A major current issue with the way economy is run on nation-wide scale is not so much that it's run not properly here or there, or a component of it having an issue or things of that nature - but rather of subtle origin - the way it's approached is the source of these issues; and the way things are looked at is the generator of some of the mess.
Take policies for example, in many of these nation's governments, when they examine a policy, they weight/measure it solely by what it seems to do, and strictly within a certain boundary - maximum 3 fiscal year, at limit a few steps afterward, and never ventures further. A proper analysist would have to be at the minimum a full scale simulation with every component happening, and looking beyond a few cycles, not just a few steps, which exist within a single cycle.
Anything that's gonna be a part of the national economy, which includes anything within the local communinity economy including, would have an impact to the national economy - to various components, to not just neighbors, but seemingly far and inter-disconnected parts as well. It's like dropping a ping in one side of the room, eventually the other side will get affects from as well - however little or sometimes however hard-to-detect.
I want various current governments to understand this principle: judging how well something of a small size would do in terms of national economy would require examination, the approach of looking at it broadly, not staring at it with closeness perspective and think from there. The basis - perspective has to be set firmly and to the right amount and no procedure should move on further until that's reassured to be the best, and reaffirmed to be the safest. I will not allow a single government from this day onward do be at fault with the faulty economic philosophies and principles they have.
Anywho, when looking at a component of the nation-wide economy's impact on the national economy, one has to check whether the approach is right or not. Is the location of the observation point right to begin with? Is the perspective too far, too obsecured, or too close? Often too close is the close, so governments should compensate that by walking further back and view things from there. Being too close to any object hinders its feelings of dimensional sizes - distortion of the view happens. A great example of this is viewing a giant wall painting from 60 centimeter distance. Not only would the view doens't look normal, also the user would not have a sense of its size and its relative length to other things even with good guess and prediction. An user without aware of this during course would of course yield even worth result, and that, if happens so in governments - leads to broken economy, increases chance of disaster, and more unstable governenmence.
Taking business tax rates for example, what is a good amount, and how can assisting certain businesses balance out equally, or within the target equal-enough boundaries at least with the paycheck receiver employees? These are some of the toughest questions that still await for good-enough answers - not an answer, but a set of answers - just like adventure - there can be many good methods to reach the same goal. And we are not close to having best answers yet, as that competition is 2nd stage right after having good-enough answers yet, for these governments that is at least. Simulation must be done, and looking far into the future should be done, not guesses for distances just 3 months or a few years ahead. As, remembers, always, the national economy is just like a living creature - it grows everyday, changes shape, morphs, adapts to laws and limitations. And just like a living creature, it can grow fast, way beyond owners' monitoring. So then, we cannot monitor the national economy, but take the exact same good practice that's been good with raising living creatures, which is to provide, to care for, to nourish and cultivate, never to monitor or instruct.
Looking years ahead into the result of a certain new policy would be already an indicator of how wrong the policy is, because if one has to check the safety and measure every day on how well it's performing and what its influences and exertions are, then it must be a not-good-enough policy. As just like a parent giving a child a bike, if the parent has to look out the window every few interval duration of the riding session, then that bike needs to be changed or the activity itself be cancelled.
There are good cultivation practices can do with any policies, they generally follow these principles, including:
- a policy should be generic, and if specific, the specification should only be on the part about which category of businesses are the ones selected, as an example
- no complicated algorithms, there should be forces, not algorithms
- if a policy is too complicated in its mechanism or functionality behavior, then it needs to be fine-tuned or abolished, unless we wish to wage war on our citizens that is
- a good economic environment would naturally heal up any errors or imbalances, while a bad economic environment may easily feed small tornados into big chaos tornados, too hard to deal with
- let policies themselves balance each other - there should be two opposing doors so to speak each going exact opposite direction of one another. This fashion provides lever-safety, generates competition, and also serves as natural safety-mechanisms. Now companies don't have to always feel exhausted fearing dropping into "budget deficit sinkholes"
There is more detail to this, I hope this has given enough insight to various governments out there. I am also in the process of setting up my own government advisory agency. Any funding is highly welcomed, I look forward to our meeting. Please, no less than what a small company normal revenues is per year, reward us for our extraodinary achievement and effort, also our kindness =]
Lord Vice-Chanceller / Prime Minister
Glenn Yu
No comments:
Post a Comment