Analogy of how Greek, Irish, and German monetary union works

In the past:
A Greek man used to drink a lot in a relaxing traditional inexpensive pub.
An Irish man used to drink in a narrow rought working class bar while a British man drinks in a wide classy middle class salon beside where this Irish man is (both places are next to each other but separated by a partition.)

Now:
This Greek man and this Irish man started to go to a modern urban-like expensive pub where a German man goes. This Greek man and this Irish man are not used to the culture of German man's pub. So, this German man doesn't like this Greek and this Irish manner so this German wants to teach them his own way in his regular pub!


* I don't way this German man is always right. Personality takes all kinds. Only the thing I can say is that "When in Rome, do as the Romans do".

Greek Crisis: Yes still to Euro! No to Greexit!

I am against Greexit! This is purely a cost and benefit analysis. The current situation hinders Greek macroeconomic situation (The volume and the climate control of economy). But, Greek will certainly lose her microeconomic advantages (international trades of the currency exchange and tariff"e and of labour and capital) after leaving from both the Euro and the Maastricht treaty.

My research has already shown that the business cycle of Greece is highly correlated to the entire Eurozone counterpart which implies that the international trade frequency between Greek and the rest Eurozone is high. This means that Greexist will definitely impact on the microeconomic situation, and the macroeconomic condition is still heavily influenced by the Eurozone performance even in the aftermath of Greexist.

↓ My econometric analysis ↓

How Marxism fails

I do not hate Karl Marx and his political philosophy Marxism. I actually have a strong sympathy to his ideology to change the world to relinquish the national borders among individual citizens of the world and then to provide them with their ultimate sovereignty completely free from subordination to the traditional superstitious authorities. The rulers of the modern politics maintain the surplus value which represses the reward for majority individuals by introducing their complex economic and legal system. Individuals' sovereign is in crisis more than the past due to the intolerance of individuality in such a more collectivised world politics and modal code. More humans have lost their authentic loyal ethical principle in their daily life because they have chosen to obey and been secured by their superior authority at the sacrifice of their individual sovereignty. Marxism might be right to diagnose these illnesses; but, it seems to be the wrong method of prescription to tackle with these illnesses.

However, there are several objections to Marxism, and Marxism theoretically fails to explain about economics and ethics. First of all, Marx and his fellows had often described the modern world hegemonic political structure as Capitalism, which I strongly doubt about. Secondly, capitalists no longer control over the means of production in the modern world economy and politics. Finally, his loving united proletariat are more servile than he assumed, and his hating rich capitalists, individualistic nonconformists, and honest egoists are virtuous unlike he condemned.


Marxists affirm that, in the market economy, the rich minority individuals as known as the bourgeoisie monopolise the market with their power of controlling their means of productions. But then, what happens when the bourgeoisie start not being able to sell their offering products when majority become too poor to afford to purchase? Well, these bourgeoisie may invest their money to the financial market instead of investing to the good&service market. But, they also need to watch out and analyse the financial market trend not to lose their financial game. Some may argue that the bourgeoisie may protect their wealth by defending their property right of lands and the other assets. But, without a political stability where majority citizens are not too frustrated to be stabilised so they eventually need to find the way to redistribute their wealth for the communal security. The bourgeoisie may buy a huge militant force to form their own private militia to oppress their existing as well as potential enemy-proletariat to defend their monopolistic interest. But, the excess expenditure on the military and the low motivation of their subordinate proletariat impoverish the aggregate productivity of the economy they are living in. While lacking an abundant extractable resource from their economy, their state is always threatened by the invaders.

In order to strengthen these minority bourgeoisie, their political economy eventually enriches and motivate the rest majority proletariat, the majority citizens. Also, these ruling class bourgeoisie constantly monitor and compete against their rival bourgeoisie group to survive their games of the financial market and the foreign diplomacy backed by their military force, which are never be easy to keep winning. Furthermore, they may also want to remain this system enabling them to revenge when they lose. So, this implies that some proletariat may also have a chance to revenge to be promoted to become a member of the bourgeoisie. All in all, the ruling class individuals are also struggling in a competitive market system so that capitalism does not always deserve the capitalists. The market mechanism is abstract to explain but it certainly exists as something objective as Adam Smith described as the invisible hand of God. None has ever known what the next market trend in the future: Only what they may do to survive to thrive is to analyse how individuals' behavour and mind and the surrounding natural environment remain and change.


When the distribution flow and the overall economic activity are stagnated, a more visible and collective political force is affecting to stratify this economic and political structure than what Marx assumed. Neo-Marxists admit that capitalists are more proletarised than the past; this means that many traditional capitalists have lost their control over their capital because of the rise of two new capitalist classes called transnational entrepreneurs and national bureaucrats. Transnational entrepreneurs take advantage of this globalised world politics to gain the wider scale monopolistic power. National bureaucrats take advantage of their regulatory power and their authority of the government economic intervention. The name value of transnational entrepreneurs and the charisma of elite bureaucrats of a nation maintain their authority which is powerful and influential enough to enable them to accumulate their capital and its means of production.

