phaedo2000.com Blog

It has often been said that a viable middle class is the key to representative democracy.  Why?  I have several reasons to submit:

1.  A middle class, with enough resources to do so, is the only group that can afford to be financial sympathic:

a.  Those too poor cannot afford it, and are too busy with their own problems.

b.  Those too wealthy are unlikely to be close enough to the problem to understand it.

c.  Those in the middle are the only ones with enough knowledge to know when they are being scammed.

Not that those in the middle are sure to be sympathetic: greed and self-interest inflict some – many? - at all levels of the economy, and through0ut our culture;  unfortunately.  But we in this country do have a history of generous sympathy, and support a traditional liberality that extends to all; all but those who take advantage.  No one likes to be taken advantage of, save those who are oblivious to it, or don’t believe it has anything to do with them, or maybe just don’t realize it does.

This question has been bugging me and I realize that it is politically incorrect.  Let’s see how I can present it.

The primary responsibility of a nation is to provide security for its people; what happens when a portion of those people revolt – foment a revolution?  What does the government do?  But let’s get more specific: Egypt and Syria.

There was no proof that the majority or even the most reasonable people in Egypt wanted a change in government; but they got it.  Maybe the army wanted to dump Mubarek?  Maybe the Muslim Brotherhood wanted to create a crisis for their benefit.  I don’t know the facts and I have no confidence what so ever that the Western media did either, or if they did, presented them truthfully; and our governments?  The media wanted “democracy,” and reported it that way.  We do not realize – or can not admit – that democracy has to be incubated and grown, and when a population with no experience with it at any level votes “democratic” it is unlikely that most know what they are voting for.

And Syria?  What should the leader of a country do when threatened by chaos, especially when its population is Muslim and influenced by radical Muslims?  Over-reaction?  Perhaps; probably.  But remember in this case who the perpetrators are: emotional, ignorant – at least of democracy – and perhaps most of all being egged on by an international media and probably (I don’t know this) influenced by radical influences with twittering cell phones (including impetus from Iran).  Oh, it’s so stimulating.  Democracy?  How about overthrowing the government? and expecting what?

What a leader must do is negotiate; compromise; deal maturely.  With raging, at least a little radical (and maybe a lot radical) and destructive rioters – using home made (or perhaps not home made) bombs?  Let’s talk.  About what?  Is this raging rabble a majority that expresses the “will of the people?”  Who knows?  Who cares?  It’s all about democracy!!  I have written that an Israeli friend used the word naive for us;  naive?  Ah one might say, what would one suspect from Israelis?  I call it naive; I call it dangerous; in fact deep down (nah, not deep at all) I consider it stupid.  The ultimate result is very unlikely to be what so many Westerners expect, and we are playing with fire.   I’ll not go beyond that because anything I say will be assumption and supposition; and clearly I am merely expressing an opinion.  But just as clearly this is what the democratically elected politicians and the media want – and demand – and strongly support, else it would have burned out long ago (another opinion).

We shall see – and ought to be prepared for unwanted consequences; are we?  There are certainly those that are, but I can’t believe they are in control.  So?  We shall see, and live with what evolves.  But I shall ask again, what should a leader do when confronted by such a challenge?  Really, not the politically correct emotionally dreaming assumptive answer.

I ran across two “thoughts” from a Thomas Sowell random thoughts article this morning that fit comfortably into my thinking; those, after all, are the ones we focus on, the ones which agree with our line of thinking.

“Some people are puzzled by the fact that so much that is said and done by politicians seems remote from reality. But reality is not what gets politicians   elected. Appearances, rhetoric and emotions are what get them elected. Reality is what the voters and taxpayers are left to deal with, as a result of electing them.”

“In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims.”

The subject of these two has to do with political reality, and my focus has usually been on the flip side of that: cultural fantasy.  I have discussed it in the context of our culture; Sowell points to the political consequences; they are congruent.  To put it succinctly, or in the language of the very young, we would rather play than work, or pursue more serious objectives.  Interestingly much study has shown that in the long run serious objectives and the rewards from pursuing them yield more to a person’s life satisfaction and contentment than fantasy; but fantasy is more fun, at least in the short run.  Nonetheless I fear – really I do – that we are tending to take the short run span of least resistance – and more fun.  We have not reached the point where we, as a nation, have reached by concentrating on having fun; not, in all likelihood because that was our choice of the moment, but because we had no real choice.  Life and dealing with it is a serious occupation and the fantasy of fun is transient.

