Posts tagged optomistically cynical
the silence lie
Jan 18th
“just because you didn’t speak the facts out loud didn’t erase their existence. silence was just a quieter way to lie.” – unknown 
I am fairly sure I found these words in some tween blog. I don’t remember the frame of reference but I wrote down the words because … well … I don’t really give a shit about the frame of reference because it defines the ‘silent lie’ better than anything else I have ever seen.
“silence was just a quieter way to lie.”
Boy oh boy.
That is a powerful thought.
I guess the funny thing is truth is truth … whether it is spoken or silent. So why wouldn’t a lie be exactly the same?
A lie’s existence is not defined by words or lack of words … it is defined by whether it exists or not.
Maybe I say this because anything that exists can take on a life of its own.
It breathes and lives and, well, it actually eats. It eats away at your thoughts and, if you are unfortunate, it eats away at your soul.
And if a lie exists then it does all that.
Frankly, I am not sure you can ever kill a lie. Even by eventually speaking the truth. I believe even in that case it doesn’t cease to exist but maybe by speaking it … it attains a more tangible form. And maybe that makes it easier to accept … ok, well … maybe not accept. Maybe it’s just live with it.
So if I believe that, when does a lie stop existing? When does it take its last breath?
Well.
I actually believe they take their last breath the same time you do. Yup. I believe lies are things you carry with you until the end of your days. You cannot erase their existence by ‘speaking the facts out loud.’ They are one of Life’s burdens.
I imagine we all lie at some point or another.
A white lie. A lie of omission. A lie of silence. A lie of words. I personally don’t believe Life weighs lies … like there are ‘big lies’ and ‘little lies’ … I just believe Life counts them all simply as lies.
So.
Maybe the measure of our life is … how many lies take their last breath when we do at the end.
its all about the balance sheet, baby
Jan 12th
So.
This is about the American economy and a plea for all of us to quit bitching about how the government is the fault for all our economic woes.
Yeah, sure, the government could (and should) take some actions to help … and improve their own balance sheet.
But. The combination of the US population (people) and corporations have more money on their balance sheets at their disposal than the government (therefore can make a bigger impact).
And.
Remember.
Its all about the balance sheet baby.
What do I mean? Savings & cash.
And I mean we are finally heading in the right direction (so quit looking at unemployment and government balance sheet for a moment).
Overall households have increased their % of hhld savings as a percentage of disposable income.
I won’t get the numbers right but suffice it to say people are improving their household balance sheets.
And.
Corporations are flush with cash. As they have become more conservative and banking money for the future their balance sheets have become quite healthy with cash.
These are indicators of good things in the future.
Oh. And before I get to the crux of the consumer/corporate balance sheet dilemma let me share one quick factoid about US debt, their own balance sheet and how we make money (as a country).
I share this factoid slide from a presentation because, I admit, I do get a little tired of how Michelle Bachman and lots of other people so casually focus on debt:
————————————–
(this comes from an Economic Summit presentation in London)
US is a Giant Investment Bank
- The Asian Savings Glut enabled the US household to “Borrow” money cheaply from savers looking for Capital Preservation and Security and then “lend it back” as risk capital
- If you borrow $100 at 4% over 7 years and set aside $28 to pay the interest, you can then buy “equity” in emerging markets with the remaining $72
- If this “only” produces 10% pa, then over the life of the bond you have doubled your equity capital, you now have $144 after interest, and $44 after principal
- Traditional balance sheet measures such as debt to GDP ignore the asset side of the equation, while liquidity measures such as debt service to income ignore the different nature of equity (capital growth)
- Traditional economic measures fail to capture the real balance sheet and cash flow situation and declare this to be an “Imbalance”
- A slide from Economic Symposium London march 2011
——————————————–
I shared that just so I could get beyond the country’s balance sheet discussion and get to what you & I can do and should do.
So.
On to us consumers … and what we can do to insure some economic growth in the future.
Its about the savings.
Uh oh.
I didn’t say spending (which spurs the economic outlook).
Yeah. Its true that the economy demands increased consumer spending. The problem is that millions of lower- and middle-income households have lost their capacity to spend – in actual dollars as well as mentally ‘scared’ to spend even if they have the dollars.
Despite the growth in savings as a percentage there is an overall lack of savings ‘safety net’ and a level of debt (even if it is small) that hovers like a gargoyle looking over most people’s shoulder. Although it would be helpful if affluent households spent more, we shouldn’t be calling upon a struggling majority to do so. In the long run, the health of the economy depends on the financial stability of our households.
Therefore we need to reduce our own debt on the balance sheets. Oh. In addition we (the people) need to become less dependent upon social security as “the” retirement fund (I will get back to that point).
Attitudinally it appears like we are making the needed shifts.
In the second quarter of 2009 households put away 7 percent of disposable income, compared with under 2 percent in the third quarter of 2007. Yet the savings rate is falling again, down to 5.3 percent in December.
(note: I added that last point because that is our biggest issue … changing long term behavior and our desire to want to spend versus save)
According to a Harris Poll (maybe in 2010?) 27 percent of Americans have no personal savings and 34 percent have no retirement savings, an increase from over a year ago.
Here is the tricky part.
US consumers want to reduce their debt, but the economy’s recovery depends on their spending. By some estimates, deleveraging is happening more because of defaults than because of people opting to pay down their debts. A decline in credit-card debt, for example, closely tracks the rate at which banks are charging off delinquent card loans.
In addition job losses are leading to foreclosure or bankruptcy. In others, borrowing has stalled because card issuers have reduced credit limits or raised interest rates.
Think about this …
These are all “forced” balance sheet improvement behavior patterns.
These are not “choice” behavior changes.
That is a point I am making so that we don’t get fooled by numbers …. but rather focus on behavior.
Any behavioral model will show you that forced behavior creates only short term behavior change. And that is why many Media & Economic reporting information is flawed and misleading to the general public.
Yes. Once again I will point out there are some encouraging signs which we should nurture.
The cost of debt payments as a share of personal disposable income, has fallen to around 12 percent, from nearly 14 percent when the recession began. But that overall figure masks wide disparities – millions of households have no debt at all, while others are deep in debt (go back to my “the Two Americas PewResearch post).
Yes.
By looking only at numbers it appears the trend is moving in a positive direction.
But (and this is a big but) …. we need a change in attitude (which will create the behavior necessary to make it all work).
American people are addicted to spending (this is probably an entire post all in itself on breaking down the addiction culturally).
But let’s instead think about some things.
Americans definitely spend more than people in western Europe and Asia. Definitely. Its part of our DNA.
You can look at consumption levels and control for purchasing power over the last several decades, and America is simply in a league of its own. The only people who come close are people in Britain, but they are about 85 percent of the level of American consumption. Germans, French and others are in the 70 percent range, Japanese even a little lower. So Americans spend like no one else.”
So what can help us become better savers.
