I don't claim to be an expert at prognostication, nor would I expect my pontifications to be gospel truth, but I've recently become one of those people who is actually worried about the future stability of our country. It doesn't feel to me that we've gone off the deep end, or there's going to be complete anarchy, but I am concerned enough to consider that it's worthwhile knowing how to reduce dependency on the market for the most basic of life's accoutrements.
I'll be considering where this impacts the standard lifestyle of Americans, so I'll attempt to consider topics as they arrive. At the moment, I've considered a few hypothetical ways to reduce economic impact at the same time as reducing environmental impacts...
1- Sharing. This, of course, is one of the primary virtues of pre-institutional education for most families, I know this was the case with mine. The idea is that certain appliances simply do not necessitate being one-per-house. Vacuums, mops, washing machines, and lawnmowers, amongst other things, are all items that are not regularly used on a daily basis. By coordinating with a few neighbors, four households can own between them one of each appliance, reducing the need for each to have one. Material benefit: less waste. Perceived negative: less purchasing in the market. That is, however, a false negative; if goods are not needed, the lack of their purchase is the market functioning properly. This enables more resources to be spent on other goods and developments that will open new markets by the preferred method: improved technology and increased productivity. It is, of course, not as simple as that, but this is one method to reduce your individual budgets and make sure you're more financially soluble overall.
Why is this unlikely to happen? People are shy; fewer people know their neighbors than in the past, and the connections are diminishing. We feel apart and detached from others, and we're less likely to ask for help the less we feel that we can depend on others. The solution to this is to have grassroots organizations begin to connect people for non-political aims, or to have popular leaders attempt to alter the behavior of their flocks.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Friday, February 13, 2009
Have You Written Your Representatives This Year?
Everyone living in America is being represented on the national level by three individuals, and three individuals alone. While you may identify with the President, his appointees, or the leaders of your party in Congress, you are ultimately unrepresented by those people in the meaningful sense; if you send a letter, it will not be likely to influence their policy decisions.
Three individuals, however, will receive your letter and, at the very least, log your view and consider it as one to address publicly. Those three people are the two Senators that your state sends to the Senate, and the Representative that your district sends to the House. Do you know who your representatives are? Most people don't, despite the fact that they're the people that should be on your Christmas card list every year. Curious how to find them? Here's how:
1. Find your full zipcode via the Postal Service.
2. Input your address here to find your representatives' names and contact info
Once you've done that, you could call regularly, or compose a letter once a year to let them know what's on your mind. As a general rule of thumb, Congresspeople are able to tally up the letters received, multiply that number by 20, and then have a general number of the people who care enough about that issue and agree with those letters, to base their votes on it. This means that if you live in the state of Pennsylvania, for example, and you wanted to send a letter to Arlen Specter relating to the economy, your opinion would be magnified greatly. Specter's most recent re-election campaign won by a margin of just under 600,000 votes out of a total of 5 and a quarter million. That's a fairly safe margin, but consider if he started receiving a few thousand letters; he'd really need to pay attention to those.
Pennsylvania has around 11 million inhabitants, of whom 5 million will regularly vote on any given Presidential election season. On non-Presidential election cycles, however, perhaps 3 to 4 million will take part, tops. In those cycles in particular, Senators need to listen to the views of the politically active; the party-aligned civically unaware will usually refrain from voting, so it's all about winning over the people who care enough to vote every time they get the opportunity. Those are exactly the same people who would send letters regularly to their congresspeople, and it's those people whose views are magnified by the assessment of the worth of letters. A few thousand of those letters might not seem like a lot of votes, but consider if he were to receive 10,000 letters prior to the 2010 election cycle; he'll want a comfortable margin, and those 10,000 letters would point to a possible bloc of 200,000 votes in a cycle when that's getting close to 10% of the total. Any election analyst will tell you that if you can secure 10% of the voters by championing a single issue that doesn't interfere with the general public sensibilities, you are almost guaranteed the victory.
When you look at House Representatives, the numbers are even better. People are less aware of the House than of the Senate, so letters that are received are treated with even greater respect, and this is compounded by the fact that there are far fewer voters in those districts (by definition, they're organized around centers of 500,000+ inhabitants, of whom 300,000 regularly vote in Presidential cycles and 100,000-200,000 will vote regularly). As such, tighter margins mean that smaller blocs are courted more regularly, so as few as 1,000 letters will be enough to secure attention to the cause.
Most people have some issue that they care about greatly. What's your issue? Have you written your three representatives about your view in order to convince them to represent you more fully? It is never a waste of time, and you might very well be surprised at what can happen if you get your friends and family, too, to send a letter at least once a year.