Money is an intermediary of exchange: Money follows into where the exchangeable quantity and quality are located. The power of gathering money of the previously mentioned two ruling class groups is their authority to authorise what and where are legitimately exchangeable. This legitimacy authorised by their new authoritarianism is the means of their production of their capital to maintain their wealth and political power. So, only earning a huge amount of money itself to own a huge amount of capital does not enable individuals to have an authority to control over capital and its means of production.

Nevertheless, these new ruling class also do not have the full control of their means of production enough to prevent the pressure from the market force. Despite the significantly huge influential power in the market, these transnational entrepreneurs also need to constantly inject their own resource investments into analysing the current market mechanism and trend enough to maintain their wealth and preventing their potential predators against their dominance. National bureaucrats also need to constantly take enough attention to their resource allocation of the public sectors to optimise the level of taxation and regulation. The excess regulation causes the stagnation in the overall national economy, the extractable resources for these bureaucrats, and the loyalty of their fellow individual citizens to the national bureaucracy. Overall, these ruling class are always under the pressure of various external forces threatening their dominance, and the controlling capital and the means of production is not a permanent political power of reign.

So then, which human individuals control over capital and its means of production? The answer should be that none actually holds the ultimate economic and political power to maintain their dominance. Under the modern structured politics, even the ruling class individuals are constantly under the pressure of maintaining their status-quo a nation and/or a transnational institute. All of them live to survive as the cogwheel parts of their belonging institute. As they are already integrated into the structure, they unintentionally keep serving for their non-human machine-like structure in order to keep themselves surviving in it. In order to escape from this structure, the member individuals will be expected to become considerably brave and somehow deviant enough to challenge and escape from their accustomed modern structure of economy and politics.



Marxists put emphasis on the diversification of power enabling the majority citizens called the proletariat to replace the current ruling class minority with the proletariat majority rule. The old types of Marxists insist on persecution against the ruling class of the current status-quo as their revenge against the exploitation for a long time. Neo-Marxists insist less on what this old ideology but they still affirm to replace the ruling class with the proletariat rule by the diversification process. All Marxists agree to hate the minority rich for the cause of the proletariat. Furthermore, the proletariat class individuals not agreeing with Marxist cause are highly humiliated by Marxists as traitors, uneducated, and/or whores of the ruling class. Marxists claim for a strong altruism and devalue egoism to forcibly encourage citizens to unite. By contrast, there is always a question about why the rich individuals are evil enough to be hated and why all the majority citizens need to keep feeling miserable with their daily life.

These proletariat are frustrated due to their lack of satisfaction caused by the low reward for their high effort in their daily life. Marxists argue that this is a productive motive to challenge against the status-quo to diversify the ruling power to provide the unsatisfied proletariat with their right to improve their life. Marxists tend to blindly assume that all the privileged rich are selfish and brutal enough to keep exploiting the majority citizens to accumulate their wealth and political power furthermore. However, this has been questioned by the classical Liberalists from the British classical economics.

The following graph simulates the correlation between income and happiness=utility. An extra-income gain makes individuals significantly happy when their income level is lower than the certain point meanwhile its marginal rise of happiness=utility diminishes after exceeding this point.

In this graph, the income boundary is divided into this certain point where the marginal utility starts diminishing as the extra income gain increases. As shown in this graph, the marginal utility based on the income gain is higher than the marginal income at the relatively lower income level. The area chat shows the imaginary population distribution assuming the 10% rich individuals enjoy their "high income enough to be happy enough" and the rest 90% enjoy "extra income gains" more than the 10% rich.

The remarkable British classical economists such as Adam Smith and Alfred Marshall argue that these rich individuals tend to become altruistic because their own personal ego is already satisfied under the market economy described as capitalism by Marxism. The market economy is the first political economic system which provides individuals with the opportunity to accumulate their wealth so massively that it is not impossible to fulfill their egoistic interests. Furthermore, the market economy is a magical system where individuals' egoism turns to be an altruism because they exchange for their demanding reward for the others' needs. Then, rich individuals start redistributing their wealth voluntarily without relying on the government involuntary force in order to acquire their heroic honour. In addition, the rich individuals could not become rich without injecting enough efforts and using their wisdom due to the constantly competitive market economy. So, they have more experiences, knowledge, and wisdom to run big projects which the low income citizens have seldom had the opportunity of. Therefore, it is worse off to remain these rich individuals thrive rather than defeating them by the political power diversification.

At the same time, Marshall was afraid of the proletariat suddenly taking over the political power by replacing their hating rich with their sudden diversification. Even though these proletariat started doing good for all at the beginning after the diversification process, it is suspected to be the case that these proletariat violating the system to deserve for themselves. Marxism simply implies replacing the bureaucracy of the old regime with the bureaucracy hijacked by the Marxist proletariat coup. As the proletariat coup have been frustrated due to their lack of the marginal utility, they are more eager to cling to their irrational egoism by violating the politics. These bureaucrats of the proletariat coup seem to be too vulgar to maintain their rationality after suddenly acquiring such a monopolistic power of capital explained in the aforementioned paragraph.

