This is a response to a post by one of my favorite internet bloggers - Dave Pollard.
Because this is something of a conversation, it won't make sense unless you read what he said.
His post can be found here
I agree in principle with almost everything you have said, Mr. Pollard. And I agree that there is going to be an economic catastrophe in the Usa at some point years out from here, if we keep our current course. However, it seems to me that the Usa is not unique in how it has constructed its financial sector... and so when this big problem occurs, I don't believe the Usa will suffer like Iceland or Argentina have when their economies hit a brick wall. The West is kind of bound together in one big network. And the Usa is one of the bigger players in this family of nations.
And fundamentally, I think I disagree with the narrative through which you see these issues. I look at wealth differently than you do. I don't see money as being wealth, per se. I see goods as being wealth. And I see that the standard of living has really gotten better over the course of the last hundred years, in both the West and in the East.
I see the development of industry and the development of the middle class (which provides a market for industrial goods) as being responsible for this very vast change in our society over the last hundred years. And there are costs associated with that rise in standard of living. Industrial pollution, and loss of biodiversity in different parts of the world is one of the costs. Hopefully we can establish ways of ameliorating these problems.
Look at Japan, a hundred years ago. Look at the Usa, a hundred years ago.
There has been a substantive change in lifestyle. This is what I would point to and say it shows how wealthy we are. If a person today, in 2009, can live a better lifestyle than the kings of hundreds of years ago did, that's progress.
Now, according to my models, I see the socialist policies of people like Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the States as being responsible for bringing a middle class into being. When you help the extreme poor, and give them a leg up... then they themselves will seize upon the opportunity to better themselves; they will work hard, and become the middle class.
I think that we need to have a partnership between government and business to have a healthy economy. We need education and health care provided for free. We need to give financial incentives to companies which bring wealth to our communities. We need to open our markets to developing nations which are setting up factories.
To deal with your thrust more specifically, one gist of what you're saying is that a lot of things are overvalued monetarily. I think that assertion laid side by side with the assertion that "1% of the people in the Usa own such a preponderous proportion of the 'wealth,'" leads us to an interesting conclusion. Maybe those "wealthy" people have fictional wealth. One reads all the time of people who have founded corporations, and whose net worth is calculated according to the stock price of that organisation (because they own a lot of that stock). Years later, that stock price can drop to pennies on the dollar.
You criticise a lot of things in your essay here, Mr. Pollard... but what is the way forward for a different sort of economy? Tell me that. And then answer me this: "What is the way forward for leveraging a consensus that such a change needs to be made?"
In my assessment of how things work in the Usa - people here need to learn through the school of hard knocks. Really important reforms only occur when there is catastrophe. This "financial crisis" of 2009 was averted - and that means that folks in Washington DC don't seem to see the need for any substantive reforms in the financial sector in this country.
In sharp contrast, the financial catastrophe of 1929 was not averted. And consequently a lot of important reforms were made.
Just to throw in another example of catastrophe leading to reform: The month hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans marked a very big change in attitude in the Usa towards environmentalism. Environmentalists have been calling for reforms for decades... and such people have been sidelined and ridiculed, here in the States. But after hurricane Katrina, I saw a big change in the way major mainstream news organisations - such as CNN domestic - reported about environmental issues. And since 2006, we've seen a tremendous push across the entire Western world for green technologies.
So unlike you, Mr. Pollard... I don't believe a disaster is something that is final and dark; I don't believe it is something that needs to be feared. I understand why you yourself might think that way. You Canadians are much better at reasoning things out together - and this shows in how your politicians discuss matters. CPAC shows an entirely different kind of rhetoric, than we see south of the border on CSPAN. In Canada, you discuss eventualities - and I see that you earnestly work to avoid bad ones, and also seek to promote good outcomes. But that's not how things work in the Usa. Here, south of the border, policies are formed on an as needed basis.
In my estimation, your job as a citizen of Canada, is not to try to stop the inevitable financial calamity which will occur in the Usa. Your job is to try to get your country to disentangle itself from the Usa, before that event occurs. You Canadians need to stop being codependent on us. Increase your trade with China and India and the EU. Diversify your trade habits.