Just sayin'.
Three individuals, however, will receive your letter and, at the very least, log your view and consider it as one to address publicly. Those three people are the two Senators that your state sends to the Senate, and the Representative that your district sends to the House. Do you know who your representatives are? Most people don't, despite the fact that they're the people that should be on your Christmas card list every year. Curious how to find them? Here's how:
1. Find your full zipcode via the Postal Service.
2. Input your address here to find your representatives' names and contact info
Once you've done that, you could call regularly, or compose a letter once a year to let them know what's on your mind. As a general rule of thumb, Congresspeople are able to tally up the letters received, multiply that number by 20, and then have a general number of the people who care enough about that issue and agree with those letters, to base their votes on it. This means that if you live in the state of Pennsylvania, for example, and you wanted to send a letter to Arlen Specter relating to the economy, your opinion would be magnified greatly. Specter's most recent re-election campaign won by a margin of just under 600,000 votes out of a total of 5 and a quarter million. That's a fairly safe margin, but consider if he started receiving a few thousand letters; he'd really need to pay attention to those.
Pennsylvania has around 11 million inhabitants, of whom 5 million will regularly vote on any given Presidential election season. On non-Presidential election cycles, however, perhaps 3 to 4 million will take part, tops. In those cycles in particular, Senators need to listen to the views of the politically active; the party-aligned civically unaware will usually refrain from voting, so it's all about winning over the people who care enough to vote every time they get the opportunity. Those are exactly the same people who would send letters regularly to their congresspeople, and it's those people whose views are magnified by the assessment of the worth of letters. A few thousand of those letters might not seem like a lot of votes, but consider if he were to receive 10,000 letters prior to the 2010 election cycle; he'll want a comfortable margin, and those 10,000 letters would point to a possible bloc of 200,000 votes in a cycle when that's getting close to 10% of the total. Any election analyst will tell you that if you can secure 10% of the voters by championing a single issue that doesn't interfere with the general public sensibilities, you are almost guaranteed the victory.
When you look at House Representatives, the numbers are even better. People are less aware of the House than of the Senate, so letters that are received are treated with even greater respect, and this is compounded by the fact that there are far fewer voters in those districts (by definition, they're organized around centers of 500,000+ inhabitants, of whom 300,000 regularly vote in Presidential cycles and 100,000-200,000 will vote regularly). As such, tighter margins mean that smaller blocs are courted more regularly, so as few as 1,000 letters will be enough to secure attention to the cause.
Most people have some issue that they care about greatly. What's your issue? Have you written your three representatives about your view in order to convince them to represent you more fully? It is never a waste of time, and you might very well be surprised at what can happen if you get your friends and family, too, to send a letter at least once a year.
Just sayin'.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
"Tax the Speculators" - Ralph Nader
Ralph Nader's article (link) touches upon some interesting subjects. I believe he's correct in his assessment of the nature of taxation, for while it is primarily to generate revenue for the state, its secondary purpose has been, for a very long time, to divert people and organizations away from less desirable legal activities and towards those that are less expensive to society.
I have not run the numbers myself (nor, in all honesty, do I expect myself to), but the massive scale of those speculative buys on stock indicates that he's got a good bet to be right about the volume of revenue generated from the potential taxation. I understand, however, that businesses would be very wary of such taxation; the purchase of another company would now be a taxable purchase in a way that it wasn't before, as there'd be a tax on the shares bought. I can hear many people rumbling about how this would interfere with business or discourage investment, but I don't believe it for the same reason that I don't believe when people tell me that taxes discourage work.
I have not run the numbers myself (nor, in all honesty, do I expect myself to), but the massive scale of those speculative buys on stock indicates that he's got a good bet to be right about the volume of revenue generated from the potential taxation. I understand, however, that businesses would be very wary of such taxation; the purchase of another company would now be a taxable purchase in a way that it wasn't before, as there'd be a tax on the shares bought. I can hear many people rumbling about how this would interfere with business or discourage investment, but I don't believe it for the same reason that I don't believe when people tell me that taxes discourage work.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Jay Wright - "The Cradle Logic of Autumn"
"The Cradle Logic of Autumn" (link)
I heard of this gentleman by way of Harold Bloom's conversation with Charlie Rose. Bloom spoke very highly of Wright, placing him on a poetic platform with the likes of Whitman, bypassing the vast majority of our contemporary poetic and prose figures. From what I've read so far, I find Wright's work to be of very high quality.