The fantasy of entertainment and indolent dependence doesn’t cut it in the long run; but…but…but…whither goest we?  How long do we have to answer that question?  And where will that bring us?  That is a serious question with serious implications with which we really need to be concerned.

I cannot help but believe, having read that everything is politics and all politics are basically economics, that the world that seems to have gone mad has done so from that basic stimulus.  And despite all the causes given I really do think that economics is at the bottom of it  all; if not directly in every case, at least indirectly.  We – the world in fact - are spoiled, greedy and full of envy and exposed contiually to icons that just encourage us to higher and higher expectations.  Not that that is anything new; we just have more opportunity to display it.

Are there bad governments?  Sure.  Are basically good governments guilty of mistakes?  Oh, yeah.  And arrogance?  Uh huh.  So the “people” are going to just take over and make it all right?  Uh uh.  They might run off the current bunch, but lo and behold here will come another, probably worse; and probably (surprise, surprise) it will include those who encouraged “the people” to dump the last government.  Arab Spring?  Good example; it is playing out pretty much as those who had their heads on straight thought it would – and that does not include either the propagandists or the mainstream media.  And propagandists come in many colors, shapes and sizes; from cunning power seekers to ignorant fools to naive do-gooders.

I was talking with a friend in Israel via Skype telephone (somehow I think I have written of this before) and he, with a stern look, said you (Americans) are really naive.  How could I not agree with that?  But perhaps it is more than just us Americans; and much naivete is comprised of ignorance.  Democracy, you see, does not work for that very reason.  Democratic republics can, but they also must contend with that same naive ignorance, but also envy.  I think we are beginning to see it all come together, and see it because it is pushed in our face continually, and in too many cases exaccerbated by the efforts of “our leaders” who use it for their own benefit – and to be truthful, their survival.  I think we will see more.

The clear economic choices seem to be to do something to stop the runaway debt and ignore it and let it “take care of itself” through growth, as it has not over the past forty or so years – oh, or exploit it somehow.  So for those of a mind to seek compromise what to do?  There is no middle ground there.  My view is that some pain now is better than much greater pain later, but I guess that depends on whether one is living for now or living for later.  Unfortunately in this selfish world later is likely to be outside our span of interest, and perhaps our own lifetimes.  So here we go again.  I also think that the weakness of American leadership – and even Western leadership – is contributing, but at least the Europeans are taking a stab at it – and in so doing exposing us to what it will bring: the pain, economic pain.

Economics; oh my, who understands economics?  Much too complicated.  And that’s not all that’s complicated, but somehow most of it tends to tie back to economics.  Who, for example, is financing the Arab Springs?  What is causing unemployment?  What is driving the discontent that seems to be breaking out everywhere?  In fact, what is the basis for all the communications that pass the word around so fast all over the world, and in the process gets everyone all riled up?  And why does it get them riled up?  And investment – how we loathe it; but where does the wherewithall to pay for pensions ultimately come from?  Yeah, yeah, but who understands all that?  Few lawmakers, and less of the rest of us.

Or for instance, if everyone is so intent on equality, why are so many anxious to win dependence?  And is not a great deal of the crime both living on dependence, and driven by economics?  And let there be no doubt, a great deal of the resentment directed at the United States; as well as the desire to access it’s markets, win aid assistance and gain entry is all about economics – and particularly desire to tap into America’s riches, and envy of us for having them; not understanding, of course, that there is responsibility that goes with all of that we have and have achieved, and that is as little understood in much of our own country as it is by those of other countries.

And those who would overthow governments because of greed and corruption will not be tempted by the same?  But we all just want to be the same – equal, right?  As long as equal means everyone having as much as everyone else – or no one having more than anyone else.  The animals were all equal, right, (George Orwell, 1984) but somehow the pigs were more equal than the rest.

I babble on – again.  That’s why I do this: to get it out of my system.  But do you know what? it really doesn’t succeed in doing it.  So on I go.

