Potential Vectors of Change in Political Economy

A political economy interfaces politics and economics. For the U.S.A., when government regulation quality and understanding is lacking the private sector and government investment goes to seed; the ecosystem declines, economics serve capital concentration entirely for its own sake rather than national citizenry well-being, national financial balances run tens of trillions of dollars of deficits, and wealth is concentrated to the point of creating a virtual aristocracy or plutonomy.

Remedies exist that are obvious, yet the corporatism phenomena of the private sector merging with the government that becomes a servo-unit for it following it about has negated the selection of quality political candidates and oversight.

Patents can be reformed such that exclusivity exists for just three years with 10% royalties to patent holders from anyone in the common domain era after three years, Regulations can be made to reward quality production that reduces mal-effects on the ecosystem. Capital acquisition by individuals can be capped at a percent of the national income that is low enough to prevent political power from being concentrated as well as economic, and ecological economics can become a guiding principle for the political economy, instead of being a vague outline in the shadows.

Conflict isn't inevitable with shared items. In primitive societies with few kinds of tools people will give an item admired by someone else to them, since it reduces jealousy or conflict, and is easily replaced. Scarcity of an item is an element in the function of covetousness and conflict over an item. Few are jealous about sharing air because their is a lot of it. Some are jealous about water where it is more rare, others have a lot of it and would toss a bucket of it on someone to cool them down. Exclusive use of an item or space may be necessary to produce a particular article. In a global economic system individuals and corporations rather than nations take profit from resources of other nations (unless one has a state socialist government then that government does harvest the resources of other nations).

Hume- Is, Ought and What Not of Moral Norms

"All prescriptive theory" is quite a large field that isn't even finished. Formal logic and the square of opposition has the A proposition being 'All are". One learns to be very careful with that. All are x or None are x can allow zero exceptions to be true. Hume wanted to disprove cause and effect relationships, so he necessarily would have pointed out the looseness of 'is' propositions to 'ought' or should propositions, quite reasonably. 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/square/

Prescriptive theories can be applied in fields beside moral philosophy, and in some case the formal logical tests would be applied equally and in others the tests fall outside of simple formal logic and within larger structures for analysis that might best be compared to dead reckon'd sailing judgments. Rather than being logically rigorous propositions formally the use was analytical. One could say for instance that 1 + 3 equals 4 and the answer they provided is 5, and they ought to have written '4'. That kind of statement is reasonable.

 Moral propositions though, unlike Kant's categorical imperative that has some logical validity in a dead reckoning sort of way, are descriptive of actually existing human behavior and suggestions to improve that in some cases. In others it could be a simple observational use of the word 'ought' for a moral circumstance where variant behavior did not comply with the prevailing idea of the normal correct behavior. 

An example for that might be that a baby is crawling across a street amidst heavy traffic, the mother is laying on the sidewalk knocked out from a falling brick, and a passerby walks past the scene and allows the baby to be squished by a truck when he could have easily rescued the tyke from the rode. While not legally responsible to rescue the infant, a police officer that saw the scene from a distance says to his partner the "the rogue ought to have saved that baby".   

https://www.livescience.com/solution-to-worst-prediction-in-physics.html

Experience of exigent circumstances are rather subjective and conditional, yet descriptive and normative (prescriptive) ethics describe situations in space-time, Situations that are recurrent can be emergent though not unique. Consider the Nurmagomedov vs Porier UFC 242 fight- It was like a martial arts match where each knew various katas or forms. None were unique or original, and there are lots of prescriptive analysis about what ought to have been done to get outcome A, B. or C. Prescriptive ethics about what people think they should do probably never would be over regarding humans. Hume's Fork (good point) about empiricism and rationalism going separate paths, disregarded by Kant, might be a subject of more modern philosophical research in the developments of 20th century empiricism and Ayer's book 'Language, Truth and Logic' wherein only empirically based statements-more scientific ones, had validity and the remainder were psychological and subjective. W.V.O. Quine broke that paradigm in 'The Two Dogmas of Empiricism'. Epistemologically speaking the separability of the world and statements about it was renormalized or returned to something closer to a Kantian rather than Humean position. I think a lot of moderns like Dewey's paradigm of everything being subjective, and so they like Hume's ideas. He seemed to want to dismiss common ideas about the relation between words and objects-fair enough, yet he went too far in several ways, from a much later point of view in regard to subsequent developments.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_ethics Normative ethics are also known as prescriptive ethics, They are usual contrasted to descriptive ethics. Hume created an epistemological battle taken up by Kant. The resolution of the epistemological war was settled by logic and logical analysis of the relation between words and objects. Ethics falls into valleys between the hilltops of epistemology and logic. Subjectivists like Hume later tended to justify moral paradigms with epistemology that broke the ties between rationality and the world itself experienced by individuals. Prescriptive theory is an ethics about what people think they should do in a particular circumstance, descriptive theory is about what people actually do.

