Our Future In My Past
Ah, nothing gets your international vacation off to a roaring start like having Customs Canada single you out for an extra-intensive inspection.
My Traveling Companion and I were among the youngest adults riding the catamaran ferry from Bar Harbor, Maine to Yarmouth, Nova Scotia; most of our shipmates were retirees on package tours. Perhaps our relative youth is what made the customs guy view us with a gimlet eye (young’uns under 60 are so prone to hellraising); more likely, it was one of those random inspections done from time to time so customs agents don’t have a chance to get bored. They checked my eyeglasses for explosive residue and went over every square inch of the front seat, even inspecting the ancient cigarette ash in the ashtray (last used about two years ago). However, they only opened two of our seven pieces of luggage, and left my purse entirely alone.
So it was almost an hour between the time we drove off the ferry and the time we were allowed to enter Canada proper. Maybe that’s why we forgot to stop in Yarmouth for a currency exchange; about half an hour later, as we drove toward Halifax, we realized that we were half-starved but couldn’t visit any restaurants because the only legal currency we had on us was a single Canadian penny mixed in with the American ones in my change purse.
“We’re starving, and our car’s running low on gas, and we can’t buy any of life’s necessities because our wallets are stuffed with useless American dollars,” I said. “This is excellent practice for the future if Congress passes that Wall Street bailout.” And sure enough they did, so let me tell you, my fellow Americans: I’ve lived through our future and it really, really sucks.
At least we could find a local bank willing to trade American currency for something spendable. For now.
By the way, there’s a good chance American customs will arrest me when I try re-entering the country of my birth in a couple of days, because I went to Costco and bought three cases of Big Turk candy bars (which are not sold in America) and given the mentality of modern American law enforcement they’ll probably think “Turkish delight equals Muslim with a bomb equals she’s a goddamned terrorist.” So if you don’t hear from me within seven days, please write irate letters to Gitmo demanding my release.
My Traveling Companion and I were among the youngest adults riding the catamaran ferry from Bar Harbor, Maine to Yarmouth, Nova Scotia; most of our shipmates were retirees on package tours. Perhaps our relative youth is what made the customs guy view us with a gimlet eye (young’uns under 60 are so prone to hellraising); more likely, it was one of those random inspections done from time to time so customs agents don’t have a chance to get bored. They checked my eyeglasses for explosive residue and went over every square inch of the front seat, even inspecting the ancient cigarette ash in the ashtray (last used about two years ago). However, they only opened two of our seven pieces of luggage, and left my purse entirely alone.
So it was almost an hour between the time we drove off the ferry and the time we were allowed to enter Canada proper. Maybe that’s why we forgot to stop in Yarmouth for a currency exchange; about half an hour later, as we drove toward Halifax, we realized that we were half-starved but couldn’t visit any restaurants because the only legal currency we had on us was a single Canadian penny mixed in with the American ones in my change purse.
“We’re starving, and our car’s running low on gas, and we can’t buy any of life’s necessities because our wallets are stuffed with useless American dollars,” I said. “This is excellent practice for the future if Congress passes that Wall Street bailout.” And sure enough they did, so let me tell you, my fellow Americans: I’ve lived through our future and it really, really sucks.
At least we could find a local bank willing to trade American currency for something spendable. For now.
By the way, there’s a good chance American customs will arrest me when I try re-entering the country of my birth in a couple of days, because I went to Costco and bought three cases of Big Turk candy bars (which are not sold in America) and given the mentality of modern American law enforcement they’ll probably think “Turkish delight equals Muslim with a bomb equals she’s a goddamned terrorist.” So if you don’t hear from me within seven days, please write irate letters to Gitmo demanding my release.
posted by Jennifer Abel at 4:31 PM
35 Comments:
Unfortunately, the fundamental problem is systemic. You can't fix it by "letting the market work", because what we have *IS* the logical result of "letting the market work". Ever since the opinion by a clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court said that corporations enjoy the rights of natural people, these amoral (at best) souless entities have been competing in the Darwinian environment of "the market". And, like all "inteligent" entities (in fact, most complex entities), part of their strategy for competing is to change the environment to favor themselves.
For corporate entities, "the environment" is basically socio-economic conditions, and government regulations.
Social attitudes can demonstrably be shaped, with enough money. Thus, corporate entities invented Madison Avenue, and similar tools.
