Economic Left, Right, and Up

Currently, we have a political problem.  The far-left liberals feel that the ideal political/economic situation entitles everyone, including freeloaders and freelance socialists, to a good life, free from monetary worries for food, education, healthcare, and other factors. 

For example, according to a New York Times article:

“President Biden will propose a $6 trillion budget on Friday that would take the United States to its highest sustained levels of federal spending since World War II as he looks to fund a sweeping economic agenda…The growth is driven by Mr. Biden’s two-part agenda to upgrade the nation’s infrastructure and substantially expand the social safety net (maybe it should be called a social Lazyboy recliner safety net), contained in his American Jobs Plan and American Families Plan…”

The far-right feel that working hard for wealth shouldn't mean paying for all the irresponsible people and freeloaders' good life. 

According to an article in The Hill:

The Republican Study Committee (RSC), a conservative GOP House caucus, called Wednesday for cutting $14 trillion in spending over a decade to balance the budget and produce a surplus.

'We've faced a year of unprecedented spending," the group's leaders wrote in a letter on their proposed budget.  RSC Chairman Jim Banks (R-Ind.) spearheaded the letter.

"As you can imagine, getting our spending under control and eliminating the deficit will prove to be a herculean task," it stated. (maybe it should be called the no strings at all safety net.)

History shows that attempting to provide the good life for everyone ends up with everyone, except a few politicians, in poverty within a relatively short timeframe.  On the other side, not supporting all people, to some degree, ends up with a situation like medieval Europe, with the nobility and the serfs.

The consequence is that the conflicting idealism on both sides increases the tension and stress on the economy.  And it could lead to civil war—currently, the pressures are close to those of the 1850s.

Jefferson and the other founding fathers conceptualized and somewhat implemented a solution to this problem, the Jeffersonian Economic Architecture.  It's time to reconsider this in the Digital Age.

The Jeffersonian Economic Architecture was founded on small farms and small businesses, including small banks.  Today, your smartphone uses a version of this architecture.

Your phone has dozens of "apps" on your phone that provides the phone with various functions.  They can be linked together using standardized interfaces to provide your location, the location of businesses and restaurants, etc., to let you know that your flight is delayed, and to gives a weathercast for your area, among many other things.

In software architecture, these are called services.  Each service has a standardized interface to be connected to other services to provide you with what you want and need.

Currently, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and others have created monopolies on multiple services.  With this monopoly, they have created economies of profit and make themselves multi-, multi-billionaires.  Likewise, banks and "Wall Streeters" have done the same through financial engineering.  In the process, they have redistributed wealth to their pockets.

If you break up these corporations into services with standardized contractual and technological interfaces, it will redistribute the wealth to those with the will and talent to create and operate them.  Further, if technology is introduced into politics, as it has been into weather forecasting helps.  The government will be able to provide more effective and cost-efficient standards and infrastructure to support these services, further enhancing the wealth of all responsible citizens.

The book Jeffersonian Economic Architecture in the Digital Age discusses incorporating both the Jeffersonian economic architecture and technology into the political/economic framework and infrastructure.  This will create a potentially wealthier future for all.