So I don’t believe everything in the Bible in it’s most extreme literal form. It’s one of the reasons I really dislike quoting single verses, or even sections of scripture, without full context. Especially the old testament.
But at the end of the day, it’s funny how everything loops back on itself in such a way that I can’t help but see the correlation to some of the more sound teachings that I learned directly from studying the Bible.
For example, I made this post in a conversation onÂ governmentÂ tax policy (that stemmed from this TED video) I was having with a group of colleuges. And while I’m sure there’s probably some flaws in my statement below… I found myself describing something at the end that I didn’t intend, and didn’t realize until I read it after writing it… Here’s my original post:
We all think we have the answerâ€¦ But national, sound, economic policy in a democracy (heck in general, not just a democracy) is extremely unlikely, no matter what model you believe in.
Issues like taxes, entitlements, who creates the jobs, fiat currency and debt bubblesâ€¦ Itâ€™s all just part of the bigger modelâ€¦ And the bigger models (both Classical andÂ Keynesian) know that free markets andÂ capitalismÂ have their flaws (especially when mixed with actors who can vote about economic policy either directly or indirectly). The reason I tend to prefer the Keynesian model is that it accounts for why the markets break out of equalibirum, and gives us an actor (the government) to help â€œdampenâ€ the waves.
The problem is votersÂ (and therefore the government)Â areÂ EXTREMELYÂ short sited, and have messed up views on both Classical and Keynesian economics, which result in the majority of voters wanting classical economic policies when times are good (IE: no government intervention, low taxes) because it results in the times being even better, and wanting Keynesian policies when times are bad (IE: government intervention to reduce taxes/create entitlements when times are bad). So they want to best of both worldsâ€¦ And thatâ€™s neither economic modelâ€¦
In bad times the classical model would call for times to be as tough as they can be, with no â€œbail outsâ€. It would not be fun.
In good times theÂ KeynesianÂ model would call for higher taxes in the good years to help form â€œreservesâ€ at theÂ governmentÂ level for the bad times. (Thus reducing how bad the bad times would be, but also reducing how good the good times are).
By the Keynesian model we are more closely using right now, taxing the rich to offset the poor (if done properly andÂ efficiently) should help start moving it in the right direction as well (within that model)… But ultimately, theyâ€™ll lose on the properly andÂ efficiently requirement (or so history would tell us, but hey, sometimes they get lucky), and based on some of the numbers Iâ€™ve seen, the policy will barely make a dent.
So instead of using either model in a way that works out in the long runâ€¦ we keep trying to use a model where the government acts both when it should and when it shouldnâ€™t, which breaks both models. Iâ€™ll takeÂ KeynesianÂ economics with extremely sound government policy if I could get itâ€¦ but I canâ€™t, although Iâ€™ll giver Bernake creditâ€¦ he seems to have some sort of magic formula heâ€™s playing from that keeps it from collapsing time and time again. Iâ€™d take classical economics as a second choice because itâ€™s easier to understand, generally harder to â€œbreakâ€, and governments have been willing sometimes to use it in the pastâ€¦ but Iâ€™ll never get that back either without some major pain (Even if Ron Paul took office, I highly doubt heâ€™d be able to get everyone on board in a non-painful way).
So Iâ€™m left with one conclusion: Itâ€™s broken, and for the moment, unfixable by the general population. Education of the general population with a strong marketing campaignmightÂ work or help, but in the current world, the debate would devolve so quickly into name calling, itâ€™s highly unlikely to change public opinion. All we can do is continue to buy time, and work withinÂ aÂ single model to the best of our ability (which thankfully economics is one of those things that will self correct, albeit painfully regardless of which model you run with). Hopefully until humans do what they do bestâ€¦ Find a way to eventually eliminate problems at the root cause.
My lame attempt at it:
Unlimited Free Energy + Replicators (energy to matter devices) sounds like our best hope to me (although Iâ€™ll probably never see it in my lifetime), but then you have a new â€œwarâ€ to worry about, the one where copyright law, and internet law come into play. Ultimately the War on Computation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg). And for that, weâ€™re going to need a solution thatâ€™s far more difficult to seeâ€¦ (maybe itâ€™s 100% required free information sharing, but that too will probably never be seen, at least not in my lifetime)… If it was, we would have reached a point of sharing everything at no cost, and no privacyâ€¦. A much different world than we live in now, and likely to have some sort of outcome like that which was seen in in the classic Pixar film Wall-E.
Which is why at the end of the day, I come back to faithâ€¦ Faith in God. Faith in humanity as a whole. Faith that we wonâ€™t just all decide to kill one another, but rather work together when times get toughâ€¦ So tying this back to the original conversation about agree or disagree with the guyâ€¦ I donâ€™tÂ reallyÂ care about tax policyâ€¦ The economy, businesses, etc, will all adjust to whatever the government doesâ€¦ But do I think the wealthy could do more to help the poor? Always. Do I think the semi-poor could do more to help the poor? Always. We can all do more to help others.
So my lame attempt at envisioning a future where these problems don’t exist… Is where I didn’t realize what I was describing… My end game description of free energy and free, open knowledge, sounds very much like Eden to me (and by somewhat a direct correlation, Heaven)… And by definition, where we were “created” to live. It wouldn’t surprise me that when Humans manage to create this world (with or without theÂ existenceÂ of God in the first place), we will find that humans are as happy as humanly possible. It makes me think that if humans really did make up God (which I don’t believe), they sure did a very good job figuring out that the beginning would need to be our end.