The problem of Rawlsian rational secularism is that it has been existing only for a few centuries meanwhile the other big religions I mentioned have been existing for millenniums. So, even though Rawls puts emphasis on the neutrality and the rational logic of his rational secularism, it cannot defeat the wisdom and the emotional and spiritual inspiration of these big traditional religions. Furthermore, his neutrality is questionable because how can we determine what is neutral? Then, we can see that Rawls has failed into the trap of the moral universalists' hypocrisy. Even though Rawls promotes the pluralism, his pluralism only exists under the dominance of his rational secularism, the Godless monotheism. I would rather support his disagreeing Modus-Vivendi state where none determines which religion (including the modern secularism) is the mainstream.
Unlike Rawls, I support the state of Modus Vivendi in which various believes are still confronting each other but having stopped fighting together. In Modus-Vivendi, there are two or a few more big religions are competing each other for the religious dominance. This method creates an oligopoly of religious believes rather than the monopoly by one. Thus, these groups eventually improve their belief system in order to attract more followers to join. This Modus-Vivendi situation also prevents cults which are the small religious groups. As the competition among big religious groups is already intense enough to prevent the new entrant of these cults into the market of religion, then cults will be eventually expelled out.
British Industrialisation and the development of the rest of Europe were successful due to this Modus-Vivendi state which Rawls criticised. The competition among various few big religious groups encouraged the intellectual, mental, and spiritual growth in these areas in Europe from 16th century to 19th century. I highly condemn the rise in the intense modern Western secularism in 20th century which monopolised the belief system in our world. The modern secularism should prevail if it is demanded, but it should not monopolise individuals' belief.
I believe the moral is relative across different time. place, and occasion. So, if the culture code of a civilisation requires secularism to be a secularism, then the public sphere shall be secular. The separation of Church and state is not mandate: this is the choice for a particular civilisation. So, some civilisations at a certain time period adapt (Roman or Anglo) Catholicism, Orthodox, Judaism, or Calvin or Luther Protestant as a mainstream public belief. These religions provide individual citizens with a moderate and civil religious codes.
My admiring Max Stirner, the father of individual anarchism, highly criticised (Modern Western) Secularism as a form of Monotheism. So, he warned on the danger of the modern secularism dictating individuals' belief.
Emancipation from the veil of ignorance is impossible because we human-beings are constantly suffering from ignorance. In addition, we have never known what is an ultimate right choice in our life. So then, the freedom of choice prevails. Freedom of choice gives us the chance to try finding the right way of life depending on the situation given in different time, place, and occasion. Rawlsian way of life is too restrictive to trust individuals' decision.
Rawls also ignores how individuals are motivated to live. We do not live to pursue the ultimate universal truth; We live for our reason to become happy. Regardless of the expected outcomes, we live with our own reason. Rawls is sceptical about reasons because reasons can be biased by our own subjective prejudice. But, we do neither have enough time to research about the ultimate truth nor want anyone to teach what is the absolute necessity we should pursue in our life. The world is constantly changing so that the effort of our ability is too slow to catch up with chasing the absolute truth. Hence, the ignorance always constantly haunting us.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
"The owner and management" and "the workers (Human-Capital)" create wealth within a firm: Government is irrelevant!
"The owner and management" + "The workers" + "The exogenous factors" create wealth within a firm.
--
The exogenous factors can be divided into the two categories, the demand effects and the supply effects.
The demand side: The business cycle (Recovery/Boom & Recession/Depression), the fashion, and the geographic advantage of trade.
The supply side: The weather, the efficiency of supply chains, and discovery of the resource.
--
The owner and management is reliable on the final decision making, human resource, the responsibility, and the value of the share (It is determined by not only the company's performance but also the personality of the leaders in it)
The Workers are considered not only as the labour force but also as the human capital. The human capital development is an important factor of production severely affecting the firm's performance. It is not only for the supply side but also the demand side (Consumers' and investors preference due to the quality of the workers' personality, commitment, and good contingency effects to their community) and Thus, the investment to the workers is highly required to increase the revenue.
