As an introductory matter here we should note a couple of things. First of all, we're not trained in economics, but then, we aren't trained in sociology either. Nor is the author here a professional historian. Yet we comment on all of these things, and with some knowledge, we'd add.
Additionally, the author is a Distributist and that most definitely colors how economics is viewed here. Distributism is discussed elsewhere on this website, but we note it as its something that deserves attention, and or view of economics is definitely distributist in nature.
Yeoman's First Law of Economics-The economy is to serve humanity, humanity isn't there to serve the economy.
This may sound obvious, but the failure to heed this it the prime defect of capitalism and socialism. Both give lip service to this concept, with it being taken more seriously in socialism than capitalism, but neither really worry about it all that much.
All economic systems serve someone, and absolutely everyone participates in the economy. A sort of economics has existed in human cultures since day one, with the instinctive initial goal always to serve the family first, the tribe second, and as societies grew, organizations larger than the tribe. If the basic units aren't being served, however, the economic system isn't working. At some point economies can in fact become so perverted that the mass of humanity is working to serve the economy, which is to say, ultimately, some sort of overlord or oligarch.
Both the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity are involved in this law.
Yeoman's Second Law of Economics-Economic systems that depend upon state action are not natural economies and are not "free trade".
and
Yeoman's Third Law of Economics-Both Socialism and Capitalism are state created economic systems.
Most people, at some level, will maintain they are for "free trade", which is the free exchange of goods and services for fair and just compensation. In a natural economy, one in which there does not need to be state intervention at any level, this happens naturally. Such economies, however, are primitive by their very nature as at some point society has to act to serve a larger entity. I.e., you really have to stay at the family and tribe level to have a purely free economy.
That doesn't change the fact, however, that any state action which regulates the economy in any way operates to either support free trade or retard it, and for the most part, such actions retard it.
Socialist economies do this on an open basis and so this hardly has to be explained, but capitalist economies do as well. Capitalism is the state sponsored allowance of what are naturally partnership, the combination of one or more persons in a business enterprise, to be treated as persons at law, thereby limiting the exposure to liability and economic misfortune for the shareholders. Limited liability companies do the same thing, just with a theoretically different creature of the state.
All such systems retard free trade, however. Given their legal and economic advantages over the individual, the individual cannot really compete against them.
Capitalism and Socialism favors, therefore, economies of scale. You can't have a large-scale economy with large entities without one or the other of them, or both of them, as is most often the case in most economies. However, as both operate against the individual, it's important to recognize the reality of that both systems involve the state favoring scale over individual, and neither system is a "free market" system.
Yeoman's Fourth Law of Economics--All state created systems tend towards monopolies.
In spite of all the whining about Socialism in Capitalist societies, both Socialism and Capitalism gravitage naturally towards monopoly. The only difference is that in Socialism, the monopoly is held by the state itself, where as in Capitalism, the monopoly will be held by the most successful corporation. Over time, there's not that much difference between the two system, if things are allowed to go to their inevitable full extent.
This takes us to our next law.
Yeoman's Fifth Law of Economics-All monopolies are inefficient and operate to serve themselves.
One the element of competition is gone, any large organization has no incentive to be competitive and its focus shifts to serving itself and those running the entity.
This is obvious with Socialism, but it should be obvious with Capitalism as well. Large corporations that have no or little competition are usually quite inefficient, perhaps always so.
Yeoman's Sixth Law of Economics--Monopolistic economies and large scale economics always drive average people into servitude and poverty long run.
This is fairly evident in our modern economy. Large entities like Walmart have driven smaller locally owned outlets and stores into extinction, and have taken away the middle class occupations they featured. Business owner have become employees, and while prices have gone down, so have wages, while the rich people that own the large entities have become wealthier.
And this was true in the past as well, showing the full applicability of the law. In early American history agriculture was largely agrarian, and hence distributist, and created self sustaining farm families. The exception were those crops that depended upon large-scale production agriculture, such as cotton and tobacco. As people had the option not to work for production entities, and work for themselves they did, bringing about actual slavery to work such units.
Yeoman's Seventh Law of Economics-Technological advances efficiency tend towards creating servitude.
This is paradoxical, and it is also not universally true, so this law, is somewhat loose as a law.
Nonetheless, it can generally be fairly easily demonstrated.
Consider the advances of electronic office equipment, to include the cell phone. Electronics have been billed as creating efficiency, and they do, but that has not equated to making people's lives easier. Quite the contrary. As things have become more efficient, more is expected, and more is demanded. Occupations that, for example, were white collar occupations in which people worked 9 to 5, Monday through Saturday, are basically extinct due to electronic communications. People's lives have not been improved, they've been diminished.
Yeoman's Eighth Law of Economics-Because they ignore the principle of Subsidiarity, all economic systems contain within them the seeds of self destruction if not tempered and moderated.
Because all economic systems are, in the end, political in nature, they all are backed by purists who are absolutists. In a modern society, however none of the systems work correctly if unrestrained, and the more unrestrained they are, the more likely that they'll cause injury and self destruct.
Capitalism if left unrestrained has no regard for individuals whatsoever and will always advance a corporate economy over the interest of individual people. The purer a capitalist system, therefore, the more wealth will ultimately devolve to a pure worship of money over anything else, including morality.
Socialism, on the other hand, favoring a state monopoly will inevitably devolve to mass inefficiency and nearly quite working entirely.
Distributism, which we favor, also has this vice, as in its pure form as maintained by absolutists, it will evolve towards primitivism, which will not work at all in a large scale economy or society. Lack of realism, therefore, plagues Distributist.
Given this, and modern economy will feature a mix of every system, the ultimately question being what is the most just, moral, and efficient mix. Subsidiarity and solidarity should be applied to determine the same.
Yeoman's Nineth Law of Economics--Economics is inseparable from politics, but economic systems do not determine political ones.
Economics is essentially politics, as its a society feature which determines the well being of people in a society, which is all that politics is supposed to do. Therefore, economics is inseparable form politics.
Nonetheless, no one economic system determines a nation's political system, and any political system can exist with any economic one, although the more a system tends to be distributist, the more likely it is to be democratic. The system that vests the average person with wealth and the means of production is necessarily more democratic in nature.
Nonetheless, a nation can be democratic and socialist. Likewise, a nation can be capitalist and totalitarian . The more the wealth of a society is narrowly vested, however, the more likely it is to be non democratic in real terms.
Laws one through nineth published on January 2, 2026.
No comments:
Post a Comment