Scarcity & Competition
Social Theories Paradigms
Liberal utilitarists have theoretically grounded their economics on competion for scarcity. The debate with other schools has often reached extremes; to justify conflicts or speculative interests and so on. To observe nowaday that creative destruction is assimilated to the essence of capitalism. On the other extreme, socialist economics have been demonstrated formally efficient only as economics at war, thus not so different from scarcity's management produced by destructive competition or a round up economy. Switching causes and effects is more than common in economics.
Out the historical dialectical patterns, this rises questions about the similarities between different ideological perspectives, Completion and circularities in economics confuse often the causal-effects chains and the policies that can be taken. So the prospect of soft sciences with theories periodically coming back once and again into fashion, when periodically paradigmin charge exhaust itself, sometimes brutally via crisis, conflict or war.
Socialist economics, past or never really implemented have been inflated with biased information and of policies forcing individual behaviors up to mental conditioning. Extending without care, absurd over-control as in centrally planned and social production mismanaged their dear leader often lacking of mental or cognitive sanity, and so sure on whom where the ennemies of their systems. They crushed plenty of spaces of peaceful changes, lacked of environmental care and asked for enormous sacrifice of their own people, at a level of social cost, hard to understand from outside but not without historical reasons.
Communisms often ruled that their ideal societies were not needing transparent moral justifications or third part judgment and turned blind eyes on the means to conduce changes, to maintain their grip on power during decades of 'socialist transition'. Meanwhile if liberal ethics has to add fairness to competition to preserve some closure or right achievment of logic. But the respect of this important criteria often lacked too. Moral justifications of systems have almost always been present, pragmatic counter arguments often crushed, real politics often stay cynical even in the most humanelly claimed charity businesses which, out of frauds, are quite limited in their defects. May be because of the weakness transition to upward scaling of these policies. It is to remember that colonialist imperialist have been promoted as a mission of civilization.
Centrally planned Socialist ethics was so technically dedicated to distort the message of a better world and on the good society they were building for a 'virtual citizen' meanwhile caring less many aspects of social duties, the sense of its economics and the adverse effects of its policies. Said in other words hardly trying to unfold, anticipate or solve complexities. All thist show how social determinism in a complex world seems keen at creating huge ideological apparatus of self-justification, more with the result to distort information rather then being effective at coping with defects introduced in realities.
The cult of few (heros of system) if not just one personality, may not be so different from the practice of leadership and the culture of beautiful people of leisure classes, trying to standardize the preferences under their leadership, for scaling up the spendings on consumption of fashionable products. There are many ways to reinforce classes' struggles, and they are often more efficient in societies that pretend that this is not the right mean for social transformations. Services of dishonnest speculation exist, for helping to disanchor values from their local anthropo-ecosystems or from entroposphere of reality. As a result World class policies force poor envious neighbours, to behave as them and help them to fail what they have, if they want to play on the stage, as in Commedia d'ell arte shows of global leadership.
For right of for wrong, ideologic postures and attitudes express the needs of balance but, at the same time, they lack of commitment, willingness and do not care about rigidities; preventing to apply complementary differenciated levels of choice so as to fix hierarchies and precedence. Under the logical developments of ideological systemics almost all systems have been able to find, theoretically, rhetoretically and dialectically some balances of arguments to justify (and complete) the reason and kindness of their measure, the merits of their system so as to develop their sins. Whatever the sources of theoretical concepts as law, morals, ethics, social economy, political quotations and popular common sense, the application starts by delimitation of your degree of consciousness. Inspiring elementary tautologie for founding values of economics, can be:
- Basic rules of ethics (interpretable in different possible but consistent forms and issues), they should make, I suggest, the primary and best economic laws, that is sustain fair free choice between cautious alternatives,
- Structure (eventually shaped the same way, so as to uncover equivalent evidencies),
- Functionality (flexibility of the management of the olicognograph or of any ideas),
- Consistency (your responsibility that none can care better than your intelligence, laws setting margins),
- Coherence (what you do, for yourself and your community).
Scarcity: lacks ? economics ? moment ? prevail ?
Scarcity has some importance in the conception of social projects. To satisfy needs, according means, ressources and knowledge, human can either produce or trade. Humans together can make that more complicatedly but socially too is complicated; using diversity, heterogeneity, discrepancies in abundance and scarcity artificially created. Collectivelly more options emerge when there are densities in innovative solutions and with knowledge they can develop by systemic programming or save thanks to effects of scale, as well as iterativelly do better. There are intermediate balances and no need for just a unique perfect concept of an ideological monotheistic pure Market (general equilibrium model) which is more a theoretical closure, considering any pieces playing the same way. Applied real balance of pure market should be, in its 'theoretical ideological monotheistic purity: a communist paradox.