Interesting... thank you for carrying on the conversation. I agree that the big players in the west are not quite as under as some people say. However, I do think that the crisis in the States has been merely postponed. The so called solutions are no solutions at all (bailouts etc.).
Where I have a real problem is this you say: "If a person today, in 2009, can live a better lifestyle than the kings of hundreds of years ago did, that's progress." Is it really? The kings of hundreds of years ago were ridiculous wastrels, going after status and luxury and good at spending other people's money. And that is what we do now. I don't see that as a good thing.
As the Onion recently summed it up well: "[Americans'] ability to consume well beyond their means, disregard all signs of approaching financial ruin, and then sit there like a fat duck waiting for solutions to appear is truly remarkable."
It's been awhile since I read Dave's post, and since I wrote what you just read... so I'll simply address your own points.
In recent months, I've been intently studying other english speaking nations... just to see what the options are for places to live. Lately, I've been looking at New Zealand. The intellectuals and academics there seem to be all progressively minded. And in like manner, both the right wing and the left wing party are what we would call "progressive" here in the States. You might enjoy researchihng New Zealand. I think you might be charmed by the standards and values which people there have. I certainly have been.
But you know, I also think that New Zealand is the poorest english speaking country out there (India excepted). People who are too idealistic don't want to pay the costs to achieve certain benefits.
I agree that the Usa is facing a financial calamity on the horizon somewhere, if only because the folks in Washington DC don't understand the need to be fiscally responsible with the national budget.
And yes, I am also a fan of the Onion.
And seeing that I have your attention, let me point you to another recent post of mine. I think that there has been a steady degredation of intellectual discussion in the Usa since we succeeded in creating a middle class, here. Britain also seems to be following in our footsteps. My question is "what should we, who are caring deep thinking people, do to head that off?" I'm much more concerned about people becoming mired in misconceptions about things, than I am about folks going off and buying a new Ferrrari.
I spent three weeks in NZ in the late nineties, and adored it. Good food, sensible, friendly people, safe communities that seemed to work well, and wonderful unspoiled (by what I have seen elsewhere) nature. A people who do not sue each other and therefore are able to engage in all sorts of adventurous pursuits where ever they are... none of that American "oh but someone could get hurt and sue us so we better not do this at all" mentality. Plus a choice of wonderful climates where to live, from cold to warm, and all pleasant. What exactly are they lacking, in your view? Which "certain benefits"?
The only problem I saw there off hand was the encouragement of immigration of Asians to do work that Kiwis did not want on the cheap, which at that time was causing problems inherent with displaced, poor and often sick people finding themselves in a strange place and not coping well.
I will check out your other essay.
v.
I like New Zealand. I haven't been there. I've had friends who rave about it, though. I have made a point of studying the way they live and think and do things through their mass media. It seems like academics there (including journalists, and folks interviewed on Radio New Zealand) hold the same standards and values which I do. And it would be refreshing to live there, because of that reason.
I've also heard some bad things about the country, too... however. For instance, there's a forum here where disgruntled expats discuss things.
So, my impression is that while it's nice to live in a place where people generally respect your approach to things - it might be somewhat hard to live there, if you're used to a middle class lifestyle in another country.
If you want to read about both my criticisms and praise of New Zealand, you can do that here.
Some things I've heard people talk about are:
Poor building code enforcement. Houses don't have central heating or proper insulation.
Even if the academic folks are cool, the ordinary man on the street might be a little less civil and more silly than in other countries. People complain of not having a place to have high-minded conversations.
Food safety can be in question, and other business practices might not always adhere to standards we have in the States. I have worked in food industries in the States, and there are fastiduous safety practices - exactly because there are lawsuits. Apparently things are much more relaxed, in New Zealand.
There was a big public effort recently to remove protections for children from smacking. And the ballot initiative went overwhelmingly (90%) in favour of corporal punishment.
Kiwis seem to tend to judge some people as having bad character, and then they shun such people. And this is certainly better than what we have in the States, with the popular notion of "bad people." But it's kind of unnerving for me to see it. I was watching parliamentary proceedings in Wellington through the internet stream recently, and I saw people's facial expressions around Melissa Lee, who was a much scorned candidate that in recent months had sought the seat formerly held by Helen Clark in Mount Albert. It was quite a surreal thing to see.
