A Delicate Dance Between Ambitions And Resentments
by ahansen
“The government had absolutely nothing to do with [my economic success at Halliburton].”
–Dick Cheney 10/5/00
“Keep your government hands off my Medicare!”
-Irate voter at Simpsonville, (!) SC town hall meeting. 7/28/2009
“I don’t see that being a problem.”
-Cathy Maples, DOD contractor who paid $63,500 to dine with Sarah Palin, when asked if her airfare to the venue might be an issue. 9/19/09
Have we become so oblivious to the pervasive influence of our government that we actually believe we’ve got where we are by dint of our own hard work and perseverance? That our accomplishments and accumulations were achieved in a free market vacuum, unaided by a thriving social structure or abetted by the enormous leg-up we get by living in a technologically advanced system like the United States? Do we truly think that our entitlements were somehow earned and immutable, and not bestowed by a benevolent society?
If so, try building your material science research facility in Somalia or an agricultural conglomerate in oh, say, Zimbabwe, and see where it gets you.
Edmund Burke, often called the Father of Modern Conservatism, used the words “government” and “society” interchangeably. Although he argued that the two requirements of good governance, strong institutions and civil liberty came from contrary sources, he also understood that they were inextricably linked.
As our national dialog becomes more strident and the stakes more critical, perhaps we should take a moment to remember that we, you and I, are our government, and that without a regulated social structure, none of us would be enjoying a life— even the most impoverished among us— that compares admirably to a life of royalty a mere few generations back.
Compared to the average citizen of Burke’s time, we ALL live like kings, with virtually unlimited travel opportunities and communications, myriad foodstuffs and entertainments, freedom from starvation, enslavement and epidemic, and at least a cursory education for anyone who wants to pursue one. We Americans are among history’s most fortunate beings.
The average Kansan no longer lives in a sod hut, nor the average Californian in a hogan. Our diets are far removed from the maize, squash, beans and lizards of our recent progenators. (For most of us, anyway…Happy Birthday, Olygirl, BTW.)
City dwellers no longer come home to the flat and flatulous fare of onions, cabbage, and beer that awaited our great grandfathers, and cholera, polio and unresolved dental issues are no longer endemic to our outlying suburbs.
Personal preferences aside, we don’t necessarily have to spend our summers chopping firewood, or our autumns gathering acorns and grubs. We have indoor plumbing and outdoor “entertainment centers.” And Cheetos. We have Cheetos.
All this for a relative price tag that pales in comparison to what our peasant ancestors were expected to cough up into the public um, coffers.
Yet we still rail and complain and beat our breasts about creeping (or outright) “socialism” and about how “they’re” taking “our” money to pay for the sins of the unworthy while we toil in near-slavery. See our fingers bleed….
Just for the sake of argument, let’s consider our American economy as a game of Monopoly. Patented by Hasbro in the depths of the first Great Depression, Monopoly was the interactive virtual reality game of its day. To call it a metaphor would belittle its poetry— the thing is a cleverly-disguised propaganda tool; a simulacrum of free market capitalism that ultimately results in one player holding all the fake money while everyone else is forced into bankruptcy.
As the game begins, we start with a clean board. We get the same bankroll, the same opportunity to accumulate, allocate, and divest. We get to roll the same dice in turn, and deal with the same chance cards.
As the game progresses, most of us get setbacks. We land on the wrong squares, buy houses we can’t afford, and lose our hard-won holdings. But we suck up our losses, pay our fines, wait out a turn or two in jail, and if we’re broke, start back into the game when we pass GO and collect our $200 grubstake from the community bank.
Sure we’re peeved when the guy holding Boardwalk and Park Place slips his wormy little brother a railroad to keep him in the game. And yes, that bossy girl next door is scheming with her toadies to control the utilities and buy out our hotels. But with the proper tactics and respect for the rules of the game, a dedicated group of Monopolists can go on for hours, even days. (According to Hasbro, the longest sanctioned Monopoly game lasted an arse-numbing 1,680 hours—70 days.)
Let’s take this a step further.
Say you’re playing with a couple of neighborhood kids who have never seen a monopoly board, can’t count, and don’t know the difference between a house on Baltic and a hotel on Atlantic. While it might be personally gratifying to kick their butts and take all their pieces, it’s not going to be a very interesting game. And if you persist in cutthroat tactics and snide ridicule of their ineptitude, don’t be surprised when that dullard Kenny from across the street takes offense, upends the board, and sends your tokens flying all over the rumpus room.
Likewise, if one player always wins, it won’t be long before she winds up playing alone while everyone else is out in the sandlot swatting baseballs, or breaking into the parents’ liquor cabinet. If no one else ever gets a chance to win, it’s only a matter of time until they stop playing at all.
Without willing players, and a means of starting anew when the game becomes hopelessly lopsided, there IS no game—it’s just a hunk of laminated paper and some trinkets in a cardboard box.
And so it goes with our economy. With so many people at the table, and so many new and improvised rules being tossed into the mix, it’s hard to recognize what game is actually being played anymore. The intentions may well be Monopoly, but the execution is so murky now that we might as well be playing Yahtzee. Or 53 Pickup.
Lately it seems that the corrupt and canny among us have institutionalized cheating, gaming the system to nab the rewards that should rightly go to those of us who have taken the trouble to read the instructions on the box and play by the rules on the lid. We’re not supposed to get free houses and unauthorized bailouts, or sneak money from the till while the banker is distracted—let alone be rewarded for it!
From where I sit, it looks like this particular game may just about be over, and since all of our fake money is gone and our pieces are all in the hands of the “winner,” we need to decide whether we want to start a new game or go outside for some fresh air before we clean off the table and sit down to do our homework.
No one says we have to be happy about it. We might even waylay the jerk in the bathroom and punch him in the teeth for cheating and being so smug about it.
In real life, the end result of a monopoly is an aristocracy—or a dictatorship. That’s why we have a democratic government– our society– to keep the game in check. Reallocation is nearly always a better option than revolution, and periodically declaring a winner and starting over allows the game to go on. After all, you can only gloat over your boxful of plastic houses, pre-determined chances, and fake money for so long. Eventually it’s nice to have some competition again. And when you’re playing for real food, and shelter, and the survival of people’s families, the consequences of sitting alone behind your walls fingering your booty get a good bit more dire.
Our national dialogue may become rowdy and uncouth, but that’s a good thing, I think—it keeps us from getting too complacent and letting any one group or ideology become entrenched to the point of monopolizing the game. And as odious as it seems, sometimes we just have to declare a “winner,” clear the table, and redistribute the money if we want the game to continue.
So the next time you find yourself gnashing your teeth over loan forgiveness to keep some FB in a house they had no business “buying” in the first place, or so mad you can’t see straight about some corrupted functionary in a community “redevelopment” organization, ask yourself:
Do you really want the Paris Hiltons and Genna Bushes of the world running our Country?
FYI, I had a bit of a problem with formating and such, so I edited a couple of sentences. ahansen, feel free to let me know what needs to be changed.
Have you seen this…? Just when you thought it was over…
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_39/b4148028475445.htm
Yes… I see these USDA loans pushed heavily, here in the outskirts of Portland (OR). I had the same thought you did. Grrr. But maybe smarter people will get in this time - and they are pushing them for lower-end places only, at least here.
Well, that made me dizzy.
“So the next time you find yourself gnashing your teeth over loan forgiveness to keep some FB in a house they had no business “buying” in the first place, or so mad you can’t see straight about some corrupted functionary in a community “redevelopment” organization, ask yourself:
“Do you really want the Paris Hiltons and Genna Bushes of the world running our Country?”
Paris Hilton and Genna Bush pose no threat to anyone so I don’t understand why you used their names here. The last sentence shoulda been something like, “Do you really want the Barack Obamas, G.W. Bushes, Nancy Pelosis, Ben Bernankes, Hank Paulsons and Turbo Tax Timmays of the world ruining our country?”
+1
I was speaking of the dangers inherent in allowing our Country to morph into an aristocracy—in which the scions of the elite automatically inherit the positions of power, if not of outright rulership.
Are you arguing that GW Bush would have had the slightest chance of becoming our President had it not been for the accident of his birth? How about Nancy Pelosi?