In any case humans combine themselves (commitment of actors), available physics of material means and knowledge. At best humane consistency sets reality's importance, criteria and priorities. According conditions, situations and so on, consistant choices require variants to compare; and complexity makes useful somes ones. Some easy and short options are not classed as non moral and at the same time they often express poor capacity to imagine fair (and good) alternatives. "Tele - prospect "characterizes human beings; so the implementation of projects, especially of infrastructure is essential to involve the sort of economics humans anticipate. Animals have project but mostly with enough of the materiality of goals at sight. Typical to humans too are the systemic ambition to distort the environment and the hope in 'overthere after the horizon'. Prospect makes the ability to find some alternatives, different from crude directness and eventually the potential to satisfy high ambitious needs, with more fundamental principles, stronger properties or stocks useless, when without industrial transformation. This ability to make speculation, find more essential (?) alternatives and / or more hidden ressources (including extra-biospherical) made scientific schemes and experimental evidences turned essential. So to put all that into the planning, the programming of processes makes real economy and help to solve scarcity, always relative of some needs. Opportunities of savings may care sustainability.
With needs, or scarcity we have to set some hierarchy in the sort of programs. Even if this cannot be not fully determined, we have to think about the different nature of needs and imagine goods and services, private or public uses. For some clues:
- Sets minimum precautions, not felt as expressions of direct needs and trying not to be "too esoterical" (neither too exo-hysterical): sustainability, share, cooperation, ethics, etc.
- Put first (but not alone) the sense of social utility sustainability, needs for social construction, that can/could involve persons, to make anyone think that their are part of something, where the best of their individual commitment is essential and "enough minimaly" reward (try not to sacrifice unfreely, but have strength and plenty of efforts),
- Care needs for most things be well done, not just for yourself but for everyones, as possible it can be (lazyness may be wisdom and even so could be negative smartness without dirty purpose: positive critics),
- Have concrete expressions of essential reward (words often suffice), while not missing universal values of common interest (sometimes properly expressed by money but far from always).
In the fundamental of life on Earth and in the reasons of humans activities there are plenty of flaws in the concept of scarcity:
- Life being under the Sun, emerged use of materials around as open sub-systems extracting and incorporating sustain from environment. Evolution develops all along, as a result, scarcity is relative to moment, place, qualification and amount but not in absolute abstract terms to most or any of these dimensions otherwise we would not be there to question.
- If the heterogeneous, disposal dispersion and variety of mixtures make the trasnformations, exchanges, forces, secondary movements, gradients so, there are more fundamental reasons to scarcities.
- What humans add to objective scarcity is the sort of speculations provided and created by subjectivness as asymetries of informations, lies, fake needs and barriers (like for receiving the benefits or privileges of sociality). As a result the founding status of scarcity in economics as relative advantages and other terms "fill, fool and flaw" as well as are consistent, objective and with positive issues. Care should be taken for wise essential things not biased or perverted by the negative ones.
- All this, developed from common ground, where relative sense of substituable and non substituable, renewable and non renewable depends much on energetic levels required also implying energetic costs and waste, making that non human economics probably more consistent than the one enclosed into interpretations of mathematical formula.
- With non human economics, life makes it easier is neede transformations can uptake, retake,re-uptake and uses of the entropic engines but preserving smoothness and softer (natural disasters may sometimes be a big bonanza ... and after all, at its times' scales.
- Inhumane that is human economics hardly care both spontaneous economics of ecology and humane economics
- Humane economics would be: the wise balance caring the sweet sense of non humane ecological economics (making it more conscious) and including ethical criteria when selecting the options making possible safer and more satisfied humane societies, within margins enlarged by the safe management of abiotic ressources.
Resulting from that, humane economics just by the heterogeneity and contradictions may consider:
- Careful not to overexpress entropies (highly organized structures have accumulated many steps of neguentropies, they have also a huge potential of entropy (and they have had a long way of using the entropic steps of vicinity - since Sun's radiations),
- Care with further entropies implications and future costs of neguentropies made (effects and future obligations),
- Care with information too close to present economic theoretical dogma, especially when confusing the needed common understanding of reasonable thermoeconomics of life (interpretation of mathematical concepts of economics needs to be adapted to living world),
- Remind that information from reality (could be feeled phenomenologically) comes from the almost impossible to be comprehensive relative disposals of maps as that of heterogeneity of material disposition that can make raw material for building more neguentropy (or self maintainance) and on the other eye as the map of material keen to provide energies for transformations. So where potentials are entropic, entropies variations the expressions of transformations, anticipated opportunities for neguentropies; the hard work of will and the hope; as well as the need for care and never say chapter closed to go on in the path of life, that is of problems ahead,
- Careful of local complexities, they may have adverse effects because not enough manageable locally or too biased by too distant superior determinism,
- Overviews at a level keeping manageable the complexities are useful if independent somehow free more basic units - individual - and play effectivelly so: fairly, cautiously and hopefully good to everyone.
