Production and wealth are related but different terms
To understand this, let's first understand what money is. Money is a medium of exchange that must be backed by wealth. What is wealth, then? Wealth is surplus, unconsumed production. From the perspective of a simple agricultural economy, we can understand this in the context of John, a wheat farmer. John eats 100 pounds of wheat per year. If John grows 100 pounds of wheat in a year, and eats 100 pounds of wheat, he is poor and has nothing at the end of the year. But if John learns more efficient means of farming and produces 200 pounds of wheat in a year then he has produced more goods than he can consume. Since he can only eat 100 pounds of wheat, he has 100 pounds left over.
200 lbs produced
-100 lbs eaten
100 lbs excess
The left over 100 pounds of wheat is John's wealth. This means, for example, that he can take off from farming next year entirely and live off of his unconsumed wealth. Or, John can trade some of his unconsumed wheat with other people for what they produce. For example, John can trade 25 pounds of wheat for a fur cloak made by Bob to help him stay warm throughout the winter.
The important point to remember is that John's wealth isn't the 200 pounds of wheat he produced; his wealth is the 100 pounds that he accumulated and did not consume.
By producing more than they consume, producers in an economy are able to trade their excess production for the excess production of other producers.
The Role of Money
Whatever physical form money takes (paper, gold, silver, salt, etc), money is a medium for trading and storing excess production. As a medium of trade, John's wheat isn't very effective. Earlier, John traded 25 lbs of wheat for a fur cloak that his neighbor Bob had produced. That was very convenient for John but it was only convenient because Bob wanted wheat. What happens, though, if Bob has plenty of wheat and doesn't need more of John's wheat? How will John get his fur cloak? He can't make his own because he doesn't know how. Now John has to ask Bob what he wants in exchange for the cloak. It turns out that Bob wants a clay pot. John talks to Mark who is a potter and offers to trade him wheat for a pot. Mark, though, has enough wheat and won't make the trade but tells John he needs a straw mat to sleep on. So John goes to Lilly who is a thresher and makes straw mats. Fortunately, Lilly needs wheat for her family so she trades her mat for John's wheat. John then trades his mat for Mark's clay pot and then trades the clay pot for Bob's fur cloak. Then John goes home and falls asleep, exhausted from the effort of simply getting a single trade done.
To make trade easier, people invented money; an object that everyone in the economy wanted so that everyone would trade their productivity to obtain it. Why does everyone in the economy trade for money? Because they want the many products that they can obtain with money.
Money's other role is as a means of storing wealth (unconsumed excess production). Over time, John's wealth will disappear. Remember that John's wealth is his excess wheat. If John leaves his wheat in storage long enough, his wheat will spoil which means he cannot eat it later nor can he trade with it. Because money never spoils, John can trade his wheat for money and then store the money indefinitely.
Money's Dependency
What is important to know about money is that money depends on one thing: production. Production can exist without money but money is worthless without production. Money and production are forever intertwined in this relationship. If John doesn't produce wheat, all the money in the world buy you a single slice of bread. No amount of hoping, wishing or praying can turn those pieces of paper in your wallet into bread you can eat.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Sunday, September 19, 2010
America Must Support Idiots Who Burn the Koran, not Punish Them
I saw the below article and I couldn't help feel a cold shiver run down my spine as I am reminded of how easily and subtly political dissenters can be silenced by simple actions, even in free societies like America where political dissent and diversity of opinion should be protected like delicate glass. In America, we are still a long way from seeing Castro-esque kidnapping and torture of political dissenters but Lenin-esque carting off of the opposition to the Gulag isn't the only way to silence the opposition. You can, for example, outlaw political advertisements close to election time (which has already been done in America) or you can make it harder for one group to get their message out and make it easier for their opposition to get their message out, which is what the town of Gainsville, Fl. is trying to do.
City plans to bill pastor for security around planned Quran burning
By paying for security for the in-group and taxing the out-group, the government there is, in fact, subsidizing the political in-group and adding financial burdens to political dissenters which clearly oppresses free speech and political dissent while favoring those who will agree with the administration. How can liberalism flourish in such an environment where liberalism is actively taxed and preserving the status quo is punished? We must keep in mind that the politically status quo isn't always for the good, and history is full of examples in which governments were wrong and political dissent was necessary to bring liberalism to bear. Jim Crow Laws, Tea Taxes, NAZI policies, are all examples of political ideas that were politically and socially popular and represented the status-quo yet few people in America defend the established power holders' defense of those policies and persecution of dissenters and consider the power holders to be the worst kind of authoritarians. Most Americans agree that the NAZI's, the British Crown and the southern governments that preserved these policies and persecuted the unpopular dissenters were the worst form of Authoritarians bent on destroying freedom and liberalism.
Yet many Americans will foolishly celebrate government persecution of Pastor Jones, smugly claiming liberal values while supporting authoritarianism by agreeing with the removal of a dissenters right to equal treatment.
Although I do think Jones is an ass, he has the right to equal treatment by the government. The decision of the town leaders in Gainesville, Fl. raises a bigger question of equal treatment under the law and the right of Americans who are politically or socially unpopular to political and social dissent under the same conditions as those with more political or social unpopularity. This so-called "bill" they want to hand Jones is basically a form of punitive taxation imposed on a person who is unpopular (which even the extreme leftists like Obama normally oppose, for example when Obama rightly opposed the populist idea of a special taxes on the executives of companies who received bailout monies but still got bonuses). Do municipalities usually bill for providing security for unpopular dissenters who are expected to be the subjects of violence?
I don't think Dr. MLK Jr got billed for police and National Guard security at his rallies and speeches. He was the subject of numerous death threats and was the subject of multiple assassination attempts. Rev. King was not billed, even though he was ran up multimillion dollar security expenses and was politically unpopular in many places. What's the difference? The difference is that King's position was popular with the federal government and most state governments. However some events during the Civil Rights Movement occurred in places where the movement was politically unpopular so local law enforcement couldn't be relied upon or simply refused to assist. In some extreme cases, local government blatantly obstructed federal initiatives and the federal government had to call on federal troops (US Army) to enforce the laws. In those cases the politically unpopular were left without protection and were only able to get help from the group that they were popular with.