I don't know. I think I would find a good niche for myself in New Zealand. And I might emigrate there, someday. But it will be tough to get through the immigration system. I haven't lived a traditional lifestyle, and the skilled migrant point system depends on a person having lived a traditional middle class lifestyle.
Kiwiland struck me as what America might have been in the 50s... land of small towns where things mostly worked. (Of course, they are much "greener" and cooler than that.) My rememberance was that food was wholesome and fresh. There were many fruit and vegetable stands to buy from. Even "fast food" seemed to have that "home cooked" essence. I grew up in central Europe, and so this was reminding me of home as well. In my experience with the States, food regulation increases in response to filth in foods. When the food-to-table chain is short, less regulation needed.
Same with building codes.... the Kiwis have a different paradigm... they are informal, they live relaxed lives. You should experience it to see if it suits you. If you tend toward control freakdom, you will not like it there....
U.S. building codes are, IMO, the biggest obstacle toward sane and green building practices, and toward providing shelter for the poorest people. Those who want compost toilets and experiment with green building or microhouses are typically relegated into the far rural reaches where there are no codes to get in the way. When in fact they would be an asset to any cute college town looking to improve their eco-footprint. But nooo! Too much red tape.
I personally lean greatly toward an informal way of life vs one shackled by regulation. That is one reason I loved NZ. :-)
Some people do have a bad character (= persist in behaving badly), and shunning them goes to prehistory. What do you suggest instead?
v.
I suppose I should have known that because you found me from Dave Pollard's blog, that you might have this particular perspective on things. ;-)
During various seasons of my life I have had different opinions about these things you talk about. I agree about the problems with the red-tape aspect on building stuff. I wonder if there are similar problems in New Zealand, though. "Resource Consents" have been a big news topic recently. I was listening to a series of discussions, for instance, on Radio New Zealand where someone rebuilt a collapsing sea-wall on his property, and he may be forced to tear it down - not because it's poorly constructed, but because he didn't get prior permission for the project, and because upholding the regulation was important as a deterrent to other people. I heard the regulator who was interviewed conclude his line of reasoning with the notion that deterrence was a primary concern; and this doesn't sit well with me. It seems to reflect an authoritarian mindset.
New Zealand seems to vest a lot of power in its central government. There seems to be an effort to micromanage things. The Usa, on the other hand, has strong ethic of individualism.
You say:
I assume by "filth" here - you are referring to fat and sugar? As a person who has been underweight, most of his life, I can tell you, that I, personally, really appreciate fat and sugar. I see those things as being very important for maintaining weight.
You say:
Well, let me answer that this way. There are three ways to look at wrongdoing:
bad person
bad character
bad actions
Republicans in the Usa, and folks from the ACT party in New Zealand would think of things in terms of the first paradigm. Most Kiwis seem to lean towards the second. I believe in the third. I believe that bad actions result from someone having made an error in judgement about the situations around her or him. And therefore the way to deal with that is to remain cordial, and gently offer correction to the person.
One question I have for you, is what you think about the New Zealand primary and secondary school systems. From what I gather, these are very different than ours, here in the States. For one thing, kids wear uniforms in NZ.
Well, you know, there are control freaks everywhere. No place is perfect. Especially places with bureaucrats round and about! :-)
Nah! I love fat and sugar. I am referring to actual filth. Take milk, for example. Because milk is collected from huge dairies in huge trucks with personnel who doesn't really give a hoot... from cows kept in less than savory conditions... the gov't cracked down and made hard pasteurization re rigeur. What we have is filthy milk heated hard to make it safe. In places where the cycle to consumer is short and where family operations keep things in decent shape (partly because they and their neighbors drink that milk) soft pasteurization or none is doable. Ergo, good wholesome milk instead of the pseudomilk sold on the shelf in the States that will rot if you actually leave it somewhere warm to clot. Ugh.
I have not looked into the school system there. I am non-commital on uniforms... I grew up without... think them a bit strange, but they can act as an equalizer for the kids... nobody needs to compete with others on fancy clothes. Myself... I prefer unschooling.
Mmm... bad actions stem sometimes from an error in judgment, and sometimes from a person gone out of control (e.g. an alcoholic beating up on spouse repeatedly), and sometimes out of malevolence. Or do you deny the two latter possibilities?
v.
