Well, lets see. how do I put this. An economic mindset that is influenced by class distinctions. Does this make any sense? I hope so because to be honest, I would have to go back in time and try and remember all that I learned about Confucianism, and my reference material is long gone. I hope this makes some sense. If it does, clue me in too.:bigsmile:
But they had completely different ideas of class responsibilities. Pretty much every economic theory except for Marxism is influenced by some
class distinctions, at least in a broad sense (i.e., firms, households, government might be considered 'classes' in a way, at least in the sense that they divide responsibilities sharply).
Didymos Thomas wrote:
Not to say that there are no similarities between Reaganomics and Confucian ideals, but the similarities seem to be that they both have to do with economics.
Remember, Confucius saw the farmer as the most important economic contributor to a society. Reagan saw the multi-billionaire as the most important economic contributor. Talk about a difference.
Not exactly true; he believed in division of labor which put him at odds with the more agrarian-oriented Hsu Hsing and his followers.
Confucius was certainly what you'd call laissez-faire
, in favor of low taxes and letting market determine allocation of resources in nearly all cases, he was not completely opposed to regulation in the loony way that Raygun was. Opposed to abusive monopoly for example. Raygun IIRC crippled a lot of antitrust legislation.
The overall philosophy
of his economics differed vastly, too. One thing he said was: "百姓足，君孰與不足？百姓不足，君孰與足？" which is a pair of rhetorical questions that basically assert that a ruler who does not look out for the interests of the common people (百姓) is himself 'poor'. Raygun was either unconcerned with the bai xing
, or didn't do a good job of showing it.