Jehovah and Allah

The Bible has several references to names of God. Jehovah in particular is an evolution or product of a medieval Latin translation of JHVH- YHVH- Yahweh-consonants that were used to refer to the unspoken name of God, or Adonai, back in the day when it was thought wrong to actually say aloud the name of God. The medieval Latin word for JHVH was "Iehouah".  English had a great vowel shift, yet that probably isn't relevant, one discerns the upgrade to Jehovah. 

If you remember the Northern Kingdom had the term Elohim for God. The suffix 'him' is a plural term. That was just the way those people referred to God when a single God amongst a pagan society with many gods was novel. The Encyclopedia Britannica relates that the Arabic word Allah probably originated with the Hebrew term for God el. Allah probably is from the Arabic al-Ilāh meaning 'the god' in the singular from the Hebrew word for God el. So the answer would be for the question of does Allah and Jehovah refer to the same God is perhaps best said that God is not an object, though the intention is the same. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Yahweh

Why One World Government is a Bad Idea

A single world government is one of the older ideas around. I thought of it a very long time ago myself. It’s a sophomoric idea that consolidators first think of. It isn’t good.

A single world government would be oppressive, repressive and monopolistic to the point of dictatorship. A hierarchy would result with ranks seeking to serve yet reach the peak of power. Like an absolute monarchy or dictatorship an error in government policy would doom everyone that felt they weren’t already doomed by the onerous decrees of the sole planetary power.

Competition in the marketplace of ideas is requisite for producing good ones. Today in the U.S. Democracy politicians already ignore good ideas and go with popular ones that ensure political support and positive reinforcement from powerful special interests. With one government ruling the world there would be no marketplace of ideas or competition with the ideas of the government. The government would be the absolute authority on everything negating the intellectual productivity of virtually everyone not high on the table of ranks.

About the only good reason for one world government is the establishment of a Military dictatorship capable of forcing everyone alive to follow a particular environmental plan to save the planet. It would be a benevolent military dictatorship as well as a very bad idea. There are many better ways to go. If one really desires a world government then wait unto the return of the Lord God and be content with nations and national independence until then.

Russian Plans to Invade Germany?

Russia has always had plans to invade Germany. They have twice invaded Germany (to help start the First World War (Germany was planning to invade Russia and the Tsar rather clumsily decided to try to nip it in the bud) and to help end the Second). Each invasion required general planning.

The Soviet Union had plans to invade Germany for World War Three, yet that opportunity fizzled out when the Soviet Union ended. Fortunately Russia’s military inherited the plans to invade Germany and they probably exist in some computer software someplace in Moscow. Complete planning routes, personnel, equipment, deployment of rocket forces and so forth upgraded with continuous real-time input. It would be a great battle that would require a lot of sophisticated programming writing to command and control troop and weapons deployments as well as to keep track of opposition forces. I think that sort of stuff is de rigueur for modern nations concerned with the invade or be invaded scenarios that exist in select historical environments including those of the present.

In my opinion Russia has no interest in war on its western front. They would prefer good trade relations and have been a little rebuffed by the civilian sectors more so than tradition foreign military-industrial elements. Some civilians have found it to their advantage to regard Russia as the new evil empire to replace the vanished Soviet Evil Empire. Maybe former Soviet possessions have some real estate value to them.

Russia isn’t especially wicked for keeping good planning software- there are a lot of moving parts and variables with a nice assortment of constants for any possible modern conflict. Simply consider placement of those beautiful little 22 kilogram tactical nuclear bombs that special soldiers can carry around; if one has a few hundred of them where would be the best places to send them, and how would they go? Would reservations or alternate, green transportation be needed to get them to the show on time?

Modern freight and package delivery systems require vast networks of real time planning to command and control deliveries of packages in a timely way. Military deliveries of weapons packages require a similar structure and that important sort of planning can not be put off until the war starts- Pre-invasion gaming is required ad nauseum even if the plans are never fielded.

Everyone, even gamers, have invasion plans...

