 |
Rant. Types of government. And how did we get here when starting with Hanjin's troubles?
Author: mook
Date: 09-22-2016 - 16:24
Taken out of context, there is a truism about ALL forms of government: "The business of government is business." The job of government is to make it safe for an economic system beyond local subsistence to exist.
That means protecting business and the people who buy things from external forces to some degree, which is a balancing act because some level of trade, which brings those external forces to bear on internal activities, is necessary. It also means managing internal activities to some degree, so things are organized and safe enough for trade occur between smaller regions within the nation.
That fundamental job of government can be done in many ways, with many implications for those within and outside of the System.
In a true democracy, business will run the show but at a small scale; there are very few true democracies because in general they don't scale well. They tends to be tribal in character, with the "purest" forms being something like a New England Town Meeting, and leaders tend to emerge under special conditions or over time who, intentionally or not, move things away from pure democracy (formally, "tyrants" in classic Greek democracy).
Monarchies can be somewhat democratic - in the representative form, either formally so in "constitutional" varieties or informally (councils of advisors, often drawn from business, religion, or academia) in "divine" varieties. Technically, a democracy could include "everyone" defined only as the large landholders (as in England under the Magna Carta), or landholders and prominent businessmen (in the earliest U.S.). Monarchies are just as much for maintaining safety for business as any other form of government: even if most of the business is owned by the monarch and those close to him/her. The key identifier for a monarchy, IMO, is that the leadership transitions based on family relationships, not by means of legal or "democratic" (mobs or other violent revolution) methods.
Dictatorships are interesting, because they usually last only as long as the dictator lives or can hold power. When enough people question the dictator's judgement, power is lost and the politics of succession occur (usually fairly noisy, and with considerable powder smoke). Peaceful transition from one dictator to another is rare, and where it occurs happens either by means of succession within a family (becoming a monarchy - North Korean style) or moderated by other structures in the system (e.g. a Politburo like "communist" Russia or modern China). Most dictators don't live long enough to fully take over the means of production in the economy, so most don't become monarchs.
Capitalism is, of course, the rule of capital - the owners of the means of production. It can be, in detail, anything from fascism with a strong ruler (Nazi, Italy under Mussolini) who runs most major activities through businesses that extract money from that, to a true democracy (unlikely, as a long-term proposition). As long as the true power rests with the owners of the means of production, it's capitalism.
Communism is, in principle, ownership of the means of production by the workers. It's economic true democracy, and usually works only on a small scale. Attempts to build a business (or a country) on that model at scale have always failed, or transitioned to something else keeping the "communist" name for marketing purposes.
In my view, the U.S., unlike nearly any other country, was designed and actually still functions as a representative democracy, with a leader/executive branch that has relatively limited powers and a well-defined method of succession. That's after a brief flirt with the "confederation" idea that doesn't work well due to lack of enforcement power at the federal level - consensus doesn't work at a national scale, even with only 13 states. The U.S. model is almost ideal for business, because it's generally predictable but the representation can be bought and adjusted, and the leadership likewise (since they need someplace to make a living in the manner they have become accustomed to after their term is up), if it seems to be going toward a place that is bad for business. "Business" is a moving target, of course; at one time it was large landholders and urban businesses, but those were still relatively small in scale; not so any more with global corporations. So "business" can be a variable concept now too, and the relative power of different types and scales of business need to be addressed in the way government works. Keeping the people happy is important for business, but as with external trade there's a balancing act: too much of a good thing can be bad. So far, the U.S. has seemed to draw back from the brink (of too much business or too much people) both internally and externally several times, not without some damage both internally and externally. Given the current election's choices, I suspect we're coming up to one of those "excess" times that will cause considerable damage - hopefully recoverable for all concerned (which has become everybody in the world considering the impact of U.S. economic health), but probably painful no matter who's elected.
What does this have to do with Hanjin? Nothing, other than the prospect of some import business issues (since we've gone possibly a bit too far with the "free trade" thing and the decimation of production in the U.S. in favor of low cost at any cost). The company has gone bankrupt, and anything that comes out of it as an operating entity will be a bit player in the shipping market. The boxes will still move, because they must. Others will take the business. Some shipping capacity will be lost permanently, but if there's truly too much then that's a correction that has to happen.
