Posted on by Fred

Imagine Enough:

A World Without Money

Coloring the Sea Around the Pribilof Islands by NASA Goddard Photo and Video is licensed under CC-BY 2.0

Imagine…  Imagine a world where Greed is pointless.  Everyone has all they need.  Why horde food when you already have all you can eat?  What’s the point of having more of anything than someone else when you already have all you need?  Imagine The Unimaginable.  Imagine a world without money.

I know.  The thought is staggering.  Interestingly, while there are 7.7 million other species on this planet, we’re the only ones who ever needed money.  Sharks don’t pay each other for food.  Lions don’t loan each other money at 7.9% interest to partake of this evening’s zebra.  An earthworm never paid for the privilege of slithering through the Earth.  We’re unique.

You can say that the only reason we work is to make money, and in the world in which you and I live, that’s probably true.  But we’ve been on the planet, in one form or another, for as long as 300,000 years, and we’ve used money for only the last 5,000 to 40,000 years, depending on whom you ask.  In any case we went more than a quarter million years without it.  True, we began to advance more quickly when money showed up on the stage, but I have confidence we could have found another way.  Even if that’s not true, it has certainly outlived its usefulness.  We have continued to evolve, and our social systems are lagging behind our technology.

We assume that it is natural — in fact, unavoidable — to be greedy.  We want more than we need today in case we start running low tomorrow.  I understand that.  I just ordered 9 36-packs of Diet Pepsi because Costco had a good deal, and I don’t want to run out… before my next paycheck. 

I wouldn’t do that, though, if I didn’t have to worry about when I would have money again.  Why take up all the space on my counter if I can get more whenever I want it?  I would have enough around for today, probably tomorrow, and, if I had plenty of room, maybe as far as next week, but only because I’m too lazy to push the buttons on my phone to order more every day.  Beyond that, there would be no point.  And I just used the evil word, didn’t I?  Lazy!!!

We’ve been taught to believe the Greatest Virtue is work.  Work earns us money.  Money buys us freedom and progress.  Laziness is a sin.  If everyone were freed from the chase for dollars, we would lie around all day and do nothing.

Except…

I don’t think we would.  “I don’t know about anyone but me,” as Jackson Browne so eloquently put it, but when I have enough, I become truly productive.  I spend my time writing.  I spend it enjoying other people’s Art.  There’s no crime in watching Netflix, or reading a book, or listening to music.  I stare sometimes at the paintings in my house and let them fill me with emotions I can’t quite name.  None of these activities is laziness.  They are all pieces that go into making my life meaningful.  They nourish my soul.

What would you do if all your time belonged to you?  I know several people who would create Arts and Crafts.  I know others who would smoke weed all day and think about someone they love.  The man who saved my life would probably be producing the greatest podcast in the world.  He’s younger and has more energy than I do, and he possesses technical skills that blow mine out of the water.  Sadly, for us, he has to spend most of his time chasing the money he requires to feed his family.  What he does is helpful, to be sure.  I would like that to be, however, something he chooses to do rather than something he is forced to do. 

I have a friend who makes money sitting around playing a video game, and I’m happy for him.  Video games aren’t my gig, but they are absolutely an Art form, and I’m impressed by the creative effort that goes into producing them.    Experiencing Art enhances one’s life.  It gives the artist a little touch of immortality.  Shakespeare is around more than 4 centuries after his death.  (I hope to make it for 4 weeks beyond my demise.)  The paintings on my wall, in their original forms, are more than a hundred years old, and Van Gogh is still with me.  Yes, mine are copies, and I have great respect and gratitude for the people and technology that created them.  Long after I’m gone, my original Agnew painting of Speedy Shine will be staring out at someone who needs a little love.  My uncle’s paintings will still bring a sense of wonder long after he’s gone.  The people who created Gary’s video games will be remembered centuries after anyone is playing their games anymore, if not by name, then by the fruits of their labors.  The person who created Pong opened the door for the most advanced video games you’ll ever play. 

I have no doubt that those artists made some money, but I don’t think that was their primary motivation.  If no one ever had to go to work again, what would we do?  I have no doubt someone would try to create a better video game, not for the money, but for the experience of playing something even cooler.  They do it now.  “Mods” are available for nearly any game, and few people make money creating them.    

