Part III – For the Benefit of the Socio-Political Economy

The Interdisciplinary Reality of Life

Our world is connected – whether you like it or not. Thus, the connection needs to be levied in an effective way. It was thought that the globalized, neoliberal framework of the post-Cold War era was the most effective measure; but alas, globalism itself adopted more debt, more printing of money, more inflation, and more burden on the global middle class (majority) than ever before. It almost makes me wonder if the terrible economics of hyperinflation and national debt burden of Soviet Russia ever went away? Because it is here now, and we must acknowledge the negatives of globalization, at the same time, embrace a cohesive representation with other nations through trade. How do we strike this balance?

An interdisciplinary framework allows us to look in other areas of knowledge to observe problems and find actionable solutions. For example, hearing members of congress in the United States speak about over-spending in the legislative body leads me to believe a stay-at-home parent who says ‘dammit don’t spend what you don’t have’ is increasingly becoming the best advice in the world’s biggest economy. It is becoming the best advice as it reflected in bipartisan statements from senators such as Rand Paul from Kentucky (Republican), or Joe Manchin from West Virginia (Democrat) who understand that when too much has gone out, the return on investment is lost. This also fits for globalization — too much has gone out and not enough is coming in. Too many jobs have been shipped overseas, too many outsourcing of products such as medicine and steel, too much money for pointless nation building objectives (War in Afghanistan) that have crippled the country. Perhaps it is Uncle Sam who needs Columbia^[1] to smack the back of his head and balance the cheque book.

Now I will not sit here and say I have all the solutions at this time, but an interdisciplinary reality can provide questions both inside and outside the economic sector. Questions like why does the United States military have anywhere between 600 billion and 1 trillion in budget spending? Why does the Kennedy Center for Performing Arts in Washington DC get an approved budget of almost 300 million? Or almost 500 million for public broadcasting in a world that is increasingly cord-cutting and streaming at a fraction of the price? These are the questions that need to be asked and justified for the spending; from there, it is competent leaders who decide – through interdisciplinarity – if this spending is actionable. This is not just for managing the economics of a nation, every decision in every aspect of life needs to be thought out and presented with actionable solutions that are rational and effective. Even if the plan does not meet desired outcomes, there is an outcome, and you fail to get stuck in an obscure process with no escape.

Classical Capitalism with Jeffersonian Theory

In the end, classical capitalism with Jeffersonian theory is the answer for the economic issues of today. Ultimately, that means a ‘populism is power’ framework for our economics. Politically, this should be bipartisan with corporatocracy displaced for more economic freedom in the hands of the common man or individual (left-wing position). At the same time, the populist ‘individual entity’ is surely not government, given that they are ineffective at handling money and economic stimulation in both practical and historical references (right-wing position).

So let it be said: classical capitalism of the free-market and effective taxation helping the commonwealth via Jeffersonian theory protects the natural rights of the common man – all while the rejection of cronyism and government collectivization is the economic populist concept that is needed.

It is in this populism that the freedoms of individuals are connected to their economy as the transparency and decoupling of government with corporation gives back more control for the individual and reprieve from the stress of undue influence on market forces. A social mercantile system makes the consumer and political civilian become one – and is seen as an important stakeholder in the economic system. The rules in this treatise, in addition, do not treat the economic leaders in our society as greedy or malicious either; rather, the common man is positive and understands their need to produce and innovate; in turn, reap the rewards of that innovation and production. With that a return and proper taxation for the commonwealth, this not only helps the common man – but helps the companies that own the labor of the common man for a more effective and efficient work experience.

Potential Criticisms and Challenging the Criticisms

If anyone touts an economic system that is completely perfect with no flaws. Tell them you have beach front property in Nebraska you want to sell. I have laid out a potential five-point plan to deal with economics, and criticisms are found inside, even I can see that. The criticisms could be in the form of ‘too libertarian’, or a stodginess of ‘rebirthing old market functions’ that have no place in a global economy. Some might suggest my views on taxation and populist fairness are ‘cloaked communism’ especially with phrases like ‘for the commonwealth’ may be misconstrued as ‘for the collective’. Some fair criticisms – some absurd, but these can be countered through simple reflection of the methods such as: effective taxation on assets is far from libertarian; observing diversification and decoupling of government with enhancement of the individual is forward in an age with enhanced technology; and the deep interdisciplinary questions relating the economy to the political, philosophical, and ethical realms is analysis that we need to embrace and strive towards in order to find answers to complex modern problems. There seems to be four distinct criticisms that surfaced, and I would like to review in detail: stifling of innovation, furthering of economic inequality, more bureaucracy, and ‘how would this work in an already expanding globalized economy?’

First, stifling of innovation refers to the sections where trade surely will be hindered; thus, the need for consistent innovation may need to be recalibrated. Some might see this plan as a disincentive for companies to go farther, especially if they know that 3% is being chopped off every year. Second, is economic inequality going to continue to be an issue? Will there still be a major gap between the haves and have nots? From the looks of it, this sounds like another version of capitalist concentration. Third, in the process of removing more bureaucracy, wouldn’t this inadvertently create more bureaucracy with new programs, new economic divisions, and new regulation? After all, its an overhaul of the system; thus, a transfer is needed. Lastly, one might critique how an economic system can even work without a massive, globalized method? This economy has too many moving parts to even change and reform.

