A detour into the economical world

I know I should write the last part of my "one step closer to the truth?" but instead I will take the detour into the economical sector.

There is something that I need to explain first. I believe that everything that is created and operated by us, the human being, inherit our own characteristics. We might be able to tinker with it and keep it invisible to the eye; especially the less significant product the less of human trait there is. For example, a car doesn’t have any characteristics visible to most of us, but a car engineer should be able to find similarities between a car and the human biology. Since we cannot go outside of our own nature when creating new things, it is impossible for us humans to create something we don’t understand. Therefore it is not possible for us to create something that doesn’t have a life cycle. And eventually, everything becomes obsolete and dies. This goes for both nature and the industry (all sectors). And I claim, that everything around us, is in one way or another, alive. And I shall show it with an example.

It is sometime heard that the economy has its own life. And that it is without control. This is partly true, the world economy has a life, but only the life we, the humans, give it. However, it doesn’t have its own life and it isn’t without control. It has a life because we give it that. Everyone who isn’t completely self-sufficient is a part of the economy to various degrees. Since it gains life from human beings, it also gains some of the characteristics of human beings. If we stopped feeding the economy (stop trading resources completely) it would die, the consequences aren’t of relevance in this text though. But back to the characteristics, one thing the economy shares with the humans is its unpredictability. As with human beings we cannot predict every move of the economy. This is why some says the economy has its own life. We, as the world economy, contains of millions lesser parts, with a life of their own. We, as the world economy, have to replace these lesser parts when they become old and obsolete (cannot do their assigned work anymore). And if we, as the world economy, don’t replace these parts our development would stagnate and eventually the decay would kill us. (Note that replacement may not be a completely change, but a reform of the old may be a valid option. Adapting it to the new circumstances)

While writing this I have the two car companies, Volvo and Saab in my mind. They are a lesser part of the world economy and as I said above, must eventually be replaced. That time seems to be here, for if we want the world economy to survive we must let it have its natural flow, replace the old and obsolete for the new and up-to date replacement. As it looks when I write this, the government will give these two companies financial aid. If the controlling powers of these two companies fail to understand the life of the world economy, they will take the money and try to ride out this financial storm. Only problem is there is no financial storm, it is a financial evolvement. The old ways are becoming obsolete and failing, therefore it is changing into a new form. Trying to ride out this isn’t possible, it just prolong the inevitable, their death (or more bankruptcy). However, if the controlling powers of these two companies have the understanding of life cycle, they will know that they have to adapt and be a part of the new world economy. This is the hardest of all things, for they must predict the future.

If the government doesn’t aid Volvo and Saab, the natural order of life will still have its flow. The people, and thereby the economy, is innovative and will take matters into their own hand. New industry will grow, new (type of) work will develop and we shall have a more developed economy. And this is what the government should do, let Volvo and Saab meet their end and instead focus on the people that now has nothing to do. Make it easier for these people to make innovation and adapt to the new upcoming world economy. In the long run, this is the best option. However, this is a known problem that history has shown us all several times; acting for better terms in the long run isn’t our best ability.

Even if I didn’t plan on it, I ended up with an explanation (one of many) regarding the internet culture (as most of you know as pirates) and entertainment industry. The entertainment industry is trying to keep its old ways while the technology is evolving. And as I already established: working against the life cycle always result in destroying themselves. When Napster came, they had two choices: (1) embrace this new technology and develop their methods so they go hand in hand with it, or (2) fight it and thereby put themselves soon out of business.

Pinged on
Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om Ekonomi, ideologi, utveckling