Looking at the current economic crisis ... and both government spending as well as the general consumer habits over recent years it can definitely be said that 'we live in a material world' as the song goes....
But what has taken it to the level that it has reached? Certainly throughout the ages people have sought a comfortable life ... but what was it, when was it, that the norm shifted from living comfortably within your means, to living extravagantly beyond them?
William Shakespeare once wrote "Have more than thou showest; Speak less than thou knowest." ('King Lear', Act I, Scene iv) ... and while iirc the context was a little different I think that the quote aptly applies to most aspects of life. Financially speaking a family that lived moderately within their means and set aside savings would, in fact, have more than they showed ... and more importantly would likely live comfortably and have a better ability to maintain that lifestyle even in lean times.
In part I think that this is simply something that the older generations have understood better than many of us do today. Face it .... in the grand scheme of things it wasn't that long ago that a lean harvest might well mean that some people in the village didn't survive ... setting aside today's plenty for tomorrow's want was something very real ... and was the beginning of drying and otherwise preserving foods.
Today, however, that never seems to be an issue ... I'd say probably 90% of the population of the US couldn't tell you if it was a good or bad year for the crops, even based on store prices. Part of the result is we don't think about putting things aside for tomorrow, and I think that has translated into our financial habits as well ... and now we're starting to pay the price for that.
Two other factors have, of course, contributed greatly to this lifestyle of living more extravagantly than perhaps we should ... television (and to a lesser degree radio) and credit cards.
Television and radio have, over the years become more and more inundated with advertising and at the same time more people have joined the audiences of these forms of media. We are constantly bombarded by advertisements showing us the luxury and 'cool' gadgets available. The shiny new cars, the great looking food, the new and beautiful appliances ... the result is, naturally, increased desire for these items.
Radio and print ads are less effective at this largely because the moving images of television are much more pervasive to the human mind; they are alive and, thus, much more real to us.
Credit cards take this desire built by the media and its advertising, however, and give it an outlet. You don't have to have the money to pay for that new iPod now, you've got plastic fake money! And there starts the root of the problem because too often people don't view credit as 'real money'; they don't connect the charge of the item to the money that they are going to have to pay later. Usually the considerably larger amount that they will have to pay due to interest.
Credit has, of course, been around for ages, but really it has only been recently that it has become so widely available. The result is, of course, that a lot of people have received credit that were not really prepared for it ... and in some cases should never have really had it. Combine that with the recent popularity of 'micro-transactions' that make it even easier to spend large amounts of money without realizing it and you have a recipe for disaster.
For those not familiar with the term Micro-transactions it is basically things along the lines of iTunes ... transactions for (usually) virtual items at low dollar amounts. Given the 'normal' cost of items most people don't think much about spending 1 or 2 dollars for something ... it's just a little change, it won't make any difference....
But then they realize that they've downloaded 300 songs in a month at $1.50 each ..... and that $450 suddenly seems like 'something'.
The same thing applies in DC ... it's just $200,000 for this program, that's nothing. But when you cram a couple of thousand of those into a bill and the price tag goes up fast...
The problem is ... this is not a sustainable situation in our personal lives and it's not sustainable in DC either. Sooner or later that money has to be repaid ... sooner or later the interest will bury us.
At what point do we reach critical mass? At what point does the fact that the Federal Government is competing with business for the same loan money completely demolish what is left of our economy?
At what point do we realize that what we NEED to do is stop the deficit spending and get back to a responsible method of accounting on a personal level as a society ... but also on an economic level as a country ... if we don't things will not go well for us in the long term.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Friday, May 15, 2009
Of superheroes and countries
As I was sifting through a site of collected quotations (The Quotations Page) I came across several great quotes ... filing many of them in a quote file for future use. One quote in particular caught my eye and got me thinking in a way different from the others.
"About Superman and Batman: the former is how America views itself, the latter, darker character is how the rest of the world views America." - Michael Caine
This got me to thinking about things and, in general I would say that Mr. Caine is probably right, but I'm not sure that it's a bad thing. (I'm not saying that Mr. Caine is implying that it is either though I think that some people would take it that way.)
Superman is an ideal ... an invincible shining knight protecting the world from evil and corruption and upholding 'Truth, Justice and the American Way.' Generally speaking I would say that is how many Americans like to think of the US ... though in many ways I think that the ideal of Superman is dead in this day ... but that's a ramble for another time....
