddy who Jennifer was having an affair with.

I don’t claim to be the only person on Earth who believes the rest of what I have to say, in fact, most of the teachers I have met believe the exact same thing.

What’s wrong?

There is one problem at the center of all the failings of public education. Students do not want to learn. Every mistake in the design of the public education system leads to this population of apathetic pupils, and every aspect we use to measure success/failure in our assessment of the system is a result of student apathy.

When I was teaching history I was constantly asked “Why do I have to learn this?”, there is no answer to this question that will satisfy the person asking it. There is no answer because it is not the correct question. The question should be “Why do I WANT to learn this?” . This question is not one that can be answered by another person; it as to come from within.

Why don’t the students want to learn?

Kids, and especially teens, do not like feeling like they “must” do something. They a constantly being told what they must do. No matter how often they are told that education is one of the most important determinants of success, the feeling that they must participate will create an “us v/s authority” in most when it comes to education.



Not only are the Students infected with this perceived battle between them and the authority of the education system, but the entire design of the system prevents the students from wanting to learn. A fundamental problem is how we have come to define the words “learning” and “teaching”.

The system is based around an assumption that “learning” is created in students as a result of a teacher “teaching”. This is flawed. All learning comes from an internal desire to learn. “Teaching” is nothing more than the dissemination of information when applied through the methods of today’s education system.

No one can be forced to learn anything if they have no desire to do so, anymore than it is possible to prevent someone from learning something that they are determined to learn. This desire cannot be instilled, but it can be inspired.

Unfortunately from the time they are five years old (and often even younger) they are thrown into an institution that values acquisition of information over learning. So kids who know very little of anything other than their home and family are carelessly plopped in a rigidly structured, foreign, and usually chaotic environment. Instead of their comfortably familiar parents there is just one (at most two) strange and overstressed young adult trying to fill the role of mommy to 20 terrified students.

After a few weeks of being conditioned to adhere to the rules and procedures of the system that they will essentially be serfs under for the remainder of their pre-adult (at least) life, they being their “Education”. They are inundated with the repetitive boredom of redundantly repeatedly repeating by teachers hoping to achieve memorization. Through repetition they will memorize words, colors, shapes, time, numbers, and anything else that has been deemed important by the creators of the system.

After years of being “educated” in this manner what are we left with?

Let’s generalize and give examples of what an average 10 year old is expected to have “learned” under this system. Then decide what value will have in a 10 year old.

Arithmetic –counting, division, multiplication, addition, and subtraction of whole numbers (up to 6 digits or so), fractions (probably just addition and subtraction) including conversions, decimals, and value (greater than, less than, equal to).

How much of this does a 10 year old need outside of school? Counting and maybe very basic understanding of computations. Even in these cases it hasn’t been an wise use to time to “teach” it in school. Chances are that if they actually needed to have these skills at age 10, they would acquire them outside of school.

Geometry – identification of shapes, how to calculate area and perimeter of squares, rectangles, and triangles, volume of cubes.

Again, nothing here that is useful to a 10 year old that would not have been learned naturally outside of school.

Reading/Language – ability to read and comprehend on a very basic level, a speaking vocabulary that is far from impressive, and relatively strong ability to use punctuation.

Reading is the only exception here. Reading is a tool that is used for learning. It is the only skill that this 10 year old has acquired from the system that facilitates learning.

Science – Chances are that they have repeated the same general lessons every year covering the most basic parts of each discipline of science.

Other than the Scientific method, which is a tool that facilitates learning, Science has no practical value to a 10 year old.

Social Studies (History, Geography, government, ect..) – Like science they have most likely pretty much went over the same basic topics each year. They probably have went over the geography and early history of the US, and the very basics of the government. But under the US system, this subject is most often the least important so it’s not given much time. An average 10 year old essentially knows nothing of this subject without being refreshed, at least nothing gained from school.

At 10 there is no reason to have spent much if any time on this.

Are you suggesting that we shouldn’t bother?

I think this knowledge dispensing that we use as our preferred method is wasting valuable time. I believe that as we get older knowledge (or facts) become easier and easier to absorb and retain. On the other hand, I think the opposite is true for development of logic and problem solving. I believe it is a much better use of time to spend the early years intensely focusing on developing problem solving skills.