Moreover, Marxists are too accustomed with despising egoism so persistently that they are hardly enable to admit the ego of others. They often force the others to deserve them and their revolutionary ideal to prop up their altruistic political structure. Unlike the capitalist regime which does not intervene to the others' business and personal egoism, Marxists tend to be paranoid about other individuals. The market economy, capitalism, accepts or even encourages egoism as a form of individuals' natural need and desire meanwhile Marxism and majority forms of socialism do not. Marxism and the other form of socialism regard highly of the collective effort to achieve their ultimate goal with the altruism. They may not directly force but they will indirectly force the others to follow their altruistic command by treating those opposing parties as uneducated and/or misguided.


Soren Kierkegaard said that Marxists and all the modern idealists are unhappy individuals because they will never be content enough to be happy in their daily life. They are always in a day dream of being better in their anticipating future, and then devalue their inevitable past experiences and memories and neglect what they have already acquired and achieved at the present moment. Unhappy individuals tend to be convinced to Marxism and all the modern idealism meanwhile the other individuals who are reasonably happy in their life are not convinced. Marxists may think these already reasonably happy ones are uneducated and/or misguided so that Marxists often preach these general public with their ideology to "help" them to overcome from the false-consciousness imprinted by the status-quo. Nevertheless, these preached one may feel this is not help; it is simply an annoyance.

Monopsony caused by the excess government regulation

There is a new terminology invented for expressing the phenomenon that the buyers have a strong power for controlling the price and the quantity of goods and services enough to reduce the price under the market equilibrium value. This is called "monopsony".


The monopsony is suspected to occur when the labour market flow is stagnated, employers are excessively risk averse, and employees have little opportunity of changing their job with their free will due to the previously expressed causes. This situation provides employers with the excess power in the labour market enough to control over the price and the quantity for their favour.

*** Past and Present: Emerging Problem of the Relative Deprivation ***

In the past, the efficiency wage was high enough to prevent the absolute poverty when the supply of minimum necessities was more scares. So, the equilibrium wage was supposed to be not higher than the efficiency wage then. By contrast, due to the increased world market competition and the dramatic improvement of productivity supplied, the gap between the minimum wage enough to prevent the absolute poverty and the wage enabling individuals enjoy their average cultural living standard has become widened. Therefore, the relative deprivation caused by this dissatisfaction emerges.

This tension of increasing this dis-function caused by the increasing relative deprivation implies that the public sector cost will be increasing to tackle with increasing cases of crime and deviance. So, the simple regulation of wage floor preventing the excess wage decline can be more efficiently reduce the cost raised by the increasing dis-function caused by the relative deprivation than increasing the budged for police force and the overall cost covered for public security and insurance. The following explains about why the current market is difficult to discourage the lowering wage and to stimulate the meritocratic labour market flow.

*** Marxist Explanation Fails: Rise of Government Bureaucracy ***

The menu cost of employees changing their job has become dramatically higher due to the more bind employment contracts and more specialised labour market requirements than the past. Majority of job markets nowadays demand more precise job skill sets requiring a long term training to acquire. Also, each employing firm has become demanding its employees to learn and adapt to its own custom which is notably different from the other firm even in an identical industrial field.

The menu cost of employers examining their employees has also become dramatically higher due to the more complex labour contract laws and regulations imposed by government. Despite the old Marxist hypothesis, majority of firm owners have lost their power of controlling their means of production fulfilling their interests. Those who have a control over means of production are government bureaucrats whose power is growing due to the expanding government power over economy and a few super wealthy individuals whose wealth is inherited or obtained through political bribery in the current modern world. Employers, firm owners, and relatively wealthy individuals are taxed, regulated, and highly monitored by government and their peers.

Government attempt to maintain the static labour market flow. The tax collection scheme by government has more complex, and government have required more certain and detailed population census in a turmoil of the current modern day world politics. So, government tend to want to avoid the frequent need of regular employment and income surveillance required. When individuals frequently change their job and change their wage often, government are more required to spend time and resource to survey these individuals. Therefore, government attempt to keep the labour market more static in order to avoid the frequent employment and income surveillance.

*** Perpetuation of both Socialism and Misemployment ***

Socialist labourers form their trade union (labour union) to increase their wage above the market equilibrium, but their excess wage is confiscated as their union membership fee. So, the leading members of their union then exploit their share of wage for their own interest. Then, the rest majority can keep as same as or less than the market equilibrium rate. The productivity of their belonging firm is significantly lowered because of the excessively labour cost compared to the labour productivity. This infers that the economic system had better offer minimum wage before these socialists start making excuse to prepare for their union intervention.

This situation of monopsony in the mainstream market also perpetuates the misemployment. The misemployment means that individuals are employed under unhappy, unproductive, and/or criminal situations as following examples. Some individuals need to, although they do not want to, play the fool by a wearing funny costume for a street advertisement. Some individuals may work in a casino perpetuating gambling which tends to be considered as unproductive for both individuals' own household economy and the aggregate economic environment if this market share expands excessively. Mafia, a group of the main players in the underground economy, gains the higher chance of recruiting new members and its exploitable human resources as the competent potential human resources are expelled from the employment opportunity in the overground economy. Because these employment forms are far more labour intensive, the monopsony is far more likely to be prevented in these misemployment market than the healthy/productive employment counterpart. Therefore, it implies that the misemployment market tends to offer a higher wage than the counterpart under the monopsonic situation so that more labour forces are flowing into the misemployment market, which reduces the sum of individuals' utility even though the misemployment market may have increased the overall employment rate in an economy.