I guess I think about this like any addiction.
It has to be part personal responsibility and part ‘system’ (a system that enables us for success).
I think we need to improve the access of lower-income households to savings institutions.
We just saw Bank of America and other banks trying to charge an extra fee on people with debit cards, particularly with low minimum balances. That tends to discourage people especially among lower-income households.
We need to remember about 25 percent of lower income America is unbanked (they don’t have bank accounts).
So.
First.
Similar to Europe we need to incentivize banks to create small savers accounts. They have a low or minimum balance, that have no fees, and pay a recognizable interest rate. These can be subsidized by government working with banks (and that, my friends, is a good use of government spending).
Second.
we need to revise our tax laws. There are too many tax exempt advantages incentivizing borrowing. We need to incent saving.
Third.
Learn from others.
We can learn from societies that promote a more balanced approach to saving and spending.
Few Americans appreciate that the prosperous economies of western and northern Europe are among the world’s greatest savers. Over the past three decades, Germany, France, Austria and Belgium have maintained household saving rates between 10 and 13 percent, and rates in Sweden recently soared to 13 percent. By contrast, saving rates in the United States dropped to nearly zero by 2005; they rose above 5 percent after the 2008 crisis but have recently fallen below 4 percent.
Unlike the United States, the thrifty societies of Europe have long histories of encouraging the broad populace to save.
During the 19th century, European reformers and governments became preoccupied with creating more frugal citizens. They focused on creating hundreds of savings banks that enabled the majority (pretty much anyone) to save by accepting small deposits. Central governments established accessible postal savings banks where small savers could bank at any post office. In addition, to encourage thrifty habits in the young, governments also instituted school savings banks.
All these actions fostered a culture of saving that endures today in many countries (and fosters a certain type of economy). For example … the French government attracts millions of lower-income and young savers with its Livret A account available at savings banks, postal savings banks and all other banks. This small savers’ account is tax free, requires only a tiny minimum balance, and commonly pays above-market interest rates. And in German cities, one cannot turn the corner without coming upon one of the popular savings banks, called Sparkassen.
Legally charged with encouraging an overall savings mentality these banks offer no-fee accounts for the young and sponsor financial education in the schools.
Ok. And while we may not have all those governmental driven opportunities here (and want to use that as an excuse) we need to get in our heads that even with the economy we can save. Even with reduced income we can save.
We only have to look to Africa, where millions who have just risen above the poverty level, have created savings accounts despite the fact their disposable income does not permit any luxury.
In addition, many foreign countries have also restrained the expansion of consumer and housing credit with the intent to minimize being personally over-in-debt. Home equity loans are rare in Germany, and Belgians, Italians and Germans are rarely offered an American-style credit card that allows the user to carry an unpaid balance.
Oh.
Lastly.
Savings & retirement.
Your retirement isn’t about social security.
When Social Security came about in the 1930s, it was largely a program to keep families from starving and from going absolutely broke. It was never intended as a long-term benefits program. Yet life expectancy has increased over time and now today, many Americans depend on Social Security as their primary source of retirement. We need to change our ‘entitlement’ attitude on this.
That’s it for today.
At the end of the day, someone, somewhere in America has to save. In fact a lot of someones somewhere have to save.
Save a lot, save a little …. just save.
And, remember, it’s all in your head. Because if an African earning 5,000 dollars a year can figure out how to save money I imagine we can figure out how to set aside some money.
poverty redefined?
Jan 8th
So.
The US Census Bureau has redefined poverty in the USA. Its kind of like having someone give you a new report card for a past semester.
Whoa.
(I am certain this was a West Wing episode … it was)
It’s from a Season 3 episode called “Indians in the Lobby” where two White House staffers discuss a political problem:
SAM: On Monday, the OMB is putting out a new formula for calculating the
poverty level.
TOBY: What’s the problem?
SAM: It’s a good news, bad news thing. Under the new formula, poverty is up two percent. It was anyone under $17,524, now it’s $20,000.
TOBY: What does that shake out to?
SAM: Four million new poor people.
TOBY: Four million?!?
SAM: Yeah. Obviously, that’s the bad news.
TOBY: Yeah…
SAM: The good news is more people will be eligible for benefits.
TOBY: And taxpayers are nuts about that. Let’s get back to the bad news. Four million people became poor on the President’s watch?
SAM: They didn’t become poor. They were poor already. And now we’re calling them poor.
TOBY: What was wrong with the old formula?
SAM: I don’t know.
TOBY: Find out.
SAM: It is possible that this is a statistical reality and not a political finding.
TOBY: Well, get together with somebody at OMB and find out what was wrong with the statistical reality of the old formula.
I love the fact that West Wing pointed out several years ago that the poverty formula wasn’t so good.
So where did that old formula come from? And for that I will use West Wing again. Here Sam talks to Bernice from the office of management and budget, about where the old formula came from:
SAM: Well how was the old one reached? The current one.
BERNICE: In 1963, an eastern European immigrant named Mollie Orshansky, who was working over in social security, came up with it. Food was the most costly living expense where she came from.
SAM: Our cost of living formula for the last 40 years has been based on life in Poland during
the Cold War?
BERNICE: This is what I’m talking about. I mean, food doesn’t account for one-third of a family’s budget. Housing is more expensive than food. The current model also doesn’t take into account transportation and health insurance. So let’s call the current model the old
model and sign off on the new model.
Ok. Sorry. I digressed because I loved West Wing and I often find it addressed many issues we are addressing today.
Anyway. The new definition.
One day someone wasn’t poverty stricken and the next they were.
Oh.
And one day someone was poverty stricken and the next day they weren’t.
Yikes.
Here is the graph:
New poverty versus old poverty/IBM: http://www-958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/visualizations/new-us-poverty-v-old-us-poverty
Ok.
Let’s be clear. All the people wandering in and out of the new and old poverty statistics are struggling in some form or fashion. What moves someone out of poverty (I believe this is the definition) is that they have “attained a level of income where discretionary purchases are enabled.” In other words … it seems to define a line between ‘deprivation’ and sustenance. A good line in my mind. Well. Not good … but fair assessment.
Now. I am not clear on how discretionary discretionary is but suffice it to say that if I were dropped to whatever the number was that was slightly above poverty I could make no discretionary purchases … in fact … I would have to completely reassess all my spending & living behavior.
But.
This isn’t about me. And this isn’t really the way we (USA) is defining poverty … what I suggested above is how global poverty is defined (in a broad sense)
This is about redefining USA poverty.
Sometimes I believe we go number crazy.
Should we care what the number of people living in poverty is? Well. Yeah, I guess so. I imagine it gives us some measurement with regard to how Americans have the ability to live the ‘american dream.’
And I think that is good.
Ok. That said … this redefining is weird.
The government is making the definition of poverty pretty odd … it eliminates any connection between poverty and “deprivation” — by reclassifying poverty as being all about “inequality.”