Rightly, popular opinion and history itself have rightly condemned the local political elite for failing to provide equal protection under the law to the politically unpopular.
If we allow people to be "billed" like this, we are establishing a legal precedent that only people having political favor will get police protection and that political dissent in America means that you take your life in your own hands. Essentially this means, dissent, will be further oppressed in America reducing real political discourse in America. As it is, real political dissent in the U.S. is virtually non-existent but this action now makes it a matter of public policy. It also means that we have created even more "elites" in America, but not based on a person's productive ability (i.e. the "rich"), but based on political cronyism.
In the entire time Rev Al Sharpton has been on the public stage there has been only one thing he ever did that I agreed with. The KKK was planning a rally in the middle of NYC but the Giulliani administration refused to grant him the necessary permits to have a peaceful assembly, a right guaranteed by the US Constitution. It was Al Sharpton who publicly criticized the administration's refusal to grant the permit because he felt that the administration was refusing the permit because they opposed the Klan's ideology. In other words, a politically unpopular group was being refused the rights afforded to every other citizen. Sharpton himself is very politically unpopular among the administration so, in his mind, he runs the same risk of being refused equal treatment under the law. His reasoning was that, if he wanted to be able to continue to hold gatherings and get protection under the law, he had to defend the rights of ALL citizens to get the same protection under the law.
Voltaire said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". In a free society all people should have the same rights and rights should not be restricted to those who can afford to pay for them. Yes, Terry Jones is a jerk who should be put to sleep, but, if we want to reserve the right for future political dissent to be possible, we need to preserve this "pastor"'s right to receive equal protection under the law. If we bill one person for security costs then we need to bill everyone for such expenses, regardless of their political or social unpopularity, or we further eliminate true political freedom in this country by silencing the minority.
Yes, Jones cost the town of Gainesville Florida $180,000 in security costs, but that is quite literally the price we pray for a free, liberal society. If we are unwilling to pay that price, then we must remain silent and accept when governments silence our own ideas if they ever become unpopular.
City plans to bill pastor for security around planned Quran burning
By paying for security for the in-group and taxing the out-group, the government there is, in fact, subsidizing the political in-group and adding financial burdens to political dissenters which clearly oppresses free speech and political dissent while favoring those who will agree with the administration. How can liberalism flourish in such an environment where liberalism is actively taxed and preserving the status quo is punished? We must keep in mind that the politically status quo isn't always for the good, and history is full of examples in which governments were wrong and political dissent was necessary to bring liberalism to bear. Jim Crow Laws, Tea Taxes, NAZI policies, are all examples of political ideas that were politically and socially popular and represented the status-quo yet few people in America defend the established power holders' defense of those policies and persecution of dissenters and consider the power holders to be the worst kind of authoritarians. Most Americans agree that the NAZI's, the British Crown and the southern governments that preserved these policies and persecuted the unpopular dissenters were the worst form of Authoritarians bent on destroying freedom and liberalism.
Yet many Americans will foolishly celebrate government persecution of Pastor Jones, smugly claiming liberal values while supporting authoritarianism by agreeing with the removal of a dissenters right to equal treatment.
Although I do think Jones is an ass, he has the right to equal treatment by the government. The decision of the town leaders in Gainesville, Fl. raises a bigger question of equal treatment under the law and the right of Americans who are politically or socially unpopular to political and social dissent under the same conditions as those with more political or social unpopularity. This so-called "bill" they want to hand Jones is basically a form of punitive taxation imposed on a person who is unpopular (which even the extreme leftists like Obama normally oppose, for example when Obama rightly opposed the populist idea of a special taxes on the executives of companies who received bailout monies but still got bonuses). Do municipalities usually bill for providing security for unpopular dissenters who are expected to be the subjects of violence?
I don't think Dr. MLK Jr got billed for police and National Guard security at his rallies and speeches. He was the subject of numerous death threats and was the subject of multiple assassination attempts. Rev. King was not billed, even though he was ran up multimillion dollar security expenses and was politically unpopular in many places. What's the difference? The difference is that King's position was popular with the federal government and most state governments. However some events during the Civil Rights Movement occurred in places where the movement was politically unpopular so local law enforcement couldn't be relied upon or simply refused to assist. In some extreme cases, local government blatantly obstructed federal initiatives and the federal government had to call on federal troops (US Army) to enforce the laws. In those cases the politically unpopular were left without protection and were only able to get help from the group that they were popular with.
Rightly, popular opinion and history itself have rightly condemned the local political elite for failing to provide equal protection under the law to the politically unpopular.
If we allow people to be "billed" like this, we are establishing a legal precedent that only people having political favor will get police protection and that political dissent in America means that you take your life in your own hands. Essentially this means, dissent, will be further oppressed in America reducing real political discourse in America. As it is, real political dissent in the U.S. is virtually non-existent but this action now makes it a matter of public policy. It also means that we have created even more "elites" in America, but not based on a person's productive ability (i.e. the "rich"), but based on political cronyism.
In the entire time Rev Al Sharpton has been on the public stage there has been only one thing he ever did that I agreed with. The KKK was planning a rally in the middle of NYC but the Giulliani administration refused to grant him the necessary permits to have a peaceful assembly, a right guaranteed by the US Constitution. It was Al Sharpton who publicly criticized the administration's refusal to grant the permit because he felt that the administration was refusing the permit because they opposed the Klan's ideology. In other words, a politically unpopular group was being refused the rights afforded to every other citizen. Sharpton himself is very politically unpopular among the administration so, in his mind, he runs the same risk of being refused equal treatment under the law. His reasoning was that, if he wanted to be able to continue to hold gatherings and get protection under the law, he had to defend the rights of ALL citizens to get the same protection under the law.