Whether the system focuses on this area or not, the students will be solving problems and using logic constantly in an out of school. But under the current system, students are not given much guidance in this regard and simply develop their own methods. It’s usually just a combination of what they have observed in those around them and personal experience. By the time they are teenagers, most students have pretty much developed the same basic ability to reason and problem solve that they will have their entire lives.


I know you are thinking “That’s not right, teenagers make ill advised decisions much more often than adults!” . That is accurate, but it’s not really because of the process they use to make the decision. The type of decisions that teenagers do a poor job with, are usually related to their goal and not the process. As they get older their priorities usually change and so do their goals, but the process by which they make decisions is not all that different.

If we spent the first 10 years (arbitrary number) focusing on developing logic and problem solving, with a generous serving of reading, the result would be a student who is much more prepared to “learn” that what we get under the current system. I believe that the lack of knowledge that the “learning ready” has compared to the “data memorization” student would be quickly made up. In one year if not less.

What exactly should we do during those early years?

As I have suggested before, you cannot "teach" logic nor is their much that can be "taught" with regard to problem solving. We can facilitate and guide students through developing their thought processes, and this is what our focus should be for most of the first half of their public education.

We should provide young students with puzzles of all types to solve, stories that finish with an open ended ending that they are asked to propose a conclusion to, practical problems dealing with issues that range from social to scientific and require both concrete and abstract thought, and other activities of that nature. The "teacher" should give little to no assistance to the students in relation to creating the solutions. A discussion of the many possible solutions should follow the activity so the students can be exposed to the wide range of ways to look at something.

The actual accuracy of the solution is not always important. A student could be given a problem that is vaguely scientific in nature, and be asked to solve it even if they do not posses the "knowledge" to do so. It's the process that is most important at this point in their development.

In fact, the less they know, the more effective it will be. They will look at everything with an open mind and attempt to make connections and evaluate the relevance of those connections, and not fear looking "stupid". This is a stark contrast from the humiliation created an 8 year old being asked to tell the class what 7x9 is without even volunteering, and then being giggled at by the half of the class who stayed up all night memorizing their multiplication tables. This group of children possibly were up past their usual bedtime, with their irritable parents who resented the fact that their entire night was being spent helping their child memorize a chart.

The system I am proposing would often create a situiation where none of the students were sure which answer was right or wrong. For all practical purposes all the students would have the correct answer because the goal wasn't the conclusion, but the process of creating the conclusion.

Reading is the only other subject that deserves significant attention during this stage. Since we have discarded so much, we could spend much more time on reading skills than under the current system. Students could be reading on the same level as the 10 year old created by the old system no later than age 8 with this extra time.

By the time these students get to the "knowledge acquiring" phase of their education they will have most likely developed a passion for solving problems. This passion for problem solving is what will drive them to acquire knowledge. They WANT to become better problem solvers, and they will realize that the more knowledge they have to draw from the better their solutions will be.

So the problem that I suggested was at the center of every failing of the public education system has been resolved. The question of why do I HAVE to learn this? is now extinct. The question of: "Why do I WANT to learn this?" will have already been answered in a very large majority of these students.

Part 4: Government Band-Aids Lead to more Problems

There were several other panics in the 1800s but going through them all might make this become too wordy, and I think I have done an outstanding job at brevity so far.

Panic of 1837

Andrew Jackson decided to take much of the capital held by the national bank and distribute it among the states. It was probably a power play more than anything. Normally I would say that weakening a “national” bank is a great thing for capitalism, but not if you are going to turn one government bank burdening the capitalistic system into more than a dozen. This drastic action sparked capitalism to react by tightening the rules it had relaxed in the years after the system had managed to balance out the changes created from government’s response to 1819. Speculators had begun carelessly investing money in companies without much investigation or thought. Business was growing rapidly, but it was mostly artificial growth fueled by speculators investing money based on the growth that was resulting from the investments. Capitalism would have corrected this without the government upsetting the balance, but the correction would have probably caused most of the pain on those ignoring its guiding principles. Instead, the instant upheaval of the banking system led to closer inspection of companies that owed money to banks, which led to the revelation that these companies were nothing more than a paper trail, culminating with a wave of bankruptcies, bank failures, widespread fear, and an electorate throwing another tantrum.