.

A Critique of Anti-Trust Law and Natural Right Ethics

1. What economics is
In ethics, there has been a long debate to determine whether norms and values of action or the consequence of action is put priority on over the counterpart. Economics is the subject focusing upon the consequence i.e. Economics is a consequentialist philosophy. The mainstream economics puts emphasis on the positive statement firmly indicating what is, was, or will be caused, done, or happening instead of the normative statement indicating what “ought to” be done. Moral philosophy and psychology put emphasis on the normative statement because their interest is effect of human-individuals’ mind apart from their surrounding physical environment.

As economics is the subject to analyse causes and effects of human-individuals’ actions creating their surrounding physical environment. Even though the normative of their actions may become a means of the positive consequence of their actions, it is not always true because the intention of action does not always induce an initially intended consequence. So, realistic observations of outcomes induced by a particular action in consequence are eventually more practical than the meaning of these actions to know what should be done. Then, the logics developed from these observations implies the practical method to be done to induce a desired/planned outcome in consequence.


This consequentialist characteristics of economics is retained from the father of economics Adam Smith who is strongly influenced by Scottish culture of Legal Positivism, the school of law philosophy based on explicitly defined codes of actions designed to induce the desired consequence. Adam Smith was also a strong influence under his senior fellow David Hume, the remarkable Scottish enlightenment philosopher who was sceptical about any universal norm and value of actions because he claimed that morality defining norm and value is more relative than many moral philosophers claim. So, Hume claimed that the principle of actions is a mere interest of individuals, and interests are their desiring outcomes in consequence which these individuals are willing to induce.

The study of economics started from challenging the authoritarian moral entrepreneurship dogmatically defining and suggesting individuals to act by means of the universal moral code defined by the authoritarian moral entrepreneurs. Economics is originally an ethics emancipating individuals from the prison of moral dogma and then enabling these individuals to develop their own rational inference skills determining their own mind and action plans. Then, the normative philosophy should purely a matter of each individual’s business for their own mind development, and the positive philosophy should be only taken into practice to plan actions influencing others and plans creating/development physical objects, e.g. buildings and products, and structured organisations in which various humans are gathered e.g. corporations and government.


2. Monopoly and Anti-Trust Law
Monopoly is the situation which one party owns and controls a particular good/service industry/market and its business share without any competitor. Monopoly is usually categorised into the two types, natural monopoly and pure monopoly. Natural monopoly is formed when monopoly is necessary and inevitable to provide the efficient and optimum level of goods and services. In the later parts of this essay, monopoly means pure monopoly. Many economists tend to affirm that monopoly is a negative factor as an antithesis of a good competition. Even conservative economists such as Monetarists tend to assume that monopoly is an economic stagnation discouraging competition.

Pure monopoly takes place where any artificial enforcement power exists in economy. There are two kinds of pure monopoly. The one is that a national government can form pure monopoly by nationalising or heavily regulating a particular industry. The other is that an influential economic agent such as a big corporation prevents competitors away by its control over price and quantity, merging and acquiring a potential competitor and/or bribing. Anti-trust law is designed to prohibit the latter kind of pure monopoly, the pure monopoly by private economic agents.

Socialists (including the self-proclaimed liberals) and other various Staticists claim that any monopoly by their own government is legitimate and virtuous whereas the pure monopoly by private ownership is unnecessary and vile. Even many conservative and libertarian economists tend to think that the monopoly by private ownership is something needed to be prevented at the best effort. The reason behind is the monopoly by their government sets its price and quantity according to necessity meanwhile the monopoly by private ownership does not fulfil the necessity and causes an uneven wealth distribution.

They claim that the monopoly by private ownership is purely motivated by profit and allows these private enterprises to discourage competition enough to reduce both quality of products produced. So that this monopoly causes an inefficiency of products’ distribution among individuals in need, and these anti-monopoly activists argue that the genuine free market perpetuates the monopoly Then, anti-trust law was manifested to prevent such a market outcome by both socialists and non-socialists.


Nonetheless, this claim about monopoly is questionable by means of the free market mechanism. In a free market economy where majority of industries are operated by private enterprises and new market entrants are not strictly prohibited, these entrepreneurs always face some degree of competition. Even natural monopoly is not permanent due to a newly invented technology in the future and a newly discovered resource supply line. Furthermore, unless there is a prohibition by government regulation and/or a cultural/religious tradition, there is often various substitute available. All in all, the antagonism against monopoly seems to be meaningless.

