« Web Assignment 8: Government Failures | Main | Web Assignment 5: Varanya Chaubey: Polanyi's Well-Governed Market »

September 18, 2007

Comments

Colin Zealear

George Orwell can be viewed as a product of his environment. Not to say that he wasn't an intelligent man to say the least but, it seems to me, by observing the historical period right before his life, as well as during, Orwell came to conclusions about the world around him. A few of them being workers' rights in an industrializing economy controlled by the newly founded concept of capitalism. Although there were many positive effect of the transition to a more integrated, fascilitated by infrastructure, industrialized political economy from a more simple competitive capitialist market in some places and communism in others.

His stress on socialism and challenges with fascism it seemed clear to Orwell that these new political ideals stuctured on central governments and intense domestic policies as regarding the world's economies. These welfare states that utilized nationalism and past histories as world powers to extend power were a force to be reckoned with an Orwell thought it was his job, because someone had to put an end to it, to let the world know how societies should be run. In The Road to Wigan Pier he demonstrates the possible pros of socialist society but gives forewarning as do it's downfalls.

Joseph Hogan

Hello all, Im a student an Econ student at George Mason University. I came acroos this page while searching for "economis benefits of socialism" which did not yeild many results. Though i did not read your book, here are some thoughts on applying this to military diversity policy...

...an all-heterosexual male military is the optimal way of achieving a homogeneous structure. Historically, homogeneous societies have benefitted from the trust and identity they gain from each other. This is not to say that a homogeneous society is the best society but rather, that is simplifies social issues and reduces social costs. We have observed this historically in Scandinavian cultures. Sweden, until recently, was a great example of a homogeneous society with very little poverty due to the uniform group identity. Taxes, traditionally high, are redistributed by the government through social welfare plans. This causes anger and aggravation in diverse societies due to the lack of comradery but is just the opposite among a homogeneous society where citizens feel obligated to support each other. Note that with the influx of immigrants to Sweden, they are losing their common identity and their socialist system is on the verge of collapse.
Why is this optimal for military but not for a country? This effect does not take economic prosperity into account. It is true that there will be less poverty in a homogeneous society, but there will also be less prosperity. The optimal taxation rate is exceeded (see Laffer Curve) which will discourage citizens from achieving optimal wages. The total GDP and the average income for the country will be lower than in a heterogeneous society. Furthermore, job diversity allows people off different skills to specialize in one thing which will bring them the most prosperity. There is no such job diversity in the military where the jobs are largely the same for each soldier. Therefore, economic incentives do not exist in the military the way they do in society. Since these incentives do not exist, society would indeed be benefit from socialism, which in turn benefits from a homogeneous structure.

The comments to this entry are closed.

From Brad DeLong

Brad DeLong's Schedule

Search Brad DeLong's Website

  •  

About Brad DeLong

Pages