Greece’s financial problems have been well covered.  Now it’s Spain’s turn, but the media is reluctant to face what can still happen.  Spain has a new, socialist, government that seems to be trying hard to do what it needs to do: reduce spending.  And an austerity budget has been passed by the government; but the people of Spain do not seem to want to cooperate with that and are demonstrating, which wobbles the government, which thinks that perhaps by pulling back they can threaten the EU with the fear of contagion, and loosen up some more money from the EU to make everything better and it will all go away and end happily,

Of course the EU doesn’t really control any money directly, so that means Germany will have to come up with some more euros for Spain to soften the blow and avoid the discontent to spread to other countries.  But the German government, as all governments, doesn’t have any money either, so where will it come from?  Either taxpayers will have to bear the brunt and pay higher taxes or someone will have to start printing more euros.  That is usually what eventually happens.  And we all know what that means; but apparently WE all do not.  Printing money arbitrarily results in inflation and that means everything costs more; and eventually inflation usually gives way to depression and we all know what that means, don’t WE?  As with all history, if we ever did know WE have likely forgotten.  So we’ll likely have a chance to learn all over again.

And what of us?  the United States?  If drastic cuts are made too rapidly the situation could be similar here.  But if they don’t get made soon enough the interest on the loans (bonds) we are incurring (selling) will grow at an equally rapid pace.  We blame the government (Congress) because they resist compromise; so which side should roll over and let it happen; each is being dogged by its own ignorant constituency to hang tough.  There is no good solution and WE have caused us to arrive where we have arrived, and like all the rest don’t want to give up anything.  And to be fair, those who are living on the edge don’t have much, between their income and outgo, to play with.

So where will it all end?  Watch Greece; watch Spain.  We will go just as they go?  Not necessarily; each case is different.  But there will be pain enough to go around, and WE don’t feel like we should bear it.  So?  Stay tuned.

I was just outside checking for the mail and noticed a lady walking a dog and herding a child walking down the street across the street from me.  Decent day, quiet neighborhood scene.  But what struck me was that the child, maybe less than two years old, but walking on it’s own, was in a diaper only and bare footed.  Being an old fashioned curmudgeony kind I found that a bit unusual, and, to my mind, less than appropriate.  The lady in charge was not young.

The temperature is 72 degrees, so it is not cold.  It is a very peaceful neighborhood and although walkers are not unusual, particularly walking dogs, the streets are far from bustling, crowded or heavily populated.  And it is certainly none of my business, and no one was being harmed, that I am aware of.  But I was a bit taken aback at what seemed to me to be lack of propriety.  Clearly I am old fashioned and just as clearly things are changing culturally; and this is a one time “incident.”  So I am not being critical – well, yes I guess I am – but only internally; that was my reaction – but only to my self.

I am examining my reaction more than the “incident.”  I wonder how others would have reacted to it, internally or otherwise.  But on the other hand, what would they think about the “incident?”  Normal?  No big deal?  Happy Spring?  I know, not my business, but I cannot tell my mind not to have a reaction.  What should I have told my mind?

Blame it on communications; blame it on competition; blame it on human nature; it ain’t gonna go away; not now.

What to believe?  How to understand what one is not prepared to believe?  It sure is crazy.  Of course it’s to be expected during a presidential election year where emotions run high, spin is the norm and prevarication is all too evident.  One wonders if it is all worth it for those with skin in the game.  It apparently is or they wouldn’t take part in it; if one is not personally involved, one still wonders.  It is truly a series of events worth wondering about (even without cringing at the incredible weath being throw at it).

So what are the issues for those of us who are onlookers trying to stay emotionally uninvolved?  The most important event in a hundred years?  Just another routine U.S. wild election that will be as usually forgettable as most?  Or just something to rile us all up about to keep the sellers of blood pressure medication in business?  It is difficult to know, and although most of us have our opinions, railing upon them seems to have no useful purpose.  But that’s the way we are.

Look beyond politics if you don’t believe it.  Athletics; professional, college or even high school and sandlot are designed that way, it would appear; but has the emotion, spin, prevarication grown over time?  Perhaps not, but the decibel communication of it surely has.  When everyone had his/her opinion in the past and no one would listen, that’s as far as it could go; but now we have so many outlets for opinion - considering the communications aspects available.  But one that might have escaped the average receiver , if not the aficionado, is the comments sections at the end of most on-line articles, particularly op-ed articles.  Newspaper and magazine letters to the editor have been around for a long time, take effort, and are not instantaneous in their publication; but on-line?  wow.

If you havent partaken – not only at a contributor, but just absorbing – you should give it a try.  Emotion? eeeeeeeeeeee, emotion; but spin and prevarication as well.  If yours is under control, they – the comments – can be a good show.  Some are blatantly insulting of the writer of the article; some are immediately dismissive; and some even present reasonably thought out alternative opinions; but they are usually not dull.  Much depends on the vehicle, since each has its own audience, but some, having more diverse audiences can gin up quite a stir.  And amusingly, some comment offerors get into pretty good tussles with each other, even, not surprisingly, to the point of insults to each other, and not only disagreement type insults, but personal insults.