Batman, however, is the detective, the gritty protector of the people who's not afraid to get his hands dirty to get the job done. He is unconcerned with how he is perceived as long as, in the end, he puts the bad guys behind bars.
And that is really the difference ... Superman is always looked up to by those that he protects, while Batman is feared or disliked by those he protects, though they would still admit that they are safer with him around.
And, yes, I would say that is probably a good description of how the world views the US ... many dislike or even 'fear' us for our ability and willingness to be proactive in defending ourselves and others, but they will generally admit that the world is a safer place as a result.
In all honesty I don't know that there ever was a time when the US was ever really Superman in the eyes of the world ... and personally while I think that Superman is certainly embodies the ideal of America ... I personally would like to see us more as Iron Man - self made, strong, and always improving ourselves. Sadly I'm not sure that the American Spirit has that kind of drive any more. Maybe these tough times will re-kindle the strength of what made us the great country that we are ....
Well ... one can dream at least.
"About Superman and Batman: the former is how America views itself, the latter, darker character is how the rest of the world views America." - Michael Caine
This got me to thinking about things and, in general I would say that Mr. Caine is probably right, but I'm not sure that it's a bad thing. (I'm not saying that Mr. Caine is implying that it is either though I think that some people would take it that way.)
Superman is an ideal ... an invincible shining knight protecting the world from evil and corruption and upholding 'Truth, Justice and the American Way.' Generally speaking I would say that is how many Americans like to think of the US ... though in many ways I think that the ideal of Superman is dead in this day ... but that's a ramble for another time....
Batman, however, is the detective, the gritty protector of the people who's not afraid to get his hands dirty to get the job done. He is unconcerned with how he is perceived as long as, in the end, he puts the bad guys behind bars.
And that is really the difference ... Superman is always looked up to by those that he protects, while Batman is feared or disliked by those he protects, though they would still admit that they are safer with him around.
And, yes, I would say that is probably a good description of how the world views the US ... many dislike or even 'fear' us for our ability and willingness to be proactive in defending ourselves and others, but they will generally admit that the world is a safer place as a result.
In all honesty I don't know that there ever was a time when the US was ever really Superman in the eyes of the world ... and personally while I think that Superman is certainly embodies the ideal of America ... I personally would like to see us more as Iron Man - self made, strong, and always improving ourselves. Sadly I'm not sure that the American Spirit has that kind of drive any more. Maybe these tough times will re-kindle the strength of what made us the great country that we are ....
Well ... one can dream at least.
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
A beautifully (clouded) mind
Before I start this I'm going to define a couple of terms so that it is clear how I am using them ... these terms are often thrown around and used as political labels and, as with many words in the English language, their meaning is sometimes a moving target. To give fair credit I am taking these definitions from local Atlanta radio host Herman Cain.
Conservative - Person who believes in increased individual responsibility, decreased taxes, and less government.
Liberal - Person who believes in decreased individual responsibility, increased taxes, and more government.
Now ... some people that consider themselves 'Liberals' take offense to the 'increased taxes' part of the definition above ... but when pressed on how to pay for increased government spending they will almost all default to 'raising taxes on the rich'. Many of them will complain that they don't stand for 'decreased individual responsibility' ... and yet they will back programs such as Universal Health Care, Social Security, and Welfare, that take the responsibility for a person's well being out of the hands of individuals in favor of giving that responsibility to the government. Many of them will say that they don't want 'more government' and yet, they will go along with increased government spending, more government programs, and increased levels of government regulation in the markets....
Basically what they're saying is 'well it sounds so BAD when you put it that way.....'
Now ... on to the real reason for the rant ... my conversation a few days back with a liberal. I couldn't help but notice throughout the course of the conversation that any time I mentioned a fact, rather than disputing it he changed the subject. And THEN said that's the problem with 'you guys' ... you never give up and go all over the place.
o.O
I had to scroll back up through the conversation and make sure I wasn't loosing my mind, but there it was ... every change of subject was a result of him avoiding a fact or dodging a question. But somehow ... in his mind ... I was the one 'going all over the place'.
And when I made the statement that you "Can't spend your way out of debt." ... to him the only alternative was to 'continue to give 99% of the wealth to 1% of the country who happen to be friends....'