Competition in a strong and wise way: without being short and brutal
Competition can be in the same common sense an abstract word of economics, which can be taken in very contradictory ways as well as turned an ideological leitmotiv reserved and truncated to preserve bias. Think that just one of few goals (be the "only first") should be contradictorilly balanced. Compete and win - but make it more for the privilege of social duties. Be gain an utility only if effectivelly serving everyones. Have contenders all with their hopes to win an exceptional exception a single time and for almost nothing, at one time. Bring the contradictions of critical thinking at the level of choice for good, with sense of universal humane values.
If some operators or groups in "wrongly oriented" perspectives (say like in conflicts) have shown their ability with courage and fair ways, in the intent to get out bad situations too few they have been to prevent slaughtering, Many peaceful times only served more to prepare wars and violent operations often dress up as missions for civilization. During peace times involve as many as possible in better perspectives and care with the win mentalities at any cost. Humans societies have been able to show that they could be oriented for good by cooperation and share. Seek scale effects in the production of satisfaction. In good qualities make a difference between pretending them and making them inclusive of social margins.
The margins are often where sense of balance is critical, more interesting, more change prone, adapting to complexities and risks taking. Margins are meaningful as: for / to / off the core if this supposedly well established. Of course this may also have been assumed with contradictions, commitment intensities, oppositions. Globally what may make the human genius has also positive pathways and should be driven by tolerance.
Think of means in a complex way, with competition transposed to complex reality. Forsee diversity of goals and of types of successes. Give social value to these. Think that competition is more interesting when within a group (team, task force, community, society) where everyone can "win better" reasons for doing well and being good; when any have done their best (without harm) and when all could be allowed to stay in games (without closing entry); turning pleasant and qualifying for next play (not being too dimished). All the previous in a world of kindness but not just sweet and effortless. Reality sets "unsweet" balances and requires sustainability. Monolithic strength is often of least use. You may make you life out strict sense of mathematics axiomatic demonstrations and essential physics of living world, but should prevent all mismanaged it away from reality and against ethical values, neither refuse anyone to be socially useful because prejudge by biased by exhuberant markets or 'levia-titanic' technocracies.
Balance wiselly between your individual goals and social commons. Care not to miss that as a contender you exist where you are because others are spectators. So that the best is anyone should have to balance well between: consumer and producer, contender and spectator, obeying and disordering, respecting varieties of hierarchies and mocking hierarchs . Have not always the same role in always the same way as leaders, priviledged and deciders. Have compensation(s) and provide cooperation and supports (better if anonymous. Help positivelly whenever costs could be less thank to you for whoever. Do not do (pretend) to do everything to other; do no let any without reasons of doing well too.
Systematize the uses as: 1) Recycle the material, 2) Reproduce with minimum waste, 3) Imitate and Repeat the hard good care, 4) Repair and maintain before disruption, 5) Invert as soon as when wrong look like stable, 6) Loop regulation when close to good renewal. As a whole there are plenty of recycling in the biosphere - the principles of ecology; but do not imagine humans gaining control on everything.
"In a world where there are abundant becoming-beings, systems but no atoms, perturbating each other; a world where systems in a very large number with heterogenous interfaces perturb each other, systems tend to distribute energy by dissipation. Different systems have different active areas by virtue of their structure. Just as systems inevitably distribute energy whenever there is contact. They are also inevitable to be part of interactions.This space makes possible for a dialogical opposition of the two tendencies: distribution and collection of energy".
"Thus, living being is described to be a neither-nor-state, between the 2 extremes. The characteristic of this space is to maintain the state by replacement, reproduction, recycling and regulations of feedback. The abundance of little loops produce highly efficient work cycles, minimizing external energy dependence. A self-re-producing network of such beings manages to engulf a process and a counter process within the network of being, to counteract the two ‘deadly’ tendencies. A being capable of displaying behavioral changes without undergoing change in identity is born. And this logic continues to operate recursively to explain physiology, epigenesis, evolution and cognition".