Now, thinking about all this one must ask self, has it always been this way or is something changing?  Or more directly, has our ubiquitous coral of communications and especially instant communications options generated changes or just provided opportunity?  I would suggest that the opportunities are contributing to changes in culture that are coarsening us.  But then, understanding our woefully short memory span (who remembers, say, the election of 1850? ((I just picked that number out of the sky))).  How about sports today, and this back to our modern communications?   There are radio stations that provide forums for discussion that go on for hours.  Why a quarterback should play; why he shouldn’t; what’s the matter with his play; etc.  We sure do have our opinions, and are they ever emotional!  And opinionated of course, often with very few facts – or even good information – to back them up.  Pure emotion, plus personally generated spin, and sometimes prevarication: if you’re not in a position to refute, destroy!!

Apparently we love it, or at least many do.  And if one doesn’t want to jump into the ring, there are alternatives: sit back and enjoy the spectacle is one;  Another is to just ignore, but the in-your-face communications sure make that difficult.  Who, after all, is not immediately stunned at Dennis Rodman’s apparent personal downfall?  Or the leaving of the latest casualty from Dancing With the Stars?  Etc.  There is SO much to think about, and it seems either that’s what a large number of us do, or there is great emotion elicited from the rest.

It is truly impressive; but it is also a bit disturbing.

I have noticed that the UN and the EU have lately been throwing their weight around; of course that’s nothing new for the UN.  These are both unelected bodies with no actual enforcement capability, but they sure seem to be impressed with their…well, not really power…power of persuasion? moral authority?  Anyway, both seem to be feeling their oats and appear to think it’s up to them to save the world, whatever that might mean.  But the key world is “democracy,” something that neither seem to really understand, since neither are elected, but it is the big word in the world today, and ode perhaps.

“Democracy” to me is really becoming more and more of a joke as the clueless sing its praises (odes) and attempt to reap its rewards.  The Syrian rebels have announced they want “democracy,” which means I think that they want to establish their own in power in Syria – with voting of course, always with voting.  Voting equals democracy, right?  As long as your side controls the vote.  In Egypt the Islamic parties are tightening their control; they seem to have the votes, right?  Therefore it is a budding democracy.  Just like Zimbabwe, Venezuela, and Iran; hey, they vote, right?  Right, right, right.

That makes the UN a supporter of democracy; the EU too, doesn’t it.  We know who controls the General Assembly of the UN; but I’m not sure we understand who controls the EU (maybe even they don’t).  Apparently if we just all make nice, everything will be ok.  Except for Israel of course, the only true democracy in the Middle East.  But Israel just announced that they are barring the entrance of a UN fact finding committee from entering their country.  That’s awful!  They think the UN (General Assembly committee) might be, just might be, prejudicial in matters associated with Israel and Palestine, that Mecca of peace, goodwill and friendship.  How can they think such a thing?  Not so long ago I was talking on Skype to a friend in Israel and he suggested to me that we were naive?  We, naive.  I readily agreed with him.  But then they understand their very existence is no the line; that makes a big difference.

I also note in today’s news that the UK is talking to Dubai about selling a third of the Royal Scottish Bank to them.  Is that the beginning of something?  If it is, we (in the West) have asked for it through our unconscionable profligacy; we have.  Companies are always selling pieces to one another, and that’s free enterprise (except of course where those companies are extensions of countries), but countries selling off pieces?  Interesting.  One can not help wondering where this will lead; if that is, one stops to think about it.  Naivete did he say?

Sorry, I am babbling my frustration.  Things be a’changing so rapidly I am having trouble dealing with it all, particularly since those about me complacently – and politically correctly – don’t seem to worry much about it.  So why am I worrying?  Yes, why?

Well, yes we do have a problem, a very old and well-known problem: income does not balance outflow.  Nothing new there.  So what do we do?  Duh.  Either increase income or decrease outflow.