The Heritage Foundation states:
Under the new measure, a family will be judged poor if its income falls below certain specified income thresholds or standards. There is nothing new in this, but unlike the current poverty income standards, the new income thresholds will have a built-in escalator clause. They will rise automatically in direct proportion to any rise in the living standards of the average American.
The current poverty measure counts (albeit inaccurately) absolute purchasing power (how much meat and potatoes a person can buy). The new measure will count comparative purchasing power (how much meat and potatoes a person can buy relative to other people). As the nation becomes wealthier, the poverty standards will increase in proportion.
So.
Does this mean 15% of US is in full deprivation mode within the new definition? Nope.
Just means a lot of people aren’t living the American standard of living.
Weird? Yup.
But let me move on from that nonsense …
Frankly, when I see numbers like 15 to 20% of Americans living within some band of poverty levels (however it is defined) … well … that doesn’t seem right.
No. in fact I am sure. It is wrong.
I do not believe in income leveling (or redistribution).
But I also do not believe a country as wealthy and healthy as ours should have anything more than single digits in poverty (I am going to assume for assumption sakes that 0% is impossible just due to some people not making any effort to not be poor).
And the US Census poverty redistribution made it more clear that more older HHlds and more white HHlds are wallowing in some sort of poverty/wealth constraints than ever before.
OLD NEW
All People TOTAL 46,602 15.2 49,094 16
Under 18 years AGE 16,823 22.5 13,622 18.2
18 to 64 years AGE 26,258 13.7 29,235 15.2
65 years and older AGE 3,520 9 6,237 15.9
Do I have a solution? Nope. Certainly not an easy one.
But I do have a thought.
Many of us sit around moaning about the economy and paying our bills and saving for the future. Well, my friends, there are a shitload people out there who have it a shitload worse.
And, by far, they are not lazy nor untalented (things often associated with the words ‘living in poverty in the USA”).
We need to find some solutions.
I say that as I also struggle with what exactly is poverty in the united states.
I do know if you want to see real poverty you don’t go to a Walmart.
You should visit one of the slums surrounding a Latin American/Caribbean or African major city (maybe even a major European city … like Paris).
And while you’re at it, visit a solidly middle-class neighborhood. By American standards, those neighborhoods would be poor, but they are neat and orderly neighborhoods … built and maintained with pride (regardless of their income level).
In those neighborhoods the residents are thrifty, hardworking, and well-mannered as well as determined to give their kids a good education.
Suffice it to say that people with lower ‘on the cusp of poverty’ levels of income in non-USA countries have a different attitude with regard to how to live and maintain every day life.
America is unique in respect to its view on poverty.
But who cares (no matter how absurd our definition may be).
The fundamental question is “why is a poor person poor?”
Generally a person is not poor by choice, the grace of God or some fault of his own.
A person is poor typically because he is denied opportunities.
To solve poverty we need to get to the root of the problem. The deep-rooted causes of deprivation, starvation, and social and economic exclusion need to be addressed.
We need to look beyond the dollars & cents and seek to better understand the social inclusion/exclusion aspects of poverty.
The social inclusion approach helps identify the processes, social relations, and economic and political arrangements in the society which contribute to poverty and, therefore, we would have a better opportunity to begin building solutions that provide attainable opportunities so people can rise above poverty/deprivation.
All that said … maybe looking at numbers like this does matter.
Because when I see something like 15.9% I see a large enough group that it should matter … to you & me.
economic center of gravity
Jan 4th
There is an awesome study completed in late 2010 called “Global Economy’s Shifting Centre of Gravity.” Ok.
Maybe not awesome to some people … but to me? Fascinating reading (I actually read it over my vacation which included some cocktails while reading & making notes).
Here is the net:
- In 1980 the global economy’s center of gravity was somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic ocean.
- In 2010 the center of gravity shifted to just east of Helsinki/Bucharest latitude (oddly the longitude doesn’t seem to vary much over time in this modeling).
- In 2049 the center of gravity will shift almost two-thirds of the earth’s radius from the 1980 center to somewhere say in west Asia.
All that said … I would envision most people wouldn’t be surprised by this.
But there are some nuances to this study that should make people think a bit.
Its ok. I am not going to go into the modeling analytics … but suffice it to say this guy knows his shit and figured out a way to analyze economic power not by clustering (which is an important distinction) but rather center of gravity (it’s kind of like figuring out how to measure the dynamic behavior of spatial economic distribution rather than simplistic clustering).
He created some awesome (to me) cylindrical spatial global maps in which it is almost like viewing an economic holographic image.
I will spare you.
What I won’t spare you is what this means.
The income dynamics of the average location of the planet’s economic activity is shifting.
I think we all knew this in our gut but now we have actual proof. And its kind of sobering proof for those of us in this hemisphere (I include South America, Latin America and North America into this pot of people).
That global economic activity moves east in this graphic fashion shows the rapid growth in incomes going to the large chunks of humanity who live in India, Africa, China and the rest of East Asia. (note: population itself changes much more gradually therefore this sharp east-directed rise of the rest is not driven by population growth.)
Overall this shift is a reflection of a lot of good happening in the world. For example 600 million people have been lifted from extreme poverty – a large and rapid improvement in the well-being of humanity that is unprecedented in the history of this planet.
And there is more is to come.
In particular, Africa and China will remain growth areas (albeit each in different ways).
Now.
All of this could be interesting/concerning in a variety of ways.
First.
This isn’t just about money, or income, this is about power. Economic shifts lead to governmental shifts … and intellectual shifts.
Second.
Let’s talk “intellectual shifts.” Eliminating poverty (or limiting poverty) means releasing probably the greatest restraint to education. And mind power is the great equalizer.
Sorry folks … it isn’t democracy (or any real ‘freedom of’ … although some people may debate the cause/effect of that relationship). When economic shift permits an elevation of intellectual power that tends to be the formula for sustained shift in economical gravitational pull. Regardless of the type of government oversight.
I even have a historical example on economic opportunity (and how governmental shift is not enough) … and economic opportunity lost.
We have faced a similar foundational economic re-construct situation before … only to have the economic center of gravity remain skewed toward the western hemisphere. And although the economic center of gravity was challenged at that time … there wasn’t the intellectual shift attached to the economic shift to sustain the movement.
Let’s look back at the last time we may have faced something like this.
The cold war. Soviet Union versus United States (actually … the rest of the world).
The reality is that while Russia tried to fill the void (of prosperity … or maybe better said … ‘better than what is’) and sought to increase its empire-like global perspective under the guise of government doctrine … it was actually an economic battle. Think people labor versus capitalism (simplistic but you get the point).
Russia was certainly good at destroying governments and economic construct. However because of their economic corruption they were unsuccessful in replacing what they destroyed.
Ultimately that was their failure … not a failure of communism but a failure of economy first and foremost. And, in the end, their failure to sustain an economic shift meant that the intellectual power was never maximized.
