Elitism and democracy (in democracy, etc)

[cougar]

1 hour ago, cougar said:

I will.   I may have to elaborate a little more.  Can't do it right now.

It is actually difficult  to explain in the sense that I see it in very basic terms.

We have a farm A, producing 100,000 kg of apples a year and having 10 employees.  It sells all of its apples to 1,000 clients who can eat only 100 kg of apples a year.

You somehow improve the productivity of this farm two times, where you have the following two scenarios.  You continue to produce 100,000 kg / year but now you need only 5 employees, or you keep your 10 employees, but now you have 200,000 kg of apples a year.

Keep in mind your customers can only eat 100 kg/year each.   Unless you increase your number of customers the extra apples are useless to you.   However if you chose to stick with the 100,000 kg/year that you can sell, you now also have 5 useless employees.  To reduce cost, you lay them off.  Good for you - now you have more profit.  What are those 5 people supposed to do?  They have to sell something to someone to make a living.  Can't be food, because you have no more need for food - all clients need is produced by other outfits, who are facing the same productivity improvement challenge as your apple farm.  So those useless people can start producing durable goods. 

With durable goods, if you make them less durable , there is going to be more demand over time at the expense of damaged environment.  However if you produce high quality goods, they may be so nice that some people will start collecting them (items they do not actually need for anything).  There is a limit to that too.   Those collectors have only that much space in their houses and yards, but they also have only so much money to spend on useless collectibles.

You see where we are going now?  There can be no growth without a population increase.

Edited February 10, 2021 by cougar

[myata]

An update on the tie story: NZ parliament has backed down and now allows members with no ties. Just proves that a little shakeup wouldn't hurt time after time, to bring it back in connection with the reality. If it can happen though. If anyone cared to.

And this speaks to the theme raised in the OP: isolation, separation of the process of democracy inevitably creates those little ponds of standing water; clubs; clans; the elites. Equal but better. And rightfully entitled. I used to know a local activist, good, genuinely concerned about the community. But something happened to her a few months into the first tenure as MP; lifted up; transcended. Started talking from high up down. Look at this little comma we just added. It will go in history.

Isolation in the tower eventually and inevitably creates its own version of reality. The one where ties are more important than asking questions; where performing worse than some third-world countries, in the third echelon of developed countries and other countries without very busy and very expensive management still "looks pretty good". And without regular flow of fresh water, regular shakeups the distance between the realities of the democratic tower and those on the ground will only increase - and all the way to "clean the swamp", make great again and perhaps eventually, bread and brioches. No surprises and amazing discoveries.

The conclusion: a modern democracy should eliminate all and every trace of isolation, elitism and entitlement in the operation of the democratic process. All processes must be open and immediately accessible to the citizens (figure out how - that is the job, not preaching and lecturing about the good from above). The representatives should work part time, with modest compensation for the time invested in public service and nothing infinite and outrageous. Democracy by the citizens - or democracy with a limited horizon, and lifespan.

Impossible? "Can of worms"? "Why fix if it's working"? Sure. Let's see how it works in the next few decades. The bells are ringing.

Edited February 10, 2021 by myata