Panic of 1857

The first truly inflationary Panic. I know I mentioned inflation in 1819, but at that time it was just the concept of inflation that caused fear, not the actual severity of the inflation. California gold rush in 1849 caused a massive influx of gold causing our gold backed currency to hyperinflation. Foreign investors pulled money out of our banks because who wants to have dollars that are worth 50p today and 20p tomorrow when you can just have pounds. Crimean war, Mexican American war also caused disruptions in international trade. Inflation was deadly for the banks. It’s something people often forget…If you are in major debt inflation is the best thing that could happen to you. Which also means that for banks that only profit by giving people debt, rapid inflation can result in being paid back less real dollars than you initially loaned. As always, once the banks start to fail everyone freaks out. (Have I mentioned that some tings never change?) Government reacts just as any frustrated mom would. Civil war was coming anyway, but this didn’t help.

Panic of 1869

Perhaps the silliest of all the panics. Reconstruction, cost of the civil war, and adjustment to changes in labor practices in the south certainly had economic impact. But the catylist for one was a handful of mischievous super rich men pulling some shenanigans on Wall Street to drive up the price of gold. It ticked the government off, who dumped several million dollars (that’s like 100 trillion dollars today ) worth of gold into the market causing an immediate crash of gold prices. Sure, this caused these rich ravel rousers to lose money, but it also caused many other people to lose money as well. By the way, President Grant…you should have taken a break from the Jack Daniels long enough to ask someone if destroying the value of gold might have some impact on your gold backed currency….Inflation…Bank Failures…widespread panic and mayhem…people running in the streets with their hair in flames..oh yea, and a tantrum followed by a government who just wants the screaming to stop because Mr. President has a hangover.

Panic of 1879

This is the first one where it is just as much Capitalism’s fault as governments. Competition is the fuel that powers the wealth generating machine that is capitalism. In the years since the last panic a handful of shrewd but very evil corporate titans began to use all sorts of bullyish tactics to force their competition out of business. Think Wal-Mart without the door greeter. Several industries had fallen under the thumb of a single corporation. Obviously a market system cannot function properly if there is only one seller for buyers to choose from. Eventually, the forces of a free market would have reemerged after these monopolies became so arrogant that their greed created a situation where wealth became so concentrated that the depletion of wealth outside their pockets let them without customers who could afford their goods. This type of gross abuse of the free market is not (well, theoretically) possible if the system is unabated and its ability to correct and rebalance is in tact. The cumulative effects of periodic government meddling over the past century surely had something to do with the market getting abused so easily. Oh yea, did I mention that there was yet more inflation due to even more gold mining? I bet you can tell me what comes next… Bank failures. This one resulted in a number of changes. The spoiled toddlers were whining yet again. This time they wanted the government to protect them from their employers, who had been taking advantage of the workers knowing that they were the only employer in town. They asked to replace the gold standard with silver standard or at least use them both to help stop the inflation. Of course government would also lay the smack down on big business for being so greedy, but it would be a few years before anything was really enforced.

-Next installment will discuss the Great Depression, but it won’t be today.

Part 3: The Panics Attack

Not counting the issues in the US specific issues (at least I think it was US specific) of the 1780s stemming from an infant Nation learning how to walk, the first real “economic” crisis due at least in part to the economic system itself was in 1819.

For the first time since the discovery of the system of capitalism by humans (like I said before, it not invented any more than gravity was invented), humans had caused a change significant enough to disrupt the laws that define its principles. It is widely accepted that the economy doesn’t show the results of a stimulus until after a considerable amount of time has passed. By 1819 the impact of a flurry of recent events began to emerge.

A major power had lost an enormous source of production that was almost entirely profit after failing to fend off a revolution. Another major power had suffered an internal revolution, and an expensive attempt at world domination that failed miserably. A major food producing part of Russia had been under farmed, while another major part had been burned to the ground as a form of self-defense because of the failed French invasion. There was also a war taking place in the U.S. that involved a matrix of alliances that were often more a friendship based on common enemies than a true alliance. International trade had become artificially restricted because of these wars, which meant that overcoming the direct impact these conflicts had on agriculture was nearly impossible.

