Friday, 5 November 2010

Agent Based Economics backs THE LEFT

Agent Based Economics backs THE LEFT

This is my own AILife experiments. I'm working towards replication and confirmation of some aspects of agent based economic to satisfy curiosity and to investigate economic ideas. 

Even in this sort of simple world it is possible to examine policy and its effect on society. A question of, 

does redistribution of wealth hinder the genetically most worthy?; 
the Libertarian/Social Darwinian justification for social-economic oppression.


does lack of re-distributive taxation reward luck of birth?;
the lefts concern for rising serfdom.

It turns out that the latter is true - according to such agent based modelling. From this, we know that redistribution of wealth is essential to maintain the meritocratic order in sugarscape were different agents have different abilities. And without it, you condemn the worthy to relative poverty. 

Human beings have different abilities, and given opportunity, they consume and their wealth changes. This is similar by design to 'citizens' of sugarscape - you are born, they live, they consume, they die. What is true in sugarscape is likely true in human society.

As socialism saved britain from collapse the left had the answers to Britain's economic problems post world war 2. And in the same way, the left has the answers to our current challenges of rising social-economic inequality and structural deficit.

Many people in the united kingdom are less visible than they should be to the market. With largest section of people earning between £200 and £300 per month. The market economy will ignore them more than those on median earnings and beyond. Ideally the mean and median should be at the peak. And the distribution more symmetrical

The left believes in wealth redistribution. And well accepted laws of economics backs the lefts position with regards to good governance of a society. The lefts policies of redistribution would lead to a concentration of disposable income and that would raise the purchasing power signal of the average citizen, whilst at the same time reducing the purchasing power signal of the well off.

This is important because the market economy adapts to price signals. Allowing the rich to get richer reduces the visibility of the poor and the average to the market. This leads to greater inefficiency at meeting the needs of the nations citizens.

In the extreme global case, this is seen as an under production of food, and over production of cotton, coffee and other cash crops. 

Those who advocate Unregulated Global Trade, who usually phrase it more sexily (Free Trade) create greater dependence of the poor upon the rich. Note in a hungry world, how exposure of rich economies to poor farmers actually reduces global food production as european agriculture is eroded though competition. Result: we get cheaper food as global food production falls with rising global hunger.

Its very dangerous to rely on an unregulated market economy. Because the market is completely agnostic and cold to direct human need. The market responds instead to price signals (the size of a wallet, and the value of that wallets currency!) 

A market economy should be seen as a tool of society, rather than how society is run.

worth reading if you are a subscriber:

Disqus for A New Red Dawn