This
graph is called a “production-possibility frontier” (PPF), or
“production-possibility curve (or 'boundary')”, or “product
transformation curve”.
It
shows various combinations of amounts of two commodities that could
be produced using the same fixed total amount of the factors of
production.
Rather
than strictly economic ones, the commodities depicted here (the two
axes) are political commodities; allocation, distribution, and
planning by means of corporate bureaucracy, versus allocation by
means of socialist bureaucracy.
The
purple dot ("Centrism") represents where we are now; at a
state with imperfect liberty, imperfect equality, and a mixture of
socialist and corporatist bureaucratic planning.
The
goal is to find a balance between socialist and corporatist planning,
without sacrificing either liberty or equality, and if possible to
increase both liberty and equality.
Any
action which achieves this goal is a Pareto improvement, or “an
increase in Pareto efficiency” (a change to a different allocation
that makes at least one individual better off without making any
other individual worse off; shown in light gray), and any action
which fails to achieve this goal is not a Pareto improvement (shown
in darker gray).
Although
a move from Centrism to Corporate Nationalism (dark blue) or
Republicanism (red) would increase liberty and the organization of
corporate bureaucracy, it would involve a loss of economic equality
and a decrease in the organization of socialist bureaucracy;
therefore such a move would not be a Pareto improvement.
Although
a move from Centrism to Oligarchical Socialism (pink) or Democracy
(light blue) would increase equality and the organization of
socialist bureaucracy, it would involve a loss of economic liberty
and a decrease in the organization of corporate bureaucracy;
therefore such a move would not be a Pareto improvement.
A
move from Centrism to Libertarianism (yellow) would increase liberty
and the organization of corporate bureaucracy, without affecting
equality or the organization of socialist bureaucracy. Because this
would make “at least one individual [or the production of at least
one good; namely, corporate bureaucratic planning] better off without
making any other individual[s, or goods; namely, equality and
socialist bureaucratic planning] worse off”, it counts as a Pareto
improvement.
A
move from Centrism to Green-partisanship (green) would increase
equality and the organization of socialist bureaucracy, without
affecting liberty or the organization of corporate bureaucracy.
Because this would make “at least one individual [or the production
of a good; namely, socialist bureaucratic planning] better off
without making any other individual[s, or goods; namely, liberty and
corporate bureaucratic planning] worse off”, it counts as a Pareto
improvement.
A
move from Centrism to Voluntaryism / Panarchism / Mutualism (orange)
would increase the organization of both
corporate and socialist bureaucracy simultaneously and equally, while
simultaneously and equally increasing both
liberty and equality.
Once
any of the dots on the curved line has been reached, a move toward
any other location on the curved line would satisfy Pareto
optimality. It is important to remember that just because an
arrangement is optimal, it does not mean that it is necessarily the
best, or that it can be objectively described as the best, or as
better than others.
This
is because it is impossible to maximize for two variables at once.
Optimality is simply the selection of a
best element,
with regard to some criteria, from some set of available
alternatives. Anyone promoting a set of criteria would choose a
“best” based on his own values and politicoeconomic goals.
For
more entries on election studies, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/campaign-finance-reform.html
For
more entries on the political spectrum, please visit:
I think there are probably some republicans who would argue, vehemently, that moving towards their area of the graph would only result in things getting better.
ReplyDeleteThat kind of brings up the question - how do we actually know that moving towards a polar end of the spectrum always results in a loss of something? Or is that just what we're assuming for the moment to help illustrate the concepts?
Also! What do you think about ideas such as the Venus Project, where everything is automated with the aim of making money obsolete? I can see how socialist would totally dig that... but how would a corporate nationalist culture survive?
It's just what we're assuming for illustration's sake. If "libertarian" means Ron or Rand Paul, then we might experience losses of economic equality, but at that, in some policy areas but not in others. And a Green administration would probably improve many (although probably not all) individual civil liberties.
ReplyDeleteI'm not too familiar with the Venus Project. I do like the idea of a new industrial revolution with individuals possessing Thingmakers etc. as a way of increasing egalitarian access to the means of production, which is one of the conditions necessary for perfect and complete markets leading to equality.
I discuss my views on currency - specifically gold - a bit in my post "An Anarchist Kindergarten: An Open Letter to Noam Chomsky".
I should write something about how to fulfill the practical aspects of physical currency, explaining why some aspects are not necessarily good things. For example, society derives few benefits from the freedom of a billionaire who is the beneficiary of government largesse to access all his money by simply carrying a few credit cards around. For some purposes, the ease of carrying money is hazardous to the freedom of markets.
I feel that a corporate nationalist culture can only survive by promoting the interests of autocrats over individuals, and subsidized corporations over enterprises, and also by compelling unwilling people to contribute funds to government.