The question is this: what is the best way to run a country? Many theories have come up, most recently, a debate has risen about free enterprise vs. planned economy. As payne so endearingly calls me, I'm a "die hard capitalist." What that really means to me is that the market dictates the structure of a country. For a country to be truly free, they must have control over everything in their lives. But in order to have control, someone has to make sure that someone else isn't impeding on these rights (or lack thereof, I'll explain what that means in a moment). In order for free market to truly rein, one and all must choose what is the best for the community so that the community supports their rights both implicitly and explicitly. And one cannot be forced to do so. They must choose to, and they can even choose to do and say nothing about what is best, and leave the decisions to the people who "really care." (or the people who like to fill in ballots, if you catch my meaning). Now, I know what you're all are thinking, I know you think I'm about to go sing the praises of the democracy.
In reality, a democracy is one of the most inherently inefficient systems every contrived. In its attempt to create an elaborate system of checks and balances, it has taught its people to pursue what they want at that moment, and it has taught its people to be incredibly short sighted in terms of goals and objectives. Look at America. Everything is based on two year milestones, that is every election period. At most, a president has eight years to put into place policy, and that's if he can convince everyone else that he's correct, initiate it, and complete it within that period. Otherwise, the next administration comes in and vetos the whole thing, and for the most part the country is back at square one. Look at it this way. If you went up to a CEO of a major corporation and said that they need to come up with a new strategy, initiate it and then dismantle it within two yeras, you will probably be laughed right out of the office. Or, most companies are expected to fail within the first five years of opening their doors as a lack of long term planning.
Not to mention, the people of a country can be relatively smart, but can act rather stupidly. As my friend told me, he hates the idea of prolonging the tax cuts. But, he needs to feed and clothe his family, so he's not going to stop anyone from prolonging it. Tax cuts are really really bad in terms of longevity. It leaves a huge deficit and guess who's going to pick up the bill? Us and our children. Most of us are in the age group where we won't ever see money from Social Security, and yet we're still required to pay into it, and after it bankrupts I wouldn't be surprised if to keep it on life support taxes increase - or deficit spending increase. And subsidies are useless. There is no concrete evidence that Global Trade has destroyed employment. A matter of fact, for most developed countries, it has caused people to get new skill sets that will give them more pay. Oh hey, here’s another example of how the country is too short term. It would take about twenty years to see benefits from increasing government help for students (say, steel mill workers) to go back to school and learn new skills. It would be the best twenty year program ever, in my opinion, but it is so much easier just to throw money into the steel industry. Short term job security? Sweet! But you have to justify it. Infant Industry? No one’s falling for that one. Oh, and we’ve tried. National Defense? Its emotional enough that our peers won’t question it. Did I mention that of the military’s budget, only 0.01% requires steal?
It is a big issue of entitlement. Whatever happened to "ask not what your country can do for you..." ? When did we become so selfish? Well, the unions don't help. No one here will be able to convince me that unions in America are helping or protecting anyone. A matter of fact, guess why one of the reasons your groceries are so expensive at the store, and yet grocers on average have a profit margin of 1%? Because of unions. People are paid upwards of $15.00 - not kidding - to bake chicken, bread, and stock produce. Honestly, that is absolutely ridiculous. By the time my boyfriend stopped working for a grocer after about a year of working there, he was making $12 something an hour. Even he says it was ridiculous high for the work he was doing. Other newer grocers, that find value added in other ways pay their employees less - but they are paid at what the work is worth. That sounds really cold hearted of me. But it is because of the unions that prices are driven up. If that cost was literally cut in half, we would see a change in prices. Why? Because the consumer would demand it. And, not to mention, if all of sudden you lose a huge cost factor you can charge less to undercut competition. And as most large chains share the same union, the competition will respond by lowering it. Soon it will find an even price. Everyone will benefit. Tada....free market. Too bad unions didn't really put into their charter an exit strategy.
So I want the ability to work where I want if I want without joining a union (which also takes dues, which to no one's surprise usually lines the pockets of the union boss). And don't tell me unions are needed to take care of the employees. Last I checked, Zappos, Google, Facebook, and Starbucks - huge corporations in their own rights - are not unionized, and they all offer incredible benefits and pay to their employees. But I don't want an enforced right to work I'm not saying that at all. There are European countries that have a Right to Work, Right to Leisure policy. That boggles my mind entirely too much. From what I understand, you have to try really really hard to get fired - if its possible. That's just expensive; you are forced to keep people who aren't producing instead of just getting rid of them. (Can I tell you why I love Colorado? We have a Hired at Will Fired at Will policy: anyone can hire me for any reason. Any one can fire me without giving cause. Well that's relative. If it turns out to be because I'm a woman, I could sue. But I'd have to prove it. And companies are very careful to document everything in case that comes up. I can fire someone whatever day of the week I want. I can quit without giving two weeks notice. Its a good policy and self enforcing). And a right to leisure - companies are required by law to offer paid vacation to everyone. Holy cow, that's expensive. Will, or some European, please correct me if I get something wrong in describing it. But I just don't see how its beneficial to the company or society on macro levels.
The interesting thing is that in a free market benefits are self regulating, especially now that there is a societal push. Just recently, Google gave their employees a 10% raise to keep them from going to Facebook. I got paid vacation at Starbucks after I earned it. Ever XX amount of hours I worked I got a percentage of paid time off. Managers were required every year to take two weeks off, but that's because they were salaried, and you couldn't exactly track hours. But it isn't legally enforced. Because in my opinion, it isn't any of the government's business if I choose to offer paid vacation time. What if instead of vacation time I think my employees would benefit more from half an hour of a deep tissue massage a week? Shultz decided to offer health benefits even to part time employees after his father was hurt on the job and no longer could get the same benefits he once had because he couldn't work as much. I want the right to choose what benefits I offer and who I offer them to. Which for the record is why I dislike the health care bill. That's an entire other issue altogether that I'm sure some place has its own topic.
Alright, you get it. And if you don’t, democracy is great for individual rights in a society that doesn’t demand change and that feels when they die the society won’t matter. Which is a lot of people and companies, unfortunately. Then what does work? Oh Payne, I know what word you’ve been scrolling to see...
Communism. What a great idea. Insure that everyone is provided for equally and to their own ability. How cool is that? It is a pretty nifty idea, too bad human nature gets in the way constantly, just like it would in a company that grows too large. Communism only works if everyone feels they have equal ownership. And in order for you to feel that way, you have to see it or feel it. You have no property. Your bread is put on the shelf along with everyone else’s bread. It all looks and costs the same. Planned Economies don’t really allow for value added techniques. There’s no way to really add a “personal” touch to a loaf a bread dictated by the state. How depressing to me.
In large corporations in free enterprise, it is pretty hard to imagine anyone feels personal contribution there either. Honestly, what usually supports that feel is the company culture. If the company makes you think you are contributing, then you are. And if you are actually honestly contributing, you feel even better. The strength of a company culture is defined by the loyalty of the lowest structural rank. If you have a dishwasher singing the praises of your restaurant, you are doing it so right. Interestingly enough, the business structure that I am most interested in is very much a collective. But it is small with only a couple handful of people, so loyalty is relatively easy to reign in. But loyalty is just as much of an issue in communist countries.
Here’s an interesting tidbit. Russia’s second largest party is the communist party. They want that USSR identity back, they want to feel good and proud of their country. Look at all the cool things they did when they were communist. They defeated Hitler’s army, they sent a spaceship into outer space, they kept pace with an economic giant in terms of development. Too bad it fell apart, and that causes hesitation, keeping it for now at number two. Not to mention I’m pretty sure Putin would win a violent uprising. I really feel that he’s one of those guys under the “thank God he’s on our side for now” title. But that’s how I think we should feel about most of our allies.
What about China? The Chinese people have been impoverished for so long. They are incredibly grateful that the government is providing them some economic stability. One of my professors that visits China often said that if you went up to a Chinese person and asked how they felt about communism, the general response is that they really don’t care. Not in a bad way. They’re just happy that if they follow a few simple rules they aren’t going to die as quickly. That makes it really hard for them to put in a free market perspective, when by their standards they are living in a land of plenty (for the most part anyways). Not to mention if a simple sarcastic comment on Twitter gets you a year in a labor camp, I don’t think anyone is really feeling the need to speak too strongly about how they feel. As they grow complacent, I think that’ll change. Before that, though, I believe China is going to be facing a huge labor shortage in the near future. In both cases, it’s an underlying cultural identity that drives the need for communism.
Well what does that leave? A dictatorship. Man those things are efficient. But no one appears to know what the best type of dictatorship is. If you rule with an iron fist, surely for a while efficiency will be incredible, because people will be scared into submission. And then you get some sort of wise guy that’s going to come in, kill you, and turn your wonderful dictatorship into either a democracy or into a commune. And well, see above. What about a benevolent dictatorship? Yes, it would appear that this is the best situation. But soon people will want some sort of representation because the country will grow too big to deal with only one person calling the shots. Then what? Well I guess you could create a parliament, though that does defeat the purpose of a dictatorship, as it just gets things caught up in bureaucracy for a long period of time. And there goes your efficiency.
So what is the right way to go? They all got there problems. In my opinion, it largely depends on size. And just as a monopoly has to be split up once it grows too big, maybe a country needs to be too. I would love to be ruled by Colorado and Colorado only. I do think the states would live in harmony. Well, for the most part, but that’s what trade agreements are for. Even if we put dumb initiatives on the ballot like the ET Commission, I love my state. I feel a stronger cultural identity to Colorado and Denver than I do to the United States of America. It is still large, and so it would run into the same problems as many small but crowded countries. But I think it is the most equal balance of all the choices above. One leader, many representatives that answer to that leader, and then the people that answer to the representatives. That’s it. That’s all I need.
So guys, what do you think? What is the best, what do you dislike, what do you like? There is no one system out there thus far that I have found that will sufficiently please me. I’ve only listed the three most common.