I promise you that mistake will not happen again. In fact it is happening all over again … but the economic shift is being sustained.
There are three (to me) primary locations pulling the center of gravity. And I will outline each (and why we in the western hemisphere should sit up and pay attention).
The three? China, Russia, Africa.
China.
They don’t necessarily destroy governments and economies. In fact they do the opposite.
They simply take less than successful scenarios and through economic success makes each … well … more successful.
Ok. There is a point here.
What most Americans (let’s say ‘outsiders’ in general) fail to see is the “more successful” part. Many people measure success off of what we have (or how high is up).
In fact it is through those eyes that we damn China today.
Take a step back.
As Mao suggested for China … success would be enabling the majority to afford another pair of shoes.
Not a mansion .. heck .. not even a house … just another pair of shoes … for a gazillion people.
And he did it.
And China has continued to grow.
Sure. It becomes more difficult from there. But that’s not the point.
Other ‘industrialized’ countries measure them in a different way.
And are being foolish by doing so.
China is being successful (for a number of reasons) but because they have taken what they have done well internally within their own country (helped a segment make the next step up) and go elsewhere and offer the same opportunity.
They are creating an infrastructure within emerging countries, and emerging economies, to ‘be better than what is.’
In Africa it is transportation and communication interface. In southeast Asia its internal infrastructure.
China is becoming an enabler rather than a destroyer.
Russia today.
In 2011 Russia released a list of more than five thousand strategic assets to be turned over to the private sector to operate instead of the government. This quasi-communist country is now privatizing.
And in Africa the picture continues to improve.
Wars have subsided and governments have stabilized and they are also adopting their own quasi capitalist-communist economic attitude, i.e., private subsidized by government.
Their average GDP has consistently grown almost 5% annually (actually 4.9% between 2000-2008).
Over the past 8 years over 80 million households have been elevated above poverty level – to a level where discretionary spending commences in the household. Telecommunications, banking and retailing is flourishing.
This reflects a significant rise in the African urban consumer. In 1980 28% of Africans lived in an urban environment and today 40% do. In countries where infrastructure is isolated, typically in more urban environments, this means that a more significant portion of the population has access to education, skills development and jobs.
In addition, African governments are increasingly adopting policies to maintain the economic growth as they privatize state-owned businesses, open lines of trade (foreign), strengthen legal systems and provide well needed physical & social infrastructure (a byproduct of that last factor is an increased labor force and economic distribution among the population).
So.
Having used those examples maybe I am maybe actually suggesting the bigger thought is a new communist-capitalism attitude shifting the economic center of gravity (I am erring on the side in my point of view that USA isn’t doing something wrong but rather that others are doing something well).
I do find it impressive that traditional & evolving governments have attained this balance of communism embracing capitalism.
Historically, the two are ideologically irreconcilable. Yet even the traditional communist based governments are proving to be quite pragmatic in supporting pro-growth economic policies (by non traditional communist means).
China has unapologetically stuck to communism in every other sense of government policy (and Putin’s Russia certainly leans in that direction as well as a number of more dictator/authoritarian based governments in Africa). Yet these quickly growing economies are characterized by low, stable business tax rates, responsible government spending, reasonable levels of regulation and incentives for business expansion.
As a result, their economies are expanding, businesses are thriving …. and maybe more importantly … the population is gaining a better way of living.
Once again … in my words … better than what they had.
Yes.
It is interesting to me that it is the economies of communist (or communist like) governments are thriving due to capitalism and responsible pro-growth economic policies.
And because of all that we are seeing a shift in the economic center of gravity.
Anyway.
Sorry. I digress.
Ok. Getting back to the center of gravity.
This study reflects how we should be looking at things. Millions of millions of people in developing countries are becoming more wealthy.
Exorbitantly? Nope.
Wealthier? Yes.
Simply moving all developing countries (or the majority … call it a ‘large mass’) to non-poverty from poverty is a massive shift. And by doing so it enables that population to be more productive. More healthy. More educated. More knowledgeable.
This funny Maslow chart reflects that as additional personal needs are fulfilled it induces new needs (which we, as humans, constantly improve ourselves in order to further attain these ‘self actualization’ activities). Think about this from a non-funny sustenance perspective in growing from poverty to non poverty (but the dimension perspective will always reside in the human mind).
This is simple shit.
But we in the ‘industrialized world’ get caught up in the wrong issues … we assess success by where we are today .. (silly silly people).
Ok.
Be careful with what I say next.
While USA focuses on government constitutional aspects and “enhancing their constitutional situation” … China is focused on economy.
Now.
I am a HUGE freedom of guy. But. If you want to grow and expand your government/country/culture more … a good economy is a really good thing.
But having a realistic point of view on economy is an even better thing.
Maybe if we look at the shifting economic center of gravity here in the western hemisphere we shouldn’t look at it as a loss of stature but rather maybe we should seek to gain some learning.
Is this post a message to our government and regulators? Nope.
This is a message to you & I that we have it pretty good here in the good ole USofA.
Is it as good economically as it was? Nope. Is it good? Yup.
It’s an attitude issue for ‘we the people.’ Because with the right attitude then we can create the right behavior.
But that is my next economic article.
A rant on the everyday American’s economic behavior (because other cultures aren’t as addicted to spending as we are).
Hope you enjoyed.
Pravda, Putin & Poverty in the USofA
Dec 15th
The new Economist has Putin on its cover and it made me think about checking out what the Pravda had to say.
God almighty I love taking a couple of minutes and reading the Russian paper Pravda online every once in awhile.
As a reminder. Pravda is kind of like russia’s version of USA Today (someone at USA Today is cringing at the moment). I say that to remind us that a lot of people read it and it has that same ‘people magazine like’ writing style.
Anyway.
Pravda is all in a tizzy on a variety of issues. And they pull no punches when they feel strongly about something.
First.
Lies on SKY: The British Media Circus comes to Russia (note: someone there should get a raise just for writing this headline).
Right on cue two days before Russia’s Parliamentary elections, comes SKY News. Are they following terrorists, interviewing rapists, glorifying murderers and taking sides? Are they asking Americans in Iraq if they are looking for revenge for 9/11? Why no, they are muck-raking in Russia’s vast interior, painting a negative image of Vladimir Putin.
Awesome stuff:
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/02-12-2011/119825-british_media_circus-0/
look.
I have mixed feelings about good ole Vlad the Impaler 2012. Every time I read about him or hear him speak I think about the song “Cult of Personality” (an awesome song): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xxgRUyzgs0&ob=av2e
Anyway. I digressed by including that video so back to the point of the post. Pravda.
Having cult of personality is a fine line in leadership. I happen to believe Russia needs a charismatic leader to re-position itself in the global economy. And what I mean by that is that a strong leader can help Russia get its mojo back. Help it have a clear identity and regain some of its “mother country” swagger and belief system.