I will admit that the above paragraph does not describe a situation that the world had never before seen. There was, however, one factor that made this episode of nationalistic warmongering different than any that came before. Countries had recently become reliant on international trade for things other than luxuries. The disruption on that trade and the negative impact on the production goods available to trade with allies that was created by much of the most productive areas of the western hemisphere becoming a battle zone was the first incident of capitalism’s natural laws being stressed by human interference.

Once the system was forced to bend its rules in order to handle this stress, the balance was upset. A banking crisis resulted as capitalism was forced to adjust currency values to counter the disruption of supply. People were unequipped to face a situation where the value of the currency began to fluctuate. For many it probably seemed like they were being swindled. A dollar is a dollar, how can that change? As much as people love the thought of gaining wealth, their fear for instability is stronger. The situation was only made more disturbing by the mysterious cause of the instability. Wars, famine, disease…were all things they could handle. Not only were they familiar, but they were obvious and easy to understand. They knew that this was more than just the impact of war, but they had no clue what exactly the “more” could be.

When a population faces pain from a source that they not only fear, but also can’t see, who do they expect to protect them? Unfortunately, even governments had no experience with this type of situation. Despite major advances in a wide range of areas, the economic discoveries of the enlightenment had only recently been fully embraces. There was no historical example to use for guidance. The newly created pseudo-democratic government of the United States had become frail after suffering through wars, inexperience, and a population that was increasingly apathetic instead of nationalistic. There was a real threat of this experiment failing (which, of course, it almost would in just a few decades).

How do you get elected by a disconnected, confused, and frightened citizenry? Tell them what they want to hear. Some things never change. Government and economics would be changed forever due to Politicians desperate to maintain power. The country that had been founded on the idea of having the weakest central government possible while still maintaining one nation asked its government to help provide material support to its population. When the voters throw a tantrum, government becomes an embarrassed mother who will give her toddler the whole damn candy aisle to stop the screaming. Eventually politicians would learn they could choose the object of the tantrum and it was really easy to convince the toddlers what is was they wanted.

Here are a few of the proposed solutions to the panic of 1819:

Hmm, I only knew of 4 but Wikipedia seems to have more, and besides, quoting a source somewhere in this massive pile of misinformation will give me more credibility: Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1819

Proposed remedies included:

• increase of tariffs (largely proposed by Northern manufacturing interests).
• reduction of tariffs (largely proposed by Southerners, who believed free trade would stimulate the economy and increase demand).
• monetary expansion; i.e., restriction or suspension of specie payment.
• rigid enforcement of specie payment.
• restriction of bank credit.
• direct relief of debtors.
• public works proposals.
• stricter enforcement of anti-usury laws.

Besides the obvious internal fracture being an omen to what was to come, the response to Capitalism balancing the pain inflicted upon it by humans with a little pain infliction of it’s own would turn government and the economy into a pair of Siamese twins. One twin desperately wanting to be separated and the other desperately wanting to stay conjoined.

-next installment looks at the rest of the crises of the 1800s in slightly less detail.

Part 2 - When and why did this snowball start?

Remember my presumption that all three major economic systems are perfect that what they are intended to do? Well, each one is also the worse than the other two in a specific area. Stability is capitalism’s Achilles heel. Capitalism trades a significant increase in overall wealth generation at the price of wealth distribution (but not as much as many contend), and economic stability. Capitalism is cyclical. These cycles are not always easily predictable, and it is quite possible an attempt to make a prediction could, at least partially, become a self-fulfilled.

These cycles often cause anxiety. Once capitalism became widely accepted the people became accustomed to a standard of living (speaking materialistically) that was higher than yesterday’s and they expected tomorrows to be even higher. In these early years unmolested capitalism was running itself very well, and the populations of the countries with capitalism guided economies were more optimistic about their futures than at any time in their history. Obviously, not including the Africans who were sold into slavery – which, of course, reached the unimaginable levels that it did because of capitalism.

The only thing that these wide eyed optimistic capitalists feared was something that might cause them to just barely being able to afford basic needs, much less any of the “wants” that had become available recently due to profit inspired motivation fueling an explosion of new inventions designed to make life easier. Inventions which were, at the very least, created earlier because of capitalism and in many would have probably never been created were it not for capitalism making it possible for the inventors to profit.

If it’s as great as you say, what went wrong?

