By Tom Kando
(First written and posted on 12/16/08)
This responds to a letter by Michael Rushford, President of the
Criminal Justice Legal Foundation. Michael Rushford predicts that
releasing prisoners will cause crime to increase. True, some of the
released prisoners may recidivate.
However, the fundamental issue regarding crime and punishment in America - particularly in California - is that we lock up far too many people:
Our rate of incarceration is about 800 people per 100,000. This is by
far the highest rate in the world. Other post-industrial countries -
Canada, Japan, Europe - lock up between 35 and 120 people per 100,000.
One tenth our rate!The
relationship between crime and imprisonment is murky. It isn’t clear
what is cause and what is effect. The primary cause of the sharp
increase in crime during the 60s and 70s was demographic, not (just)
permissiveness. Southern states (Texas, etc.) punish the most, yet
they have the most crime. True, they may have to punish more because
they have more crime, but this is only a small part of the reason for
their exorbitant rates of incarceration.
One thing is certain: prisons make as much a contribution to
crime as to its reduction. This is especially so in places like
California, where a large majority of inmates consists of (1)
non-violent (drug) offenders and (2) parole violators whose recidivism
is often perfunctory (e.g. it consists of offenses like failing to
notify their P.O. before traveling).
Reducing our prison
population should have happened long ago, based on moral grounds and on
plain common-sense. Now, the state’s disastrous deficit ($40 billion
over the next 18 months) adds an even more compelling reason to do it.
Every single service in the state is under the gun, from health and
education to unemployment compensation and public safety. Yet, the Dept.
of Corrections’ budget remains sacrosanct.
Not only that,
but there is also the court-ordered additional $8 billion expenditure
which prison czar Clark Kelso is demanding to improve the inmates’
medical treatment facilities. Most of this money would be for “medical
space” for about 10,000 inmates. That’s $600,000 per inmate! Insanity is
the only word I have, for a proposal to spend more than twice as much
on one inmate as the cost of the average California house, while the
state is already descending into bankruptcy without this additional
extravagance!
Assuming that the authorities release the most
low-risk inmates, California will be better off with fewer prisoners,
whether this is done in order to reduce the deficit, or for humanitarian
reasons.
© Tom Kando 2014
leave comment here
Friday, June 13, 2014
Thursday, June 12, 2014
FURTHER RUMINATIONS ABOUT THE ECONOMIC CRISIS
By Tom Kando
(originally written and posted on 12/8/08)
Today, two random thoughts about the economic crisis:
1) My first thought isn’t very original. I’ve heard many people talk this way for a long time. I just want to articulate it:
The current crisis, epicentered in the US but affecting the whole world, is universally defined - at least by economists - as a lack of consumption. The credit markets are frozen, there is no lending going on, people aren’t spending (enough) any more, hence people are losing their jobs and everything is grinding to a halt.This view is practically consensual, almost common-sensical. It is shared by “liberal” economists such as Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman and Pulitzer Prize winning author Thomas Friedman. (I keep confusing these two guys, as both are regular New York Times columnists).
Both the lame-duck Republican administration (Paulsen, Bush) and the incoming Obama administration also agree - at least about the ends, if not the means: stimulate, stimulate, stimulate. While the fat cats want to “stimulate” banks, Obama wants to stimulate the people, through public works, etc. Both agree that there needs to be more money in circulation, more money spent.
In sum, Capitalism reigns supreme - at least the Keynesian variety, which says that you revive the economy by pumping money into the consumer sector (or something like that, if I remember Robert Heilbroner correctly) So, whether you go “demand” side, as the Keynesians want, or supply side, as the discredited Reaganites prefer, they both agree that the economy must resume growing. I suppose most economists would agree that for mature economies such as America and Europe, it would be healthy to return to a growth rate of, say, 3% or 4% (For countries such as China and India, it’s a different matter. Economists expect such countries to continue to grow at rates around 10%).
* * * * *
But there is another view: Why must economies keep growing? In time, shouldn’t they flatten out, as they indeed have begun to do in places like Switzerland and Denmark, i.e. in a few very rich, advanced, small, clean and environmentally sound countries? There, annual population growth is zero, and annual GDP growth is barely more. Isn’t that just fine?
Shouldn’t we consume less rather than more, at least those of us who are already living in opulence, who eat too much, drive around too much, live in houses that are too large?
Granted, there are major economic needs left to fill, and not just in the Third World. America’s infrastructure is abominable, as is its health care system, and growing segments of its educational system. Switching to wind power, battery-powered cars, mass public transit, completing the shift to electronic communication, there are trillions of dollars to be spent on all these things, and dozens of millions of jobs to be created.
Everyone who so desires should be able to buy and live in a nice (little) house. Great. People should also eat a lot healthier than they do, and this, too, might be more expensive.
So I am not suggesting that we should crawl back into caves. But one thing we should reduce is the production and purchase of garbage, i.e. plastic and metal things which are often useless, needless and environmentally destructive.
You don’t have to be a hippie to believe this way. For years there has been a simplicity movement which advocates precisely this. True, some of what these people say may be extreme. They claim that a couple could get by on less than $10,000 a year, buying food through coops, being frugal in all sorts of ways. I’d like to split the difference. Personally, I might find it a bit hard to live on $5000 a year. After all, I am used to a fairly comfortable middle-class lifestyle which requires considerably more money than that. However, the simplicity movement’s main point remains valid.
The point, then, is obvious: granted that there are crying inequities and economic needs, that these are being aggravated by the current economic crisis, and granted that America and the world must overcome this crisis, there is nevertheless a silver lining: Hopefully, we will learn to live within our means, maybe save a little again instead of spending ourselves gaga, and above all, learn to consume less rather than always wanting more.
* * * * *
2) My second thought for the day is about value: As a non-economist, I am also struck by another consensus among economists: Namely that value is determined only by supply and demand, and by nothing else. Adam Smith, right?
Let me first admit right away that this idea makes a lot of sense. Of course. Only a fool would deny it. For example, gold is precious, right? But if the entire Rocky Mountains were made of gold, then only very young children and idiots would invest in gold, which would have less value than manure.
However: Take the housing market. Four years ago, my house was worth, say, $800,000. Now, it’s down to half that, and we all know why. Adam Smith would explain it properly.
Now take this one step further: had the housing market been even crazier a few years ago, my house could have gone up to, say, $5,000,000. And by the same token, were the housing market to deteriorate even more, by next year my house’s value could decline to $1000. In fact, there is plenty of real property which cannot be sold at any price, i.e. whose value is negative.
But does this make sense? I remember vaguely learning in some of my grad school courses in economics about other theories of value. For example, there is Marx’s Labor Theory of Value. I suppose Marx felt that the value of something is (at least in part) determined by the cost of the labor which goes into producing it. I am sure this theory is now discredited, and I certainly do not propose to defend it.
However: I just throw this out as an example to show that there may be alternatives to the theory which currently reigns supreme, namely the supply-and-demand theory.
Think again of the value of a house - mine, or any other. Now granted that some real estate may have negative value. There may be houses or apartments so dilapidated, so badly located in, say, a crime-infested area, that no one would want to touch them with a ten-foot pole. But what about a fine house in a fine area, fit for a family to live in comfortably? What if market forces were to reduce its “value” to $1000? Surely this would not be rational, would it?
In sum, here is the counter-intuitive thought I am suggesting: the cliché is that, in human society, everything is “in the eyes of the beholder.” In other words, no object’s meaning or value is “inherent,” “absolute,” “God-given” if you will. The value of a house, or of a Van Gogh painting, or of a piece of jewelry, or of a piece of bread, is determined by its scarcity and its (perceived) use to us.
But maybe this is not the be-all and end-all of all sociological and economic wisdom. Maybe the idea of “intrinsic,” or “inherent” value is worth exploring. I am sure economists and philosophers have done so.
© Tom Kando 2014
leave comment here
(originally written and posted on 12/8/08)
Today, two random thoughts about the economic crisis:
1) My first thought isn’t very original. I’ve heard many people talk this way for a long time. I just want to articulate it:
The current crisis, epicentered in the US but affecting the whole world, is universally defined - at least by economists - as a lack of consumption. The credit markets are frozen, there is no lending going on, people aren’t spending (enough) any more, hence people are losing their jobs and everything is grinding to a halt.This view is practically consensual, almost common-sensical. It is shared by “liberal” economists such as Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman and Pulitzer Prize winning author Thomas Friedman. (I keep confusing these two guys, as both are regular New York Times columnists).
Both the lame-duck Republican administration (Paulsen, Bush) and the incoming Obama administration also agree - at least about the ends, if not the means: stimulate, stimulate, stimulate. While the fat cats want to “stimulate” banks, Obama wants to stimulate the people, through public works, etc. Both agree that there needs to be more money in circulation, more money spent.
In sum, Capitalism reigns supreme - at least the Keynesian variety, which says that you revive the economy by pumping money into the consumer sector (or something like that, if I remember Robert Heilbroner correctly) So, whether you go “demand” side, as the Keynesians want, or supply side, as the discredited Reaganites prefer, they both agree that the economy must resume growing. I suppose most economists would agree that for mature economies such as America and Europe, it would be healthy to return to a growth rate of, say, 3% or 4% (For countries such as China and India, it’s a different matter. Economists expect such countries to continue to grow at rates around 10%).
* * * * *
But there is another view: Why must economies keep growing? In time, shouldn’t they flatten out, as they indeed have begun to do in places like Switzerland and Denmark, i.e. in a few very rich, advanced, small, clean and environmentally sound countries? There, annual population growth is zero, and annual GDP growth is barely more. Isn’t that just fine?
Shouldn’t we consume less rather than more, at least those of us who are already living in opulence, who eat too much, drive around too much, live in houses that are too large?
Granted, there are major economic needs left to fill, and not just in the Third World. America’s infrastructure is abominable, as is its health care system, and growing segments of its educational system. Switching to wind power, battery-powered cars, mass public transit, completing the shift to electronic communication, there are trillions of dollars to be spent on all these things, and dozens of millions of jobs to be created.
Everyone who so desires should be able to buy and live in a nice (little) house. Great. People should also eat a lot healthier than they do, and this, too, might be more expensive.
So I am not suggesting that we should crawl back into caves. But one thing we should reduce is the production and purchase of garbage, i.e. plastic and metal things which are often useless, needless and environmentally destructive.
You don’t have to be a hippie to believe this way. For years there has been a simplicity movement which advocates precisely this. True, some of what these people say may be extreme. They claim that a couple could get by on less than $10,000 a year, buying food through coops, being frugal in all sorts of ways. I’d like to split the difference. Personally, I might find it a bit hard to live on $5000 a year. After all, I am used to a fairly comfortable middle-class lifestyle which requires considerably more money than that. However, the simplicity movement’s main point remains valid.
The point, then, is obvious: granted that there are crying inequities and economic needs, that these are being aggravated by the current economic crisis, and granted that America and the world must overcome this crisis, there is nevertheless a silver lining: Hopefully, we will learn to live within our means, maybe save a little again instead of spending ourselves gaga, and above all, learn to consume less rather than always wanting more.
* * * * *
2) My second thought for the day is about value: As a non-economist, I am also struck by another consensus among economists: Namely that value is determined only by supply and demand, and by nothing else. Adam Smith, right?
Let me first admit right away that this idea makes a lot of sense. Of course. Only a fool would deny it. For example, gold is precious, right? But if the entire Rocky Mountains were made of gold, then only very young children and idiots would invest in gold, which would have less value than manure.
However: Take the housing market. Four years ago, my house was worth, say, $800,000. Now, it’s down to half that, and we all know why. Adam Smith would explain it properly.
Now take this one step further: had the housing market been even crazier a few years ago, my house could have gone up to, say, $5,000,000. And by the same token, were the housing market to deteriorate even more, by next year my house’s value could decline to $1000. In fact, there is plenty of real property which cannot be sold at any price, i.e. whose value is negative.
But does this make sense? I remember vaguely learning in some of my grad school courses in economics about other theories of value. For example, there is Marx’s Labor Theory of Value. I suppose Marx felt that the value of something is (at least in part) determined by the cost of the labor which goes into producing it. I am sure this theory is now discredited, and I certainly do not propose to defend it.
However: I just throw this out as an example to show that there may be alternatives to the theory which currently reigns supreme, namely the supply-and-demand theory.
Think again of the value of a house - mine, or any other. Now granted that some real estate may have negative value. There may be houses or apartments so dilapidated, so badly located in, say, a crime-infested area, that no one would want to touch them with a ten-foot pole. But what about a fine house in a fine area, fit for a family to live in comfortably? What if market forces were to reduce its “value” to $1000? Surely this would not be rational, would it?
In sum, here is the counter-intuitive thought I am suggesting: the cliché is that, in human society, everything is “in the eyes of the beholder.” In other words, no object’s meaning or value is “inherent,” “absolute,” “God-given” if you will. The value of a house, or of a Van Gogh painting, or of a piece of jewelry, or of a piece of bread, is determined by its scarcity and its (perceived) use to us.
But maybe this is not the be-all and end-all of all sociological and economic wisdom. Maybe the idea of “intrinsic,” or “inherent” value is worth exploring. I am sure economists and philosophers have done so.
© Tom Kando 2014
leave comment here
NUMBERS; CITIGROUP HAS $306 BILLION WORTH OF BAD LOANS/TOXIC ASSETS. HOW BAD IS THIS?
By Tom Kando
(Originally written and posted on 11/25/08)
© Tom Kando 2014
leave comment here
(Originally written and posted on 11/25/08)
The media have been informing us that the troubled bank Citigroup (whose credit card I use) has $306 billion worth of bad loans. For instance, I heard Kai Ryssdal say this on NPR’s Marketplace on Nov. 24, I read it in the Sacramento Bee on Nov. 25, etc.
So far, the federal government is in hock for $45 billion to bail out Citigroup, which is just one of many, many financial institutions and corporations which the government is being asked to bail out - not just under the $700 billion Paulsen plan, but also under other programs, such as those for the rescue of Fannie May and Freddie Mac, AGI, the Big Three auto companies, American Express and other credit card companies, etc, etc.In other words, Paulsen’s $700 billion aren’t going to be nearly enough, we are told. The $45 billion allocated to Citigroup aren’t even going to scratch the surface, since that bank has $306 billion in toxic assets, i.e. non-performing loans, - presumably mostly subprime loans that were made during the housing bubble of 2004-2007. We are also told that this is about 1/6 of Citigroup’s total assets of nearly $2 trillion.
Now I don’t know what part of the total financial sector Citigroup represents, but if they alone are saddled with $306 billion worth of toxic assets, then the total amount of such assets must be at least 10 to 15 times more, no? I.e. anywhere between $3 trillion and $4 trillion. Other banks, lenders, financial institutions, and those who insure them, ( E.g. AIG), are all in the same fix, aren’t they?
* * * * *
But it is difficult to comprehend these figures. I am not sure Kai Ryssdal, or NPR, or any of the media understand what they are talking about when they throw such figures at us. I believe that they are sometimes at least as ignorant as me.
I am not talking here about the various instances when I caught anchormen and newscasters on CNN or on CNBC’s business channel confusing a million and a billion. That also happens. No, I am now only talking about my hunch that the media (1) don’t understand the nature of the current economic crisis any better than I do, and that they (2) are in some ways even more innumerate than me, unable to grasp the magnitude of some of the figures they spout in their news reports. As a result, they spread confusion and misinformation.
* * * * *
Case in point: let me interpret the number $306 billion, the alleged amount in toxic assets owned by Citigroup. How does this number compute? In order to do this, I use some simple facts and some reasonable assumptions:
Fact/Assumption Number One: There are in America about 120 million households (See Census Data and Statistical Abstract of the United States).
Assumption #2: 65% of households own their private house/home/apartment. That’s 78 million mortgages. But many people own more than one piece of property, there is of course business property, etc. So let’s say there are 110 million deeds to real property in America.
Assumption #3: 80% of these mortgages are still being paid off. That’s 88 million mortgages on which banks should collect monthly payments, or some other sort of regular periodic payments.
Assumption #4. 85% of these are okay performing loans. After all, the vast majority of mortgages were taken out before the subprime frenzy, and even after 2004, millions of people still took out mortgages the responsible, old-fashioned way.
So let’ say that 15% of all real estate loans in America are “bad,” i.e. toxic, sub-prime, junk, non-performing, call it what you will. These are the loans that were made during the housing bubble, that should not have been made, that are now leading to foreclosures, and triggered the current world financial crisis. That’s about 13 million bad mortgages/loans.
Assumption #5. The average American home is now worth $200K, down from $380K at the peak 4 years ago. Remember, real estate is very expensive in places like San Francisco and much of California, but not so in Mississippi and in rural Kansas.
Assumption #6: The average sub-prime junk loan was for the full amount, with no down payment.
Assumption #7. If ALL sub-prime, junk, non-performing mortgages were a total loss to the banks, the magnitude of the entire problem of the exploded housing bubble would be:
13 million x 200 K = 2,600 billion, or 2.6 trillion.
If you want to be a bit more pessimistic, say that the problem is 3.5 trillion.
This sum is between one fifth and one fourth of US GDP.
If Citigroup owns 306 billion of the roughly $3 trillion in bad loans, that’s 10% of the total. Can that be correct?
Also, can Citigroup’s total assets (2 trillion) be one 7th of US GDP? Or about the same as the total economy of China or Germany?
And can the total combined assets of all US banks dwarf US GNP?
Can the combined assets of US banks equal three quarters of the world’s GNP? (54 trillion)
Can the total assets of all of the world’s banks be three times the size of world GNP?
The answer to all these questions is YES. Banks’ “magnitude” is measured in assets, whereas GNPs and GDPs are measures of wealth produced in a given year. The world’s GNP is 54 trillion but the total value of the world’s assets is seven times larger. Before the current financial collapse, I estimate the world’s total financial assets at 170 trillion.
And according to The Economist, financial assets only make up 46% of all assets, the rest consisting of real estate. Therefore, total world assets would be 370 trillion. This is $370,000,000,000,000, or 37 x 10 to the 13th power.
* * * * *
Well, these are just numbers. They are what they are. No meaning, really. Except perhaps this:
A) Banks are way too big and too powerful. Accumulating assets whereby a single institution is worth more than the GDP of Germany or California is bad. The power of corporations begins to dwarf that of entire societies. But corporations don’t represent the public, as societies do. Corporations represent shareholders only.
B) 13 million bad mortgages are a bummer, especially to institutions such as Citigroup, which are holding the bag. However, it’s only a small fraction of (1) Citigroup’s total assets, (2) a small portion of all mortgages, (3) an even smaller fraction of the total financial sector’s assets, and (4) an even smaller part of the world’s total wealth. It is unconscionable that the bursting of the housing bubble is permitted to create havoc with the entire world economy. 13 million bad mortgages in the United States do not represent the totality of the world economy. The crisis is far more psychological than economic.
So far, the federal government is in hock for $45 billion to bail out Citigroup, which is just one of many, many financial institutions and corporations which the government is being asked to bail out - not just under the $700 billion Paulsen plan, but also under other programs, such as those for the rescue of Fannie May and Freddie Mac, AGI, the Big Three auto companies, American Express and other credit card companies, etc, etc.In other words, Paulsen’s $700 billion aren’t going to be nearly enough, we are told. The $45 billion allocated to Citigroup aren’t even going to scratch the surface, since that bank has $306 billion in toxic assets, i.e. non-performing loans, - presumably mostly subprime loans that were made during the housing bubble of 2004-2007. We are also told that this is about 1/6 of Citigroup’s total assets of nearly $2 trillion.
Now I don’t know what part of the total financial sector Citigroup represents, but if they alone are saddled with $306 billion worth of toxic assets, then the total amount of such assets must be at least 10 to 15 times more, no? I.e. anywhere between $3 trillion and $4 trillion. Other banks, lenders, financial institutions, and those who insure them, ( E.g. AIG), are all in the same fix, aren’t they?
* * * * *
But it is difficult to comprehend these figures. I am not sure Kai Ryssdal, or NPR, or any of the media understand what they are talking about when they throw such figures at us. I believe that they are sometimes at least as ignorant as me.
I am not talking here about the various instances when I caught anchormen and newscasters on CNN or on CNBC’s business channel confusing a million and a billion. That also happens. No, I am now only talking about my hunch that the media (1) don’t understand the nature of the current economic crisis any better than I do, and that they (2) are in some ways even more innumerate than me, unable to grasp the magnitude of some of the figures they spout in their news reports. As a result, they spread confusion and misinformation.
* * * * *
Case in point: let me interpret the number $306 billion, the alleged amount in toxic assets owned by Citigroup. How does this number compute? In order to do this, I use some simple facts and some reasonable assumptions:
Fact/Assumption Number One: There are in America about 120 million households (See Census Data and Statistical Abstract of the United States).
Assumption #2: 65% of households own their private house/home/apartment. That’s 78 million mortgages. But many people own more than one piece of property, there is of course business property, etc. So let’s say there are 110 million deeds to real property in America.
Assumption #3: 80% of these mortgages are still being paid off. That’s 88 million mortgages on which banks should collect monthly payments, or some other sort of regular periodic payments.
Assumption #4. 85% of these are okay performing loans. After all, the vast majority of mortgages were taken out before the subprime frenzy, and even after 2004, millions of people still took out mortgages the responsible, old-fashioned way.
So let’ say that 15% of all real estate loans in America are “bad,” i.e. toxic, sub-prime, junk, non-performing, call it what you will. These are the loans that were made during the housing bubble, that should not have been made, that are now leading to foreclosures, and triggered the current world financial crisis. That’s about 13 million bad mortgages/loans.
Assumption #5. The average American home is now worth $200K, down from $380K at the peak 4 years ago. Remember, real estate is very expensive in places like San Francisco and much of California, but not so in Mississippi and in rural Kansas.
Assumption #6: The average sub-prime junk loan was for the full amount, with no down payment.
Assumption #7. If ALL sub-prime, junk, non-performing mortgages were a total loss to the banks, the magnitude of the entire problem of the exploded housing bubble would be:
13 million x 200 K = 2,600 billion, or 2.6 trillion.
If you want to be a bit more pessimistic, say that the problem is 3.5 trillion.
This sum is between one fifth and one fourth of US GDP.
If Citigroup owns 306 billion of the roughly $3 trillion in bad loans, that’s 10% of the total. Can that be correct?
Also, can Citigroup’s total assets (2 trillion) be one 7th of US GDP? Or about the same as the total economy of China or Germany?
And can the total combined assets of all US banks dwarf US GNP?
Can the combined assets of US banks equal three quarters of the world’s GNP? (54 trillion)
Can the total assets of all of the world’s banks be three times the size of world GNP?
The answer to all these questions is YES. Banks’ “magnitude” is measured in assets, whereas GNPs and GDPs are measures of wealth produced in a given year. The world’s GNP is 54 trillion but the total value of the world’s assets is seven times larger. Before the current financial collapse, I estimate the world’s total financial assets at 170 trillion.
And according to The Economist, financial assets only make up 46% of all assets, the rest consisting of real estate. Therefore, total world assets would be 370 trillion. This is $370,000,000,000,000, or 37 x 10 to the 13th power.
* * * * *
Well, these are just numbers. They are what they are. No meaning, really. Except perhaps this:
A) Banks are way too big and too powerful. Accumulating assets whereby a single institution is worth more than the GDP of Germany or California is bad. The power of corporations begins to dwarf that of entire societies. But corporations don’t represent the public, as societies do. Corporations represent shareholders only.
B) 13 million bad mortgages are a bummer, especially to institutions such as Citigroup, which are holding the bag. However, it’s only a small fraction of (1) Citigroup’s total assets, (2) a small portion of all mortgages, (3) an even smaller fraction of the total financial sector’s assets, and (4) an even smaller part of the world’s total wealth. It is unconscionable that the bursting of the housing bubble is permitted to create havoc with the entire world economy. 13 million bad mortgages in the United States do not represent the totality of the world economy. The crisis is far more psychological than economic.
© Tom Kando 2014
leave comment here
SUBLIMATIVE REPRESSION: BACK TO FREUD, AWAY FROM MARCUSE
By Tom Kando
(Originally written and posted on 11/21/08)
Herbert Marcuse was one of the gurus of the Counterculture, one of the founders of the neo-Marxist, critical Frankfurter school of Sociology. Theodore Roszak has characterized Marcuse’s work as the integration of Marx and Freud. Indeed, one of Marcuse’s provocative - and in my view true - ideas, was his concept of repressive desublimation. Here is what Marcuse meant by this:
He observed the obvious fact that, by the 1960s, Modern capitalist society had become a highly hedonistic, sexualized, consumer society. The idea of Capitalism remained, as always, to produce and to sell a maximum amount of goods at maximum profit. While Capitalism’s objective thus remained unchanged, the duty of the populace did change: In the increasingly affluent West, the “proletariat’s” duty became more and more consumption rather than production. This was the Marxian element in the Marcusian synthesis.The second element was Freudian: Freud has shown that libido was the wellspring of human energy, manifesting itself either in the form of sex, or - if sublimated - in the form of “higher” social achievements. The interest of Capitalist society, so Marcuse showed, was in controlling and defusing this explosive energy through a process of repressive desublimation. That is, by promoting maximum sexual permissiveness, modern hedonistic society ceases to repress libido, and thus robs it of its explosive potential. As sex becomes more frequent, more random, more trivial, more banal, it is de-mystified and it becomes less dangerous. This is also the theme of Huxley’s Brave New World, where the regime demands that the masses engage in periodic orgies, so as to better control them.
This is what is meant by repressive desublimation - a concept which most definitely rings true.
* * * * *
However, it is now 2008, and Americans are having less and less sex, or at least they are frowning more and more on various forms of sex, and panicking more and more about some of its manifestations.
For example, back in the sixties, being “progressive” meant favoring the legalization of prostitution and pornography. Today, many progressives/feminists have turned 180 degrees, arguing that these things exploit women and that they should therefore be punished more harshly, let alone be legalized. There is also a growing panic about Internet sex crimes, sex between teachers and students, etc.
* * * * *
So what is happening?
First, the facts: Many surveys confirm the fact that Americans have become sexually much more conservative than they were one and two generations ago. By any operational measure: rate of virginity among high school graduates, number of sex partners in a given time period, etc.
Of course, there are plenty of reasonable-sounding explanations for this turn to the right. Foremost among them is the emergence of AIDS in the early 1980s, and the realization that Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) are more dangerous than was believed earlier. The realization that free-for-all sex à la sixties is not without serious consequences.
Part of the new sexual conservatism is positive: Feminism has taught us respect for women’s wishes - What part of No don’t you understand? The sixties free-for-all was certainly more to the liking of men than women. Hippies were among the worst sexists.
Also a great step forward has been the unmasking of rampant pedophilia in some quarters, e.g. the Catholic clergy.
Thank God, too, that the world is becoming aware of and beginning to fight against the abominations of sex slavery and sex tourism in South east Asia and elsewhere.
However, the new sexual conservatism cannot be fully explained on rational grounds. The new Puritanism is deeper than a merely practical response to new medical realities and the new awareness of various forms of sexual exploitation. There is definitely a new wave of moral panic under way. For example, just a few months ago, a Republican congressman introduced legislation to make adultery a felony. Over in England, the government is proposing to increase the penalty for prostitution - both for the prostitute and for the John. In many jurisdictions, consensual sex between, say, an 18-yr old boy and his 17-yr old girlfriend is considered statutory rape, i.e. a felony. Censorship of pornography is on the rise, on the Internet, in waiting rooms and elsewhere. Long gone are the days when Playboy Magazine was available in dental, medical, legal and barbershop waiting rooms, and when prison cell walls were covered with Playboy centerfolds.
While much of this is being justified under “women’s rights” and “children’s rights,” does it make sense to classify prostitution in the same category as sex slavery, and to censor all pornography?
The question remains: why the current moral panic?
To answer this question, I have coined a new term: Sublimative Repression. What does this mean?
Well, it’s Marcuse in reverse. I go back to Freud - again in conjunction with Marx. I re-introduce Capitalism as the explanatory principle.
What has happened since the 1960s? Simply this: Americans have begun to suffer greater and greater economic hardship. There is globalization, there is the internal polarization of wealth due to a quarter century of Republican policies. Most Americans are no longer rich. They have to buckle up once again. Each year they have to work more, just to stay even. Dual and triple income households become the norm. The length of the work week grows. People retire later. Even the average amount of sleep people get has declined - from 8 to 7 ½ hours. Our standard of living declines. What is one to do? Work more. Increase productivity. Sublimate. Who has time or energy for sex?
We are back to Freud, back to square one. With one difference: The rhetoric: The new Puritanism masquerades under the guise of “progress.” Sure, there is the Christian Right. Its message never changes. But on the same side are now also all the oh-so-progressive feminists and humanists who argue that the Megan’s laws, the Jessica’s laws , the anti-pornography laws and the anti-prostitution laws are all part of a crusade against such evils as pedophilia, sex slavery and the exploitation of women.
The piling on of laws against various categories of sex offenders (and here I must be careful, lest I get accused of being an advocate for pedophiles) is more demagoguery by politicians than sound policy. Almost anyone can run the risk nowadays of being labeled a sex offender, and after that, being subjected to Megan’s Laws, Jessica’s Laws, etc. You must be registered on the Internet, before the entire world. You are forbidden from living within a certain radius of schools, playgrounds, etc, i.e. de facto you have no choice but to live in some remote rural area, you become unemployable, etc.
This has happened to a couple of my students at the University in recent years. One of them was a thirty-something father. One night, he drove his teen-age babysitter home, and he committed some verbal indiscretion. The girl reported this to her parents, criminal charges followed. Although the man avoided prison, he is now registered as a sex offender for the rest of his life and his job prospects and his entire future are in jeopardy.
In many jurisdictions, it is now common practice not just to arrest prostitutes and Johns, but to also confiscating their cars.
What seems to be happening here, is a moral panic in the service of an economy which has a stake in desexualizing society, so as to maximize productivity, as America finds itself in increasing competition with other countries, and can no longer afford a leisurely lifestyle.
In the past, the rhetoric justifying the de-sexualization of society was that of the Christian Right. Now that this rhetoric has lost traction with a majority of the people, the justification takes a different form, namely “progressive” notions like “the protection of victims” such as women and children. The function of this desexualization is to increase work and production - Marcuse in reverse.
© Tom Kando 2014
leave comment here
(Originally written and posted on 11/21/08)
Herbert Marcuse was one of the gurus of the Counterculture, one of the founders of the neo-Marxist, critical Frankfurter school of Sociology. Theodore Roszak has characterized Marcuse’s work as the integration of Marx and Freud. Indeed, one of Marcuse’s provocative - and in my view true - ideas, was his concept of repressive desublimation. Here is what Marcuse meant by this:
He observed the obvious fact that, by the 1960s, Modern capitalist society had become a highly hedonistic, sexualized, consumer society. The idea of Capitalism remained, as always, to produce and to sell a maximum amount of goods at maximum profit. While Capitalism’s objective thus remained unchanged, the duty of the populace did change: In the increasingly affluent West, the “proletariat’s” duty became more and more consumption rather than production. This was the Marxian element in the Marcusian synthesis.The second element was Freudian: Freud has shown that libido was the wellspring of human energy, manifesting itself either in the form of sex, or - if sublimated - in the form of “higher” social achievements. The interest of Capitalist society, so Marcuse showed, was in controlling and defusing this explosive energy through a process of repressive desublimation. That is, by promoting maximum sexual permissiveness, modern hedonistic society ceases to repress libido, and thus robs it of its explosive potential. As sex becomes more frequent, more random, more trivial, more banal, it is de-mystified and it becomes less dangerous. This is also the theme of Huxley’s Brave New World, where the regime demands that the masses engage in periodic orgies, so as to better control them.
This is what is meant by repressive desublimation - a concept which most definitely rings true.
* * * * *
However, it is now 2008, and Americans are having less and less sex, or at least they are frowning more and more on various forms of sex, and panicking more and more about some of its manifestations.
For example, back in the sixties, being “progressive” meant favoring the legalization of prostitution and pornography. Today, many progressives/feminists have turned 180 degrees, arguing that these things exploit women and that they should therefore be punished more harshly, let alone be legalized. There is also a growing panic about Internet sex crimes, sex between teachers and students, etc.
* * * * *
So what is happening?
First, the facts: Many surveys confirm the fact that Americans have become sexually much more conservative than they were one and two generations ago. By any operational measure: rate of virginity among high school graduates, number of sex partners in a given time period, etc.
Of course, there are plenty of reasonable-sounding explanations for this turn to the right. Foremost among them is the emergence of AIDS in the early 1980s, and the realization that Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) are more dangerous than was believed earlier. The realization that free-for-all sex à la sixties is not without serious consequences.
Part of the new sexual conservatism is positive: Feminism has taught us respect for women’s wishes - What part of No don’t you understand? The sixties free-for-all was certainly more to the liking of men than women. Hippies were among the worst sexists.
Also a great step forward has been the unmasking of rampant pedophilia in some quarters, e.g. the Catholic clergy.
Thank God, too, that the world is becoming aware of and beginning to fight against the abominations of sex slavery and sex tourism in South east Asia and elsewhere.
However, the new sexual conservatism cannot be fully explained on rational grounds. The new Puritanism is deeper than a merely practical response to new medical realities and the new awareness of various forms of sexual exploitation. There is definitely a new wave of moral panic under way. For example, just a few months ago, a Republican congressman introduced legislation to make adultery a felony. Over in England, the government is proposing to increase the penalty for prostitution - both for the prostitute and for the John. In many jurisdictions, consensual sex between, say, an 18-yr old boy and his 17-yr old girlfriend is considered statutory rape, i.e. a felony. Censorship of pornography is on the rise, on the Internet, in waiting rooms and elsewhere. Long gone are the days when Playboy Magazine was available in dental, medical, legal and barbershop waiting rooms, and when prison cell walls were covered with Playboy centerfolds.
While much of this is being justified under “women’s rights” and “children’s rights,” does it make sense to classify prostitution in the same category as sex slavery, and to censor all pornography?
The question remains: why the current moral panic?
To answer this question, I have coined a new term: Sublimative Repression. What does this mean?
Well, it’s Marcuse in reverse. I go back to Freud - again in conjunction with Marx. I re-introduce Capitalism as the explanatory principle.
What has happened since the 1960s? Simply this: Americans have begun to suffer greater and greater economic hardship. There is globalization, there is the internal polarization of wealth due to a quarter century of Republican policies. Most Americans are no longer rich. They have to buckle up once again. Each year they have to work more, just to stay even. Dual and triple income households become the norm. The length of the work week grows. People retire later. Even the average amount of sleep people get has declined - from 8 to 7 ½ hours. Our standard of living declines. What is one to do? Work more. Increase productivity. Sublimate. Who has time or energy for sex?
We are back to Freud, back to square one. With one difference: The rhetoric: The new Puritanism masquerades under the guise of “progress.” Sure, there is the Christian Right. Its message never changes. But on the same side are now also all the oh-so-progressive feminists and humanists who argue that the Megan’s laws, the Jessica’s laws , the anti-pornography laws and the anti-prostitution laws are all part of a crusade against such evils as pedophilia, sex slavery and the exploitation of women.
The piling on of laws against various categories of sex offenders (and here I must be careful, lest I get accused of being an advocate for pedophiles) is more demagoguery by politicians than sound policy. Almost anyone can run the risk nowadays of being labeled a sex offender, and after that, being subjected to Megan’s Laws, Jessica’s Laws, etc. You must be registered on the Internet, before the entire world. You are forbidden from living within a certain radius of schools, playgrounds, etc, i.e. de facto you have no choice but to live in some remote rural area, you become unemployable, etc.
This has happened to a couple of my students at the University in recent years. One of them was a thirty-something father. One night, he drove his teen-age babysitter home, and he committed some verbal indiscretion. The girl reported this to her parents, criminal charges followed. Although the man avoided prison, he is now registered as a sex offender for the rest of his life and his job prospects and his entire future are in jeopardy.
In many jurisdictions, it is now common practice not just to arrest prostitutes and Johns, but to also confiscating their cars.
What seems to be happening here, is a moral panic in the service of an economy which has a stake in desexualizing society, so as to maximize productivity, as America finds itself in increasing competition with other countries, and can no longer afford a leisurely lifestyle.
In the past, the rhetoric justifying the de-sexualization of society was that of the Christian Right. Now that this rhetoric has lost traction with a majority of the people, the justification takes a different form, namely “progressive” notions like “the protection of victims” such as women and children. The function of this desexualization is to increase work and production - Marcuse in reverse.
© Tom Kando 2014
leave comment here
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
TABOO LABELS
(originally written and posted on 12/14/14)
Notice some of the taboo labels in our political lexicon: Being called a “Marxist” or a “Socialist” is the kiss of death. Advocating for the “working class” is similarly unwise. One is only allowed to advocate for the middle class. Even the progressive folks at MSNBC and moderates like President Obama never speak of the “working class,” only of the “middle class.”
Of course, there is nothing inherently wrong with Marxism, Socialism and the idea of the working class. These things are no more wrong than are concepts such as “Capitalism,” the “ruling class,” the “military-industrial complex” and other similar constructs.
I am not a Marxist. I am eclectic. Karl Marx was one of the seminal minds of the 19th century, a giant in the history of ideas, one of history’s most important economists and philosophers. Here are a few others: Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, David Hume, David Ricardo, Herbert Spencer, G.W.F. Hegel, Thorstein Veblen, Max Weber, John Maynard Keynes, Joseph Schumpeter, members of the “Austrian School” such as Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, and many others.
The strange thing is that, whereas ALL of these men have made enormous contributions to our understanding of society and of the economy, Americans single out Marx, and ONLY Marx, for severe opprobrium.
All great social and economic theories have flaws as well as value. There is much to be learned from Marx and there is much to be learned from Adam Smith. But in the U.S., Marx is singled out as the Anti-Christ.
Then there is that other taboo word - Socialism. Illiterate Tea Partiers use words such as Socialism, Marxism, and Communism interchangeably. To them and to the demagogues who lead them, all that “left-wing stuff” is the same.
In fact, “Socialism” includes:
The British Labor Party and former prime minister Tony Blair, who was a staunch ally and supporter of President George W. Bush;
Current French President Francois Hollande and his ruling party;
The Dutch labor party (PvdA), currently part of the ruling coalition;
The German Social Democrats;
Dozens of social-democratic parties that frequently run the governments of advanced and highly democratic countries. These countries enjoy prosperity, mixed capitalist economies, and even monarchy, as do Britain, Holland and Scandinavia.
The American Democratic Party is also a socialist party, to some extent.
It is much better to equate Socialism with social democracy, rather than with Communism. The latter was the extreme form of socialism carried out in the Soviet Union for about seventy years.
It is equally bizarre that the words “working class” have practically disappeared from our discourse. You will find no reference to the “working class” in the media any more. And we are still being told the absurdity that the “mainstream” media have a liberal bias! Just a few decades ago, the category “working class” was a key element in all professional analyses of American social stratification (see Lloyd Warner, Edward Banfield, etc.). Today, not even the Occupy Wall Street movement dares to use that label any more.
Why have such verbal taboos developed in America?
Well, for one thing, the way Socialism was enacted in the Soviet Union was an abomination. Stalinism and Communism gave Socialism a bad name, as did other atrocious perversions in places like Cambodia and North Korea. But isn’t judging Socialism on that basis the same as judging all of Christianity on the basis of the Spanish inquisition or the Salem witch burnings?
Then, there was a Cold War that lasted half a century. And even before that, since the 1920s, Americans have been taught that Communists and Marxists were the Anti-Christ. Anti-communism became a deeply ingrained part of American culture, and only American culture: Only in the U.S. was it a crime to be a communist.
There has been a wholesale flight to the right, the indoctrination of the population, the now widespread and generalized fear to do or say something that might be construed as, God forbid, un-American.
But there is much to be learned from Marx. His analysis of surplus value, the declining return on investment, external markets, capitalism in general, social class, alienation, and many other subjects remains compelling in many ways.
And there is much to be learned from the other great theorists I mentioned at the beginning of this article.
In America, Marx was singled out as the bête noire because of what happened in the Soviet Union and because of the Cold War. This cultural quirk will probably rectify itself after the brainwashed generation is gone.
© Tom Kando 2013
leave comment here
THE SEVEN WONDERS OF THE WORLD
(originally written and posted on Nov. 20, 2008)
Last year, the final list of the world’s seven wonders came out. It consists of the Great Wall of China, the Egyptian Pyramids, the Taj Mahal in India, the Roman Colosseum, the statue of Christ the Redeemer in Rio de Janeiro, the Mayan city of Chichen Itza and the hidden Inca city of Machu Picchu in Peru.
This list is the product of an effort started in 2001 by a Swiss organization. It began with a list of several hundred famous historical monuments in all six continents, and this list was gradually culled down through repeated voting by some world-wide public. Same method as American Idol.
This experiment is a failure. The final selections make no sense.
I will not quibble about which specific monuments should or should not have been included, but to suggest a few examples:
(1) The Brazilian statue of Christ the Redeemer clearly does not belong on the list - it is an early 20th century statue which measures about 100 feet and reminds one of the neo-realist monstrosities produced in Russia under Stalin. While I would not have included our Statue of Liberty either, that monument is certainly more deserving than the Rio statue.
(2) While Chichen Itza is nice, the Mayan site at Tikal is more beautiful.
(3) There are many other sites around the world which were more or equally deserving, for example Angkor Wat in Cambodia and several sites in Japan.
(4) Since my expertise is Europe, let me just suggest a few of the hundreds of magnificent historical sites on that Continent which deserved at least as much consideration as the final seven:
(a)The entire city of Venice, (b) the Parthenon in Athens, (c) prehistoric Stonehenge in England, (d) the prehistoric cave paintings of Lascaux, France, (e) the city of Pompeii in Southern Italy, (f) the Alhambra in Grenada, (g)the Mont Saint Michel in Normandy, (h) the palace of Versailles, (I) the Vatican, (j) Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, etc, etc.
Here is what happened: The vote was a compendium of nationalisms, combined with an anti-European bias. It reflects demography and politics. What happened to the European entries is revealing: Europe’s representation on the original list was large, because Europe has the richest history of any continent. However, due to the world’s hostility to Western civilization and to the sin of “Eurocentrism,” most of the European entries were gradually eliminated. In the end, Europe squeezed by with ONE of its monuments left on the final list - not even Europe’s most impressive historical site. Meanwhile, Latin America has three.
It was a close call for Europe, which could have ended up with ZERO entries. Had this happened, the absurd outcome of this experiment would have been even clearer since - to repeat myself - no other continent’s history is as rich as Europe’s, no other continent is as rich in historical treasures. Then, even more obviously than now, the entire experiment should deserve to be junked as an utter failure.
© Tom Kando 2014
leave comment here
PLUMBERS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY?
By Tom Kando
(This was originally written and posted on July 22, 2008. I no longer feel this way. I now feel that Physicians for Social Responsibility is a fine and legitimate organization).
On July 22, 2008, Public Radio once again had something about the group, Physicians for Social Responsibility. I had commented about this annoying group several times before, for example in an interview with the Fort Wayne (Indiana) Journal Gazette in October 2005. Let me restate the gist of my sentiments about this:
Where is it written that physicians (for example the aggravating Dr. Helen Caldicott) have more expertise than others in political and moral matters? For years, some professions and celebrities (e.g. George Clooney, Sean Penn, Madonna) have been lecturing the rest of us about foreign policy and morality. Don’t get me wrong - I, too, abhor war, the Darfur genocide, etc. But what gives physicians, actors and other celebrities a more privileged moral status than, say, plumbers or truck drivers? Why not have a group called Plumbers for Social Responsibility? I suppose some professions can make a legitimate claim to exceptional moral expertise. These might include my own profession - Sociologists - and probably even more so the Historians. In fact, college professors in many other fields might have a plausible claim to a higher and better informed moral compass than the rest of us (although I would exclude professors of computer science, engineering, etc.). And of course, the clergy is the ultimate expert on sin and virtue, i.e. on morality, right?
So I suppose there is an argument to be made that some groups have the right to lecture everyone else about the (im)morality of war, evil American foreign policy, George W. Bush, etc., but why would physicians have special moral expertise? After all, they include both Albert Schweitzer and Joseph Mengele.
Doctors are no more expert in political values than are, say, plumbers. So, wouldn’t it be just as logical to create an organization called Plumbers for social responsibility?
© Tom Kando 2014
leave comment here
(This was originally written and posted on July 22, 2008. I no longer feel this way. I now feel that Physicians for Social Responsibility is a fine and legitimate organization).
On July 22, 2008, Public Radio once again had something about the group, Physicians for Social Responsibility. I had commented about this annoying group several times before, for example in an interview with the Fort Wayne (Indiana) Journal Gazette in October 2005. Let me restate the gist of my sentiments about this:
Where is it written that physicians (for example the aggravating Dr. Helen Caldicott) have more expertise than others in political and moral matters? For years, some professions and celebrities (e.g. George Clooney, Sean Penn, Madonna) have been lecturing the rest of us about foreign policy and morality. Don’t get me wrong - I, too, abhor war, the Darfur genocide, etc. But what gives physicians, actors and other celebrities a more privileged moral status than, say, plumbers or truck drivers? Why not have a group called Plumbers for Social Responsibility? I suppose some professions can make a legitimate claim to exceptional moral expertise. These might include my own profession - Sociologists - and probably even more so the Historians. In fact, college professors in many other fields might have a plausible claim to a higher and better informed moral compass than the rest of us (although I would exclude professors of computer science, engineering, etc.). And of course, the clergy is the ultimate expert on sin and virtue, i.e. on morality, right?
So I suppose there is an argument to be made that some groups have the right to lecture everyone else about the (im)morality of war, evil American foreign policy, George W. Bush, etc., but why would physicians have special moral expertise? After all, they include both Albert Schweitzer and Joseph Mengele.
Doctors are no more expert in political values than are, say, plumbers. So, wouldn’t it be just as logical to create an organization called Plumbers for social responsibility?
© Tom Kando 2014
leave comment here
AMERICA’S “NATIONAL” DEBT: WHAT IT MEANS, HOW IT WILL DESTROY AMERICA, AND WHAT WE MUST TO DO AVOID BEING DESTROYED
By Tom Kando
© Tom Kando 2014
leave comment here
(First written and posted on August
24, 2008)
There is a new movie out: I.O.U.S.A. by Patrick Creadon. The title
is an obvious pun: I Owe You/USA. It is about America’s catastrophic indebtedness.
The film is a parallel to Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, which alerted us
to the danger of global warming. Now,
I.O.U.S.A. tries similarly to warn Americans about the grave danger in which
they are as a result of being by far the
world’s most indebted people.
I have been worrying about this
problem for many years. I have told my
students and anyone else willing to listen
that nothing threatens the
survival of our society more than our out-of-control national indebtedness. As
often, I have felt like Diogenes. After all, how sexy is this topic compared to
the media’s and politicians’ other darling issues - gay marriage, terrorism,
racism, sexual abuse, crime, etc? Talking about the national debt has usually only elicited
yawns.
nothing threatens the survival of our
society more than our out-of-control national indebtedness.
|
Thanks to Creadon’s movie, it may now
become a little bit more
fashionable to discuss the national debt, and to worry about it. But the first responses to Creadon’s movie
already suggest that the public remains as ignorant as ever.
I just visited several web sites
that deal with the film. Many of the comments
posted show confusion and even appalling
stupidity.
For example, many Americans believe that the US is still the richest
country in the world and that we
constantly give and lend money to everybody.
In fact, we have been borrowing enormous amounts of money from the rest of the
world for half a century (one of the reasons why the dollar has been
imploding). Last time I checked, we ranked number #24 in the world in per
capita income, right behind Malta.
Many
Americans believe that the US is still
the richest country in the world and that
we constantly give and lend
money to everybody. In fact, we have been borrowing enormous amounts of money
from the rest of the world for half a century (one of the reasons why the
dollar has been imploding). Last time I checked, we ranked number #24 in the
world in per capita income, right behind Malta.
|
The
Problem
The most aggravating confusion is
the public’s and even the media’s and so-called experts’ continued
failure to understand the dual meaning of the term national
deficit:
Currently,
the American people spend nearly a trillion dollars more every year than they make.
|
The US is by far the most indebted
nation in the world in two ways: (1)
due to its (Federal) Governmental Deficit and (2) because
of its Trade deficit. In other words, both the Federal Government and
the American people as a whole are
spending far more than they are making. The government (deficit #1) has been in
the red for several decades, except for a brief interlude during President
Clinton’s presidency. The societal deficit (#2) has been going on
uninterruptedly for many decades.
Currently, the American people spend nearly a trillion dollars more every year than they make.
Confusing the two deficits and
discussing them together (which even the Creadon movie does) is harmful,
because it then permits everyone to rail against deficit #1, which is the
lesser problem, while largely ignoring deficit #2, which is much larger and
more destructive.
Americans now owe $55.25 trillion to
the world. That’s $176,000 per American. Each American would have to work for 4
years for no pay - i.e. be a slave or a prisoner - to repay our debt to the
world.
|
Several of the pundits interviewed
by Creadon and many of the reviews of his movie are guilty of this confusion.
They speak of the “federal debt” and of the “national debt” in one breath,
pegging it at $9.5 trillion. But it is only the government debt which stands at that amount. Our nation’s overall debt to the rest of the
world is much worse!
Indeed, of the two deficits, the
second one, the societal
deficit, is by far the more serious one.
It threatens to destroy all of American society, not just immobilize its government. Collectively, Americans now owe $55.25
trillion to the world. That’s $176,000 per American. Each American
would have to work for 4 years for no pay - i.e. be a slave or a prisoner - to
repay our debt to the world. Our
country is allowing itself to become colonized,
as it is sending billions upon of billions of dollars overseas every year to
finance its debt to the rest of the world.
So the term national debt can refer
to (1) what the federal government owes, and (2) what American society owes. But people confuse the
two deficits, either deliberately or because of ignorance. As I said, this enables most commentators who express their concern
about “the national deficit” to decry
the federal government’s deficit, while
rarely mentioning the other, much more dangerous deficit.
The
societal deficit has nothing to do with either political party....Politicians
did not cause the national debt. We, the American people did. We have simply been
spending ourselves into poverty.
|
This is exactly what many commentators do, both in the movie and
on the Internet: We are told that the problem is “fiscal” and that our
nation’s catastrophic indebtedness is caused by runaway entitlement programs. Many misguided people blame either Bush or
the Democrats, when in fact the societal deficit has little to do with either
political party. Blaming politicians is
one of the few things Americans still know how to do. It is de rigueur among comedians like Jay
Leno. But politicians did not cause the national debt. We, the American people
did. We have simply been spending ourselves into poverty.
Instead of facing the fact that we have
collectively been living
far beyond our means for half a century, most commentators prefer to
focus on the fact that the government spends too much (which it does). On this, Democrats and Republicans all
agree. The only difference is that
Democrats say that the government spends too much on things like the military
and prisons, while Republicans say that it spends to much on social services.
So the most often heard solution, including in the Creadon film, is to argue for a reduction in federal
spending. And since most government spending is in social services
(entitlements), a majority of people agree that the bulk of the cutbacks will
have to be in entitlements, e.g. in Social Security, Medicare, etc.
Most of the
rest of the civilized world (Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia, many newly
developed Asian countries such as Korea) provide social services that are far
more generous than ours, and these countries are not descending into
bankruptcy.
|
But this is wrong: Most of the rest of the civilized
world (Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia, many newly developed Asian countries
such as Korea) provide social services that are far more generous than ours,
and these countries are not descending into bankruptcy, certainly not at the
rate that we are. Furthermore, many of
those countries have more top-heavy population pyramids that we do. This means
that they have more old people who must be supported in retirement and in
sickness by a relatively small base of working and tax-paying people, than we do. So what’s our excuse?
The
Solution
Whatever
solution is implemented, the first, last and fundamental principle to keep in
mind, if we are to get out of this
quagmire is simple: STOP DIGGING YOUR GRAVE. That means, stop increasing your
debt, and start reducing it. How?
No other
country on earth spends as high a percentage of its wealth on medicine, yet
dozens of other countries are healthier than we are.
|
1) Stop spending nearly a quarter of
your national wealth (GDP) on medicine. The AMA, the Insurance companies and
the pharmaceutical companies are
fleecing the American people. No other country on earth spends as high a
percentage of its wealth on medicine, yet dozens of other countries are
healthier than we are.
Wean yourself
from dependency on foreign oil. That means alternative energies, including
the massive reintroduction of nuclear power plants.
|
2) Stop spending yourself into
bankruptcy for oil. Wean yourself from dependency on foreign oil. That means
alternative energies, including the
massive reintroduction of nuclear power plants.
3) Stop protecting and policing the
world, mostly by yourself. Cut your military budget to the same percentage of
GDP as your allies, i.e. 1.5% to 2%, from the current 3.5%. America’s military
budget exceeds that of the rest of the world combined, i.e. it makes up more than half of the world’s military expenditures. That’s too much. This
will reduce the federal government’s annual deficit by $250 billion, i.e. half.
America’s
military budget exceeds that of the rest of the world combined, i.e. it makes up more than half of the world’s military expenditures. That’s too much.
|
Our obsession with terrorism vastly
exaggerates its importance and the magnitude of its threat. 9-11 was a tragedy and a fluke. There is no such thing
as absolute security, so vigilance is good, but all in good measure. I do not
advocate weakening homeland security.
However, thanks to geography and history, we are relatively safer from
terrorism than are the Europeans, yet we are more obsessed by it, and we spend
too much on foreign wars which do little to protect us against terrorism.
4) True, part of the solution - but
only a part - is to cut back on public (= government)
spending. However, the areas where our government vastly and wastefully
overspends are not the usual suspects - the safety nets for the elderly, the sick and the indigent,
Social Security, Medicare, etc. No they are the military (see above) and:
Our gargantuan criminal justice
system. We lock up over 800 people per
100,000, which is by far the highest rate of incarceration in the world. It is
about 10 to 20 times higher than the incarceration rates of all
other industrialized nations. It is
higher than that of totalitarian countries such as China and Iran. Five
million Americans are under the jurisdiction of the criminal
justice system, i.e. 1.6% of the
population. America spends far more on
this and on lawyers than does any other country on earth. The criminal
justice system and the ABA are fleecing
the American people.
We lock up
over 800 people per 100,000, which
is by
far the highest rate of incarceration in the world. It is
about 10 to 20 times higher than incarceration rates of all other industrialized nations.
|
5) Sell more of your products to
foreigners and buy fewer products from
them. The single largest part of our indebtedness is caused by our balance of
trade, which has been negative for half a century.
6) Buy fewer things, period. You eat too much, consume
too much, buy too many useless machines, live in houses that are too large,
drive too many miles, carpool too little, walk too little. You’ll feel a lot
better and live longer if you do all these things.
7) Start to save, as your grand parents
did. Currently, it is not that you are not saving enough. You are actually not
saving at all. Collectively, your savings rate is negative.
Buy fewer things, period. You eat too much,
consume too much, buy too many useless machines, live in houses that are too
large, drive too many miles, carpool too little, walk too little. You’ll feel
a lot better and live longer if you do all these things.
|
8) The solution does not
include massive cutbacks to
social services. Leave those as they are. If Social Security threatens
to become non-solvent in a few decades from now, the solution is simple: it is not to privatize it, as the Bush
administration tried to do, urging the American people to gamble with the only
secure income they can count on in old age. It is not to drastically increase contributions. No, the solution is to
simply raise maximum benefit age by a year or two. After all, we live nearly
two decades longer now than we did when the program was introduced by President
Roosevelt. It is not much of an imposition on the population to delay
fully-paid retirement by a couple of years, after which the retired population
would still enjoy a far longer life in retirement than it did two generations
ago.
As to other social services - Medicare,
welfare, child support, unemployment benefits, sick leave, parental leave, etc. - ours are already very
stingy in comparison with the rest of the developed world, so it would be
unconscionable to reduce them further.
Conclusion
I am reminded of the 18th
century British economist Thomas Malthus. While Malthus wrote about a different
problem, namely the threat of world over-population, his reasoning is very
applicable to the subject at hand: in
his warning against the danger of over-population, he explained that we had two
choices: (1) either smartly and relatively painlessly control population growth through various
forms of birth control (including abstinence) or (2) let nature do it for us painfully, as it does in the animal
kingdom. If humanity failed to do the first, then the painful Malthusian checks
would take effect, namely starvation, war and pestilence.
We can
implement the eight recommendations I have suggested, or history will take
its course and solve the problem for us - painfully...The system will become
unstable, there will be radical social
upheaval, and the upper strata will be expropriated, forcefully.
|
America is at a similar crossroads.
We can implement the eight recommendations I have suggested, or history will
take its course and solve the problem for us - painfully. How will it do that? Well, after the American economy goes through such utter devastation
as to make it unrecognizable, and the American people descend to a
generalized level of hardship which we
have never experienced
in our history, the system will become unstable, there will be
radical social upheaval, and the upper
strata will be expropriated, forcefully. After all, our bills and our debts - both current and
past due - will have to be paid back
somehow, if necessary through the
confiscation of wealth. And where else
will the money be found, but in the pockets of the Warren Buffetts, Alan
Greenspans, Steve Forbes and other people interviewed in Creadon’s movie
I.O.U.S.A. So which way will be it?
© Tom Kando 2014
leave comment here
Monday, June 9, 2014
BEATLES OR STONES?
(first written and posted on 12/18/13)
On December 16, MSNBC had a short skit about the Beatles vs. the Rolling Stones. Here is something an old fart like me can piggy-back on, while maintaining my self-image as someone who is still hip.
I realize that this is not a very original topic. Nevertheless, some of you aging baby-boomers might get a kick out of the question - one more time: which of the two wins?
The Beatles lasted seven years (1960-1967). The Rolling Stones have been at it for over half a century (1962-present).
When the Stones started in 1962, they wanted to be seen as the anti-Beatles. The two groups’ images were indeed those of a more “bourgeois” Beatles and a more subversive Stones. But this was paradoxical, because it was actually the Beatles who came from a working-class background (Liverpool), while the Rolling Stones’ origins were more upper middle class. Mick Jagger even went to the London School of Economics. Nevertheless, the Rolling Stones have always been viewed as more rebellious.
The Rolling Stones produced several dozen LPs and countless singles, whereas the Beatles only produced about 14 full 12-inch LPs, as well as many singles. The Beatles’ “leader” was John Lennon, just as the Rolling Stones were primarily identified with Mick Jagger. Although the Beatles disbanded in 1967, they might conceivably have rejoined, had Lennon not been murdered in 1980. The Stones (Mick Jagger, Keith Richards and other members) also experienced repeated falling-outs and break-ups.
The Stones’ top hit singles ( I Can’t Get No Satisfaction, The Last Time, both in 1965) are not what turned me on the most, although I did like Paint it Black (1966) a lot. My real love affair with them began with their 1966 album, Aftermath, which included such favorites of mine as I am Waiting, the beautiful ballad Lady Jane and the 12 minute long (!) Going Home, which takes over your mind until you forget who and where you are.
Their album, Their Satanic Majesties Request (1967) is probably my favorite, with Sticky Fingers (1971) a close second. The latter album is often raunchily sexual, at times misogynistic, reminiscent of Jim Morrison and anticipating hip hop.
The Beatles’ trajectory was a bit different. Their early singles and their first LPs were relatively puerile - songs like I want to Hold Your Hand (1963), and records such as A Hard Day’s Night (1964) and Help! (1965) are almost inane.
But then, it gets really good: Rubber Soul (1965) contains beautiful songs such as Norwegian Wood. It is followed by Revolver (1966), which includes the hit Eleanor Rigby and other songs that are increasingly profound and mature (and also increasingly drug-inspired).
1967 was unquestionably the Beatles’ apex. That is when their two best albums came out - Sgt. Pepper and Magical Mystery Tour. Many people consider Sgt. Pepper the Beatles’ best music, but I am not sure which of these two I prefer. Songs like Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds and Fixing a Hole (Sgt. Pepper) and The fool on the Hill (Magical Mystery) will remain among my favorites until the day I die.
Several more excellent records followed. The White Album (1968) and Abbey Road (1969) contain many fine songs, one of my favorites being You Never Give Me Your Money. There were also some major hits, such as Hey Jude (1968). However, the zenith achieved in 1967 was never reached again.
I feel that the Beatles disbanded prematurely. And then came tragedy: John Lennon’s murder in 1980 and George Harrison’s death in 2001.
After the group split up, the Beatles went their separate ways, and some of them continued to produce great music. George Harrison’s All Things Must Pass is a triple album of music inspired by Hindu spiritualism and Indian culture, which Harrison had come to embrace. My Sweet Lord is my favorite song in this collection. The music prominently features the sitar and the tabla. These are, of course, the well-known Indian instruments popularized by the great Ravi Shankar, with whom Harrison also played and recorded repeatedly. The influence of Indian spirituality, music and culture on the Beatles was already present in earlier albums such as Rubber Soul and Revolver.
Paul McCartney is one of two surviving Beatle. Today, he is a serious composer of modern classical music, which is often played on such radio networks as NPR.
I keep and cherish the dozens of vinyl records I bought during a lifetime of adulation for both the Rolling Stones and the Beatles.
Is it a stupid question to ask which group is better? Probably. Still, it’s permissible to ask whom you LIKE better. Everyone has preferences. There are Coke people and there are Pepsi people.
If quantity and durability are your criteria, then the Stones win hands down. But that’s nonsense. Take Mozart and Haydn: Mozart died at 35 and composed 40 symphonies. Haydn lived to be 77 and wrote 104 symphonies. But we don’t rank him ahead of Mozart because of that.
I would like to say that I enjoy listening to the Stones and to the Beatles equally, but I cannot. While some Rolling Stones songs please me more than some Beatle music, in the end, I have to say that I love the Beatles (a little bit) more...
Let me know how you vote.
© Tom Kando 2014
leave comment here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)