Putin the right guy? Shit. I don’t know. They probably scoff at Obama. I don’t have the right to choose for them. However what I do know is that Putin is polarizing and sometimes polarizing is good. What I also know is that the Pravda defends him (albeit their communist roots are showing).
Anyway.
The article was worth a chuckle.
And if you have any doubts … here is a soundbite … “In the sewer where the British media resides, pride of place in this festering cesspit, alongside the British Bullshit Corporation, must be reserved for SKY News, where lies on SKY abound, where stories are turned around or upside down, where gross manipulation rules the day and where insinuation goes hand in hand with reporting what are supposed to be facts.”
(journalism at its best)
Next.
An attack on capitalism using Foreign Affairs magazine as its main source (which, frankly, is a really smart move on the columnist’s part) and highlighting USA’s poverty.
Quote: Since then, bribery has become common practice. In 1971, there were 141 companies represented by lobbyists in Washington. In 1982, there were 2,445.
Geez.
He makes a good point (commie bastard).
http://english.pravda.ru/society/stories/22-11-2011/119709-Capitalism_and_poverty_in_us-0/
I guess this article reminds me why I like reading foreign news articles. Even if they are opinion articles. I sometimes believe it is quite easy for us Americans to throw stones at others (despite our own issues). So this article throws a nifty sharp edged stone at America using the ‘communist stance’ point of view to make us think about our issues.
And as with any good read there are aspects of truth (as well as some blurry edges).
Reading this article I can very easily see how communism (in its public relations form) could be very appealing to a lot of people.
And I can also see how when the Communist PR machine was working on full cylinders (albeit I believe the infamous Lada only had 4 cylinders) it created some compelling intellectual debate amongst socialist, democratic and any non-communist driven country.
In fact. I would imagine many americans living here in the miserable now reading this would be quite tempted to say “why not?”
(now … that is a scary thought)
Ok.
Here is the Pravda home site. Take a minute.
Is the news skewed or truly reflective of what the typical Russian thinks? Geez. I don’t know.
But. As I have said before.
A LOT of people read this paper.
And I have to assume a LOT of people believe it.
And a LOT of people’s point of view is framed by what they read here.
http://english.pravda.ru/russia/
At minimum it is fun reading.
getting different points of view
Sep 16th
Whew.
If you ever want to get a really different point of view go read the Pravda (a Russian newspaper. http://english.pravda.ru/). The newspaper was originally the voice of communism and while it currently claims to have no resemblance to the original communist Pravda its mission remains “to report the truth and nothing but the truth” (Pravda means truth in Russian). And. It still leans mightily toward a pro-Russian/communist point of view (just as say a NY Times leans mightily toward a pro-American/democratic point of view).
Anyway.
I cruise the Pravda website on occasion and their columnist editorials never fail to screw my head up.
Their point of view on a variety of topics will make your head spin.
They write about the Caucasus (which I will comment on later).
McCain … this one is a real headache maker .. “the bleating of senile old goats” should inspire you to take a look at this one … http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/25-08-2011/118867-senator_mmccain-0/ …)
Moslems.
Oh. And Libya … On one side of the divide, the Satanic and dark forces of NATO and on the other side, those who see themselves as the guardians of what is right and good and just. It is good versus evil, it is God versus Satan, it is about implementing international law.. http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/31-08-2011/118919-libya_truth-0/)
Yeah. There is stuff in this paper that will truly make your head spin.
And at the same time make you think a little … a little about “how much does our own media spin the story?”
For wouldn’t we be foolish to completely disregard what we read in this paper (named Truth)? At minimum there should be a grain of truth in what they write and in their opinions.
And, also at minimum, millions of Russian readers are reading this paper and, similar to the USA, millions of points of view are being molded by what they are reading.
And maybe that alone is a good reason to read foreign newspapers on occasion. If only to be exposed to what other people are creating points of view from.
Yes. We may scoff. We may scratch our heads in disbelief. And we may even believe it is all blarney.
But it is news to someone.
And a lot of someones.
And a lot of someones who are building their own points of view on things.
And if we were the ones reading it every day there would be a boatload of people right here who would be taking it as unassailable fact and truth.
Ok.
And then I read the following article about the Caucasus.
And of all the seemingly insane points of view I read this one hit with like a hammer of sanity.
We in the USA very quickly jump to the popular (and in theory I also like it and agree with it) self determination theory (likeminded people creating countries) when discussing the dissolution of the old Soviet Union (Russian and extended ‘states’).
But, honestly, there is a practicality which eludes us when discussing it simply in platitudes.
And this article did a nice job of pointing out some really practical issues.
Practical issues surrounding country/geographic boundaries. And in bringing that up it seems like we should have some facts as we grapple with this topic. Some background.
The Caucasus a geopolitical region at the border of Europe and Asia. It is home to the Caucasus Mountains, including Europe’s highest mountain (Mount Elbrus).
North Caucasus comprises:
* Chechnya, Ingushetia, Dagestan, Adyghea, Kabardino-Balkaria, Karachai-Cherkessia, North Ossetia, Krasnodar Krai, Stavropol Krai
South Caucasus comprises:
* Armenia
* Azerbaijan (including disputed Nagorno-Karabakh)
* Georgia (including disputed Abkhazia and South Ossetia)
I believe the article below focuses on North Caucasus region which has about 5.5 to 6 million population, at least a dozen languages, a lot of raw mineral wealth, high unemployment and a lot of confusion about its desire for independence (because Chechnya desires an independent state and the other components have not expressed a large desire to be independent).
The article:
Russia may bid farewell to Caucasus?
The program for the Development of the Northern Caucasus in 2012-2025 prepared by the Ministry of Regional Development stirred up the “separatist” wave in the society that threatens to erase once and for all Adygeya, Dagestan, Ingushetia, Kabardino-Balkaria, Karachay-Cherkessia, North Ossetia, and of course, Chechnya from the map of Russia.
The “pro” arguments are well-known: 1) we feed them (huge subsidies from the federal budget; 2) they are blowing us up (the Caucasus as a permanent source of terrorism), and 3) they do not respect us (a number of facts ranging from ethnic crime to the national dances at the Manege Square).
Certain circles believe that only radical measures will solve all aforementioned problems in one swoop and then everyone else will be happy. The “separatists” do not bother with the practical side of the issue of the construction of the “Great Caucasus wall.” It is very simple: strip them off the Russian citizenship, move them out of Russia, install a barbed wire fence and ban the re-entry.
