Dear Friends,
It seems to me, we are all well aware of our immediate good, our stomachs growl when we are hungry, we sweat when we are warm, shiver at cold and we feel our immediate desires. From this immediate want for good we have varying degrees of ability to put off immediate good for long term gratification. Some of us think only of the hour’s pleasures, while others dwell on good, or bad, years in the future. This variability in the nature of Men, is both a strength and a weakness, as are all attributes of humanity. With this understanding, if we consider what is the best average, or put another way, what is the best mean, for a functional society, and is it the same to get positive economic results?
In societies where people have only immediate gratification on their minds we expect to see a high crime rate. This seems to be the case. People who are incarcerated have higher rates of impulsiveness than people who have never been. In the case of a society that has no savers, the banking system cannot function, because capital cannot be amassed, to improve the means of production or create new production. Call this a 0 society. But impulsiveness is not all bad…
People who have long time horizons for good tend to be savers. They save for the rainy day or their retirement. Such people are necessary for an economy to function. People who have long time horizons must necessarially forgo immediate gratification for long term gratification. They do not drink from the font of what’s new and dazzling. They don’t feed the market economy’s need for innovation. This would stunt market capitalism’s growth since it is based on creative destruction. Let’s call this society a 10.
From this we can surmise that the mean should be between the two extremes. A functioning society needs impulsive people, and considerate people, else the economic model of capitalism doesn’t work well. Where, within the parameters we have set for our thought experiment, should we set the meter, for the most effective point at which society should aim? Let’s consider further…
Take a society that has a few impulsive people but most are savers. This society would be an 8. Innovation won’t see the enthusiastic acceptance that it would in a more impulsive society, but there will be far more money available, for improvements in the means of production and new businesses. Perhaps this would lead to a lower economic growth rate, once this society reaches parity with it’s economic competitors, but the means to reach that parity will be more at hand in such a society.
A society that is made up of many impulsive people and a few considerate people will wallow in ills and troubles, and would be a number 2 on our scale. While they will lust for whatever is new and fascinating, their society will have a horrible crime rate, teenage pregnancy will be rife, marital affairs will be commonplace and the poison ivy of the legal system will be well nourished. Moreover the nature of impulsiveness itself will render them blind to the source of their societal afflictions.
Their use of the vote will suffer as a result too. The many spenders will seek government to subsidize their extravagant lifestyle. Why pay for food for your children when the new I Pad is out? The politician who offers more for less will get the vote. Lies, coverups and incompetence will be forgiven and quickly forgotten, unless the unbiased media keep a scandal alive. This society will suffer, both from poor economic performance, and from the weight of the people’s impulsive behavior. Such a society will misuse the democratic process, to take from the savers and redistribute it to the spenders, maybe even taking it secretly by printing money. Someone has to fund the impulsive profligacy.
It seems clear, that our set point for the best mean, for society’s good time horizon, is more to the considerate than the impulsive. Perhaps, on our scale, 5-7 might be an ideal, for both societal ordering and economic growth. Those poor people who live in impulsive societies… They are lost and yet don’t have the sense to know it.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
