Fruitfulista » Government and Bureaucracy

Security Versus Freedom

Cassie — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 22:39:48 +0000

The other night something attacked our chickens. In addition to all the things that you think about when you are dealing with an attack like this, came some thoughts comparing the lives of chickens with humans. While somewhat strange, I think there are quite a few comparisons.

Secure chickens in cages

The huge poultry industry claims that keeping hens cooped up in large warehouse systems with no sunlight, bugs, grass and dirt in tiny cages decreases the chance of premature death (before they say it’s ok to kill them) or disease. Well, that is probably true. They control everything in the chickens’ lives from the temperature, to the exact food delivered. They cut off the end of their beaks so they don’t peck each other and act just as they should, which is as production units for the industry. They decide when they should molt, they decide how much light they get (the sun and weather is never a factor). They even decide how long they live which is usually less than 2 years of age.

So while in the wild they might get caught by a predator, get some disease and have to search for their food and work out arguments with other chickens, they might actually have a chance at a life -that could actually be up to 10-20 years! I wouldn’t call what they have in the factory, a life. I would call it torture.

Keeping humans secure in cubicles

But isn’t this very similar to what we humans in industrialized nations have done to ourselves as well? We have traded our freedom and sense of purpose and drive for a secure life where we never have to worry about where our food, or shelter, or warmth, or other necessities of life come from. They just magically appear. When we go to school we are taught how to act and behave, so that we can do it for the rest of our lives in the work force sitting in cubicles and driving in boxes (sounds a lot like a cage). And if we don’t behave correctly, we get put into a smaller box-cage -a jail cell until we are willing to be the production units we were molded to be. Basically, we traded our freedom for security.

And it’s not that security is bad -I certainly like having a warm bed, good food, clean water, health care, etc but it just seems like by doing this to an extreme we have lost focus of what it truly means to be human. Just like a chicken in a factory may have an urge to go scratch around and look for bugs but not know why -because they’ve never been allowed to do that, we humans in the industrialized world often have a drive to go do something exciting or exotic or get back to the basics and build or create or roam the world. I think these are those same basic instincts that the system does not appreciate in its quest for the perfect production machine.

The middle way: some security but much more freedom

So is there a middle way? Is there a way to have some of that comfortable security while also feeling alive, like a human? I think again back to our chickens. They do not live in a factory, but they also are not feral. They live in our backyard and they roam around all day long. They get to do most of the behaviors that chickens need to do but yet they get supplemental food from us, they have a home that we built for them, and we take measures to prevent predators from striking. This is how I think we humans should live. I think some people in industrialized worlds are able to do this, to follow a dream and make it happen without feeling like just a cog in some larger system than themselves, but many (without all the resources it takes) do not. I think this is what is meant by the cliché “work/life balance”.

And whenever something threatens our security, a little bit more of our freedom goes away. It was interesting in our discussions about what to do about the predator in the henhouse we had actually talked about putting them in a small 6×6 foot run so that they would be extra protected. While there may be more security, they would have also lost 90% of the yard to play in. We also talked about guns and traps and other methods of security -huge costs.

Isn’t this what we humans do to ourselves as well? After 9-11 we beefed up security and built a whole new division of government (Dept of Homeland Security) and we therefore lost some of our ability for freedom of movement, we lost a lot of our freedom to personal privacy and even some of our freedom of speech. We started a war and became very preoccupied with border issues and immigration. We essentially caged ourselves in further than before.

With our night chicken predator, like possible security threats to humans, you have to do something, but you have to be careful not to go so far that while you may feel safe, you can’t go out and do anything. What kind of a life is that?

As for us? We are going to lock up their coop at night and try and catch the predator. These tactics protect them without taking away much freedom at all (they will have to wait for us to let them out in the morning, but I think this is a good trade). We are not going to go so far that we turn their lives upside down and they are miserable. Can we say the same for people? Not if the rate of prescription antidepressants and anxiety medication is any indication.

Basically, this concept is a spin-off of fear and greed. Security and freedom are two oppostite spectrums. When we have fear, we want security. When we want more and more (greed) we want utter freedom to get it. But you can’t have it all, all the time. It is always that tug of war between the two that you have to work through in order to find balance.

Fear and Greed Economics

Cassie — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 16:53:20 +0000

Is money at the individual level and economics at the larger level based on rational or emotional thought? Most economists claim that the market and people’s money decisions are based on rational calculations that will help their financial situation. The larger market is guided by this “invisible hand” as Adam Smith called it whereby the forces of supply and demand are all that matter.