It is hard to come up with a better excuse for a civil war. Does anyone think that the process of disengagement will be quiet and peaceful? It would seem that the example of the “independent” (factually) Chechnya of 1996-1999 should have once and for all shown that even being separated the Caucasus would not leave Russia and would not dissolve. On the contrary, the following would happen:
- The power on the rogue territories will be taken by the rogue, whose raison d’être would be a constant battle with the hated neighbor. This means that at least chronic border disputes are guaranteed;
- There will be an endless series of lawsuits against Russia with territorial and property claims, with the full approval and even whole-hearted support of the Western countries;
- The final solution of the “Russian issue” in the North Caucasus will be just around the corner. Objections that there is no Russian-speaking population left there are not true. Besides the nearly mono-ethnic Chechnya, there is Adygea where the Russian population is the majority (approximately 65 percent), and Russian Mozdok in North Ossetia, as well as numerous Cossack villages scattered throughout the region. In a full-scale conflict aggravated by a forced relocation, the Russian-speaking inhabitants would perish first.
Separatists from other autonomous regions such as Tatarstan and Sakha Republic will get an example to follow. The country will experience the formation of the notorious “fifth column”, this time capable of blowing Russia up from within. The new “foreign countries” will be happy to help.
I repeat: we can certainly say goodbye to the Caucasus, but it will not leave us. The desire to wait it out behind the proverbial wall is equivalent to the decision to lock oneself in the apartment and not go outside because there may be hooligans there. If someone does not want to abide by the rules of human coexistence, it is necessary to punish the rogue specifically, without making global generalizations.
It is even stranger to call this position “patriotic.” Patriotism, for those who do not know, in ancient Greek means “fatherland” and dictionaries treat the term more broadly – “the love for one’s country.” Dr. Samuel Johnson who uttered his immortal “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel” in 1775 meant that the scoundrel has still some hope if he loves his country.
It seems that in the 21st century the aphorism of Johnson is turned the other way around. Patriotism in a distorted understanding has truly become a refuge for scoundrels, for it is a very convenient cover for stupidity, cowardice and betrayal behind the hypocritical mask.
Stupidity – because there is no simple, painless and effective mechanism to remove the Caucasus problems. Have people failed to learn from the last parade of sovereignties? First we said goodbye to the “unnecessary” Baltic States, then bid farewell to the Soviet Union.
Cowardice – because the withdrawal from the Caucasus can be described by a brief, but telling slogan – “Holes instead of mountains.” Betrayal – because even though Russia is great, there is not enough space to retreat.
Ok.
Excellent article. Makes you think. Maybe enlightens a little.
And I love the fact a Russian editorialist quotes Samuel Johnson of all people.
This all seems to have come to a head not through anything Chechnya did but rather in January 2010, the Kremlin announced the establishment of the North Caucasus Federal District (which includes all the republics of the North Caucasus except Adygea). With the creation of that district the North Caucasian republics were separated from the Southern Caucasus (and united Northern republics under one federally administered district). The explanation behind this move was that it would allow for better focus to be paid to addressing the shared problems across the republics of the North Caucasus. However, this decision could also be seen as an attempt to improve the effectiveness of Moscow’s financial support to the North Caucasus, and ultimately a step toward establishing the region’s financial independence from Moscow, which has become particularly urgent considering that Kremlin funds are becoming increasingly stretched due to economic constraint and its costly development projects.
Other theories have been stated to explain the move but suffice it to say none of this kind of detail enters (r very rarely does) into our discussions here.
To us Americans is “give them freedom.”
And it really isn’t that simple.
Is the Pravda giving us “the whole truth and nothing but the truth?” I doubt it. But does it give us something to think about?
You bet.
It is always good to see what other parts of the world think.
It is always good to at least know other people’s points of view.
different point of view part 2
Sep 16th
Ok. I admit. I haven’t picked up a (Time or a Newsweek magazine in a very long time. I read the Economist and the Guardian and Pravda and Financial Times (among several international rags) to get a global perspective. So when I picked up a Time magazine out of curiosity it provided a slightly different perspective for me.
This one has “the decline of Europe” on its cover. And I picked it up because it was so obviously American focused versus what I currently read. And it was enlightening in its perspective. Did I learn anything ? Nope. But the perspective was interesting.
And while a lot of people could get grumpy with me I decided to put this post right after my Pravda post. Because it makes the same point.
Whether we like it or not, even in the flat world of internet and youtube, our media shapes our point of view.
We may dislike what we read in the Pravda but what makes our media “righter” then theirs. But more importantly. It shapes the majority’s thinking. It is just a guess but the readers of my site are a minority. We happy few probably scan a variety of global perspectives and develop our own point of view.
But. We are a minority. We aren’t any smarter than other people. We are just different.
The truth is the majority of people read only Pravda (Russian), or Guardian (English) or USA Today (online or paper) … all depending on one’s locality.
And the reader doesn’t cross over. And most readers only get one perspective.
And because that is what most people take in that is what they put out in perspective.
Anyway. I read Time magazine. And it was odd to me. Because all of a sudden Europe was crumbling (because usa wasn’t there to prop them up) and a variety of issues they were facing suggesting they were screwed (Europe).
Note: that was a very simplistic recap of a long well written article …
Do I agree? No.
Do I sort of agree? Sure.
They have a nifty graph (which the economist has never shown) showing relative economic strength by country. I cannot show it because I don’t subscribe to Time online but suffice it to say they rate countries where Scandinavian countries move up into the positive upwards left side quadrant and as you move left to right you get Germany, then France and then USA (which isn’t as far to the right lower bad quadrant where Italy and Greece reside.
In the chart I will ignore the quasi socialist Countries (Scandinavian) because … well … they are quasi socialist (which while we in the USA get nervous with that word it simply translates into less economic highs and lows because of the inherent wealth distribution).
Anyway. Looking at the graph truly made me think about what is happening globally and why it is happening in each country.
And while it is certainly a complex combination of factors and issues I felt like cutting to the chase rather than get hung up on politics and government and taxes and whatever.
The easiest way to say what’s happening.
Germany good. They make a lot of shit.
USA not so good. We make some shit but generate more money in intangible services (we use money to make money).
Greece. They don’t make shit (except olive oil).
That said.
If you want to be depression free, make shit. That is my economic lesson for the day.
today’s economy (my perspective)
Sep 6th
This post was inspired by a conversation I had with someone who, after a couple of beers, saddled up to the table and said what a lot of people are feeling … “I am just not sure that America will pull through this … I am really concerned ..”
Boy.
That gets you thinking. Maybe even moreso than you may already be thinking.
It becomes more real when something that may have been rattling around in your head all of as sudden is out there. In public. Real words.
So. Personally I am an optimistic cynic. As well as a studier of history and generations. And while I do believe because of the cycle of generations (and the fact we lose histrical knowledge over time) we are doomed to repeat mistakes … as well as inspired to repeat new success.
“We cannot absolutely prove that those are in error who tell us that society has reached a turning point, that we have seen our best days. But so said all before us, and with just as much apparent reason … On what principle is it that, when we see nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us.” Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1830 in Edinburgh Review.
Yeah.
Said in 1830.
Good ole Tommy was taking on all the doomsayers of his day.
Lets bring him back. We need him.