Wasn’t a governing elite what the Hamiltonian/Whiggish tendency in US history has always wanted? Most of the Virginians who led the Revolution were already hereditary aristocrats. And isn’t that why the Constitution has so many safeguards against popular democracy? The Jacksonian counter-tendency has also been pretty strong, but has less legal backing.
Aristocracies cut both ways. They produce annoying and vapid wastrels on the one hand. On the other, they also offer highly developed skills, patriotism, high quality institutions, and stability. On balance, I prefer them to revolutions or proletarian ascendancies.
Outstanding ahansen. Oustanding.
“On the other, they also offer highly developed skills, patriotism, high quality institutions, and stability.”
You are kidding, right? patriotism, high quality institutions
and stability? The ONLy reason we have a few of those high quality institutions was possibly to thwart irs. Not because they were so benevolent and had highly developed skills, piffle.
Paris Hilton an aristocrat in a position of power? Whew.
Our founding fathers elitists?
That’s what they escaped from, and debated and wrote extensively about — Freedom of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — without the influence of tyrannical elite rule. A republic democracy, wherein there’s balance of power among the three branches so no one branch or person could grab power from We The People, and rule we the people.
Equality was not birthright, it was equality in legal settings only. Procedure aka due process, treat everyone (it has come to include everyone) equally legally, in justice and legal settings, only. Privately these brilliant men knew they were not equal to the dumbest, but they protected the dumbest — legally.
You should of used the ‘Kennedys’ as an example of press made aristocracy. Teddy was a perfect example of good gone bad on a bridge. The women in that clan also have bad teeth. I stopped drinking Cutty when I was told about the bootlegging of the father. Oh well.
Good logic!
Sorry ’bout that, Giacomo. I sent Ben the wrong draft…t’was not a thing of beauty. Hope this one makes more sense!
Was there a longer version up just a few minutes ago or did I imagine that?
Like the old sci-fi show on TV: “we control the vertical, we control the horizontal.”
The Outer Limits
Much better.
The new one is up now, but I still don’t get the point. What exactly are you trying to say?
I take the point to be that everyone lives/succeeds/fails within the parameters of a society. That society is created and maintained by taxes (and government). So when people say they pay way too much taxes on their earnings and get little in return, they are ignoring that everything they earn is earned within the context of society, and without that society (which is maintained by taxes) they would have no income at all. And that our current taxes (and similar gov demands upon us) are relatively minor compared to how well we live, and how much freedom we have. (I could be wrong- probably am. But that’s my take. And I thought that, as usual, ahansen has given us a thought- and post-provoking article. My thanks to her.)
Yeah. That.
Thanks, sloth.
Nice metaphor and post. This is Obama’s desire i.e. to redistribute the wealth. I just hope we find a way to maximize the distribution from gains earned by cheating or coercion and minimize the distribution from gains earned by honest, prudent and moral work.
EVERYBODY’s goal is to redistribute wealth. Do you honestly think that anyone, no matter how ill-gotten their gains, does not rationalize by some twisted logic that they “earned” their take?
Some actually deserve what they earned. Some don’t.
As the saying goes - “No man is an island”.
I know I certainly have not earned everything I’ve been given in this life. Luck of the draw and all that….
But you’re right, annata.
No one wants to think of themselves as a “bad” person; just your everyday run-of-the-mill murderer/pedophile/slave trafficker/warmonger/politician caught up in a bad situation. We humans do tend to rationalize our actions and our situations to fit our own perceptions and (mis)deeds.
“EVERYBODY’s goal is to redistribute wealth.”
That’s twisted, sister. We would be a lot wealthier if the incentives were skewed in favor of wealth creation rather than redistribution (aka robbing Peter to pay Paul).
“That’s twisted, sister.”
We’re not gonna take it… NO! We ain’t gonna take it!
I don’t get what redistribution she’s talking about, anyway. Is she talking about the bank bailouts, where money is taken from everyone and given to the bankers? So that makes them “winners” and somehow allows the rest of us to move on and start making money again? I don’t know if that’s what she’s trying to say, but, if so, then that’s a complete nonsequitur. I don’t get it.
Amen Brother!
I call BS on that one.
Nearly every successful person has had some luck on the way, but does that mean they don’t deserve the fruits of their labors? That all the actual work that went into building their wealth doesn’t count? That some Wall Street crook or government drone should determine what salaries we have, how much money we can keep, and how we shall live? No way!
haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!!!
I like the first one - wait - man, that was one heck of an edit.
Rat’s butt - need a do over on my reply. LOL.
Leigh
You are so right. I read the first one, went out and smoked a joint and scheduled an abortion. I then came back to find out that the whole thing had changed. Now what do I do? I already paid a deposit.
All abortions are non-refundable. We can only issue you a store credit.
NYCityBoy getting an abortion? Now there’s something I’d pay to see. Well mostly the first couple minutes when they put in and expand the speculum.
Visit Trinidad, CO lately? (Sex change capital of the world)
“City dwellers no longer come home to the flat and flatulous fare of onions, cabbage, and beer”
You need to eat my wife’s cooking before making such sweeping generalizations.
Leigh, you should see some of the stuff I write BEFORE I have my morning coffee….
Sorry guys. The re-posted version is marginally more coherent.
Alena,
I’m happy to have had the pleasure of the first read - and as always, a delightful post.
Cheers!
Leigh
flat and flatulous fare of onions, cabbage, and beer
I LIKE onions, cabbage and beer - preferably with a little sausage or beef shank.
Gotta have cheetos with my onions/cabbage and beer.
“That’s why we have a democratic government”
We don’t have a democratic government. We have a representative government. That is why so many people are so mad. They don’t feel like the government is representing anybody but the monopolists or better yet “the chosen few”. The calls against the TARP were almost unanimously against it. But what happened? The big boys on Wall Street got their entire Christmas list filled.
One rep had stated that calls to his office about TARP were “evenly divided. Fifty percent are “no” and fifty percent are “hell no”.” It is not a breakdown in democracy that has so many people feeling angry. It is a breakdown in representation. That is what will happen when so few are chosen as the winners.
The difference between Monopoly and what is going on is that in Monopoly you still have to roll your own dice. The dice themselves are not loaded. No “appointed” roller can take your turn for you. Plus, in Monopoly if you catch somebody skimming from the bank you can kick his ass right there. That kept many a would-be cheat in check when I was a kid. That is not what I see in the financial game we see being played out now. The cheats don’t have any fear of a bloody nose so they cheat with complete disregard for the other players in the game. Monopoly has checks and balances to it that this mess absolutely does not have. If it did the situation would be very different.
+10
Where is my piece of America where the old ‘Ant and Grasshopper’ still apply?
Seems like everyone in DC is now a Grasshopper.
Also, see:
www dot lewrockwell dot com/orig4/ellis1.html
This is the story of Davy Crockett being brought to task by a farmer regarding Charity.
I side with Crockett, especially the part where:
“There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week’s pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men–men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased–a debt which could not be paid by money–and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.”
The farmer made an excellent point, IMO. Charity on it’s own is a wonderful thing. Forced charity on the other hand is a foul institution.
No, wmbz, forced “charity” (which is your pet term for “taxes”) is not evil. It’s only evil when the taxes are collected under a certain agreement (like “we will take these taxes to pay for roads, schools, cops, orphans, etc), but then spent for a completely different purpose (to protect wealthy banksters from the embarrassment of their own failures and crimes).
“…and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.”
Does that result from “learned behavior” or is it something innate?
Good comment, NYCityBoy. And, Ben, any chance of having NYCityBoy expand on the above in a full-fledged HBB post?
I’ve got one I’ve been working on but too lazy or busy to finish. I tell you what, I will get back to it tonight. I will do what I always do. I will turn to my wife and say, “honey, get me six beers and my writing hat. It’s going to be a long night.” I will then knock it out pretty quickly. I hope.
> That is what will happen when so few are chosen as the winners.
That’s why the House of Representatives should be vastly expanded. Let’s have a couple of thousand for a country of this huge population.
Your post reminds me of various recurring questions I can never quite answer to my personal satisfaction:
1) Do we now have a centrally planned economy?
2) Have we always had one (with the whole “free enterprise” concept a popular American myth)?
3) Does central planning result in better economic performance than does decentralized free enterprise?
