RSS
 

Posts Tagged ‘spending’

Beyond Politics

19 Oct

In China, I remember explaining the concept of campaigning to my adult English students. They laughed as I walked from one to the next, energetically shaking their hands and smiling. “See class? That’s what we get to do in America that you all miss out on here.” Well, that and political ads and debates and yard signs. I don’t think they cared that they couldn’t enjoy any of these things. Then again, maybe that’s because they don’t know what they’re missing.

Don’t get me wrong, I love the electoral freedoms that we have–in theory. But in practice in today’s America, it’s just not as clean as the theory indicates. The two-party system has bottle-necked democracy; the government controls more and more, spending more and more and raising the stakes of what’s at stake each election; thus election spending is crazy and so are the emotions. Candidates are fighting–see my own U.S. House race: Ellison vs. Fields–and in the public and the media the Right and Left are ever at odds. (I have to believe that there was once a time when a conservative and a liberal could be friends.) Today, it’s sometimes asking a lot to have them simply be friendly.  I get why. The more government matters, the more it controls, the more vital the next election outcome is perceived. Suddenly that liberal friend of yours isn’t just a tree-hugging, bleeding heart; he’s a threat.

Also because of this ever-growing involvement, American politics has completely redefined itself. In the beginning, government attracted the volunteer-minded for office much like a soldier taking his turn keeping watch at night. Back then, it was an honorable thing to excuse yourself from normal life, to take a turn for your country (or state), and protect it from those who’s want to use government power to leverage things their way. In the years since, apparently some of these guys keeping watch let a few enemies slip by–then a few more, and a few more. The lure of money and power was too much to resist. Fast-forward to today, and nary a true statesman has any interest in volunteering for this role anymore. First, a campaign would be an odd endeavor for this volunteer-minded person because if the people don’t want him, fine. He’ll go back to his normal life. He was simply volunteering. But even if he did win, the job that would be required of him–deciding what to do with other people’s money and implementing social policy impressing a certain view and behavior on others –would be a clear breach of his morality.

Meanwhile, the kinds of people attracted to this role of doling out the money, the favors, the contracts–or of restricting behavior like drinking alcohol (or raw milk)–will inevitably be the kinds of folks with a hole in their character that needs power to feel whole. And boy do they want that power trip! They’ll do anything for this fix: say what they have to say, do what they have to do. I remember Lady Clinton drinking boiler-makers or something with some steelbelt voters. Ladies and gentleman, say goodbye to the statesman and hello to the politician. And just look at the kinds of people we’re electing.

Interestingly, while the soap opera of politics has taken on greater impact and drama, the whole saga of campaigns reminds me more and more of following a sports team. Sure, politics matters a little, but in the end (and just like in sports), we still gotta get out of bed the next day and go to work whether our candidate won the Superbowl or our favorite team won the election. It doesn’t matter nearly as much as you’d think given the time some people are glued to the political coverage nowadays. They contend they’re staying informed. I say they’re also living vicariously through reality TV, tied to the ups and downs of their favorite character. Plus, we have that whole two-party bottleneck squeezing our choices down to two whether we like it or not and giving citizens no practical choice other than to perpetuate this system by getting behind one of the two and then inevitable scratching their heads later saying, “Wait, I voted for the man who did that?” (Books will be written about the civilian bombings, political arrests, and torture–and that’s just the current president.) Once in a while, there’s a challenger to the system (Jesse Ventura) that gives us a third option. But there’s none to be had this year.

But for all the negativity I speak, I honestly do appreciate the fact that someone needs to do the job. And if it’s within the two-party apparatus, so be it. It’s what we have. There’s something to be said for the pragmatist, the person who gets things done, who doesn’t sit around and wish for options that aren’t there. They do the best with what they have. Obama and Romney worked hard and made it to the political top. I respect their effort and talent and “going through the meat-grinder” that is this arduous campaign. As far as policy, I believe they advocate what they feel is the best thing to do at the time given their priorities and motivation.

So as I write this, I’m still not sure what I’m going to do on November 6th. Nor am I concerned. This election has been a good reminder for me to detach. Government is a necessity, as James Madison believed but said that it was  ”because men aren’t angels”. Ironically, it’s also because men aren’t angels that government was inevitably going to attract the kinds of people we see on the ballot each election. So perhaps the best solution isn’t choosing the best of these choices, but in making government as unnecessary as possible by being the best people we can be; by standing up and solving problems regardless of the government apparatus. In all, I relearned that what matters primarily is what I do with my life each day.

I encourage to find your true place in this whole production of American politics. And I especially encourage you to not lose yourself to the distractions of Big Bird and binders and other such nonsense that don’t matter one iota. Bottom line: no matter who wins next month, you’re going to wake up the next day and have to go to work, pick up the kids…. Your life is still primarily what you make of it.

to new plateaus,

 

-Brandon

 

 
 

Selective Recognition and the Greek Financial Crisis

10 Aug

Continuing from the last post, we look at the most recent example of bonafide financial turmoil: Greece.