1 - 99% of the wealth doesn't go to 1% of the country. The top 1% of income earners in the country account for about 20% or so of the total income collected during the year. (That may be a bit off as I'm pulling that from memory but I'm pretty sure that it is under 25%) Yet if I recall correctly the pay about 35% of the income taxes that are collected for the year.
2 - That income is not GIVEN to them ... it is earned. You might not consider it work ... but they are getting paid for their knowledge and/or experience and most of them worked very hard to reach that level.
'but they aren't worth what they are paid.'
WRONG ... in a free market they are worth whatever someone is willing to pay them. People complain about the huge salaries of pro athletes as well, but it's the same dynamic ... if Team A is paying Player Z 10 million a year, and he becomes a free agent not bound by a contract, if Team B wants to hire him they are going to have to offer enough to make it worth the hassle of Player Z changing teams ... and it's probably going to be more than 10 million as he can probably make that by staying another year with Team A.
If Player Z tells Team B that he wants 15 million a year ... then they have a choice ... do they want him enough that they feel that he is worth 15 a year. If they say 'yes' and hire him for that .. guess what ... he's worth 15 million a year. If no one takes him at 15 a year and he lowers his asking price to 12 and Team C picks him up ... then he (and/or his talents) are worth 12.
Likewise these CEOs and the like are worth whatever these corporations have agreed to pay them ... that's the way it works. Sorry if you don't like that, but it is not the government's job to regulate what companies pay their executives (that is what the Board and/or the Shareholders are supposed to handle.) ... nor is it the government's job to tell companies what they can or can't pay their employees.
Then again ... we're getting into an administration that feels that it IS the government's job to manage the private sector ... and there in lies many of my problems with things.
In the end he 'tired' of our little argument and said that we didn't have any ideas other than continuing with the same thing we had for the last 8 years and that we needed to let the 'new team' have their chance to fix things.
The republicans screwed things up by not sticking to the definition of Conservative I laid out above and instead chose to grow government, increase spending, and basically act like Liberals. Sadly too many people fail to realize that the last 2 years the Senate and the House were run by the Liberal Democrats and things weren't getting better, they were getting worse ... the result is that they put DC completely in the hands of the liberals ....
It's like this ... we are driving toward a cliff .... and we need to change direction. Our driver, however, has just stomped on the gas and isn't showing any signs of turning except to get a better line on the cliff ahead .... he says that there is going to be a bridge there ... the government is going to build it for us ...
... Is anyone else looking for a parachute right about now?
Conservative - Person who believes in increased individual responsibility, decreased taxes, and less government.
Liberal - Person who believes in decreased individual responsibility, increased taxes, and more government.
Now ... some people that consider themselves 'Liberals' take offense to the 'increased taxes' part of the definition above ... but when pressed on how to pay for increased government spending they will almost all default to 'raising taxes on the rich'. Many of them will complain that they don't stand for 'decreased individual responsibility' ... and yet they will back programs such as Universal Health Care, Social Security, and Welfare, that take the responsibility for a person's well being out of the hands of individuals in favor of giving that responsibility to the government. Many of them will say that they don't want 'more government' and yet, they will go along with increased government spending, more government programs, and increased levels of government regulation in the markets....
Basically what they're saying is 'well it sounds so BAD when you put it that way.....'
Now ... on to the real reason for the rant ... my conversation a few days back with a liberal. I couldn't help but notice throughout the course of the conversation that any time I mentioned a fact, rather than disputing it he changed the subject. And THEN said that's the problem with 'you guys' ... you never give up and go all over the place.
o.O
I had to scroll back up through the conversation and make sure I wasn't loosing my mind, but there it was ... every change of subject was a result of him avoiding a fact or dodging a question. But somehow ... in his mind ... I was the one 'going all over the place'.
And when I made the statement that you "Can't spend your way out of debt." ... to him the only alternative was to 'continue to give 99% of the wealth to 1% of the country who happen to be friends....'
1 - 99% of the wealth doesn't go to 1% of the country. The top 1% of income earners in the country account for about 20% or so of the total income collected during the year. (That may be a bit off as I'm pulling that from memory but I'm pretty sure that it is under 25%) Yet if I recall correctly the pay about 35% of the income taxes that are collected for the year.