Voltaire said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". In a free society all people should have the same rights and rights should not be restricted to those who can afford to pay for them. Yes, Terry Jones is a jerk who should be put to sleep, but, if we want to reserve the right for future political dissent to be possible, we need to preserve this "pastor"'s right to receive equal protection under the law. If we bill one person for security costs then we need to bill everyone for such expenses, regardless of their political or social unpopularity, or we further eliminate true political freedom in this country by silencing the minority.
Yes, Jones cost the town of Gainesville Florida $180,000 in security costs, but that is quite literally the price we pray for a free, liberal society. If we are unwilling to pay that price, then we must remain silent and accept when governments silence our own ideas if they ever become unpopular.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Why Liberals are AGAINST Equal Rights for Women
Today in the news..Hamas passes a law forbidding women from smoking tobacco hookahs in the Gaza strip because they feel its "indecent" for women. Certainly most of us in the western world, especially those who consider themselves liberals, are appalled, and they should find it appalling. I can see self-proclaimed liberals shaking their heads at what they will certainly consider a backward law. After all individual rights and personal freedoms are the basic principles of Liberalism. So any liberal worth his salt should be appalled that in some countries there are laws being passed specifically to restrict freedom. The liberals will be very self assured in their moral superiority and the progressive policies they supported in the last election.
Yet, also in today's news, the very liberal Spanish parliament joins other Liberal European nations, including France, in debating if they should forbid the full body veil worn by some Muslim women,known as the burqa, because it is "demeaning" to women. The counties who tout themselves as the most liberal, are seriously debating whether or not they should allow women to have a choice in the clothing they wear! The very same countries whose labor regulations, business controls, state controlled industries and socialized health-care systems are promoted by supposedly Liberal Americans as paragons of Liberal progressive policies, are strongly pushing to force women into clothing they do not wish to wear. To add insult to injury, they are using the same argument as the radical islamo-fascists in Hammas; women cannot wear burqas because it offends the moral sensibilities of those in power. Read that again, because the alleged Liberals in charge have their moral sense of how a woman should live, they want to prohibit women from dressing in a way that doesn't reflect their moral code. But isn't that what those backward people in Hammas are doing? Isn't such a regulation in direct contradiction to the Liberal ideal of individual rights and personal freedom? After all, don't liberals believe that a woman's body is her property to use as she chooses, whether its smoking a hookah, getting an education and dressing as she sees fit? Don't liberals believe that a woman's money is her property to use as she sees fit, whether its to buy tobacco for a hookah or to buy a burqa to wear to work? As such, no Liberal should tell a Muslim woman that she cannot wear her burqa.
But that is the way of those who claim the title of "Liberal" isn't it? They love personal freedom, so long as you do what they think you should. When discussing legalizing marijuana, most love the idea that it should be legal (and I agree with them on this) because a person's body belongs to the individual and a person is free to do what they want with their body. But that same liberal wants to criminalize a woman who exercises her rights over her body to use the body to buy and wear a burqa. A woman's body is her own, they tell you, if she chooses to have sex with another woman. But if that same woman is a doctor and uses her body to tell a patient who can't pay her "I refuse to give you medical care since you won't pay." she becomes a criminal.
To these so-called Liberals I say, "Don't piss down my back and tell me its raining." You are certainly not a Liberal. The word for someone who wants to dictate how someone else lives is .... DICTATOR.
-When a Liberal sees a Muslim woman wearing a burqa, he says, "That is her right since she purchased the burqa and chooses to wear it." He does not try to legislate her behavior.
-When a Liberal sees a man refuse to sell me a house because I am Latino, the Liberal says, "I don't like what he's doing but it is his property and he can sell it or not as he decides". He does not try to legislate his behavior.
-When a Liberal sees a bank charge high interest rates on a loan, the Liberal says, "It is the banker's right to charge whatever interest he chooses as much as it is the borrower's right not to accept those terms." He does not try to legislate the banker's actions.
True Liberalism is the idea that man is, by his nature, free to act in his own self-interest. True Liberalism is the idea that no person his the right to impose his will on another, not matter how noble the intent. But clearly this is not the ideology that most so-called Liberals are advocating as they restrict the actions of one individual, whether a doctor, a health insurer, a bank president, a businessman like me or a Muslim woman wearing a burqa, in order to give an advantage to a different individual. What they demonstrate is that they are perfectly willing to use force to put one person into the service of another. They clearly show their belief that some people should be slaves!
In American politics, most people who call themselves Liberals use it as a synonym to mean "Democrat". With their history of using force to subjugate people, it is no surprise that the Democratic party is also goes down in history as the party that supported slavery for blacks.
My friend Stephanie recently said to me, "I just hate bullshit." I have to agree with her. I also hate bullshit. Calling yourself a Liberal and then trying to dictate what a Muslim woman can or cannot wear is pure, unadulterated bullshit. Calling yourself a Liberal and dictating what a doctor can charge or how much interest a banker can charge is bullshit. Calling yourself a Liberal and then telling a bar-owner he is not allowed to let people smoke in his private property is simply bullshit. Let's call a spade a spade; most Liberals are simply aspiring tyrants.
No state should tell an individual what to do with his property (including his or her body) so long as she isn't harming others. Ultimately, isn't it the choice of the INDIVIDUAL?
Yet, also in today's news, the very liberal Spanish parliament joins other Liberal European nations, including France, in debating if they should forbid the full body veil worn by some Muslim women,known as the burqa, because it is "demeaning" to women. The counties who tout themselves as the most liberal, are seriously debating whether or not they should allow women to have a choice in the clothing they wear! The very same countries whose labor regulations, business controls, state controlled industries and socialized health-care systems are promoted by supposedly Liberal Americans as paragons of Liberal progressive policies, are strongly pushing to force women into clothing they do not wish to wear. To add insult to injury, they are using the same argument as the radical islamo-fascists in Hammas; women cannot wear burqas because it offends the moral sensibilities of those in power. Read that again, because the alleged Liberals in charge have their moral sense of how a woman should live, they want to prohibit women from dressing in a way that doesn't reflect their moral code. But isn't that what those backward people in Hammas are doing? Isn't such a regulation in direct contradiction to the Liberal ideal of individual rights and personal freedom? After all, don't liberals believe that a woman's body is her property to use as she chooses, whether its smoking a hookah, getting an education and dressing as she sees fit? Don't liberals believe that a woman's money is her property to use as she sees fit, whether its to buy tobacco for a hookah or to buy a burqa to wear to work? As such, no Liberal should tell a Muslim woman that she cannot wear her burqa.