--
On the other hand, the government action and regulation do not have a big effect on the productivity and the value of the firms' wealth. Taxes can repress the consumers' and producers' activity whereas subsidies can aid their activity. But, these actions hardly divert the trend or the supply line.
Tax: Someone will find a substitute if the demand is elastic to the price change, or still keep consuming if the demand is inelastic to the price change. In a healthy capitalist economy, the suppliers will eventually find out the way to reduce the cost to compensate for the tax imposed as their extra cost on their production.
Subsidy: This does not take an account of the long term sustainability. It may give a temporary rise in both the consumer surplus and the supply efficiency. The supply side become excessively dependent on the public supports (Even the PFI is criticised as the cause of the huge damage on the public finance). The demand side will face the inflation which consequently increase their real cost of their goods&services!
In addition, subsidising to one specific good/service will depreciate the demand of the substitutes, and then depreciate the competition as well.
The inflation occurs because the supply efficiency (E.g. Supply-chain management, Resource management, and the technological improvement) itself is not improved. If the demand is continuously growing, the cost before subsidised will be going up rapidly so that the cost for this subsidies (I.e. taxing from others and/or the debts) incurred will increase exponentially. Furthermore, it causes the excess of usage of goods&services, which induces the inflation. If there is a frustrated demand, then the lack of supply is usually caused by the lack of competition of the suppliers in the market. Until either the supply efficiency or goods&services is improved or another competitor comes into the market to increase the supply, the price should not artificially controlled. Otherwise, the unnatural market condition results in the imbalance of the demand and the supply, which is the cause of the inflation.
Regulation: Unless a business is harmful to one individual and/or a group of individuals and/or something becomes excess, regulation hardly affect either demand or supply of businesses. Of course, regulation is important to enable individuals to gain the knowledge about the potential risk incurred on a particular good/service. Therefore, regulations have a significant effect on their decision making process. Nonetheless, it is very difficult to control the quantity of goods&services demanded and supplied as long as these consumers are willing to purchase and the producers are willing to produce. They always tend to try to find the substitutes and/or find another way to produce and consume which these regulations do not regulate. Financial market is the most intensively regulated one among all the market existing. However, its activities have never stopped expanding further even to cause the excess and the macroeconmic instabilities. All in all, regulations are needed in order to enable individuals to be aware of the potentially involved risk in the businesses, but it hardly stops individuals involving into these businesses as long as they are still willing to participate even after being aware of.
--
The exogenous factors can be divided into the two categories, the demand effects and the supply effects.
The demand side: The business cycle (Recovery/Boom & Recession/Depression), the fashion, and the geographic advantage of trade.
The supply side: The weather, the efficiency of supply chains, and discovery of the resource.
--
The owner and management is reliable on the final decision making, human resource, the responsibility, and the value of the share (It is determined by not only the company's performance but also the personality of the leaders in it)
The Workers are considered not only as the labour force but also as the human capital. The human capital development is an important factor of production severely affecting the firm's performance. It is not only for the supply side but also the demand side (Consumers' and investors preference due to the quality of the workers' personality, commitment, and good contingency effects to their community) and Thus, the investment to the workers is highly required to increase the revenue.
--
On the other hand, the government action and regulation do not have a big effect on the productivity and the value of the firms' wealth. Taxes can repress the consumers' and producers' activity whereas subsidies can aid their activity. But, these actions hardly divert the trend or the supply line.
Tax: Someone will find a substitute if the demand is elastic to the price change, or still keep consuming if the demand is inelastic to the price change. In a healthy capitalist economy, the suppliers will eventually find out the way to reduce the cost to compensate for the tax imposed as their extra cost on their production.
Subsidy: This does not take an account of the long term sustainability. It may give a temporary rise in both the consumer surplus and the supply efficiency. The supply side become excessively dependent on the public supports (Even the PFI is criticised as the cause of the huge damage on the public finance). The demand side will face the inflation which consequently increase their real cost of their goods&services!
In addition, subsidising to one specific good/service will depreciate the demand of the substitutes, and then depreciate the competition as well.