2 - That income is not GIVEN to them ... it is earned. You might not consider it work ... but they are getting paid for their knowledge and/or experience and most of them worked very hard to reach that level.
'but they aren't worth what they are paid.'
WRONG ... in a free market they are worth whatever someone is willing to pay them. People complain about the huge salaries of pro athletes as well, but it's the same dynamic ... if Team A is paying Player Z 10 million a year, and he becomes a free agent not bound by a contract, if Team B wants to hire him they are going to have to offer enough to make it worth the hassle of Player Z changing teams ... and it's probably going to be more than 10 million as he can probably make that by staying another year with Team A.
If Player Z tells Team B that he wants 15 million a year ... then they have a choice ... do they want him enough that they feel that he is worth 15 a year. If they say 'yes' and hire him for that .. guess what ... he's worth 15 million a year. If no one takes him at 15 a year and he lowers his asking price to 12 and Team C picks him up ... then he (and/or his talents) are worth 12.
Likewise these CEOs and the like are worth whatever these corporations have agreed to pay them ... that's the way it works. Sorry if you don't like that, but it is not the government's job to regulate what companies pay their executives (that is what the Board and/or the Shareholders are supposed to handle.) ... nor is it the government's job to tell companies what they can or can't pay their employees.
Then again ... we're getting into an administration that feels that it IS the government's job to manage the private sector ... and there in lies many of my problems with things.
In the end he 'tired' of our little argument and said that we didn't have any ideas other than continuing with the same thing we had for the last 8 years and that we needed to let the 'new team' have their chance to fix things.
The republicans screwed things up by not sticking to the definition of Conservative I laid out above and instead chose to grow government, increase spending, and basically act like Liberals. Sadly too many people fail to realize that the last 2 years the Senate and the House were run by the Liberal Democrats and things weren't getting better, they were getting worse ... the result is that they put DC completely in the hands of the liberals ....
It's like this ... we are driving toward a cliff .... and we need to change direction. Our driver, however, has just stomped on the gas and isn't showing any signs of turning except to get a better line on the cliff ahead .... he says that there is going to be a bridge there ... the government is going to build it for us ...
... Is anyone else looking for a parachute right about now?
Monday, May 04, 2009
The sky is falling!
I'm sure you've heard about it by now ... I mean it has dominated the news for over a week already. The H1N1 virus, more common called the swine flu, is the flavor of the month for health scares that ... based on how much media attention and coverage it is getting ... is going to wipe out the human race in the next year.
Um ... okay ... whatever.
Seriously, let's put this in perspective. The United States has a population that is listed as 306,353,082 people; we'll just call it 300,000,000 or 'over 300 million' will probably work just as well. The World Health Organization (WHO .... why do I always think of an old British Sci-Fi series?) has confirmed 985 cases in 20 countries worldwide.
Um ... 985 cases? Yeah we'll stick with the 300 million number. So if all of those 985 cases were in the U.S. we'd be talking about roughly .00033% (less than since I'm not including over 6 million people). That 985 cases are not all in the U.S., however. The rough worldwide population is 6.7 billion ... with a B.
So if my math is right we're talking about an illness that has infected roughly .0000147% or less of the worldwide population.
Admittedly this is a 'young' pandemic, being only 10 days old, but still we aren't talking about something that's burning through the population like wildfire either ... even in Mexico which has shown the heaviest concentration of confirmed cases (506 confirmed cases and 19 deaths or roughly a 3% fatality rate) we are still talking about a very small percentage of the population being infected.
Not to say that people shouldn't take reasonable precautions to avoid catching it, but I really don't believe that this is likely to balloon into something worthy of the extreme media coverage and hype that it has been getting to date.
I honestly feel that the media is making this into a much bigger issue than it is, and through their constant coverage they are, in fact, generating the panic that they are covering. I wouldn't go so far as to say that they are intentionally trying to generate a panic over this flu ... rather I think in their hunger to find and report a story that they have a tendency to over dramatize the issue which creates a little fear. The media then reports on the fear, which in turn generates more fear and more news coverage....
On the political front a 'pandemic' like this and the panic (as caused and fed by the media over coverage) has a tendency to drive DC as 'justification' for Universal Health Care. The hysteria over the issue becomes an excellent vehicle for Congress to hook the wagon up to in order to lessen the opposition to the issue. 'You can't be opposed to government stepping into health care right now ... we're facing a pandemic! If the US Government doesn't step in by passing UHC this week we might never recover!'