But that is the way of those who claim the title of "Liberal" isn't it? They love personal freedom, so long as you do what they think you should. When discussing legalizing marijuana, most love the idea that it should be legal (and I agree with them on this) because a person's body belongs to the individual and a person is free to do what they want with their body. But that same liberal wants to criminalize a woman who exercises her rights over her body to use the body to buy and wear a burqa. A woman's body is her own, they tell you, if she chooses to have sex with another woman. But if that same woman is a doctor and uses her body to tell a patient who can't pay her "I refuse to give you medical care since you won't pay." she becomes a criminal.
To these so-called Liberals I say, "Don't piss down my back and tell me its raining." You are certainly not a Liberal. The word for someone who wants to dictate how someone else lives is .... DICTATOR.
-When a Liberal sees a Muslim woman wearing a burqa, he says, "That is her right since she purchased the burqa and chooses to wear it." He does not try to legislate her behavior.
-When a Liberal sees a man refuse to sell me a house because I am Latino, the Liberal says, "I don't like what he's doing but it is his property and he can sell it or not as he decides". He does not try to legislate his behavior.
-When a Liberal sees a bank charge high interest rates on a loan, the Liberal says, "It is the banker's right to charge whatever interest he chooses as much as it is the borrower's right not to accept those terms." He does not try to legislate the banker's actions.
True Liberalism is the idea that man is, by his nature, free to act in his own self-interest. True Liberalism is the idea that no person his the right to impose his will on another, not matter how noble the intent. But clearly this is not the ideology that most so-called Liberals are advocating as they restrict the actions of one individual, whether a doctor, a health insurer, a bank president, a businessman like me or a Muslim woman wearing a burqa, in order to give an advantage to a different individual. What they demonstrate is that they are perfectly willing to use force to put one person into the service of another. They clearly show their belief that some people should be slaves!
In American politics, most people who call themselves Liberals use it as a synonym to mean "Democrat". With their history of using force to subjugate people, it is no surprise that the Democratic party is also goes down in history as the party that supported slavery for blacks.
My friend Stephanie recently said to me, "I just hate bullshit." I have to agree with her. I also hate bullshit. Calling yourself a Liberal and then trying to dictate what a Muslim woman can or cannot wear is pure, unadulterated bullshit. Calling yourself a Liberal and dictating what a doctor can charge or how much interest a banker can charge is bullshit. Calling yourself a Liberal and then telling a bar-owner he is not allowed to let people smoke in his private property is simply bullshit. Let's call a spade a spade; most Liberals are simply aspiring tyrants.
No state should tell an individual what to do with his property (including his or her body) so long as she isn't harming others. Ultimately, isn't it the choice of the INDIVIDUAL?
Friday, July 2, 2010
Does Prosperity always Equal Happiness?
I'm very fortunate to have wonderful family relationships, including with my two teenagers. They often challenge me to think and ask questions; to "interrogate reality" as my boss tells me. My son and I have often debated on whether or not the adage "Money can't buy happiness" is actually true. Though I realize that, without money, one can only buy misery, I always try to show my son that money does not buy happiness. Today I found an article that highlights my point:
US Is Richest Nation, But Not Happiest
Not only does this point to the truthfulness of the saying, I think it raises the question of whether man can live a life without challenge or problems and still feel happy. I often think of Agent Smith from "The Matrix" who made this observation:
"Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world, where none suffered, where everyone would be happy? It was a disaster. No one would accept the program, entire crops were lost. Some believed we lacked the programming language to describe your perfect world, but I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through misery and suffering. The perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from."
I cannot help but wonder if there's some truth to this. Do we really need difficulty and problems to give our lives meaning?
As a parent in a town where my kids mix with privileged suburban children, I have noticed that parents here do everything they can to shelter their children from anything unpleasant. Children are delivered to daycare slathered in sunscreen, crossing guards protect them at every intersection, helmets are necessary to walk down flights of stairs, Cubscout Pinewood Derby races have 3 winners, while the rest get trophies as "non-winners", child care providers are told never to use the word "no", and shocking images are hidden from view as being too traumatic. And yet, the children are no happier than I was or my grandparents were.
Young people here invent drama and problems to add to their lives, even invent stories about alcoholism and abuse in their homes. I grew up in Elizabeth, New Jersey, primarily a low income town known throughout the state for crime, poverty and drugs but I didn't know many people who had alcoholism, drugs or violence in their homes. On the other hand, my kids, growing up in a much wealthier town in a far more "sanitized" world have dozens of friends whose parents are alcoholics, or who are beaten, or who's parents are junkies, etc. In fact, one of my daughters' friends (call her Mary) played the "My Life is So Dramatic" game to such a degree that child protection services (DYFS in New Jersey) were contacted by the concerned parents of another schoolmate. When DYFS showed up to take Mary away to safety, the girl broke down and admitted that she'd made it up, something DYFS later confirmed after investigating.
And what about these Emo kids, privileged children who wear makeup and hairstyles that attempt to make them look as tragic as possible and whose most common pastime is cutting themselves to relieve their suffering while listening to music in which men talk about their feelings and the tragedy they experience. Of course the cuts rarely go deep and they live pampered lives. Now this is not to say that some of these young people don't have real problems in their home life but, statistically, kids with real problems in their homes are in the vast minority in wealthy suburban towns.
The majority of the kids in NJ who are underprivileged and have violence, drugs and alcoholism at home live in the ghettos of the state but, that's where you don't find the Emo kids. My guess is that those young people are too busy dealing with serious problems and are not interested in creating imaginary pain.