We would free scientists of every sort to work on what interests them.  We’ll never know how many Einsteins or Hawkings we lost to Circle K and McDonald’s.  How many times has the next Marie Curie asked customers how they would like their steaks cooked?  And if we freed these folks to work on the questions that fascinate them, no one would need to do those jobs anymore.  We can automate nearly anything now, and we’re getting more efficient at it all the time.  When was the last time a cashier rang you up at Wal Mart?  Instead of hating automation, we should herald it as the first step into a world where money is irrelevant.  It allows humans to be free to turn our attention to our passions.   

“We don’t have the resources for everyone to have whatever they want!”

I’m sorry, but that’s simply not true.  You’ve heard me quote the statistics over and over on this show.  We do have enough food and shelter for everyone on Earth, and, if we made better use of our resources, we could preserve the planet a little longer.  That’s really the biggest problem we all share.  If we continue down this path, it won’t be long before we exhaust those resources.  We’ve done sufficient damage to the environment that within less than a decade we’ll be fighting wars over water.  Forget gold.  Water is the source of life.  We’re only a few years away from The Colorado River being unable to supply us with the water we need in Arizona.  What will we do then?

I’m not smart enough to solve this problem, but other people are.  I don’t want them to spend their lives asking if I would like fries with that.  I want them to figure it out.  So do you.  Whatever it is you love to do, you can’t do it without water. 

When the wars come, millions more will die.  Wars exist because they make money.  People are specially trained to kill so that people can make money.  Children are in cages so that people can make money.  Borders are guarded by people with guns so that people can make money.  Religions are founded and then crumble so that people can make money.  All of this because someone, somewhere, doesn’t have… Enough.

I’ve had Enough of war and destruction and bloodshed.  I’ve had Enough of racism and misogyny.  I’ve had Enough of hatred.  I hope you have, too. 

I have Enough food to eat today.  I have Enough Diet Pepsi.  I have Enough weed.  I have Enough insulin.  I have Enough.  I have no desire for more.  I would certainly take it if someone offered it to me, but I don’t need more.   Not tonight.  I hope you have all you need, too.

People aren’t naturally greedy.  I made my first spareribs in a crock pot tonight because another writer I barely know likes my work, and she gave me both the meat and the appliance.  This is who people are when we give them Enough.

I will need more when what I have runs out.  If I’ve done everything correctly, that won’t be until my next money arrives so I can get more.  It’s not that the planet can’t provide me with Enough… right now.  It’s that we’ve decided I’m not allowed to have it until I have more money.  I suspect you’re in a similar situation.  Millions in my country, and billions on my planet, don’t have Enough to eat tonight.  We have the resources, but they don’t have the money. 

When everyone has Enough, there’s no more reason to fight wars.  There’s no more reason to steal when you already have Enough.  Why would you need to kill? 

Enough allows us to learn, explore, and thrive.  We can pursue our passions.  We can learn to love more completely.  And isn’t everything, finally, about Love?  Whether it’s the love of Art, or the love of romantic partners, or the love I share with Speedy Shine, it’s all still about Love.  Love is what brought most, but not all, of us into existence.  It has nurtured most, but not all, of us.  It needs to be there for everyone.  I promise love is not a finite resource.  It’s love that brings me to my keyboard, thence to my mic, and thence to your eyes and ears.  Love is what brings us together.  And Love doesn’t require money.

Sara Niemietz is telling me to Shine while I write.  And the recording to which I’m listening was made in February of 2020 just before the pandemic hit.  And she dedicated the song to me that night while I sat in the audience.  She is, at this very moment, bringing me back the feelings I had then.  I can see my former roommate sitting next to me catching the glow of me Shining in the light of Sara and Snuffy’s music.  “I’m not crying,” Sara says at the end of the song.  “My makeup’s just running.” Of course she wasn’t.  Of course I wasn’t.  Certainly my former roommate wasn’t.  And Valerie Bertinelli will be texting me to invite me to dinner tonight. 

Art has this power.  To deny the world of artists because they’re chasing rent and groceries is a crime against humanity.  We’re all fortunate that Sara makes enough money from her Art to sustain her.  How many Saras, though, will we never hear because they don’t have enough to do what Sara does?  Why should we lose them when we really do have… Enough? How do we get there?