These anti-monopoly activists tend to neglect about the impact of the capital/financial market. Even though a monopolistic firm disrupts any new market entrant potentially becoming her/his competitor in the real (goods & service) market, this entrant will be able to join and compete in this market as long as this entrant’s product is more or equally favourable. The investors in the capital/financial market are keen to invest the assets whose value is predicted to dramatically increase so that this market entrant may gain the capability to compete with the already existing firm. Therefore, when a monopoly is perpetuated, the case shall be either the products produced by this monopolistic firm is demanded or this market is not free enough.

Regarding to the monopoly price and quantity based on the profit motive, the monopolistic firm is extremely difficult to maintain their price and quantity control in favour of its own interest. Even with a restricted supply of both substitute and investment, this monopolistic control is very difficult to maintain especially when the surveillance technology by majority of individuals is widely available. Under free market, information is freely and widely available because every economic agent is competing with each other to obtain a useful information set with their best competence. Therefore, as same as a totalitarian regime in politics, an oppressive monopolist regime is also fragile when majority of citizens start protesting against it.

In addition, by means of macroeconomic situation, the aggregate production share of a market which this monopolistic firm can be not significantly high enough to be considered as a tycoon. When the aggregate production share of this market becomes significantly high, only one firm may become too costly to produce the demanded production level under this market factors of production. Then, production by two or more firms may become optimum.

These anti-monopolists excessively condemn the existence of monopoly because they tend to think that preventing monopoly is the legitimate norm and value in their ideal economic system. By contrast, the existence of monopoly does not always cause the economically negative consequence while it is actually often beneficial to economy. When a monopoly takes place, the operation by one monopolistic firm is just adequate to optimise factors of production than by more than one at the current supply technology and the demand level. Thus, the ulterior motive behind the anti-trust law prohibiting monopoly seems to not be the reason of economics focusing on consequence of actions: It rather seems to be the moral philosophical reasoning focusing on norm and value of actions.


3. Natural Right’s Dogmatism
Restricting monopoly does not frequently cracking down on monopoly. Some monopoly can be wrongly justified as pure monopoly even though it is actually natural monopoly. It could also be not significantly necessary to crackdown some pure monopoly because its factors of production requires only one firm and/or its not significantly high production share in macroeconomic scale. Thus, crackdown on monopoly is not consequently effective for economy.

Anti-Trust law cracking down on monopoly is far concerned with moral philosophy and psychology than economics. The idea of anti-trust and any other anti-monopoly is simply a moral dogma putting a high priority on competition as virtue of individuals always ought to maintain and practice. The aim of anti-monopoly is simply their value of actions does not always derive a desired consequence of economy, and their believing value is not often a means of productive consequences. This is just a matter of their normative belief, and so not related to the positive analyses of economics.

This trend of putting excessive priority on the normative belief tends to be observed in many countries adapting customary laws including the common law in their legal system which regard highly of the existence of Natural law. Even in some countries whose legal system is based on the civil (positive) law nowadays adapt this trend of the normative belief as their constitution putting emphasis on Natural law. Natural law is a legal philosophical theory which claims that there is a universal ethical principle commonly existing at different time periods, places, and occasions. Legal structures based on Natural law hardly indicate the explicitly determined legal code of justice. So, they remain their flexibility of legal interpretation but they are often inconsistent and influenced by irrational whims of general public and charismatic authorities.

There is a derivation theory of Natural law which is called Natural right. Natural right claims that there is a universally existing impregnable rights for all human individuals. Natural right more clearly defines about the universal ethical principle than Natural law as it claims that this invincible right is the universal ethical principle. Natural law regards that human individuals are not able to perfectly know what the universally existing law and ethical principle are because they are not the perfect being like God. By contrast, Natural right defines that human individuals are capable to know what is truly right for themselves. Thus, those who support Natural right tend to assume that their traditional kept value of their invincible right basing their action patterns is the means of their well-being.

The legal positivists and the mainstream classical economists argue that these claims by Natural right supporters are merely prejudicial as their belief does not positively derive the consequences of economy. Natural right may be helpful for each individual’s self-discipline and their personal wish meanwhile it is not practical to positively analyse the estimate outcomes of economics. The typical example is the anti-trust law attempting to prohibit monopoly as the means of their economic consequence. All in all, it claims that anti-trust law concerns moral philosophy far more than economics.

Pathway to the new economics and political theory

1. Globalisation
The expansion of borderless globalised business activities and communication network have been lowering significance of nation states since the end of the Cold War. This phenomenon of the world transformation seems to be controversial but yet hardly discouraged. So, regardless of this controversy, this globalisation process seems to be an inevitable evolution of humans’ activities and daily life. The modern politics and their base modern philosophies have become less effective and less benefiting to majority humans and their interest since the globalisation started overwhelming the power of nation states. Therefore, all modern political theories regarding highly of nation states and their government now tend to be undermined.

An idea of the world or any transnational government, replacing or overpowering national governments, emerges as the aforementioned phenomenon takes place. However, there are many strong opposing views of allowing one or few authorities to control a massive human population. This will be significantly costly to select representatives, collect tax, donation, and investment with an equitable as well as efficient rate, survey for problems, and establish an ideal but also functional political principle avoiding conflict of believes and interests among human individuals.

