The bulk of contemporary political discourse around the globe revolves around something that might best be defined as the Social MarketPlace or SoMP.  The SoMP can be loosely defined as the manner in which a society provides its basic social needs to its citizenry (such as food or health care).  While a majority of people in most any society are fully capable of paying for their basic needs, it is also a fact of civilized life that there will always be some in society who are unable to pay their own way for some or all of their basic needs.  Each society has a different way of resolving the dilemma of designing SoMPs for each social need for the full spectrum of people in that society.  The Standard Operating Procedures for SoMPs vary greatly, all the way from 'free market' SoMPs with charity support for those of limited means to mixed free markets for those who can pay and socialized SoMPs for those who cannot, to fully socialized SoMPs where government owns and/or manages most or all of each social benefit.  Each SoMP has it pluses and minuses for individuals as well as society as a whole.  What is not commonly recognized is the long term but predictable dynamic effects of SoMPs have on individuals, the society of those individuals and its economy.

    Below is a table that represents the way that the US operates its SoMP for various social needs and the involvement of individuals, family, the private sector, charity, local, state and federal government in the SoMP.  It should be noted that while our nation has a relatively strong tilt toward big government control of the SoMPs, there are many nations around the world with an even greater government monopoly of the SoMPs.  The question can (and should) be asked -- "Is a big government dominated SoMP the best way to provide for a stable, productive and vibrant society."

The Social MarketPlace

Small Government

Middle Sized

Big Government

Individual Responsibility

Family & Extended Family Responsibility

Private Enterprise

Charity Non-Profit

Local government

State government

Federal government

Education

Education

Education

Education

Education

Education

Education

Pension

.

Pension

.

.

.

Social Security

Health Care (Copays)

.  

Insurance

(employer)

Health Care

Health Care

Health Care

Health Care

Widgets

Widgets

Widgets

Widgets

Widgets

Widgets

Widgets

     Like most any marketplace, the SoMP has two essential participants -- the vendors & the consumers.  For the vendor, there are several basic fiscal considerations to operating a 'business' in the SoMP:

     This is all fine and good except that the federal government SoMPs play by a different set of rules.  By tapping current and future taxpayers as the mandated funding source, it is not necessary for a federal government SoMP to run a balanced budget.  Good times result in promoting a 'free for all' mentality, with bureaucracies and politics pushing SoMP benefit to expand with little concern for the long term cost or liabilities of that SoMP, so long as the growth is incremental and politically manageable.

     Moving on to consumers, each type of SoMP has its own rules for consumer interaction in a SoMP.  

     As one can see, SoMPs operate differently that the Widget marketplace. The private sector Widget marketplace operates with relative freedom according to marketplace checks and balances.  However, SoMPs are typically a mixed affair between the marketplace, collectives, individuals and the politics of that particular SoMP.  Contrary to the popular socialist/liberal trend towards big government SoMPs, using modern technologies and consumer tools, there are many viable ways to promote and operate a fiscally and morally sound SoMPs without big government monopolization or mandates.  Such SoMPs can provide equal or greater benefits as exampled in Chili's private sector social security/pension system.  To date, there has been relatively poor recognition and/or cohesive articulation of these various options within our political system, the media and to the public.  Furthermore, the policies of each particular SoMP have enormous implications on the behavior of individuals and groups in society, as well as the fiscal and moral solvency of that society.  If collectives are promoted as the source of SoMP benefits, individuals tend to become less self reliant and society as a whole less productive.  Conversely, if individualism and self reliance are promoted for the able bodied, the moral and fiscal well being of a society is promoted -- e plurbus unum.  

SoMP Politics

       As much as some wish to deny it, the defining feature of SoMP dynamics are SoMP politics. While there are clearly many ways to define and operate any SoMP, each political philosophy seems to have its own preferred approach to SoMP policies.

Delving into SoMP Dynamics

     Now that a modest foundation of the principles and players in the Social MarketPlace have been laid out, it is time to dive into the dynamics of how different types of SoMPs operate when applied across a broad population and wage spectrum.  As an aid to minimize rhetoric and focus upon realities in furthering this discussion, a downloadable QuattroPro spreadsheet model for a universal SoMP has been used to model and study the various types of universal SoMPs.  This dynamic economic model was originally designed to study the alternate forms of Universal Health Care with varying degrees of individual and government responsibilities and differing tax policies.  The model outputs a 3 dimensional perspective that relates the quality of a particular SoMP's benefits to the percent of the society who are subsidised to the effect that SoMP has on the average wages.  The model has reasonably complete documentation for wonks who wish to explore it in more detail. Being a spreadsheet, all of the formulas, variables and equations are fully accessible for inspection and/or modification.  It takes no programming to operate the model.  A wide variety of SoMPs can be designed and compared at the poke of a button with the results developing right before your eyes.

The Business Plan of the Social MarketPlace   

     The business plan for a vendor in Social MarketPlace revolves around several basic fiscal constraints. For the sake of argument, the discussion that follows uses various models of universal health care SoMPs from the perspective of average wage earner.  The model used studies a board population spectrum with a wide variety of wages and family sizes. The graph below presents cost of various forms of health care SoMPs as economic conditions change (unemployment changes).  Perhaps the most relevant thing to note  in this first  graph is how the unemployment conditions is quite limited in range. This ignores the reality that unemployment fluctuates into double digits through history and through various communities in the nation.  However, the graph does accomplish the task of showing that ClintonCare and Single Payer socialism are not that expensive, at least within the range studied.  There is also little ability to use this model to study the dynamic of how individuals who get 'free' health care coverage aren't as motivated to seek gainful employment as they might otherwise be.  