The inflation occurs because the supply efficiency (E.g. Supply-chain management, Resource management, and the technological improvement) itself is not improved. If the demand is continuously growing, the cost before subsidised will be going up rapidly so that the cost for this subsidies (I.e. taxing from others and/or the debts) incurred will increase exponentially. Furthermore, it causes the excess of usage of goods&services, which induces the inflation. If there is a frustrated demand, then the lack of supply is usually caused by the lack of competition of the suppliers in the market. Until either the supply efficiency or goods&services is improved or another competitor comes into the market to increase the supply, the price should not artificially controlled. Otherwise, the unnatural market condition results in the imbalance of the demand and the supply, which is the cause of the inflation.
Regulation: Unless a business is harmful to one individual and/or a group of individuals and/or something becomes excess, regulation hardly affect either demand or supply of businesses. Of course, regulation is important to enable individuals to gain the knowledge about the potential risk incurred on a particular good/service. Therefore, regulations have a significant effect on their decision making process. Nonetheless, it is very difficult to control the quantity of goods&services demanded and supplied as long as these consumers are willing to purchase and the producers are willing to produce. They always tend to try to find the substitutes and/or find another way to produce and consume which these regulations do not regulate. Financial market is the most intensively regulated one among all the market existing. However, its activities have never stopped expanding further even to cause the excess and the macroeconmic instabilities. All in all, regulations are needed in order to enable individuals to be aware of the potentially involved risk in the businesses, but it hardly stops individuals involving into these businesses as long as they are still willing to participate even after being aware of.
Sunday, October 14, 2012
The EU, Still Far-away from the peace
I agree that the ideal of the European Union (EU) fits in with what the Nobel Peace Prize regards highly of. But, unless the EU unifies their fiscal policy by relinquishing the national governmental authorities among these EU countries, it is still too early to give the EU the Nobel Peace Prize.
The aftermath of WW1 caused European citizens to think of the European unification. The alliance countries force all the Central-Power countries to take their immense responsibility their ability cannot afford to bear the responsibility at the end of WW1. This resulted in the rise of ultra-nationalism in the former Central-Power countries in order to forcibly default their immense national debts. Even though some might argue that the main cause of the European integration was the loss of all empires, this fiscal havoc as an aftermath of WW1 was an extremely significant cause of the motivation in the European integration.
Polish still detest their past of being occupied by both Germany and Russia. But, because Germany is neither imperialistic nor oppressive nowadays, Polish started to think they are more co-habitable due to the successful political integration.
Nonetheless, I am still worried about the fiscal fragment and the nationalistic rigid labour market of these EU countries. Unless they start tacking with establishing the collective responsibility among these EU countries, the similar fiscal havoc at the end of WW1 might take place soon... Furthermore, the EU really needs to stimulate deregulation of their national labour market. The labour market has to be flexible as much as at the level of the USA and Asia in order to harmonise their business cycles together.
1+1=1, 1+1=3, and 1+1=2
This problem has been discussed by various ethical philosophers in the Western world from the ancient period to the nowadays. Hobbes explained that the world of words is operated by the totally different function from the world of mathematics and the world of natural science.
In order to make a consistent order, Hobbes claimed, in Leviathan, that we need the legitimate law and order authorised by a legitimate political structure.
Kant said it is our transcendental duty to follow the ethical axiom, as same as following the mathematical axiom, as much as possible (These two groups have to keep repenting themselves).
Aristotle and Ayn Rand were against these two points. The "reality" already explicitly shows 1+1=2, and these two groups in this pic are simply deluded by their unreal illusion. Then, Aristotle and Ayn Rand defied both any autocratic command unlike Hobbes and any abstract principle we cannot see unlike Kant, and so they supported "Laissez-faire (Let us do)", and the right one (The closest to the reality) wins in the nature of reality.
Sunday, October 07, 2012
Comparison between English Feudalism and French Feudalism
When I started learning the medieval Western history, I was really surprised that French nobles were disloyal to their king unlike English nobles. English feudalism kept the loyalty of nobles to their monarchy, except the four times (John the land loser (Caused Magna-Carta to be established, and it has become the taboo to name John for English monarchy since his reign), Henry IV (Caused Wars of the Roses), Charles I (Caused the Cromwell revolution) and James II (VII of Scotland, Caused the Glorious Revolution)). By contrast, French monarchy always faced riots, betrayal, and assassination attempts in French feudalism. This characteristics caused Lois XIV to declare his absolute monarchism which extremely centralised French feudalism all the sudden.
