"Healthy economies involve human beings at work on physical things. They do not necessarily involve manipulation of abstract derivative on top of abstract derivative, clever bet on top of clever bet, or making up imaginary numbers and adding them to one's government balance sheet."
This part has always bothered me about our societies. I feel a lot more sure of things when you count productivity in darned socks and milk-bearing goats.
One of the libertarian arguments against welfare is that if people knew for certain that the government was not going to mitigate peoples' financial woes, neighbors and friends would step up to help each other in exactly the way you describe. The libertarians have been proven right about all things financial these days, and I tend to think that they're right about this as well. Not incidentally, they think the bailout is a hellaciously bad idea.
And yes, goats make great cheese! Although they need some help.
Franklin, the problem with the libertarian argument is the problem of social stratification, ghettoization, and the Evils of Suburbia. I, personally, am probably not going to starve or become homeless, because I am related to stable, solvent middle-class people who are sane and who care about me. People who are not so fortunate--who are born into families of histrionic narcissists, schizophrenics, and alcoholics--have much greater difficulty in forging that sort of safety net. Welfare has its obvious drawbacks, but for many people it really is the only option.
Not to mention people who are so unfortunate as to live in suburban tract housing without sidewalks, porches, or plazas, and WITH air conditioning and cable TV. The xenophobia and social isolation produced by this wretched travesty of city planning has to be experienced, then fled from, in order to be believed.
If people relied on their neighborhood networks as a first resort rather than the last, suburban social isolation would probably not come into being, and I wonder whether the richer and poorer neighborhoods would separate out like they do.
We would have to put an end to welfare gradually, or we would really would be throwing people onto the trash heap. Too, it doesn't make sense to end welfare while spending $435 million a day on an unconstitutional foreign war of choice, bailing out failed business enterprises with taxpayer money (which really is socialism), and inflating the currency by fiat (which is what happens when Bernanke "injects liquidity into the market"). First things first.
Franklin, I think people DO rely on their neighborhood networks first, if they've GOT them. I've certainly never applied for government benefits--I was brought up to believe that this was truly a last resort, and the system is set up with horrendous bureaucratic obstacles in order to torment, shame and humiliate its beneficiaries. This pervasive shaming process in itself helps ensure that the poor are ever more effectively separated from everyone else.
One of my primary complaints is that too many cities have been physically built so as to foster extreme social isolation, at the same time as a cultural shift has separated most people from their extended families. Statistically speaking, the number of close friends an individual has, has plummeted in recent decades. Wealthy neighborhoods are surrounded by security gates, and there is no affordable housing within miles, sometimes within the city limits. There are few free public gathering places, such as parks, cafes and plazas, and people don't habitually hang out in places where they have a lot of random social contacts. There is a dearth of safe public bike paths and sidewalks, making people far more likely to use their cars.
Simply put, architecture and city planning can either promote community or squelch it, and for the last 50 years at least, squelching has been the norm. It's been the norm for so long that the majority of people don't even understand what a real community is, and actively defend against it. They socialize in their own enclaves, with people just like themselves. It's going to take something drastic, like a major depression, to alter this. Whoops.
Darlings, where to start? Sometimes I feel as though I have lived a thousand lives in this one, dewy and unlined though my complexion may be. To Tell All may be to intimidate; thus I maintain, at most times, a discreet reserve. But here I share my musings, perhaps revealing the secret to my exquisite poise and charm.
6 comments:
"Healthy economies involve human beings at work on physical things. They do not necessarily involve manipulation of abstract derivative on top of abstract derivative, clever bet on top of clever bet, or making up imaginary numbers and adding them to one's government balance sheet."
This part has always bothered me about our societies. I feel a lot more sure of things when you count productivity in darned socks and milk-bearing goats.
Let's hear it for goats! They eat anything, and make incredible cheese.
One of the libertarian arguments against welfare is that if people knew for certain that the government was not going to mitigate peoples' financial woes, neighbors and friends would step up to help each other in exactly the way you describe. The libertarians have been proven right about all things financial these days, and I tend to think that they're right about this as well. Not incidentally, they think the bailout is a hellaciously bad idea.
And yes, goats make great cheese! Although they need some help.
Franklin, the problem with the libertarian argument is the problem of social stratification, ghettoization, and the Evils of Suburbia. I, personally, am probably not going to starve or become homeless, because I am related to stable, solvent middle-class people who are sane and who care about me. People who are not so fortunate--who are born into families of histrionic narcissists, schizophrenics, and alcoholics--have much greater difficulty in forging that sort of safety net. Welfare has its obvious drawbacks, but for many people it really is the only option.
Not to mention people who are so unfortunate as to live in suburban tract housing without sidewalks, porches, or plazas, and WITH air conditioning and cable TV. The xenophobia and social isolation produced by this wretched travesty of city planning has to be experienced, then fled from, in order to be believed.
If people relied on their neighborhood networks as a first resort rather than the last, suburban social isolation would probably not come into being, and I wonder whether the richer and poorer neighborhoods would separate out like they do.
We would have to put an end to welfare gradually, or we would really would be throwing people onto the trash heap. Too, it doesn't make sense to end welfare while spending $435 million a day on an unconstitutional foreign war of choice, bailing out failed business enterprises with taxpayer money (which really is socialism), and inflating the currency by fiat (which is what happens when Bernanke "injects liquidity into the market"). First things first.
Franklin, I think people DO rely on their neighborhood networks first, if they've GOT them. I've certainly never applied for government benefits--I was brought up to believe that this was truly a last resort, and the system is set up with horrendous bureaucratic obstacles in order to torment, shame and humiliate its beneficiaries. This pervasive shaming process in itself helps ensure that the poor are ever more effectively separated from everyone else.
One of my primary complaints is that too many cities have been physically built so as to foster extreme social isolation, at the same time as a cultural shift has separated most people from their extended families. Statistically speaking, the number of close friends an individual has, has plummeted in recent decades. Wealthy neighborhoods are surrounded by security gates, and there is no affordable housing within miles, sometimes within the city limits. There are few free public gathering places, such as parks, cafes and plazas, and people don't habitually hang out in places where they have a lot of random social contacts. There is a dearth of safe public bike paths and sidewalks, making people far more likely to use their cars.
Simply put, architecture and city planning can either promote community or squelch it, and for the last 50 years at least, squelching has been the norm. It's been the norm for so long that the majority of people don't even understand what a real community is, and actively defend against it. They socialize in their own enclaves, with people just like themselves. It's going to take something drastic, like a major depression, to alter this. Whoops.
Post a Comment