Among adults, stress is at an all time high, suicide rates don't go down, the antidepressant industry flourishes and I don't see Americans smiling any more.
So though I will continue to do my best at work, improve my credit rating and make wise choices with my investments, my main focus in life is in the challenges I put before myself on my bike, in my career and my personal goals as well as building meaningful relationships with those around me.
US Is Richest Nation, But Not Happiest
Not only does this point to the truthfulness of the saying, I think it raises the question of whether man can live a life without challenge or problems and still feel happy. I often think of Agent Smith from "The Matrix" who made this observation:
"Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world, where none suffered, where everyone would be happy? It was a disaster. No one would accept the program, entire crops were lost. Some believed we lacked the programming language to describe your perfect world, but I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through misery and suffering. The perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from."
I cannot help but wonder if there's some truth to this. Do we really need difficulty and problems to give our lives meaning?
As a parent in a town where my kids mix with privileged suburban children, I have noticed that parents here do everything they can to shelter their children from anything unpleasant. Children are delivered to daycare slathered in sunscreen, crossing guards protect them at every intersection, helmets are necessary to walk down flights of stairs, Cubscout Pinewood Derby races have 3 winners, while the rest get trophies as "non-winners", child care providers are told never to use the word "no", and shocking images are hidden from view as being too traumatic. And yet, the children are no happier than I was or my grandparents were.
Young people here invent drama and problems to add to their lives, even invent stories about alcoholism and abuse in their homes. I grew up in Elizabeth, New Jersey, primarily a low income town known throughout the state for crime, poverty and drugs but I didn't know many people who had alcoholism, drugs or violence in their homes. On the other hand, my kids, growing up in a much wealthier town in a far more "sanitized" world have dozens of friends whose parents are alcoholics, or who are beaten, or who's parents are junkies, etc. In fact, one of my daughters' friends (call her Mary) played the "My Life is So Dramatic" game to such a degree that child protection services (DYFS in New Jersey) were contacted by the concerned parents of another schoolmate. When DYFS showed up to take Mary away to safety, the girl broke down and admitted that she'd made it up, something DYFS later confirmed after investigating.
And what about these Emo kids, privileged children who wear makeup and hairstyles that attempt to make them look as tragic as possible and whose most common pastime is cutting themselves to relieve their suffering while listening to music in which men talk about their feelings and the tragedy they experience. Of course the cuts rarely go deep and they live pampered lives. Now this is not to say that some of these young people don't have real problems in their home life but, statistically, kids with real problems in their homes are in the vast minority in wealthy suburban towns.
The majority of the kids in NJ who are underprivileged and have violence, drugs and alcoholism at home live in the ghettos of the state but, that's where you don't find the Emo kids. My guess is that those young people are too busy dealing with serious problems and are not interested in creating imaginary pain.
Among adults, stress is at an all time high, suicide rates don't go down, the antidepressant industry flourishes and I don't see Americans smiling any more.
So though I will continue to do my best at work, improve my credit rating and make wise choices with my investments, my main focus in life is in the challenges I put before myself on my bike, in my career and my personal goals as well as building meaningful relationships with those around me.
Monday, March 22, 2010
My Favorite Poem
I'm on Strike
by Ann Onymous
You ungrateful little…..
Your plump little hands reach to me, begging
Gimme more, gimme more.
I'll give you no more.
Not another cent. Not another gift. Not another favor.
You had it easy till now.
I'm tired.
Been beat up by you, been beat up for you.
I've got an LCD across my face
And a number pad on my chest. I'm your ATM.
But you make no deposit.
When you were sick,
Where'd the pills come from?
When you were hungry,
Where'd the food come from?
When you were naked,
Where'd the clothes come from?
When you were bored,
Where'd the Xbox come from?
I put those in your hands!
You ungrateful little…..
But you still want more.
Gimme more, Gimme more.
I'll give you no more.
You whine, "You can afford it, sir.
I'm you're responsibility, sir."
Because you're weaker than me?
Because you can't?
I didn't agree to child support.
I didn't want your burden.
I wear white suits with black spots
Squirting gold from my nipples.
I'm your cash cow. But you bring me no hay;
You eat that too.
Lets talk about pills.
When you were sick
You thanked Doctor Jones.
Thanks Doctor Flemming for inventing penicillin.
Thank you Doctor and Doctor
But I put the pill in your hand,
In the reach of your grubby, greedy hand.
I cup my hand to my ear
Waiting for my thank you,
But it’s a cup of venom you give me.
You ungrateful little…..
But you still want more.
Gimme more, Gimme more.
I'll give you no more.
I spent Five billion dollars to bring you that pill,
Seven years of research to bring you that pill,
An army of technicians to bring you that pill,
Ten thousand square foot factory to bring you that pill,
A million man supply chain to bring you that pill,
I risked everything I had, to bring you that pill.
Brought it all together just to bring you that pill.
But still you hate me,
Because I'll charge you fifty bucks to take my pill.
But look at all I put in the palm of your hand.
Tear me down and you'd have no pill.
Social responsibility didn't bring you that pill.
The fact that you needed it didn't bring you that pill.
My mind, my work brought you that pill.
My selfishness brought you that pill.
You want it for free.
You want to take it from me.
Lets look at your dinner.
You were hungry.
Thank the farmer,
Thank the dairyman,
Working their early morning toil.
Long days working the soil.
He's the farmer in the dell
Working on old McDonald's farm.
E-I-E-I-O!
But five hundred miles away
There's no farm by you.
Who brought you your dinner?
Me! That's who!
But you still want more.
Gimme more, Gimme more.
I'll give you no more.
I had a mental test tube to bring you that meal
I mixed the chemist with a farmer to bring you that meal
Leased convoys of trucks to bring you that meal
Hired bio-engineers to bring you that meal
Installed high speed corn peelers to bring you that meal
And paid an army of laborers to bring you that meal.
Still, I'm wrong for evading taxes meant to feed you that meal.
Without me you'd never have that meal.
I invested sixty million to bring you that meal.
All I ask is seven 50 in exchange for my meal.
