On Capitalism
This isn't so much nerd-gasm as the last few serious posts, but more simply my musings. Take them as you will, grain of salt recommended but not required.
For anyone not currently inhabiting a cave, you've likely heard about several things on the news lately. For those who haven't, or who need clarification, I am addressing the following situations:
* The US is in a very real economic depression. Are we recovering finally? It's looking like we are, but it's sluggish -- partly because people gave up looking for work out of frustration, so even though jobs are being created (this month, for at least the third month in a row, non-government jobs have risen notably), people are content living off the government teat -- or off nothing at all, ie. sponging off friends and loved ones -- rather than claiming the jobs.
* The US deficit, starting from the mess Dubya left for us when we finally kicked him out of office -- and compounded, admittedly, by President Obama's well-meaning but expensive solutions -- is very high. And only going higher. It's not pretty, really.
* Greece is on the verge of bankruptcy. Yes, Greece. As in the Mediterranean country, also former home of the ancient Athenian pseudo-empire, until it fell to the Romans. This caused quite a bit of havoc with the Euro, being as it's tied into the European Union, until recently -- apparently, the EU bailout of Greece is helping stabilize that situation.
* The global economy, until the stabilizing of the Euro, was also plummeting hard. While there's nothing beyond speculation that the entire global economy, including US-based markets (DJI, Nasdaq), descent was tied to the ailing situation in Greece, it seems likely, given the timing.
* There's been talk of economic contagion, starting within the EU, in regards the issue with Greece. And regardless of my normally dismissing or laughing at the source, this actually does make pretty good sense, given the entire EU has tied itself together economically, and further because the global economy is such a real impact -- if your neighbors begin to fail, they'll have a harder time repaying loans to you in a timely manner, which means you start to run low on cash, causing you to get close to that brink and have a hard time paying /your/ neighbors... and so on, and so forth.
OK, so given the above, I've come to the unfortunate conclusion that we might... MIGHT... be looking at the fate of capitalism. Is it because capitalism is inherently an unstable system? No, not necessarily. However, when you have many disparate cultures -- each with their own philosophy on what's best for the world -- and then you tie them all tightly with the ropes of fiscal responsibility, something's gotta give. The way we're set up right now, if any one country starts to crumble, it sets off a domino effect. If we stood entirely on our own two feet -- and expected others to do the same -- well, in some cases, we'd have more money. There's been a lot of loans and gifts that the US has made, which have never come full circle. But, at the same time, certain past presidents have racked up a LOT of debt in their own times, debt which was only possible -- and spending which could've only occurred -- as a result of money flowing back and forth between countries.
The unit of our currency, the "almighty" dollar, hasn't been very almighty for a long time. Once, all US currency was effectively backed by gold, all shored up in the infamous Fort Knox. Nowadays? If gold was worth $10k/oz, I don't think we'd have enough to ensure full-faith honoring of all the currency circulating. And this is one of the driving effects of inflation, when the value of the dollar bill drifts further from the gold standard it's supposed to represent. (Right now, I think a ten-dollar bill roughly represents a single flake of gold in Fort Knox. If we're lucky.)
At the same time, as the government's spending is starting to exceed its revenue on a routine basis, we have conservatives at the state and local levels that -- instead of trimming the fat from where it's worst, like overly high government salaries (especially those of the elected officials) and unnecessary programs, seek to cut things like health and human services, like education. In Arizona, for example, there is a proposition in the special election -- this week, as I recall -- which will add a 1¢ sales tax to normally taxable things (manufactured goods, hot foods, services). Two-thirds of this money is earmarked specifically for education, and would stave off (approximately, as I recall) 70% of the cuts planned. If it does not pass? Education will be cut to such levels that Arizona will no longer receive government money for education. Yes, that's right -- Arizona'll make such drastic budget cuts to education that the state will NO LONGER QUALIFY for money from the US Dept. of Education.
How is cutting a budget to the point of losing government funds a wise plan? Not to mention that it's a known fact that education is of vital -- VITAL -- importance to everyone. It ensures educated workforces for employers; it allows children who live there to graduate and succeed, with their success meaning better income taxes and their failure meaning potentially doling out social government funds (ie. Welfare), or in the "better" case scenario, employed at one dead-end job after another, with lower income tax funds. Families, when deciding where to move, often will consider education. Teachers will not suffer this type of situation, especially when they're ousted unceremoniously as a result, and will move somewhere willing to pay them.
