Slip, I can't countenance your negative assessment of the history of our species growth. I'll grant that our growth into maturity and civilized behavior is slower than either one of us would like, but it is there nonetheless. It is difficult to say, except in a few particular instances, that we are not better off today, wealthier, healthier and lead more fulfilling lives than our ancestors. Would we but see it, we also have a great deal more freedom today than ever before.
That better state is easily seen when we compare today with a brief hundred years ago. I will merely highlight a few of the graces we lacked a century ago since you can clearly see that these things exist today. Women, blacks and indians could not vote and were counted as less than full citizens. They could not own property, speak their minds or enter into any legal agreements on their own, even to complain and petition the government about their plight. Children were worked twelve to sixteen hours a day, six and sometimes seven days a week. Communication was just breaking into radio, telegraph and telephone, mail took two to three weeks to get across country, and the average American did not have a high school diploma and could look forward to a life of drudge work that usually wound up killing them. There were no safety measures in effect in the workplace or in public places. Millions upon millions were dying of typhoid fever, measles, scarlet fever, whooping cough, diphtheria and influenza. Work environments were harsh and brutal. Most people were unable to meet their daily sustenance needs and the average life expectancy was 30-40 years. Extreme poverty was the rule and standard of the day. The advances in medicine and science have been astounding in the last hundred years. Our food, water and air are healthier and safer today than a century ago in spite of the abundance of new ways we have found to pollute them. We have set foot off our home planet and begun to explore the universe. A hundred years ago many people still believed in witchcraft and bleeding a body with leeches to rid it of foul vapors. Mental institutions were worse than jails and both were abysmal. I could go on at length -- write a book even -- about the differences between then and now, but I think you get the idea and can probably come up with even more differences than I have. Rigs, your statement that "it's the delusion of materialism" is an oxymoron. Some people may have delusions about material things, but the material world is hard and real. There is nothing delusional about it. Work for a week and be denied your paycheck and see how real it is. Did you read the principles of spiritual intelligence above? They can and in some few cases today do exist simultaneously with the very real material world. There is nothing inherently bad or destructive about wealth and power. It is what individual people do with it that changes its character. Nor was I talking about medieval times in my original post. I was addressing basically the same time frame as I do above. A mere hundred years. I'm sorry to point out that your view of history is very skewed. It was nationalism that led to a global economy, which we have today and is growing as we read and write these words. That same growth led to the free market economy which has raised us all up as a rising tide raises all boats. At the Bretton Woods summit in the early 1920s, the powers that be tied our currency to the price of gold, then made gold illegal to possess. By the end of WWII it became clear to those same powers that staking the value of the dollar to gold was very limiting insofar as the growth of the nation was concerned. After all, there is only so much gold and the world was growing much faster than our supply of that yellow metal. By the late sixties most economists, industrialists and investors agreed that the best means of valuing our currency was to base it on the value of the products and services we produce and let that value fluctuate on the open market. In 1971 Nixon fulfilled his role when he set our dollar free from gold. The rest of the free developed world did the same thing and it's been rollicking fun ever since. Our GDP (gross domestic product) in 1971 was around $3.5 trillion when we cut loose the moorings from gold. By 1984 we had grown to a $6 trillion GDP, and today -- even in the midst of the current adjustment -- our GDP was around $14 trillion last year. So in 40 years we've quadrupled the annual value of our nation and the world. World wide the GDP (Global domestic production) is estimated at $44 trillion. Our current debt is not a problem. A substantial portion pre-existed Obama but he added a great deal to it in order to save us from a worse fate than being in debt -- being bankrupt. If that had happened the rest of the Western world would have gone down with us. It would have been breadlines and chaos everywhere. But that's not the point. Something very few people realize about debt is that there are numerous ways of resolving it some of which we are involved in at the moment. The natural growth of the population will reduce the debt by virtue of the added production and consumption. A normal rate of inflation will also reduce debt. The increase in tax revenues brought about by growth of people and business will also reduce debt. Since China holds much of our debt there is also a reduction of debt that comes from the increase in their exports to us and the rest of the world. Also consider that our total debt -- funded and unfunded -- is around $12 trillion. That's the total amount we owe including future interest on that debt. Factor into the equation our GDP of $14 trillion and the likelihood that it will grow to around $18 trillion in the next ten years. Okay, the debt including interest, is a one time thing. It's all that we owe -- $12 trillion. Our GDP is between $14 trillion a year and $18 trillion a year. Over the next ten years, averaging that to $16 trillion a year means we will have produced a total of $160 trillion which, when standing next to a debt of only $12 trillion, is a small thing indeed. So there's no need for twisted knickers over the debt. The greatest problem we face now is to correctly assess the damage to the global economy and its causes and create regulation that will ensure greater transparency and oversight without smothering the free market. This is the mistake China is making at the moment. They think they can participate in a free market economy while remaining a dictatorship and ruling with an iron fist. They are discovering that it doesn't work that way. A free market economy creates wealth and the wealthier people get the more freedom and self-rule they want. Ergo, China's irrevocable entrance into the global economy is going to also take them to a democratic form of government. Same with Russia, Brazil and every other nation in the world. People rule. We just don't fully realize it yet. I think it would help if you could engage the principles of holism and the ability to reframe as noted above when looking at history and the economy. It's difficult to see what is going on if you're short and standing in the middle of the forest. There is no inherent destructiveness in material possessions. The destructiveness is within us and it infects everything we touch. This is why the development of our spiritual intelligence is so important. Without some general morality we can all take part in, we will just keep screwing ourselves over and over. On Jun 12, 12:23 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > Sounds optimistic but considering the history of humanity its simply > delusion of Utopia. If anything the core idea of tribalism might have > a chance. > > On Jun 11, 8:53 pm, Ash <[email protected]> wrote: > > > That is exactly what I've had in mind, go to the roots of each and > > promote the best each has to offer. Capitalism has great potential, > > socialism has great securities, and I agree with tribalism in the sense > > of the expanded community (cradle to grave). That should be the basis of > > the social contract and put in place as soon as a society is capable. > > Also if community/national service were an actual duty, and selection > > performed by a neutral lottery, certain ---holes might take things a > > little more seriously. They lose as much as others, I say send the > > people responsible for the oil spill out to do clean up along with the > > people losing their health, businesses and we'll see changes quickly. > > > On 6/11/2010 7:14 PM, gruff wrote: > > > > Hey, Slip. It's a melding of the two I'm talking about. There is no > > > valid reason a wealthy and robust economy can't take care of it's > > > members, even unto the least of them. However, there are number of > > > invalid reasons: greed, selfishness, ego, fear, etc. etc. etc. > > > > On Jun 11, 2:56 pm, Slip Disc<[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Double posting Gruff? Good to see you emerging from a long hiatus, > > >> leave it to capitalistic dialogue to lure you in. Either that or the > > >> desert heat is pointing to a better indoor environment and more time > > >> on the computer. > > > >> As usual I wish I could wholeheartedly agree with you but regardless > > >> of how much better poverty seems in the current light it doesn't > > >> change the fact that much of capitalism is causal to poverty. I could > > >> agree with the behavioral aspect to which you point to as being a huge > > >> flaw but not as it being the only one. There is much to be done to > > >> improve the system but then again we could also tweak socialism to be > > >> a better system and perhaps a melding of the two might bring about a > > >> whole new perspective on social governance.