The balance between fear and greed is like yin and yang

This may be the case in a vacuum where there are no humans present. However, what we really see in action is a dynamic play between fear and greed. More than supply and demand, fear and greed determine the market actions and the financial decisions of individuals (which make up the larger market). Money is intimately tied to our emotional sectors of the brain because it is what we use to survive in this day and age (you can buy all your needs and desires with it : food, shelter, water, even sex).

This tug-of-war between fear and greed is exactly what happens at a casino when gambling. When you make a bet, you are doing so because of your greed -you want to walk out of there rich! You are dreaming of what you could do with millions of dollars. When you are “up” and winning you want to continue whatever it is you have been doing even if you KNOW deep down (rationally calculated) that the odds are stacked against you. (Having said that, most people have no idea what the true odds are of various games they are playing -including outside of the casino.) When you start losing, your fear kicks in. You want to make more than you started with -which is your greed, but you also don’t want to lose everything -your fear. Fear is what makes it so that you don’t lose ALL of your money and start betting your house or all the credit on your credit cards.

Sound familiar? This same type of thing happens all the time in the market, especially in ones that are designed just like a casino -the stock market for example! But really, any item can be pushed into a bubble because of the greed side of emotions and just as quickly can pop when someone calls the bluff and refuses to pay anymore.

If economics were a simple system of supply and demand, we would never have had more houses or cars or whatever than we needed. The demand was fabricated out of a desire for money-greed. And so the supply met that false demand. When the false demand finally came to be noticed, everything crashed and there was far too much supply.

So while supply and demand play a large role in economics, it’s not always driven by a rational desire for the products or services (demand). Generally speaking greed leads people to make, sell and broker more and more for as long as possible. When it becomes obvious that they will not be able to anymore for whatever reason (making a dangerous product that will be recalled, selling products during a bubble, legal issues, the trends change and demand is not there anymore) fear then leads people to want to get out quick, to save and to hoard.

And so this is the way the cycles of our economy play out. During the greedy bull times, people are buying and selling. People are spending. Times look great. But during the fearful bear times, people are saving. People want security. From the market’s point of view, nothing is happening. So the Federal Reserve and government in all its esteemed glory (??!) decide they need to kick start people out of the fear emotion by pouring in more money, bailing out failing and corrupt companies and otherwise encouraging spending.

But it’s not spending that people need to do when that is what caused the problem in the first place. Overconsumption and greed is not cured with more overconsumption and greed (no more than gambling loses are cured by more gambling). People spend money when times are good, but it isn’t the spending that makes the economy good; the economy is sound, so people feel safe and secure and are willing to let go of their money more freely.

The economy is NOT safe and secure right now, so we should be encouraging saving, frugality and thrift! Saving is exactly what we need to do in order to get out of this mess in the first place. Not add another zero to our national deficit!

The opposing actions of greed and fear are necessary to regulate the market just as supply and demand are. The current policies are trying to take fear out of the equation, and that not only WON’T work, but it SHOULDN’T. When people go into a casino with no fear of losing their money, they are much more likely to lose all of it. There is no mechanism to put the brakes on spending/gambling.

We need to allow and actually encourage people to save. Once we have enough savings and the economy is indeed “safe” with “savings” people will spend money again. And in the mean time spending won’t stop completely; people still need to buy things to live, they are just being careful.

So how does savings lead to a strong economy? Well, when people have a large savings, they are more likely to take a risk, make an investment and so on because they feel more secure and less fearful. They see the chance to make their savings worth more (greed kicks in). And they have the reserves to cover any problems. They will still be able to eat and live if the gamble doesn’t pay off. And as more people do this, the economy will slowly come back to life. The savings will be tied to the saved or “reserved” productivity of our people, like a silo of grain would be.

Savings are not only a key component to individual personal finance, but should be a key component to any nation. It seems outrageous to me to think about an individual just living on credit card debt without ever paying it down. But even more outrageous would be to go on shopping sprees when you are in massive debt! But that is exactly what the U.S. is doing right now. We need to pay it down, cut back and save! We need to stop the spending. We need to save so that we feel secure and safe when we do spend. We have plenty of greed, we need to learn to get our fear back.

The shopoholic, bankrupt gambler, alcoholic, drug addict and other people who have lost the ability for moderation also lost their fear of the repercussions of their actions. If the U.S. is known for anything, it is not our moderation, but rather to the contrary. It is only until we allow and encourage the moderating forces to balance themselves out that we will be on more stable footing.

Our Multi-Millionaire Government

Cassie — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 16:17:05 +0000

Does our government, especially at the Federal level represent us demographically? I think the answer would be a resounding “no”. If it did, we would have a roughly equivalent percentage of ethnic and racial groups represented, about 50-50 gender ratio, and a wide range of incomes. Instead, it looks like this:

In the House, there are currently 357 men and 78 women. In the Senate, there are 18 women and 82 men.