In Wednesday’s article, I shared how when it comes to economic or political themes, people are selective with their perspectives. We talked about rich people and how some people only see the wealthy as fleecing the public for their own gain. On the other hand, others view rich folk as deserving of their rewards because of the growth and service they provide. We saw that recognizing this split in perspective goes a long way to understanding why and how two groups can be at odds while fighting the same enemy: Occupiers and Tea Partiers both are mad at Wall Street, but one sees capitalism’s failure while  the other, Washington’s. One wants to use government to reach a little deeper into the rich’s pockets; the other wants to lesson government’s role.

Now let’s look at Greece. And we can do so through the eyes of these same two groups. The Occupier-type points their finger at what they notice: tax evasion by the rich or controlling powers from continental and world banking institutions.

Watch out, dude’s got an umbrella!

The New Yorker stated a year ago:

“Explanations of how Greece got in this mess typically focus on profligate public spending. But its fiscal woes are also due to a simple fact: tax evasion is the national pastime…It makes the system unduly regressive, since the rich cheat more.”

Referring to the all the violent protests, Zach Zill at SocialWorker.org writes, “Greek workers are right to resist efforts to make them pay for a crisis caused by bankers, business executives and politicians.”

Meanwhile, the Tea Party-type notices the unsustainable public spending, the necessity to cut back, and thus, the perceived oddity of the protests when its the protester’s own country that’s threatened if spending cuts aren’t made.

Each side points out that which gets their goad. The important part is to notice our tendency to lock into a certain perspective. It’s great to notice a cause to a problem, but why not notice more than one–from varying angles?

Ideology.

We come to the table already with a specific tint on the world shaped by our ideology, and we view the issue through this lens which filters out the data that doesn’t fit.

This is basic stuff, but it’s also easily abandoned. A new plateau is to recognize the merit to various perspectives and recognize our own selective attention to that which is convenient to your ideology.

 

Beyond this, I emailed Greek economic analyst, and Athens native, Robert G. Danon who writes at rgdanon.blogspot.com and whose Twitter is rgdanon. I wanted a better understanding on Greece: the reason for their money mess and the protesters’ anger. In response to my inquiry, he wrote (with my writing in parentheses):

“Over the course of the last three decades we had to a large extent a socialist government run by PASOK with a manifesto of deficit spending and promises of increased electoral public employment in exchange for votes. The centre-right NEW DEMOCRACY party also lay claim and embraced this modus operandi, effectively condoning this behaviour.

“This was effortlessly carried out as Greece was the beneficiary of very low interest rates courtesy of the Euro, and the party euphoria that ensued having no regard to the longer term structural imbalances prevalent throughout this period. Equally, massive transfers of wealth occurred to help the periphery catch up with the core. (I’m honestly not sure what this last statement means.) It goes without saying that this money did not find a home in productive investment but rather in excessive consumption, lavish living, and Swiss and local bank accounts. Europe turned a blind eye as it was in many ways easier.

“At some point Greece had to pay the ferry man. Lending seized and the Troika (the European Commission, the International Monetary Fund, and the European Central Bank) imposed its lending conditions. The problem is this bloated Government sector of…public servants has never been cut to size, a large part of which earn excessive salaries, a large part of which is totally redundant and of course is being maintained at the expense of the private sector, which in neglect, is being asked to pay an ever increasing share of taxes. It is self-evident that this process has a dead end and we have reached it.”

Got all that?

Great.

have an awesome weekend!

-Brandon

 

 
 

Hmm, Maybe Canada Really is on Top of the U.S.

17 Jul

When I was a boy, the Cannuck currency was 2/3 that of America’s. I remembered the ratio by comparing it to the ratio of kilometers to miles. And though it was still cool to have Canadian coins (money was still money and good for candy!), I know the storekeepers in my hometown preferred the American version.

Today things are different. The Canadian dollar has been as strong as the U.S. dollar for a few years now. And now I come across this article on TheWeek.com that shows Canadians enjoying a higher level of wealth than their American counterparts for the first time in any recorded history. Wha?

Yes, the average household net worth in Canada is $363,202

In the U.S. it’s $319,970  :(

So, why is this?

Is it us or them?

A few theories are brought up on the site; I’ll offer them briefly:

1. Though more socialist with health care and financial regulation, Canada also spends way less, has lower debt, and made significant social cuts in the 90′s. They seem to walk a completely different fiscal line than the U.S. does.

2. The easiest answer for the new discrepancy is the housing bust. Many Americans lost their shirts while Canadians did not:

3. Canada’s banking system plays is safer.

4. Canada’s new found wealth via their rich natural mineral and oil resources.

The article played a nice role of talking up Canada (their unemployment is also 1 point better than America’s), and that’s great. But one assumes that this new reality is more of a case of America falling.

It’s those reasons, I think, that need to be brought up.

to new plateaus,

-Brandon

 
 

Penny-wise?

11 Apr

A penny saved may be a penny earned. But today, a penny made is 1.6 cents spent. Who could promote such foolish money flushing?

Well, many people like the penny and don’t want to see it go away. Plus, the concern of having to spend in 5 cent increments sounds  a little fishy. But more than anything, I think the concern is change–no, not pocket change, I mean change to one’s world.

I imagine, a stereotypical conservative must be at a cross-roads on this issue: recognizing the financial folly of losing money making the darned things, but also not wanting to get rid the good ‘ole copper coin that he remembers buying candy with as a boy.

Either way, it’s a neat debate and on the blog, Freakonomics, they argue for the elimination of the one cent piece:

What do you think?