First income; what do we do to increase income?  Another easy one: increase the revenue that results in income.  Individuals, get a pay raise.  Economy, invest more.  But the pay raises are what has led to the problems, especially the automatic ones based on inflation – which of course increases inflation (raising costs of everything), and so forth (it ultimately falls apart and ends up as deflation, but we don’t want to talk about that).  So invest more; but that’s not working; the stock market has become a betting parlor.  No, no, investment has to be in something that generates what people want and are willing to buy.    So, new products?  Well, most new products just replace something else already being offered for sale; no, really new, something that’s never been available before.  And that requires some “one” with deep pockets to make the investment in design and equipment that will create JOBS that pay people so they can buy the products.  Assuming of course that they can build it cheaper than other people, and therefore justify investment in the United States.  That’s not fair.  Ok, it’s not fair.  But how about the government?  Why can’t the government do the investing – and make sure it all stays in the United States.

Yes, why not?  Well, the government has no money.  No, really it doesn’t.  For the government to invest it has to get it from the taxpayers (more taxes) or borrow it (from China or Saudi Arabia, for example).  From taxpayers means more revenue from taxes – supposedly – unless it sops up personal income and actually results in less taxes – complicated, that’s economics and we have already admitted not understanding that.  From borrowing means having to pay interest, which means more outgo for the interest paying government (on the bonds that constitute borrowing).  But if the new products are really really great, and everyone wants to buy them?  That would be a first for government.  Government folks don’t understand economics any better than the rest of us do.  But - NASA and the Department of Defense have created a number of developments that have resulted in products that have had good sales – Velcro!  GPS – the Hummer.  True, but at what cost?  Such products were side effects; the real investment was for something more mundane, such as national security.  And revenue from Velcro. GPS sales and Hummers does not balance the products that they off.

Well, what about cutting spending?  Good thought; reducing social security payments?  Oh, no, we can’t do that; we paid for that.  Not enough?  That’s not OUR fault.  No matter; it’s a fact.  Ok, Medicare/Medicaid.  That doesn’t even need discussion.  Well, there are plenty of other things.  Yes, but they all have constituencies too, and those constituencies (which are also voters) fight like crazy to keep them: there are too many to name; besides, those are so tiny compared to the big ones listed above that it’s not even worth talking about; but they should still be discussed, should’t they?  Something is better than nothing – if you are not of the constituency for them.

Well then let’s go back to investment.  Yes, let’s.  The traditionally best way to increase investment is at the much smaller level: small private business, people who really can come up with new ideas (see catalogues for examples).  Right!  How about that?  Good idea, but we (the government) have been making that more and more difficult by increasing restrictions on these very businesses to make sure they don’t hurt anyone (and to pay Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid expenses, even though they don’t cover the cost of them), resulting in higher costs for those businesses (existing or potential), which leaves less money they can use to invest in new products or additional jobs to make and market them.  Well…

Why doesn’t the government just make laws to make it easier?  Because people in government hold their jobs based on being elected, and if they don’t do what voters want, they won’t get elected.  But, but…Besides, most of their attempts end up doing more harm than good.

Truly, we have a problem.  And to be perfectly honest, “we have met the problem and he is us.”  (POGO).

In my last piece I demonstrated why I like to do this; I found an article that by providing information, sparked thinking, and made sense to me; so I decided to pass it on in summary form.  Thus, I thought about it and tried to relate the impression – in writing.  For me writing is what it is about, because in writing one has to examine thoughts differently than in conversation, since there is more time to consider it, and weigh what is involved.

I knew what had impressed me and strove to capture it, but as I did it got away from me and became something else.  My big stumbling point came when I talked about the concept of living space and the assumption that living more densely would have serious advantages in conserving space as well as cost.  But then thinking about that, even dealing with land use as in growing vegetables naturally or wheat with hybrid seeds, took me elsewhere.  And as I stumbled to the end I realized where I had landed: the expert’s decision of what made sense and the free will thought of what owners might want to do.  I contend that to deal with such differences requires examining the options – all the options – and dealing with them, with a variety of choices and different opinions that impinge upon how they play out, as well as understanding possible unintended consequences – such as impact on jobs, both short term and long term.

In this case the hierarchical or elite way suggests a top down decision whereas the free market way is bottom up.  We can argue all day which is the way to go (and do – and are) but to discuss intelligently it is useful to know the historical and scientific facts that are in play, and the personal emotions that are affected.  And that is what the political divisions in the United States are all about today.

Anyway my point is that by writing about it made me see the subjects the writer was describing in a different light, and in fact reminded me that the decisions he discussed came face to face with exactly the differences they entail: differences in choice and who makes them, and the different emotions involved.   It is interesting how differently facts might be interpreted with different perceptions.