I freely admit that, as a newcomer to anyone's work, it has the bittersweet aspects of the novel: fresh experiences often have a vitality that inflate their true value (but how sweet that vitality is! how often we seek to recreate the feeling of a first-time experience), but they also are more difficult to penetrate, moreso if the author of the experience is also new to us, as we are unfamiliar with their mores, their styles, and their particular diction. You can experience this when you meet new people and they make a joke that you don't understand, as the very same joke from a familiar companion would be so subtly, but precisely reinterpreted and renegotiated within our brains, sending the message that they intended, a courtesy that we would find quite difficult, often impossible, to extend to those foreign to us, even were we to wish to do so. By stating this, I mean to express that I cannot possibly be an expert, nor even an authority, on the work that I have posted. Despite this rather compromising failure for someone (such as myself) who is seeking to share creative works with others, I still share this as I found it to be drawing in an as yet inarticulable fashion.
Perhaps after I've had some time to consider what it is that I've read with more satisfaction, I can write on the subject. At present, that would be premature, so I invite you to read and enjoy as you would were I not here.
I heard of this gentleman by way of Harold Bloom's conversation with Charlie Rose. Bloom spoke very highly of Wright, placing him on a poetic platform with the likes of Whitman, bypassing the vast majority of our contemporary poetic and prose figures. From what I've read so far, I find Wright's work to be of very high quality.
I freely admit that, as a newcomer to anyone's work, it has the bittersweet aspects of the novel: fresh experiences often have a vitality that inflate their true value (but how sweet that vitality is! how often we seek to recreate the feeling of a first-time experience), but they also are more difficult to penetrate, moreso if the author of the experience is also new to us, as we are unfamiliar with their mores, their styles, and their particular diction. You can experience this when you meet new people and they make a joke that you don't understand, as the very same joke from a familiar companion would be so subtly, but precisely reinterpreted and renegotiated within our brains, sending the message that they intended, a courtesy that we would find quite difficult, often impossible, to extend to those foreign to us, even were we to wish to do so. By stating this, I mean to express that I cannot possibly be an expert, nor even an authority, on the work that I have posted. Despite this rather compromising failure for someone (such as myself) who is seeking to share creative works with others, I still share this as I found it to be drawing in an as yet inarticulable fashion.
Perhaps after I've had some time to consider what it is that I've read with more satisfaction, I can write on the subject. At present, that would be premature, so I invite you to read and enjoy as you would were I not here.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Conversations: Argyros and Lemnos, I
INTRODUCTIONS
Setting:
A market stall on the side of the Main Road. ARGYROS, a forty-something merchant of good stock and respectable wealth, is selling jewelry and rare crafts to passers-by. A young man, LEMNOS, looking harried but intense, enters the stage.
------
ARGYROS:
‘Lo there! Have you a moment to see what I’ve got, fellow?
LEMNOS: (Not stopping, irritated)
What you’ve got? I suspect cheap trinkets and other wastes of time. I have no time for this.
ARGYROS:
Don’t be so hasty, my young friend! I carry nothing but the finest of goods here. If you have no time for culture, then please do carry on.
LEMNOS: (Finally halting)
Hah! Culture… don’t play me a fool. I’m a man both of the earth and society; I happen to know the difference between culture and frivolities, and I know which you’re selling.
ARGYROS: (Patiently)
You’re quick to judge what I’m about, my friend. Come, if you’d do me the favor of explaining the difference as you see it, I could make it worth your time.
LEMNOS: (Moving closer to ARGYROS, the annoyance growing, but curiosity piqued)
The difference is clear enough. It is impossible to establish a meaningful understanding of a society by looking at how gold and gems are treated, and what they look like. The written word, the common tongue, and the actions of the citizen are all far more telling of what a society is.
ARGYROS:
I see what you’re getting at, but I think I disagree. Let me ask you a question: can you think of a society that has not placed value or emphasis on the “trinkets” that you seem to despise?
LEMNOS: (Skeptically)
Not at the moment, no.
ARGYROS: (Calmly, with warmth)
Then certainly, you can see that society as a rule will instill value into gems, gold, and metals of rare varieties. As they value them highly, and alter them to create certain images, those gems and metals become manifestations of what a culture views as beauty and valuable.
LEMNOS: (Annoyed at the point)
I grant you that art can be injected into such things, but what a society wishes to present to itself and others very often differs sharply from what the society rewards and fosters.
ARGYROS:
I wouldn’t have said otherwise! I’m beginning to suspect that you’re opposed to the acquisition of physical wealth, however.
LEMNOS:
Rightly so. Your very stockade here is an affront to what I perceive as the greater part of what our society could be. Instead of investments into our community for the betterment of the city as a whole, you entice the citizenry to purchase useless decoration and fatten your own purse in the deal.