We begin by recognizing that we are all travelers on this rock tumbling through space.  We’re not Americans and Russians and Mexicans and Jews and Christians and Muslims and White and Black and Brown.  We’re not male or female or something in between.  We’re humans.  Full stop.  Anything else is arbitrary and meaningless.  Start with that idea as deeply rooted in your consciousness as The Puritan Work Ethic is now.  Challenge yourself to imagine something different.  Imagine… Enough.

I’m one.  You make two.  Now we need to get one country to decide that borders are a waste of time and resources.  And then another needs to join that country.  And another and another until the world has become One. 

Then we use our resources to provide everyone with Enough.  We put our best minds to work on the problem of freeing us from the work no one wants to do anymore.  They’re done designing weapons of mass destruction and algorithms that will allow them to corner some market or make money for some hedge fund.  These extraordinary thinkers get to work out how to repair the damage we’ve done to our environment.  They can figure out how we’re going to break the speed of light so we can go explore strange new worlds.  Perhaps some of us could visit the places The James Webb Telescope has recently revealed to us.  We might learn to manipulate Time.  Whom could we meet in Space? 

Humans will learn to cure diabetes, so I won’t have to go to the hospital anymore.  They’ll cure cancer.  They’ll help us to live for centuries… and longer.  They can devote their minds to figuring out how we can get along with others instead of how to kill them.  Competition is left to games we play for entertainment.  Cooperation becomes common.  There are no more patents or copyrights because no one needs them.  We all have Enough. 

Is this world possible?  Of course it is.  We just need a little imagination. It was John Lennon, in music, one of the most powerful and universal forms of Art, who asked us to Imagine:

Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion, too

Imagine all the people
Livin’ life in peace
You

You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man

Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
You

You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And the world will live as one

— John Lennon, Imagine, 1971

John Lennon did his part.  I’ve done my part.  Now you do yours.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/2XAIFEg5F3er12rwPrhF5X?si=f4fb72c6cb154857

Posted on by Fred

Approaching Gilead

Better is never better for everyone.  It always means worse, for some.

–Commander Waterford in “Faithful,” from The Handmaid’s Tale, Season 1, Episode 5, and from the novel by Margaret Atwood.  Episode written by Dorothy Fortenberry

There’s much to unpack in that line, and I am not sure whether I believe it.  I’m trying to think of something in which better would be better for everyone.  We Idealists spend lots of time trying to imagine a world that is better for everyone.  I like to think that ending homelessness, hunger, and poverty would be better for everyone.  I suppose a case could be made that for those currently in power, it would be worse.  They would have less money somehow, but I’m not entirely sure how.  They would certainly lose much of the power they have now.  It would make it more difficult for them to tell the rest of us what to do all the time.  We would no longer be their wage slaves, forced to choose between working for them or facing those conditions.  I suppose in the short term it would be worse, but we would inevitably reduce crime by lessening desperation, and people would generally be less angry.  The wealthy would be safer.

Equality and Equity may not seem to be better for everyone.  Those at the top feel like they would be forfeiting their superiority.  I’m not convinced they are superior to the rest of us, but they certainly have the power to force many of us into positions we would rather not occupy.  Equality and Equity would reduce that power.  Justice usually accompanies these two, but I’m reluctant to decide what justice is in most cases.

Perhaps it’s the lust for power that separates those who have so much of it from those who have so little.  I, for example, have little interest in telling anyone else what to do with their lives.  I should like for them to pursue what interests them.  I would like them to be free to explore the world, the ideas that have helped to get us to the place that we have enough for everyone, their own ideas, and their own identities. 

I understand, then, I suppose, why some people are opposed to my Idealistic World.  It will mean less for a few and more for many.  Since the few have the power, they’re not likely to accept any such arrangement. 

The purpose, however, of our Democratic Republic is to give power to the many.  It is intended to rescue us from the power of the few.  We evicted a King in favor of having a President who would be elected by the majority of us.  And there are people now who would like very much to change that.

“​Now I’m awake to the world. I was asleep before. That’s how we let it happen. When they slaughtered Congress, we didn’t wake up. When they blamed terrorists and suspended the constitution, we didn’t wake up then, either. Nothing changes instantaneously. In a gradually heating bathtub, you’d be boiled to death before you knew it.”