I really don't want to digress and go into this sad topic... when we were having so much fun discussing New Zealand, but what you have brought up is a very important topic. And it represents a riddle that I think I have figured out. ;-)
I DON'T believe that people commit wrong because they can't control themselves. For a couple of summers once, I was an informal tenant on the property of someone who was that kind of alcoholic which you describe. I spent a lot of time with him, his kids, and his wife. He certainly had a pattern of living which was very unconventional. But I could see clearly that his outbursts were a result of how he viewed the world. He thought of himself as a very accomodating and charitable person - and he was in many ways; but then he would get upset when he felt he had been snubbed or disrespected - and he blew up; but as he saw it, he was merely teaching those around him a lesson.
As far as malevolence goes - one has to pick that apart and see what it is. Malevolence means that the person hates someone, and hatred means that they have judged the person as being bad and deserving of a hurtful action. So malevolence itself revolves around a misconception about another human being. Does that line of reasoning make sense, to you?
I think that kids who are, by nature, autodidacts tend to do better when they can learn at their own pace. On the other hand, I think that a very strong structure is important for most kids. I have been impressed with the first fruits of the homeschool movement which started a decade or so ago, in the States. I have enjoyed talking to teens who have been schooled at home most of their childhoods. Those kids tend to develop better social skills - because they're learning how to interact with adults, rather than children. And they seem to appreciate ideas and knowledge in a way others who learn things by rote, do not.
Kiwis who laud their own educational system talk about the benefits of a "meritocracy." I, on the other hand, would see a streak of authoritarianism in a school system that relies upon uniforms in an attempt to maintain a healthier social dynamic. I suppose there are pros and cons to any way of doing things.
I remember drinking raw milk at my Grandma's house when I was a kid. It was nice. Another thing I have noticed about New Zealand, is that it really honours its agricultural folks. In the Usa, city people tend to scorn country people. It is refreshing to see this admiration for the rural lifestyle, which Kiwis have.
Yeah, they do. They love the rural land. And much of NZ still is, in one way or another... I remember eating breakfast in a small place, not really all that far from Auckland. Really sort of someone's house + diner... and the bacon was from the farm down the road. Sigh... I can dream... I just got a bag of organic potatoes at the overpriced chi-chi food store, and the damn things are moldy and have cuts all over them. Seems that no matter what, this stupid industrial food machine can't even deliver good potatoes at any price. I have to go straight to farmers.
Is strong structure important to most kids? I don't know. It sounds like one of those platitudes sported by schooling defenders... No insult intended. I just don't like their rhetoric. In my own experience, structures got in the way of learning. I was able to overcome some very bad effects of my schooling, but I fear many of my classmates were scarred for life. Virtually all children learn extremely well from 0-6. Do we preach about "strong structure" for 4 year olds? And if not, then why is it needed for 7 yr olds? Too many homeschooling parents think they have to recreate school at home... In that case, I think I'd rather be in school... :-)
Um... regarding behavior, I think what we need to distinguish is... explanations for misbehavior, and dealing effectively with misbehavior. You present a sensitive explanation as to what was going on with the alcoholic. But his wife needed more than that. She needed an effective way of dealing. And gentle remonstrances generally fall on deaf ears with people who have spun out. Or do you find otherwise?
Regarding malevolence. You say..."Malevolence means that the person hates someone, and hatred means that they have judged the person as being bad and deserving of a hurtful action. So malevolence itself revolves around a misconception about another human being."
I think the malevolence you are thinking of... say an attack on a black person by some disgruntled angry white... they are more of a misjudgment category in my mind...
Actually, my own experiences have led me to another way of thinking about this. True malevolence is cold, not passionate. Sociopathic people do not hate others. Neither do they judge other people deserving of bad things (though they do hold them in contempt generally). They do bad things because it works for them, and one of the reason it works for them is because they lack empathy and conscience.
Take Ted Bundy, for instance. Ted did not hate those girls. He unleashed his murderous fury on them, but it had nothing to do with them in particular.
It's great to have a commenter come through here, every once in a while.
Looks like yer ducking my challenge. ;-) Oh well. It's been fun. Thank you too.
Post new comment