Cary,
<<Economics has a way of excusing minor dislocations when they are necessary to achieve major goals. Do you think the destruction of democracy in the US is minor compared to significantly raising the standard of living throughout the world?
I'm sorry, but I'm having difficulty following your argument. Are you postulating that economics is destroying democracy in America?
Economics neither creates, nor destroys. It is merely a discipline, like physics, botany, or C++ programming, albeit a "softer" science. In fact, Adam Smith belonged to the faculty of moral philosophy at Edinborough, since the dismal science wasn't then classified as Economics.
Economics, of course, doesn't exist in a vacuum, but is part of the political economy, which is subject to a number of man-made laws and conventions. But economic laws, such as law of supply and demand, operate independently of the legal environment.
Economies tend to thrive in democracies because their pricing mechanisms tend to be cleaner (fewer subsidies or controls) therefore all factors of production are allocated more efficiently. Since democracies are inherently richer and more stable, they are favored by Darwinian selection process. Rigid command economies cannot compete and must adapt or die.
Thus democracy benefits the economy, which strengthens this political-economic system, relative to totalitarian counterparts.
No system is perfect, but this is the best system that has yet been devised by a long shot. It may be true that the poor tend to be relatively disenfranchised, but this is not the fault of "economics",
and no other system has given the poor greater opportunity for improvement than capitalism.
SC |