― Margaret Atwood

This is, of course, fiction… for the moment.  One of the horrifying aspects of The Handmaid’s Tale is its close resemblance to the world we already inhabit.  Margaret Atwood, and the producers of the show, have shown us a dystopian nightmare that quite nearly began on January 6, 2021.  Had that insurrection been successful there’s little room for doubt that those who seized power would have enacted laws similar to those in Gilead.  They have already stripped bodily autonomy from half the population.  They would like to tell us who can marry whom, now.  They have corrupted Christianity, which was never the law of the land in America, to be a weapon of hatred instead of a religion of love.  They declare homosexuality an abomination.  They are working to keep those who choose to explore other genders than those of their physical bodies as far from society as possible.  Rapists are seldom punished.  There are always questions about what the woman did to deserve what happened to her.  The answer, by the way, is nothing.  There’s nothing a person can possibly do that makes them deserve to be raped.

Right now, in America they are banning books.  Reading is illegal in Gilead.  The offense was originally punishable by the loss of a hand.  In their kindness, those in power reduced the penalty to a finger.  One can work more efficiently with the loss of a single finger than the loss of an entire hand, after all.  And a Commander’s Wife loses her finger for reading The Bible.  Fascists frequently turn on their own.  Ask Mike Pence.

While we are certainly perilously close to becoming Gilead, it’s vital that we realize we’re not there yet.  I’m not, in any way, minimizing the danger we are facing.  One of my friends, however, was shocked when I said we’re not there yet.  She’s sure we are.  Interestingly, she made this comment on Facebook, in response to one I made that she must have… read.  She used either her phone or her computer.  I assume she still has all her fingers.  In America, in September of 2022, she wasn’t breaking a law.  Had Offred (or June, which is her real name) made such a comment, the consequences of her words would have been swift and merciless.  We’re not Gilead… yet.

A case could be made that I ought to be careful about what I wish for.  (Yes, I ended a sentence in a preposition.  My late father is hovering over my shoulder telling me to take the corn cob out of my butt.). Gilead, after all, has no homelessness, poverty, or hunger.  Neither do prisons.  If one is willing to sacrifice freedom, some of the challenges in life can be eliminated.  We can simply discard the poor.  They can be executed and used for animal feed in Gilead.  Jonathan Swift suggested serving them as a delicacy at the tables of the wealthy in the 18th century… except he was kidding, at least as much as someone with an 18th century corn cob up his butt could kid. 

Among the reasons people can be convinced that Gilead is a good idea is that it removes our need to find out, for ourselves, who we are.  My father told me once that George Bernard Shaw said, “Most men would rather dig a ditch than think a thought.”  I assumed he was right.  I was accustomed to Dad always being right.  For the life of me, though, I can’t find that quote anywhere, and I’ve read my share of Shaw and done my due diligence Google searches.  So, if it wasn’t Shaw, maybe it is best attributed to Dad.  Whomever said, there’s more than a little truth in it.  

Introspection is difficult.  It is frightening.  When we begin to consider all the sorts of people we could be, it’s not unlike losing ourselves in the stars when we stare too long at the night sky.  I’ve actually become uncomfortably dizzy while stargazing.    While many of us find this exhilarating, there are plenty of us who prefer to keep our feet firmly planted on terra firma.  We cling tightly to the old and familiar.  Questions are frightening.  If something seems to be working for us, we don’t want to change it.

I used to get fucked behind a dumpster just so I could buy a sixth of Oxy and a Happy Meal. I’m clean now. I’ve got a safe place to sleep every night and I have people who are nice to me.

— Ofglen in The Handmaid’s Tale Season 1, Episode 5, “Faithful”

Fascist authoritarian dictatorships have their value, too.  I will, however, die before endorsing one.  Freedom has to exist before anything of value can be accomplished. 

The question now is how to save us from the Gilead we are about to become.  The first step needs to be to protect what freedom we still have.  As of September, 2022, we can still vote.  That fundamental right is under attack all over the country.  We need to keep those who threaten that right out of office.  I know it’s easy to be cynical and tell me that all politicians are corrupt, and voting is useless.  I won’t subscribe to that interpretation of our world.  It takes away the only weapon we have in this fight.  It’s tempting to endorse violence, but violence means killing, and killing makes us into what we oppose.  I won’t advocate that. 

