Adam Smith's Big Issue: Immigration or Feetprints?
This is firstly a response to a global thread amoung academic, business , and professional colleagues regarding the economics, politics and social implications and issues pertaining to immigration policy. In the end, such policies are not the issue and they will do little to move our specie's predicament forward in any way. Here's why.
Thanks Steve, Tim and Frosty,
In the end, I believe we have to tread softly with the issues surrounding immigration as it can first become a powerful beacon for rhetoric and emotional frustrations. Second, it can distract us from what one may call the essential primary issue and diagnosis - that is the reduction of the per capita footprint, and particularly the imbalanced relative metric of Western cultures. From this, one could view that the critical task at hand is to reduce the total aggregate "feetprints" created by all cultures with the greatest reduction focus being placed on a the highest marginal feetprint producers or cost centres to the planet's real wealth. Otherwise, we return back to all he word games that have so long hindered any progress or resolution to the most salient issue our species face of reducing the cost and exploitation of the planet's real wealth through aggregate human activity.
Defining Non-Negotiable Limits and Contraints?
Yet let us not forget how difficult a task it is for Western society to substantially address this issue. Could Western nations face a 50% reduction in GDP over a two year period and preserve the societies and structures they have built? Not likely - and the implications of such a profound event would at best be political upheaval that could lead anywhere.
Think of this in personal terms too, because a 50% GDP reduction means that all of us would have to takes a cut in pay proportionate with the lower GDP levels, while our individual outlays may not change or even possibly increase. How many are prepared or could realistically adjust to this under short notice? My guess is very few in the larger population, albeit some of us perhaps have already taken personal steps to get through an economic collapse. If not, it is probably worth a little effort to set out a few back -up plans even though there is no way to predict how events and realities will enfold. That's a little economic advice.
Anyway folks, that's the view I have looking of managing economically the " The Wealth of Planets", as opposed to Adam Smith's misguided and conceptually and existentially bankrupt "Wealth of Nation " theorems taught by all our top business and economic schools around the world since the dawn of the so-called industrial revolution. Millions are indoctrinated into believing in its myths; like "the invisible hand" whose myopic existence depends on whether you still believe in Santa, Tooth Fairies, Wizards and similar fictional and archaic relics.
What Progress?
By the way, I hope not to offend anyone here, but as a matter of interest, Adam Smith was by professions (plural intended) a lawyer, academic, philosopher, and noted teacher of rhetoric. This combination of the dark crafty linguistic arts; in itself, speaks volumes, but the absence of science and mathematics assures swift debunking and execution. In other words, it is all poppycock!
Now Mr Krugman et al, look at the mess we're in....
Cheers
T.A. McNeil
First Financial Insights
CEO and Founder
June 23, 2014
PS: Any thoughts and resharing appreciated. "Just telling it like it is" - H. Cosell
The Wealth of Planets: The Short History of Exponential Feetprints
Spooky stuff...
