We may as well respect each other's differing view of history since it's in your "list"- don't you agree? And think of all the victorious versions of history that have been written and discarded or contradicted. At any rate, I am not an economist so when you start rattling off all those numbers and percentages, I grow dizzy.//My painter lent me "The Boat of Longing" by Ole Rolvaag so I will report back on the spirit of 1913 when I get around to reading it this summer.//Tonight there was a jubilant graduation party next door that was a lot of fun and next week my son and his family come for a visit so my mind will coast for a while. But...did you think that a rising tide could also drown us all? Plus I have several thoughts from a female point of view regarding the liberation of women, no-fault, voting, culture, etc. but am sure they will "keep". :-)
gruff wrote: > 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.