All your begging won't produce that meal.
A thousand starving children won't ship you that meal.
Delano's New Deal package won't bring you that meal.
The work and minds of men brought you that meal.
My business skills brought you that meal.
You couldn't farm to produce your meal
Or drive the truck that transported your meal.
Only I could put it all together to cheaply get you that meal.
I'm on strike now.
That's right, the suit's on strike.
Labor day is fine.
Veteran's day is good.
Memorial day is great.
My holiday will be Businessman's Day.
Whether its your pill, your food, your clothes or XBox;
They make it, you want it, I bring it.
But I won't do it for free,
You ungrateful little…..
by Ann Onymous
You ungrateful little…..
Your plump little hands reach to me, begging
Gimme more, gimme more.
I'll give you no more.
Not another cent. Not another gift. Not another favor.
You had it easy till now.
I'm tired.
Been beat up by you, been beat up for you.
I've got an LCD across my face
And a number pad on my chest. I'm your ATM.
But you make no deposit.
When you were sick,
Where'd the pills come from?
When you were hungry,
Where'd the food come from?
When you were naked,
Where'd the clothes come from?
When you were bored,
Where'd the Xbox come from?
I put those in your hands!
You ungrateful little…..
But you still want more.
Gimme more, Gimme more.
I'll give you no more.
You whine, "You can afford it, sir.
I'm you're responsibility, sir."
Because you're weaker than me?
Because you can't?
I didn't agree to child support.
I didn't want your burden.
I wear white suits with black spots
Squirting gold from my nipples.
I'm your cash cow. But you bring me no hay;
You eat that too.
Lets talk about pills.
When you were sick
You thanked Doctor Jones.
Thanks Doctor Flemming for inventing penicillin.
Thank you Doctor and Doctor
But I put the pill in your hand,
In the reach of your grubby, greedy hand.
I cup my hand to my ear
Waiting for my thank you,
But it’s a cup of venom you give me.
You ungrateful little…..
But you still want more.
Gimme more, Gimme more.
I'll give you no more.
I spent Five billion dollars to bring you that pill,
Seven years of research to bring you that pill,
An army of technicians to bring you that pill,
Ten thousand square foot factory to bring you that pill,
A million man supply chain to bring you that pill,
I risked everything I had, to bring you that pill.
Brought it all together just to bring you that pill.
But still you hate me,
Because I'll charge you fifty bucks to take my pill.
But look at all I put in the palm of your hand.
Tear me down and you'd have no pill.
Social responsibility didn't bring you that pill.
The fact that you needed it didn't bring you that pill.
My mind, my work brought you that pill.
My selfishness brought you that pill.
You want it for free.
You want to take it from me.
Lets look at your dinner.
You were hungry.
Thank the farmer,
Thank the dairyman,
Working their early morning toil.
Long days working the soil.
He's the farmer in the dell
Working on old McDonald's farm.
E-I-E-I-O!
But five hundred miles away
There's no farm by you.
Who brought you your dinner?
Me! That's who!
But you still want more.
Gimme more, Gimme more.
I'll give you no more.
I had a mental test tube to bring you that meal
I mixed the chemist with a farmer to bring you that meal
Leased convoys of trucks to bring you that meal
Hired bio-engineers to bring you that meal
Installed high speed corn peelers to bring you that meal
And paid an army of laborers to bring you that meal.
Still, I'm wrong for evading taxes meant to feed you that meal.
Without me you'd never have that meal.
I invested sixty million to bring you that meal.
All I ask is seven 50 in exchange for my meal.
All your begging won't produce that meal.
A thousand starving children won't ship you that meal.
Delano's New Deal package won't bring you that meal.
The work and minds of men brought you that meal.
My business skills brought you that meal.
You couldn't farm to produce your meal
Or drive the truck that transported your meal.
Only I could put it all together to cheaply get you that meal.
I'm on strike now.
That's right, the suit's on strike.
Labor day is fine.
Veteran's day is good.
Memorial day is great.
My holiday will be Businessman's Day.
Whether its your pill, your food, your clothes or XBox;
They make it, you want it, I bring it.
But I won't do it for free,
You ungrateful little…..
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Are High Divorce Rates Really a Bad Thing?
Before reading this, keep in mind that this is being written by a bald man who is married to a great woman, has been married for 20 years, and intends to stay married to her for the rest of his life. The question isn't weather marriage is bad, its a question of weather marriage really needs to be the core of human relationships any longer. For several decades we have seen marriage decaying as an institution, with divorce rates now reaching 50%. What does this mean? It means that if your newspaper annouces the marriage of 10 couples, 5 of those couples will be divorced. For many years this has been the rallying cry for those who panic about the moral fabric of our society falling apart and has been the rallying cry of traditionalists to go back to the way things were done in the "good old days" to restore marriage. But, is that really the way to fix the high divorce rate? In fact, why do we assume that the increasing divorce rate needs to be fixed?
As in all things, its important to understand what we are really talking about. Without really defining a thing, we can't really discuss that thing. So what is marriage? Although there is a lot of disagreement as to what a marriage really is , most of us would agree that a marriage consists of the following factors:
We also need to know how marriage arose. Historians agree that marriage has been with us in different forms since the dawn of the human race. From a historic/anthropological perspective, marriage was a necessary social arrangement that enabled the human species to survive during times of resource scarcity.
Women, physically not as strong as men, were not able to provide for themselves and their offspring. Large game and defense required the greater size and physical power of males so women had to have a way to bind males to them to help obtain food for self and offspring and protect them from predators both human and non-human. Men, on the other hand, didn't need women to defend them, but did need to ensure the survival of their own offspring. A man also needed to know that when they he was risking his life to protect and hunt for a baby, that it was his baby and not another tribesman's. Thus marriage was born.
Marriage did not arise from loving or spiritual reasons; it arose as a means of securing and protecting resources in a primitive economy dependant on the brute force of physically powerful males. As our social and economic connections became more complicated, the bond of marriage became enforced by governments and were sanctioned by spiritual forces, leaving little option but for people to enter marital bonds and to stay them. After all, Mr and Mrs. Primitive are told, if the state and god say that they have to remain married, how dare they defy that order? As man spread over the earth, the institution of marriage remained central to his existance because the subsistence, hunting/labor intensive society required it.