How might I challenge these criticisms? First, I use the old adage that the stock market is not the economy. So, when you hear a decline of innovation in firms causing low stock prices, they are not mutually exclusive. With that said a lack of innovation does not mean a lack of economic power. In addition, this economic treatise does not intend to stifle innovation, rather further investment in the nation and its people only serves to strengthen the economy through the means of purchasing power, corporate fiscal responsibility, market determinants, and transparent fiscal reform in governments (mostly removing themselves from purchasing power and market determinants). On the topic of governments, they are the most influential individuals in the political realm. This is not the best considering most who discuss economics and economy cannot distinguish — or really explain the two effectively. Economic power would almost have to be enhanced through constitutional mandate, in order to put it above government. But again, this is a slippery slope.

Second, the one percent will continue to remain the one percent – even with the 5-3 tax rule as multinational corporations will bring in big money that is incomprehensible to almost all individuals lifetime earnings. However, their power and control in governmental influence is essentially over and with a focus on patrons and shareholders is-but-an exercise in relative reduction of economic inequality. I reference the Reagan Rule^[2]: “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?” In four years of this system – can you say that are you better off now than before? More tax revenue, transparency with debt and borrowing, and less crony corruption will make the American capitalist system seem manageable and embracing to the public. This could be wishful thinking, but the outgrowth of an enhanced economy and more support through taxation and representation will be a net benefit for all.

Third, it is important to avoid the knowledge problem of central planning – which is key to avoiding bureaucracy. The knowledge problem says that individual actors are always key in economic planning, even in a centralized system; thus, no economic planning is really centralized and cannot survive through centralized processes^[3]. Pricing still, will be an aspect in this economic system as floor prices with taxation leaves more money for the greater good and leveraging the problem of scarcity. In addition, individual choice in the consumer/patron-civil citizen presents the individual actor making their own decisions based on economic options provided to them.

Lastly, centralized national economies without some forms of trade are doomed to fail; however, this plan provides a national adjacent structure with a strong focus on home economies while welcoming mutually beneficial trade in global markets. Furthermore, mutually beneficial trade without the stain of crony capitalism will render a true competitive market for goods to be shipped. One product may be more enhanced one decade over another; thus, the global market demand will change and fluctuate depending on the sensibilities of the individual in the commonwealth.

Furthermore, as an additional criticism, does mutually beneficial trade eventually lead to the problems of current globalization? Not with a modern mercantile theory connected with a social mercantilism that removes incentives to take companies overseas, or the consumer as a cog in a globalized system. The modern mercantile idea runs contra to the many proposed economic changes – such as the World Economic Forum – toward technological and corporate governance, circular economies, and institutional investment^[4] which only stand to heighten the negatives of artificial aristocracy, crony capitalism (renamed stakeholder capitalism), and technocratic control. Robust modernization in trade through a reformed mercantilism can help enhance the process of trade, avoid logistical backlogs in current levels of shipping and receiving, and avoid the detrimental and costly trade within supposed ‘sustainable’ geo-economic plans.

Conclusion

At this point, can we clearly say this economic treatise is beneficial? I have laid out a plan to fix and enhance the economy by going back to the roots of economic process and theory, all while attempting to understand the socio-political underpinnings that connect us to economics. From there, we look toward a Lockean Liberalism paired with Jeffersonian philosophy to keep the common man in the commonwealth as the most important and impactful individual in the economic system. The five rules of a nationalized base, 5-3 taxation, limiting diversification, transparency, and a decoupling of corporate/government entities provide a balance of fairness and autonomy for individuals, business, and societies to remain innovative and accountable. The objective of this economic treatise is to enhance the new economic ethos of trust, transparency, individualism, tried and true methods, and embrace for national roots.

For this, a new economic treatise based on this action is beneficial for all parties to run and embrace a new economic model that benefits the most people as best as possible. This is not a utopic model, as most utopias (nowhere places) are nowhere fallacies unable to be achieved. This will not eliminate economic inequality, this will not eliminate poverty, this will not eliminate third world countries, most G7 and G20 countries will remain G7 and G20 countries. However, this is a rational approach to how our economic system is run, the potential fixes, the progression to a more effective economic system via brick-and-mortar application, and a new economic ethos that is great for the global middle class.

In closing, it is in this interdisciplinarity of economics that we find our method and outcome for the economic goals we pursue. The new economic treatise hopes to be a guide for individuals who might be frustrated with the economic system, act upon it, and open the door into a new way of thinking. In the process of writing this book, someone close to me asked: “can economics be simple in how its handled?” It made me think: simple in the form of not spending more than you make to avoid interest and a debt burden, simple as in paying a small marginal tax to the commonwealth that allows you to operate, simple as in being active patrons, investors, and citizens – in return, you receive good products, return on investment, and protection of fundamental human and natural rights.

Yes, it is simple; and yes, it can be achieved.