We need to open our minds to more than one idea.  We need to consider things we haven’t before.  That doesn’t mean we have to accept them.  I won’t accept Gilead, but I will try to understand how our world might become that way so I can try to keep it from happening.  The only tool I have is my words.  My body is worthless.  My influence is less than insignificant.  I realize that.  And I will keep trying anyway because to do otherwise is to surrender. 

Dad also told me that Albert Camus said, “To believe you can change the world is insanity; failure to try is cowardice,” but I’ve never been able to find that line, either.  I think Dad just didn’t want to take credit for his best lines, so he pretended someone else said them realizing that, since Google wasn’t a thing yet, I would probably never know.  I don’t believe for a moment I can change the world.  I will always continue to try.  I’m secretly hoping you can do it. 

I joined the Patreon of one of my heroes, David Gerrold, last month.  It cost more than I can possibly afford, but I wanted to make an investment in myself and in this show.  I may eat more ramen for a while, but I hope to be a better writer.  One of our assignments was to describe our Ideal Audience.  You’re probably in these words.

My Ideal Audience

My great writer’s dream is that an up-and-coming politician, uncorrupted by the influence of lobbyists, corporations, or PACs, reads my work or listens to my show and decides to pass laws that help that unrepresented majority of us who hope only to make it to our next paycheck.  They change the world.  Everyone has a place to live.  Everyone has all the medical care they require.  Education is free for everyone forever.  Food is considered a human right and not a luxury for the chosen few.  I don’t know this reader or listener’s name, or gender, or age, or sexuality, or ethnic background, and I couldn’t possibly care less.  They’re my Ideal Audience.

I find that my actual audience is made up of kind and caring people who respond favorably to my Idealism.  They are compassionate.  They are empathetic.  Some of them have both of those qualities.  A few of them have a few extra dollars a month they contribute to my Patreon every month so I can make it to next month.  That’s probably more times that I’ve said month than I’ve said in the last… month.  Most of them are older people.  I’m unaware of any children who listen to my work, and it’s not written for them.  I taught Elementary School for 29 years.  I’ve done my bit for kids.  I’m talking to “gr’ups” now.  A few of them are in their 30s.  They seem to be a diverse group.  I don’t target any particular group.

I have a surprising number of Conservatives supporting my show.  I write with them in mind.  If I can avoid pissing them off, I might be able to get them to rethink some of their ideas.  One of them actually said, on more than one occasion, I’ve given him “something to think about.” 

I write for an audience that is at least as intelligent as I am.  I assume they’re familiar with Shakespeare, the classics, and current popular culture.  If they’re not, Google is readily available. 

Finally, my audience is Seymour’s Fat Lady:

“This terribly clear, clear picture of the Fat Lady formed in my mind.  I had her sitting on this porch all day, swatting flies, with her radio going full-blast from morning till night.  I figured the heat was terrible, and she probably had cancer, and — I don’t know.  Anyway, it seemed goddam clear why Seymour wanted me to shine my shoes when I went on the air.  It made sense.”

J.D. Salinger in Franny and Zooey

I feel a little like one of the underground broadcasters in Harry Potter when Voldemort has taken over.  I’m sending out messages hoping someone will hear them and do what I can’t.  I’m Piglet, sending out his message in a bottle in “Piglet is Entirely Surrounded By Water.”  I’m Josh Lyman in The West Wing yelling at the President that Bartlett needs to listen to him.  Josh was having a nervous breakdown at the time, however, and I try to remain calm.  And interestingly, Bradley Whitford played Josh Lyman in The West Wing, and he plays Commander Lambert in The Handmaid’s Tale.  Elisabeth Moss played Zoey Bartlett in the former show, and stars in the latter.  That makes the show strangely more personal for me.  I was friends with both of them two decades ago, in the way that we all become friends with fictional characters.  That adds to my catharsis.  Connections add to the power of an experience. 

I hope my connection with you is sufficient for you to help in what ways you can.  The midterms are coming.  This is not the time to sit them out.  Even if you are a very small animal like me, you can still vote.  If you don’t do it now, there is a very real possibility you won’t have the right to again.  Gilead is coming for us.  Let’s stop them while we still can.

Posted on by Fred

In Defense of Socialism

Let’s begin with where we agree.  Regardless of your ideology, we would both like to maximize freedom for as many people as possible.  Because we are both empathetic and compassionate people, we would like to minimize suffering for as many people as possible.  So, where is the conflict? 

The debate is over the best way to do this.  Some people believe Capitalism is the best system because it ensures innovation, competition and allows everyone to participate.  It’s infinitely superior to the Feudalism it replaced.  Others recognize the value of Capitalism, but also see what has become of it.  It has its own shortcomings, too.  It’s transformed the American government, as well as those of several other democracies, into oligarchies where a few wealthy people have nearly complete control of the economy.  They have the jobs and the tools needed to do the work, and they make all the decisions without input from those who are doing the work.  Is there an alternative to this?  Shockingly enough, I think there is.  Let’s explore some other ideas.

Since we first began living in tribes for survival, we have needed a practical means of trading with one another.  You need my chickens.  I need your corn.  We can try to find some fair way of working out how many ears of corn equal a chicken, but this becomes impractical quickly.  So… we invented money.  A chicken costs between $3.00 and $30.00.  An ear of corn goes for around $1.00.  This worked well for a while.  But, soon enough, we began owning land, and that changed everything.  Suddenly, we had lords who were landowners.  The name persists today.  You pay rent to your landlord.

Feudalism was the idea that most of us would work the land for the lords in exchange for a small portion of the value our labor yielded.  Nobles owned the land, and there was little freedom for anyone who was not a Noble.  This gave maximal freedom to lords and minimal freedom to the rest of the people.

Capitalism changed that.  Merchants began to gain autonomy from the lords.  This required enormous social change, including violence.  Capitalism increased freedom for many more people.  Well done, Capitalism!

Under Capitalism, in its current incarnation, the boss has the most freedom.  The boss decides on the money you earn.  You produce something.  They sell it to someone else.  How much that is worth is determined by how disposable you are.  The more people who want your job, the less that job is worth.  If I’ll do it for less money than you will, you’re out of a job.  If someone will do it for less than I will, I’m out of the job I took from you.  It’s not a question of how well we do it, but how cheaply it can be done.  The less spent on wages, the more is reaped in profit.  Slavery did this beautifully.  It was a one-time investment; plus whatever money was required to keep the human alive and strong enough to perform the work.  The labor was free.  The existence of slavery is, however, abhorrent to nearly anyone living in the 21st Century.

Under Feudalism, you worked for the Lords.  Under Capitalism, you work for the boss.  In either case, you work for someone else, and increase their wealth, or you risk homelessness and hunger.  Anthony Tagonist used to tell me I’m being melodramatic when I talk about people starving.  It turns out, I’m not.

In 2018 six million children experience(d) food insecurity.[35] (The organization) Feeding America estimates that around one in seven children or approximately 11 million, children experience hunger and do not know where they will get their next meal or when.[36] The wide breadth between these sources’ data could possibly explain that food insecurity is not all-encompassing of hunger, and is only a solid predictor. 13.9% of households with children experience food insecurity with the number increasing for households having children under the age of six (14.3%).[36]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_in_the_United_States#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20USDA%2C%20in,lacked%20access%20to%20a%20vehicle.

While it’s true that few people starve to death in America, this doesn’t excuse hunger.   It’s an exceptionally unpleasant state.  And it’s completely avoidable.  We throw away enough food to end hunger.

USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) estimates that about 30 percent of food in the United States goes uneaten at the retail and consumer level.

https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2019/04/16/food-loss-farm-level#:~:text=USDA%E2%80%99s%20Economic%20Research%20Service%20(ERS)%20estimates%20that%20about%2030%20percent%20of%20food%20in%20the%20United%20States%20goes%20uneaten%20at%20the%20retail%20and%20consumer%20level.

We have enough to feed ourselves.  Capitalism makes it undesirable to do so because there isn’t enough profit in it.

We have enough housing for everyone.  There are many more empty homes than there are homeless people. 

The White House reports that as of 2019, over half a million Americans don’t have a home to sleep in on any given night, while almost 17 million potential homes were standing empty.  If the overall numbers of homeless citizens weren’t shocking enough, between 2017 and 2019, there was an increase of over 34,000 unsheltered homeless people nationally – even before a global pandemic and expected recession.

All this, while the number of empty properties around the country has increased by over 1.1 million since 2010, leaving over 12% of all housing units in the US vacant as of the latest figures in 2018.

https://www.self.inc/info/empty-homes/

We can’t provide everyone with shelter because it’s insufficiently profitable.  In America, there are few places you’re allowed even to sleep without some sort of authorization.  Sleeping in the woods, if you get caught, can get you arrested if you haven’t gotten some sort of permit. 