But is it still necessary?
In those days, women couldn't survive on their own because their relative physical weakness prohibited them from achieving material wealth on their own. But is that the case any longer now that women have the same ability to earn money as the men? Of course not. In those days, men could not ensure paternity so had to use the threat implied in the enforcement of marriage to secure fidelity. But in the days of DNA testing and paternity testing, is that still necessary? Of course not. Today, marriage is no longer a tool to ensure the allocation of resources but is, instead, a focal point for romantic love in the advanced economies of the western world. The point of marriage is no longer resources; it is happiness.
Marriage is now entered into to find love and happiness with a romantic partner. Since all of the original purposes of marriage can be met without a spouse, happiness is the only remaining purpose of marriage. That being the case, there is no reason for us to consider a 50% divorce rate to be a social evil. After all, if a couple is no longer happy together, why should they stay togther? If the point is happiness, and your spouse isn't making you happy, why stay with your spouse. And finally, why is that viewed as a social evil.
One of the reasons is always considered a problem because it is felt that the divorce process is difficult for children, which is true and how a couple handles there divorce is going to largely impact how traumatic the divorce is on the children. Also, there has historically been concern over the fact that children from divorced couples are from "broken homes". This, however, is only that way because the majority of couples did not go through divorce. The only reason we recognize a home as "broken" is because the majority of homes are "unbroken". Now, however, that distinction is becoming less and less relevant. Being from a divorced couple is not difficult on the child if the divorce is handled responsibly by they parents in an environment where divorce is equally as common as not being divorced. In such a case, fully half of the child's peers have a similar home life toher own weather her parents are divorced or not. When single parenthood is the common state, then the stigma of being a child of divorced persons evaporates.
This is very much akin to the trauma experienced by children who've had sexual relationships with adults. This is traumatic largely because of the extreme isolation children in this situation go through in a culture where sex with children is such a taboo. In cultures where sexual relations and even marriage between adults and children is the norm, the trauma isn't there. The trauma is largely a social construct. (This is not to deny that usually, in our culture, sex with minors is usually of an extremely exploitative nature which also causes tremendous trauma for the child! But this doesn't negate the point that even when the adult genuinely loves the childand isn't being exploitative, the child is traumatized in the long term because of the shame and isolation s/he experiences)
My argument is that our aversion to divorce is largely due to the social habituation to marriage; the fact that marriage is traditional. Since the original purpose of marriage is gone and has been replaced by the pursuit of happiness, it makes no sense to cringe at rising divorce rates because this is merely a sign of progress and the freedom of individuals, liberated from life in primitive conditions, to pursue happiness.
Mind you, I am a married guy. I like being married and actually have, as a goal, to achieve a 100th wedding anniversary with Dina. I am not against marriage, I am simply saying that marriage is not for everyone and that divorce is necessarily an evil.
As in all things, its important to understand what we are really talking about. Without really defining a thing, we can't really discuss that thing. So what is marriage? Although there is a lot of disagreement as to what a marriage really is , most of us would agree that a marriage consists of the following factors:
- An agreement between partners to ensure sexual fidelity
- A close bond of emotional intimacy
- An agreement to share child rearing responsibilities in some way
- An agreement on how to share financial resources
- An agreement to ensure inheritence
- A legal, social, and often, religious bond
We also need to know how marriage arose. Historians agree that marriage has been with us in different forms since the dawn of the human race. From a historic/anthropological perspective, marriage was a necessary social arrangement that enabled the human species to survive during times of resource scarcity.
Women, physically not as strong as men, were not able to provide for themselves and their offspring. Large game and defense required the greater size and physical power of males so women had to have a way to bind males to them to help obtain food for self and offspring and protect them from predators both human and non-human. Men, on the other hand, didn't need women to defend them, but did need to ensure the survival of their own offspring. A man also needed to know that when they he was risking his life to protect and hunt for a baby, that it was his baby and not another tribesman's. Thus marriage was born.
Marriage did not arise from loving or spiritual reasons; it arose as a means of securing and protecting resources in a primitive economy dependant on the brute force of physically powerful males. As our social and economic connections became more complicated, the bond of marriage became enforced by governments and were sanctioned by spiritual forces, leaving little option but for people to enter marital bonds and to stay them. After all, Mr and Mrs. Primitive are told, if the state and god say that they have to remain married, how dare they defy that order? As man spread over the earth, the institution of marriage remained central to his existance because the subsistence, hunting/labor intensive society required it.
But is it still necessary?
In those days, women couldn't survive on their own because their relative physical weakness prohibited them from achieving material wealth on their own. But is that the case any longer now that women have the same ability to earn money as the men? Of course not. In those days, men could not ensure paternity so had to use the threat implied in the enforcement of marriage to secure fidelity. But in the days of DNA testing and paternity testing, is that still necessary? Of course not. Today, marriage is no longer a tool to ensure the allocation of resources but is, instead, a focal point for romantic love in the advanced economies of the western world. The point of marriage is no longer resources; it is happiness.
Marriage is now entered into to find love and happiness with a romantic partner. Since all of the original purposes of marriage can be met without a spouse, happiness is the only remaining purpose of marriage. That being the case, there is no reason for us to consider a 50% divorce rate to be a social evil. After all, if a couple is no longer happy together, why should they stay togther? If the point is happiness, and your spouse isn't making you happy, why stay with your spouse. And finally, why is that viewed as a social evil.
One of the reasons is always considered a problem because it is felt that the divorce process is difficult for children, which is true and how a couple handles there divorce is going to largely impact how traumatic the divorce is on the children. Also, there has historically been concern over the fact that children from divorced couples are from "broken homes". This, however, is only that way because the majority of couples did not go through divorce. The only reason we recognize a home as "broken" is because the majority of homes are "unbroken". Now, however, that distinction is becoming less and less relevant. Being from a divorced couple is not difficult on the child if the divorce is handled responsibly by they parents in an environment where divorce is equally as common as not being divorced. In such a case, fully half of the child's peers have a similar home life toher own weather her parents are divorced or not. When single parenthood is the common state, then the stigma of being a child of divorced persons evaporates.