OK, so yes, I admit it readily. I'm not just a liberal, I have a definite socialist streak. And why shouldn't I? Social programs -- Social Security, SSI, AFDC/TANF, Welfare, WIC, UI -- these programs are in place to HELP PEOPLE. And what about such things as hospitals, banks, businesses, schools, fire departments, police stations? Those all receive federal money via SOCIAL programs too. The layman's definition of socialist is roughly "one who believes in the need of all the people". (True, purist socialism is a difficult pill to swallow -- especially in the face of the modern US trend of "I want my toys; why should I care about them?" -- but I'm not necessarily talking purist socialism, merely the socio-capitalist system we've evolved since the First Great Depression.) This definition, of course, runs counter to the Faux News (and typical deep-right-wing conservative) definition of socialist, which is "the Devil made flesh and sent to walk among us and take all our shiny toys away".
Oh, and a point I made elsewhere before, but now's a good place to revisit it. According to Faux News, if liberals really want more taxes and more funding for all their little government programs, we should pay all the taxes and they shouldn't pay any. Now, on this -- before I completely dismiss it as being the ravings of those whose brains don't believe in oxygen, because the word 'oxygen' doesn't appear in the Bible, and thus are completely braindead -- I agree in a way. Sure, let us liberals pay all the taxes for all the government programs. And then? All those conservatives who don't want to pay a dime, and who think they're too good? Take away their police, their fire departments, their schools and hospitals and banks, their small business subsidies and their Social Security and their UI and their Welfare. Because, after all, they want government out of their lives -- give them what they want.
So, back on topic. If the theory of economic contagion is true -- and I see, from recent history, no reason to discount it wholly out of hand -- perhaps Greece's recent distress will pull France, Spain and Portugal down as the economists predict. Perhaps this will cascade into the fall of the European Union -- the Euro, if those three countries fell, would be extremely devalued as a result. Perhaps this would then cause the US, and Japan, and every other country tied into the global economy to fall.
I don't know if this is possible. I don't know if this is even remotely likely. But maybe the Mayans were right -- in a fashion. Maybe 2012 is the end of the world. Not because of the catastrophic destruction of the Earth -- or because all life on Earth is wiped out. Simply because the crumbling mess of the global economy will bring to an end what we currently know as human civilization.
But then, looking around, was it really all that civilized to begin with?
For anyone not currently inhabiting a cave, you've likely heard about several things on the news lately. For those who haven't, or who need clarification, I am addressing the following situations:
* The US is in a very real economic depression. Are we recovering finally? It's looking like we are, but it's sluggish -- partly because people gave up looking for work out of frustration, so even though jobs are being created (this month, for at least the third month in a row, non-government jobs have risen notably), people are content living off the government teat -- or off nothing at all, ie. sponging off friends and loved ones -- rather than claiming the jobs.
* The US deficit, starting from the mess Dubya left for us when we finally kicked him out of office -- and compounded, admittedly, by President Obama's well-meaning but expensive solutions -- is very high. And only going higher. It's not pretty, really.
* Greece is on the verge of bankruptcy. Yes, Greece. As in the Mediterranean country, also former home of the ancient Athenian pseudo-empire, until it fell to the Romans. This caused quite a bit of havoc with the Euro, being as it's tied into the European Union, until recently -- apparently, the EU bailout of Greece is helping stabilize that situation.
* The global economy, until the stabilizing of the Euro, was also plummeting hard. While there's nothing beyond speculation that the entire global economy, including US-based markets (DJI, Nasdaq), descent was tied to the ailing situation in Greece, it seems likely, given the timing.
* There's been talk of economic contagion, starting within the EU, in regards the issue with Greece. And regardless of my normally dismissing or laughing at the source, this actually does make pretty good sense, given the entire EU has tied itself together economically, and further because the global economy is such a real impact -- if your neighbors begin to fail, they'll have a harder time repaying loans to you in a timely manner, which means you start to run low on cash, causing you to get close to that brink and have a hard time paying /your/ neighbors... and so on, and so forth.
OK, so given the above, I've come to the unfortunate conclusion that we might... MIGHT... be looking at the fate of capitalism. Is it because capitalism is inherently an unstable system? No, not necessarily. However, when you have many disparate cultures -- each with their own philosophy on what's best for the world -- and then you tie them all tightly with the ropes of fiscal responsibility, something's gotta give. The way we're set up right now, if any one country starts to crumble, it sets off a domino effect. If we stood entirely on our own two feet -- and expected others to do the same -- well, in some cases, we'd have more money. There's been a lot of loans and gifts that the US has made, which have never come full circle. But, at the same time, certain past presidents have racked up a LOT of debt in their own times, debt which was only possible -- and spending which could've only occurred -- as a result of money flowing back and forth between countries.