Laws and regulations are partially driven by social attitudes, but directly impacted by legislatures and demagogues. Enough money buys enough influence in this relatively-small population that "business" mostly gets what it wants, over the long run.
Economic conditons are heavily influenced both by social attitudes and legislative/executive activity. More to the point, however, so long as a souless, bodiless, fundamentally-immortal entity is allowed to exercize the rights and freedoms of a natural person, corporate entities can *AND DO* directly influence and manipulate the economy.
Basically, corporate entities (having a longer lifespan, and therefore a longer view than "mere humans") have slowly but surely manipulated their environment until we no longer have "government of the people, by the people, for the people". We basically have "government of the people, by the plutocrats, for the economy". That's why The Bailout *is* happening, and why we have a deliberate (and unconstitutional) history and pattern of "inflation" (also known as currency devaluation).
It's clearly easy to choose a "free market" approach to the current heavily-skewed governmental policies. However, my thesis is that these policies *ARE* the inevitable effect of a "free market", in that no entity in a dominant position wants an upstart competitor to have "a fair chance" at competition. Ours *was* one of the first major national governments that wasn't founded primarily by corporate/business entities to protect their own interests against foreign competition and/or depredation. Most major governments have an easily-followed evolutionary origin in various forms of trade protectionism (especially when you consider that tithing is a form of "trade" that organized religions - just another form of corporate entity - don't want to lose to "heathen" competition).
Thus, our noble experiment in incorruptible government has, in fact, been almost totally suborned and corrupted. I'm not certain how we get out of the current mess, which really consists of selling our descendants into slavery (that, after all, is exactly what "Deficit Spending" on the "Full Faith and Credit of the United States" amounts to). However, given that we, the people, have not only tollerated, but encouraged, our government to do this, it is only to be expected that corporate entities would capitalize on it. That's what a "Bail Out" is - the cold, deliberate calculation that "the Government" will print more "funny money" and foist the debt on our future rather than face the harsh realities of a situation, if the situation can be made "bad enough".
"Panic the People, then Pick their Pockets." - Anne O'Neimaus, 2008
I think, rather than shooting for the eutopian "free market" illusion, we should aim for a "human (or humanitarian?) market". Make it work *for* us (human beings) rather than against us. Corporate entities should explicitly *NOT* be allowed free reign to do as they see fit - history is replete with examples of what happens under those circumstances. Rather, corporations should have limited charters that must be periodically reviewed and renewed. If a corporation can't clearly demonstrate that it is doing "more good" for society than not, its charter is revoked. Of course, the problem then is who does the reviewing, and how do we define "more good". Big Business would have us believe that "more money" = "more good", with variations based on taxes paid, "downstream" economy stimulated, etc. I think, rather, it should somehow be measured in terms of average effect on standard of living, where "average" is some maximizing function of both the Arithmetic Mean, and the Median. We need both types of average to avoid things like some nameless software company raising the Arithmetic Mean income of the population of Seatle by the simple expedient of making its founder the richest man in the world, regardless of what it does to everybody else's income.
"Free Market" is a pipe dream in an environment where mere mortals must compete with what amounts to supernatural entities. (An amoral at best, immoral or even evil at worst, self-serving and sociopathic incorporial entity that actively influences human behavior and attitudes...sounds like a good definition of a classical Demon, doesn't it?) I'd argue that we literally need to regulate the hell out of them; but, as I've already stated, they are past masters at manipulating the socio-economic and legislative environments.
I fear it is, and will remain, an endless struggle: each generation must earn its freedom anew... But they certainly have a better chance if their future hasn't been squandered by their anscestors.
Couldn't you just go to an ATM and make a withdrawal in Canadian dollars? That's what I usually do when traveling internationally.
Hope you liked the Cat. It's built in my former home town of Hobart Tasmania (Australia)! The Australian Navy uses a sister ship as a fast troop and equipment transport.
an environment where mere mortals must compete with what amounts to supernatural entities. (An amoral at best, immoral or even evil at worst, self-serving and sociopathic incorporial entity that actively influences human behavior and attitudes...sounds like a good definition of a classical Demon, doesn't it?)
No, it sounds more like a definition of classical government.
anne, how you been?
Couldn't you just go to an ATM and make a withdrawal in Canadian dollars?