There is more freedom under Capitalism than under Feudalism.  It is still, however, not a shared freedom.  It does very well for those at the top, but the majority of the pyramid, at the bottom, still have to struggle just for survival.  There are more ways to ascend the pyramid under Capitalism, but these opportunities are not equally available to all people, and, even under the most favorable of circumstances, still require an element of luck. 

In my Father’s generation, one person could earn enough under Capitalism to support a family in a decent home.  That is becoming increasingly difficult all the time.  Capitalists own the jobs.  They also own the homes.  They are buying them as cheaply as possible, and then they are renting them out at higher rates than ever before, or they are waiting until they can sell them at the greatest profit.  That’s what Capitalism does.  Homes are not seen as places to live.  They are seen as commodities to be bought and sold for profit. 

“One of the reasons housing prices have gotten so out of control, is that corporate America sensed an opportunity,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) last week at a hearing of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, a panel he chairs.

Brown took direct aim at private equity firms and corporate landlords in particular.

“They bought up properties, they raised rents, they cut services, they priced out family home buyers, and they forced renters out of their homes,” he said. (This happened to my roommates and me a few years ago.)

Investors have been snapping up homes in and around downtown Cleveland at a staggering rate, putting three of the city’s Zip codes among the top 15 nationally in the rate of investor purchases last year.

Sally Accorti Martin, the former longtime housing director for South Euclid, a small city east of Cleveland, testified at the hearing that a majority of the city’s roughly 1,600 rental units are now owned by companies from other states, and that tenants have suffered as a result.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/interactive/2022/housing-market-investors/

So now, the wealthy control both the money we make and how much of it we pay simply to stay alive. 

Capitalism is superior to Feudalism, but it still doesn’t provide much freedom for many people.

Is there an alternative?

Before we go any further, it’s important that we have a definition of Socialism.  It’s a scare word that few of us understand.  With that in mind, I’m going with the definition from The Oxford Dictionary.

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

If I suggest we consider Socialism, you’re going to point to the countries that have tried it and would appear to have failed catastrophically.  Ha-Joon Chang tells us in his book 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism:

It is not true that almost all rich countries have become rich through free market policies.  The truth is more or less the opposite.

All of today’s rich countries, including Britain and the U.S., have become rich through the combination of protectionism, subsidies and other policies that today they advise the developing countries not to adopt.

We’re taught that Socialism is when we give the government control of everything.  We don’t like much of what the government does.  Few of us trust the government.  Consequently, the idea of handing over everything to the government sounds dystopian. 

I agree.  I’m less than pleased with the efforts to make the American government into an authoritarian dictatorship.  If I tell you that we’re going to give the government more control, you will think of the things you hate about the government.  In my case, it’s trying to deal with any programs: Unemployment, Disability, Food Stamps, and the DMV are all horrible.  It is also the obvious and blatant corruption seen in nearly all of politics.  I promise I’m on your side with disliking much of the government.

When we think of Socialism, we think of economic catastrophes, and we decide that Capitalism is better in comparison.  The problem is that we can’t really do any sort of scientific breakdown of this.  Every country starts in a different place, and comparing one to another really doesn’t work.  Socialist experiments are usually begun in countries where Capitalism is already causing massive economic suffering.  The countries were weak when they started trying to reform them.  To expect miraculous overnight success is unreasonable. 

Salvador Allende tried a Socialist experiment in Chile in the 1970s.  What were the results?

During its first year in office, the Allende Government achieved economic growth, reductions in inflation and unemployment, a redistribution of income, and an increase in consumption[citation needed]. The government also significantly increased salaries and wages, reduced taxes, and introduced free distribution of some items of prime necessity[citation needed]. Groups which had previously been excluded from the state labor insurance scheme (mainly the self-employed and small businessmen) were included for the first time, while pensions were increased for widows, invalids, orphans, and the elderly[citation needed]. The National Milk Plan affected 50% of Chilean children in 1970, providing 3,470,000 with half a litre of milk daily, free of charge.[8][9][text–source integrity?]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Salvador_Allende#:~:text=During%20its%20first%20year%20in,and%20an%20increase%20in%20consumption.