The unit of our currency, the "almighty" dollar, hasn't been very almighty for a long time. Once, all US currency was effectively backed by gold, all shored up in the infamous Fort Knox. Nowadays? If gold was worth $10k/oz, I don't think we'd have enough to ensure full-faith honoring of all the currency circulating. And this is one of the driving effects of inflation, when the value of the dollar bill drifts further from the gold standard it's supposed to represent. (Right now, I think a ten-dollar bill roughly represents a single flake of gold in Fort Knox. If we're lucky.)
At the same time, as the government's spending is starting to exceed its revenue on a routine basis, we have conservatives at the state and local levels that -- instead of trimming the fat from where it's worst, like overly high government salaries (especially those of the elected officials) and unnecessary programs, seek to cut things like health and human services, like education. In Arizona, for example, there is a proposition in the special election -- this week, as I recall -- which will add a 1¢ sales tax to normally taxable things (manufactured goods, hot foods, services). Two-thirds of this money is earmarked specifically for education, and would stave off (approximately, as I recall) 70% of the cuts planned. If it does not pass? Education will be cut to such levels that Arizona will no longer receive government money for education. Yes, that's right -- Arizona'll make such drastic budget cuts to education that the state will NO LONGER QUALIFY for money from the US Dept. of Education.
How is cutting a budget to the point of losing government funds a wise plan? Not to mention that it's a known fact that education is of vital -- VITAL -- importance to everyone. It ensures educated workforces for employers; it allows children who live there to graduate and succeed, with their success meaning better income taxes and their failure meaning potentially doling out social government funds (ie. Welfare), or in the "better" case scenario, employed at one dead-end job after another, with lower income tax funds. Families, when deciding where to move, often will consider education. Teachers will not suffer this type of situation, especially when they're ousted unceremoniously as a result, and will move somewhere willing to pay them.
OK, so yes, I admit it readily. I'm not just a liberal, I have a definite socialist streak. And why shouldn't I? Social programs -- Social Security, SSI, AFDC/TANF, Welfare, WIC, UI -- these programs are in place to HELP PEOPLE. And what about such things as hospitals, banks, businesses, schools, fire departments, police stations? Those all receive federal money via SOCIAL programs too. The layman's definition of socialist is roughly "one who believes in the need of all the people". (True, purist socialism is a difficult pill to swallow -- especially in the face of the modern US trend of "I want my toys; why should I care about them?" -- but I'm not necessarily talking purist socialism, merely the socio-capitalist system we've evolved since the First Great Depression.) This definition, of course, runs counter to the Faux News (and typical deep-right-wing conservative) definition of socialist, which is "the Devil made flesh and sent to walk among us and take all our shiny toys away".
Oh, and a point I made elsewhere before, but now's a good place to revisit it. According to Faux News, if liberals really want more taxes and more funding for all their little government programs, we should pay all the taxes and they shouldn't pay any. Now, on this -- before I completely dismiss it as being the ravings of those whose brains don't believe in oxygen, because the word 'oxygen' doesn't appear in the Bible, and thus are completely braindead -- I agree in a way. Sure, let us liberals pay all the taxes for all the government programs. And then? All those conservatives who don't want to pay a dime, and who think they're too good? Take away their police, their fire departments, their schools and hospitals and banks, their small business subsidies and their Social Security and their UI and their Welfare. Because, after all, they want government out of their lives -- give them what they want.
So, back on topic. If the theory of economic contagion is true -- and I see, from recent history, no reason to discount it wholly out of hand -- perhaps Greece's recent distress will pull France, Spain and Portugal down as the economists predict. Perhaps this will cascade into the fall of the European Union -- the Euro, if those three countries fell, would be extremely devalued as a result. Perhaps this would then cause the US, and Japan, and every other country tied into the global economy to fall.
I don't know if this is possible. I don't know if this is even remotely likely. But maybe the Mayans were right -- in a fashion. Maybe 2012 is the end of the world. Not because of the catastrophic destruction of the Earth -- or because all life on Earth is wiped out. Simply because the crumbling mess of the global economy will bring to an end what we currently know as human civilization.
But then, looking around, was it really all that civilized to begin with?