Eventually we did, but the part we drove through first was rather "rustic." We couldn't find any ATMs, and couldn't even buy gas because the stations were all full-service with old-fashioned pumps that wouldn't accept credit or bank cards.
In retrospect, we likely could've spent American currency, but we were too tired and hungry to think straight.
Hope you liked the Cat.
Oh, yes. Although the Gulf of Maine was extremely stormy that morning; most of my shipmates spent the trip filling barf bags. I'd skipped breakfast that morning, so I had no such problem, but after the first hour the novelty of constant motion wore off and I intensely wanted the trip to end.
I'm sure a single-hulled boat would've been much worse, though.
Ah, and my Traveling Companion just finished his shower, so we'll soon be leaving our hotel here on Cape Breton Island and start heading toward New Brunswick. I'll be incognito so far as the internet is concerned.
There are a lot of people like Anne out there. Liberals who really don't understand economics beyond "people are greedy and they suck". So now that they have a REAL economic crisis coming to a head they are grasping at straws to understand it. They wander the internet hitting up their philosophical allies who don't get it either.
So they put crap like this togather and spread it around, like a farmer fertlizing a feild. I have seen so much of it around that sounded so close to intelegent I thought maybe I was missing something. So I sent a few to an economist buddy of mine asking for a translation. This is what he said it's like they are saying, and I think it applys here too.
"Fuck! Grass is green. You pass it by everyday, and probably don't notice, but look, there it is Green! Green I tell you. Here's where it gets real fucking deep. When light hits grass it absorbs every color, except green. Think of it, every color, Red, orange, yellow, blue, Indigo and violet, all just absorbed, but green reflects. What's this indigo and violet shit? Aren't they the same color after all?"
Caveman said: "There are a lot of people like Anne out there. Liberals who really don't understand economics beyond "people are greedy and they suck". So now that they have a REAL economic crisis coming to a head they are grasping at straws to understand it."
You missed my point entirely, Caveman. Sure, people are greedy...I are one! While mine was a typically long-winded rant, as I tried to get my own thoughts in order, my basic point is that we (humanity) have created an unseen competitor (corporate entities) that is successfuly outcompeting us. I see no reason why we (as humans, as opposed to we as a society or we as an economy) should continue to promote and support an endeavor clearly destined to cause us grief.
In general, business and trade are "good", in that they have historically tended to improve the human condition when they thrive. But, just as water is "good", too much in the "wrong" way can turn "bad". Corporate entities are a human creation - in fact, they are a convenient social fiction. I simply hold that we as humans have a vested interest in shaping and controling these fictional entities to our benefit. That is, after all, the logical function of the "free market" of ideology and social influence...
The problem with your "...really don't understand economics..." assertion, while fundamentally true, is that economics, unlike math, does not and cannot exist in a vacuum. It is, in the broadest sense, the science of measuring cost-benefit and efficiency of complex interacting environmental forces. Thus, economics in the more-restricted sense of "measuring and regulating the commercial economy" is meanjngless without a consideration of politics.
Politics is messy, and poorly-understood by almost everybody - including you, Caveman. Because, if you really understood it, you'd be running (a good portion of) the world right now. However, I contend that you underestimate my understanding of the subject as much as you mischaracterize my political leanings.
Moose,
I've been better, but things are looking up. New job, new home, new state (I live in Kansas, now). Relocation for a pair of packrats, after living in the same place for a quarter-century, is stressful...
I've been better, but things are looking up. New job, new home, new state (I live in Kansas, now).
What the heck possessed you to move to...well...never mind. I guess "We're not in Kansas anymore" in your case doesn't apply.
I understand that moving a quarter century stuff. It sucks.
But, just as water is "good", too much in the "wrong" way can turn "bad"
There is a very good book I recall from about 15 years ago called "Engaging the Powers." It's kind of heavy on religion, because the guy's a scripture scholar, but if you can get by that he's got some fascinating ideas. Primarily, the "powers" of the old testament are what are created when people form a group, and they're actual 'entities' of sorts. What is angelic, it serves people, but it can turn demonic if it ceases to serve and requires service. When you look at government, for example, this gets very interesting.
CML, I do think you have misunderstood Anne, but I know her previous stuff so perhaps I read the latest with that in mind.
Thanks, Moose. I'll try to find a copy.
@Smartass: "No, it sounds more like a definition of classical government."
Pretty much the same thing, in my book... Note, also, that almost any government (at least, any in which the principals don't personally know every citizen) is inherently a "corporate entity". We, as Americans (actually, as U.S. Citizens) pride ourselves on our deliberate control and regulation of government (even if we demonstrably aren't very good at it). Why not do the same for all other corporate entities we invite into our society?
Blah, blah, blah...
Congrats. You figured out that grass is green. I'm impressed. Next time try writing about your revelations without using Marxist dogma.
Congrats. You figured out that grass is green. I'm impressed. Next time try writing about your revelations without using Marxist dogma.
Translation: Ok, ok, ok, I didn't really read it the first time
;>
@CML: "...without using Marxist dogma."
I don't know how "Marxist" my ruminations are, but I can certainly assure you they are *NOT* dogma. One of the reasons I enjoy this 'blog is that there are often intelligent discussions and insights that allow my humble self to examine and re-examine my opinions and preconceptions about some important parts of the world.
Dogma is almost always going to fail when it comes face-to-face with the complexity and variety of the "Real World"...even Libertarian Dogma isn't infalible.
Ok, you got me Moose, after reading " because what we have *IS* the logical result of 'letting the market work'. Ever since the opinion by a clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court said that corporations enjoy the rights of natural people", my eyes started to glaze over. How is it when the government interferes in the market by creating entities with special privileges above and beyond what we "mortals" enjoy is the inevitable result a problem with the free market?
@Caveman Lawyer: "How is it when the government interferes in the market by creating entities with special privileges above and beyond what we "mortals" enjoy is the inevitable result a problem with the free market?"
Glad you asked, although I thought I had addressed this in my ramblings...
Let us first agree that, for any modern market to exist, "free" or not, it must be supported by one or more governing bodies. This is demonstrably true, if only for the fact that the ability to issue and support the valuation of a currency makes a de-facto government.
Now, let us attempt to define a "free market", in the context of a modern (i.e. using money as a medium of exchange) economy. The gut-reaction definition would be "one which the government(s) do not regulate or restrict."
This is obviously too simplistic a definition, as the most straightforward way to make a lot of money in such an environment is to literally make money. No currency can remain stable in the face of unlimited counterfieting, so some force obviously has to restrict at least that activity. Anything else is "Bad for Business" in the long run, and in the theoretical absence of a pre-existing government to regulate such activity, Business would get together and create a regulatory and enforcement body - a government. Sure, it starts out as guilds and shared responsibility for warding off hostile interference, but it all eventually amounts to a law-enforcing government with an army.
Whether governments are an inevitable result of "free-market" economics or not, any modern market will have to exist in a government-laden environment. They're damn hard to get rid of once they get settled in, these governments. So, we'll have to settle for defining "free market" as "an economy in which the government(s) impose no unwaranted interference or restriction."
So, in some sense, we are arguing about the scope of the term "unwaranted". But that's really another issue entirely, and is the very stuff that politics is made of.
However, in this posited "free market", we have buisinesses competing with each other based on quality of goods and services -vs- price and convenience. As long as such business is basically human in nature and scope, the playing field stays relatively level. Corporate entities will develop naturally as a mechanism for increasing competitive advantage; at least, they always have in the past. The Medicis were esentially a corporate entity, as were the great trading houses of ancient Rome.
This pooling of talent, and development of an entity that can survive - and plan - beyond the lifespan of its constituent members is a pretty significant advantage by itself. Granting special protections to such an entity, so that the humans behind it are absolved of legal responsibility for corporate actions is, IMHO, going too far.
Be that as it may, protective corporations with most of the rights of a natural person are what we have in this country. They are legal entities in and of themselves, can own property, and seek legal redress, independently from any of the people that comprise the corporation. They are not allowed to vote, but they are allowed (even encouraged) to participate in the political process, both by disseminating (mis)information, and by investing money and resources in attempts to influence the composition and activities of the various branches of the government.
Now, back to our hypothetical "free market", in which corporations can and do influence both legislation and executive policy. In this environment, manipulation of public policy is just another tool, and any competitive corporation will leverage it to maximize their own advantage...or eventually "lose", and cease to exist. That is, after all, how the "free market" works, isn't it? We assume that all actors will act in their own perceived best interests?
For example, it is in the best interests of the major pharmaceutical companies to raise significant bariers to market-entry for new developments that they don't themselves control. Not surprisingly, despite all their crocodile tears about over-regulation, the existing companies actually support and encourage the byzantine regulations that have grown to protect their market-shares.
The economy simply cannot be divorced from politics while operating as a relatively-unconstrained "free market", where the power and influence of corporate entities is involved. By the very theory of the "free market", this will inevitably result in the corruption of the political process with regards to the economy, to favor some powerful Business segment.
"Well, don't let them do that!" I hear. Sadly, for our premise, this involves pretty heavy-handed interference in what corporations are allowed to do with their money and resources. Especially since some powerful corporations (such as the major political parties) were explicitly founded for the express purpose of influencing the political process.
Sorry, I've been around the block a few times, and am by no means sanguine about the benevolence of corporate interest with regard to individuals. With regard to demographic groups, maybe, but corporations by and large care about individuals no more than you or I care about the millions of skin-cells that fall off of us every day. We simply don't exist on the same scale, the same "plane of existance".
Note, however, that I am not anti "free market", for some socially-acceptible definition of "free". I am against creating superhuman entities which are then allowed relatively-unfettered competition with my humble self.
This attitude is my attempt at maximizing my self-potential in the free-market of ideology, as well as in the real-world socio-economic environment of politics.
I want mankind's creations to serve man, not the other way around. Put some limits on the abilities of corporate entities (including governments - e.g. enforce the Constitution), so that even if (*ahem*, when) they best me in the otherwise-free market, I at least know that we (if not me personally) are accruing a general benefit, instead of concentrating power and wealth at the expense of the majority of humanity.
Caveman, if you want some Marxist-flavored bon mots from me, consider this one:
Marx claimed, with some justification, that "Religion is the opiate of the masses."
I content that the pricipal goes even further: dogma is the opiate of the masses, whether religious, political, or economic.
Once "they" have you repeating the "party line" - ANY party line - they know how you'll react, and they effectively own you (at least, where "you" is a demographic, rather than necessarily and individual). This hold as true for Libertarian dogma as it does for Liberal, Conservative, Religious, or Fascist dogma. Once you stop examining your precepts and conclusions, you become just another demographic statistic.
Damn, someones got a bad case of of mental diarrhea. But with such poisoned ideas setting in the mental digestive tract no wonder you have to expel them so forcefully.
I do love how you cavalierly redefine the terms and conditions of the situation to justify your earlier statements. Are you sure you're not a corporation yourself? You sound just like my credit card company...
Caveman, is it at all possible for you to disagree with somebody without resorting to insults?
Anne, whatever you do, don't criticize Sarah Palin. I did that a couple weeks ago and learned that since I'm a female, Caveman decided my motivation was not libertarian umbrage but estrogen-drenched jealousy.
To All:
In some sense, Caveman is right: "mental diarrhea". Sorry for inflicting all that noise on y'all.
Anne, whatever you do, don't criticize Sarah Palin. I did that a couple weeks ago and learned that since I'm a female, Caveman decided my motivation was not libertarian umbrage but estrogen-drenched jealousy.
Actually, there was an article written by a woman about that, talking about how women "get their hate on" when it comes to her.
I found it interesting, not being hampered by that second X chromosome and all.
Caveman, is it at all possible for you to disagree with somebody without resorting to insults?
Perhaps it's his male hormones. ;-)
Could be.
BTW, the article I referred to is here. Gay sex popup free for CML's benefit.
BTW, the article I referred to ...
Yeah, I just read that the other day, but it wasn't at Time. I don't remember who it was, but some feminist writer once said that other women can often be a woman's worst enemy when it comes to getting ahead in a "man's world."
Meaning that women are much harder on another woman than men are. I think that often is true.
Meaning that women are much harder on another woman than men are.
Not that that prevents men from wanting to watch.
Hey, did I just say that out loud?!
Jen asked, "is it at all possible for you to disagree with somebody without resorting to insults?"
I don't resort to insults. I start off with them and go downhill from there. Polite political discourse between rational adults who disagree over the details is a fantasy best reserved for fairy tales, like "The Elephant and the Limited Government Elves" or "The Little Guy and His Friend the Donkey". Political discussions between people of different ideologies degrade to flame wars so quickly there is no reason to waste time or electrons on niceties.
Besides, I've got porn that isn't going to download itself, I don't have time to waste.
If you're not joking, Caveman, then you need to associate with a better class of people. Few of my friends are libertarians, yet we're more than capable of discussing our differences without acting like obnoxious four-year-olds.
Yeah, in person maybe, where there is a fear of physical violence. But then I've seen some real scary in person political discussions go downhill very rapidly. Just this weekend I did a job for some Obama supporters who were passing through town. They were talking about Obama to someone on the street and another passer by said to them "you're not goona vote for that nigger are you?" and the "discussion" went downhill from there.
So I would say you and your associates are simply the exception that proves the rule.
'sallrite, Caveman Loser - I can both eat and spew meaningless, insulting bullshit with the best of 'em.
And, I can do it with longer, more eloquent posts than you have the patience for. B-)
However, I've always considered this particular forum a refreshing change from the usual polution that passes for discussion on the 'Net, so I'd like to keep it that way...
Besides, I've got a time-saving tip for you: disable your firewall and use Internet Explorer 6 exclusively. The Porn will indeed download itself.
It's not a matter of lacking the patience to post long rambling manifestos on justifying any earlier long winded blather. I simply have realized the truth of things. A persons opinions are ossified by the age of 16. They wont change their views very much after that point no matter how eloquent or logical your points may be.
But feel free to use up your time and energy pontificating on the evils of the free market and corporations, even though this nation has more of a mercantilist economy with fascist leanings. Enjoy doing that. I'll drop in from time to time and mock you while I wait for the naked ladies to pump up my hard drive.
I simply have realized the truth of things.
It is interesting how people view themselves sometimes.
@Caveman: "...even though this nation has more of a mercantilist economy with fascist leanings."
I think you have summarized our current state and trend pretty well. In fact, the (recent) dominant forces in the Republican party have been (IMHO) much better described as "fascist" than "conservative", but both the press and the Democrats seem unwilling to go there...
The "Free Market" is a fiction...always has been, always will be. It is a model, contrived by economists and lesser mortals to help us grasp and discuss an incredibly-complex, ill-defined non-entity that is the gestalt of trade, public opinion, politics, and deliberate manipulation that is modern commerce.
All models are false (or flawed), in that they are inherently approximations that deliberately ignore some (or most) of the "ugly details". However, some models have proven quite useful in evaluating "what if" conditions, and predicting future events or conditional behavior. The more effective a model is at such things, the more "correct" we deem it. Unfortunately, many people equate "correct" with "true", and then make the even bigger leap from "true" to "True" (as in, an article of faith).
The "Free Market" model is a very compelling one. I feel it is one of the more-accurate models we have for dealing with the complex interactions and "ecosystems" of the various economies that impact us. However, depending upon its degree of correctness and completion, it has certain implications that seem non-obvious to many people. One of these implications is that, if its basic tenets are correct, it should be applicable to far more than "merely" monetary issues.
And, in fact, I believe that the "Free Market" model does have something to offer in other venues. But more to the point, I believe that it inherently MUST incorporate wider considerations to be "accurate enough". One of those wider considerations is the evolutionary effect it must exert on social constructs, such as corporate entities.
My posts were not, by any means, "Trashing the Free Market". They were pointing out that, if the Free Market model is at all accurate, I feel the current trend towards Fascism (in its ill-defined form as a society in which government and commerce are closely aligned and collaborative) is inevitable *UNLESS* "We the People" exercise vigilance against it. "Left to itself", I contend that a "Free Market", especially one in which corporate entities are allowed unfettered access, must inevitably lead to Fascism.
That doesn't equal "Free Market Bad" - it means I fee we should think about what sort of things we want to promote, and what sort of things we want to restrict, and periodically re-evaluate the actual effects of our communal policies in these areas. In other words, I feel that Government should (*gasp*) GOVERN. Not dictate, and not over-regulate. However, the term "over-regulate" is one which people often agree with in principal, but disagree on the technical details.
Like many on this board, I feel that Less Government is probably a Good Thing in general. But what we have of it should definitely be doing something useful if it wants to continue being supported by the sweat of my brow and the fruits of my mind!
Post a Comment
<< Home