4) Does central planning better enable politicians and Megabank, Inc cartel members suck money out of the populace?
Regarding 1; I’ve been driving a lot the past few days and listened to NPR a bunch. The White House is talking economic central planning and the FCC is laying down some rules on the internet, etc. But really, how much is just pretending to plan? As I recall, during the Greenspan era, the belief was in growth, with no regard to being healthy or sustainable.
Congress went along with the Fed and Wall Street was happy. Not many complained until the wheels come off. Was this central planning? Was it the free market?
Who are the players? Is it reasonable to suggest that Wall Street (which owns the Fed, literally) is the free market in operation? After all, one major aspect of markets is that poorly performing firms MUST fail if the system is to work. IMO, anyone who votes (congress, another player) to give money to AIG, for example, doesn’t have a leg to stand on in blaming free markets for this problem.
Maybe the reason we don’t delve much into this market failure issue is that we begin to discover how little is free, versus how much is interconnected, quasi-government corruption, pretending to be a system of checks and balances in action.
Finally, I don’t see much that can be called planning, central or otherwise. It looks more like special interests attempting to perpetuating a disfunctional system. Personally, I suggest we trash this mess and start over.
“…Personally, I suggest we trash this mess and start over.”
Amen, brother. We’re making a good start here.
Well said, Ben!
“Maybe the reason we don’t delve much into this market failure issue is that we begin to discover how little is free, versus how much is interconnected, quasi-government corruption, pretending to be a system of checks and balances in action.
Finally, I don’t see much that can be called planning, central or otherwise. It looks more like special interests attempting to perpetuating a disfunctional system. Personally, I suggest we trash this mess and start over.”
This sums up the current state of affairs perfectly. The system is completely broken and corrupt, and the crooks who call the shots and who unfairly benefit are desperately trying to keep it going- at the expense, and with the resources, of those who do not benefit from it, and who have no interest in the status quo.
we begin to discover how little is free, versus how much is interconnected, quasi-government corruption, pretending to be a system of checks and balances in action
You said it all there, Ben. Eloquent.
The greatest tragedy in the whole mess, IMHO: Blaming the current state of affairs on ‘market-based policies.’ The upshot of this straw man blaming of the ‘free market’ will be heightened support for turning our economy into more of a centrally planned system than it already is.
I never blame the ‘free market’ for anything. But I do like to point out that it has never, ever existed. And as far as I can tell, never could. So I don’t see how it’s the panacea that many perceive it to be. I see many with a quasi-religious faith in free markets. They think they are the simple solution to everything. If it’s so simple and elegant a solution, why has it yet to occur in history? Illuminati?
I never blame the ‘free market’ for anything. But I do like to point out that it has never, ever existed.
Well now wait a minute, if a totally free market is when business makes it’s own rules and regulations and they own the FED and the gov then don’t we have a totally free market system right now??
“I see many with a quasi-religious faith in free markets. They think they are the simple solution to everything.”
That ain’t me — I never attended U of Chicago econ to receive their cult indoctrination.
At the fundamental level (which I suspect many “free market” critics fail to grasp), a free market is one where both buyer and seller (or producer and consumer) willingly engage in mutually-beneficial trade to one another’s mutual betterment. There is no place in such a world for exploitative “Rob Peter to pay Paul” extraction schemes.
At any rate, I tend to agree an idealized free market may be difficult if not impossible to achieve. But I have seen real life examples where something close occurred, even if on a limited scale.
One was the highly self-sufficient rural farming community where my father grew up, and where I visited my grandmother as a child. They rode out the 1930s depression cash poor but well fed, thanks to a self-sufficient agricultural base populated by well-educated German immigrants who knew how to raise houses, barns, crops and livestock, plus how to help one another out as needed.
A second was that of a Vietnamese city economy I viewed from the street level. Nearly every building on each block housed a small business, and the constant flow of trade between neighbors kept the community vibrant and wealthy.
In both of these examples, there was a palpable lack of too-big-to-fail entities dominating the economic situation. Rather the communities were populated by small, mutually interdependent households and/or firms which interacted much along the lines envisioned by those who extol the virtues of free market exchange economies under perfect competition.
Perhaps you are right, though, and my perception that such economies exist in the real world is illusory.
I love it when you answer your own questions, PB. Especially when I happen to concur in the answer.
I am sure it’s pathological. Economics is a form of brain damage.
Things worked better when the government stuck to the basics.
Then, people decided that laws should be passed to “promote” or “encourage” various agendas.
Trouble is, people found out it was easier and more profitable to lobby/pay the government to change the rules in their favor, than to play the game fairly.
Our problem now is that the guys that ended up being the “winners” are threatening to take their money and move to another neighborhood (China, India, etc), unless we continue playing the game using their manipulated rulebook.
And they can, too, using all the tools and infrastructure that we have built as a society (internet, international air travel, etc).
“easier to lobby/pay govt to change the rules in their favor”
Yup. “Change you can believe in” always boils down to changing the rules in a way that feathers someone’s nest at someone else’s expense. S**t, he’s not even getting us out of Iraq, which was possibly the “swing” voters’ greatest motivation.
But I bet many of those voters can still defend his record on the subject, somehow. Lying to yourself is still lying.
Don’t you just love it when the Dems hoist themselves. For the past 3 or 4 years they have been honking about getting out of Iraq and winning in Afganistan. Now comes Barry, we’re still there.The head Gen says we need more troops to ‘WIN’. It’s Obama’s and the lefty Dems war now. Go look at your poll numbers on this one. I can’t wait til 2010 !
“…discover how little is free, versus how much is interconnected, quasi-government corruption, pretending to be a system of checks and balances in action.”
Exactly what I was thinking when one of our esteemed California politicians was caught with his hand spankign the “eye-patch panties” girl, who just happened to be a lobbyist for a big energy firm. What a surprise…and after espousing “family values” up and down the state.
I don’t trust us to start over right now. Maybe a generation of anarchy so the old minds can die and the new minds can start thinking on their own would be best. We’re fresh out of new ideas…..
Too partisan, didn’t read.
I believe this is another in the author’s mission to “train” the HBB readership.
(recall a post in which author stated…”the training continues”.)
There seems to be a real objection to the use of the term socialism when applied to agenda of current administration.
Why? AFAIK, we’re all the beneficiaries of a constitution that guarantees free speech.
meh
I don’t see that there’s any hesitancy to use the word “socialism” here at all. Do any of us deny that this country’s power structure has socialized the losses of private industry onto the backs of its taxpayers?
Although I have on occasion argued for the more democratic use of our public monies, I’ve searched my posts here without success looking for one in which I suggest that a readership as diverse and as articulate as the one on HBB could somehow be “trained.” And “trained” to what end? (Serious question here…need context.)
I’ve consciously tried to write pieces for Ben’s blog that foster reasoned public debate—not advance any particular partisan agenda. Mostly because I don’t actually have one.
Yes, everyone is an Independent.
But we get your drift.
All this whining about “socialism” makes me laugh.
That horse got out of the barn a long time ago.
Let’s get us a rope and put that old philly back in the barn then.
philly
philly? X-philly? phillygal?
filly?
“Do any of us deny that this country’s power structure has socialized the losses of private industry onto the backs of its taxpayers? “
Isn’t that what Republicans do for a living?
It wasn’t the “socialism” (as noted, didn’t read) but the Cheney/Palin quotes.
Sooo….You’re posting to tell us you refused to read what’s being discussed? The Know-Nothings are back!
lol
In order to “know something” one must see fault in only one particular political party? I see…
This has always been a left leaning blog. This just made it a political one rather than a housing one.
Personally, I’d take Genna over Babs and her ilk anyday.
I’ve always thrown political figures and institutions in the housing bubble mix because it is a part of the event itself. And if I can attempt to connect dots and imply things, why can’t others?
Over 20 years ago I decided that left-right, conservative-liberal, etc, were terms the PTB used to keep us divided and from focusing on what really matters.
Over 20 years ago I decided that left-right, conservative-liberal, etc, were terms the PTB used to keep us divided and from focusing on what really matters.
Thank you, Maestro Ben!
Now, class, let’s get back to focusing on what really matters.
That is why I love the word “partisan” so much. You don’t have to specify left or right. It just means anybody that puts their own political biases above common sense. It is lazy and boring but it is widely practiced.