There are only 43 black people in congress, 27 Latinos, 7 Asians, and ONE Native American. Out of 535 people, this is hardly representative. For more on this, you can visit this link.

But what’s even more astounding than these numbers are that about 44% of them are millionaires or multi-millionaires compared with only 1% of the rest of the population! While I have nothing against millionaires, this statistic just again proves the point that it is money that brings with it power. And those in power in our country happen to be wealthy white men.

But we elect them! You might say. They are supposed to represent us regardless. Yes, in the sense that this is an elite democracy/republic. But those in power have set up the system in such a way that only those with the right connections, political savvy, and plenty of money to wage a campaign will come out in any race. Is the political system interested in developing and encouraging new leaders from different backgrounds? Some grassroots organizations may, but the system itself does not. The system of these very powerful people want to keep the power right where it is at.

And instead of questioning these demographics we play a game of partisan politics. We should question the game itself! In fact, the partisan breakdown in congress is actually about the only thing that is demographically reflective of the country (except independents and non-voters of which there are many). While the issues pertaining to partisan politics certainly matter, the people deciding these solutions should be more reflective of the people it will directly affect.

For instance, Congress has no worries about their retirement, so when they make a change to Social Security, it has absolutely no effect on them. Even if they were to receive a small payment from Social Security, when you are a multi-millionaire it makes no major difference. Congress has no worries about their health care, so it really doesn’t matter how health reform turns out for either party. If they send their children into the military (often for political purposes) the chances of them being killed in action are dramatically less than the general population. If they make something illegal for the rest of the population, they can easily find a way to continue to do it as a wealthy, powerful person (offshore banking, valuable museum-grade artifacts, travel to “off-limits” places like Cuba, cigar bars in smokefree states, etc).

Another reason we should care about income staus? Many times these multi-millionaires made their millions in certain private sectors that they will continue to represent when they are in Congress. This could be a serious conflict of interest in, for instance, the BP Gulf disaster response from the government. If many members of Congress made millions -and became extremely powerful- from the oil industry, they are less likely to put severe sanctions on their benefactor. The rules are completely bendable (or breakable) when you are wealthy and powerful.

So what can we do about it? I am not altogether certain. I agree that we need to encourage more ethnic and gender diversity, but I would say we also need more economic diversity. We need to start to look at the perspective, or lens through which our representatives see the world and may look for solutions. And overall we need to realize the Matrix that we have been born into.

America: The World Bully?

Cassie — Wed, 19 May 2010 21:51:11 +0000

I recently saw this little sketch that shows an overweight white boy in a shirt that says “America” as the bully and a small, thin black boy in a shirt that says “Africa” asking for food. In the sketch America will only give Africa food if it can exchange it for their natural resources through the International Monetary Fund. Will Africa ever be able to pay off this debt? Probably not, as the interest on it is more than most countries’ GDP.

While simplistic, I thought the sketch did a great job of portraying America’s power in the world money game. After reading the book Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins, I can’t help but think that the way most Americans see our role in world politics is completely warped. We believe that our presence in most countries is for their benefit, or is altruistic. In reality, I don’t think America does much without regard to the bottom line benefit. Why we are in some countries and not others has a direct correlation with the natural resources of that country and how we can exploit them to be able to keep living ”our way of life”.

And our way of life is to consume and spend and use and throw out whatever we want whenever we want. Our way of life is to be the big dog. The ultimate power across the world. And in order to keep that power? Almost 50% of our taxes pay for our military. And we pay more for our military than any other country by a huge margin.

It kind of makes me wonder what will happen if any of the power dynamic shifts in China. Most of our industrialized products come out of China even though ideologically China is very different from the U.S (a communist country in case you forgot!). If for some reason China decides to call some of its loans (a lot of money is loaned to the US from China in the form of bond-buying!) and the US defaults -either purposefully or because of a major economic depression, it would probably mean war.

Wouldn’t it be ironic if we went to war because some of our debt was called due and we didn’t have it because we had to pay so much for our military -to be prepared for a war…Seems like circular thinking to me.

It is interesting to think about the US as a world bully. We use our might and power to basically control everything that happens domestically and abroad. If you think of it in terms of the school children, the only way you could respond would be to go to the teacher (the UN or other worldwide watch dog group) and say that you were being picked on. If the teacher happens to be the bully’s mom (political ally), you probably wouldn’t have any recourse. That is when kids come to school with knives (weapons proliferation) or join gangs (terrorist groups) to gain a little power even if it is not recognized as “legit”.

Most of the time it’s good to be on the “winning” side. Except when those tables turn, and then you will hope that you showed compassion. For the most part it seems like most countries are willing to play by the U.S.’s demands, er- rules -whatever they are.