Ok. Don’t get me wrong. America is a country with some serious problems. As I noted in an earlier article at least 55% of America is really hurting (PewRearch: the 2 Americas). One in six Americans are using food stamps. And the government cannot agree on how to take steps to address the problems so there is governmental paralysis.
And I believe the problems run as deep as they do because of real estate more than anything else. The last figures I saw suggests almost 30% of homes with mortgages are upside down (and that skews toward the younger labor force). It’s a double hit to America. Home value has decreased over 33% (yeah, that means many homeowners have lost 1/3 of their equity) since the peak. And that translates into a stagnant work force (homeowners have lost the mobility to move to available jobs). So real estate has affected wealth and overall labor force.
So. Why should we have optimism (beyond the great quote at the beginning of this post).
Well. US has the biggest economy on earth. Think of it like a huge aircraft carrier. It will not turn on a dime. It takes time and space to get going in the opposite direction. US is the possessor of the world’s reserve currency (that has far reaching global implications for our future success). And the US has a nice track record of re-inventing itself every generation or so. And an incredible track record of re-invention at “crisis” moments – political crisis (Andrew Jackson bringing in the voice of everyday citizens, Theodore Roosevelt creating a 3rd party) as well as financial crisis.
In addition I was reminded of optimistic thinking in a great article I found online (of which I cannot now find again) which referenced a guy named Dr. Matt Ridley.
Dr. Ridley (Matt Ridley, author The Rational Optimist) argues that traders’ wealth builds empires and entrepreneurial tinkerers are more likely to inspire scientists than vice versa. From Stone Age seashells to the steam engine to the personal computer, innovation has mostly been a bottom-up process.
Therefore progress is sustainable as long as there is innovation and ongoing trade.
lastly.
He also states that with new hubs of innovation emerging everywhere, and with ideas spreading faster than ever on the Internet, he expects bottom-up innovators to prevail.
His prediction for the rest of the century?
“Prosperity spreads, technology progresses, poverty declines, disease retreats, fecundity falls, happiness increases, violence atrophies, freedom grows, knowledge flourishes, the environment improves and wilderness expands.”
Now. Am I implying that the phenomenal growth and changes we’ve seen for the last 150 years will continue? Well. Yes and no. phenomenal growth is relative.
Americans are typically optimistic, but right now most of us are under a cloud of pessimism. A new Bloomberg report finds that 40% of people think the economy will stay the same over the next year; 40% think it will get worse; and only 20% think it will get better. Another survey, meanwhile, shows there’s also great pessimism among the wealthy.
We need to boost the every day families spending power.
We need to remember the qualities that got us to being the largest economy in the world.
But the reality is that this is not the worst of times.
I try to balance pessimism with optimism. Things are never as bad as they seem when they’re bad, and they’re never as good as they seem when they’re good.
Out of adversity comes opportunity. And out of the big always comes the small (which will become big).
Creative destruction is a powerful economic engine.
And there is always money to be made if someone is willing to step up. .
Regardless.
we shouldn’t ever be taken in by the oversimplified labels of boom and bust that are being bantered about to describe what is happening.
We always need to remember that companies fail even in boom times while others succeed in recessions.
And while unemployment, which is typically a lagging economic indicator, will continue to rise yet while economies have struggled they have not totally frozen (or failed).
There is still a lot of money to be made, demand to be met, customers to be served and innovations to be created to create new markets.
And there are a boatload of companies making money right now, a lot of people working and a lot of people thinking even if they aren’t working. And we are still the largest economic engine in the global mass transit system.
And if we seize the moment (instead of being dragged down by the moment) we will reinvent ourselves one more time.
Donald Sull, professor of management practice at London Business School, wrote recently about seizing the upside of a downturn.
“Most managers look for golden opportunities when the good times are rolling. This is a mistake. The best opportunities often arise during downturns when distressed sellers are forced to offload valuable assets at bargain prices.”
“Economics is not about things and tangible material objects; it is about men, their meanings and actions.”
Ludwig von Mises
Perspective is a tricky thing.
Just as success looking in the rear view mirror uses an obvious kind of circular logic where a particular social, cultural or economic phenomenon is applauded it is also that same rear view mirror that ignores how uncounted (large) numbers faced the same phenomenon and failed. It is a fact, the truth, that answers to questions of history are usually not well understood in the moment. It is only with the benefit of hindsight that we can piece together the relevant factors that might have produced noteworthy events. For every economist who stands up and points to how their economic crystal ball predicted the future there are dozens with broken crystal balls. And my other gripe with most economists is they focus on numbers solely ignoring the cultural & social aspects which influence attitudes & behavior.
Regardless.
I am simply providing my own point of view on perspective for what is happening in today’s economy. In 1830 when that quote was made the average lifetime of someone was a little less than 50 years old. Now it is a little less than 80- years old. That alone gives people different perspective. As well as it absolutely changes generation cycles and the friction between old & new (because there are more older people hanging around we retain knowledge longer but it also creates additional friction with younger people who typically inspire the new thinking).
But, in the end, today’s economy is not about government or stocks or unemployment figures. It is about people and their attitudes, values and actions. America will be okay if we make it okay.
Yes. Maybe the truth is as simple as if we refind what Clotaire Rapaillle suggests is America’s Culture Code (“just do it”) … well … we will just do it.
lie and truth
Mar 27th
This is the natural partner to my optimistically cynical of truth post.
Or.
Maybe let’s think of this as the adult version follow up to the wonderful teen version of Beauty is Truth I posted.
I won’t do that teen’s thought justice. But I may take a more serious note.
Maybe this is the ‘ugly is truth’ version.
“A lie can fly halfway around the world before the truth can get its pants on.” Winston Churchill.
I am sure we have all heard versions of this quote before.
And chuckle.
But have you ever wondered why we actually take this kind of sad and sobering thought at face value – kind of as a … well … truth? A teen wrote this on their site:
Sobering.
Sad.
And true?
Even we adults looking at this take a moment and a part of us, maybe even a large part of us, agrees.
We believe somewhere inside us that all people lie.
And what may be worse?
Even when we hear ‘the truth’? We doubt.
And even more worse?
The more emphatic on their belief in the truth (as they state it)?
The more we disbelieve.
It’s kind of crazy if you think about it.
It seems often the “absolute truth” leads to some confusion on our part.
Confused on ‘how can they be so sure’?
And the conclusion of confusion is “someone has lied.”
What a downward spiral we have encountered in discussing truth.
I’m not upset that you lied to me, I’m upset that from now on I can’t believe you. “
— ~ Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
Truth is tricky.
The beauty in truth is that it creates boundaries. Or maybe more playfully … fences within you can find comfort to play with others and be free to say and do without thought.
And discuss ‘truth.’
But within those boundaries are shades of gray.
Truth is complex.
And there is an ugly enemy to truth.
The ugly enemy is doubt.
