Yes. Now be afraid. I'm mentioning politics. But it seems we're all doing that these days. Those who don't, well...money says they think about it. It's hard not to, of course, when we see numbers thrown about by our three governmental branches that are too vast for us to comprehend. A trillion dollars? I'm sorry, but once you say a thousand, I have a hard time knowing what you mean. Yet trillions are being spent in an effort to save our economy. And I'm left asking, "From what?"
It certainly seems we've become accustomed to Consumeristic tendencies to such a degree that if we are not able to consume something else (the new, the exciting, the so-called improved), we genuinely take it personally. Something's wrong. With us, or with "you". Somebody, somewhere has screwed up. The thoughts that men like Dave Ramsey and Glenn Beck constantly shout towards a culture with receipts crammed so far into their eardrums they hear nothing but see only shimmering displays with "BUY ME NOW" written all over...those thoughts are ignored. Their warnings fall upon the deaf and Wisdom-illiterate. After all, if "Wisdom" is "skill in living", I wonder if we are a wise nation any longer.
President Obama believes in increased regulation and centralization. In short, he believes that the politicians are wiser and more capable of solving the problem(s) than we who work to feed children, pay mortgages, sort through generic or organic milk varieties, and pass up on the bananas because they're at .79 rather than .59 this week. And I don't agree.
I disagree that politicians will make wiser decisions with our money than we will, for the same reason that every parent knows a child who mows lawns after school to earn $100 dollars for a new bicycle will likely pick it up from the front yard so it doesn't get stolen...again...then if his parents buy it for him. I believe the individual, the community, the scholars and philosophers and professors all have a better perspective and ability to create sound solutions than politicians believing in their own so-called wisdom. After all, when was the last time you saw an entire Congress, or Senate, or President exercise genuine "skill in living"?
What say you?
It certainly seems we've become accustomed to Consumeristic tendencies to such a degree that if we are not able to consume something else (the new, the exciting, the so-called improved), we genuinely take it personally. Something's wrong. With us, or with "you". Somebody, somewhere has screwed up. The thoughts that men like Dave Ramsey and Glenn Beck constantly shout towards a culture with receipts crammed so far into their eardrums they hear nothing but see only shimmering displays with "BUY ME NOW" written all over...those thoughts are ignored. Their warnings fall upon the deaf and Wisdom-illiterate. After all, if "Wisdom" is "skill in living", I wonder if we are a wise nation any longer.
President Obama believes in increased regulation and centralization. In short, he believes that the politicians are wiser and more capable of solving the problem(s) than we who work to feed children, pay mortgages, sort through generic or organic milk varieties, and pass up on the bananas because they're at .79 rather than .59 this week. And I don't agree.
I disagree that politicians will make wiser decisions with our money than we will, for the same reason that every parent knows a child who mows lawns after school to earn $100 dollars for a new bicycle will likely pick it up from the front yard so it doesn't get stolen...again...then if his parents buy it for him. I believe the individual, the community, the scholars and philosophers and professors all have a better perspective and ability to create sound solutions than politicians believing in their own so-called wisdom. After all, when was the last time you saw an entire Congress, or Senate, or President exercise genuine "skill in living"?
What say you?
My response, Lucius, is this - what came first? The poor quality goods that don't hold up or the throw-away society?
ReplyDeleteThis mentality plays right into what you're talking about. The oldest part of my uni are what was once the county poorhouse and charity hospital, yet made with marble and gorgeous attention to detail. The Buffalo waste management facility down by the river is one of the most beautiful red brick buildings I've ever seen. And they were built to last.
Today you can't buy a microwave that will last you more than 7 or 8 years, houses are being built with slipshod workmanship, and you can't really buy anything that you could one day hope to pass down to future generations unless it's jewelry or already an antique.
The economic problems have roots far deeper than who is spending our money...
After all, if "Wisdom" is "skill in living", I wonder if we are a wise nation any longer.