ARGYROS:
You criticize me because I offer a service, but you absolve my customers from their part in it? If what I am doing were so bad, why am I not out of business? There is a hunger here, and I am sating it with the finest of cuisine.
LEMNOS: (Stepping away, restraining agitation)
Call it a hunger if you’d like, but it’s pretty clear to me that you’re far more interested in increasing your own wealth. If you were so keen on feeding the people’s hunger for gold, why are you charging them money?
ARGYROS:
Would you expect the farmer to give his wheat to the baker without cost? Should the baker then go uncompensated for his creation of bread? No, even though the service is needed, it is still paid for. Without this exchange, there is no reason to perform the action.
LEMNOS:
Perhaps not for you, but it’s clear to me that actions for the good of the whole should be their own reward, and each should contribute to the wellbeing of the community. If a man is starving, would you rather see him die than see him fed without payment?
ARGYROS:
I can’t say that the question is fair; what do we know of this man? Has he been stricken with illness, or been wronged by another man? At its core, is his privation the work of himself or not? Such things matter.
LEMNOS:
Ah-hah! You clearly understand that there are times in which the exchange of money is secondary to the conditions of a man. I should challenge you to consider where you draw your lines, as if a society can benefit from an action as a whole, and that includes the man acting, then surely it should be done.
ARGYROS:
You seem to have an overestimation of the intelligence behind a society, and the knowledge of its people. Perhaps if we were an ideal, you may have some room to speak. As it stands, however, I cannot be responsible for my neighbor’s life when I’m full with my own. I may give a starving man a loaf of bread if he’s hit hard times not of his own actions, but it would be to the detriment of our society as a whole for all men to be able to receive free bread. If you do not have to pay for your bread, or your clothes, why would you work? If the farmer would get no money for his wheat, why would he grow it?
LEMNOS: (becoming more agitated)
It is obvious that if no one works, there will be no wheat, no bread, and no clothing. Since everyone has need of these things, the work must be done, and the work will be done. Capable men will farm rather than starve, and those who do not have to farm will tailor clothes rather than go naked into the cold of winter. With these actions being performed out of necessity, the excess can be used to feed and clothe those others who perform other tasks for the good of society.
ARGYROS:
Young man, I’m afraid what you’re saying seems to be playing out only in your head. You expect people to work beyond their own sufficiency on the hope that other people will do the same, without any guarantee behind it nor any enforcement for each to do their part. I suspect you may have a valid point locked somewhere in there, but I highly doubt that it’s anywhere near the degree to which you think it extends. I suggest that you continue along your way and consider your position, and I will consider mine as well. If you should like to continue this discussion, I will be here tomorrow, and the day after. I suspect that I may yet learn something from you, and that you can draw the same from me, but you seem too worked up to respond with full reason.
LEMNOS:
Loathe as I am to admit it, but I feel you may be right about my presentation. I know that I am right, and I will take the time to consider how best to phrase it for you. I’m unsure of how much I can draw from your view, but rest assured that before we are finished, you will be much more in line with how I perceive things. I shall return tomorrow, and we can continue then. You may call me Lemnos, merchant.
ARGYROS:
Very well, Lemnos. I am called Argyros, and I look forward to continuing this discourse.
LEMNOS:
So it shall be. I hope you don't sell much in the meantime.
Setting:
A market stall on the side of the Main Road. ARGYROS, a forty-something merchant of good stock and respectable wealth, is selling jewelry and rare crafts to passers-by. A young man, LEMNOS, looking harried but intense, enters the stage.
------
ARGYROS:
‘Lo there! Have you a moment to see what I’ve got, fellow?
LEMNOS: (Not stopping, irritated)
What you’ve got? I suspect cheap trinkets and other wastes of time. I have no time for this.
ARGYROS:
Don’t be so hasty, my young friend! I carry nothing but the finest of goods here. If you have no time for culture, then please do carry on.
LEMNOS: (Finally halting)
Hah! Culture… don’t play me a fool. I’m a man both of the earth and society; I happen to know the difference between culture and frivolities, and I know which you’re selling.
ARGYROS: (Patiently)
You’re quick to judge what I’m about, my friend. Come, if you’d do me the favor of explaining the difference as you see it, I could make it worth your time.
LEMNOS: (Moving closer to ARGYROS, the annoyance growing, but curiosity piqued)
The difference is clear enough. It is impossible to establish a meaningful understanding of a society by looking at how gold and gems are treated, and what they look like. The written word, the common tongue, and the actions of the citizen are all far more telling of what a society is.
