If this has been discussed before, feel free to lock. I'm not a D&D regular so I might've missed such a topic previously. So basically the question is whether governments who only look at the short term is problematic. This isn't only limited to our government, but pretty much everywhere. We borrow from the future to help the present. We look at benefits in front of our eyes, without thinking of the repercussions later on. Now in the old days, I don't think this doesn't really matter on the grand scale. Even a really bad government either breaks apart through revolution, foreign conquest, etc. and life goes on. While it sucked for the people involved, damages were generally localized. But with modernization and globalization, bad long term planning can have much more devastating effects. The recent economic crisis and global warming are just two prominent examples. But in general, governments don't really give a damn, and it's more or less business as usual. Covering up problems with short term solutions and band-aids that don't really solve the roots. So do you think this is a big problem? Or am I just worrying about something that really isn't a big deal, and things will always right itself over time?
A part of the problem is re-election. As soon as a politician gets elected, they are already worrying about re-election. This is a bigger problem than partisan politics when it comes to paralysis of the system.
Governments often reflect the people they govern and most people don't think long-term, particularly about complex issues. Furthermore, there will always be a class of politicians who argue against strategic thinking and play on people's ignorance and/or selfishness. It's a societal problem, not just government.
But that's the thing. The government should NOT be reflecting the popular views of the people. They're suppose to be experts. Just like one would rely on engineers to build our roads, farmers to plant crops, professors to write our textbooks, etc. You shouldn't rely on popular opinion to make decisions that benefit the country. The people ruling should know better than the masses. The problem is that even an authoritarian doesn't help. Because the powers that be tend to be corrupt, and still needs to placate the masses for the fear of revolt. And you don't placate them by telling them how their grandchildren benefit. But rather what you can give them today. So yes, it is a society problem. But that's what makes it a problem in my mind. Because it can't be solved simply through a change in structure, or a change in the people involved.
You make a very relevant point. And it is one of the clear differences between the makeup of China's government vs. ours. By design, they have significant percentages of scientists, engineers, and university professors holding high offices and mapping strategy in their government. While our politicians are by and large, lawyers by trade who simply transformed their resume profiles, wore more TV makeup, and fine-tuned their whoring skills in order to get elected to office.
The problem with the Chinese government is that there are a lot of back-room politics and corruption involved. Although to be fair, a lot of the crappy part of the government tends to be at the local level, and not the national level. But I agree with you that there should be at least some screening process for politicians beyond their wealth and ability to look nice on camera. Some sort of entrance exam at least to show that they're not imbeciles on governing.
The Soviet Union tried thinking long term and their answer was to reduce complexity by eliminating choice and decisions. It began to unravel when they were successful at creating a middle class who had enough purchasing power to want more. Maybe a computer can plan usage and demographics with 3 tooth brushes and tooth paste. But what about 10 or 15? Long term planning is all about preparation for past and probable (through extrapolation) events, but even with complex modeling, there are too many factors that change things. When we perform postmortem analyses, we get those aha moments, but you know what hindsight is. You waiting at the airport might not be the best deterrent to another terror attack. What ties into complexity is the number of people that are here and is continuing to expand. How do you account for or control 6 billion people? How do groups of people even handle that degree of responsibility and power? I think we're at a scale where any ideology will not work as advertised or anticipated. People and leaders are winging it. Perhaps all that's holding us together is a collective faith to survive and less upon the weight of our abstract theories of governing or ideals of individual rights and liberties.
that's just a symptom of democracy (or representative republic) : assuming that the people know the optimal choice. Maybe politicians should be limited to one term. Or at the very least, the executive office. Maybe the Confederate States of America were right on this one point.
People think they know their optimal choice. The issue is very few think they know the optimal choice and even less realize that there's no such thing as an optimal choice.
I think you're trying to think of long term planning in a different sense that I am. I am not thinking about complex mathematical models. I am thinking about not spending and borrowing like compulsive shopper. I'm thinking of making sure social security money being paid right now still exist by the time we grow old enough to cash them. You're right. It's impossible to predict the future in a Isaac Asimov sort of way. But you can at least predict the future in a broad sense. People do it all the time at an individual level. Fat people trying to lose weight to lessen the risk of heart attacks. Smokers trying to quit to lessen the risk of cancer. Families having retirement plans for the future when they can't work anymore. These are all plans for 10-20+ years into the future. All I am asking is that we have some of the brightest minds try to do this on a much bigger level. Of course it's a lot tougher. And of course they can't micromanage it. But it's not difficult to do it in a better way than the current situation. I mean, as pippendagimp pointed out, we're run by lawyers. Not to mention they're funded by big corporations and spend half their time worrying about re-election. Suffice to say, this probably isn't the most ideal situation for a government.
All government planning has devastating effects. No single entity has enough information to run an economy. What are two prominent examples of effective government planning?
You are so right my brother. It's the same reason it has taken decades to get health care reform. It's the same reason we are reliant on foreign oil. It is the same reason why we get involved into wars. We are a culture of fear. Politicians have to fear us to get us to support issues that they want to pursue. Most of the time the fear exaggerated and the things we should be concern about get more and more difficult to do therefore we focus on right now then the future. Also we tend to judge current politicians on how things are now. The actual truth is you can't judge the success until 10 years down the line. That's when we can pay attention to their policies and the long-term effect on society itself. People in general get set in their ways and never want change even though it's a need and they claim to clamor for it.
The problem is even experts just can't predict the future. You can thin something will work long term, but the economy is something that is super complex. What worked in the past might notwork now due to the change of the economic climate. People were calling Greenspan a genius now he is thought of as a chump.People can even question Keynesian principles now days.
I don't know. What qualifies a person to build the car we drive? Make the computer we use? Build the houses we live in? I'm guessing people who studied in the field, understand everything involved, and has a lot experience succeeding in the field. By succeeding I mean not build houses that leaks or make computers that stop working after 2 days. And in terms of running a government, I'm going to assume that being lawyers, raising money from big donors, and able to kiss babies on TV probably aren't necessary for the role. Just going out on a limb here. So you're going with the "since it's too hard we shouldn't try" approach? Nothing wrong with that. But kind of depressing though.
China has managed a pretty amazing economic policies while transitioning more to a market/hybrid economy.
Another is the Canadian banking system. Highly regulated and designed for long-term health, they were criticized for not joining all the crazy profit chasing in the US and throughout the world over the last decade. But when the financial crisis hit, they were basically unaffected. The government fairly effectively prevented an out-of-control housing bubble and fiscal crisis by managing for the long term.
Well, Glass Segal, which kept the banking system from having to be bailed out with your tax dollars. The GI bill after WW II which helped create a middle class. It may have helped you have the leisure to post on this bbs. I know it helped me. Ok, give us the Fox spin on why these were ineffective.