The lack of French nobles' loyalty to their monarchy was due to the difference in the feudal property right of their land and the strong explicitly contract between nobles and king by law. In England, all nobles and their lands were entitled to be their king's subjects even though these nobles had a sovereign right to utilise their land and their commoners inhabiting there. This contract agreement has been strictly enforced by the law, which is the basis of British Common Law, since Henry II. Therefore, both the land and the commoners were governed by the dual ownership by both the King and the feudal lords. By contrast, French feudal lords had an ultimate feudal property right which the King was difficult to intervene into. Perhaps, it was because France is a continental country sharing a border with various countries unlike England and the rest of Britain. So, there were various nobles from too many different backgrounds to unify into one.
French claimed that English provoked the 100 years war by English interest. But when we consider the two aspect, it gives us an enough room to argue that English monarchy was hijacked by a French noble faction.
1) The contemporary English monarchy had a strong connection with French nobles (Since Plantagenet dynasty (Henry II, the first Plantagenet obtained Normandy and Anjou by getting married with Eleanor))
2) French monarchy was not strong enough to bind all nobles to obey their monarchy so that the regional conflict between the pro-monarchy side and the anti-monarchy side noble factions frequently took place then.
So, there must be a plot by the Anjou families and their fellow faction member nobles to attempt to conquer the opponents' land inside France by using their relative English monarchy and its factions.
P.S. By the way, I was really annoyed by how Brave Heart (Both the movie and the novel) depicted Philip IV、the French monarchy in Capet dynasty, as a good guy. I really hate Philip IV because he not only forcibly relinquished the Orders of Temple but also liquidated and tortured the Templar members even though the Templar did a tremendously big favour for French monarchy's fiscal administration! Even though he was a good king for majority French because he was strong enough to convince majority of French nobles to loyal to him.
The lack of French nobles' loyalty to their monarchy was due to the difference in the feudal property right of their land and the strong explicitly contract between nobles and king by law. In England, all nobles and their lands were entitled to be their king's subjects even though these nobles had a sovereign right to utilise their land and their commoners inhabiting there. This contract agreement has been strictly enforced by the law, which is the basis of British Common Law, since Henry II. Therefore, both the land and the commoners were governed by the dual ownership by both the King and the feudal lords. By contrast, French feudal lords had an ultimate feudal property right which the King was difficult to intervene into. Perhaps, it was because France is a continental country sharing a border with various countries unlike England and the rest of Britain. So, there were various nobles from too many different backgrounds to unify into one.
French claimed that English provoked the 100 years war by English interest. But when we consider the two aspect, it gives us an enough room to argue that English monarchy was hijacked by a French noble faction.
1) The contemporary English monarchy had a strong connection with French nobles (Since Plantagenet dynasty (Henry II, the first Plantagenet obtained Normandy and Anjou by getting married with Eleanor))
2) French monarchy was not strong enough to bind all nobles to obey their monarchy so that the regional conflict between the pro-monarchy side and the anti-monarchy side noble factions frequently took place then.
So, there must be a plot by the Anjou families and their fellow faction member nobles to attempt to conquer the opponents' land inside France by using their relative English monarchy and its factions.
P.S. By the way, I was really annoyed by how Brave Heart (Both the movie and the novel) depicted Philip IV、the French monarchy in Capet dynasty, as a good guy. I really hate Philip IV because he not only forcibly relinquished the Orders of Temple but also liquidated and tortured the Templar members even though the Templar did a tremendously big favour for French monarchy's fiscal administration! Even though he was a good king for majority French because he was strong enough to convince majority of French nobles to loyal to him.