The United States has largely born the cost of post-Second world war containment of communism, terrorism and genocide itself as the primary force. It is of course had allies now and then that have shared the sacrifice. The U.S.A. has no colonies, and seeks none- it is a trading kind of commercial nation that many people hate for its success. Keeping some military forces abroad-such as at Okinawa and Japan, was necessary for a number of reason- and has helped stabilize Asia for some decades after MacArthur’s direction of reconstructing the Japanese political economy concluded. It may be true that the United States- that drew down so many forces from Germany after the cold war, should relocate some of the remaining forces in Germany to Afghanistan to keep the area free from terrorist training for some time until the culture has evolved to one with a more egalitarian democratic characteristic.

If there were no plans or interests of foreign peoples to war on their neighbors or whomever, to invade or occupy etc. The United States could have few troops anywhere beyond its borders and save some money with the military industrial complex evolving into other commercial ventures and production. If the world required no policemen it would be a better place than it is now, Unfortunately the dangers of modern terrorism and desires of some forces to rule the world, impose their own economic or moral authority over others with force has not ended. In fact, there is rumored to be racial disharmony in some places, though the U.N. is a bunch of nice guys.

What Can Be Changed in the Political Economy of the U.S.A.

A political economy interfaces politics and economics. For the U.S.A., when government regulation quality and understanding is lacking the private sector and government investment goes to seed; the ecosystem declines, economics serve capital concentration entirely for its own sake rather than national citizenry well-being, national financial balances run tens of trillions of dollars of deficits, and wealth is concentrated to the point of creating a virtual aristocracy or plutonomy.

Remedies exist that are obvious, yet the corporatism phenomena of the private sector merging with the government that becomes a servo-unit for it following it about has negated the selection of quality political candidates and oversight.

Patents can be reformed such that exclusivity exists for just three years with 10% royalties to patent holders from anyone in the common domain era after three years, Regulations can be made to reward quality production that reduces mal-effects on the ecosystem. Capital acquisition by individuals can be capped at a percent of the national income that is low enough to prevent political power from being concentrated as well as economic, and ecological economics can become a guiding principle for the political economy, instead of being a vague outline in the shadows.

A Question for Grasshopper

I made one of those posters for grasshopper as applied to global warming questions. It seems like the left use Buddhism in their tool kit for environmentalism- yet is that accurate?

I like John Stuart Mill's work on utilitarianism. It seems to me the debate was always about act and rule based versions. The greatest good for the greatest number as the golden rule for utilitarians for example would, a priori, proscribe mass killings from drunk drivers IMO, or nuking innocent cities to kick off urban renewal.A consequentialist might wait until after the fact to decide if the consequences of the nuking were good or bad. 

 I am not sure if it is a Zen Koan. If i interpreted the meaning correctly, for Buddhists reality is illusory. If nothing is more than a temporal illusion, and return to nothingness (nirvana) is best, then killing the puppy is nothing meaningful either. Because so many of the post-industrial left tend to like Buddhism quite a bit, and are environmentalists too (at least nominally), I though I would try to point out the inconsistency in values; if everything is illusory then why concern about global warming and ecosphere decline? I don't share the viewpoint, yet it is interesting to note that by the turn of the century most people on Earth (if present trends continue) won't have access to brain growing omega 3s because of over-fishing, ocean warming, habitat loss etc.

 https://www.inverse.com/article/59208-omega-3-shortage

Today some academic insiders of the east look toward consequentialism as the justification for leftist ethics for grasshoppers of the cognoscenti. In my opinion though, some of the deontological systems that are Bible based work better, yet if one's idea is to change social moral norms to something that anti-Christians would be comfortable in, then Bible deontological ethics would be problematic. Few people actually study ethics then  personally apply them I think.

Ethics aren't difficult to find-especially in Muslim cultures. All human cultures have social behavior patterns that have set acceptable parameters; even lawful parameters. Sociologists and others study human behavior, and mass human behavior, and the rules of social behavior are fairly well known. Moral behavior is the way people interact in society-what they actually do, and what manner they follow those rules, historical rules, ere applied ethics. Morality are the rules of what is acceptable social behavior, and ethics are the way those rules are used by people. It is a very old custom.

 The ten commandments and other deontological systems were moral paradigmata. Thou shalt not kill, steal, perp adultery, etc are as old as human society. One might argue that social rules against bad behavior originated with society as an innate logic for social behavior, and their may be some truth in that. Plainly people are not amoeba or zombies free to consume their neighbor for-themselves without legal, moral or ethical concern.

