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:
