“That’s one of the great things about music.
You can sing a
song to 85,000 people and they’ll sing it back for 85,000 different reasons.
—Dave Grohl <Foo Fighters>
Well.
I’m not sure I have ever seen a better explanation on why we love music.
“No one and nothing is worth shrinking for.” – Indigo Williams
Well.
I’m a pretty pragmatic guy.
But.
Sometimes you have to push back a little … push back against reality.
Or maybe what everyone else sees as reality.
Now.
This isn’t about hope. And, shit, not even dreams and dreaming.
This is simply about … well … not shrinking. Or maybe not getting the life sucked out of you. Life is tough enough as it is … and Life does a pretty nice job of trying to erode you <wear you down> … that is its version of shrinking you.
Wearing you down.
It’s tough enough just keeping an eye out to insure Life doesn’t shrink you.
But other people?
Well.
They ain’t as big and important as Life.
Notice Life begins with a capital L and people begins with a small p.
That should make my point.
There are a lot of people out there who walk around as if they are a capital P type person … and maybe they have some title … and they even maybe have earned some respect … and absolutely you should listen to some people more closely than others … but no one is worth shrinking for.
I have seen many people … and often some very senior experienced people … fawn over little p people with big p titles … and if you look closely you can see them visibly shrink before your very eyes.
Its sad.
And slightly frightening to watch.
Me?
That’s proof enough that I will not permit that to happen.
Some people are more important than others … but no people is worth shrinking for.
Lastly.
How people use Life in a sneaky way to encourage you to shrink.
“People will kill you over time, and how they’ll kill you is with tiny, harmless phrases, like ‘be realistic’.” —Dylan Moran
Sneaky.
These people <who have likely accepted self shrinkage> are doing and saying things so that you become like them … shrinkers.
They will be relentless. And you need to say “stop.”
Yes … yes … yes. There is a pragmatic side.
Absolutely.
You have to keep your eyes open and your mind clear and judge what is happening around you … but even a realistic decision shouldn’t diminish … shouldn’t shrink you … it <at its worst> should just put you on hold. A momentary situation until you can grow some more.
Shrink? Never.
Just watch out … because people <small p and big p minded people> can be sneaky in their attempt to encourage shrinkage.
In the end?
No one or nothing is worth shrinking for.
Simple as that.
Well.
On occasion I get asked to write opinion papers for published editorialists seeking outside thoughts to shape their own writing.
I typically get asked to wait to share those thoughts until they have been published. I say this because what I am going to share doesn’t seem timely at all … but … what the heck.
Thinking is thinking.
Ideas are ideas.
And discussing affairs and issues around the world never goes out of style.
That said.
You get to see thoughts I have shared that have appeared in some form or fashion in a variety of well-respected publications.
The authors are smarter than I … tend to be better writers than I … are kind enough to let me share thoughts in my own style and manner … and humble me by actually using some of the tripe I dish out.
These tend to be less polished and more disjointed because … well … they are. I typically allot myself a maximum of 2 hours to crank out a relatively well formed opinion <albeit I tend to invest some more time> and then get it out and off my computer.
Here is what you are going to get:
– American foreign policy Syria and stuff:
https://brucemctague.com/american-foreign-policy-syria-and-stuff
– Ukraine and foreign policy:
https://brucemctague.com/ukraine-and-foreign-policy
– Healthcare.gov and project management:
https://brucemctague.com/healthcare-gov-and-project-management
Enjoy.
<preface explanation for article:
https://brucemctague.com/opinion-editorial-thoughts-shared-posts-are-behind-this-preface
>
Well.
In my mind the United States involvement with Syria is a combination of true foreign policy and moral reflection.
The main challenge seems to be that U.S. policy regarding chemical weapons overall … not just with Syria … has been inconsistent and politicized historically which puts the United States is in a difficult position to take leadership in response to any use of such weaponry by Syria.
While I don’t agree with all the following quotes I will share the attitude behind them established the issue USA faces fairly well:
“Even though the US thinks they are in charge of humanity the reality is they are not. In their imaginary world the toothless media supports their spit ball shooting president. They actually think their words are supreme and final. Kerry and McCain keep dancing in a parade trying to influence a congress which is neither conservative nor moral but nevertheless war weary. – The Pravda
“Syria was not witnessing a battle for democracy but ‘an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multi-religious country’, Putin said, in a New York Times comment piece repeating assertions that rebels rather than the government might have used chemical weapons, “to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons”, and may be planning further attacks, even against Israel.
[An American attack] could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilise the Middle East and north Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.” – Putin
Regardless.
United States involvement with Syria <and anywhere in the middle east I imagine> is fraught with peril and unknowns.
But here is an unfortunate truth with regard to any action associated with foreign policy on any issue.
It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.
The key word?
Could.
99.9% of all foreign policy decisions revolve around that one word.
Experts are simply speculators.
I say that because the situation in Syria is both horrifying and complicated.
Frankly.
Any situation in foreign policy is complicated <and often horrifying>… well … that is unless you ignore anything foreign and focus solely on domestic <let’s call that being an isolationist>.
While it useful to discuss different views on what the US could do and its impact it seems like we should be investing more discussion around what we SHOULD do.
Putin’s thoughts withstanding … and with the utmost respect for someone who can actually lead … he is right … and wrong.
Right?
The United States is NOT in charge of humanity.
Wrong?
The United States has a responsibility to humanity.
So back to ‘should.’
What should America do?
Chemical warfare tips the balance in intervention’s favor.
Intervention?
Yup.
You either decide to walk across the street and stop the bully from bullying or you keep walking like nothing is going on.
This isn’t about choosing sides.
This is about making sure the bully knows what he can or cannot do.
And this whole discussion is not about Americans are no longer interested in policing human rights but solely on what we ‘should’ do rather than what we could do <note that ‘size of military’ seems to be a political play on the ‘what we could do’ balance>.
Should.
Why America?
Well.
Why not us?
Either do what is right or don’t.
Draw some lines.
Don’t pick sides … pick moral issues.
The US should intervene for humanitarian reasons not just when threatened directly.
I get concerned when trying to persuade a nation reluctant to take action we discuss things like chemical warfare and suffering and death in Syria, including that of children, and we have a lack of enthusiasm because those who are suffering and dying are Syrian <children> and not American <children>.
To be clear.
Arguments that action against Syria is not required by our immediate national interest is valid.
Strikes on Syria may be dangerous and could produce unintended negative consequences is valid.
Yet.
I refer back to ‘could’ versus ‘should.’
If I could <or any real foreign policy expert> predict any outcome I would be pleased to do so.
But.
‘We don’t always know how it ends.’
That’s pretty much true regarding almost any action proposed. About the only thing we know in the Syria situation is how it ends for the most vulnerable if the situation continues to escalate.
Worse <from a moral standpoint>?
A refusal to intervene at this point amounts, objectively, to ratifying the use of chemicals.
We talk about lines.
And lines in tangible ways … and yet this is a moral line.
A moral line avoids the discussion of whether we, or any of our allies, are directly engaged.
A moral line is whether our morals have been engaged.
In a moral issue we truly only answer to ourselves.
Our moral compass is not defined by another country or ideology.
Ah.
Morality seems so intangible <albeit I could argue that being consistent with regard to moral issues over a period of time establishes something tangible> so I will share a thought on something tangible <if not a moral ‘should do’>.
I agree that all wars or military conflicts need a final goal or end game.
Here the endgame is to stop further chemical weapons attacks.
Everyone has made it clear, as they should, that the Syrians will have to resolve the issues on their own. Any United States mission would need to be driven by a moral perspective.
And, yes, intervention has potential risks of its own.
But a ‘do nothing’ position runs an even bigger potential risk … a risk in that we could do something right … and we elect to not do something right.
This suggests we are morally implicated by the consequences of our actions, but are absolved of the consequences of inaction — that there are only sins of commission and not of omission.
I’m afraid that’s not the world we live in, or should want to.
In addition a “do nothing” position suggests that in the absence of intervention, things stay essentially as they are … that there are not equal or worse consequences that flow from non-intervention.
Should.
As in what should we do interventionwise.
The intervention that I would do is to send in a small force of highly qualified military personnel and destroy the chemicals. I am quite familiar with Marines and the military and if anyone truly believes we don’t know where weapons are and that we couldn’t get to them wherever they are being silly.
Simplistically … tell our best of the best to go do what they need to do and get out of their way.
That said.
Should.
Foreign policy is always challenging.
And I believe it was a British diplomat who suggested that diplomacy isn’t challenging because of the opposite side of the table … it’s the same side of the table on which you sit:
“it is not the other side you need to worry about, but your own.”
For a ‘just do it’ nation we seem to be doing nothing when we not only could but should be doing something.
And, yes … I am fully aware that sometimes it is indeed best for ‘good men’ to do nothing.
Sometimes you just have to let people get on with resolving their own issues <even if it includes death>.
In the end.
United States can lend a hand morally and tangibly … but they have to get there themselves.
And we certainly should recognize that some never will.
And some don’t even want to.
You cannot impose change on people <regardless of the issue>.
But we can impose some moral boundaries.
Please note that I am not suggesting we impose our morals … simply some boundaries on behavior.
Why?
Because we can.
Not everyone can stop a bully.
We can.
Doing what is right is never <or rarely> easy.
And we can dither about and debate and wring our hands on whether we should be involved or not … but I do not believe anyone would ever say that using chemicals is acceptable.
Therefore we step in to make sure everyone knows it is unacceptable.
Because we should.
<preface explanation for article:
https://brucemctague.com/opinion-editorial-thoughts-shared-posts-are-behind-this-preface
>
Ok.
Let me get this straight.
Ukraine is experiencing the largest street protests since their ‘Orange Revolution’ <which supposedly marked the first real democracy breakthrough after the dissolving of the soviet union>, police are beating the crap out of protesters/demonstrators on the street and one of the largest new democracies in the world is being torn in two by a well reported corrupt government trying to figure out where to go in the future between tying itself to Russia or the EU.
And.
The top headline in world news in the USAToday?
Uruguay OKs first national marketplace for marijuana
So.
While a truly democratic government teeters … hundreds of thousands take to streets in protest at decision to back away from EU integration … no one appears to be caring <at least in the USof A>.
Simplistically … Ukraine is not only being challenged internally … but externally as they get pulled in half by Russia and the EU.
Now.
It would be easy <too much so> to simply suggest that the protests demonstrated once again how divided Ukraine is, with the southern and eastern regions largely supporting closer relations with Russia, while the west and most of the center focus on European integration.
Here is a truth.
Ukraine has always been complex.
This year is the 1,025th anniversary of the formation of Kievan Rus <the assemblage of east Slavic tribes under Christianity> and a strong reminder that many Slavs still see Kiev as Russia’s mother city <way before Moscow or even St. Petersburg assumed that role>.
And the eastern part was under the Russian tsars.
And the split between Orthodoxy and Catholicism created further divisions.
And Galicia <western Ukraine> was part of the Austria-Hungary empire up to WW1.
And Crimea is a very important military asset for Russia <and remembers a long struggle to attain>.
It is a very big <geographically, population & economically> country … things are mixed <but, frankly, homogenous nation states are not really the norm globally>.
Anyway … demographics and history aside … here is the complexity <as I see it>.
Twenty years since the collapse of the Soviet Union and Ukraine’s independence the reality is that the country’s economy is almost equally linked to Russia and the EU.
– Its trade turnover with the EU is exactly the same as its turnover with Russia.
– It’s trade deficit, exporting less than it imports, is exactly the same with the EU as with Russia.
To me it seems logical that Ukraine should be allowed to co-operate with both sides. Yet … Ukraine is constantly being asked <demanded> to choose.
The EU has consistently told Ukraine that even to sign an association agreement with the EU <full membership is not being offered> would not be compatible with being part of the Eurasian Union <let’s just call that Russia>.
Anyway.
I was there in 2004 during the Orange Revolution and it was exhilarating and scary at exactly the same time: < https://brucemctague.com/the-anniversary-of-ukraines-orange-revolution >
In one way I am extremely pleased that the country seems extremely determined to gain a true identity. The EU issue is simply an emotional <and economic> excuse to bring the issue to the forefront.
In another way I am extremely disappointed because even after 20 years it is a ‘democratic country’ where hundreds of millions of dollars are routinely stolen and where corruption faces everyone everywhere.
Unfortunately deep corruption and governing issues abound in Ukraine … as with most ex-Soviet states.
As Ukraine staggers down the road I uncovered an outstanding editorial about the Ukraine situation:
The Great Ukrainian Knife Fight: Walter Russell Mead
The knife fight over Ukraine continues; the west is still waving baguettes and making hollow speeches about democracy and the rule of law. The Russians understand that the odds are against them in Ukraine; a brittle state resting on a crumbling economy and facing long term demographic decline doesn’t have a lot of advantages in foreign policy disputes. But Russia cares much, much more about Ukraine than either Brussels or Washington, and it is both much more focused and much less scrupulous as it looks for ways to make its victory stick.
This is one of three great geopolitical stories unfolding in Eurasia at the end of 2013. One is the Iranian march to regional domination as the Shi’ites gain the upper hand in the Syrian war and the United States relaxes sanctions on triumphant Tehran. Another is the latest step in China’s “cabbage strategy” of building out new layers of military and legal insulation over disputed territory near its maritime frontiers. And the third is the fight over whether Ukraine will tilt decisively toward either Moscow or the EU.
For the Kremlin, this is do or die. If Ukraine heads west, Putin is a flop and his national strategy for Russia to recover its great power status is toast. Russia will have failed decisively as a major world power and will inexorably join the other ex-imperial powers like Britain and France in the second division of the world power league.
If the Central Powers (China, Russia, Iran) win all three of these contests, the worldwide balance of power will change. The United States and its allies will be seen as having lost their nerve and their edge; from the Balkans to Southeast Asia, from the Arctic Ocean to the Bay of Bengal, smaller powers will begin to recalibrate their foreign policies. Many will tilt away from the perceived losers in the great game and align themselves with what to many will now look like the rising powers.
In every case, the economic and military forces favor the United States and its allies. In every case, western strategic cluelessness handed enormous advantages to weaker adversaries. Nowhere is this more true than in Ukraine, where western fecklessness has handed Putin the opportunity of a lifetime. He is fighting against the odds here, but Putin is fighting for his life, or at least for the heart of both his foreign and domestic political program. One interesting point now to observe: will China throw Yanukovych (and Russia) a financial lifeline in the form of some loans that quiet the bond markets. The weakest point in the loose alliance of revisionist powers is their lack of cohesion. China’s response to Yanukovych will tell us something about how united the revisionists really are.
Meanwhile, the world should not underestimate Putin’s will to win, and he is using every lever he can find, and taking advantage of every error his opponents make as he goes all out to preserve Russia’s hopes of returning to the top of the world power league.
A lot of news stories that flare up in the headlines are much ado about nothing. This one is the real deal: Ukraine is making history in 2013.
Now.
While we focus on EU versus Russia … the main issue to the people is all about changing the way that the country is managed <or mismanaged>.
People are going to the streets of Ukrainian cities mainly because they want to take a stand against the existing practices of Ukrainian power … which does not in any form or fashion show respect to Ukrainian people and democracy.
From my perspective what is happening in Ukraine is not really about money but rather a battle for the right to work in normal business environment, to have freedom of information and right to express views.
In other words.
This is a true battle for democracy <in its growth stages>.
Many people presume those are things EU offers and Russia does not.
Sometimes it is as simple as that.
Sometimes it is really simple.
– This is about government and democracy.
Ukrainians do have problems with governance. But remember, that it is a young state with only 22 years being on its own.
– This is about investment and money.
Ukraine is a huge country, with plenty of resources <both physical and human> which would have strong competitive advantage regarding cheaper than European but equally skilled labor and unfulfilled capital markets. Think about it. What other country as close to European borders as Ukraine … with 45million potential consumer market and a good educated population offering labor sometimes cheaper than Chinese is a better investment opportunity?
– This is about maximizing potential <resources>.
In fact Ukraine is a rich country. But unfortunately internal corruption is not taking advantage of it. The country is being stifled and stagnating. There are a few people who not only own the big businesses but also extremely politically influential. It appears on the surface that the EU association would be a good attempt to break out of this situation and maximize the country’s potential.
Yes.
Sometimes it is that simple.
It does seem simple when looking at the situation on why the EU versus Russia.
Joining the EU implies some standards regarding corruption, independence of justice, absence <or lessening> government intervention into industries and at least some regulation on existing oligarchs. I seriously doubt that Ukrainians expect the EU to be perfect. I assume they just hope it will be better than that under the guidance <I use that term loosely> of Russia.
However.
I will go back to one of my original points.
Why make Ukraine choose?
The choice will split them.
Why not let Ukraine work within both stuctures?
Am I being naïve?
Well.
Probably.
But we seem to decide things in black & white and good vs. evil when sometimes there are truly situations in which someone should be permitted to choose a gray option. Kind of a mixed menu approach.
That scares people because it hasn’t been done before.
I would note that being scared is not an excuse for not trying to do what is right.
Regardless <part 1>.
I sometimes believe we in the US have been brainwashed into thinking Russia as some sort of backward nation. They are not.
They simply have a different ideology on growth, government, economics and certain freedoms. They do represent a viable choice for countries to align with.
Regardless <part 2>.
We need to remember.
Ukraine is actually something similar to Russia.
They were one of the core countries of the soviet power.
I say that because current Ukrainian society is more and more displeased about the ruling elite in Ukraine … it doesn’t matter if it’s about Yuschenko or Yanukovich … they are losing faith in their government. The population feels little control over its future and is unhappy with in its present state. This makes them look to the past all the time.
And the past includes Russia.
By the way … that’s a common belief system in post-imperial countries.
I say all that because … if we <America … the poster child of rebellion for self government & democracy> don’t show them why they should look to the future … who will?
Regardless <part 3>.
Sometimes I just don’t understand our priorities when it comes to what we pay attention to, what we care about … and how we think when it comes to things outside of America. Heck. Sometimes I wonder that about things inside of America.
In the end I imagine this is about American Foreign policy.
Most Americans are not thinking about Syria or Ukraine or China <specifically … they just have a general bad feeling> at all.
Most Americans are simply stuck in their own personal daily grind.
And while many Americans bitch & moan the lack of leadership globally … it appears the numbers show most people do not want US to actually take the actions to be a leader:
– Over half of the U.S. citizens believe that the United States should not interfere in the affairs of other countries <source: Pew Research: America’s place in the world>. Over the nearly 50-year history of the poll on this subject … this number of people has never taken this adamant position.
– 52% of the respondents agreed that the U.S. should deal with its own problems and not interfere in the affairs of other countries. 38% have the opposite view. 10% of the respondents were unable to answer this question.
– Only 17% answered yes to the question whether the United States became more influential and powerful in the last ten years. 53% answered this question in the negative.
– 70% of the Americans said that the United States was not as respected as before. These sentiments have been around for a long time. The current number is only 1% lower than in May of 2008 <Bush not Obama>.
It is unfortunate.
We should care about Ukraine … just as we care about Syria <or the middle east> … just as we care about China.
Anyway.
Go to Ukraine. Visit Kiev. Maybe you will care then.
<preface explanation:
https://brucemctague.com/opinion-editorial-thoughts-shared-posts-are-behind-this-preface
>
I will begin with the following thought:
Damned if you.
Damned if you don’t.
I began with that because the healthcare.gov <for America’s affordable healthcare act online sign up> is one of the oddest discussions I have ever experienced.
Damned if you do.
I could begin by pointing out how cumbersome rules for procurement, hiring, and management are inside the government.
Several business people in the private sector have pointed out that their work was, in many ways, easier than Healthcare.gov’s.
They could start from scratch, did not have to coordinate with as many outside entities, and could hire anyone they wanted, and work in any way they liked. Everything about the way the government builds large technical projects contrasts unfavorably, from specification to procurement, to hiring, to management.
By the way.
We, the people, put the restrictions on how a government job can be procured. We often demand they cannot sole source. We demand that they must have a certain percentage of minority, small businesses, female owned business and a variety of their mandatories depending upon the size and the scope of an assignment.
This <most often> drives up total cost of a project particularly if you begin to have 10+ contractors/suppliers/partners.
This doesn’t mean that they cannot do it … just that we make it difficult for them to do it.
This doesn’t mean they shouldn’t do projects like this <because they should>.
This doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have some restrictions <because they should>.
This means that we should recognize they are doing what we told them to do.
Damned if you do.
The public scrutiny.
Sure.
Initially the website issues appears to be a management issue … not a technology failure.
One person should always be in charge.
But.
Other than maybe a general in the midst of a military campaign … I cannot think of another situation, in business, in which there is this much scrutiny on a major project on a daily, if not hourly <or minute-by-minute>, basis.
Most business leaders have their proverbial shit together and even in the midst of major problems … a leader stays out of the way and let people do their jobs to fix it.
In the midst of an issue is not when you want spotlights and discussions and scrutiny <with major finger pointing and blaming>.
In other words – let the frickin’ program unfold.
I struggle to think of any major business project that looked pretty and worked pretty from day one. And if someone judged me on day one of a project I imagine I would have been fired so many times I would look like swiss cheese.
A government program never has the luxury a private company has with regard to letting things just ‘happen’ and adapting … and then reporting.
A business truth.
What happens on day one … let alone week two … is not often an indicator of success or failure. I don’t know how to explain it other than that.
In a government program they are asked to explain it other than that.
I would fail if I were demanded to do so.
Damned if you do.
Public demands <with political scrutiny>.
It is pretty much a general rule in business that you should start small and build from there.
Like maybe get one state up and running first and then go from there <albeit I could argue Massachusetts was your one test market>.
Most robust technology systems are built by constant testing as you go and by teams who swap jobs frequently <hourly even>.
Well.
Could you imagine in a test program in this political environment?
It wouldn’t, and couldn’t, happen.
In this political environment you had to build it and launch it.
Let the chips fall as they may and deal with it.
Damned if you do.
Last minute changes are always bad. And they shouldn’t be allowed.
And we, in business, acknowledge this.
But you know what?
We do it all the time.
We do it all the time and jump through hoops and hope like hell it all works out.
And we do it on absurdly complex far reaching programs.
For example … let’s assume the Affordable Healthcare contract specifications were pretty clear … and communicated with … ‘more than 50 different companies, five government departments and 36 states were involved in building the website, which is designed to help millions of uninsured Americans find affordable coverage from private insurers’ … in addition … this project must have generated thousands <if not more> of change orders throughout the project.
Last minute changes?
Shit.
There were every minute changes.
And, yes, this happens in non government projects too.
Damned if you don’t.
Ah.
Results.
People are naturally hesitant to change. And change this big and confusing? They will naturally do something first … search for information <hence millions visited the site just to explore information and the site got overwhelmed>.
Millions did not purchase … and here is some news … they will not for quite some time.
In fact … they will not purchase until the deadlines dictate that they do so.
The overwhelming majority will not sign up until the last 45 days or so.
Bet on that <and I am surprised no one communicated that to anyone>.
Regardless.
Notice who is talking about this project and who isn’t.
Politicians are blabbing away nonstop.
Private sector business leaders, who have developed and implemented these types of initiatives, are silent.
There is not one business out there who looks at the scope and complexity of this type of project and is not laughing.
Laughing at all the people who are calling this a fumbled train wreck.
Because we in business have lived it … and still do.
All the time.
Just … well … Damned.
No good business person judges a project on its launch. They judge it on its final success or failure. Is month one an indicator? Sometimes.
Often not.
A government project is damned from the beginning not because of the project itself … the excruciating political scrutiny of minutiae.
This means I am suggesting that not only are any ‘government hearings’ on a healthcare website simply political theater <staged by people who could not run a business let alone a business project like this> but … well … unhealthy business practice.
Look.
I am not suggesting people shouldn’t be held accountable.
And that we shouldn’t expect better <or the best that can be done>.
But what is important is not who is to blame but rather fixing what needs to be fixed.
Personally I would throw the ‘train wreck analogy’ back at whoever uses it.
The train has already left the station.
You cannot bring it back.
Better figure out a way to get it on the tracks moving smoothly rather than run around trying to say ‘sorry … no more train.’
Ok.
Lastly.
Should someone should get fired?
I don’t know.
And I am a business guy who has painfully but necessarily fired people in the past.
Complexities of the project aside … it is what it is … and it always was … a complex project.
My gut tells me I would continue to let the team remain in place and follow improvements and follow results.
The truth is that most results will occur as the deadline nears. It is human nature for everyone to wait. Therefore we really cannot judge until then.
Healthcare website aside.
Health care, in the end, is about people.
Doctors and medical people around the world share a dedication and professionalism.
And in the end we will have millions of good and not-so-good stories no matter the system.
But I would like to note that even before the Affordable Healthcare Act figuring out what providers and procedures are in what plans, who is ‘in network’ and who isn’t, and the cost, and the guidelines, and … well …. It wasn’t simple.
You often received a doctor’s bill which you thought was covered under your plan … but Doh! … the doctor <procedure> is only in some plans … but not yours.
The American health care system with its complexity and lack of transparency has always set it apart from systems in other wealthy industrialized nations.
It didn’t need to be simply changed … it needed to be fixed.
It needed to be broken in order to be fixed.
And as we know … breaking things hurts.
We may be in pain but blaming a website for our pain is ludicrous.
All my life
I sought
an angel.
And he appeared
in order to say:
“I am no angel !” – All My Life <Regina Deieva>
Poetry.
I imagine being a poet is not easy.
Not easy because most of us every day schlubs cannot appreciate, let alone tolerate, an entire volume of poetry.
They are lucky if we schlubs can find a single poem we can like … and remember.
But more likely they end up having to be satisfied if some words they have written … even if I be but a line or two … capture not only our attention … but our minds and imagination and feelings.
And we remember those few words … and on occasion … use them.
In fact.
Whenever I want to write about poetry I remember the West Wing episode with Laura Dern as the poet laureate … she said:
“You think I think that an artist’s job is to speak the truth. An artist’s job is to captivate you for however long we’ve asked for your attention. If we stumble 
into truth, we got lucky, and I don’t get to decide what truth is.”
<Tabitha Fortis as poet laureate>
I think we sometimes stumble upon some truth a poet has written.
Or maybe we stumble upon a scrap of a dream.
That is … if we got lucky.
I say that … because I just got lucky.
I came across a poem called ‘To whom it may Concern’ by a poet named Regina Derieva.
Consisting as I do of scraps of dreams,
of lands I’ve never seen, of underpinnings,
of air and salt, of elemental things
unmeddled with by endings or beginnings,
Regina Derieva was a Russian poet and writer who published around thirty books of poetry, essays, and prose. She passed away December 11, 2013.
“She knows that the hurt truth in us points to a dimension where, for example, victory is cleansed of battle. Her strict, economical poems never waver from that orientation.” – Les Murray
I couldn’t stop reading her work when I found it.
It’s not that all of her work is fascinating <because sometimes she gets a little literal with regard to politics and government> but I can almost guarantee that every single pome I found had at least one line that made me stop … look at the words … and envy the fact she was able to put them together in the way that she did to say what she wanted to say.
“Fetters have become a way of living.”
Derieva remembers that ‘as a child I didn’t cry.’
And I share that because it seems like many of her poems are gorgeously woven together an odd, but interesting, mix of some harsh reality and sharp insightful glimpses of hope and dreams.
Her words are sometimes uncompromising.
Sea of hills, sea of blood and sea
of the crooked roads, oceans of stones.
If one escapes both live and dead
one has to live without all roots.
But … it was “consisting as I do of scraps of dreams’ is spectacular.
Don’t we all?
Don’t we all consist of scraps of dreams?
A patchwork of hope for little things to be better.
We don’t really need the big things in Life. Just some of the little things to be a little better.
In a world where it seems like we are consistently forced to choose one thing.
What is the one thing you really want to do.
What is the one thing you are good at.
If you could only accomplish one thing what would it be.
What is one word to describe you.
One.
One after another we are seemingly being demanded to consist of … well … one.
Well.
I don’t know about you but I consist of scraps of a number of dreams.
I don’t dream of one thing.
I don’t hope for one thing <and … no … you cannot claim ‘happiness’ as the one … because if you are honest with yourself happiness is created from a quilt of varying threads of things done in the past, things being done … and things yet to be done>.
I don’t think I am that different on this topic from many people.
I tend to believe most people consist of scraps of dreams … not dream.
Our lives are a constant work in progress … unfortunately <or fortunately> unmeddled with by endings or beginnings as we gather up the scraps of dreams hoping one scrap gets a little closer to reality then … and maybe picking up another scrap next week hoping that one gets a little closer.
I don’t think it’s bad we don’t choose just one dream. And maybe it is better to have a lot of scraps pf dreams … than just one larger bigger scrap <almost whole … but maybe not quite>.
Why?
Most of us are not simple. And by that we are not just one thing. We are this … and that … an maybe a little of that other thing … and of course we are just a tad of this …. we are a mixture.
A mixture of this & that.
And that is what makes us interesting.
And maybe that is why we consist of scraps of dreams. It makes Life more interesting.
Consisting as I do of scraps of dreams … of things I have yet to do … of places I have yet to see … of thoughts I have yet to think … well … I like that person.
I like that thought.
—–
Here is ‘TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN’:
Consisting as I do of scraps of dreams,
of lands I’ve never seen, of underpinnings,
of air and salt, of elemental things
unmeddled with by endings or beginnings,
of clay and iron, and of ocean wave
and shingle crowds of feet have trod upon,
of faith and hope, stood at the wall, to brave
the rifles, turning into heavenly stone,
of quiet and simplicity, bestowed
upon us by a woman among women,
of emptiness that stretches like a road
into a vastness where things lose their meaning,
of whisperings, of looking long at that
which goes among us by the name of God,
at death, which never was, and now is not,
at life, of which so little can be had.
“Now the beast has revealed it’s ugly face and we shall not rest 
until it is dead.” – Richard the Lionhearted
Facing problems in Life is one of the most personal things anyone can ever discuss.
It is personal because … well … it is really about attitude.
And I am careful when I say this … because you can have the right attitude to face problems … but you can just be too damn tired to face it.
In combination with that last thought I wrote … I love this thought from Richard the Lionhearted.
Take a moment and ponder.
The beast <the problem> has revealed its ugly face … we do not recoil … we do not retreat … we shall not rest until it is dead.
Unfortunately. You cannot do this with every damn problem you face in Life.
If you did … well … I can guarantee a problem would slip up on you and catch you when you just didn’t have the energy or focus to deal with it.
Therefore it comes down to deciding which problems you will ‘not rest until it is dead.’
Now.
What really makes me love this quote is the attitude.
Why?
I sometimes fear far too often that we choose a problem to defeat … only to be misdirected or lose focus or move on to something else which appears to be the problem du jour.
I don’t have answers for this.
I am not that smart.
Nor can I be that flippant with some tripe like ‘defeat the problem in front of you! You can do it!” <exclamation points included>.
Life makes choosing what problem to face and defeat difficult.
There is no code book nor is there a ‘how to choose’ book.
And worse … sometimes Life makes a problem look eensy weensy <that would be very very small> … and yet it is actually expandable with one drop of water to a point where it is huge.
And maybe just as worse … at other times Life gives you a problem that looks massively insurmountable … and you invest a lot of energy & angst approaching 
it … and all it takes is one drop of water to shrink it into nothing.
I am not giving any advice here nor can I tell anyone what to do.
I can’t.
I cannot because many times the beast looks like a beast to me … and I head out with all intentions to kill it … regardless of its size. And unfortunately the beast is simply something simple with a beast mask on.
Maybe sometimes I am better than others at identifying the real beasts from the pretender beasts … but I tend to believe no one is particularly spectacular at this task. You may be better than some other people … but not spectacular.
So all I can do is share a great quote and thought and get people thinking.
In business or in Life … if the beast reveals its ugly face … do not rest until it is dead. And I imagine another thought is that if you actually decide it is a beast … even if it really isn’t … go ahead and kill that one too.
Well.
I am always interested in reviewing all the different published methods and theories with regard to how to develop effective communications.
It seems experts <and non experts> constantly analyze the topic and issue laundry lists of ‘to dos’ and ‘how tos’ and so many different thoughts and ideas your head begins to spin.
Oh.
Let me stop a minute.
Developing effective communications.
That sounds like such a cold analytical view on communicating.
Well.
It isn’t cold.
On the other hand … it may be calculating <albeit I could probably find a better more positive word>.
But here is something to ponder with the calculating thought in mind.
Off the cuff communication … at best … is simply a starting point. If you get lucky and you are good at communicating you may get close to what you really wanted to communicate let alone the best <most effective> way to communicate it. The key point here? You MAY get close. Off the cuff is a starting point whether you are good or bad at communicating.
And this is true professional and personally.
If you think about what you want to say beforehand <that is the calculating part> and actually apply some methodology to what you want to communicate beforehand <by the way … we all do this … some of us subconsciously and some of us consciously … and some of us subconsciously consciously – this is people like me who have been trained and studied how to effectively communicate so much so that I don’t think about it I just do it> you are more likely to not just be lucky but actually communicate what you want to communicate effectively.
Sorry.
That’s kind of a given <not sure it’s a Life truth>.
This means that no matter what anyone may suggest about saying what’s on your mind … the first thing that comes to your mind … it may be starkly … well … stark.
And not stark in a better way. It’s stripped of effectiveness <in its supposed efficiency>.
Suffice it to say …thinking before you speak <communicate> is always better than speaking without thinking.
Now.
I began this post suggesting a boatload of people are overthinking <in bad ways> effective communication methodology.
You can overthink.
You can poorly think.
But in the end it is too much thinking … and I get frustrated with all the ‘how to’s’ because effective communication is relatively simple if you spend a moment or two on the basics.
Please note that when I discuss all this effective communication gobbledygook … or effective advertising … it spans both professional and personal worlds.
I don’t think that is so hard to grasp because … well … communication is communication.
So when we talk about how advertising is so manipulative and formulaic … it is actually indicative of anything we want to communicate in everyday life.
Regardless.
Developing effective communications really is not that difficult.
Despite the fact there are gobs of books and a gazillion experts suggesting how to develop effective advertising and communicate effectively … honestly … it is really simple. And in fact the more you overthink and the more you try and ‘persuade’ through some formula … the more insincere and more ineffective it becomes.
All that said … having managed a company I had to try and simplify things because the employees’ heads were so screwed up from reading all the how to books.
Oh. I imagine there is some irony in the fact that I am now offering a ‘how to’ list of my own but here are the things I would consider the principles of “how to produce effective communications/advertising” … the basics:
– Do your homework
Before you begin communicating … you must truly understand the brand, the customer, the competition and the client … or the person.
The more deeply and meaningfully the better.
Well. As deeply and meaningful as possible.
I purposefully say ‘person’ because the moment you forget you are trying to communicate with a person, in business or in Life, is the moment that everything starts going awry.
While ‘homework’ sounds professional … be aware that I almost simply put “just care.” Care about who you are communicating with. If you care even one iota <this means discarding any iota of disdain> it will show.
– Be aspirational but don’t over promise
Any advertising must stretch the brand and help to move it upwards.
However.
Blatant over promise leads to disappointment and rejection.
In general any communication … while needing to always be pragmatic and centering … should have a tinge of hope. Hope for something better.
I certainly don’t mean false promises nor do I mean any version of over promise … but great communicating always has an aspect of “what could be.”
– Create new paradigms
It’s easy to think and say what everyone else does.
I have always said that every business category seems to invent its own brand of boring. When we speak with our friends and people we know … it is exactly the same.
Don’t recycle the same tired imagery, the same claims and the same old superlatives that everyone else is using.
Create a new paradigm.
I am not suggesting you shouldn’t lean on some acceptable comfortable imagery and words to center people … but create something new in addition if you do.
That’s what makes communication great.
Or makes great communication I should say.
Sometimes communication is about affirmation <using tired old words & imagery> but most people want to be inspired.
Yeah. I will use the Hope word again. Most people want a glimpse of something more than what they know.
What they know comforts.
What they don’t know excites.
That’s the easiest way for me to describe creating a new paradigm.
– <this is a professional one … mainly> Use a single strategy for all disciplines
Every single piece of communications — from the biggest TV campaign to the smallest coupon — must emanate from the same strategy, vision or soul.
This law is inviolate. Break the law, go to jail.
I imagine I could suggest this is true in personal Life too.
It is called consistency of character. If you speak from the heart and the soul … which is inevitably a reflection of your character … consistency matters. Why? Well. part of effective communication is being believed <and heard>.
Now.
To be clear.
Anything is communications. Anything is advertising.
We may not like to hear this but … I mean absolutely anything.
A TV commercial or print ad qualifies.
But so does a movie night for employees.
Oh.
So does how you sign your name.
The heading on your outgoing faxes.
A thank-you note to customers.
By the way.
This thought suggests that everything you do is some form of communicating who you are and what you stand for.
Oh.
Whether you want it to be, or not.
The way your employee gives directions to your store.
The design of your catalog.
How your shelves are arranged.
Heck.
What you put on your shelves in your home.
Hate his thought … but everything you do and say is an advertisement for who you are and what you stand for.
Everything.
<chew on that for a couple of sleepless nights>
– Reassess. Reassess. Reassess
This sounds professional … and it is.
Is it working?
Is the advertising doing what we want it to do?
Is any communications doing what we want it to do?
Can it do better? Can we do better?
Whoa.
But what about us every day schmoes?
Doesn’t this apply to us to?
You bet.
Far too many times we walk away from a communications moment <a conversation> pleased with ourselves and thinking “well … they are better off knowing that.”
Silly silly us.
Reassess.
And reassess again.
If what we communicated wasn’t applied … it is more likely not a failure of the person who we communicated to … but rather the communicator <oops … that is us>.
– Be considerate.
How you communicate is almost as important as who you are as a person.
Coincidentally … advertising or what is communicated … is as important as the product.
Think about this.
People are overwhelmed, selfish, have what they need, and buy what they want.
By the way … ‘buy’ also means ‘pay attention to.’
Same thing.
Here is the good news.
We know what we people like.
People like a good story. People play with stuff that’s fun to play with. They like to be entertained, and surprised. People ignore what they’ve seen before <maddeningly … even if they really haven’t>.
Yup.
They ignore it if they think they have.
In a sea of sameness the only thing people notice is the thing that’s different.
Advertising to business is also advertising to people.
– Remember that people talk to each other.
This is the corollary to the fact you are communicating with people.
While it is death to forget when you communicate with a person … it is a sneaky death awaiting later on in that inevitably people talk about your product, you and what you said.
You can’t stop it, or control it.
If your product is very good, or very bad, they talk a little.
If you are good or very bad they talk a little.
If it’s neither, they don’t talk at all.
The only time they talk a lot about anything is when it’s different. Whether it’s different in a good way, or in a bad way, doesn’t affect the amount of conversation.
By the way … people talk about advertising too.
The same rules apply.
And 6degrees of separation? Geez. Least of your worries. Think 22 squared. That’s the amount affected by the pebble you dropped in the pond <assuming the pebble registered>.
Well.
Ponder that before you speak off the cuff again.
– People <in general> don’t care about your product or even what you have to say <in Life>.
They have their own worries.
They have their own wants.
And what they really don’t have is time.
What that really means is that you’re not in charge.
They are.
You can’t force anyone to listen.
That’s it. Too long but once I got going I couldn’t stop.
But there you go.
I purposefully mixed communicating and advertising.
And I did so because it is an interesting exercise to think about what we do in our everyday lives as ‘advertising’ ourselves.
A bad thought?
Heck. I don’t like to think I am advertising ‘Bruce’ in everything that I do and say.
On the other and … it certainly gives you a perceptive on a Life in a professional communications role.
Oh.
And maybe it will make you think a little more of the repercussions of things you currently do and say.
Maybe not.
But maybe.
or … indulging or decadence?
“quod satis est” <what is enough> – Horace
Ok.
I was torn between calling this indulgence versus overindulgence, indulging or decadence or “quod satis est” <what is enough> … in the end … it doesn’t really matter because it is simply a discussion on what is pure decadence – or greed – and what do we actually deserve as people.
I imagine it is also a discussion on what Horace discussed as ‘what is enough’ or ‘the hollowness of unparalleled prosperity where we need to recognize the unacceptable limits <on prosperity> and finding some sanity in enough.’
Or in his exact words … ‘… supplicate and implore the gods that prosperity may return to the wretched, and abandon the haughty.’
Materialism is a tricky topic.
And people who dumb it down to simplistic thinking are being silly.
We all want things.
Not just for sociological reasons … but for practical ones. Things can make our lives easier and better. While status can certainly play a role <this is where indulgence or decadence can rear its ugly head> materialism at its most basic level is a fairly practical concept.
And comparing those who ‘have something’ to those who ‘have a lot’ is difficult.
Where do you draw the line?
Heck.
Where is the line on ‘having something’?
What exactly is ‘the hollowness of unparalleled prosperity’?
Where do we define a ‘recognition of unacceptable limits?
Horace was a pretty smart guy.
And even all he could do was ask the question … not offer any true answer.
“ … sensibility of the age, materialism itself, which seemed so solid, is revealed as a false god. Growing affluence appears to breed only an insatiable hunger for more, a desolate sense of something always lacking. Horace asked himself, just as we are asking ourselves, these questions: What exactly is this new dominion, empire, or global new order? Can it offer unlimited peace and prosperity, stretching forward into infinite horizons of time, or does it consist of little more than a soulless efficiency, an instrumentalism that makes everything a means to an end, with the end itself lost along the way? In which case, might not the greatest loss and poverty be of time itself, the lived and living moment, the day, which is the gods’ gift to us, but which is always being sacrificed to a more glorious tomorrow?
Horace’s response to living in his time of global power threatened by its inner vacuum of values, not so unlike our time of global 
capitalism, in which no value other than the monetary is recognized, was to be contrary.”- Harry Eyres <Horace and Me>
Now.
Sometimes I believe we confuse the issues when I hear people bitching about greed and capitalism and ideals and social responsibility.
Capitalism is simply a process or system or possibly even an economic ideology … but that is it.
Simply a framework in which people work within.
And values are associated with people and not a framework. If no value is recognized other than money that is not the fault of capitalism … it is the fault of people.
The system does not breed greed or overindulgence.
It is a system in which people institute attitudes & behavior. It is people who abuse or use the system. You can be as good, or bad, as you choose to be within capitalism.
All that said.
Before I show the following quote let me say that I am certainly a capitalism guy … but … Schumpeter <who I thought was a really really smart guy> suggested the following:
“Moral poverty lurks within capitalism.” – Joseph Schumpeter
I like this thought.
It isn’t that capitalism IS moral poverty but that within capitalism LURKS the possibility of moral poverty.
What that suggests is that there is a constant battle between prosperity <or having shit> and morals.
We constantly battle what psychologists called ‘hedonistic adaptation’ <once you have something you want more>.
And I agree with Schumpeter.
I believe that is the battle we face day in and day out.
So with that said I state unequivocally that ‘greed’ does not rule <despite the fact I see a shit load of people suggesting that greed is leading to all the issues we face>.
Greed, among the few, will always be in constant battle with the majority in which is constantly fighting against moral poverty.
That is life.
That is economy.
That is societal salvation.
But I do believe we are facing some interesting societal challenges as we think about whether we have embraced ‘indulgence’ as the norm rather than an exception. Maybe better said … have we embraced an odd perspective on ‘something we deserve’ versus ‘something we earn.’
An evolving economy is all about ‘moving up the ladder.’
Maybe not socially but certainly accumulating <accumulation not necessarily being material but rather anything that you find valuable to accumulate … honor, integrity and kindness included>.
<note: ponder that thought for a second>
Ok.
But at some point we seem to have begun to believe we deserve some things.
And, no, this isn’t about entitlement programs and crap like that … this is about ‘I deserve a certain salary’ or ‘I deserve a certain size house’ … or even ‘I deserve that opportunity.’
Maybe it is semantics but attitudinally there is a massive difference between feeling like you deserve something rather than feeling like you have to earn it first.
Which leads me to some thoughts:
– Perversion of capitalism
Capitalism is a living breathing organism.
One in which microbes fight with other corrupted microbes intent on perverting the organism. The organism also has other microbes which are healthy and can sometimes even attack and destroy the other microbes. Corruption should not, probably cannot, kill capitalism because capitalism itself can kill corruption.
This is kind of my version of Schumpeter’s though on creative destruction.
This is a simple thought … and I am going to leave it quickly to move on to the larger attitudinal issue.
Cynicism.
– Cynicism of external factors
Perversion aside … if our perception is that the system is rigged by the perverted … we become cynical. Lose optimism. Question hope. Maybe even get angry at the perverts <sorry … couldn’t resists>.
I’m not suggesting the American ideal is not a good <or great> one or that all Americans are wasteful and clueless or that every shred of what makes America great has evaporated.
Today’s United States has a solid core of the good and possibility and hope. And I say that despite the fact people have become quite cynical. And it is a deep cynicism. What I mean by that is that we have become cynical with regard to what it is to be America <which includes, but is not solely, capitalism>.
I mention cynicism because it is relevant.
It is relevant because it corrodes the ideal.
It is relevant because it affects <either directly or indirectly> how we behave in tandem with our virtues <moral compass … ethics>.
Adam Smith noted that free markets, in order to function well, depend upon the virtue of their participants. It is a fact that cynicism and distrust engendered by ‘the perverted’ only creates inefficient transactions and costs <including oversight expenses trying to reel the perverted in> to levels that can paralyze a marketplace. Additionally this perversion inevitably focuses on the phenomenon of “putting profits before people.”
This can be manifested in a variety of ways:
– taking imprudent and excessive risks with other people’s money
– selling products and services that harm people, families, and society
– engaging in outright fraud
Today it seems like we are suffering from all of the above.
So this perversion of capitalism is really all about morality.
As noted earlier, Adam Smith, understood the link between markets and morality. He did not believe that a successful economy could arise from the raw, unbridled pursuit of self-interest. He maintained that self-interest could fuel a successful economy only if it were narrowed by the constraints of traditional morality.
<Please note … we have seen this moral challenge before. A moral disintegration preceded the great depression. The stock market crash of 1929, and the ensuing Depression, was precipitated by the roaring ’20s which was a prosperous decade was marked by materialism and moral laxity – in society and in business.>
Regardless.
While I could wax poetically about moral laxity I will instead focus on ‘hedonistic adaptation’ and the title of this article … indulgence or overindulgence.
Despite the fact we Americans see ourselves as a generally optimistic and happy group of people … whenever research is done … despite our relatively prosperous lives … we are pretty unhappy people compared to other countries.
Whew.
That means despite what I would consider a relatively bloated sometimes greedy perspective of life we are unhappy.
Well.
That is something to ponder.
No big government or little government or anything to do with government … this simply suggests that America may be a mess but we the people put us into this mess.
We either contributed or sat complicit, sipping Starbucks coffee <which I am doing at the moment>, buying too much stuff, wasting energy, time and resources … complaining but doing nothing about it and claiming we were powerless to do anything about it.
Pay attention.
We shape the world.
We have big brains <bigger than a pea> and opposable thumbs.
We tend to make fancy stuff.
We like to make stuff, touch stuff and smell stuff.
It is perfectly natural to like the stuff we make.
We like to indulge in our stuff.
Interestingly, to provide perspective … different cultures think, and act, differently.
I read somewhere that nomads like stuff but have no sense that they should accumulate.
In Genghis Khan’s culture, it was much more important to give things away than keep them.
The Norse had a similar tradition.
I think those values have to do not only with generosity, but as a sign that the giver is not ruled by the objects he/she owns.
America is the opposite.
We are a society of indulgers and accumulators.
<please note that I am not suggesting we should become a country of nomads>
Well.
Actually I believe author Tiffany Madison says it well:
“I believe the world is divided in three groups: givers, takers and the few that can balance both impulses. If you are a giver, it is wise to define your boundaries because takers will take what you allow them to; all givers must learn to protect that about themselves or eventually, there is nothing left to give.” – Tiffany Madison
Regardless.
We have an overall driving mindset of takers these days.
Take or be taken attitude.
And while we are now rich beyond belief <in terms of what is available to all of us 24 hours a day> we are seduced by the urge to acquire … and acquire more … and indulge <when the opportunity arises>.
Sociologically we are driven by the ‘hedonistic adaptation’ impulse.
I don’t have anything against wanting more than what you have.
And I certainly understand the psychology of ‘once you have something not only do you not want to not have it anymore … but you want more <or the next step up>’.
I understand Hedonistic Adaptation sociologically.
But while I understand it … I don’t have to like it.
We just can’t seem to stop wanting more and there never seems to be enough stuff … we just don’t seem to find the boundaries <or the balance>.
I am not suggesting this is not difficult.
Money leads to lifestyle upgrades.