ARGYROS:
I see what you’re getting at, but I think I disagree. Let me ask you a question: can you think of a society that has not placed value or emphasis on the “trinkets” that you seem to despise?
LEMNOS: (Skeptically)
Not at the moment, no.
ARGYROS: (Calmly, with warmth)
Then certainly, you can see that society as a rule will instill value into gems, gold, and metals of rare varieties. As they value them highly, and alter them to create certain images, those gems and metals become manifestations of what a culture views as beauty and valuable.
LEMNOS: (Annoyed at the point)
I grant you that art can be injected into such things, but what a society wishes to present to itself and others very often differs sharply from what the society rewards and fosters.
ARGYROS:
I wouldn’t have said otherwise! I’m beginning to suspect that you’re opposed to the acquisition of physical wealth, however.
LEMNOS:
Rightly so. Your very stockade here is an affront to what I perceive as the greater part of what our society could be. Instead of investments into our community for the betterment of the city as a whole, you entice the citizenry to purchase useless decoration and fatten your own purse in the deal.
ARGYROS:
You criticize me because I offer a service, but you absolve my customers from their part in it? If what I am doing were so bad, why am I not out of business? There is a hunger here, and I am sating it with the finest of cuisine.
LEMNOS: (Stepping away, restraining agitation)
Call it a hunger if you’d like, but it’s pretty clear to me that you’re far more interested in increasing your own wealth. If you were so keen on feeding the people’s hunger for gold, why are you charging them money?
ARGYROS:
Would you expect the farmer to give his wheat to the baker without cost? Should the baker then go uncompensated for his creation of bread? No, even though the service is needed, it is still paid for. Without this exchange, there is no reason to perform the action.
LEMNOS:
Perhaps not for you, but it’s clear to me that actions for the good of the whole should be their own reward, and each should contribute to the wellbeing of the community. If a man is starving, would you rather see him die than see him fed without payment?
ARGYROS:
I can’t say that the question is fair; what do we know of this man? Has he been stricken with illness, or been wronged by another man? At its core, is his privation the work of himself or not? Such things matter.
LEMNOS:
Ah-hah! You clearly understand that there are times in which the exchange of money is secondary to the conditions of a man. I should challenge you to consider where you draw your lines, as if a society can benefit from an action as a whole, and that includes the man acting, then surely it should be done.
ARGYROS:
You seem to have an overestimation of the intelligence behind a society, and the knowledge of its people. Perhaps if we were an ideal, you may have some room to speak. As it stands, however, I cannot be responsible for my neighbor’s life when I’m full with my own. I may give a starving man a loaf of bread if he’s hit hard times not of his own actions, but it would be to the detriment of our society as a whole for all men to be able to receive free bread. If you do not have to pay for your bread, or your clothes, why would you work? If the farmer would get no money for his wheat, why would he grow it?
LEMNOS: (becoming more agitated)
It is obvious that if no one works, there will be no wheat, no bread, and no clothing. Since everyone has need of these things, the work must be done, and the work will be done. Capable men will farm rather than starve, and those who do not have to farm will tailor clothes rather than go naked into the cold of winter. With these actions being performed out of necessity, the excess can be used to feed and clothe those others who perform other tasks for the good of society.
ARGYROS:
Young man, I’m afraid what you’re saying seems to be playing out only in your head. You expect people to work beyond their own sufficiency on the hope that other people will do the same, without any guarantee behind it nor any enforcement for each to do their part. I suspect you may have a valid point locked somewhere in there, but I highly doubt that it’s anywhere near the degree to which you think it extends. I suggest that you continue along your way and consider your position, and I will consider mine as well. If you should like to continue this discussion, I will be here tomorrow, and the day after. I suspect that I may yet learn something from you, and that you can draw the same from me, but you seem too worked up to respond with full reason.
LEMNOS:
Loathe as I am to admit it, but I feel you may be right about my presentation. I know that I am right, and I will take the time to consider how best to phrase it for you. I’m unsure of how much I can draw from your view, but rest assured that before we are finished, you will be much more in line with how I perceive things. I shall return tomorrow, and we can continue then. You may call me Lemnos, merchant.
ARGYROS:
Very well, Lemnos. I am called Argyros, and I look forward to continuing this discourse.
LEMNOS:
So it shall be. I hope you don't sell much in the meantime.
The Rebel Intellectual's Complete and Total Guide to Happiness
1. Expect less of everything.
2. Do more of anything.
2. Do more of anything.
Initial Post
Mostly serving as a placeholder. I'll be figuring out more what I want to do with this as I go along, and I'll probably be putting it up elsewhere. In the meantime, though, this will suffice!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