Few people can judge each person and situation on its merits. As I’ve gotten older I try harder and harder to do that. But all around me I see people that never hold their own side accountable while nitpicking every little thing done by their “opponent”. That is a partisan. They don’t care about the truth. They just pretend that they do.
Polarization is the name of the game. Meanwhile, more and more go without, demand less, become embittered and finally capitulate to the end of the world is tomorrow attitude.
I disagree. The end of the world was yesterday. What next?
“Over 20 years ago I decided that left-right, conservative-liberal, etc, were terms the PTB used to keep us divided and from focusing on what really matters.”
EXACTLY. The PTB, MSM have done their damndest to Divide our attentions, to make us distrust, dislike each other, and the PTB, MSM, WS walk away laughing to the bank. “see look at them fight each other”…
“This has always been a left leaning blog.”
Left of what? The John Birch society? (just kidding-sort of)
I find very few of the more prolific posters to be anywhere near left of center. (But I guess ‘center’ is subjective.) Seriously, what constitutes ‘left leaning’ to you? Not wanting to bail out Wall Street? Not wanting to bail out FB’s? Not wanting to inflate our way out of this mess? Because surely those are the majority (at least stated) opinions here.
No, it used to be a rather politically neutral blog. It’s taking a hard turn to the left in recent months but it wasn’t always this way.
My mistake, Blano. Jenna at least cared enough about her family’s image to hire a ghostwriter to help repudiating her dreadful public persona.
Apple - your loss.
Sounds like another excellent course syllabus, Prof.
Not so sure it’s as nefarious as it sounds; “central planning” conjures up Orwellian images for me, but certainly there is an attempt to maintain a cohesive economic system going on in this country—if for no other reason than ease of commerce.
In a society as populous, diverse and technologically dependent as ours, true “free enterprise” is largely a myth. Look to the quality control and working conditions of Southern China as an example of what unfettered capitalism can bring. As that region matures economically, I suspect we’ll see a more structured system like our own evolving there as well.
Not sure if this is the natural order of things or just a matter of practicality, but there is a delicate balance between order and chaos, and sometimes the mitigating factor is…central planning. Now, “enforcement” is a different animal altogether, and perhaps that is what you’re alluding to?
I think “Central Planning” in this context means “Actions of the Central Bank”.
Inywayz, China’s not really capitalist, and they are under oppressive government control too.
Test
Oh goody, a Monopoly analogy…Monopoly needs to be updated to the currrent era:
1. Create an independent banker to handle monies $$$$$$
2. Banker charges a “fee” for all deposits & withdraws
3. Banker charges a “fee” for all houses & hotel transactions
4. Banker charges a “special fee” for “utility” transactions
5. Banker can charge some players higher fees than “others” based on their fico/skin color/personal discretion
6. Banker can deceive through manipulation with impunity
7. Banker is never allowed to become “insolvent”
8. Banker sits back smokes cigar, drinks Scotch…watches game progress
That game would have to be called “Rat Race”.
“As our national dialog becomes more strident and the stakes more critical, perhaps we should take a moment to remember that we, you and I, are our government, and that without a regulated social structure, none of us would be enjoying a life— even the most impoverished among us— that compares admirably to a life of royalty a mere few generations back.
Compared to the average citizen of Burke’s time, we ALL live like kings, with virtually unlimited travel opportunities and communications, myriad foodstuffs and entertainments, freedom from starvation, enslavement and epidemic, and at least a cursory education for anyone who wants to pursue one. We Americans are among history’s most fortunate beings.”
This is a Utopian viewpoint, IMO, and detached from reality. One only need take a trip to any of the myriad poverty stricken areas in this country to refute it. There are no “unlimited travel opportunities, communications, foodstuffs and entertainments” for these individuals and families. There are many, many, many children who live with dirt floors and go to bed hungry every night, their little minds fraught with hopelessness and despair.
Last month, I visited family in northern Vermont. While there, my aunt and I took a drive up to Quebec. In just two hours of driving around Quebec, I was stunned by the contrast between it and northern Vermont.
On the U.S. side of the border, I saw poverty in the form of tumbledown houses and barns. Not to mention people driving clunkers that were long past the “cash for” stage.
On the Canadian side, we saw well kept farms and towns. We didn’t see the rundown vehicles that we saw in the States. The people also appeared to be much more relaxed and happy than their American counterparts.
But they’re socialists dang it! We can’t have that here, its unAmerican you know.
I saw presisely the opposite in my last trip towards the border. I think we all see what we want to see, or expect to see.
Notice I said “opportunities.” Are they equally available to all of us? Of course not.
But I’d rather be living in a run-down single-wide with a 6 gallon hot water tank and an AM radio, relying on food stamps and a modern food distribution network than in a Dickensian tenement heated by a lump of coal. Or the South Dakota frontier in wintertime.
Families in Compton still have access to fruits and meats in January and instantaneous conversations with their friends in San Diego. Public transportation is wide-spread, and some poor folks even have cars. Used but serviceable shoes and clothing are essentially available for the taking. Cholera, TB, Scarlet Fever, Whooping cough, death-by-childbirth though persistent are largely under control here in the US.
I live in one of those “poverty stricken areas.” Many of us don’t have electricity, a stable water source, or public services of any kind. Dirt floors are often preferable to rotting and rodent-infested ones—-at least in my experience. Are you seriously suggesting that the marginalized of today have a life comparable to the marginalized of 150 years ago? Talk about utopian…!
I’m not talking about families in Compton, CA. I’m talking about mold infested houses in rural northern climes with plastic covered broken windows, NO HEAT, and little food. There is ZERO public transportation. I see it with my own two eyes. I think you’re living in that “southern CA is the world” bubble. You should get out a little more.
You know they say the same thing about Appalachia. But if the people won’t leave to where there is work, or was work until recently what can you do ? That’s their choice.
“I live in one of those “poverty stricken areas.” Many of us don’t have electricity, a stable water source, or public services of any kind. Dirt floors are often preferable to rotting and rodent-infested ones—-at least in my experience.”
Ahhhh, yes, poverty on expansive acreage replete with horses, and all of the other “luxuries” you’ve mistakenly blurted out in the past. Yes, I remember how hard you have it. NOT.
Understand you have an axe to grind, but that’s no reason to go all Mme. Defarge on my hmmhmmm.
I daresay you’d not want to trade places with me, GrizzlyBear(!)
Gad, the irony….
First off, let me take this opportunity to express that I’m sorry for what happened to you, nobody deserves that, and I’m happy you survived.
Having said that, I cannot let that unfortunate event dissuade me from challenging you. I’m not an @ss kisser, unlike a lot of others on this blog, and my “axe to grind” stems from the fact that I don’t agree with a lot of things you’ve posted to this blog, and it goes well beyond these guest posts. I have a hard time getting beyond the hypocrisy and pretentiousness- things I have no patience for. To best sum it up, I’ll leave you with a lyric from a little song by “Everclear”:
“You know all the right people, you play all the right games, you always try to be everything to everyone.”
Empathy is such a curse, isn’t it….
It can be burdensome, but it’s a blessing. It’s a finer cloth to be cut from than that of the indifferent and deluded who look at our poverty stricken populace as fortunate.
I am struck by the contrast between the anger expressed here and what passes for courtesy between me and my much-poorer neighbors. I have a lot of rich neighbors and a lot of poor ones. That’s the nature of a rural coastal community. A host of New York summer people w/ loads of dough, and a host of locals who feel lucky if they can get a job stocking shelves at the market. I’m glad to live near some people who need the little bits of casual cleaning/sewing/fixit work I like to avoid doing for myself. They’re glad I’m here to offer them a little money for doing those odd jobs. Curiously, THEY are even more distrustful of the government than I am. Perhaps because they are even surer than I am, that they haven’t a hope in the world of influencing it.
Ahansen:
I’m missing your point. Are you saying we should just be grateful to have the internet (invented by nameless player of Monopoly during time of relative fairness), and stop complaining about the Monopoly cheater who keeps stealing all our opportunities? It seems like that’s what you’re saying. Am I misunderstanding you?
“…Am I misunderstanding you?”
Obviously.
Can you please try to explain yourself, though? What exactly is the point of the article? I just really don’t get it.
Okay, for you, V, in one sentence, here’s what I was attempting to posit:
“In an equitable and technologically developed society, some degree of “socialism” is inevitable— if not desirable.”
And yes, I have fake teeth. A whole mouthful of them which I wear when I don’t want to offend the general public with my misshapen appearance. Also a fake upper jaw, fake facial bones, and a fake cornea. Feel better now?
A few years ago we went to a friend’s house for Thanksgiving dinner. It was fun until they did the thing that I hate the most. Before we could eat, as the food got cold, they had everybody stop to declare what they were thankful for. It went around the room in a boring and painful procession. People blubbered about families and loved ones and the usual crap that makes me want to stick a carving knife in my eye.
It comes up to the guy before me and he starts off, speaking slowly. He says something like, “I am thankful for my life. I am thankful that I am here. It was a blessing to survive my second kidney transplant. I am grateful that god did not take me last year when I had my heart attack and had to be in intensive care for three weeks. I am grateful for all of these beautiful people around me that have made my life so rich and blessed.” Many of the people had tears in their eyes. They went over to him and hugged him.
It came to me and I said, “I’m thankful for my pinball machine.” (”Now pass me a mother—-ing drumstick.”)
Snort, NYC. A man after my own heart.
Yup. Just went to the grocery store somewhere in AZ. Cashier: No front teeth. Supervisor lady: No front teeth. And these are people with jobs, too.
Me either, V. See what I mean?
Do you have fake teeth? I don’t remember you being toothless. Anyway, a whole lot of resources were shunted your way to save you from that bear attack, and they really have worked miracles with you, even though you haven’t healed fully back to your pre-attack state.
What I’m talking about is working people who apparently can’t even afford basic dental care. I don’t think it’s helping to just say “Oh, you should be grateful you have food”. There was a time in this country (before we had to compete with Guatemalans for our pay) when a person could support an entire family, with births and cavities and even braces, off of one full-time salary. Today, unfortunately, so many people feel lucky just to have a job at all. Dental care is not even on the table!
Did you ask either one of them for a cigarette? I would be curious. How many people that “can’t afford” health or dental care can afford to smoke and drink and play the lottery? I think you are making some really big assumptions here Big V.
NYCBoy:
You just made the assumption that these ladies both choose to drink, smoke, and gamble over getting their cavities filled! WTF???
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Where in there did I say that these ladies do any of these things? I asked a question. You are reading angry and trying to run other posters off the interstate. Slow down.
NYCityBoy:
Your post implied that it’s not reasonable to assume that people with no front teeth can’t actually afford those teeth, and that we should instead posit that perhaps they simply spent all their money on something less valuable. It’s my assertion that the unaffordability hypothesis is the more reasonable of the two.
-Big V
My post only implied that you did not have enough information to draw any conclusions about the two women with no teeth.
I think it’s quite obvious that anyone who’s toothless and working at a mini mart cannot afford dental care. Anyone who thinks otherwise has lost touch with reality.
So you turn a “grocery store” into a mini-mart and then making a huge sweeping observation? WTF? I think you might need to get off your high horse, read the post and quit preaching about reality.
Yes, I did inadvertently turn “grocery store” into mini-mart. Perhaps Big V can shed a little light on whether this was a full service grocery, or a convenience type store. Regardless, I stand by what I said as grocery checkers don’t make what they used to- not by a long shot. Speaking of shots, you’re apparently overdue for one…
Speaking of shots, you’re apparently overdue for one…
Wow!
Griz, have you been on a plane in the last few years? It would seem like the hillbillys have come to roost. And it pisses off the elite traveler.
Actually, no, I haven’t. I do my darnedest to avoid it like the plague. I’m not into large crowds and herd like behavior. I do most of my traveling via the highways and bi-ways. Every handful of years I go back east, via tiny seated pencil tube with wings, to visit family, but it’s been a while. Why, has the Jerry Springer crowd been flying?
We were lamenting to a friend recently that civility is an increasingly scarce commodity these days. When a bland and ill-behaved politician shouts “You lie!” in the middle of formal remarks by the President of the United States, it’s only another reminder that Grandmother’s admonition “You will keep a civil tongue in your head, young man!” has been forgotten.
Bill Bonner thinks it’s a result of the financial downturn. “People feel betrayed. Let down. They think something is very wrong. That the nation is in decline. So they look for someone to blame. And they tend to blame each other. Conservatives blame liberals. Liberals blame conservatives. They blame the bankers. They blame the capitalists. They blame the government. That’s what happens when you get a major correction or a big financial crisis”.
And so it goes, presently we have one party with their hands on the wheel and yet they can’t agree on much. They have their debts to pay, and most want to spend their lives in D.C. So they have to play to their constituents. Presidents come and go, the 535 can hang on for decades if they play the game correctly.
I always expect the worst out of D.C.- central planning, and I have yet to be disappointed.
Actually, “you lie” is indication of far *greater* civility today than that to which our founding fathers were subjected. That the core issues can be *diverted* by puffed up claims of outrage that someone said, “you lie” is the tragedy.
-evildoc
I agree. Listen to a recording some time of Congress’s ancestor across the pond — the British Parliament — to hear how a free exchange of ideas in a public forum can get a bit rowdy at times.
Since this has become a political blog I’ll not the lack of outrage when a dozen or more democrats booed Bush during his 2005 State of the Union speech.
I think the new precedent was set at that time. Wilson’s remark was inevitable at that point. It was also effective.
Nice post, ahansen
+ 1. Very well written, also.
“Free markets” is a misnomer. There is no single country with a purely free market economy. All countries to some degree have a combination of some form of planned economy and free enterprise. The difference is in the ratio. Classic planned economies are like the former Soviet Union had a central committee that planned vital aspects of economic activity. In the west we have disguised planned economies that are not very obvious to an incurious person. Take for example agriculture in the US (and most of the industrialized west). Production of corn, sugar, cotton, and many other crops is driven by subsidies, which is a form of planned economic activity and not entirely market driven. How the government plans and builds infrastructure like inter state highways, river ways, railroads, internet and so on is a form of government planned economic activity with premeditated economic outcome.
Another not so obvious planned economic activity that has a huge impact on free enterprise is military expansion (others call it imperialism). Many multinational companies from the days of British East India Company to modern day big oil multinationals rely heavily on government planning through military growth to protect private enterprise and cajole other countries to accept trade conditions that such weak countries would otherwise not accept (read Iraq). Central economic planning is not only possible when a group of old age communists (or socialists) bureaucrats sit around a conference table and decide the output of wheat and coal. The same central planning can be done through taxes subsidies, corporate welfare, infrastructure and many other forms.
Well stated gormy.
Central Planning, Domestic Policy, Tax Incentives, TARP—it’s all the same to me.
when the notion of redistribution of wealth is presented in this matter:
a. the billionaire bankster with all his ill gotten gains.
b. the single hardworking mom with 3 mouths to feed and holding three jobs…waking her kids up at 4 in the morning to do their homework.
the conclusion is often reached that redistribution is necessary.
but those are not the facts.
How about when we call the billionaire “AIG,” and the single mom, “Your IRA?’
i got a heart tugger for you:
the wealth earned and saved by:
a. two professionals that make 300k a year and have a small rental property in the hamptons.
gets redistributed to:
b. a poor public school teacher making 30k a year living paycheck to paycheck.
one of those saves every nickel to provide a very comfortable lifestyle for two parapalegic children upon their passing.
the other one has filed bankruptcy 3 times…spends every nickel on the best clothes and electronics and when asked about their financial situation responds with “life is too short to deny one of simple pleasures” as they text away on their iphone.
to me…redistribution of wealth by government mandate is just fundametally wrong. i can spend all day coming up with examples that tug at people’s emotions to prove it necessary…it doesn’t mean it’s right.
That poor public school teacher should quit teaching. Let’s see how easy it is for this wealthy couple to continue their lifestyle when all the “little people” stop being able to send their kids to school.
Wealthy Couple (WC): Where did our nurse for our kids go? She’s supposed to get here at 6 AM and stay till 8 PM in exchange for min wage while we are at work earning 10x what we pay her.
Audience (A): She had to stay home with her kids because the teachers couldn’t make a living at teaching anymore. $30k is not enough to pay the mortgage, food, clothes, taxes, etc.
WC: Where did our BMW go? It was sitting in the garage last night.
A: The nurse’s kids stole it. Uneducated, idle hands are the devil’s work, ya know.
WC: What happened to our company profits? Why are they down?
A: The consumer base dried up because no one could get an education anymore, so they no longer can get high-paying jobs. They only know how to steal!
WC: Why did our companies go under? Why did we lose our jobs? How are we gonna afford private school for our precious private children? Oh no! I guess it turns out wealth isn’t created and sustained on an island after all.
A: No problem, we have a new dictator who would be happy to give you a special position in exchange for your loyalty. It’s perfect. We can even blame it all on the … teachers!
The problem is that those on the top believe that they possess the “magic” that makes things happen and that all the little people are just leaches and deserve to be poor because the don’t have IQs of 140 or higher.
Another side to look at:
Two professionals:
a) One aged 22 starting out in his field earning $60,000 per year
b) One aged 56 in his 34th year of working, now a principle engineer and earning $150,000 plus stock options.
Person b) is somehow obligated to redistribute some of his wealth to person a) because b makes more money than a and is most likely a multimillionaire.
The “spread the wealth around” types don’t care if they break a few eggs to make an omelet. I see two technicians here at my office daily. One of them has a net worth of $3 million. The other invented some product, made millions of dollars, sold his business, got bored, and decided to work at this company.
And the scumbags think these guys’ wealth must be spread around? Who else earned it? Blank out.
No, BiLA.
Persons A and B, work within the framework of a society that allows them to earn substantial recompense from the educations, locales, safe food and water, communications, medical system, defense, banking, enforcement of title, etc etc. that that society provides for them.
In exchange, a percentage of what they haven’t managed to hide or squirrel away from the grasp of tax “authorities,” is returned to society to ensure a continued venue for them to exploit for their own gain.
In a few months, you may come to understand the intrinsic costs of simply being a poor person—and perhaps why we have a progressive income tax structure to compensate for that disparity.
You’re a smart guy, BiLA. And I know you have a good heart, so I offer this knowing full well that you’re just arguing for the sake of argument. Which is actually quite a cool thing. Thanks for the post.
Person b) is somehow obligated to redistribute some of his wealth to person a) because b makes more money than a and is most likely a multimillionaire.
person “A” won’t get anything from person B he works and makes waaayyy too much , no you need a person C
person C mom with kids no income not married and fathers of kids not to be found anywhere.
also…my attitude toward wealth redistribution does not change simply when i (or my mother) becomes the recipient of such re-distribution.
that’s becuase it is a fundamental belief i have…you know…liberty or death and all that mumbo jumbo.
ooops…sorry for the “my mother” reference…i read the post as “your mom’s IRA” and not “your IRA”.
‘does not change simply when i (or my mother) becomes the recipient’
This is interesting for me personally. Some like Ron Paul have stated they are not taking social security because it ain’t right. My mom, who is very anti-taxation etc, discussed SS with me once. My parents were small business owners when the employer matching deal came to be, and suddenly paid a lot of bucks into the SS system because of it. My father passed too soon and my mom still receives it. I asked her about SS and she said something like, “jeebus, we paid so much, I’ll be damned if I’m not going to collect what I can.”
Keep in mind, this business was labor intensive, so my parents paid many thousands into SS every month. She would certainly pass a means test, so, to this day I have a hard time questioning her reasoning about collecting what the law says she can.
i struggle with a similar issue. my parents retired at 65 and are taking SS. they will probably take out much more than they put in.
i do get some solace in knowing that SS will probably not be there for me…and that any amount they receive in excess of what they paid in is just my contributions.
my savings percentage approaches miserliness by some standards but it’s not for the love of money i do so. i sincerely desire to accumulate enough wealth to provide for my parent’s and my brothers’ (and their families’) future well being.
socialism works to some extent in a population of 20 or less…especially if they’re all family.
I like your final sentence best, Michael.
but those are not the facts.
The “facts,” as everyone on this blog knows all too well, are murky, malleable, and open to debate.
Hi Alena,
As usual, I enjoyed reading your post, and appreciate your thoughts and point of view.
Thanks for your work.
I have somewhat different feelings about the subjects of ambitions, resentments, private responsibility and the role of government as they pertain to the era we live in. You might say my vision is one of foreboding, caution, and grim reality, versus encouragement, hope, and anticipation. I guess I can sum it up by saying that within our time and existence, what may have once been an opportunity, may have become a trap. What may once have been a blessing, may now become a burden.
“Reallocation is nearly always a better option than revolution, and periodically declaring a winner and starting over allows the game to go on.”
Without the American Revolution, we would be periodically re-allocating the wealth of New York, Illinois, and California, in Parliament, for the benefit of Britons.
Not everyone thinks of life, property, and survival in terms of, or on the level of, parlor games.
Some think in terms of total domination, and if bashing a few million skulls to pieces gets the rest of the sheep to shut up and do as they’re told, then that’s their new game, like it or not.
To me, it’s not out of the realm of possibility that what was once the greatest and wealthiest country in the world could degenerate into its total opposite. Not all games or stories have happy endings. In time, we’re all dead. Its just a question of when, and how. The same is probably true for most republics, democracies, economies, cultures, and ideologies. You mentioned Zimbabwe above. The re-allocation of wealth, and the ensuing consequences that have happened there, deserve some serious study by the would-be re-allocators in the U.S.
The very best of intentions can produce the most excruciatingly horrifying results.
Eric Janszen - iTulip.
“The average American doesn’t know how to be intelligently skeptical. They lack the tools. Their schooling taught them to believe what they read in the paper and watch on TV and are told by anyone in a uniform or anyone who makes more money than they do. For example, the mortgage broker in a suit who told them not to worry about exaggerating income in order to qualify for a ridiculously huge mortgage. You can say these people were stupid for trusting the brokers and the appraisers and the lawyers and all of the other conspirators to the gigantic fraud that came to be known as the housing bubble, including the media that used to quote the National Association of Realtors as a source of information about the safety of housing as an investment. That’s journalism? But who is the public supposed to trust? No one? So now the public doesn’t trust anyone. Why should they? But in the wake of these frauds they lack the tools necessary for critical evaluation of even the most basic data about their economy, never mind complicated issues like monetary policy, inflation, and employment”.
Was it not ever thus, wmbz?
That’s why I think this blog should be designated a National Treasure. The ongoing civic debate we generate here, informed by thoughtful and reasoned antagonists is as valid as any lobby or PAC in the country–and I would wager, a lot more influential in the scheme of things.
I learn something new here every day, thanks to Ben and you all.
Agreed, ahansen. Love to learn, just like it when others aren’t so hateful. It smacks to me of exactly what EJ of iTulip refers as Americans don’t know how to be intelligently skeptical, and most often allow the (military training) ptb, msm, and other non thinkers tell them what to believe. Sort of like - joe is a man, joe is a human being, therefore all human beings are men. But that isn’t ALL of the story. And yet, the majority of americans stop thinking after the first paragraph.
Eric Janszen - iTulip.
“The average American doesn’t know how to be intelligently skeptical. They lack the tools. Their schooling taught them to believe what they read in the paper and watch on TV and are told by anyone in a uniform or anyone who makes more money than they do
Of course you do, you practically own it at this point.
You do understand the concept of a guest poster, right?
wmz:
In my experience, American-taught folk have far better critical thinking skills than a lot of other folk. I have had myriad conversations with Russians and Chinese people, for instance, who fled their countries for lack of employment and freedom, yet insist that their home countries’ systems are really superiour, but have been wronged by the US, and will one day re-emerge to take back the globe.
Americans, on the other hand, waste no time in criticizing whomever’s in charge. People deride their local newspapers as an ongoing joke almost universally. I think the only thing we really trust is our ability to improve the situation just by being so damned critical.
Millions of Russians went to their graves thinking, “if only I could tell Comrade Stalin. He would stop this.” To this day millions in Russia still look to that past as “the good old days”. I guess those are the ones that never got a free ride to the Lubyanka.
“the good old days”
My Russian teacher didn’t see it that way, but perhaps she was an outlier, as she defected in 1979 (a decade before the Soviet Union collapsed). She told my class about how it felt to lie in bed at night, wondering whether someone was going to break down the front door of their home to arrest her father. Good times back in the US, back in the US, back in the USSR.
..The average American doesn’t know how to be intelligently skeptical…
yeah, yeah. Americans are stupid and gullible. People should be expected to be irresponsible.. keep sharp objects out of their reach, lest they hurt themselves. Excuse them for whatever they’ve done. It’s not their fault.
——
One can only hope that Americans are skeptical enough to question such hogwash.. if not, the results will be far worse than economic difficulties.
“…keep sharp objects out of their reach, lest they hurt themselves.”
Keep mortgage loan documents out of their reach, lest they sign an obligation to make good on an unrepayable debt.
Ahansen - you have ,in a nutshell, highlighted America’s biggest problem, and one that has no easy solution.
America has become, through no fault of her own, the most pampered nation on earth. People in this country are largely no longer subjected to physical hardships. If they are cold, they turn up the AC. Too cold…turn up the heat. If they go hiking and fall and get injured…why they just reach for the cellphone and they’ll send in a helicopter if neccessary. For every chore there is a gas powered device.
I am a physician and at every opportunity I work around the world in developing nations. What I’ve noticed is how hardy people in these poor countries are. And converesly how soft we’ve become. Forget about land of the brave. We are without a doubt the biggest wimps in the world. And this has tremendous implications for our way of life. What we consider as basic needs, are utmost luxuries for probably 75% of the world. That’s why I believe we won’t be having meaningful health reform any time soon.
In order to live the “American dream” we are absolutely going to have to lower our expectations going forward. And the funny thing is, I’ll think we all will be better for it.
Great perspective, Otto.
..not being subject to physical hardships is.. a problem?
i never really though about it that way.. I admit I’ve done everything in my power to avoid hardship and it’s become a habit.. virtually a way of life.
Got any tips on how I can encourage hardship in my life and other people’s lives?
“Got any tips on how I can encourage hardship in my life and other people’s lives?”
Just sit them down and make them read some of your posts.
I’m joking. I’m joking. I kid because I care. I don’t think hardship by itself is a good thing. I think the point is that hardship builds survival skills. Even that isn’t true. Dealing with hardship builds survival skills. I know quite a few people that have had adversity placed in front of them. When it happens they get high or drunk or find some other way to avoid facing up to it. They are emotionally like 15 year-olds.
We do disaster testing regularly at work. This is to prepare us for the possibility that a disaster strikes. The tests are not perfect but they are meant to strengthen us and make us better able to cope with the unexpected. Even with this testing there is no telling how we will react to a disaster but practice does make things easier when TSHTF. How many of Madoff’s “victims” had never done any disaster testing in their lives? How many of our friends, family and associates have never done any disaster testing in their lives? They are woefully prepared for the slightest bump in the road. I guess their plan is to piss and moan when something bad happens. Plan B is to ask you for money.
How many people thought of that scene in A Clockwork Orange when I mentioned forcing somebody to read Joey’s posts? That was really cool. I’m just kidding Joey. I read all of your posts. I think I even agreed with one. I do have to mention that I was pretty liquored up at the time.
NYCBoy… with hundreds of posts to reply to or comment on, i try to make mine special. We all have our ways, as I’m sure you understand.
homeless people are generally tough.. eat from garbage cans.. sleep on concrete.. fight like wild animals.. and they could well be the human equivalent of cockroaches that survive whatever disaster.. but i still have no desire or see any benefit to emulating them. That would be nutty, imo.
Way to bypass the middle ground Joey, as usual. Of course your world must be a world of extremes. We must either be a stay at home, sit on the couch and eat bon-bons, type or we must be a homeless person that resembles a wild animal. I think the point was that people need SOME exposure to adversity to give them a certain level of survival skills. A little hardship can build character which does seem to be sorely lacking with many people in our society.
I agree that your posts are often special.
nycboy.. you thinking my posts are special makes me feel special.
..people need SOME exposure to adversity to give them a certain level of survival skills…
Everyone I know.. everyone I know of.. faces or has faced plenty of adversity.
If the people around you have no exposure to adversity, you are more than special in my book.
if you don’t like extremes being used in arguments, don’t use them. It sets a bad example.
And in the corner is :
“Just sit them down and make them read some of your posts.”
Works for me, every time I am feeling overly pampered and complacent.
No tips necessary. The country’s being fundamentally changed and rearranged, remember? The hippies will finally get to try out their utopia, and you’ll get to try out that hardship you’ve been lucky enough to avoid so far.
“If they go hiking and fall and get injured…why they just reach for the cellphone and they’ll send in a helicopter if neccessary.”
Clearly you are not describing ahansen.
I assume you’re rich, white, Christian, and heterosexual.
Here in America, millions of non-whites, the poor, homosexuals, atheists, Muslims, and Jews are subjected to intolerable mental hardships. And of course the threat of violence is ever-present. Are these folks wimps? I don’t think so!
People in third-world countries may appear hardy but looks are deceiving. For the most part, I don’t think these folks ever habor thoughts about happiness. It’s an alien concept. Not where the source of your drinking water is also your potty.
Happiness was an alien concept until only recently in the West. In most third-world countries, forget it. Happiness is not even on their radar screen.
Fighting the corrupt system has never been so easy as it is now. As we all know, there’s always the risk of losing your job when you rock the boat. Do millions of unemployed folks care about losing their jobs now? LOL!
Joey,
Depending on your perspective, it might not be a problem. However, it all eventually comes back to economics, as in whose gonna pick up the tab.
If you fit the profile of the average American your protoplasm is vastly inferior to that of our developing world brethren. Meaning that should you contract say, swine flu, it could cost tens of thousands of dollars to keep you alive. Whereas our developing world brothers would sweat it out in their huts. And guess what? You are still more likely to die than they are.
The point is where are these tens of thousands of dollars going to come from? And for how long ?
I detect your sarcasm, but from my perspective as a physician it really is quite disturbing to see where we are headed. Just yesterday I had a woman demanding to have bilateral knee joint replacements. The only thing wrong with her was her weight. She pulled in at a cool 320 pounds. Of course, losing weight was not an option for her. Her knees were hurting, and she wanted those artificial joints, and she wanted them tomorrow. Sad thing is she’ll probably get them too. That will be about 12K. And do you think she’s gonna pay for that? Our Medicare tax dollars, thats who.
Dr. Otto M.D.
I don’t know why you docs can’t administer tough love. Diplomacy isn’t getting the job done. Risk factors that are controllable (beyond the age of reason), should have a monetary punish/reward component to them.
OK Otto.. i’ll bite.
Who do you think should pick up the tab when someone catches the flu or needs new knees or whatever? Who decides when someone needs knees or needs to go on a diet, or needs to sweat it out in their hut? You? Government?
If society’s paying the monetary consequences for someone’s being overweight is not to be tolerated, perhaps you’d like to by consistent, and put everyone on a healthy, approved diet… from birth.
While we’re at it, there are quite a few risky things a wealthy society’s population does, aside from eating too much, that cause people to get hurt or sick, and costs lots of money to fix..
Please do lay out your health care plan. It might be better than the one’s we’ve seen so far.
joeyinCalif
In an ideal world, I would like to see health insurance premiums reflect self responsibility. If you follow a reasonable diet, exercise, and have decent #’s (blood sugar, cholesterol, etc…), then you’d get points towards a discount on your health care premium. If you have subsidized health care, you should be required to clean up your act. A lot of risk factors are controllable. The ones that aren’t, I have no issue paying for in the pool. That person just lost the gene lottery. Bad health habits are costly. I don’t like to treadmill, but I do it every morning before I start my day. I am responsible for my overall health.
Just saw that Doug Elmendorf head of the CBO contradicted Obama’s lie that seniors wouldn’t see a reduction and that our taxes wouldn’tgo up. ‘Over 100 billion will be taken out of Medicare’.
Well I’m going to kiss your ass ahansen and say great post.
Who could have guessed?
Grizzly,
I am a good ass kisser
I agree. Great post and I will be using the Monopoly example in my own ways as I try to help people make sense of all this mess. Thanks so much and keep up the writing and civil debate!
Elitist beatch.
That’s me gal through and through
Hi:
I’ve always enjoyed this blog because of its real estate acumen, however lately it has taken a turn away from housing and gone into politics.
Very sad.
Frank
+10
Then don’t read and don’t post. Housing is political. Politics has been involved in housing
In 2009 housing and politics are as intertwined as Jack Daniels and Coca-Cola in my glass.
I’m joking when I say this NYCityBoy
Since Grizzly was so helpful in giving you some advise “(Speaking of shots, you’re apparently overdue for one…)” did you take his advise?
Little do you know how true that statement is…it’s funny watching it from my perch….
I think the RE crash is over for now
Has this been discussed here…I would take this as a bad sign…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/21/fdic-may-ask-banks-for-ba_n_294220.html
I am an immigrant that came here in1993 and started my own business. I was fortunate to grow it and it now employs 300 Americans and I make some decent money> It is hard to train my daughters to understand that stuff is not free. My ten year old took her mac in for repair and she had spilled stuff on it and dropped it. She thought she just gets a new one or a make over that it will look new. It is one year old. To her surprise she can only get what is in warranty repaired. Also I live on Long Island north shore amongst the wall st types and I regret it because my kids are exposed to friends and parents who have no concept of money. I can take care of them but what happens when they have to get a job and take care of them selves. My friend lives in Bayside and his kids are so much more down to earth and grounded.l I think I screwed up by moving up. I thought I was moving up in life but I moved down.
I think it was an article in the NY Times last year that wrote about 5 or 6 families on Long Island. The families had varying income levels. I believe the family with the best financial situation was the family that made the least. The family that made the most said they felt they had to spend money, to set an example for others. It was really sickening. I see the same thing here that you see out on The Island. People live beyond their means, trying to please others and never experiencing anything that I would call happiness.
ahansen,
I lurk daily but feel I compelled to respond to your essay. This is exactly correct. Men (to include all persons) are not born equal, we vary in talent, ability and will. This leads to different social status outcomes, both by individual action and by inherent traits of primate social structure. Over time a class of individuals controls more than they should (measured on any unbiased scale). When these times come to pass, societies face a choice on how to redistribute the wealth, by legal fiat or by bloody revolution.
Solon was the first in the Western tradition to do this and the United States has already done this at least once before. While issue can certainly be taken with the New and other Deals from and economic standpoint, the forestalled violent revolution would certainly have been worse (without the hope of FDR how quickly would a communist message have spread in that burgeoning age of mass communication).
Today we face this imbalance once again. So far we have not reacted well. It is OUR government but since Reagan we have labeled our ability to cooperate as ‘evil’. May god help our children for what is to come, because this time it seems we will not decide to work together and the conditions of revolution are being sown.
Thank you ahansen, hopefully there are others out there that understand this wisdom.
On an unrelated note, Happy Birthday Oly, truly One That Is.
I think everyone worries about the powerfull (not the talented) taking hard earned wealth.
One side worries about the gov taking over businesses and micromanaging the economy there by taking a bigger slice of the wealth for itself.
the other side worries about Businesses taking over our government driving their competition out of business and stripping the wealth of all citizens.
I’m not sure it really matters, but if one looks at where the real money is I think the latter is what we have now.
It would be interesting to see the percentage of each nations wealth held by politicians vs the financial elite top 0.5% vs everyone else. Then compare Russia, China, Europe, USA
I’m not so worried about whether the governmental structure or the corporate structure dominates the wealth as I am about the reaction of the ‘peasants’. Wealth will concentrate into the hands of the few over time in any society, some people are just better at accumulating it (either because of ability or drive). Eventually when that concentration becomes too drastic it will be redistributed. These redistributions are either violent (see the Russian or French revolutions; I never said that the redistributions actually work effectively) or they are accomplished by populist political measures largely free of violence (see Solon, Justinian, FDR). We don’t seem to be doing any redistribution, just increasing the concentration.
A rather rough comparison of wealth concentrations can be found by looking at the GINI index. This particular index does not put the US in good company.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html?countryName=United%20States&countryCode=us®ionCode=na&rank=44#us
I would agree with you that our particular wealth concentration is more inline with a Corporatist/Fascist structure rather than an Aristocratic/Oligarchic structure. This is irrelevant to my argument though. When any society (baring maybe a stable isolated river society, i.e. Egyptian Old Kingdom) becomes unbalanced (really, when they move towards unbalance quickly) there tends to be a redistribution. Gunpowder weapons have greatly lowered the threshold of the violent type of redistribution. That is my worry.
@Joey,
In terms of a health plan, I think McCain has it just about right. For America I do not believe in the public option. That sort of plan only works in the EU and perhaps Canada.
For the US, I would propose a two tier system.
Everybody should be covered by “catastrophic” events. Meaning heart attacks, motor vehicle accidents, cancer .etc. That should be free, covered by taxes.
But thats where the public option should end. I’m not sure how much we spend on self induced diseases but I would estimate it’s probably about 25%. Why should I as a tax payer, have to subsidize someone who won’t stop stuffing calories down their orifice? Or won’t stop smoking? Or won’t do any modicum of exercise? If people would eat sensibly, quit smoking and exercised moderately, the money saved would be staggering. And that really is not asking much.
Unfortunately, these are issues that cannot be discussed. People have the right to be obese , end of story. And how dare I as their physician tell them to lose weight.
So the second part of my health plan would be a strict carrot and stick type approach.If you weigh 320 pounds you need to get down to 2 standard deviations, and then we’ll consider artificial knees. And so on. It really would not be that difficult. Bottom line is that people who take control of their health should be rewarded, and those who don’t should suffer the consequences.
I see I have taken a hiatus and returned to a communist utopia. Okay, that was unfairly provocative, and Ben is usually relatively even-handed, but this article is a doozy. The entire premise of the article is that *government* created all of the things that we enjoy, like air travel (Wrong remember the Wright Brothers, private commercial carriers, etc? Government intervention and regulation has only managed to stifle air travel), housing (private builders), food (private farmers and corporate farms), entertainment (Hollywood? Hello?) the list goes on and on, but it is all a false premise. So is the notion that Paris Hilton would lead anything. Does she now? Then what the hell are you talking about?
Speaking as a person who has spent decades playing by the rules, scraping to take care of me and my own, who has not filed for bankruptcy, lived beyond my means, lied my way into a mortgage I cannot afford, then screamed when the banks tried to enforce the terms of the contract, I say: to hell with them. We can either have laws and enforce them evenly, against illegals, against fraudsters, against tax evaders, against anyone who breaks them, or we do not have laws. Why should I follow the law anymore when nobody else does?
We have a choice as a nation. We can encourage honesty, fair play, and maximization of talents, skills and abilities (thereby causing some pain to the other class), or we can encourage liars, cheaters, thieves and slackards (thereby punishing the productive class). One path leads to success, the other leads to societal breakdown. Read your Aristotle. As soon as the masses learn they can vote themselves something for nothing, a democracy is doomed. The masses will drive out the productive members (who are, remember, not stupid enough to sit and have wealth stolen from them) and that society will fail. This principle has been true for thousands of years and it is true now.
“Foster” does not equal “create.” Nor do “sustain” or “develop,” or “distribute.”
Fallacious argument here. Next.
Furthermore, who is this “we” who should “encourage” maximization of talents, skill and abilities.” Are you personally prepared to school and mentor them, then give them a forum in which to perform? Or should we maybe have a system of say, publicly financed schools to do this?
“As soon as the masses learn they can vote themselves something for nothing, a democracy is doomed.”
So you’re arguing for dictatorship? Great idea. Why not just go all the way and establish a monarchy?
Which is where generations of useless aristocracy come in–leading to the Paris Hilton’s of the world controlling…YOU.
If you’re going to post critical posts, it’s a good idea to read and understand what your critiquing before inadvertently resting their case for them….
“Life in a state of nature is nasty, brutish and short.” I have always loved this quote by Thomas Hobbes and always will. All of the worshipers at the free market altar sing a different tune when their ox is being gored.
Since we were not allowed to rein in the shennanigans while they were going on, we are not supposed to bail out everyone with burned fingers. Let’s do enough to avoid systemic meltdowns, but nothing more.
And be all means, get watchdogs with teeth and bad tempers.
“…watchdogs with teeth and bad tempers.”
That would be us, Marefynn!