This topic is an evolutionary side-bar from the previous topic, Genius in Action -- What's Your Ripple Effect?, which is still active and in its own discussion.
There was such an unexpected response to the subject of economics and how it impacts the world, that I've created this topic to enable that discussion to continue while those who prefer to contribute (or also contribute) on the idea of your ripple effect may do so in the aforementioned topic.
Also, if you'd like to capture the context of the economic discussion, please visit the previous topic, but make your comments here in this one.
Thanks!
Christopher
P.S. As always remember that to see the comments in a separate window, click on the "Comments" link. To see the comments in the body of the topic, click "Links to this Post"
Views of those commenting have not been checked for accuracy and do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog publisher or his associates.
Well it appears we have been exiled for questionable behavior. Nonetheless, in reference to the previous post -- Sunjab, sir, clearly we all know that economics is a human construct. We're also well aware that prior to such manipulations indigenous people did not have a sense of price.
ReplyDeleteWhat is your point? Certainly you're heading somewhere with your "simple" approach as you call it. I have to admit that I'm somewhat curious.
Thomas W.
Thomas W,
ReplyDeleteI realized that I didnt really listen to your point of view. Im sorry.
Would you care to discuss this with someone who knows very little about economics in simple terms?
I do understand that our modern economy has raised more people out of suffering and pain then have ever been raised up in the history of mankind.
I, often, wonder at what price?! an example of my questions is this war in Iraq.
I was very impressed by Greenspan years, and his understanding of economics.
My point, Thomas W., is that when we create a system to control and manipulate an unnatural economy, it will be inherently flawed.
ReplyDeleteFor example, there is a classical discussion by conventional economists called water - diamond paradox. It means if something is short in supply, it is better because of this definition of the value.
But in the sense of natural this definition of value by 'conventional economics' gave the diamond high prices even though the diamond is otherwise a worthless object in comparison to the water.
The natural economics sets this value balance in the right perspective -- water is clearly of greater value than diamond, but price for water which is essential for life must be priced in a way that does not generate profit, but puts the water in public trust.
No matter how much conventional economics tries its 'un-natural' design of economics cannot maintain long lasting peace and it creates disparity, disease and conflicts. Markets are destroyed and human faith is ruled by the laws and enforcement. These situations call for a system of 'republic'. In republics benefit from more laws (antidote to disparity), more medicines (antidote to disease) and more weapon (antidote to crime).
The republics (state) become so strong that it even controls the economics and free will of the markets. Politics is thus a disease of economics. Deterioration of civilization can be counted by increase in number of laws (litigious societies that require more police, more prisons, more judges, more lawyers and so on), numbers of medicines (for more diseases, more physicians with due credits to unnatural or complacent life styles) and numbers of weapon (for criminal activities) and numbers of entertainment (to divert attention of people to non serious things).
On the other hand, natural economics is not divisive but only aims at integration. Logic of distribution of goods and services has an aim to achieve wholeness of the nature, and remove inequality by integration of all into one.
Law 1: Eliminating Waste -- Determining and measurement of price is first based on what prevents wastes.
Law 2: Preventing Unknown Risk -- Economic system set prices high when the risks are not fully known. This is the reason of high prices for weapon and drugs so that only eligible people should have it. The resistance decreases with increased risk of distribution.
Law 3: Bridging Inequality -- This means the basic needs of human beings are priced to cover costs, but not to allow profit. This allows for basic foundation for society. This interdependence without fear of loosing freedom is called equality. Complementarily in mutual co-operation helps each other. This removal of deprivation is called 'wealth'.
Law 4: Faith or forces of intellectual unity -- When inequality is removed, differences are called diversity. With loss of potential difference, people have faith in each other and are able to get united intellectually. In natural economy all people are viewed as equally deserving -- and preferences are not created to protect the wealthy or those with power.
This is merely the beginning of understanding that the natural economy of things must be based on the notion of wholeness, equality, and the protection of all people in regard to the basic elements needed to live life.
I would ask that you do not rush to make a decision about the value of such things, for this is a practice that is centuries old and one which, if practiced would have changed this world.
I also realize my English is often flawed, so please excuse my errors.
In respectfulness,
Sunjab
P.S. ThomasGall, it is very large of you to apologize to Thomas W. You set a proper example for the rest of us.
Sunjab,
ReplyDeleteI love this concept. It seems so well thought out, but could you break it down in practical application terms so that I can see how it would play out in the world today.
I need to know that its not just more socilizim like in Western Germany or Communism like in Russia. The only other example that I have learned about is the Laiser Fair system of Ann Rand, but in my heart although I love the book Atlas Shrugged I knew it was not practical either.
Sunjab, it's a pleasure to make your acquaintance. Trinh has always spoken highly of you.
ReplyDeleteThis law of natural economics is also called, by some, the Theory of Holistic Economics. My friends, as a side note, I think it's important to realize that all economic approaches are theoretical as none, that I am aware of, have been modeled flawlessly in accomplishing what is best for the entire ecological realm.
Having stated that, I also believe we are at a time in our evolution as a species where we have a broad enough understanding of our impact upon one another and the planet to build such considerations into our systems. The entire model of systems thinking grew out of the profound realization that we are inter-connected and that what happens here creates ripple effects and triggers outcomes that are often quite dire for others.
In speaking of economic theory, therefore, I would invite us it look beyond our own favorite approach and be willing to test our ideas against three questions that Christopher posed to us some time back. As I remember them, they were essentially these:
Is it good for me and my group?
Is it good for other people (especially those who are the in less powerful positions in their societies)?
Is it good for the whole eco-system?
To ignore those last two questions is, as Sunjab has stated, is to create a flawed economy for the few (whether that few be a privileged class or country). Such a system will (and currently is) wreaking havoc across our planet with consequences that will only get more drastic should we not respond with more wisdom and consideration for those other than our own immediate group.
While the power of strong individualism is invaluable and has its place and must continue to be encouraged (and is the means by which I arose from my circumstances), it must be married now, I strongly believe, with the power of the collective where the common good is set as the highest standard. We are not talking about socialism or any past “ism” but a model for a whole world, not one of fragmentation.
ThomasGall, Thomas W., Anna, BKO, Anonymous, Sunjab, Christopher -- are all of you ready for such a discussion. If so, I am very interested. If not, I don't believe it's worth the investment of my time.
With sincere regard,
Ellio
Count me in, Ellio. I'm certainly up for that level of a discussion.
ReplyDeleteChristopher
Sunjab,
ReplyDeleteIn my earlier thread I meant to say Eastern Germany's Socialist system.
But I would also like to throw in the mix Western Germany's Social Democratic system.
Germany is an interesting example of finances. The world punished them after World War I which kept them crushed, this lead to World War II, and We learned that you can't keep a smart and determined people like the Germans down....smile.
So we forced them into a democratic system, thats our model, we dont let people become socilists like in vietnam or south america, we force them to be democratic so we can come in and dominate.
So In Germany, they became social democrats. The party in power when I was there called themselves christian democrats under Kohl and strong conservative. I met in once at nice dinner in Frankfurt.
There system tried to balance socilism with democracy, but might I add that america in its guilt and desire to keep our military bases in Germnay pumped in a billion or more dollars every month to not let them fail for some 50 years. I was actually there the year in 1989-1995 when the wall came down (That was a great party in Berlin) and the year that the american military withdrew a lot of their forces ( I shut down the 97th Gen Hospital and the American Air Force Exchange complex in Frankfurt).
I was married to my ex wife who was a german national, she worked for Thomas Cook Travel Agency and was assistant director at HQ. American Express came in and purchased 60% of their business class programs and clients. American Express was trying to get into the old German boys club that is quite restricted and buy out Thomas Cook Travellers checks which dominated world wide for a long time. Well, they succeeded, the got my wifes director and my ex wife to work for them... Another example of America dominating.
Against my better judgment, I will agree to join this conversation. However, as Senior Ellio stated, I am only interested in the discussion if we all cease from bashing one another's sacredly held beliefs (and clearly, my fellows, I am well aware that I have been the guiltiest among you in this regard).
ReplyDeleteTo that point, ThomasGall, while I appreciate your gentlemanly apology to me, I would be most pleased if you and others would also stop belittling and demonizing the United States. Most certainly my nation has made its share of mistakes and, like Germany, England, Spain, Italy, China, and other countries too numerous to mention, the U.S. has engaged in policies that, at times, may be considered to be of an imperialistic character.
If, however, we are to truly have a dialog of a meaningful nature, I believe we must desist from such derision. Therefore, I am going to call upon our moderator to reinforce some rule of law here so as to create a more temperate environment.
With those conditions set forth, I would like to briefly answer ThomasGall's query:
Economic models are inherently complicated. Perhaps the simplest most practical illustration of more recent economic theories could be stated in two steps (which both relate to the theory of supply and demand, though the latter does so in a more abstract form).
The more abundant a resource and the easier and less costly it is to distribute -- (whether it be labor or watermelons) the less it is valued in the marketplace.
This equation is logical enough and provides a much simpler approach to lowering the price of water than the one put forth by Sunjab's theory, which unnecessarily, in my opinion, forces us to take on a moral role in order to set a price and which, in turn, does not take into account the cost of access and distribution of a diamond.
Taking this to the next step, however, is a bit less logical and requires more patience.
Nations with more poverty will eventually converge, in terms of their economic health, with more wealthy nations. The logical process behind this theory states that because the abundant labor and resources in poorer nations leads to their labor force and resources being tapped because the relative prices are low (and thus cost of goods utilizing these resources is also lower). This increase in the use of a poorer nation's labor force and resources eventually eventually creates a stronger middle class (usually over two generations) within that nation and raises the nation to a higher level of overall economic health (Japan, post World War II, South America -- in particular Brazil, current day Russia, China and numerous other nations provide empirical evidence of this theory). Clearly such a process does not eliminate all poverty within a nation (as is demonstrated by both Brazil and the U.S. as pointed out by several of this community).
During the equalization process, however, more wealthy nations (i.e. the U.S.) begin to feel a slowing of their economic growth and tend to grow nervous and show great concern because of the sense of entitlement and comfort-ability to which they have become accustomed. This often leads to an interference with the natural economy and is regularly cited historically as the cause to wars and other forms of external manipulation.
The natural process of ebb and flow, however, which was noted by Solow (and for which he won the Nobel Prize) is a natural model of evolutionary proportions. Left untouched, it theoretically would lead to a far greater equalization of global economies, over time mind you, than would other modes, whose very interferences throw off the natural balance and often set in motion decade-long episodes of turmoil.
On the other hand, the "natural" model, which Sunjab laid forth, while very humanitarian in appearance, is not natural and would be very difficult, given our current human condition, to apply. Nature lives by the rule of the survival of the fittest and allows for a natural rising and falling of primacy between environments and species. Sunjab's model, suggests that as humans we ought not to follow that natural law.
I am not in entire disagreement with his notion and can certainly see its value in terms of avoiding the unintended (or at least unforeseen) consequences of our interferences with the actual natural law as historically witnessed for centuries. I am simply not confident in our ability to manage the morality of Sunjab's seemingly humantiatiran system “fairly.”
This also applies to Ellio's holistic guidelines, wherein one question arises. Who is it that determines if it is "good" for others and the planet? That, my fellows, appears to be a very subjective sticking point to his holistic model and to the “natural” model put forth by Sunjab.
In conclusion, I look forward to seeing how this group responds and if it is truly able to reply with the higher level of respect and consideration that you apparently have prized as one of your community values. Nothing tests one's more elevated values, however, than a person with an unpopular, opposing point of view.
Respectfully yours,
Thomas W.
Thomas W,
ReplyDeleteThis response you just gave was very respectful and the details of your example have almost swayed me to your argument. You have allowed my listening to actually hear you, which is rare in human conversation.
Thank you, and I am sorry for my critique of America, I am American, but did not spend my whole life here as you can see in my bio.
Thomas W writes: “During the equalization process, however, more wealthy nations (i.e. the U.S.) begin to feel a slowing of their economic growth and tend to grow nervous and show great concern because of the sense of entitlement and comfort-ability to which they have become accustomed. This often leads to an interference with the natural economy and is regularly cited historically as the cause to wars and other forms of external manipulation.”
--Is this problem seen in our European Union and the NAFTA agreement? Were these good choices for our two power nations to unite?
--Is the war in Iraq about Oil and did it happen because of the above statement?
Thomas W Writes: “The natural process of ebb and flow, however, which was noted by Solow (and for which he won the Nobel Prize) is a natural model of evolutionary proportions. Left untouched, it theoretically would lead to a far greater equalization of global economies, over time mind you, than would other modes, whose very interferences throw off the natural balance and often set in motion decade-long episodes of turmoil.”
--Do we have enough time before we use up the earth major and critical resources? I know we are thinking about mining asteroids in the future or the moon… Please see website example for my point.
The Story of Stuff (The actual website is down for some strange reason!)
http://kiraquirk.blogspot.com/2008/01/story-of-stuff.html
The Story of Stuff II
http://www.lifeonterra.com/
ThomasGall, I believe Thomas W (and most all honest-hearted people) will agree that the Iraq War and each outside nation's involvement in the Middle East has to do with oil. To pretend otherwise is, well, ignoring the obvious.
ReplyDeleteFor the same reason (no oil or current economic interest) the world has largely ignored some of the worst travesties and violations of human rights as well as the largest mass ethnic cleansings in the world's history which are still taking place in Africa.
Thus, I agree with Thomas W. on this point. Our attempts, as nations, to manipulate the global economy in our favor (and this has been going on for centuries) has created the serious problems we now experience.
As for NAFTA, one must recognize that global organizations such as those who lobbied for this treaty did not have the interest of a nation at heart. They have their own corporate interests at heart. Nothing more. Unless we, as the citizens of both our nations, corporations, and the globe realize this, we will sit by idly wondering why these and other sadly misdirected decisions are being made.
Lastly, I believe you saved the truly critical question for last. Do we have enough time to allow the natural process of the economy to heal all of the drastic mess we have created? Clearly, the answer is no. Furthermore, in order to allow the economy to take its natural course we would have to assume that people, nations, corporations, and so on would have the foresight, holistic mindset, and the will to do so.
Surprisingly to me, I find myself now agreeing with Thomas W. again. Human nature does not appear to be so inclined.
That the solution is a growth economy, however, (even one which is mindful of sustainability) is something about which I am still quite doubtful.
And yes, please follow ThomasGall's suggestion and go to Kira's blog and watch the "Story of Stuff" and its sequel on lifeonterra.com. Thomas W., I suspect you won't like these films much. But I think they address the discussion we're having quite well.
This, like our healthcare discussion, is critical my friends. Let's keep searching (our souls and our minds) for answers and, perhaps most importantly, starting living our lives even more consciously as to the impact we are having in all regards.
With great hope,
Silvio
Looking at the world from my very small perspective, it seems to me that our conversation about economies is a very remote way of having conversation about ourselves. Could this be?
ReplyDeleteWe spoke of this before, many times and I could be very wrong -- but it seems we must first understand how we run our personal economy, before we can begin to have any hope at all of curing the larger ones.
So I ask very pointed questions of each of us. How do we run our personal economy? What are our personal economic ethics? How much are we influenced by the larger collective mind that is running beneath our national and global economies?
Might you have this conversation with me? It is possibly a more powerful discussion for us.
Thank you for hearing my thoughts,
Trinh
The Thomas W “long term theory” is true, but fails due to the most important part of this economic model; Resources are drying up in this possible future.
ReplyDeleteThomas W’s theory, that no matter, if we like it or not, the current economic model will continue to succeed and create prosperity (for the few) is also true. For the time being…
In the end, when the oil dries up, and we have used up the major resources allowing space mining to be affordable, we will find a solution.
In fact, if we force the government (NSA) and Industry to unlock the patents that they seized in the name of national security and private industry interests, we will find out that we already have solutions ready to be put into place. We will find out that we have idea’s that just need funding and action.
I believe, that the reason it all works isn’t because one theory or another is true, but that human potential finds a way. It’s not the concepts put into action or the theory of why its working that makes life work, those ideas were always flawed, because ultimately truth and the perfect theory doesn’t exist. It was people making the best of what ever situation they are living in that worked, the adaptation occurs in the moment and is forever adjusting to a new situation. “You don’t get to vote on the way it is, you already did”
The world is created and continues to be created by us, by our words, and how we choose to be. “The truth doesn’t mean anything, it just is.” “Man keeps looking for a truth that fits his reality. Given our reality, the truth doesn’t fit. If you experience it, it’s the truth. The same thing believed is a lie. In life, understanding is the booby prize.”
Necessity is the mother of invention, and when the "shit" hits the fan, and third world countries start attacking us for food; we will find a way.
“You’re god in your universe. You caused it. You pretend not to cause it so that you could play in it, and you can remember you caused it any time you want to.”
Quotes by Werner Erhard
ThomasGall, you seem to be a man with good heart. You say many things that seek a solution as an earnest man might.
ReplyDeleteThis Mr. Erhard seems to be important man for you. But he is not here with us. I am much more intesested in what ThomasGall embodies from the depths of his being.
What original insights come to you from the place beyond your mind? What is in your heart? What do you do to change your economy? To create many positive ripples that expand from you outward to others?
Yes, this I would find most fascinating. Will you play that game, Mr. ThomasGall?
With most sincere interest,
Trinh
Trinh,
ReplyDeleteYes I am game!
I added Mr. Erhards words because he uses Zen concepts. Mr. Erhard loved the works of Alan Watts who brought Zen to the US. I, often, turn to these aphorisms because they are so well put, and I am not a word smith.
But I will attempt to as you say, to play this game.
Your rules are to state, how do I personally deal with finances, which will have more insight and usefulness to us, then a conversation about the global outcome of economics over time.
I personally, believe that I have to be strong first to truly help others, so I have worked on eliminating this huge debt problem that I bought into with credit cards during my college years. I choose to wait for major purchases because I don’t really need that IPOD or Play station to make me happy. I have chosen to remove the TV cable from our house, so that we are not influenced by commercials. I have worked on creating a budget and a 10 year plan for where we want to be financially for the possibilites we want to create in the future.
I want to still end this with another quote from Mr. Erhard :)
"Life is a game
In order to have a game something has to be more important than something else.
If what already is, is more important than what isn't the game is over.
So, life is a game in which what isn't is more important than what is.
Let the good times roll."
Your economy appears healthy, ThomasGall. Now, let us assume new rules to our game are this -- there is no thing more important than another; no way that is supreme; no person more valuable than any other. If this were truth, what is the value of your economy?
ReplyDeleteOne more question from this old man -- and please forgive me for I am no longer so lucid. What does Mr. Erhard's quote about this supposed game of life mean? Trinh is very simple and is not sure what to do with that man's words.
You are most kind, ThomasGall, to play with Trinh. It is his day off and he is in need of activity.
Kindly,
Trinh
Trinh,
ReplyDeleteMight I ask what country you are from?
If I were to say that all things are equal, then I have no need for an economy at all. But now, with your questioning am entering the ideal world, because this is not the world I know, rather a it’s a possible world I could live into.
Erhard or Zen might say that, "life is empty and meaningless, and it’s empty and meaningless that life is empty and meaningless" The intent of this statement would be to allow you to let go of your meanings, because its so easy for human beings in their search for theories or truth to forget or close their mind to other possibilities. The minute I say this is the truth, I have missed the boat. But since I am human, I will label and attach meaning to everything in my world, as I grow wise, I will actively remove moment by moment all these meanings and continue live in the question forever.
The more I come to know Zen, the more I learn the power of nothing, by letting go, I have infinite magic and possibility. The best part is that time, as actually slowed down, and I am living longer perceptually then I did yesterday.
Trihn:
ReplyDeleteLet me expand on the meaning of this no meaning...:)
New possibilities from the clearing called Nothing
Real life is magic: what IS, is beyond our imagination!
The secret is Be. Do. Have.
More on the subject called Nothing
I want to talk about this again, because the minute I achieve a clearing called nothing, life is created anew. New possibilities open up; real magic becomes possible… so I must continue writing, discussing nothing to reaffirm it in my life.
It really makes no sense; it doesn't even have any meaning. It's beyond reason of everything and anything we know to be true to say that the secret to life is getting to nothing. It occurs to us that life is just what it is. So we assume, we make life into our own meaning, we create our own reasons. We live in our own past and future because we think that what is, is nothing special.
But real life is magic, what is, is beyond our imagination. And because we make it into our reasons, our meanings, life becomes something else and we lose the magic in those moments.
Magic, miracles, possibility only become possible when we create a clearing called nothing.
A blank space must be achieved again and again to have everything and anything become possible in your life anew. And it’s always transformed from the way it was. It’s better than it was every time, this new possibility from the clearing called nothing. See, enlightenment is not a destination; magic can only become possible by the clearing you create once you get to nothing.
Magic can't be created from your meanings, reasons, past or future. Magic is created with words that you declare from a completely new space in the moment of now. You must attempt to reach the space of nothing, and then declare with your magical words your possibility, and finally share this new possibility with everyone you can. This will recreate your life.
Be nothing, then Be a new possibility, then share this new possibility, then do this new possibility, then you will have every possibility you desire for your life. Be. Do. Have... in that order, and the magic will appear in your life.
In the old way of thinking, you went about doing things, living in your past or future to be something, to have what you want, but this way isn't the path. Look deep inside yourself, you will discover the truth in what I am saying. It’s an ongoing process to get to nothing. In fact, it’s not even possible to be in nothing for very long. The minute you reach it, you empty your cup of life, life fills it again.
When you shut down your thoughts in meditation, thoughts come rushing back in. But if you are stuck with the past problems and beliefs/thoughts of your life, these do not serve you. You are putting your past or future into your present possibility. Thus possibility cannot be created, and we wonder why, so we must constantly reaffirm nothing to have everything and anything!
Magic can only become possible by the clearing you create once you get to nothing.
Be. Do. Have.
Your friend,
Tom Gallagher
thomasgall@aol.com
Truly Beautiful, ThomasGall!
ReplyDeleteYou have shown me something very precious. It seems when we write from our heart, from our place of knowing no-thing, as you say, we write from our well of deepest passion and are most eloquent. Now your words flow like poetry because they are not your thoughts or someone else's thoughts, but the life that springs from your being taking this momentary form of words.
Thank you for sharing your insight with me. I am edified and most grateful.
It is still mid-afternoon here in California where I visit, but this old Vietnamese man must meditate now before he clings to the beauty of your words and starts making them of great importance.
Peacefully,
Trinh
Trinh,
ReplyDeleteThank you, you are a great teacher.
I have learned more today from your wise questioning then I have learned from anything else all year.
You honor me with your time and caring listening.
The greatest gift of all in life is to be in the service of mankind, to simply listen to another soul is to truly create ripples in the energy of life's possibility. We are all connected and one.
The butterfly flaps it's wings and a young man bows in respect
Aloha,
Moki
Dearest Trinh and ThomasGall,
ReplyDeleteThe two of you have treated us all with a rare gift of open-heartedness. Your exchange has touched me deeply and left me with tears of appreciation on my face.
Would that our lives would always intersect with such beauty, respect, and honesty.
Sincerely,
Anna
While I entered into this blog this evening locked and loaded for a robust shooting match, it is apparent that to continue a discussion about the vulgarities of various economic systems hardly seems appropriate at this moment.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, as I am now coming to appreciate, the character of this particular community is, as Anna has stated, of a rare quality.
Thus, I will say nothing more at this juncture, lest I take on the role of a money changer in the temple. Neverhtheless, I shall return anew but with a promise to make more thoughtful contributions that meet the genuinely elevated nature shown here.
Sincerely,
Thomas W.
I’ve been clear from the beginning of this string that I didn’t want to engage in debate, particularly around which economic system is the better one, first because I have no technical expertise in the area, second, because the world currently seems to have an excess of those who are convinced they have THE way, all the while pointing in every conceivable direction, and third, because I am very committed to our stated purpose of trying to find ways of speaking to each other beyond the polarities of the already known. Thomas W. and Sunjab have given me much to think about, as have all the rest of you, and then Trinh and ThomasGall gave us that beautiful moment of transcendence that brought things back into focus for me. And KBF, unfortunately, I think I’m with Shayla as far as talking about it. I think those moments of grace might be better savored when left just a bit mysterious and kept as a fund of inspiration for later, when the grind gets harsh again.
ReplyDeleteAll that said, after standing by and observing this interchange for some time, I think we’ve cycled through a large part of the territory that might lead us into a new context for the discussion. Dot P. characterized it as a dialog between the right brain and the left brain, and I think that’s a solid idea. I was thinking about it, in economic terms, as the difference between the primary concern with quantitative vs. qualitative aspects of the issue, but I think that’s just another angle on basically the same idea. One camp is greatly concerned with metrics and standard of living, and another is primarily focused on the effect of our economic practices on the human and natural environments. As I have watched the discussion unfold, I have come to the same conclusion Dot P made. As long as the discussion devolves into a contest between two polarities, we’ll stay stuck. It’s like arguing over which is better, breathing in or breathing out. The traditional conservative/liberal dyad ceased to be interesting or useful to me a long time ago, and staying married to those kinds of positions will keep us mired down and pissed at each other. The current parade of banality masquerading as a presidential campaign should provide ample proof of that. I think Trinh broke it open when he invited ThomasGall to examine his “personal economy”. That illuminated another aspect of the polarity that I think we ignore at our peril. The left brain/right brain, the qualitative/quantitative, and now, the personal/collective. I don’t think we’ll progress much without incorporating both sides of these equations simultaneously, and further, establishing a context that’s broad enough to contain both sides while still leaving some room for new information to enter the process, perhaps information that no one has yet.
Our group has always been distinguished by a marked concern for the more transcendent aspects of whatever subjects we have taken on, and I find that to be one of the best things about being part of the discussion. But while I believe we absolutely have to stay focused on that, I think we’ll be making a mistake if we duck the really hard practical questions that the dialog between Thomas W. and Sunjab brought out and miss the opportunity to confront them. Instead, can we perhaps, after all the heat and movement that’s been recently generated, use what we’ve learned to ask ourselves if we’re ready to try and take some of these nasty, stubborn questions and use our collective abilities to establish that new context for discussing them? ThomasGall and Trinh gave us all a lesson last week in coming to the table willing to be open to not knowing ANYTHING, just to see what we can create. Can we apply that lesson to some of the really tough questions that were circulating before that?
To that end, here are some questions that I’ve distilled out of the discussions of the last couple of weeks. At least, they’re the ones I keep getting hung up on. I’ve said before in this forum that I’ve been in so many debates that I’m sick and tired of my OWN established opinions, let alone everyone else’s and I’m looking forward to the possibility of a discussion that goes beyond established opinions and “exchanges of views” and really starts fresh. I don’t know the answers to these questions, and I know there are many more, but I am throwing them into the hopper in the hopes it might start something and help me learn something. Some of them have shown up in other strings, but I think they remain relevant.
- When does the appropriate growth and renewal needed to maintain life in any living system end and metastatic consumption begin? How much is enough, and how do we figure that out?
- There is much talk and writing about the “natural” workings of the laissez-faire market system, and a lot of terms like “survival of the fittest” and other Darwinian metaphors arise in the commentary. However, I keep getting stuck on the fact that “the market” as currently established, is part of a system that has overridden almost all of the kinds of mechanisms that nature typically uses to balance itself in any other part of its own workings. As an example, one place where that question arises for me our relative inattention to the cost of our destructive, but “efficient” and “convenient” economic practices on the natural environment, which ironically enough, is itself the resource base that makes the market system possible in the first place.
- Is infinite and perpetual growth an effective standard when our resource base is so obviously finite?
- Can we conflate standard of living with quality of life? Are they the same things?
- Is there a relationship between personal economy and the market?
- Do we in fact have a responsibility to each other and to the planet that goes beyond the raw imperatives of the market?
I am offering these questions in a genuine spirit of inquiry, and I hope others will contribute many more.
I agree with many of the sentiments put forth by BKO. Debate is entertaining at best unless there is a more noble desire to actually expand one’s knowledge and deepen one’s understanding.
ReplyDeleteI must admit, however, as alluded to in my last comment, having a dialog with this group is not at all what one might expect and is more than a little non-linear. There appears to be some convergence of thought within this blog that ascribes to the notion that within any given discussion, the field of topics is wide open. It is as if there were some inherent and collective faith that everything relates to everything and that if we stir the soup long enough something worth dining upon will eventually appear.
While my initial reaction to this approach and your conversation was one of admitted condescension, I have gradually come to appreciate this conversational stew and its uncanny richness. There is indeed real value, it would appear, in this process of interwoven chaos.
Thus, with this group’s unorthodox dynamics in mind, and in order for us to make more significant headway with this discussion (and thus reinforce the invitation for us to rise above the level of mere debate), it has occurred to me that we would be best served collectively by returning to the most basic fundamentals of the topic.
Hence, I believe it is helpful to consider the origins of the word "economy". Without launching into a detailed etymology (and thus eliciting overt groans), suffice it to say that the word economy, at its core, signifies “to be the steward of one's home and resources.” For those who might find it interesting, this translation is based on the word’s Greek origins (eco or “oikos” = house; nomia or “nomos” = manage).
As one might imagine, the complexity of the mantle of “stewardship” naturally increases exponentially as one broadens the definition of what "home" signifies (home, city, state, country, the globe). The determination of who is steward at such expanded levels (and by what authority and with what declared responsibilities) is yet another element of consideration.
Thus, as we explore this topic, it would seem that we are actually raising questions related to the stewardship of our “home”, from a range of microscopic to macroscopic applications (the relevance of Mr. Trinh’s questions regarding “personal economy” take on yet more meaning in this light).
Therefore, with the foregoing as context, as I pose two queries, which while simple, are not at all simplistic.
A. Who determines the values by which one will govern the stewardship of one’s own resources?
B. Who determines the values by which such governance will occur at the expanding levels of the macrocosm?
You will of course perceive immediately that the further up the macrocosmic ladder one climbs, the more difficult these questions become.
Once we have explored these elements, along with others herein proposed, I am confident we will have made more meaningful progress toward building a greater consensus regarding the topic as well as a level of collegiality that might elevate our ability to learn, as BKO has suggested, aspects of the topic beyond our current base of knowledge.
Respectfully,
Thomas W.
Thomas W. I am in keeping your question of values and believe this is at the very heart of our understanding economy together.
ReplyDeleteFor example, there is a reason why Indian Rupee is weak (with respect to time) and is not yet an international currency and USD or Euro are accepted across the world and gained its reputation of strong money. USD and Euro are strong money because the issuers are able to keep their promises and not have ‘loss of faith’. This is a value that was developed in these countries.
There are people who ‘keep promises’ and ‘those who cannot’. This is ‘inequality’. To issue money or currency is not a great idea but integrity lies in ability or becoming competent to hold on the promises once made.
Countries or individuals who cannot hold promises are ‘undeveloped’ and those who have belief in meeting their promises are ‘developed’. This gap between ‘developed’ and ‘undeveloped’ is a matter of attitude for development and is painful to bridge, and is a discomfort in inter-dependence. This is not a problem of calculation but the principles at which calculation of prices can be based.
Similar to idea of ThomasGall about language creating, if a person delivers on words spoken, that person's words become powerful in eyes of others. This understanding is essential to stability of maintaining proper stewardship over one's resources and establishing confidence with others who will do business together.
I will give an example to show this more clearly.
Price (resistance to flow) is determined by the giver at the time of taking a decision. ‘Promise to repay’ is a measurement for accounting of ‘worth due’. There is a story of farmer, cart owner, and lady.
Cart owner in market does not have potatoes left for lady to buy and lady purchases from the cart owner 8 coupons issued by farmer who grows potatoes. She goes to farmer one day to get some potatoes.
The farmer refuses to give potato to the lady when she asked him. He should have given her 8 potatoes as she already purchased 8 potato coupons from cart owner. Measurement of worth then becomes flawed when demand-supply situations changes due to the farmer’s inability for a poor harvest or political instability or other circumstance.
A failure to meet his own promise creates ‘loss of faith’ in the ability of issuer of coupons. Promise of farmer in terms of one coupon per potato is now reduced. He increased the price (resistance to flow) of potato and asks the lady to revise the contract and treat one coupon for half potato. She can get only 4 potatoes against 8 coupons. Similarly, when issuer of coupons breaks the promise, the way he/she measures prices becomes matter of renegotiation.
‘Loss of faith’ in issuer of coupon (in this case farmer who issued 8 coupons for 8 potatoes and now changed it to 2 coupons per potato) has caused ‘erosion of wealth’. Price of 4 potato = 8 coupons (earlier promise of 8 potato). Loss of faith or wealth erosion is calculated at 50%.
Economics process in the village slowed down because to believe in people is at least 50% risky. How can people trust the issuer of coupon or anyone promising but cannot keep it. In India, People have more Rupees but they cannot buy goods or services they were able to buy before 10 years. Indian money has eroded its value and goods and services it could buy before ten years are no longer true.
This demonstrates how values of a household or country affect its economy. The two are bound together and must be seen as one continuous motion.
I will say no more for this moment, but will wait for these thoughts to be considered.
Respectfully,
Sunjab
HOUSEKEEPING NOTE TO THOMASGALL, TRINH, KBF, DOT P., SHAYLA, NYGUEN:
ReplyDeleteIn order to enable continuity in the conversation strings, I have moved your comments that are not related to the economic conversation (starting with KBF's question about how people experienced the change in mood in the blog) into the previous topic (Ripple Effect -- Where they have been placed in chronological order so you can follow the flow of your conversation more easily).
I would request that this particular string be reserved for the conversation on economics, in order for both of these deserving topics, and the wonderful dialog that is occurring amongst you all, to be more easily followed.
Thank You!
Christopher
Gentlemen and Ladies,
ReplyDeleteI would like to direct your attention to two comments made in the parallel conversation. JJ and Tarah both bring up a very relevant concern about the underlying belief systems (or values) that often form at the core of our societies (and thus are largely un-examined since they are held as utter, and often un-questionable truths).
With those thoughts in mind, I would pose three questions for our mutual consideration:
What are the underlying values upon which our current economic model (in the U.S.) are formed?
How do these differ from the underlying values of "competing" cultures?
What underlying values do we believe would create an economic model that is more well-suited for the future needs of our global economy and the health and well-being of the world population at large and our environment?
Sincerely,
Anna
Thank you, Mr. Harding for organizing the chaos that was rapidly ensuing.
ReplyDeleteI must say that with the banter now removed from this string, I find myself quite encouraged by the depth of questions and direction of my fellow contributors. Therefore, I propose that we desist with adding further questions to our discussion, for the moment, as I believe we already have an ample supply to stimulate a rather rousing and hopefully focused investigation into this topic.
The first query I would personally recommend for our review, is one offered by BKO in his/her very thoughtful essay. He/she stated:
"When does the appropriate growth and renewal needed to maintain life in any living system end and metastatic consumption begin?”
I am quite enamored with this particular question because I find that it simultaneously addresses those submitted by Anna (or at least provides a strong enough correlation to her concerns as to enable us to envelop them into this conversation).
In contemplating my own response to BKO’s thoughtful challenge, the term that struck me most profoundly -- and perhaps not surprisingly -- is the term metastatic (from meta-stasis, which translated into a more current and culturally relevant meaning could be said to take on the implication of the term "to overtake").
I find this notion of metastatic consumption or metastasis to be highly appropriate due to its author's intended medical parallel to the process by which cancer spreads throughout the organs of an organism.
BKO goes on to add, "How much is enough? And, how do we figure this out.
My colleagues, the underlying issues behind these three questions are precisely the reason I have advocated a controlled growth economy -- because, in the very manner by which the human body (and every biological form, for that matter) replicates and continues to grow and consume in order to continue living, our economies must so do.
The significantly more challenging issue before us, however, is that of managing such inherent growth responsibly (i.e. ensuring that it is healthy -- and as a number have advocated in a variety of topics on this blog -- holistic and sustainable).
To this end, I would also suggest that BKO elaborate further on his/her sense of the metaphorical application of metastatic consumption in hopes that we might discover something within the natural processes of our shared biology that might point us to a more useful understanding of this topic.
I look forward to our further conversations and must confess that I am rather surprised and delighted that I have been allowed and encouraged to continue in your midst in spite of my insufferable entrance.
Respectfully,
Thomas W.
Thomas W., I wanted to respond to your latest post promptly to let you know that, I agree completely about the fact that the questions currently on the table are a wonderful place to pause before going further, and I also agree that it looks like you, Anna and I are driving toward a common center. Since this is not my area of expertise, but an area of great concern to me, it takes me a while to collect my thoughts, so I may be a little slow on the draw. However, I have all your comments in mind and was, as you mention, also looking for the common threads between your last couple of posts, Sunjab's comments, Anna's recent questions and the other posts we've seen lately.
ReplyDeleteAlso, per your questions of today re: metastasis and that line of thinking, I think I should mention that we have a whole batch of really bright folks in the life science, brain science and systems theory who participate and read here regularly, and I'd like to solicit their involvement as well. Based on a lot of their previous comments, I think there's much they could contribute.
I will have more specific comments shortly, and I'm glad we've made it past the initial bumps to be able to start from here. I look forward to it.
Cheers,
BKO
I was going to wait for BKO to respond to Thomas W.'s question, but I know I'm going to be traveling this weekend and won't have access to my computer. Therefore, I wanted to add a thought or two to this discourse that, judging from BKO's previous comments, won't be at all out of line with his thinking.
ReplyDeleteMy friend, Anna, asked two questions that may possibly be entertained within the broader context of other questions, but also deserve their own due. She asked:
"What are the underlying values upon which our current economic model (in the U.S.) is formed?
How do these differ from the underlying values of "competing" cultures?"
My thoughts -- or at least the ones that immediately surfaced when I read her questions -- led me back to the fundamental question of underlying values -- and of our unconscious notions of what is true. The U.S. seems to believe that aggressive growth is tantamount to its survival. Because this belief is survival-based, in my opinion, and because the principles underlying it (such notions as "democracy," "freedom," etc.) are also at the level of unquestionable core beliefs, the end supposedly justifies the means.
The means, unfortunately and far too often, violate the very principles upon which the end is theoretically founded. The other challenge we face within our Western-centric economic models is that they are based on a premise of human superiority as it relates to any other life form or the ecosphere or the planet as a whole. Because we not only refuse to see ourselves, truthfully, as an inextricably connected part of the web of life, and have designated ourselves as the "stewards" of the planet, we have crowned ourselves with a decision-making prowess that we simply do not possess (as is evidenced by how drastically we have botched our roles as "stewards" due to of our unfathomably shallow point of view).
Any serious conversation we have about our "economy" has to include the fundamental values upon which we will build our models or we will merely recycle the same tired theories that have led us to the brink of disaster (or, as my mentor used to say, you can dress a pig in a Sunday suit, but at the end of the day, it's still a pig).
With regard,
Silvio
I found myself caught up, this morning, in the progress of our accompanying topic, which oddly I was drawn to in spite of my repulsion for our American fantasy surrounding spirituality and "transformation."
ReplyDeleteAs Mr. Trinh and his son shared the rich devastation and remarkable turnabout of their lives with us, I was reminded of why the insipid pabulum of our own national spirituality often rings so shallow and why I find myself unreasonably compelled to preach the Gospel of a Controlled Growth Economy.
It is this simple, my fellows. We human beings, especially when we rise to some modicum of power and privilege, become uncaring, insensitive bastards of the most heinous nature. I see this with far too much prominence in myself and thus, perhaps in some misaligned attempt to compensate for my own flawed nature, campaign to regulate the metastatic growth of our economies.
My grave concern is -- and I open myself up to solutions far more novel than my own -- that if we ignore this vile tendency of human beings and pretend that we may somehow start afresh and re-shape the economic leanings and deeper motivations of our species, we will merely be fooling ourselves into believing in the type of daydreams that the American enlightenment movements of past and present eras propagate.
Perhaps now, you may understand (though feel no compunction to forgive) my frontal approach and admittedly rude demeanor. I have lost, it appears, my patience with myself and the rest of our nation and quite possibly humankind.
Sincerely,
Thomas W.
Thomas W. it appears you are kind man after all. You talk tough and pretend insensitivity to protect yourself. This is understandable by all.
ReplyDeleteI have been too stubborn myself in trying to translate my concepts for all to see. Main principle of economics I propose are for us to realize that when we make larger decisions and intrude upon the economies of villages, towns, and less developed countries, we create a very unnatural balance in the larger picture of things. This is not seen by most European or American economists or those from China and Russia.
These larger more powerful countries are merely looking at their own country and economy. But it is too late for this even if one does not care about plight of poor countries that are thrown into chaos by such carelessness.
We have now reached a point in time where all things affect all other things and we see this right before our eyes. Until we understand the nature of most basic economies in villages and towns, we will continue to create havoc.
Yes, Thomas W., many men's hearts have turned cold and their eyes refuse to see the suffering of great multitudes of people. But we may change their desires if they begin to see long time implications of their selfish acts, if only out of selfishness.
Do not lose heart. Persistence may take many years beyond our lifetime. This does not mean we should stop and throw up hands to quit.
In appreciation and respect,
Sunjab
We’ve certainly all had our minds rearranged by the events of recent days, and I’m happy for the fact. I’ve had a devil of a time trying to wrangle the herd of cats that my attempt to write about this has become. Trinh’s very moving expressions yesterday, and the ensuing reactions, had the effect of concentrating both my thoughts and feelings to the point where I feel ready to speak in at least a basic way.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, Thomas W., I loved your term “interwoven chaos” applied to the activities of this bunch. I laughed. It’s the best description that anyone’s come up with so far.
And yes, I do believe that everything is connected, and that seemingly small events can have great impacts. For good or ill, my natural proclivities toward that view have been reinforced beyond all hope of return by training and practice. Talking with me can get really frustrating, because I’ll admit that I have a really hard time seeing anything from a strictly linear perspective. I should know. I talk to myself more than anyone else does. In fact, I’ll go even further and admit that I tend to be suspicious of anything that gets too strictly linear or mechanistic, because that isn’t how I experience the the world. I don’t, however, deny that perspective to anyone else or claim my own to be the final word. That would be rather too linear, wouldn’t it? :):)
In trying to elaborate, per Thomas W.’s request, on the idea of metastatic consumption, or whatever the hell it was I was talking about in that particular rant , I prepared various epistles, all of which were far too long and tried to make far too many points, so I’m going to suggest that we take one topic at a time here as we explore this values issue. Every point I start thinking about opens onto ten others, no matter how far I strip it back, so can we start with one and and see where that goes? Frankly, this whole thing makes my head spin, so I’m trying first to find a footing I can stay on long enough to orient myself and most importantly, stay practical and not take off into the thin air of speculation and fantasy. For now, I’d like to get some feedback on what is actually a very simple point that I think relates to all the points that have already been made on this string.
A comment I read recently caught my attention, which observed that the existing economic structures are failing to serve us “not because they are Capitalist or Communist or Fascist or whatever, but simply because they are too big.” The common run of thinking in response to comments like this runs the gamut from the conservative cry for a return to some idealized version of the 50s, when everything was perfect, which never actually happened, to the other end of the spectrum with folks on the left romanticizing their misperceptions of the native American experience and the belief that all will be well if we all just become folk musicians, move to the country and grow vegetables together. (Frankly, this last doesn’t sound all that bad to me most days, but I’m trying to keep my feet on planted on the actual ground here!) I think we can be sure of one thing. Whatever happens, we won’t be going backward, in any direction. Even if the bomb dropped tomorrow, those of us left would still be going forward from there, not returning to some mythical starting point to begin again. What’s out there right now is what we have to deal with, and a lot of it is pretty screwed up, as Thomas W. has pointed out to us.
Are we too big? And if we are, why, and where do we start working to change that? I have some further ideas, but I’d like to gather some other thoughts from you folks as well. I think that might help us tie together all the previous questions that are in play.
Most importantly, I hope we can keep our hearts in it as we do it, because without that, none of the numbers matter anyway.
I love these, I couldn't resist, please know that I only want to add a smile and some old words of wisdom.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that both of these sections on Transformation and Economy have stopped out of respect for the realities of a world that has few answers, but many questions.
George Bernard Shaw said:
"Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve."
"If the lesser mind could measure the greater as a footrule can measure a pyramid, there would be finality in universal suffrage. As it is, the political problem remains unsolved. "
"If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion. "
In friendship and the search for the best question.
Well, Tom Gallagher, you and BKO seem to have found very different, yet equally eloquent ways of saying it all.
ReplyDeleteAnd BKO, you're recognition of the realization that it all ties together and that to seek a beginning point in this discussion is like trying to find when eternity first began.
Perhaps the best path forward is simply the one where we put one foot in front of the other and examine our personal economy (I belive that was Trinh's suggestion some time back); and our personal values that underlie those economies.
And if we're very honest, and talk about the way our economy really runs (or perhaps has run in the past) and the values (not the ones we espouse, but the ones we have lived) that truly served as the foundation for those economies, we might see from this micro level, how the macro got the way it is and vice versa.
Worth a try?
Christopher
It appears that everyone has lost interest in this, my pet topic, and are headlong into a love affair with the conversation about transformation. How apropos one might say. But, in the unlikely event that someone might tune into our feeble little dialog here, I will venture to respond to Christopher's suggestion and to BKO's comments.
ReplyDeleteIf we hearken back to some of my previous comments, I stated that at its core, any economy starts with individuals who are stewards over their own resources. I also suggested, as BKO remarks, that the larger an economic scale becomes the more difficult it is to manage.
There is a theory (a practice, actually) that suggests that the most sound way to manage a large global economy is to demonstrate on a very small scale (perhaps a village, for instance) how a healthy, sustainable, socially conscious, and eco-friendly system might operate.
Whether it be villages in Africa or small towns in this U.S. of A., the idea is really quite manageable, because the power structure that overlays these smaller collectives is such that a town can decide to create a vision and enact it (so long as it is not in violation of Federal or State laws) without the interference of these large governing bodies which most typically are handcuffed by deals with the many devils with whom they deal.
If it can be done on a town level, most certainly it can be done in a neighborhood or family. The underpinning to this particular model is this: We as people need to re-concentrate our efforts creating change where we have the power to institute such change. If our ideas are truly viable, then we can use the myriad of methods now available to us to demonstrate our success, promote it, and share our best practices with others and vice versa.
Why do you suppose more people, therefore, have not adopted this most logical approach to change?
With grand curiosity as to your perspectives,
Thomas W.
Thomas W.,
ReplyDeleteI don't know about everybody else, but I haven't lost interest at all in this subject. I was just going to post later tonight about the fact that I have been quiet because I am wrestling up and down with it, and working to reconcile the whole micro/macro economic thing with my own thoughts, etc. So don't give up on me. I am keen to have the conversation, just feeling a bit like at the moment I'm getting a nice long drink from the firehose. Perhaps you and Sunjab and I are the only ones who find this interesting, but I find that an awful lot of the other issues we're dealing with on the blog and that I'm dealing with in my life are tied into, and often determined by, economic issues. I think there are important things in here for everything we're discussing elsewhere, although it may seem like hard sledding and not nearly as flashy as the more cosmic issues being discussed elsewhere, I think we neglect them at our peril. It's trying to break myself out of my own preconceptions about what it is and how it might be possible to revision it that's currently kicking my ass. I'm still in, and your latest post actually helps me crystallize some of it. Give me a little while tonight and I'll respond.
Good morning to you all from Mumbai. Thomas W., there is no lacking interest my good fellow. Merely lacking time.
ReplyDeleteYour recommendation to micro economy is one which I believe is very sound. It is one which will require much patience at first, but is a very important way for people to have a voice.
Why do not people do this, you ask? Because most peoples in all parts of the world have been taught that what they do does not matter. This is why I preached the message of how economy works in a village. I want people to see that it is cause and effect. That their own simple actions matter and cause others to react.
This ideas are very powerful. We should continue to converse about this topic for as BKO tells us, we are all dealing with this matter of economy every day.
With respect,
Sunjab
Thomas W.
ReplyDeleteI am listening, but this time I choose not to say anything, rather I wish to learn from you and your conversation with Sunjab and BKO.
I think we are all listening, please go on.
I may not contribute, but I am all ears!
And I thank you for your contribution to educate us on the economic situation in the world today, this should prove to be very enlightening and even transformational!!
Best,
Thomas M Gallagher
The micro-economy question is a great way to approach this, Thomas. I have been thinking and thinking about how to wed the personal economy question to some of the larger questions, and I am continually drawn to the things I’ve read about the micro-economic, village-based experiments that are being done in various places, and about things like micro-lending as a corollary, and about the fact that it seems to be working in the places where it's been tried.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sunjab that people feeling that they have no choice about things and no ability to affect their situations is a major factor that in why micro-economic experiments such as the one you cite haven’t taken more hold. Here in the States, I think there is an additional factor as well. We seem to have, perhaps because of how long our prosperity has lasted, become abstracted from the most basic facets of our experience. We as individuals have largely lost our direct connection to the roots of our food, our transportation, our housing, and the other things that make up our daily lives. Food comes from the grocery store in convenient packages. Gas comes from Chevron. Cars come from the dealer. Houses come from the builder and from the realtor. And all of it comes from money, is produced by money and the way we do it is determined by what will produce the most money. And we look to the government to keep it all going. In this economy, our economic values are largely determined by what will yield the most money and cost the least. We all know that there’s more to it than that, but we don’t acknowledge that, and because of the structure of our society, we don’t have much direct personal, individual connection to any of it any more. If we did, very few of us would be able to live with things like factory livestock practices or how we have historically dealt with mining and forestry, for example.
I think we feel, despite the propaganda to the contrary, that we are also disempowered even in this “democracy” by structures that have become too big. I think the fact that our economy has become so thoroughly monetized, to the point where the flow of money itself has become a major part of the economy, i.e. the money flow has itself become a good and a service, has helped us along in the process of divesting ourselves of our responsibility for what we are consuming, which makes it much easier for us to be convinced that more consumption will make us happy and substitute for the connections with each other, with nature, and with ourselves that we’ve given up. And because we’ve lost that, we’ve become fat, lazy and insufferably self-satisfied.
So, on a personal level, this whole idea hits very close to home and that’s part of why I’ve had a hard time collecting my thoughts about it. I mentioned in an earlier post, that I have never been more miserable than when I was economically the most “successful” because, I know now, that although I did it the way the society trained me to do it and fulfilled all the requirements and got all the goodies, I basically traded my soul for it all, all the while never noticing what I had lost until it was too late. When I pulled the rip-cord, I went back to very nearly zero, and have slowly been reclaiming myself, this time with as many of my original parts as I can find. That includes a much slower pace, a much simpler life, paying attention to where my food comes from and learning to cook it from scratch, beginning the slow process of revamping my transportation methods, getting out of debt, and generally reconnecting to the basic stuff of my life. I had no idea how many layers there are to that process, and although I work on it every day, I am gaining a great appreciation for how deeply I have become mired in the disconnection and the abstraction of this system and how much work it’s still going to take. But it is working, and I have noticed that it’s having a very strong effect on those around me, and the speed with which the synergy develops is heartening to me. Christopher can attest to the power and speed with which the small efforts of individuals in our circle have joined very quickly to start a fairly powerful node of discussions and activities, all devoted to exploring new and better ways to negotiate our personal economies, ways that include the human and natural factors in the equation, and in fact, won’t work without them. I am finding that my ability to reconnect to community and life in general is reawakening via this process. It may be small, and it may not be enough to counteract the “uncaring, insensitive bastard” factor, but then again, if enough of us stop buying the shit those folks keep making up for us to deal with, perhaps they’ll change their tune.
Part of the reason I’m so concerned about this issue is that professionally, I have been involved in healthcare for a very long time, and there are very few areas in this country that are more heinously out of balance due to purely economic factors than that one. Earlier on in this blog, some very sharp financial folks came up with some really interesting ideas for a human-scale community health center based on the credit union model that was, from a health care perspective, quite analogous to the village idea you detail above. It’s one of the main reasons I can’t let the idea of facing our economic issues go, because I know that in health care, our problems are not nearly as much due to lack of medical knowledge as they are due to needless fiscal excess built into the system. And if it’s true for health care, then it’s probably just as true for our food and water supplies and our transportation and everything else.
And Sunjab, since you hail from a country that is much different, but coming on economically, as I understand it, like wildfire, I would be very interested in your perspective on this as well.
I must say, I'm rather pleased that we all seem to have found our way to the same pathway in the jungle. Perhaps we had been standing there all along, but with me swinging my machete about and being such a pompous ass, it was difficult to tell.
ReplyDeleteBut back to your point, BKO. The "credit union model," as you refer to it, is precisely what I'm speaking of when I promote a controlled growth economy. Large-scale economies are beyond our control (though governments and over-confident economists like yours truly seem to think otherwise). The current recession (and yes, we are in a recession contrary to the spin propagated by the Washington propaganda machine) is ample proof of our growing inability to predict and manage a system that has become overwhelmingly entangled with competing agendas.
The small-scale economy, on the other hand, is much more controllable (there will always be unpredictable factors in any economy, though the further one reduces the variables, the more one finds an ability to create more predictive models). Communities, cities, even to some extent, states, have a far great ability to create guidelines and plans that enable the local constituents to have a direct hand in bringing their local economies back into a realm that supports and grows local businesses and that incorporates national divisions housed within local communities as local (and requires that they act accordingly).
Outsourcing is currently a viable option for a very simple reason. As you've elaborated well, we have become out of touch with the realities of food production and the production of other goods and services. Furthermore, because we have become more committed to the accumulation of disposal products as opposed to quality goods, we are highly vulnerable to the temptation of lower prices which naturally enables global corporations to draw upon global resources to meet price demands (which naturally require cost reductions).
There is another factor that plays strongly into this entire quagmire and that is the stock market, its globalized nature and the short term mindset of a growing number of investors. Since most U.S.-based companies are driven my a quarterly mentality, the reduction of costs and expansion of profits becomes an incessant addiction which satisfies the appetites of stockholders, but creates potentially unforeseen risks long term. Locally owned businesses are able to operate, to a large extent, outside this wildly unpredictable menagerie and thus could, if there were a local vision that infused this value within a community, be less pressured by price and cost sensitivities.
And this is where my lack of faith in human kind enters in. We tend to be greedy, short-sighted, self-serving bastards. Add those most admirable traits with a general malaise, laziness, and convenient belief in our own disempowerment and you have -- well, you have precisely what we are experiencing our world today.
I'm salivating just thinking about how deep, layered, convoluted and complex this conversation could become, but I'm going to restrain myself like the gentleman I'm not, and wait for some input from our Indian colleague to see what additional insight he might provide. Good fellow, as you say, what wealth of wisdom might you lay on us?
With piqued interest,
Thomas W.
I am agreeing very much with what Thomas and BKO write.
ReplyDeleteIn India and other parts of the world there is also complication of religious beliefs for some. This caste system that India has in its mind still troubles us even though we are in the modern era. It is in people's minds from generations.
But we have also made much progress in our country. Even our services centers for many US companies comes about as an example of the type we speak of. One must remember that is was the enterprise of smaller economies which were willing to partner with big US companies which created very clean industry in a country where global companies have often polluted and created unsafe work places.
But to speak of micro economies in smaller villages or cities there are two factors that we monitor closely. These we advocate and struggle to create each place possible.
First factor is the need for strong leadership that has a vision which is fair and which is not corrupt.
Second factor is education of people to understand the wide reaching effect of our actions. Our people have concept of karma but this is not sufficient because it can be viewed incorrectly as a fate from which one must accept.
The deeper teaching is important for people to accept and that is that from one's fate a person can make a different destiny.
We also work to help people see that karma comes very quickly now to nature and economies and families. It does not take generations in many circumstances to see the effect.
In many ways villages and smaller communities have an easier time with this second step because they have seen the effect of other's actions on their land and animals and family.
I would say there must also be third factor as well. And this is great patience. Yes, a patient commitment with the ability to keep track of the smallest steps of the right direction and to advertise these small steps forward as something important.
This is harder in many ways for US because it has been very privileged to move quickly and carelessly marking its progress only by profits. But there have been created by these more advanced countries many losses that have been hidden or ignored. This must come to a stop.
But this will not happen by asking nicely. People must prove there is a better way that creates very sustainable business without damaging others. Standing to throw rocks at the glass houses of others never creates a good relationship. But showing a better way that has the imagination and clever nature of genius will cause people to pay attention and want to imitate such success.
Enough of my thinking for now. How are you seeing these things from the place where you see the world?
Sunjab
I found this quote from Edward Abbey. I hope I am not off by posting it, seems like you guys are really thinking out of the box now and want something that will work, not just judge like most of us liberals do.
ReplyDelete"The industrial way of life leads to the industrial way of death. From Shiloh to Dachau, from Antietam to Stalingrad, from Hiroshima to Vietnam and Afghanistan, the great specialty of industry and technology has been the mass production of human corpses."
We have many Tom's speaking here. I was not aware this name was of such a favorite nature.
ReplyDeleteYour quote is provocative, yes. It seems that Mr. Edward Abbey wants to demonize industry. There is certainly much history that supports this anger and my country shares in this sad history as well.
But Edward Abbey is missing very important point. Industry is not evil. It is man who creates such tragedies from their selfish nature and refusal to see beyond the tip of their own noses.
Much industrious enterprises can bring life and hope to a village or a community. It can provide productive way for people to prosper and create empowerment for their children and future generations.
To demonize industry leaves us little choice. Industry or no industry. This Abbey seems to be a man who wishes to stir things up. Perhaps this is necessary, but I prefer a man who brings solutions with his complaints.
Sunjab
Sunjab,
ReplyDeleteExcellent point, and as I said, you guys are really thinking outside the box in a good way. I wanted to throw in the extremem example of a liberal like me who doesnt always take into account all sides as you three are attempting to do.
BTW.. here is some insight into the man I quouted and his words.
Edward Paul Abbey (January 29, 1927 - March 14, 1989) was an American author and essayist noted for his advocacy of environmental issues and criticism of public land policies. His best-known works include the novel The Monkey Wrench Gang, which has been cited as an inspiration by radical environmental groups, and the non-fiction work Desert Solitaire. Writer Larry McMurtry referred to Abbey as the "Thoreau of the American West".
For more info go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Abbey
You know one of my pet peeves (and this is no reflection at all on your comment Tom, because we've all fallen into the trap of using the labels) is that we've allowed ourselves to be polarized by the conveniently overly simplistic labels created by the media, pundits, politicians, and the like.
ReplyDeleteLiberal and conservative have long since lost their meaning in any real way. What I try very hard to examine is whether a policy or a leader or politico reflects the broader, deeper meaning of responsibility.
Conservatism, in its early years, was a movement that was created to ensure that our natural resources and irreplaceable environments were protected and managed. Now granted, what interceded as management was a thinly cloaked version of the fox living in the hen house, but nonetheless the original vision was one that is not too far from the "liberal" idea of environmentalism that gets scorned by "conservatives" today.
My point is, that as long as we allow ourselves to be divided into divisive groups we'll fail to ask the really incisive questions and demand the level of broad-reaching responsibility from our leaders and their policies that should be required.
Edward Abbey is a literal folk hero. His advocacy and radical activism regarding environmental issues is the thing legends are made from. He was the right guy, in the right moment, at the right time. And he followed his own internal passionate call to right a wrong at a time when nobody was listening at all.
The question I always am asking myself, and others who are interested, is: What is my (or your) passionate call? What is it we each feel irresistibly drawn to pursue -- not because we should, or we have to, or because it would make us famous, or because somebody is against us -- but because it was who we were born to be in this very moment.
That passionate call might change from one day to the next -- from one situation to another.
So in terms of this economic discussion, why I love the notion of looking at our personal economies is that it invites us, and maybe even challenges us, to begin to examine how we contribute to the larger issue, and what we're truly willing to do about it.
For me it makes me come head-to-head, face-to-face with my own preferences, with my tendency to choose comfortability and convenience over my wish for social and environmental responsibility. I get to take the long deep look into my own addiction to consumerism or to my own sense of radical self-importance.
Sitting with this helps me become much more mindful, aware, and present to the deeper realities of this day-to-day life that is a microcosm of the larger picture. Or so it seems to be.
Not sure about the rest of you, but the moment I stop being present and mindful of life, is pretty much the moment I slip back into the economy of greed.
Christopher
My friends, I have stood on the sidelines of these conversations long enough -- complaining to myself that we are missing the point. So let me honor the trust and relationship we have here and ask you the questions of my heart.
ReplyDeleteDo you accept full responsibility for the very real fact that children are starving and dying in Africa right this very moment; that AIDS runs rampant through Third World countries? That our First World nations have plundered and pillaged the world and have left "conquered people" in the wake?
Until we can answer a complete and whole-hearted, YES! to those questions, and accept the fact that we have personally done very little to right those and the other myriad wrongs in our societies; and that we literally live off the spoils of other people's devastation -- we are not ready to have a real discussion about righting the wrongs of economies, the environment, or the countless other social injustices that surround us and possibly even wage war against us.
Living in denial allows us to anesthetize ourselves against the realities of our world. Pretending that someone else is to blame allows us to live with our complicity.
Accepting responsibility creates a tremendous level of discomfort -- especially at first. But moving from the stage of false responsibility -- that of guilt and blame -- into the level of true ownership, enables us to feel a deep connection to life and others that allows the passion of which Christopher speaks to rise much more freely within us so that we will know our call and how and when to respond.
Without this primal level of honesty, I am afraid we are just jousting with ghosts instead of meeting the real demons that live with each of us.
Ellio
Are these questions serious?
ReplyDeleteYou can't actually be suggesting that we literally accept full responsibility for things that greatly exceed our sphere of control or influence? And if we accept full responsibility, what responsibility is to be accepted by those in the past, or of the nation states who directly participated in such atrocities?
Furthermore, I'm afraid I don't see how these questions will further the conversation in which we are currently engaged. They rather suggest an unseemly detour down a road with no solutions in sight.
I am also most curious. Do you include yourself as one of those responsible or is it just those of us who are accused of being a party to "imperialism."
Lastly, before I determine whether it is even prudent answer such questions, I trust you are exacting these challenges from a philosophical standpoint and not from a legal or literal perspective. Typically any admissions of guilt or inolvement regarding such historical inequities are followed by a demand for reparation. I say that somewhat in jest, but I am curious what you would propose in that regard.
Your prompt reply would be appreciated if you wish to engage a further response.
Thomas W.
Yes, the questions are very serious. But your are right, Thomas, they are unreasonable.
ReplyDeleteJJ has privately accused me of launching an attack and tells me I should apologize, so to provide you some better context, I'm not looking to cast blame -- though I'm sure it sounded that way -- and I'm certainly not interested in any kind of discussion about legalities.
I also include myself very directly in the dynamic and actually should have posed the question in first person.
My honest answer to the question, by the way, is "no, I do not fully accept responsibility" though I am working very diligently to get to "yes." I feel it is vital to gaining the clarity necessary to find real solutions. It is a very challenging process and is providing me a great deal of insight.
My questions, I should add, are based on what some refer to as the “principle of holistic responsibility” and it is one of fundamental importance. I believe that it directly impacts this discussion. If you are willing to take a momentary pause, I believe you will find this side-bar discussion to be well worth it.
If not, I will accept that I have selected an inappropriate time to interrupt.
Ellio
I am really enjoying the dialogue that is going on between the three of you, Thomas, BKO and Sunjab. I am not versed in economic studies however I would like to participate by sharing an example of a micro-economic model that I recently came across. I read an article from Scientific American entitled “Conservation for the People”; it’s found in their Oct. 2007 issue. The article is worth reading because it is a very powerful example of restructuring going on in the conservation movement. The paradigm shift that is currently happening I found to be amazing and exciting (I experienced relief from the despondency which so often accompanies me when I look at states / affairs of the world; I think an answer is to look smaller, it’s less overwhelming and paralyzing!) and so happens to tie in with this smaller model of micro-economic you all have recently discussed.
ReplyDeleteBasically the past two decades with the environmental movement have been on saving species; this myopic view does not include the human element and therefore has isolated humans; ultimately resulting in people considering themselves outside of an ecosystem let alone knowing what one is ( as BKO suggested, my food comes from the supermarket not from the ground). The paradigm shift is this, “emphasize saving ecosystems that have value to people. Our plan should save many species, while protecting human health and livelihoods.” The article goes on to explain that an ecosystem has an economic value and when not protected, certain business within the region as well as health of the local population can be indirectly impacted in a very substantial way. The article gave an example of how vultures dying in mass numbers due to renal failure because of an antibiotic being used in the India farm industry created a rise in carcasses, which in turn became incubators of anthrax. The feral dog population then exploded by consuming these dead cows and rabies became a huge threat to the human population. So the conservation movement has realized that education and combing the interests of local communities, business etc to help humans understand the links that exist between them and there local ecosystems is extremely valuable and has revealed several price tags to be aware of.
There were other examples spoken of where viable solutions created means to use resources in sustainable ways, which not only protected the health of the ecosystem, but created jobs and boosted the local economy therefore creating a win win for all. What is also apparent in this model is the inherent flexibility due to the fact that you are considering a region not a country; it’s on a smaller scale. This is manageable in the psyche of people, because people then have a more direct experience with their personal economy weaving into the fabric of their local economy which is supported by a healthy ecosystem. People seem to get behind it unlike the disenchantment that comes along with having gotten too big. An example to explain what I mean is one I think we have all experienced. Do you recall years ago when you would walk into your bank, the attention and personable services you would receive. What happened? The bank was bought out by a larger entity and it became difficult to establish personable economic relationships because local power decisions were stripped from the former staff and broader rules and regulations were implemented. Overnight you became a number no longer a vital customer that supported that local economy. Often times when a business becomes bigger they have difficulty maintaining flexibility which is required to respond to the individual relationships that maintain balance between people and a local economy and possibly the local ecosystem so yes I so agree with this micro-economy as definitely a viable approach.
I was watching the weather channel the other night and there was a segment shown about carbon emissions and how the trucking industry is a huge carbon polluter because trucks have to idle to keep the cab warm. Apparently two brothers were in a heated discussion regarding this carbon footprint issue and the one got up at 4:30 am the next morning and drew up a solution, then went back to bed. He designed a heating & cooling system with TV, phone and internet services all in one, which the truck driver could pull up to, insert into the cab and no longer need to run his truck. Yes it required electrical energy to do so; however the rearrangement of energy resources used was estimated to save 11 million tons of carbon dioxide in its first year. This man made a new business literally over night and helped cut fuel costs for the trucking industry as well. Yes we often base our Business ethics on the competitive statement of Survival of the Fittest, but now that we have taken a closer look we realize that nature is in a dynamic balance of interdependence that has supported and sustained an immense diversity of species for thousands of years; sounds like a solid business model to follow. So what’s our new economic motto “Interdependent sustainable Micro-economies?
Regards,
MAK
Ellio, you're a passionate guy. That's one of the things I've always enjoyed about your comments. But, as you've noted, you did kind of kick the door down and come storming in on this one.
ReplyDeleteI think I know where you're going with the idea of holistic responsibility, and I agree I think it can be a valuable side-bar. But it could, as Thomas W. be a total detour that takes us off topic.
Several of our community members have suggested that I set this up as a separate topic (not at all a bad idea), but if you feel you can make it directly relevant to where we're headed here, let's give it a try and see where it goes (we can always move it to a separate conversation, if needed).
And, like always, balancing passion with not "launching an attack" seems to advance the conversation much more productively.
By the way, I just read MAK's response which is an interesting bridge to the ideas we've been discussing and Ellio's questions.
Thanks,
Christopher
All right, my friends, I can see I've been too indelicate in my approach. Maybe I was just longing for the times when Thomas W., came barging in with "guns a blazing," as Anna put it. Or, to be more truthful, I think I wanted to shake things up so that we would not get trapped in theorizing yet again (that is a reflection on the frustration I experience in my own life).
ReplyDeleteMy plan did not work as intended, obviously, and I now realize that the way I posed my questions made them sound absurd, like the ramblings of a mad or overly passionate Latin man. The questions are, in fact, very radical, but they are not crazy.
If you will give me one moment, I will walk you through the logic of holistic responsibility so that you will hopefully see the benefits this method brings.
According to this principle, the greatest problem we face in our world -- that of un-holistic detachment from the impact we each have upon each other and our planet persists because we fail to see and accept our connection to the problems or outcomes that occur around us (this is point on, I have to say, with what BKO addressed and what MAK has added) . By accepting ownership for these outcomes (i.e. I see that I am connected, even if the outcome is six degrees from me in another country) -- I begin to understand how I do affect the outcome (even as a hundredth monkey) and can therefore play a role in changing that outcome.
Accepting "full" responsibility does not mean "sole" responsibility (and this answer’s Thomas W.’s question -- which is the trap that we of the linear world always stumble into). Instead what this signifies is that I acknowledge that I am a direct contributor to the outcome (perhaps one of many who contribute even if it is through my inaction). This acceptance enables me to stop blaming others and to begin including myself as part of every problem and therefore -- and this is the powerful realization -- part of every solution. Don’t shut me off yet. I will explain how this is productive.
We have discussed before in this forum that all things are inter-connected -- that we are all part of the web of life. I assume that such statements were spoken with sincerity. Holistic responsibility invites us to acknowledge that inter-connection in real time.
You see, my friends, once I include myself as an owner of the outcomes that are ongoing on this planet, I immediately realize that I now have the opportunity (and am even compelled) to consciously choose which of those many outcomes I will focus on – and which I will not. Or perhaps I will choose consciously to do nothing about any of them. This is not about judgments or creating guilt scenarios or moral overlays. It is about us getting real with what’s going on around us and consciously making the direct connection to the truth that we are inherently part of the problem and solution in every moment. This method challenges us to prioritize and live our lives connected to our purpose and passion, recognizing that as “unimportant” as we are, that we are also vitally important in the very same moment.
This is what was meant by my questions. I don't suppose many of you read beyond my "madness" though. It seems as though I would have had more of an amiable response had I written my first comment, as I have here, with more of a calm and logical approach.
This is very frustrating to me because I am not always calm though. Do you know what I mean? And I often feel constrained and hemmed in by this “stiff upper lip” British-sytle approach to how things transpire in much of the Northern hemisphere.
Sometimes I think we need to scream, to wave our hands about wildly and say, “Stop!” But as Trinh has always counseled me, I need to adapt to my audience.
I’ve done my best do adapt with this explanation. My hope (and it’s a very ardent, passionate hope) is that you understand what I am trying to share with you, for it something very near and dear to me.
Ellio
YES! That's my answer to your post Ellio (on all counts).
ReplyDeleteAnd I while think it's clear how what you've said ties to this particular topic (and probably to every other), just to be redundant and bypass assumptions, I'll attempt to make the logical tie.
When we talk about our personal economy (our own buying habits, the underlying values that serve as the foundation for the way we view, respect, consider, and utilize the resources we think belong to us and those we consider to be external resources) I know I don't always see that my seemingly very small cog is part of what drives the much bigger machine.
With that in mind here's a multiple choice question:
If all the little cogs decided to turn the other direction, it's possible the big machine would a) grind to a halt; b) adapt and also reverse direction; c) -- and likely our worst fear -- send in a mechanic to "fix" or remove the little cogs that are spinning in the "wrong" direction; or d) -- and a multiple choice favorite -- all of the above.
At some level though I think the vast majority of us have those four scenarios playing in our heads and so that noise runs in the background of all of our thoughts and conversations and dreams (it's part of that unconscious sabotage the goes on as our security system tries to keep us out of danger).
So Ellio's questions invite us -- and it might seem like a pretty unnerving invitation -- to bring the background noise into the forefront and deal with it honestly.
Wow! I wonder if that would mean that I'd stop having that damned static in my head and would be able to think more clearly -- or better yet -- simply be more clear and act clearly, cleanly, with awareness and without over-thinking.
Now there's a concept!
It is a rare occasion when I am proven to be wrong. However, when this does occur, I am man enough to admit it. Ellio, I allowed what I considered to have been an overly passionate approach to prevent me from seeing the deeper rationale and underlying logic embedded in your questions.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, I must agree with Christopher’s assessment. Though I had not framed it within the same philosophical model you have adopted, the principle of holistic responsibility is directly relevant to our conversation here and is, precisely for that matter, at the heart of what I’ve been endeavoring to communicate from the moment I set foot in this frustratingly endearing and somewhat addictive discussion group.
Thank you for having the principles and the patience needed to withstand our doubts.
A hearty handshake of welcome to you,
Thomas W.
P.S. I am going to further ruminate on your entry, Ellio, as it deserves more attention prior to additional comment.
I am also inclined to look more thoroughly into the highly suggestive multiple-choice "quiz" that our host offered. There seems to a subversive air about it and I just am not able to put my finger squarely on it yet.
Might you be willing to unveil any hidden agenda wrapped within your comments? Or has my imagination gotten the best of me? Are you not insinuating that a conspiracy exists? If so, who you are fantasizing might be at the heart of such a scheme?
In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me-and by that time no one was left to speak up."
ReplyDelete-Reverend Martin Niemoller
Thomas W., you've attributed too much to my comments. If there's any hint of a conspiracy in my quiz it would be referring to the psychological conspiracy that exists in every culture to keep people conveniently in the box.
ReplyDeleteI'm with you though. Let's keep moving forward, taking all that's been offered here as fuel for our discussion.
Thanks!
Christopher
Hello all,
ReplyDeleteI am reading and thinking a lot based on the most recent posts, and I need to marinate a bit yet before I have anything to say that feels coherent, but in my cyber=travels, I've run across a website created by some folks who are actively doing, on a municipal level, the kinds of things we're talking in, through and around. Thought it might be fuel for some additional thought as we go along, as it has already been for me. The site, if you haven't already seen it, is:
www.willitseconomiclocalization.org/
Cheers to all.
Thanks for the reference, BKO. I checked it out (and hope others will do so also). It's very encouraging to see that a number of cities (you can access links to other cities and communities from that site as well) have also taken matters into their own hands in a very proactive, productive way.
ReplyDeleteRipples in a pond, creating more ripples. Very cool.
Gentlemen, and Ladies, too of course, it's a helluva week for me with the elections in high gear and a variety of other strenuous schedule items barking at me for attention.
ReplyDeleteBut by way of an update, I took the opportunity to scan the Willits website. Excellent example of precisely what we're discussing. Sunjab, haven't such communities existed in your sector of the world as an everyday way of life for literally thousands of years? Please, our good fellow, fill us in.
More upon my return.
Thomas W.
I see that terrible storms have been in the United States. We are wishing you are safe there and without harm.
ReplyDeleteI would also like to say that Thomas W. is very correct. The example of this place of Willits is one of returning to the idea of original community or villages that were the foundation for civilisation and which have continued to exist much longer in countries that would be said to be less developed.
These people in Willits, they should be congratulated because in today's more complicated world they are navigating much more difficulties.
With the liberalisation of the economy, India has become one of the fastest growing nations in the world. This rapid economic growth has also had significant impact on the social front of our people. Social indicators have improved, yes. Literacy levels have also risen, while death of infants has declined. However, it is widely felt that this is not sufficient. The rate of social development needs to escalate in addition to this and economic growth needs to be backed by sustainable development or much damage could take place to our land and our people.
In our modern age the wisdom of the village leaders has been lost and the people no longer understand the cycles of the earth of flow of energy. A number of efforts initiated by Government and non-government agencies on are working towards sustainable development of communities and the environment and to educate.
So we can learn much from our past, yes. But we can also learn from how other villages and communities in our world are doing these things. We need to return to the wisdom of the ages and bring these together with the knowledge of today. This is valuable for all.
I was smiling that the kind lady asked a question about Vedic Mathematics in speaking of manifesting. This ancient wisdom is also applied to economics to better understand how larger systems function. There is much excitement in this way.
More time is needed for me to tell you of my vision of this important development of micro economies. But I must go now to a meeting and shall write more tomorrow.
A good day to everyone,
Sujab
Dear friends,
ReplyDeleteThe main concern of our economic and future situation are the energy needs of humanity. I wanted to put forward research I found on water as an energy source. I don’t know much about this and have only seen a fiction movie on the subject of water being a source of unlimited potential. This is not a new idea, I just wondered with all the great scientific minds in our group, if anyone can judge this idea as having any merit. (Link below) Or add any valid research on the subject because it seems like such great solution, if it ever becomes a reality.
I liked his paper, and am very hopeful, but like the movie, I wonder if such technology would ever be allowed to be put in place if his this theory or any new ones every develop.
http://noblefuse.com/
Thanks again, just throwing out ideas.
I hope I don’t distract this conversation too!
Best,
Tom
Yes, Tom Gallager energy is of great concern to people everywhere. This provides excellent example of mico-economy's power. If we wait for those who profit from oil to set down their money bags we will be waiting to cows come home. No, we must find alternative means and we must understand very deep implications of each proposed path.
ReplyDeleteWater which proivdes a means for deriving hydrogen is challenging for many reasons the least of which is not that this would make no longer useful the oil of many countries and wealthy people. They cannot allow this to be and so it will be ignored.
But cities can support companies who pursue such cleaner technologies that do not upset the natural balance of good growth such as with corn.
There is much power to be reclaimed by the people if they learn to concentrate their power where it is still in reach of their hands. In closer reach we also find it is easier to live a life of higher principles for we see everyday the people who could be harmed by our greedy or thoughtless choices.
I too am not a scientist that could say if water is the answer for our energy needs. But we will drive our world into much peril if we continue to leave these decisions of such importance to those who have lost sight of the value of human life.
Good day,
Sunjab
Sunjab,
ReplyDelete"They cannot allow this to be and so it will be ignored."
In your economy, I imagine that people could go back to the old ways to live in balance.
In my world, I am not prepared to go back, nor trained to live such a life.
It gives me great hope to hear about the people of Willits finding a way to survive the future.
While the solution to energy is what we need, it will also, I suppose, be the destruction of our economy.
The end game, I think of a world economy is socialism, we will have to give up our way of life in order for the world community to raise out of such great poverty and suffering.
So my question is, am I off, while I have sat and talked with my idealistic friends, the thought occurred to me that the solution could be a bigger problem, thus as you say, "THEY", will never let it be.
Who are they anyways.... :)
I have really enjoyed this conversation, and hope the brilliant Thomas W has time from his busy schedule to return
.
Best,
Tom Gallagher
Tom Gallagher, my English is not remarkable so please excuse this confusion in how my comments may be read. I will labor to write with more precision and wish to be grateful to my daughter for her kind assistance with this response.
ReplyDeleteI cannot say with enough words how important it is to know that I am not at satisfied with how “they”, the oil rich countries and companies, have fought against clean technology. No not at all. This is the tragedy that goes with greed, but it is a fact of life in this world.
Sadly most of these companies have been American owned automobile and oil corporations who publish false stories and who buy patents of new technologies so they can shut them away in a dusty room. Karma is always just and seeks to teach us and the gloomy collapse of the once proud American car industry is telling this story now. Such losses fall heavy on the lives of those who had no power to say. Now their time comes to create a different destiny from their fate.
Second my friend I am surprised that you have such a backward idea of my country and people. Do you think we are so inferior that we can just go back to herding cows and living in the old ways? This is not true. India is very progressive country and the micro-economies we are creating to model bring the best of future and past. Our innovative ways of doing may look inferior to countries of more advancement but we have many lessons we have learned from our thousands of years as a people.
You may think we are idealistic for wanting to change and bring power back to our own hands. You are badly mistaken. Creating capability in cities and villages is not socialism and is opposite of a world economy as you say it.
Big governments and the very large corporations are dangerous, ill-informed and care about too many things than the needs of their people. Big American companies have killed many of our people with their carelessness and poisoned our lands. This is not untrue though it is often hidden. We have allowed this because our laws did not anticipate such greed and because some of our people became corrupted by the wants of the little mind.
Our vision takes power from the very large without violence by no longer letting such large organisations tell us our future. We bring it back to the hands of communities and cities to decide what is best. Gandhi showed us this way long ago and it was eventually was chased out and made to look poorly in many places because the decentralisation of power is not the way that big governments who sleep with big companies want.
Cooperation between cities and villages who manage their own economic resources returns to natural economy and is built on what is best for both according to values that honor each one's contribution. This following of the natural way brings a great measure of healing.
I will not say more for now for it is late and I feel some kindness from slipping from my heart. This is very troubling for me. My words are not well stated. Perhaps the brilliant Thomas W. can be more credible with his word for you.
Sunjab
Sunjab,
ReplyDeleteSome Americans are very ignorant of world cultures, I was, however, lucky to have traveled around the world and actually lived in many different countries growing up.
I know that there are Indian people who are living in the first world life style, but there are still a lot of people who are not everywhere.
Even in America where our poor live 70% better then most of the population of earth, we still have millions that have nothing.
I only wanted to say that we might have to return to the old ways, all of us, and some like me who have only lived with free food, housing, health care, water; I will not fair so well in such a world.
I still think that at the end of the day, whatever we do, the world will need to be a one world government of social democracy. I know the thought sends chills down ones back at the level of green and corruption of such a power. I am not talking about the insane rants of Ann Rand or the extreme of Stalinist Russian.
I believe that Vietnam was all about stopping socialism. The only country we allowed socialism to exist is in those countries where we occupied already, but they called it Christian Democratic Socialism like in Germany. I.E. if a country goes straight to democracy, our business leaders can quickly dominate that country, as is the case in South America where countries with so much more resources are simply under our control.
Where is our Thomas W, he is so good with the word...?
Best,
Thomas Gallagher
Lucille informs me that Anna has emailed her that the "other Thomas" has been requesting my presence -- a matter of national emergency no doubt.
ReplyDeleteI've been attending a rather frightening series of meetings, my friends, in which rooms full of otherwise very bright people became so lathered up about being the "answer" to the world's problems that no one ever so remotely bothered to explore the reality of the problems or their various sources. Most disheartening, I must say. In times past these gatherings would have generated a depth of brain power that would leave one inspired. I fear we have become drunk with the wine of our own egoistic pride.
Seeking solace, therefore, from the insanity of American politics, I return to my quiet Boston abode and steal a glance into our once promising conversation to find that we're now exploring the advocacy of Socialistic Democracies! I trust that at some level this must be an attempt to rile me up or to point at a distant absurdity so as to create balance in our conversation. Do not tell me otherwise, please. From the ultra-conservative rants of Washington politicos to socialistic fantasies in the same week, is far too much for one to bear.
Excuse me if I become rude or otherwise hostile, but has not our entire tête-à -tête been coming to the collective realization of the decadent indecency of "big" government? Have we not have elaborated on the gross inefficiencies and utterly fraudulent decision-making that occurs when power is pushed up the ladder to such heights that corruption is easily hidden? Have not our ponderings on the cost of greed upon the common man who is seen as a million miles below the sight line in such autocracies, proven our point sufficiently?
How we could possibly now contemplate that a World Government, wherein the "State" owns and controls all resources and determines their appropriate delegation and use? This is to me beyond the pale. Just who do we think would have the wisdom, discipline, foresight, and moral fortitude to manage such a Herculean task? Unless God Himself should step down from his throne, I doubt we should find such a one sufficiently capable or trustworthy.
If one would come to understand the birthing of socialistic ideals in their embryonic state such as was originally contemplated and prior to their confiscation by those who would corrupt them, the notion of communities and citizens controlling their own fate has been a populist idea that has arisen at every turn throughout the history of civilization. These nascent visions, however, have been quickly plagiarized by larger controlling entities that promise much and deliver little. Usually such gross placations have directly preceded and then followed the blunt trauma of brute force needed to bring the working class under control and to ease from their bruised fingers the vision of controlling their own lives; a vision that regrettably for a select few would have unseated the more “noble and rightful holders” of such power.
It is our incessant desire, as civilians to be "managed", however; to have someone else acquaint with us the answers; to have one more wise than we accept responsibility for our idiotic blundering and plundering -- that leads us to desire an omniscient, global parent who will mind us and insure our welfare.
Enough!
It is time for us to pick ourselves up by our own bootstraps, dust ourselves off, and begin to conjure real solutions that are manageable and overseen by those who are impacted by such solutions. Sunjab, in spite of his difficulties in navigating our written word, has said it well multiple times. We must recapture power at its most elementary level; then school ourselves up to understand the implications of our decisions. Furthermore, we must stop lying to ourselves about the simplicity of what is in reality a very complex challenge; and proceed with re-crafting our economies appropriately.
While I realize that someone may, in all sincerity propose and believe in the virtues of an oversized globally run monolith that acts in a beneficent manner for all, may I suggest we reserve that conversation for some future time when I am not present. My gag reflex is a bit irritable this week.
We stand on the precipice, my colleagues, and while I do not dream that our miniscule minds have access to all of the answers needed to provide solutions, I do believe and strongly anticipate that we have some -- and maybe even an important few -- of ideas that might contribute to a more reasonable solution.
The Willits community and others of its kind are showing that what we propose to explore can, in fact, be done. Let us therefore focus on what is working with these models which are living, working examples of the power of small. The time for being parented, is long past.
With conviction,
Thomas W.
Thomas W., it sounds as if you're experiencing what I eluded to in my quiz. It's not that there is a conspiracy at play in our world. It's much more simple than that. Those with power don't like to give it up and will go to great lengths to keep it. That's never been a secret and it applies to each of us in our everyday lives.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, I agree we have -- as a nation, and most likely amongst ourselves here -- become drunk with the wine of our own egoistic pride (and likely in ways we don't even see ourselves). That's why I also favor the more immediate checks and balances that can occur within smaller scale organizations. This is particularly effective when each person sees themselves as fully responsible on the individual and collective levels(simultaneously).
The collaboration of the small scale organization, with other small scale organizations, can then naturally make up a larger cooperative or collaborative organization -- one that is truly in touch with the on-the-ground intelligence as well as the more macro-cosmic views of the picture.
It would seem that true holism, which is in a very real way what we're advocating here, must be comprised of both the 300,000 ft. macro view and the individual micro views together (as opposed to one or the other).
Thomas W., in response to your most recent post, I will borrow a phrase that our beloved JJ is fond of using.
ReplyDeleteYOU ROCK!!!!!!!
I have been preparing my next set of comments, over the last few days, and have to admit I was taken somewhat aback by the entrance of "one world government", etc. into the conversation. Your very impassioned response to that comment eloquently describes the dilemma that many of us are stuck in and voices my own reaction much more clearly than I would have been able to. I would historically be considered a liberal, and you clearly would be historically considered a conservative, and where we find ourselves points directly to the absurd level that politics has come to, that neither position really represents any of us anymore. It's not liberal or conservative anymore... it's just stupid and self-serving and LAME. The real problems have become much more basic than that, and I am with you 100%. Let's meet in that third place and see what we can come up with.
I'll post some more later tonight or tomorrow, and Sunjab, thanks for hanging in there with us. I am greatly enriched by your perspective and find that your comments never fail to ring in my head for a long time after first reading them. Here's to a reinvigorated conversation.
Before we start building the gallows to hang Thomas Gallagher's idea, I'm not sure we even have a full understanding of what he meant when he looked to the future and saw a "social democracy" that governed the world. I do not mean to do his thinking for him, but perhaps he envisions, as Christopher has described, a more holistic solution.
ReplyDeleteTo pretend that we can solve our global dilemmas, in a time when all of our problems have folded in and upon one another, by only tapping the "power of small" is perhaps the worst form of idealism and myopia.
I heartily agree with BKO and Christopher. It's high time we move out of this notion of this or that -- one or the other. Why not ask ourselves how our smaller communities might collaborate? How might we then network and work together across borders and around the world to create self-governance that is socially and environmentally aware?
Is this not as plausible and reasonable a goal as the other you advocate Thomas W.?
Of equal conviction,
Anna
Thomas W,
ReplyDeleteNice! And in such great form.
I did want to restart the conversation, my ignorance of things I heard about in college shows. I only thought the world would go in this direction if great men of many words never put them into action like in Willits, I, as Trihn might say, "know nothing".
Please continue, I loved that upset rant, it was so passionate!!
I will have to look up many of those words...
Interested in hearing real solutions,
Tom Gallagher
You know your comment where you talk about Willits and its "great men of many words"? I think you may find it interesting, Thomas Gallagher, that at the time the Willits charter was created and signed, the founding instigators and signers of that proclamation included the Mayor, the Director of the Chamber of Comerce, the Willits Action Community Coordinator, and the Director of the Mendocino County Youth Project, all of whom were women.
ReplyDeleteI would suggest that it may have been their ability to speak fewer words, listen more intently, stop talking and start doing that brought the initiative to life.
But that's just the opinion of a woman of few words.
Don't get me wrong, Thomas Gallagher, you're cool in the oddest way. That's your special thing. But I have to tell you, you need to think a little more before you speak. Because I know you don't mean anyone any disrespect.
And when you do take the time to speak from your soul, you say the most eloquent things. That's all I'm asking for -- a soulful man with a slow hand.
Do you understand what I mean?
Tarah
Tarah wrote,
ReplyDelete"For me, sticking with it when I had people on my case turned out to be a really wise investment in myself (and has paid off for the people around me in a big way). And honey, no one has jumped on your case as hard as they did mine."
I know what you mean, and all I can say is, this is who I am, I have tried to be humble and polite for my mistakes, but I choose to still participate. I may come off like an idiot sometimes, but it’s more important for me to show up then to just watch and listen.
I was referring to "man or men" in a general term because we are all guilty of talking too much and not participating enough. Thank you for pointing out the fact that it took women in a small town to come up with such a great idea, where are all those men helping out? I think the biggest problem is our fear stops us from jumping in because we might not sound good or look good. I may not be the soulful man I could be, but I will try, please forgive the ramblings of a lost soul.
Your brother in continual growth,
Tom
Now see, that's the genuine man I like. No one can ask anything more of any of us than for us to show up, be honest, and play like it mattered.
ReplyDeleteWe're all on this road to learn, my momma always told me. And ain't that the truth.
Your sister in keeping it real,
Tarah
I have given a great deal of thought to our own proceedings here in this virtual village. In every community there are voices that may seem discordant to the majority. They may seem to be on their own path, marching to the beat of a different drummer.
ReplyDeleteIf what we speak of here in this economic conversation has any relevance to the other principles we have explored in our previous topics, then it is our privilege to learn how to value such voices.
Thomas W., you complained when you first joined us that people were intellectually bullied into complying with the group mind. Isn't that precisely what you've attempted to do today with Thomas Gallagher?
I don't feel we can pretend to be the advocates of a micro-economy that returns power to the people until we can begin to demonstrate that level of respect amongst ourselves.
I am with you Tarah, let's keep it real and be willing to notice when our own egos have been tripped up because someone had the gall to have a unique idea or present an out-of-the-box comment. What's really going on in those situations when we find ourselves upset? Isn't it simply that we feel a loss of the power of our persuasion? That we feel a loss of control regarding the direction of the topic? That we feel not heard?
Certainly there is room and should be a strong encouragement for us to correct one another's mis-steps and to do so with grace, as Christopher pointed out in our other topic. But I think we must also thoughtfully examine ourselves and ask, is there more to it than that? Why are we so threatened by such seeming distractions to our thread?
I applaud the efforts of Willits and other such communities whether their efforts were spurred by men or women. Somehow, though, if you read the introduction to the City of Willits, you begin to see the deeper ethic that underlies the economy, and I quote:
"Willits, even though it is a small community, is made up of people and businesses that are mighty in perseverance and toughness. A diverse and individualistic lot, we have a deep sense of caring for one another and our community. This has been shown time and time again throughout the years. From the beginning, our citizens have put aside differences and worked together to make our community a better place to live, work and play.
Pioneering ranchers and Native Americans living and working side by side; the whole town rallying together to help other communities in need; the raising of the Willits Arch (which stands today towering over Highway 101 as a symbol of our community's togetherness) all are examples of this "can do" community."
The guidelines for their meetings resemble those that our host has encouraged repeatedly to follow:
"Four attitudes are important for all meeting participants to maintain:
Responsibility: Participants are responsible for voicing their own opinions, for active listening to others, for participation in discussions and implementation of decisions made.
Self-Discipline: Speak clearly, to the point, without `put-downs' or excessive speeches. Try not to repeat what others have said beyond a simple statement of agreement. Don't interrupt others.
Respect: Be courteous to others and trust them to express their needs.
Cooperation: Look for areas of agreement and for the `third' alternative that bridges the gap between apparently opposing viewpoints."
Want to get real? Let's challenge ourselves to live the spirit of Willits right here in our virtual village.
Passionately yours,
Anna
A conservative new face to our blog -- a more complex sign-in process? I initially questioned if I had entered the wrong room. Could this perhaps be symbolic of turning a new page in our conversation? If so, how poetic.
ReplyDeleteI had not taken too many steps inside our intellectual sanctuary, however, when I realized that I was, in fact, home. People were launching complaints about me and others were capitulating. All was well. I could pretend that I am somewhat taken aback by Anna's comments for I have become accustomed to holding a rarely disputed place at the bully pulpit and being allowed to freely point the finger at others while pontificating without equivocation. It is clear, however, that this approach does not seem to work as seamlessly in this environment. I am forced, therefore, to re-think my strategy. Damn you all!
Seriously my colleagues, I am pausing for a moment to give some serious thought to all of your comments and to what collectively seems to be the clarion call of our current national consciousness -- the call for change.
May I be honest, since it appears that we have taken on the air of a confessional? I will always want to be in charge of any change process and any serious discussion. I feel that I know best, if I am to be direct, and leaving the fate of our economic dialogue in the hands of those I feel to be far less capable is beyond uncomfortable. Yet this group, while certainly not in possession of the most sophisticated knowledge in regard to this particular topic matter, does seem to have a willingness to genuinely listen to one another -- a quality that is all too rare in this day and age.
Thus, let me thus begin anew by offering an olive branch of consideration to our self-proclaimed "know nothing" -- the "other Thomas." Please, in the name of balance, share with us, young Tom, what were you thinking? What is it about big government and autocratic control that gives you visions of a better world?
Be specific. No more hiding behind the cloak of being a young knave, please. Anna is convinced that you have a bold and worthwhile vision. She claims I have squelched your genius. So speak up and defend your honor, young man. I have pulled up a chair in our communal living room and am all ears. The floor is yours. What say you?
I have reconsidered my challenge to Mr. Gallagher. It is unreasonable to expect him to start from scratch. So, while awaiting his response, I have a few thoughts for his consideration in hopes that it might stimulate his thinking and provide a fairer place from which he might begin.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, please consider the following:
Is it possible that what functions well for a nation’s economy at a particular point in history is not appropriate for another nation (or for that matter, all nations) with different circumstances, at dissimilar historical junctures? Or do you believe in a one-size-fits-all model?
Could it be that while socialistic democracies were the appropriate response for European nations following a catastrophic war which decimated large segments of their economic infrastructure, the same system may be in need of modification to more effectively deal with burgeoning immigrant populations, the increased levels of unemployment, over-burdened entitlement programs and a lack of basic entrepreneurship as is currently being experienced by those same nations at this point in history?
Might free market economies, at particular stages in their evolution, need to be reigned in by more governmental oversight in order to protect citizens as well as guard the long term interests of a national economy from being decimated by short term corporate or stockholder greed? How might such regulations be put in place in a manner that is governable and does not over-expand the size of an already bellicose bureaucracy?
When and under what conditions should such conditions be loosened and how might one measure the effect of the tightening and loosening of such regulatory actions so as to accurately know the actual vs. perceived impact of such decisions?
Since a vast percentage of the world’s population currently lives in what we classify as “under-developed” countries with small, war-torn economies, how might a socialistic democracy deal with the need for stabilization, economic stimulus, increased competency within its workforce population, while also fostering entrepreneurship? How will it compete in a global economy? Or will it be more appropriate for such a nation to first seek self-sufficiency?
Thus I have reviewed for the benefit of others not as steeped in economic theory as you and I may be, just a handful of the questions one may be sure you were already considering while crafting a global solution for the multi-faceted, many-tiered challenges that present themselves as one sets forth to manage first, second, and third world dynamics fairly and equitably.
These are, in fact, some of the very issues that the WTO, a quasi-governing body, currently wrestles with as it seeks to find solutions for small national economies. In their most recent meetings they determined that the liberalization process must preserve the existing margins of preference for products exported by small economies; small economies must not be required to give reciprocal treatment in return for the preferential treatment that they receive from developed members in the context of regional trading arrangements; and small economies must not be required to make concessions that are inconsistent with their development, financial and trade needs.
There is, however -- and this is what drives me utterly mad -- currently no definition in the WTO of what a “small economy” is. Some members have argued that a definition is necessary before any commitment is made. Other members do not want to embark on such an exercise. Hence progress, for all intents and purposes has been halted because of the organization’s inability to reach consensus on this definition.
Perhaps part of my reason for reacting so vehemently against the idea of a one world government of any type is that our current global governing bodies such as the U.N. and the WTO have made so little real progress in genuinely dealing with the countless issues that bubble up day-to-day throughout our globe.
If you have solutions to these questions that currently plague the world, Thomas, please do not let my brutish posturing detour you. You will be doing me and the entire planet a grand favor.
Thomas W,
ReplyDeleteI am glad you are interested in listening to the rants of a young man with only a degree in psychology. Although, I have spent my life living all over the world and speaking many languages, I don’t posses the in depth knowledge, that I am so inspired to hear from you.
Sometimes in my limited understand, given that life is relative, I assume that I can enter such a conversation with such big minds of many words. In some ways, I wonder if all the understanding really helps us. I have found the understanding to be the booby prize because it seems the youth of the world forge out and change everything in ignorance, while the old contemplate the many possibilities and do less because of the infinite number of choices that are truly possible.
I lived in Germany for 6 years after my service in the First Gulf War, and there I came to appreciate their Social Democratic system, which I understand was forced upon them. This system was probably possible because of the billions of dollars that was given to them by the US for the right to keep our forces in theater. Of course, we learned after World War II that it is not wise to keep Germans down like we did after World War I or they will eventually rise up and cause much chaos in the world. During my time there, I closed down the 97th General Hospital that was captured from the Nazi, and the Army Air Force Exchange shopping center that used to be a Nazi police station. I found that I was alone living in Germany with a German working permit and no more Americans in Frankfurt, at least. Mostly the draw down was a lot of posturing, so we could pretend that we were pulling out of Germany, but many of the forces were just stationed in other places. I got a job working for Joahann Goethe University in research and enjoyed many conversations with Doctor Forrester, a staunch conservative Kohl party Christian Democratic believer. It was during those years that the wall came down and I got a piece of the wall in Berlin, and my other boss Professor Dutziak, head of Ansitisology, told me how he escaped just before the wall came up in Berlin. He left is home behind in East Berlin. I, then, saw a system that worked well for West Germany, really struggle under the new responsibilities and cost of East and West Germany combined. After that I saw the boarders come down, as Europe was working on the EC.
It would seem that although I felt this was a good system, to apply the same system on a country as big as America might not do so well.
But I remember, when you first entered our conversation here in the blog, Guns a Blazing, how you were so quick to point out the realities of our current economic model as the only solution if you just looked at it over long periods of time and all these liberal ideals as ridiculous. So it seemed to me, that if the current economic model continues we will be forced, given resources available to implement drastic measures in the future.
These measures might continue to be free markets, but how can free markets work if there is no oil or resources to make things?
And in this time in the future, when resources and oil run out, and we have a world body in place, what might these countries implement?
Its obvious given our current experience of a world body in the UN that it would be horrible. But have we really given those wise old men a chance, it seems like Bush’s “no child left behind act”, we expect results but fail to fund or act upon the decision of that body too often. The point of the WTO and UN was to try to cooperate with all humanity for the better future for all, at least as an ideal. So my conclusion was that the world might end up in this World Socialism, if good men are not able to bring about change in the world fast enough to meet our current crisis.
Again, I know nothing but what I have heard, and wish to point out my limited understanding of the thoughts that I think I know. I did not want to distract from your direction of the conversation, when I threw out the word “Socialism”, it was just an additional thought in my words to Sunjab.
Anna is too kind because I love her nature and smart postings, to give me such credit. I guess sometimes I am lucky and stumble on the right words to say as occurred with my interaction with the wise Trihn.
Again, thank you for letting me listen and learn. I will need some time to answer your many question, but look forward to the chance to correct my misperception and educate myself on what I don’t know I don’t know. I am, however, more interested in hearing your thoughts, and am glad that someone like you dares to ask the question that no one in the world has the answers to.
Your friend in being passionate weather we look good or look bad, to have the serious talk and get across the truth that eludes us all,
Thomas Melville Gallagher
P.S. I remember eating great sausages in Denmark and Germany, and how under the EC they had huge arguments about the types of sausages that Denmark added to their product, Germany being the economic power at the time, was pushing their weight around on what they thought was right for all Europe.
It occurred to me how silly, it’s just a hot dog.
Well done, Thomas Melville Gallagher. You have explained the reasoning behind your prior position most sufficiently. Now let us cease this rattling of sabers and move on to explore “what we don't know that we don't know”. As others also have suggested, new models are likely required to meet the challenges of this emerging century. We must unearth it would seem a deeper understanding.
ReplyDeleteIn conclusion, young man, anyone who has rendered service to their nation, especially in a time of war, has no need to apologize to anyone for whom they are or are not. Stay hungry for knowledge, learn from your mistakes, and walk tall.
Respectfully,
Thomas W.
Tarah,
ReplyDeleteIt interesting that the UN chooses to invest in women in small communities in the third world because the men go off to work in other countries. Their experience was that the men were not as likely to invest back into the community as much as women. It seemed odd because many of these men work hard and send their money back to the community, but it was the conclusion of the UN that the women were a better choice to make their dollars go further.
In all our attempts to help small communities, it is the racism of each individual nation against their own people that stops passionate people of the first world that attempt to make a difference. The people in power do not let the food and resources reach those in need. The food reaches the docks, men come in with guns and take the food away, and the starving poor people never receive the aid.
Even in America, our modern institutional discrimination stops women and non-white men from succeeding in this country.
Just an addition thought to the challenges of making a better world,
Tom Gallagher
P.S. Thomas W, thank you, please go on with your passionate discourse, I love it, and respect you. We listen, because it is in our listening that we will make the greatest difference for mankind and cause the butterfly effect.
It's been recommended that we're at one of those junctures when combining the topics again would be wise. I'm going to look for some input as to just how to construct our next discussion, so hang tight everyone. We'll have a new conversation beginning later today or early tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteThanks!
Christopher
I sent off an email using Ben Stein movie by mistake without investigating what he was saying. On further investigation I learned that it wasnt the science fiction I believe in of our genetic material travelling here from another universe. It was something quite different.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed
I hope you can read the rest of my post without being distracted by the use of Ben Stein to begin my blog.
Best,
Tom
I sent off an email using Ben Stein movie by mistake without investigating what he was saying. On further investigation I learned that it wasnt the science fiction or metaphysical beliefs I hold to be true. the movie was something quite different.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed
I hope you can read the rest of my post without being distracted by the use of Ben Stein to begin my blog. My intention was very different.
Best,
Tom