Thursday, October 04, 2012
Business and Ethics in 5 Different Cultures
In Business Administration lesson, when we tackle with the cost and benefit analysis (CBA), we tend to assume that all economic agents in this world use the same formula of the CBA to make their business plan. So, we tend to ignore that not all economic agents share the same rationale of their business planning. This CBA formula is based on the utilitarian philosophy which regards highly of maximising the utility which is the total benefits minus the total costs. It takes account of all the costs and benefits accumulated from the time of this business establishment to the present time period (or possibly to the expected ending period).
Nonetheless, when we take a look of our real world, we eventually realise that many economic agents do not exactly follow this business model. Some of them incur the costs more than this CBA suggests. Some of them only focus on minimising the cost rather than maximusing the benefit minus the cost. Some of them even behaves extremely irrational owing to perspective of this CBA rationale.
The ethics basing this CBA introduced in Business Administration is the ethics of Anglo-Saxon and Jewish entrepreneurs. Anglo-Saxon and Jewish ethics has become the dominant mainstream in this world especially in various private economic activities since British Empire started dominating the world economy. The USA took over the world economic domination from Britain. So, Anglo-Saxon culture has been extremely influential. Furthermore, Jewish have been taking a huge part of the world economic activities. So, Jewish philosophy also participated in forming the mainstream ethics of the world economy. All in all, the mainstream world business ethics is based on both Anglo-Saxon and Jewish philosophical characteristics.
When we observe those who behave differently from what the mainstream business ethics suggests, the CBA analysis may eventually regards these economic agents are highly irrational. By contrast, we should realise that their business planning is based on their own different rationale of business ethics. In particular, since Germany became industrially strong, and the USA became highly influenced by her Germanic origins, German business ethics has been a very remarkable characteristics in the world economy. Even though it has not been the top mainstream, it formed one of the unique characteristics in the Western business models. Nowadays, on the top of Germanic influence, Nordic (Scandinavian) nations recently started having a strong influence over the world because of increase in the number of Nordic multinational corporations. We also cannot ignore Romanic culture (Latins and France) because it was dominant before British empire took over the dominance from it. Orthodox culture (Russia, many Eastern European countries, and Greece) is also unavoidable. In addition, some of the non-Western cultures have a strong impact on the world business ethics. Thus, regardless of right and wrong, we must analyse the various CBA analyses offered by the different business ethical models. This essay introduces 5 different influential models.
Nonetheless, when we take a look of our real world, we eventually realise that many economic agents do not exactly follow this business model. Some of them incur the costs more than this CBA suggests. Some of them only focus on minimising the cost rather than maximusing the benefit minus the cost. Some of them even behaves extremely irrational owing to perspective of this CBA rationale.
The ethics basing this CBA introduced in Business Administration is the ethics of Anglo-Saxon and Jewish entrepreneurs. Anglo-Saxon and Jewish ethics has become the dominant mainstream in this world especially in various private economic activities since British Empire started dominating the world economy. The USA took over the world economic domination from Britain. So, Anglo-Saxon culture has been extremely influential. Furthermore, Jewish have been taking a huge part of the world economic activities. So, Jewish philosophy also participated in forming the mainstream ethics of the world economy. All in all, the mainstream world business ethics is based on both Anglo-Saxon and Jewish philosophical characteristics.
When we observe those who behave differently from what the mainstream business ethics suggests, the CBA analysis may eventually regards these economic agents are highly irrational. By contrast, we should realise that their business planning is based on their own different rationale of business ethics. In particular, since Germany became industrially strong, and the USA became highly influenced by her Germanic origins, German business ethics has been a very remarkable characteristics in the world economy. Even though it has not been the top mainstream, it formed one of the unique characteristics in the Western business models. Nowadays, on the top of Germanic influence, Nordic (Scandinavian) nations recently started having a strong influence over the world because of increase in the number of Nordic multinational corporations. We also cannot ignore Romanic culture (Latins and France) because it was dominant before British empire took over the dominance from it. Orthodox culture (Russia, many Eastern European countries, and Greece) is also unavoidable. In addition, some of the non-Western cultures have a strong impact on the world business ethics. Thus, regardless of right and wrong, we must analyse the various CBA analyses offered by the different business ethical models. This essay introduces 5 different influential models.