Collapse of Roman Empire Not a Good Fit for USA

Direct comparative criteria for national collapse of the old world empires and modern societies are not exactly on the mark without some enumeration of points. They have fundamentally different elements and paradigms for nations. Roman civilization in its day was far ahead of most of the rest of pagan, ignorant Europeans. Celts had only relinquished their cannibalistic warrior ways in Switzerland with the appearance of Germanic enemies who marginalized them. Germans had stick villages. England had Stonehenge, yet it was probably short, darker people from Malta that migrated north to bring their technology to the cold isle. I wonder if the structure around St. Peter's square could be said to imitate Stonehenge structure a little?

Italians are a Germanic people too, and the Roman Empire following the Etruscan inherited the knowledge of the very ancient civilizations to the south. Roman expansion through France and Britain was nearly like an advanced extra-terrestrial civilization arriving on Earth where live the conceited hillbillies believe they know it all. Ancient Roman Civilization took the best of the near East and Greek knowledge too, and brought everything to the far west and north.

Roman civilization was due to collapse when it had served its purpose of bringing civilization and Christianity to all of Europe. Christianity was the common tie that drew formerly pagan and violent peoples into a proto-modern-European Civilization. It became a violent Europe with rapidly developing technology tempered with Christianity in a largely illiterate social environment. Imperial Rome could only go so far and last so long. Tamarlane would surge into invading unto Iraq. There was too much going on up North and West, while Constantine moved the main focus of his ruling era toward the East in Constantinople where the Eastern version of the Roman Empire survived another thousand years beyond the west.

The United States compared to Rome has not yet fulfilled its destiny as a leading technological and cultural accelerator of human prospects within a democratic political economy. It is possible that branches of the United States may survive off-world longer than the terrestrial version- maybe ten or twenty thousand years. I would think if that occurred it would not be recognizably American except in name only should some uncreative group of people full of nostalgia for this millennium wish to call themselves the USA or America.

The United States hasn't a history of owning foreign colonies- it is a trading empire with much direct investment in foreign entities. It hasn't foreign possessions to lose. True it was stuck with the Philippines for a few decades, yet it rectified that when practical to do so.

It is possible that the rapid decline in Christianity in the United States could precipitate national economic and social collapse. Rich corporations tend to be over-promoting their existing values and methods to the detriment of democracy’s marketplace of ideas. Good ideas may have few readers as the authors are marginalized in the commercial ecosystem.

Perhaps Mexican illegal aliens and other Latinos will bump out the existing cultural composition in the United States and transform the nation into something else- a Nova Mexico, through evolution and leadership weakness in the U.S.A. Alternatively China may absorb America like the Borg absorbs civilizations as Americans hand them the political economy on a silver platter because of cheap labor and sales opportunities in China. No one ever said the Chinese are stupid- they won’t look a gift horse in the mouth, as the saying goes.

The United States could fade away as environmental crisis overtakes the vanities of mass consumerism political economics. Certainly there is no political leadership aware of the science of ecological economics in the United States.

Alaska's northern towns have warmed up a lot since 1976. The Alaska Climate Research Center publishes a chart comparing temperatures from 1976 to 2018, and the results are consistent with global warming observations and theories. The temperature change for Barrow in autumn, for example, is 18.0 degrees Fahrenheit.

Chart from Alaska Climate Research Center-affiliated with U.A.F. Geophysical Institute.

North Slope and Alaska Interior are Much Warmer than 24 Years Ago

Alaska's northern towns have warmed up a lot since 1976. The Alaska Climate Research Center publishes a chart comparing temperatures from 1976 to 2018, and the results are consistent with global warming observations and theories. The temperature change for Barrow in autumn, for example, is 18.0 degrees Fahrenheit.

http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/ClimTrends/Change/TempChange.html

The Alaska Climate Research Center is funded by government grant and is affiliated with the University of Alaska-Fairbanks geophysical institute.

Weather record from 1949 to 2018 also show increased average temperatures.

How the Fed Would Work A Green New Deal

The Fed would create a lot of electronic dollars to loan to itself (new public debt)- however many trillions the Democrat Party leaders deemed useful, and allocate that pot of money to various contractors known to be sympathetic to Democrat Party politicians.

Because a green new deal would require some copious latitude for condemnations, expropriations and relocations of sundry establishment content found to obstruct government eco-redesign plans, some Supreme Court quibbling would ensue for some time, so a leftist court would be de rigueur for implementation of the Von Green Deal plan.

Giving the U.S.A. a great tax increase again would be necessary to fund the deal and make it seem like it would pay for itself. Maybe a 50% tax on the income of the top 5% earners. $12,000 of free income  for all would end unemployment and employment for some.

It would all go very smoothly and the dawning of the Age of Aquarius would arrive at last.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjxSCAalsBE