by Tom Kando
Recently back from Europe, I’m still smarting from the declining dollar. The Euro now fetches $1.46, up from $1.25 four months ago.
The economy remains the central issue. It’s timid Obama (who was the first President ever to have to humiliate himself by publishing his birth certificate!) vs. rabid Republicans. The latter have successfully defined the problem as “the debt.” They claim that nothing is more important than debt reduction. Cleverly, they only focus on the government deficit, not the country’s balance of trade deficit. Maliciously, they only propose to cut government services to low-income and middle-income people, while refusing to tax the rich and the corporations at the higher and more reasonable rates which prevailed in the past. In fact, they want to further reduce those taxes.
Here are a few of the unfounded assumptions which the plutocracy has repeated so often that most people now accept them as dogma:
1. The Market Place has all the wisdom. Let the forces of the free market automatically solve our economic problems.
But in fact, today, the most capitalistic economies are sputtering, while mixed economies are thriving.
2. The rich are rich because they work harder. They deserve it. The poor are poor because they don’t work hard. It’s the little pig that built a straw hut vs. the little pig who built a brick house.
This is called Social Darwinism, and it’s BS.
3. Lowering taxes will create jobs.
The evidence is to the contrary. Just compare the Clinton years and the Bush years.
4. The military budget is sacrosanct. Any reduction in it would endanger the US.
But look at the April 25 issue of Time for a good rebuttal: Our military budget of $687 billion (excluding dozens of billions spent off-budget on our Middle-Eastern wars) represents half of the world’s military spending. It has nearly doubled over the past 9 years. We could save hundreds of billions and still be the world’s macho cop. We have a dozen aircraft carriers, while no other country has more than one. We are still building additional ones, for $15 billion a pop. We have 500 bases around the world, including 80,000 troops still in Europe, 70 years after World War Two. There are 17 spy agencies. Etc.
5. The economy will rebound if/when we maximize consumption and spend more money again. Consumption is the be-all and end-all.
That most of this heightened consumption benefits China and the other countries which still produce things, is conveniently forgotten.
6. We must grow our way out of the recession. Grow the economy. Growth is the solution to everything.
Until when? Until we have paved over and desertified the planet?
7. Work and money are primary, leisure is secondary. Of course, Brecht was right: Erst komt das Fressen, dan komt die Moral.” One has to eat.
But that’s not what I am talking about. What I mean is, why do so many college students pursue boring but lucrative careers such as business and Wall Street, instead of interesting but lowly paid ones such as biology, history and teaching? Is modest comfort not enough? Does everyone have to try to be filthy rich? Are art, music and the outdoors a waste of time?
8. Socialism is a cuss word.
Call the alternative to unbridled Capitalism what you will. Keynesianism (Paul Krugman), Democracy (Michael Moore), “Mixed economy” or something else. One thing is clear: The current “debate” about our economic plight is one-sided propaganda, not a debate. A true alternative that would provide greater equity and a return to a prosperous, middle-class based society is not in sight. Instead, due to such widely accepted assumptions, a majority seems to want to increase the pain and suffering of the many, for the benefit of the few. leave comment here
16 comments:
Amen, Brother
When I was in college a strange freshman in the dorms removed his testis and attempted to remove his adrenal glands. He thought these self-surgeries would help him improve his academic performance.
Many in our Government remind me of this deranged kid.
It really does put things in perspective when you realize how much more the US spends on military spending than the rest of the world. Totally ridiculous. I just blogged about this myself.
http://consciousandcompassionate.blogspot.com/
Thanks for your comments, Steve and Kristen.
Beautiful blogs, Kristen. biking is my addiction. But I recently got run over by a car while biking in the California gold country, broke my arm, etc., so when I get back to it, in many weeks, I should consider cross-country instead of road biking...
Here you are reading the sharpest, cleanest thoughts. This is 100% clear to anyone who is able to think logically. If you don’t see this, you are not able to think logically, and you need a psychiatrist. If masses of people cannot think logically, it means that they have lost their mind, and because their attitudes shape politics, nothing will help the economy.
There is a lot to be angry about
Bonjour Tom
super texte, seule solution au peuple de reprendre son pouvoir, ne plus avoir peur et fonctionner en local, acheter local, fruit legumes vetements et avoir nos propres monnaies d'échange, actuellement le dollars s'éffondre et bientot n'existera plus....quand la révolution ????
bonne journée et bises à vous 2
Tom,
Well done!
Thanks for your comments, you'all.
We have a truly international community, here. I love it.
Marie Luce basically talks about revolutionary things - lifestyle-wise and politically. She also predicts the dollar's imminent collapse.
While there is no question about the dollar's weakness, its collapse may not be imminent. More a slow and gradual decline, which will affect things internationally, but not so much domestically, as the cost of living WITHIN the US is not rising very much at all...
1.
I may be an ignorant buffoon (just ask my wife), but my understanding is that the Market Place is wise because it is simple. It merely reflects the appetites of those of whom it is comprised. In fact it is a very populist entity. While I would concede that not all voices in the market place bear equal sway in the direction that it takes, it is certainly not a precise tool that can be driven with precision through the obstacle course of history. Rather it is a blind bull that neither sees or cares about what is in front of it. The direction that it takes is often not "wise" but then neither are we. Ones choices are to allow to amble on and attempt to benefit from it, or to oppose it. But unless one has the power to control the people one cannot control the market.
2.
This presumes that riches are always good and poverty is always bad. Ones lot in life is most certainly a combination of many factors. While it is human nature to judge success upon the number of digits in the check book before the decimal point that is not truly what defines us. Many folks view of morality would say that ability to obtain and keep vasts amounts of wealth is trait fraught with peril. Call it fate, karma, or divine will, but are skills are what they are. Our drive to act upon them is reflects our character.
3.
This is a tragic oversimplification. From a governments point of view their is a perfect balance point (i.e. taxation level) that maximizes revenue to that government over the long term and the short term. I personally believe our tax code is so convoluted that it makes it nearly impossible to reach that point. It is not just a matter of lowering taxes (although some should be lowered). It is a matter drawing revue in a way that least discourages a growing and healthy economy.
4.
You can assume that people are basically good and that over the long term they will choose peace instead of war. But as they say "in the long term we are all dead". I prefer to have a big expensive stick and not need it then to find out 10 years down the road that I should have had a bigger stick.
5.
Not sure I follow this argument. A healthy economy requires capital to be in "use". Dollar bills in a mattress are not very useful. But I would never argue for consumption as the be all and end all.
6.
Like it or not the population is growing. Its grow or die. So unless you are part of a death cult that wants to curtail the human population ...
7.
As I stated before I think we are by nature morally bankrupt. Certainly greed is a prime motivator, but so is security. Lets face it. Most of those we would classify as poor do not have much in the way of leisure time. Ultimately everyone should choose their own path and set their own priorities.
8.
Our society is a mixed one. However, socialism is the name of the cudgel that many fear is being used to defrock them of their freedoms. Socialism by its very nature enforces a one choice answer to whatever scope of influence it covers (the government). Sometime this increases choice (in areas where their is no other choice), but more often it is seen as taking away choices.
Thank you Michael, for your comment. I am sure Tom will react as soon as he is back.
Thanks for your thoughtful response, Michael NJ (New Jersey?)
There seems to be a lot of agreement between us:
1. Your analysis of the market place makes sense. I just have more faith in the necessity and the feasibility to control it.
2. So we agree - as I said, wealth should not be the be-all and end-all, and wealth does not prove moral superiority.
3. What is the tragic oversimplification? If you mean the statement that “lowering taxes will create jobs,” we agree again. Precisely my point.
4: I am glad to see that you quote one of my favorite economists - John Maynard Keynes. Of course, I said nothing about disarming. Like almost everything in life, this is a matter of DEGREE. Must America spend more on the military than the TOTAL rest of the planet COMBINED?
5. So we agree again, at least a bit?
6. There are now seven billion people. When I was a teenager, there were two and half billion. Humanity’s choice is not between life and death, but between suicidal overpopulation and healthy population.
7. This is a question of values.
8. Okay, let’s say Social Democracy. This is more or less my position, as it has been that of such Presidents as John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, a majority of the Democratic Party, most politicians in Japan, Canada, Europe and about one hundred other countries. Again, the question is not whether to have socialism, but how much of it.
Tom: Right on !!!!
I just got back from Maui. I wont pretend this lends any special insight into the economy or social political change, but I do know I want to go back. From a market perspective, this type of activity is prohibitive for most folks (at least those that live on the East coast). So how do you propose to control a market desire for an activity that is simply unobtainable for those of "average" economic means? You can't. In the end the desire drives actions (which in this case is to achieve greater then "average" economic means). That achievement is obtained - usually - through hard work. People who work "hard" drive the economic engine in this country. Sure everybody has to work (or should), but our success comes from the few that over obtain. The fear of "progressive" agenda is that the reward for that hard work will be removed.
Thanks for your comment, Michael “New Jersey.”
I, too, wish I were still in Maui. You and I were there simultaneously, apparently.
Regarding hard work: The correlation between hard work and wealth is not clear. I have actually studied this, when I used to do research on work and leisure.
It is true that many affluent professionals (e.g. physicians) work extremely long hours (up to 80hours a week or more)
But it is also revealing that we have the term "working class:" This refers to the millions who work extremely hard, but get nowhere. Marx's old "proletariat."
So I wouldn't rely too much on the morality found in the fables of Aesop and La Fontaine - you know, the ant saving for a rainy day vs. The cricket just having a good time, or the little pig that built a house of bricks vs. the one that just used straw, etc.
It would be nice if hard work and virtue were always rewarded, but common sense is not always
correct. Life is not always fair. You can work your butt off and still never make it to Maui.
I did not mean to portray hard work as an inclusive term but rather as an exclusive one. Without hard work your chance of achieving the "better" life are slim to none. But the main idea I was trying to portray was that it is those that do work hard that really drive our economy and drive up the standard of living for everyone. And those hard workers work hard so as to have a chance to obtain the "better" life. Some would still work hard without the reward motive, but not very many. I would point towards Russia in the 20s as an example. Farm production fell off a cliff.
Good point, Michael.
Hard work as a "structural" characteristic, and as a necessary but not sufficient condition for success.
Weber's "Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" comes to mind.
Of course, Capitalism is no longer all that it was cracked up to be by people like Weber and Schumpeter. They were right back then, but today? Hmmm...
Post a Comment
Please limit your comment to 300 words at the most!