Capitalism had been growing steadily for quite a while, and it was about to hit a pubescent growth spurt. Like almost everything changing too quickly causes growing pains. By the time Capitalism was able to notice and react to the explosion of growth it already had a face full of pimples and had needed to become familiar with deodorant for quite some time. Capitalism had to react to these changes if it wanted to remain the boy all the girls swooned over.

Before this point all “economic” problems had been the result of a (or a combination of) widespread agricultural failures, war, disease, some other tangible anomaly. As countries began to rely on international trade for basic necessities for essentially the first time in history, the cause of economic problems resulted from a less tangible culprit. From now on the economic system itself would become an ever-increasing influence over a significant portion of people’s lives across the globe.

-next installment will start to look at economic “crises”

Fear, Arrogance, or Ignorance? Economic System and Humans: Part 1.

This is just a collection of musings based on my own observation and conclusions drawn from my “logic”. I do not pretend to be an expert on economics. I also realize that the references to history I constantly use are incomplete, biased, and out of context at best and possibly misremembered. Everything that is to follow would undoubtedly be picked apart and refuted beyond rebuttal by someone more learned on this topic. Even given this disclaimer, I still feel that the fundamental thesis of this work is a universal truth. (I also feel it necessary to point out that despite it being my native tongue, the English language is not my friend)

MACROECONOMIC SYSTEMS ARE A NATURALLY OCCURRING ENTITY, NOT A CREATION OF HUMANS. THE FAILURE OF HUMANS TO RECOGNIZE THIS IS THE FUNDAMENTAL CAUSE OF ALL ECONOMIC CRISES.

Prologue

For almost the last 300 years the principles of three major economic systems have dominated the way we trade with one another. Socialism, Capitalism, and Communism have all been practiced with varying degrees of success since the Age of Enlightenment. I believe that each of these systems is flawless in their design. Each has a different goal, and is adapted to its own type of environment.

While acknowledging that fact that currently none of these system exist in a vacuum today, I feel it is indisputable that at its base the economy of the globe is mostly capitalistic. This assertion is not intended to promote capitalism over one of the other two systems, simply using the reality of the current situation to find a starting point. The rest of what I have to say is reliant upon my assertion that capitalism’s guiding principles serve as the foundation for most of the economic dealings that create the global economy.

Would you trust the government to direct the earth’s gravity, weather, or rotation? So what makes the economy any different?

Economic systems are not a creation of humans. They are naturally occurring phenomena that are governed by a set of natural laws. Humans can not consistently manipulate these laws to affect a specific result anymore than the natural laws that govern science. Just like many scientific experiments conducted by humans, most human interference with the laws governing economics have resulted in unexpected consequences. Quite often these consequences far outweigh the benefit; assuming there is any type of benefit that results from the human economics experiment.

To some of you this thought might seem ridiculous or naïve, but take a moment to think about it. Were the laws of supply and demand there before we had a scholar define them for us? Of course they were. Supply and demand would still exist if humans became extinct. Two different packs of lions would certainly be forced to react to this law if faced with a depleted food source.
How would these two packs of lions respond to the undiscovered forces of this law? Competition of course. Just like many scientific laws, economic laws produce a predictable reaction by everything it governs.

There is one major reality that separates scientific experiments from the government’s experimentation with economic “tweaks”. If a scientist was erroneous in his hypothesis, very few are affected when his experiment goes awry. If the government’s experiment with the economy is ineffective, or, as in most cases, counter productive, millions or even billions are affected.

The acceleration of the evolution of a Global economy is only making this more complicated. Now billions of people might be affected by an economic experiment being conducted by a government thousands of miles away. Combine that with the reality that there are dozens of governments all conduction experiments that are in at least a small way (and sometimes major way) different from one another. So it becomes nearly impossible for the economic system’s natural self-correcting mechanisms to keep up with the constant interference from multiple sources.

This constant government intervention creates a “snowball” effect. One government decides to “help” their economic situation by introducing an unnatural stimulus into a perfectly balanced natural system, which causes others to respond either because their citizens demand it, or an irrational approach that assumes that a new direction (which direction is irrelevant, as long as it is different) will always be better than following a direction that seems to be leading down the wrong path. Once this snowball gets rolling downhill it just accelerates.

-next installment looks at the beginnings of this snowball