ReplyDeleteI really liked this line. :)
I feel it necessary to point out to you that your Conservative roots are showing in that article, not that I disagree. What we are seeing now is the result of a huge confluence of negative behaviors and factors. The post-war bailout of Japan, the heady spending that came with becoming the world's largest superpower and economic powerhouse, the decline in moral values and ethics, the deregulation of industries, and so many others.
Speaking of deregulation, I am so very irritated by our two-party system, with their vast dichotomy of standards and goals. The conservatives deregulate and say "let them self-police. When they fail, it will only make us stronger in the long-term." The liberals watch the failures and say "oh no! The people will suffer so let's bail them out before they fail." Had we let AIG and Fannie/Freddie fail, with the government stepping in to auction the assets they held to more responsible new owners, the taxpayers wouldn't be left holding such a big bag of crap. Had we not deregulated in the first place, they would not have failed over wild speculatory behavior and irresponsible investing. I don't think one side or the other was right, but I do know that having both sides pulling in opposite directions does NOT benefit the people of this nation.
You both make very good points. In response to Mara's question, "Which came first?" It's a disservice to answer the question in such a small space. Certainly, the consumer demand for cheaper goods may or may not have been the driving force behind the manufacturer's creation of less durable, cheaper goods. Chicken or the egg? But tracking the rise of the middle class beginning ostensibly under Lincoln (and I say "ostensibly" because I'm leaving that open as debatable!) with his policies of, "Leave it to the people to solve" in so many arenas (argued by more capable men than I), and increasing from the 1850's through the 1960's--a steady 100 years of middle class growth--created a need for more goods. Someone had to provide those goods. And as the population boom and Westward expansion continued, more goods, cheaper (because now they were no longer made for a local community, but true international and transcontinental trade burgeoned, i.e., the rise of SHIPPING on my 19th century Amazon.com account), and sometimes lower-quality goods, became the norm. Necessity the mother of invention, perhaps? But again, that's probably debatable.
ReplyDeleteI think Tami makes a good point, "Had we let AIG and Fannie...fail...the taxpayers wouldn't be left holding such a big bag of crap." Dare I make the connection between Lynne's comment on quality/quantity and Tami's comments about the very structure of our financial institutions? I think you're both right: nothing today is built to last. It seems, too, in the political arena, that even our Constitution, a document so alive and capable of longevity, may be in danger. Not of being re-written, but simply from neglect. When a quality building--or architectural framework in this case--is neglected, it slowly erodes from weathering. There definitely seems a parallel between our political institutions, as Tami mentions, and how we perceive everything around us at a fundamental, anatomic level, as Lynne has pointed out. We do not conceive of our political offices any longer as long-term plans for the protection and security of our fundamental freedoms, i.e., the Constitution. We view each election as more important than the last, a "historic" moment, "the biggest vote you'll ever cast" (as VP Biden said...the sheer arrogance....), and generally, just one more thing to help me get mine. One President reverses the policies of the last. The next Congress shuts down everything done by the last. There seems no longer a communal understanding of good and value, but a bifurcated philosophy incapable of seeing eye-to-eye. Even though we have a clear and present danger in jihadism, we don't see it, and in the absence of external threats, our neighbors are our threat. The Democrat or Republican next to us is the threat. Nothing's built to last. Except my ikariam empire.
Both are very valid points to me. Thank you for mentioning them!
I definitely have to agree on the two-party system issue that Tami pointed out. We used to have multiple parties that rose and fell in this country with changes in public opinion and political climate. There were the Whigs (Harrison), Federalists (Adams), Know-Nothings (Fillmore), and Bull Moose Party (T. Roosevelt) that we have seen come and go through the relatively short life of our nation. Now we have two super parties that, to me, don't seem to differ all that greatly except over the few hot-button issues we know them for.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, Lucius, you mention how each new president, congress, etc overturns the decisions of the last. That we've forgotten the heart of the constitution. I have to agree. Always an interesting discussion: Are those who desire to rule actually fit to do so? How do we find our way back from self-serving politicians to self-sacrificing statesmen?