Odds and Ends
29 8, 9:44pm
The way I look at it, any polity that denies its citizens a reliable reward for their success, (that is, that swoops in and takes from those who become successful, possibly leaving them worse off than before,) will see a downward trend in their economy. That doesn't mean that there can't be any taxes, but those taxes need to be consistent. Predictable. Something that can be planned for. Why even try when success just means you die poor, and tired, (and possibly premature)? Further, any country that lives in a bubble, hiding the economic truth of itself from itself, will have issues, the same way that a driver, blindfolded and with his ears covered, can't keep a car on the road. Feedback, accurate feedback, is crucial to making good decisions.
Finally, one hundred thousand unskilled morons are smarter at economics than one exceptionally bright, well-trained economist. While most will sink in their endeavors, some, by pure dumb luck, will find the most efficient available path to success, and soon most of the rest will imitate that one, and improve further upon it. This, is the real "invisible hand" of capitalism and why capitalism works better than command economies. Mind you, the invisible hand is a sociopath, but at least it's not an idiot, and a half-blind idiot at that.
Now, capitalism-communism? Wrong argument. Capitalism is an economic model while communism is a government one. It's like saying you can't have both purple (a color) and wood, (a material). That said, the implementation of the government model does strongly effect the effectiveness, and the available range, of any economic model.
Personally, I find the Nolan chart a good fit, and the one cooked up by the JenniferGovernment guy a better one.
That said, I, personally, prefer the least necessary amount of government possible, and want it available, somewhere, if not where I am. The more variety of political and economic environments available, the more those one hundred thousand idiots can stumble their way toward prosperity, the more possible it is to evaluate the true benefits, and costs, of the different systems. That way, the command economy guys can't stick their head in the sand, say "this is good, there can be no better, you'd sink for sure if it weren't for me", when the evidence of the opposite is blaring across the border on the airwaves and internet packets, proving them wrong.
Also, don't take this as a challenge to what you said. It's not. I find no fault in what you said. But any tiny cabal trying to run all elements of an economy will fail. Be it one guy, whose credentials are he's bloodthirsty and had the backing of the last guy, or a mixed team of senators and economists from the best schools.