This is very much akin to the trauma experienced by children who've had sexual relationships with adults. This is traumatic largely because of the extreme isolation children in this situation go through in a culture where sex with children is such a taboo. In cultures where sexual relations and even marriage between adults and children is the norm, the trauma isn't there. The trauma is largely a social construct. (This is not to deny that usually, in our culture, sex with minors is usually of an extremely exploitative nature which also causes tremendous trauma for the child! But this doesn't negate the point that even when the adult genuinely loves the child
My argument is that our aversion to divorce is largely due to the social habituation to marriage; the fact that marriage is traditional. Since the original purpose of marriage is gone and has been replaced by the pursuit of happiness, it makes no sense to cringe at rising divorce rates because this is merely a sign of progress and the freedom of individuals, liberated from life in primitive conditions, to pursue happiness.
Mind you, I am a married guy. I like being married and actually have, as a goal, to achieve a 100th wedding anniversary with Dina. I am not against marriage, I am simply saying that marriage is not for everyone and that divorce is necessarily an evil.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
America punishes minority group with punitive taxation
Its true. There are latinos, gays, blacks, jews, and native americans who are forced by the country to pay for half of the country's bills. And if they don't pay, their property is forcibly taken from them and they are thrown into prison. In fact, the IRS specifically targets them in audits. Why are members of these minority groups punished with such brutal, punitive taxes? What crime have these minorities committed to be punished in such a way? Was it murder? Treason? Did they commit bank robbery? No....it was something that the American voter considers even more evil than murder or rape.
Their crime was.... ....being rich!
That's right, they committed the unconscionable crime of being fortunate, working hard and taking chances that worked out to their advantage. Did I forget to mention that this is also the same fate of all wealthy people in America? Their real criminal minority status isn't being black or gay or latino or jewish. The minority status they achieved that led to their punishment is found, not in their house of worship or genetic material or their homeland; but in their IRS 1040 Tax Return. When it comes to punishment by taxation, they are in the same boat as any other race or religion or sexual orientation or ethnicity. After all, today's America would never punish them for such trivialities because, we like to think, we have moved far beyond blaming one group for our problems. We like to think we don't victimize our neighbors for our own benefit we gleefully light the torches to burn the wealthy at the stake at every opportunity (though we all want to be rich!)
Today, America's hatred is directed at one minority more than any other....the wealthy!
Most Americans support punitively taxing this one minority group. In California, the same voters who cry for equal treatment for gays (which they are absolutely right to insist on!) gleefully reversed their thinking as they voted to punish one minority group by making them pay 47% of the state's taxes while in, Rev Al Sharpton's back yard, New York City voters smilingly voted to force this tiny minority into paying half of all taxes. And across the country Americans laughingly voted punitive taxes onto this one group, making them pay for 40% of the country's bills.
http://defeatthedebt.com/our-ads/john-galt/
Always makes me wonder why people always talk about making the rich "pay their fair share"? I figure if I go to dinner with 100 friends and I pay half the dinner bill, I have paid 4900% more than my fair share. I would think anyone at the dinner table would think that I paid more than my fair share. When you look at America's "dinner bill" we have the exact same situation. But which one of you would use force me to pay the dinner bill? Most likely, none of you would. And then, which among you would then, after making me pay half of the dinner bill, which of you would have the audacity to say that I didn't pay my fair share and should pay more? Probably even less.
Yet most Americans, including some of you reading this, don't think twice about sending armed goons after their neighbors to take their money from them and then tell those same victimized neighbors that they don't pay their fair share.
I guess that's why people leave, as they have been doing in NJ, to areas of lower taxation. We will get what we deserve.
Their crime was....
That's right, they committed the unconscionable crime of being fortunate, working hard and taking chances that worked out to their advantage. Did I forget to mention that this is also the same fate of all wealthy people in America? Their real criminal minority status isn't being black or gay or latino or jewish. The minority status they achieved that led to their punishment is found, not in their house of worship or genetic material or their homeland; but in their IRS 1040 Tax Return. When it comes to punishment by taxation, they are in the same boat as any other race or religion or sexual orientation or ethnicity. After all, today's America would never punish them for such trivialities because, we like to think, we have moved far beyond blaming one group for our problems. We like to think we don't victimize our neighbors for our own benefit we gleefully light the torches to burn the wealthy at the stake at every opportunity (though we all want to be rich!)
Today, America's hatred is directed at one minority more than any other....the wealthy!
Most Americans support punitively taxing this one minority group. In California, the same voters who cry for equal treatment for gays (which they are absolutely right to insist on!) gleefully reversed their thinking as they voted to punish one minority group by making them pay 47% of the state's taxes while in, Rev Al Sharpton's back yard, New York City voters smilingly voted to force this tiny minority into paying half of all taxes. And across the country Americans laughingly voted punitive taxes onto this one group, making them pay for 40% of the country's bills.
http://defeatthedebt.com/our-ads/john-galt/
Always makes me wonder why people always talk about making the rich "pay their fair share"? I figure if I go to dinner with 100 friends and I pay half the dinner bill, I have paid 4900% more than my fair share. I would think anyone at the dinner table would think that I paid more than my fair share. When you look at America's "dinner bill" we have the exact same situation. But which one of you would use force me to pay the dinner bill? Most likely, none of you would. And then, which among you would then, after making me pay half of the dinner bill, which of you would have the audacity to say that I didn't pay my fair share and should pay more? Probably even less.
Yet most Americans, including some of you reading this, don't think twice about sending armed goons after their neighbors to take their money from them and then tell those same victimized neighbors that they don't pay their fair share.
I guess that's why people leave, as they have been doing in NJ, to areas of lower taxation. We will get what we deserve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