    It is also prudent to model the cost that any health care SoMP imposes on average wages as benefits are changed in quality or cost.  Here again, the results show a modest burden on average wages for socialized ClintonCare and Single Payer SoMPs.  As noted in the first graph, this simplistic modeling does not allow for any reasonable means to study the dynamics of how there is a trend to perpetually increase benefits in highly socialized health care system until the system becomes fiscally unstable.

    Furthermore, there is no attempt to study the combined dynamics of both of these perspectives as neither perspective allows for a reasonable dynamic study.  It is left to rhetoric to debate how if unemployment increases that there will be an increased burden on the economy to pay for socialized SoMPs that requires increased taxes or borrowing to keep the system solvent.  It is left to rhetoric about how increased numbers of people subsidized always push for an expansion of benefits.  By limiting the set of initial benefits, and by limiting the economic conditions studied, and by never putting these two perspective together, liberals who wish to promote socialized health care SoMPs, can select a set of benefits and limit subsidies to conditions that make socialized SoMPs seem a somewhat reasonable choice for society to make.  

We don't live in a static society, population or economy!

     What is typically lacking from those promoting the big government SoMPs is the dynamic perspective of what happens when a SoMP is put into operation?  If discourse is limited (as noted above) to rhetoric of the dynamics of changing economics and political pressures, no clear conclusion is likely to be reached, which suits liberalism statists just fine. However, one may move beyond rhetoric to reasonable fact based discussion and conclusion if one combines the two dimensional perspectives presented above into a single three dimensional model to that studies a SoMP through the full spectrum of economic conditions.  A 3D SoMP for universal health care for working age people and their families is presented below.  The faint of heart should not ask what happens if one includes Medicare into this SoMP.  Please note, every point on the SoMP plane provides for universal health care.  Additionally, any health care SoMP that one wishes to define is represented by a particular point on this plane. Our current health care systems SoMP point is located somewhere near the bottom of the first square at the top of the SoMP plane. Computer Model of Universal SoMPsPerhaps the most relevant aspect of the SoMP plane is its increasingly negative 'slope' toward lower average wages when the SoMP progresses from individualist SoMPs to collectivist SoMPs.  This occurs when economic conditions worsen and/or more people are subsidized, and/or as the benefits are expanded.  It should also be noted that this dynamic macro modeling is nonjudgemental about how the cost of the SoMP benefit finds it way to the wages of the average worker.  It can be via direct taxation of some sort, and/or lower wages due to employer mandates, and/or perhaps a hidden premium tax that causes employers to pay more in premiums than wages.  It should also be noted, it is a rare occurrence for benefits (or taxes) to be cut, even as economic conditions improve.

    The negative slope of the SoMP plane is representative of the natural direction a SoMP on the SoMP plane will take in a 'frictionless' democratic society.  In other words, a SoMP will tend to slide down the SoMP plane until there is a sufficient friction created by opposing political forces to momentarily stabilize the SoMP at that point.  It should also be noted that this is a temporary balance at best.   Barring a successful marketing to the public of a better individualist SoMP, when (not if) there is an economic downturn and/or when demographics change (such as the impending boomer retirement) and/or as a result of 'successful' liberal campaigning, this counterpoise will be broken and the SoMP will slide further down the slope towards collectivism and lower average wages.  

    Several conclusions become readily apparent after studying several thousand variations of Universal SoMPs :

Historical Individualist/Needy SoMPs

     Historically, SoMPs were largely private matters. Those who could afford to pay for their benefits from their own resources did. Those of limited resources shopped in various private charity SoMPs for assistance.  A typical route of support was to look to their family, extended family, church, charity, community, state, or central (federal) government for help and support.  Our contemporary SoMPs have in most respects turned the historical individualist oriented SoMP upside down with the big loser being the family and future generations who pay for the costs of the deficits typically run by big government SoMPs.  Today, the first thing many think about when one is in need is "which government office do I start shopping at?"  From there, one works down through the system with ones family and personal initiative being the last resort. This is not to say that there are not some advantage to having a coherent system of social benefits for needy individuals and families.  What has been overlooked in the rush to create universal big government SoMPs is the option of developing and promoting various individualist SoMPs that contain provisions promoting benefits for the needy.

   Under the current scheme, there is little cause to dump on your family with your personal problems.  Who wants to face the inevitable familial peer pressure to get your act together?  This embarrassment can be sidestepped when there is a 'free' government SoMP to provide for your needs.  As one might expect, big government SoMPs have turned the morals of our society upside down.  Not only do many individuals in various states of need first look to government for assistance in times of need, but many collectives and big government special interests help market and promote the antifamily big government SoMP.

    Fortunately, all is not lost. Opinions and debate continues on how to design the most effective and judicious SoMP. The fiscal failure and future liabilities of many big government SoMPs are triggering people to look at alternative SoMPs.  Some ponder whether it is politically possible to upright the ship of civilization without turning government upside down, given that so many people are addicted to the opiate of liberal SoMPs.  Is it possible for our society to cross the ocean of fiscal and moral debts to become a more personally responsible society? Must our society accept the fate of living in a highly politicized and unstable world that perpetually teeters on the brink of fiscal and moral bankruptcy?  

     In many respects, the solutions and answers to these questions will only come when society in general faces up to the fact that there are numerous ways for a civilized nation to promote SoMPs.  Individuals and groups in society can get their social needs through the wide variety of SoMPs.  Not all SoMPs need to rely upon government as provider, not all solutions need rely upon solely on the individual and self reliance.  One thing is clear, if one endeavors to be true to the premise of preserving liberty to ourselves and our posterity, there needs to be a balance between government and individual responsibility in defining and operating the Social MarketPlace.  

    Or at least this seems right to me.

Always Right