After having considered about this matter, there is an alternative proposal fitting in with the trend of the globalisation. The proposal to let these human individuals to do what they want, instead of keeping constantly monitoring them, by following the spontaneous flow of their harmony. This shall be a new innovative form of anarchism which fits in with this constantly being globalised humans’ life style. Anarchism has been referred to as an antithesis of this globalisation process and the civil technological development. By contrast, the alternative form of anarchism shall be invented as a functioning and evolved form of the constantly evolving human civilisation.


2. Purpose & Objective
The main purpose of this attempt is to encourage (Classical-/Neo-) Liberalism thriving in this globalisation process while stabilising the public sector management and the business cycles. By taking the decaying effectivity of national governments and the ineffectiveness of the transnational governmental authority, the progressive anarchism proposed here is suggested as the antithetical alternative of both nationalism (led by national governments) and the global collectivism (led by the transnational government).

Since individuals’ activities become more active and dynamic, the size of public sectors has become bigger. At this time, individuals’ reliance on their paternalistic authorities in charge of administrating the public sector has become heavy, and the political structure has become more stratified. When this growing spiral is kept perpetuated, more individuals sacrifice their individual autonomy to expending for propping up this system. Otherwise, no defence and no judicature which are necessary to maintain ones of the liberalist objectives will not be sustained in this already developed and expanded scale of economy and politics.

The objectives which Liberalists pursue are individuals’ autonomic sovereignty encouraging their freedom of choice, voluntary participation to their exchange of their labour, goods, and services with the others, and the fair (agreeable), functional, and rational justice. As the modern world has become more reliant on a bigger scale autocratic paternalism, all the Liberalist objectives have become difficult to accomplish all together at once. Then, under the current world political structure, some of these objective need to be compromised to sustain the current technological and structural development. It is either keep expanding or start repressing the currently growing world economic and political network growth.

Nonetheless, there may need to innovate a new political structure which will attempt to maintain the political network growth while encouraging individuals’ self-governability in the world wide scale. Individuals should not forfeit their Liberalist ideal, and should invent their new innovative political structure adapted to the new economic and political environment. The key stimulus of this new attempt is their power of aspiration encouraging them to aspire their Liberalist objectives which will never be compromised in any occasion. Without the power of individuals’ aspiration, no voluntary mind and movement will take place to attempt to establish the unknown ideal.


3. The Evolving Utilitarian Formula
Please take a look at this algebra following Jeremy Bentham written in Fragment on Government:

This formula denotes the three main political functional bodies of politics from the ancient to the current postmodern world. As each body has its own costs and benefits, the political administrators optimise the power weight of each body to match with what they and/or their fellow citizens demand. The sum of their utility is maximised when the chosen power weight on these bodies is optimised to match with their demand.

In an absolute monarchism or dictatorship, only Monarchy exists as long as only one monarchy or dictator holds her/his absolute power over all. In a pure technocratic regime, such as Marx=Leninist socialism, where a group of selected individuals control over all, only Aristocracy exists. In a constitutional monarchism, Monarchy coexists with Aristocracy and possibly with Democracy. Great Britain is a typical example of all these political bodies coexist together with a stable balanced harmony. Arab Emirates can be considered as Monarchy combined with Aristocracy where Democracy does not exist. The democracy shown in this formula (Democracy) denotes the degree of majority citizens’ voice in politics. This degree is decided how possible citizens are allowed to influence a political decision by casting their vote, directly participating a political forum, or various indirect methods. Anarchism may be described as a direct democracy where only the body Democracy exists.

When the strength of the monarchy shown in this formula (Monarchy) is demanded, then the monarchy should be supplied. In the modern world, even in a republican nation, a resemblance to monarchy exists as a charismatic figure called dictator. In the current world situation, since this world became globalised, the strength of monarchy has been less significantly demanded due to the development of the world diplomacy based on commerce rather than military might and tribunal identity.

The aristocracy (Aristocracy) mentioned in my article and Bentham's Fragment includes oligarchy, bureaucrats, elites, and elected ones in meritocracy. Also, meritocracy is simply the matter of functioning, and the inheritance is accepted as long as their cultural norm encourages or it is only the financially and politically affordable option. The democratic base of meritocracy is superior to the inheritance base when it is affordable because it is more effective to elect the competent representatives.


The transnational government certainly requires a way higher weight on this aristocracy because the citizens of this world literally need to select their representatives for the administration members from much winder space than a nation. The number of their representatives might be higher in the transnational government than a national government meanwhile the number of citizens under its political regime is massively higher in the former than the latter. Therefore, the power weight of (direct) Democracy is relatively repressed in comparison to the power weight of Aristocracy.

The wisdom of Aristocracy can be highly demanded to maintain stable and functional economic and legal policies in a wide scale as the scale of individuals’ activities and life style expand at the current time period. So, it may indicate that the pure oligarchy where the entire political power is weighted toward Aristocracy offers the high sum of utility due to the material prosperity derived from the stability and the logistical efficiency.