Once you achieve the income you desired … well … you go back to desiring more.
– the next level of ‘more’
Oddly <and somewhat disturbingly> … this desire for ‘more’ has created an entire economy around ‘how we look to others around us.’
Whether we like to admit to or not … how we look, or appear to look, to others important to appear to drives our behavior <to a large extent … certainly not 100% in most people>.
This has created an incredibly odd <and slightly disturbing> currency of ‘doing good behavior.’
Yes.
‘Doing good’ is becoming a personal wealth currency.
What do I mean”?
I am donating “x”.
I am volunteering here.
Therefore I have earned ‘value.’
Maybe the most troubling example of this is how businesses recognize this and are jumping on board by developing environmental programs, family things, positive team work seminars or anything that generates some currency that they can mentally <if not tangibly> put on a balance sheet as proof of relative wealth.
<note: I hate this trend>
Whew. Indulgence. Overindulgence. Accumulation.
Why do we do it?
Here’s what I think.
Actually three reasons:
One is family <how we are being brought up within a dynamic capitalistic society>.
Two is the evolving relationship between preference and value.
Third is we are putting a higher importance on rational & pragmatic characteristics <in school, in life, in business>.
Let me go into detail.
– family in a prosperous country
The underlying dynamics of behavior reside in the conflict between a culture of individualism <I can do anything> and the economy. In that context relative value and revealed preferences actually determine the behavior of individual parents and family.
What I suggest is that family is more affected by these two things than policies, such as welfare or divorce income distribution or even the increased employment of women.
Individualism creates a climate in which responsibility to others and the context of duty to others are diminished. This individualism grows out of the young peoples’ interface with the market economy and their ability to produce and to consume for themselves. I believe that these changes are due to the increasing legitimacy of self-interest as a criterion for decisions as opposed to the interests of a larger context.
This need not be interpreted in the narrowest sense of selfishness but rather in the context of competing values, such as personal freedom, development, and empowerment values that we hold as important as our family roles.
The needs of our market economy define individual as producers. As a result occupational roles take priority over family roles. We see the consequences of this priority. The parent who works extra hours at the office, rather than the one who knocks off at four to take the child to softball practice, is the one who will get the pay raise the next time around. And maybe more importantly this attitude <and behavior> is brought into the family context as ‘the price you pay to be successful.’
Like it or not … there is a strong relationship between the market economy’s need for us to behave as if we were not tied in obligatory ways to others and our cultural emphasis on individualism.
Simplistically … success is being defined by individual criteria rather than group context … even at the expense of family. This drives overall context for attitudes and behavior.
Next.
– relative value and revealed preferences
Well.
The perspectives of relative value and revealed preferences may be the biggest cultural issue future generations will face <because the current older generation has a very skewed perspective>.
Revealed preference is a term from the economists for which there are fancy equations which basically mean “actions speak louder than words.”
If we were interested in whether Americans preferred to invest in home remodeling over taking vacations, holding prices constant, we would quite simple look at whether over time they invested more of their available resources in home remodeling than in vacations.
The notion of relative value offers insight from revealed preferences.
We can value something very much.
We can even value it more than we used to and still value it less relative to some other competing good, if our value on that competing good increased more rapidly.
Wow.
We can still prefer something … and we may even prefer it more so than in the past … but its relative value has decreased versus competing preferences.
– note: <… in the business world this is often reflected in what is called a conjoint analysis … which if you have ever had to present the findings from one of these studies I can guarantee your head will have exploded – mine did>
This is where the emphasis on the consumption need comes in.
For example … young people seem unable to ‘afford’ marriage these days.
Does that mean that their life styles would be worse than say if they were in the 50’s or 60’s if they married? Nope.
It simply means that they think that they need more now than then they did then in order to marry.
In addition … the values of independence and the realization of individual goals and self-definition are also factors in evaluating preference versus value.
The bad news is that a consequence of these competing values noted in studies is a corresponding decreased willingness to make long-term commitments. This unwillingness to make long-term commitments impacts economically and socially. The values of personal freedom, development, and empowerment reduce the relative attractiveness of the obligatory nature of any decision is impacted. And by ‘any decision’ I will remind everyone of the blurred lines between home and business … because lack of long term commitment bleeds into business decision making and vision and … well … you get the point.
– rational and pragmatic
Simplistically … I think we are becoming too rational and pragmatic.
We are creating a society dictated by reason and proof <not knowledge> and therefore discount activities that cultivate and nurture the human character and inevitably values <and how much value we put on values>.
It seems day in and day out what isn’t ‘real’ or provable is discarded. This means that all the things that struggle to show proof or is just an intangible ‘real’ bites the dust.
To be real it must have this proof … which in these examples means it must have consensus or collaboration … or what I call ‘group proof.’
Why do I care?
This means we have a tendency to ignore dreams, visions, and crazy ideas that come out of the nowhere. Creativity has, and has always had, an irrational aspect.
Heck.
Same with dreams.
Human imagination and creativity is incredible, powerful and healthy.
To toss it out with everything else that is unproven or irrational impoverishes our moral compass <and value structure>. Within this vacuum we seek to fill the emptiness with the tangible … the stuff … the provable to those around us.
Sadly we inevitably flatten humanity by becoming so rational and pragmatic.
This pragmatism leads to …
– We want to be a little less crazy <take chances> with ourselves and each other.
– We want to understand and control any irrational or un-understandable behavior.
– We desire predictable behavior <mostly under the guise of “we don’t have time to waste”>.
Look.
I get it. I get what we were striving for … happiness through efficiency <or lack of wasted energy and hope>. But we have thrown out parts of what makes our lives rich by being so overly rational <and materialistic>.
Ok.
In the end.
Indulging, overindulging, what we deserve … decadence?
All important words to think about … but in the end it comes down to optimism versus despair.
It was Leszek Kolakowski that said “civilizations cannot live in despair.”
Despite the fact we are accumulating stuff and being pragmatic and rational … we still feel some despair with what is happening around us.
And in that situation … we seek to find an optimistic interpretation in the despair itself.
We seek to see that something good comes from the bad.
We seek learning from the failures of the system.
Or even … why should we despair just because we have stopped stalking what is just a fantasy <the intangible hopes & dreams>?
That is the battle in today’s mind.
And, frankly, it is a hopeful battle … hopeful in that we still remain at our core ‘good’ and desire to seek that which is good.
This is a battle of what exactly is ‘right.’
Right or maybe ‘what we deserve’ is becoming fuzzy in our heads.
As someone wrote:
We are simply identifying the inefficient or that which we identify as unlikely to help us meet our end objectives and prune them like dead branches assuming the remainder is healthy and productive and will assist us in getting to where we want to go.
If we continue to do that … culture, like a tree, will die.
More importantly … culturally I believe we have lost the definition of indulgence, decadence and overindulgence.
We have lost the boundaries surrounding accumulation.
Hedonistic adaptation or not … we simply think of accumulation.
Accumulation of anything and everything.
Therein lies our issue to be discussed.
Accumulation. Solve how we think about that <attitudinally and behaviorwise> and then we can discuss what is overindulgence or decadence.
I imagine we all need to simply get a grip on “quod satis est” <what is enough>.