0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Thanks Karen, much appreciated. And so far as the topic is concerned, feel free to move it, I got fed up with trying figure out where this should go.
WHat you think Neily Theory or what?
Well we don't want to turn this thread into a debate about where this thread should be so I'll move it to new theories and see what happens.
A system that is in equilibrium is without the capacity to change, and such a system is for all practical purposes, a dead system.
Yes, we could consider a hypothetical economic system that was in its lowest energy state, but such a system would have no dynamic, and thus be useless as an economic system.
In order for a system to perform work, it must have a dynamic, and thus must not be in a state of minimum energy where no more useful work can be done by the system.
It is for this reason that your theory of worldwide economic equilibrium could not work without many decades of social engineering - and that, in itself, is contrary to your theory that it is a natural state.
Now on to Dr. Beaver’s reply,Much of what I said so far applies to your post as well. However, I believe that you misunderstood what I meant when I said “natural state”. I was not referring to the “state of things”, but rather to an actual nation state. I assume from this misunderstanding you came to understand that I believe that such equilibrium is the natural state of things. Although I did not make this argument, I would argue that all species except humans would support such an equilibrium “naturally”. Ultimately, from the reference of the Quran I gave as well as from what history has to tell, I only meant that the nation state as described in the Quran is the natural state with respect to implementing a socio-economic system that maintains the equilibrating effects of the monetary system on wealth. Thus, when you said:Quote It is for this reason that your theory of worldwide economic equilibrium could not work without many decades of social engineering - and that, in itself, is contrary to your theory that it is a natural state.Well…obviously I do not mean to say that an entire nation state can be built over night. In fact I made no claim to any length of time or how long it would take for the establishment of such a state to affect the monetary equilibrium. Thus my “theory” (rather critique) is not falsified for this reason.
without some external influenece all the money ends up in one place and that is what causes the problems of inequality.
If everyone had exactly the same as everyone else the whole system would stagnate. There would be no incentive to "better oneself". Ambition would disappear and you would end up with a world full of apathy. Wealth does not naturally trickle down and I believe it is wrong to think that it does.
But there are plenty of examples of inequlity in nature.
If we humans did not exists, than this raw material would have been equilibrated with all members of all species; the very reason that life at such a grand scale can even exist so naturally. In this "grand" view of things, it is the efforts of humans that run counter to this monetary equilibrium that all other species follow willingly or unwillingly.