These countries who owe their souls to the US will never be able to solve some of their biggest concerns (AIDS, severe poverty, basic sanitation) until they are able to operate as a self-sovereigned nation without owing anything to anyone. It is similar to personal finance. Until you are free of your debt and have learned to be self-sufficient, you will never truly be a free person. You will always owe your life to someone, or something outside of you.

It is not just these developing countries. The US herself should also be concerned about who we owe and we should get our deficit under control. I think this would be a much better method of military defense. By not having other countries like China and Japan have such a huge stake in our economy, we would spend less on the military, save that tax money, not need such huge loans from these countries and protect ourselves in this way as well! Military defense without the huge weapons! Countries and people without debts. Schoolyards without bullies. World peace found with self-reliance and equal cooperation. What a concept.

Next Financial Bubble to Pop- Student Loans

Cassie — Thu, 06 May 2010 16:42:29 +0000

One of the things I am most proud about my education is that I accomplished it without taking any student loans. I worked either full or part time and lived at home with my parents for most of my college career. I was accepted into a university that was farther away and in which I would have had to live in the dorms and probably take out loans. Instead, I decided to stay close and saved the money. I received a small scholarship, but overall, I paid for all of my education myself, as I went.

Most people by now would agree that a college education is a good thing. It is almost a necessity to a modern job in the system. And the college system wants to keep it that way. Long gone are the days of apprenticeships where you learn from a master. Long gone (or mostly so) are the days of academics that challenged the status quo and questioned how we think (remember a PH.D stands for Doctor of Philosophy). Welcome to the future where colleges are meant to churn out worker bees for the top industries (currently health care, education and computer technology).

The institutions scare you, seduce you or otherwise convince you to attend when you have absolutely no idea how to pay for it. Many of them are for-profit corporations like The University of Phoenix, Devry Univeristy, etc that are preying on people’s dreams for a better future. Then if you cannot afford them (and the for-profit institutes are even more expensive than many private and all public universities), they will offer you government-backed loans. These public loans basically pay for these corporate institutions. Can you imagine McDonald’s encouraging its customers to get a rebate from the government to pay for their meal that they will then have to pay back with interest?! Seems pretty crazy to me (although it could be argued that we do this with our current food subsidies…).

But crazy is the current reality. Nowadays, it is almost unheard of for people to graduate from any type of higher education without some form of huge student debt. There is a lot of money to be made off these loans, and they are the most collectable form of debt. They cannot be wiped out with bankruptcy, they can garnish wages and follow you for life. These loans, unlike housing, car, or even credit card debt, are for something that you cannot get rid of. You cannot sell, or trade or otherwise ask for a refund for your education.

So what happens when we have an economic situation like our current one that has high unemployment and high attendance at colleges with large numbers of people graduting or otherwise exiting with these large debts? Well, if they can’t find a job (which studies show is increasingly happening), they will probably default on these loans. With high defaults on the horizon, the colleges and banks -and government- that offer this money are likely be squeezed again in the same way they were with the housing bubble.

Of course, eventually, they might actually get paid something because of its high collectability. But this collectability could also be a problem with people purposely seeking under-the-table jobs, job hopping, or dropping out of the job market all together in order to avoid collections on their student loans. This only keeps the interest on these loans compounding and the hole harder and harder to dig out of.

As this article also points out, we have all the markings for the next bubble to burst. The only question is how hard it will pop.

For those of you who have managed to send your child to college without a student loan, or who were like me and sent yourself and paid your way, congratulations! You should have a party and cake for this achievement in addition to the completion of the schooling! I believe the only way we are going to get out of these cycles of bubbles and busts is to pay as you go for most everything in life. And if you can’t pay all of it, pay for some of it. Put a down payment on it. If it looks too expensive to be able to pay for in a period of, say, 5-10 years, or if you can’t afford to put down at least 5% of the full cost, it may be a sign to look for cheaper alternatives.

If people had been content to buy a house they could buy outright in 10 years instead of whatever they could be loaned (50 year loans! 0% interest!, adjustable rates!), then prices would have been more moderated by the cash and long-term holding. When people have cold hard cash on the line and the horizon is long-looking instead of buying things on margin and only thinking of now, there is a closer connection to its true value.

Investing in your education can certainly be considered an investment. You are putting money into something where you can directly control the motivation, skill-set and potential. However, it is an investment just like any other. You need to make sure to weigh the potential return-on-investment will outweigh the costs instead of being mesmerized by fantasy-too-good-to-be true stories of easy riches. In general, the more investments you can own outright and sustainably, the better you will be fortified to withstand the bumps and baubles of the rest of the system.