Yes, I'm purposefully exaggerating there, but we do have a White House and Congress that doesn't like to 'let a good crisis go to waste.'
Is it serious? Yes, and people need to be aware of the dangers ... H1N1 is credited with the deaths of over 40 million people worldwide in 1918 (when it was known as the Spanish Flu). We have to accept that better medical facilities, awareness, and not being in the middle of trench warfare is likely to keep this from being quite the pandemic that the Spanish Flu turned into. (Not to mention that it's also possible (and even likely) that many of the 1918 deaths might have been incorrectly attributed to the virus.)
The other danger here is simple ... the more they blow this up now, when it's really not as big an issue as the coverage would have it seem, the less likely people are to get worked up about it later if it or another strain suddenly becomes a major threat to the health of the country ... There was the bird flu a couple of years ago, and the asian flu, and the SARS scare ... all of which certainly were dangers, but if I learned anything over the years it is that the more you cry 'wolf' over this or any other such issue (hurricanes, etc) the more likely people are to ignore it when the 'real thing' comes along.
Um ... okay ... whatever.
Seriously, let's put this in perspective. The United States has a population that is listed as 306,353,082 people; we'll just call it 300,000,000 or 'over 300 million' will probably work just as well. The World Health Organization (WHO .... why do I always think of an old British Sci-Fi series?) has confirmed 985 cases in 20 countries worldwide.
Um ... 985 cases? Yeah we'll stick with the 300 million number. So if all of those 985 cases were in the U.S. we'd be talking about roughly .00033% (less than since I'm not including over 6 million people). That 985 cases are not all in the U.S., however. The rough worldwide population is 6.7 billion ... with a B.
So if my math is right we're talking about an illness that has infected roughly .0000147% or less of the worldwide population.
Admittedly this is a 'young' pandemic, being only 10 days old, but still we aren't talking about something that's burning through the population like wildfire either ... even in Mexico which has shown the heaviest concentration of confirmed cases (506 confirmed cases and 19 deaths or roughly a 3% fatality rate) we are still talking about a very small percentage of the population being infected.
Not to say that people shouldn't take reasonable precautions to avoid catching it, but I really don't believe that this is likely to balloon into something worthy of the extreme media coverage and hype that it has been getting to date.
I honestly feel that the media is making this into a much bigger issue than it is, and through their constant coverage they are, in fact, generating the panic that they are covering. I wouldn't go so far as to say that they are intentionally trying to generate a panic over this flu ... rather I think in their hunger to find and report a story that they have a tendency to over dramatize the issue which creates a little fear. The media then reports on the fear, which in turn generates more fear and more news coverage....
On the political front a 'pandemic' like this and the panic (as caused and fed by the media over coverage) has a tendency to drive DC as 'justification' for Universal Health Care. The hysteria over the issue becomes an excellent vehicle for Congress to hook the wagon up to in order to lessen the opposition to the issue. 'You can't be opposed to government stepping into health care right now ... we're facing a pandemic! If the US Government doesn't step in by passing UHC this week we might never recover!'
Yes, I'm purposefully exaggerating there, but we do have a White House and Congress that doesn't like to 'let a good crisis go to waste.'
Is it serious? Yes, and people need to be aware of the dangers ... H1N1 is credited with the deaths of over 40 million people worldwide in 1918 (when it was known as the Spanish Flu). We have to accept that better medical facilities, awareness, and not being in the middle of trench warfare is likely to keep this from being quite the pandemic that the Spanish Flu turned into. (Not to mention that it's also possible (and even likely) that many of the 1918 deaths might have been incorrectly attributed to the virus.)
The other danger here is simple ... the more they blow this up now, when it's really not as big an issue as the coverage would have it seem, the less likely people are to get worked up about it later if it or another strain suddenly becomes a major threat to the health of the country ... There was the bird flu a couple of years ago, and the asian flu, and the SARS scare ... all of which certainly were dangers, but if I learned anything over the years it is that the more you cry 'wolf' over this or any other such issue (hurricanes, etc) the more likely people are to ignore it when the 'real thing' comes along.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