'Bye for now.
That means protecting business and the people who buy things from external forces to some degree, which is a balancing act because some level of trade, which brings those external forces to bear on internal activities, is necessary. It also means managing internal activities to some degree, so things are organized and safe enough for trade occur between smaller regions within the nation.
That fundamental job of government can be done in many ways, with many implications for those within and outside of the System.
In a true democracy, business will run the show but at a small scale; there are very few true democracies because in general they don't scale well. They tends to be tribal in character, with the "purest" forms being something like a New England Town Meeting, and leaders tend to emerge under special conditions or over time who, intentionally or not, move things away from pure democracy (formally, "tyrants" in classic Greek democracy).
Monarchies can be somewhat democratic - in the representative form, either formally so in "constitutional" varieties or informally (councils of advisors, often drawn from business, religion, or academia) in "divine" varieties. Technically, a democracy could include "everyone" defined only as the large landholders (as in England under the Magna Carta), or landholders and prominent businessmen (in the earliest U.S.). Monarchies are just as much for maintaining safety for business as any other form of government: even if most of the business is owned by the monarch and those close to him/her. The key identifier for a monarchy, IMO, is that the leadership transitions based on family relationships, not by means of legal or "democratic" (mobs or other violent revolution) methods.
Dictatorships are interesting, because they usually last only as long as the dictator lives or can hold power. When enough people question the dictator's judgement, power is lost and the politics of succession occur (usually fairly noisy, and with considerable powder smoke). Peaceful transition from one dictator to another is rare, and where it occurs happens either by means of succession within a family (becoming a monarchy - North Korean style) or moderated by other structures in the system (e.g. a Politburo like "communist" Russia or modern China). Most dictators don't live long enough to fully take over the means of production in the economy, so most don't become monarchs.
Capitalism is, of course, the rule of capital - the owners of the means of production. It can be, in detail, anything from fascism with a strong ruler (Nazi, Italy under Mussolini) who runs most major activities through businesses that extract money from that, to a true democracy (unlikely, as a long-term proposition). As long as the true power rests with the owners of the means of production, it's capitalism.
Communism is, in principle, ownership of the means of production by the workers. It's economic true democracy, and usually works only on a small scale. Attempts to build a business (or a country) on that model at scale have always failed, or transitioned to something else keeping the "communist" name for marketing purposes.
In my view, the U.S., unlike nearly any other country, was designed and actually still functions as a representative democracy, with a leader/executive branch that has relatively limited powers and a well-defined method of succession. That's after a brief flirt with the "confederation" idea that doesn't work well due to lack of enforcement power at the federal level - consensus doesn't work at a national scale, even with only 13 states. The U.S. model is almost ideal for business, because it's generally predictable but the representation can be bought and adjusted, and the leadership likewise (since they need someplace to make a living in the manner they have become accustomed to after their term is up), if it seems to be going toward a place that is bad for business. "Business" is a moving target, of course; at one time it was large landholders and urban businesses, but those were still relatively small in scale; not so any more with global corporations. So "business" can be a variable concept now too, and the relative power of different types and scales of business need to be addressed in the way government works. Keeping the people happy is important for business, but as with external trade there's a balancing act: too much of a good thing can be bad. So far, the U.S. has seemed to draw back from the brink (of too much business or too much people) both internally and externally several times, not without some damage both internally and externally. Given the current election's choices, I suspect we're coming up to one of those "excess" times that will cause considerable damage - hopefully recoverable for all concerned (which has become everybody in the world considering the impact of U.S. economic health), but probably painful no matter who's elected.
What does this have to do with Hanjin? Nothing, other than the prospect of some import business issues (since we've gone possibly a bit too far with the "free trade" thing and the decimation of production in the U.S. in favor of low cost at any cost). The company has gone bankrupt, and anything that comes out of it as an operating entity will be a bit player in the shipping market. The boxes will still move, because they must. Others will take the business. Some shipping capacity will be lost permanently, but if there's truly too much then that's a correction that has to happen.
'Bye for now.