On the other hand, there is a counterargument against the excessive political power weight towards Aristocracy, which is described as the centralisation of political power. There is a concern that the maximum utility which Aristocracy derives is lower than Democracy does. In a plain explanation, the centralised oligarchy (An intense Aristocracy) is less able to make people happier than a more decentralised and more democratic political structure.

The following charts display the statistical research outcome based on the Happy Planet Index (HPI), the climate effects explained by latitude of where each nation’s capital is located, and the binary variables representing these three political bodies introduced by Bentham, Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy.



Ref. Happiness related to Monarchy, One Party, and Democracy
Published on 12/07/2012 12:57 British Summer Time

After extracting the climate effects (Latitudes of countries) from the HPI, this regression analysis indicates that Democracy tends to increase the HPI more than the other variable and the Aristocracy tends to suppress the HPI rather than stimulating.

This analysis seems to infer that even though an oligarchic political structure (An intensive Aristocracy) is less likely encourage human individuals to become happier. Although the oligarchic policy produces a high material prosperity and stabilises a political stability in a wide scale, majority individual citizens are less likely sense much happiness from the material prosperity and the political stability. Therefore, there is a risk that the further centralisation of political power may sacrifice a high degree of happiness of majority human individuals: It would be better to revise the evolution process to reincarnate and maintain a decentralised and democratic alternative while remaining the globalisation process going on.


4. The Problem of Administrating Public Sectors

In a traditional sense of modern economics, each nation is responsible for administrating its own public sectors operated in this nation. On the other hand, this form pattern started encountering a new problem in this globalised world with economic agents with a more active and wide life style and more affluent sets of choice than the Cold War period. This phenomenon encounters with the problem of claiming who is responsible to pay for what they have used. Majority of countries operated by modern macroeconomic concepts operate their fiscal policy based on a national level and two or various regional level in inside a nation. So, there has not yet solid transnational fiscal policy concept emerging yet. There is a proposal to introduce a solid and well-defined transnational fiscal policy nowadays. However, this encounters with the high administration cost and the lower sum of utility which are mentioned in the previous chapters.

There is also a remarkably significant macroeconomic problem related to this globalisation and the expanding individuals’ activities. Not only the fiscal responsibility issue but also controlling the entire macroeconomic climate such as boom and recession. Due to the globalised activity level of businesses and individual life style, the business cycles of nations are more and more harmonised ever than it used to be. Then, the macroeconomic intervention by the macroeconomic policy such as the monetary policy, the fiscal policy, the international trade policy, and various supply-side policies such as controlling and monitoring the labour and capital mobility is less efficient. This is because one nation’s macroeconomic climate is highly more influenced by the others so that it may rather require the macroeconomic intervention in a tremendously wide multi-national or even a world-wide level which simultaneously control over the entire targeted region of this world at once. However, as same as the previously mentioned responsibility issue, this encounters with the high administration cost and the lower sum of utility which are mentioned in the previous chapters.

Both the first responsibility issue (microeconomics) and the economic climate issue (macroeconomics) are concerned with the matters mentioned in the previous chapters. The administrators of these public sectors defining the cost coverage responsibility and the resource allocation are more centralised and become in charge of administrating a wider scale. Then, the politics tends to become more oligarchic so that this eventually encounters with the high administration cost and the lower sum of utility. This centralisation may be considered as the optimum only if individuals are happy with their high administrating cost and the potentially relatively low utility level compared to their possible decentralisation choice. Therefore, even though the centralisation may have a high advantage over the decentralised counterpart in some field, the opportunity cost of this choice is also high. In addition, this project aims at reincarnating the original Liberalist principle and anticipated outcomes so that the alternative possibility of seeking a decentralised form of politics shall be more desired than the centralisation option.

On the other hand, the problems of the public sector administration issues cannot be simply ignored. Some economists claim that it should be possible to put the decentralised politics in this global economy without taking these previously mentioned issues into consideration. Their claim is that the responsibility is spontaneously determined by all free economic agents fairly by following the natural free market movement toward equilibrium. Nonetheless, this equilibrium is not always a good equilibrium as many other economists affirm that there are both good and bad equilibrium outcomes.

The Game theory wisely indicates the bad equilibrium condition called the Prisoners’ Dilemma. The good equilibrium condition is where all individual economic agents pay for what they have used and how capable to contribute to meanwhile majority or a few influential cohorts of economic agents rationally counter-act against the deviating business cycles without relying on the collective macroeconomic policy. The bad equilibrium condition is where many economic agents are not contributing by means of their ability and responsibility, and then the economic climate is always in turmoil due to their disturbed unstable business cycles. The prisoners’ dilemma warns of the free riding which means that many take advantage of letting or even enforcing the others to cover for the service meanwhile they obtain the shared common benefit from this service. This Prisoners’ Dilemma takes place when nobody shares the same principle and objective to fulfil their mutual interests because of their ignorance about what is occurring in real and what they are supposed to do to overcome from their unwanted situation. Afterward, even a generous altruistic individual will eventually stop contributing to sustaining this system, or just be kept exploited until the end. Therefore, by perpetuating this situation, individuals tend to be diverted from the good equilibrium and then be converged at the bad equilibrium as long as the aimlessness and the ignorance prevail.

In the traditional sense, human individuals have kept their reliance on the collective rational authorities to direct their economic policies with their paternalistic wisdom. In the feudalism, the feudal lords and the divine authorities were their representative guardians in charge of this paternalism. In the modern world, nation states and their government are the paternalistic guardian institutes meritoriously selecting their representatives from their general public. This collective authoritarian method has been functional as long as these paternal guardians have their strong principle encouraged by their nobles’ oblige and the scale is optimum size.

Nevertheless, these paternalistic authorities are not often honest to serve for allocating all resources available to induce the good equilibrium. They may avoid the bad equilibrium as long as they are aware of the mechanism of economics because the bad equilibrium induces the bad condition for not only the majority individual citizens but also themselves. But, they often take an advantage of controlling this collective resource allocation to split the resources into their own profit. As far as the power of these authorities becomes stronger relative to the others’, the margin of their profit taking becomes higher as they are more able to monopolise their power from this political structure. Therefore, the further expansion of centralised collective governmental institutions increases a significantly high risk of reducing the sum of utilities in proportion to the political power centralisation.

By contrast, there is a hope that human individuals might no longer need to reply on these collective paternalistic authorities as these individuals will become more self-governable than before. They are becoming more capable to gain their appropriate knowledge and skills due to the rapid development of the information technology. Then, as the surveillance technology has been dramatically developed, the cooperative model, as an alternative of the transnational government base, of running public sector might be more possible in the world wide. So, as long as individuals willing to prop up this cooperative public sector are voluntarily as well as collectively participate to be responsible for sustaining and operating it, it may function. If it is possible to operate, then something not able to privatise such as defence and judicature may be preserved even in an anarchist politics. However, this is still an unknown ideal which has never been experimented yet.


5. Modern Economics meeting with Philosophy
The critical condition is that citizens of this political structure have to become highly self-governable and maintain their relationship with their objective mutual interest. The public goods and services may be able to survive by introducing the public sector governed by a cooperative of autonomous citizens where all its participants voluntarily expense for the cost and voluntarily operate to provide goods and services. But, this challenge is considered as extremely difficult or even impossible due to its lack of certainty to collect their expenditure and define who is responsible to pay. Democracy (in particular, the direct democracy) is a privilege, rather than a condition, for a civilisation where majority of citizens are enlightened and a plenty capital/wealth is accumulated. In order to accomplish in such a difficult challenge to acquire this privilege, these individuals have to have a strong ethical principle defining their own ethical compass motivating themselves to maintain and develop their self-sustainability.

This ethical principle forming their ethical compass has to be something not only encouraging and sustaining the harmonious voluntary cooperation among all individuals together but also tolerating and fulfilling their egoism at the same time. Without a harmonious cooperation based on a voluntary participation to this politics, individuals and their surrounding environment fall into the bad equilibrium explained in the previous chapter. Without tolerating and actually encouraging egoism, an active market economy increasing the wealth of individuals and their civilisation and individuals’ voluntary spirit hardly emerging. Therefore, it requires to install an ethical principle fulfilling these two functions, harmonious cooperation and egoism, together.

In traditional sense, religion has been the main function to instruct human individuals about the virtue of peaceful harmonious cooperation since the establishment of human civilisation. If religion is already an outdated principle not fitting in with this current world situation, there may needs something substituting religion. In a relatively less democratic system where the weight on Monarchy and Aristocracy (The variables shown in the previously mentioned Benthamite algebra) is high, majority of individuals can live without always reminding of the ethical principle because the political system always provides them with its ready-made ethical compass directing the whole general public. By contrast, in a direct Democratic politics self-governed by autonomous individuals, majority of individuals must be aware of their own responsibility to guide themselves.

In order to keep the technological development and the progressive evolution of civilisation, egoism is an unavoidable key factor motivating individuals for being loyal to this cooperative politics. The success of the modern world development is encouraged by the enlightenment philosophy tolerating and fulfilling the individuality of human-beings and their egoism. By means of nature, human individuals cling to satisfying their own biological and psychological needs and wants. Moreover, as Napoleon Bonaparte said, they are more easily governed through their vices than their virtues. Therefore, the politics eventually is required to take these natural characteristics into its account. Otherwise, these human individuals simply become too castrated and nihilistic to be energetic because the voluntarily self-governed politics highly requires their energy motivating their competence.

All in all, both economics and politics will be necessary to adapt these philosophical concepts. Studies of modern economics nowadays tend to lack the philosophical insight compared to the classical economics including the one invented by Adam Smith. Modern politics are unavoidably compatible with the existence of the nation states and possibly some form of transnational government and their authority. At this current transitional time period, there shall need to be a completely brand new economic and political theory emerging to solve the problems and the requirement mentioned in this project. A form of anarchism might be no longer an idealistic politics, and it seems to be rather necessary to take putting this political philosophy into our consideration in real. Hence, the endeavour to this pathway to the new economics and political theory should exist as an interesting experiment, and it should be desired to be a practical theory in the near future.