It is because of doubt in truth that a lie can sweep its way around the world while good ole truth is stuck behind dealing with doubt.
A lie is unhindered by the burden of proof. It flies free of such weight.
While truth carries the burden of debate, discussion and understanding.
Now. Let’s be clear. Debate is good. It clarifies. It communicates. It clears the mind of clutter.
But, oddly, nowadays truth’s slowness (in debate and discussion) only enhances an implication of ‘non-true’ and slows down even more with the weight of added burden.
Do we ever wonder why truth takes eons to get around the world while a lie circles endlessly?
Not when you think about it this way.
Sadly, if I am actually right about something for once, I guess the way you can tell a lie from a truth now is that the first is always the lie and the last is always the truth.
In the end the turtle wins I guess.
optimistically cynical of truth
Feb 6th
“Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.”
André Gide
(warning: I get to talk about conflict & truth in one post … something I love)
I am always wary of those who come out blazing by claiming to speak “the truth.”
Mostly because I believe rarely are things black & white.
In fact I have been called optimistically cynical.
I imagine I am a contrarian (up to a point).
I would also imagine it’s because in today’s world I see too much lazy thinking (or possibly lazy sloppy communication) … or maybe it’s just people are quick to select the facts they want to use and ignore others and then pontificate on “the truth.”
Anyway.
I question everything upfront (or maybe one would hope as I have become older I can judge what to question and what to accept upfront) but always believe great things can come of it (rather than use the cynicism to drag things down).
In old times (like really really old) this questioning would be a version of Socratic questioning (because I am not as smart as good ole Socrates).
Socratic questioning focuses on the importance of questioning in learning (Socrates actually thought that questioning was the only real form of teaching). Simplistically Socratic questioning highlights the difference between systematic and fragmented thinking. It teaches us to dig beneath the surface of ideas. It teaches us the value of developing questioning minds in cultivating deep learning.
(now. In my global generation 9 ‘about critical thinking’ I will actually use this in discussing elements of teaching in the global education initiative)
So.
I guess the point is that questioning (a version of conflict) actually helps us get closer to the truth.
The art of Socratic questioning is tightly aligned to the idea of critical thinking. Mostly because it ties the art of questioning to excellence of thought. To summarize this thought … “Socratic” means a systematic approach in the interest in assessing truth or plausibility of things.
Both critical thinking and Socratic questioning share a common end.
Seeking meaning and truth.
Critical thinking provides the conceptual tools for understanding how the mind functions in its pursuit of meaning and truth.
Socratic questioning employs those tools in framing questions essential to the pursuit of meaning and truth.
The beauty of critical thinking skills is that it establishes an additional level of thinking to our thinking, an inner voice of reason, that monitors, assesses, and reforms our idea/opinions/thoughts (in a more rational direction) and affects our feelings and actions. Socratic discussion cultivates that inner voice through an explicit focus on using the “outer voice” with directed, disciplined questioning.
So.
As for those who adamantly state ‘the truth’ (and we seem to hear a lot of these people on radio shows and talk shows and “advocates” of some special interest) I would suggest they are lying.
(ouch. big claim there).
Ok. that lying thought.
Maybe better said is that they aren’t stating truth but rather opinion under the guise of truth (and duping a significant amount of people along the way).
Some of the people we have to listen to (claiming to say the truth) have made a choice … a choice to state truth when it is simply opinion (and shame on them for that … particularly if they do it under the ‘freedom of speech’ heading as well as if they have some ability to impact people).
The truth behind the truth is that it does come with choice.
Try this on for size.
With awareness of some truths comes choice, and with choice freedom or chaos or crisis.
This comes from a 19th Century philosopher – a guy called G. W. F. Hegel.
Discarding an absolute notion of truth, he saw today’s “truth” merely as a passing “bloom” in an evolving process of new “blooms”.
(let’s just call these stupid blooms ‘ideas’)
Ideas and truth advance, he believed, only as ideas come into conflict.
This occurs when a counter idea (the antithesis) arises to challenge the status quo (the thesis). It was this “conflict” or “crisis” which brought about the “higher idea” (the synthesis).
Now.
Be clear. The Hegelian Dialectic is more of an observation of the way thought systems evolve than it is a call to direct action in creating such an evolution (so crisis is not an action but part of thought … think of it as maybe a Plato would … someone states a belief or ‘perceived truth’ and the debate is the ‘crisis’ – or when an antithesis point of view is articulated- of which synthesis occurs and, hopefully, truth emerges).
I make that point so we don’t start running around being crazy trying to drive “crisis” into every frickin’ conversation we have.
But. Marx and Darwin applied this notion to the social and biological realm.
Marx and Communism stood on a pillar of crisis (just called revolution). The higher social order could only arise from the “crisis” of conflict—the proletariat arising to battle the bourgeoisie.
Darwin and Neo-Darwinian theory see the higher biological order arising only from a life and death struggle—survival of the fittest.
So.
What this suggests is that truth can only arise from crisis (or in a dialectic world) through debate and discussion. And I don’t know that I dislike this thought.
As long as we don’t start thinking there is something “magical” in the crisis. While theoretically it is a critical piece to achieve the “synthesis” hat shouldn’t mean we should begin to create a crisis if it doesn’t exist. Or even misjudge “crisis” when it really is just a natural down slope of the curve.
Anyway.
Crisis is a big word. And easily misunderstood (at least by someone with a pea like brain like me)
I don’t believe we need crisis to create change.
Simply some conflict. Simply some debate for god’s sake.
Maybe some questioning of people who state “the truth.”
(then that debate within conflicting point of views could be construed as a ‘crisis’ and Hegel can sleep at night)
Anyway.
I guess the other fear in this questioning construct is the concept of never ending debate.
Or how about “unresolved conflict” because diametrically opposed opinions are locked in “absolute truths” and are unwilling to accept anything otherwise.
In other words … we never leave “crisis” mode.
That is bad.
And useless.
And dangerous.
But.
The entire idea of “thought” to ‘crisis in debate’ to ‘clearer truth’ is a viable thought.
So when someone states “absolute truth’ without debate or discussion I think its kinda nuts.
Oh.
And one last important thought ( a REALLY important one in this entire discussion).
We are as much at fault as the “liar” if we remain silent.
Silence is the death of debate. The death of the search for truth. No questioning = no truth.
Think about that the next time you hear something that’s sounds … well … wrong. And you remain silent.
Anyway.
I would like to believe I am one of those people who are constantly seeking truth.
I may not be but it is certainly a good objective to try to attain. I do know that I believe as long as you are ‘seeking’ you are being persistently curious and there are worse things to be.
But, yes, I am cynical of those espousing truth all the time.
But maybe Dill said it best:
“I ain’t cynical, Miss Alexandra. Tellin’ the truth’s not cynical, is it?” ~Dill, To Kill a Mockingbird
So.
I will not remain silent in my search as an optimistically cynical view of truth