Then why did he fail?  There are many reasons, but one of them is certainly that The United States did all it could to ensure Socialism would fail.

The U.S. administration of U.S. PresidentRichard Nixon, then embroiled in the Vietnam War and Cold War with the Soviet Union, was openly hostile to the possibility of a second socialist regime (after Cuba) in the Western Hemisphere. There was clandestine support by the U.S. government to prevent Allende from taking office after election: On 16 October 1970, a formal instruction was issued to the CIA base in Chile, saying in part, “It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup.  It would be much preferable to have this transpire prior to 24 October, but efforts in this regard will continue vigorously beyond this date.  We are to continue to generate maximum pressure toward this end, utilizing every appropriate resource.  It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the USG and American hand be well hidden”.[29]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Salvador_Allende#:~:text=The%20U.S,hidden%22.%5B29%5D

It’s easy to see why The United States would like Socialism to fail.  If it is shown to work elsewhere, a case could be made that it might work here.  If we tried it in America, it would not be ideal for those with the most.  It would mean redistributing the power in this country.  If the people have a voice in the decisions to be made about how to run a company, those with the most money may well have a little less.  The people are likely to want more for themselves and less for the bosses.

The argument against Socialism is that there have been so many failures when it was tried.  This is true.  Socialism fails frequently.  On the other hand, a slightly altered version of it, called Democratic Socialism, tends to work well.  We have seen evidence of this in several countries.

Some argue that there has been no completely socialist country that has been successful, only countries that have seen success in adopting socialist policies.

Bolivia is an example of a prosperous socialist country.  Bolivia has drastically cut extreme poverty and has the highest GDP growth rate in South America.

Other countries that have adopted and enacted socialist ideas and policies to various degrees, and have seen success in improving their societies by doing so, are Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Great Britain, Canada, the Netherlands, Spain, Ireland, Belgium, Switzerland, Australia, Japan, and New Zealand.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/democratic-socialist-countries

Is Socialism the only way to improve things?  I doubt it.  In fact, Socialism already exists in America, and we enjoy it.  Your military, your police and fire departments, your trash collection, your paved roads, and your schools are all examples of Socialism.  The most obvious example is Social Security.  It says, among other things, that your value to the world doesn’t end when you become too old to work anymore. 

Heather Cox Richardson told us something about the beginnings of Social Security.

The Social Security Act is known for its payments to older Americans, but it did far more than that.  It established unemployment insurance; aid to homeless, dependent, and neglected children; funds to promote maternal and child welfare; and public health services.  It was a sweeping reworking of the relationship between the government and its citizens, using the power of taxation to pool funds to provide a basic social safety net.

  • Her nightly newsletter, 8/13/2022

It was the idea that rugged individualism doesn’t have to be the only way to be an American.  It realized that we do better working together to help one another than we do with the attitude that “I got mine; you get yours.”

Socialism, for me, is best described in one of my favorite quotes from Captain Picard, in Star Trek: First Contact.  “The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives.  We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity.”

For me, the most important question isn’t one of ideology.  The question must always be: how can we do better?  Capitalism is better than Feudalism.  Something else, perhaps some form of Socialism, is going to improve on Capitalism.  And then, we will work to do better than that. 

That’s the way of the world
Plant your flower and you grow a pearl

–Charles Stepney / Maurice White / Verdine White

Posted on by Fred

Are You Scared?

A good friend (I’m going to refer to her as Lisa, but that’s not her name) called me today to point out something I had never considered, and she asked me to point it out to you.  I’m doing that now.

When Lisa tells someone that she has a terminal diagnosis, they ask the clinical questions: “How long do they think you have?  What can be done?  How are you feeling physically?”  What no one ever asks is, “Are you scared?”  That’s really the most important question. 

I am practically a Vulcan in my devotion to logic over emotion.  Logic is how problems are solved.  Logic is where we gain clarity about the world.  Logic allows us to examine possible choices and make the one most likely to grant us the outcome we want.  Logic is the basis of the science that I hope will save her life. 

We are, however, all human.  Humans do what we do for emotional reasons.  Emotion is at the core of our existence.  It’s why we get up in the morning.  There is some emotional need we must fill.  Logic is, as my favorite Vulcan reminds us, “the beginning of wisdom, not the end.”  It is a tool to help us; nothing more.  Emotion is our motivation.

Yes, my friend is scared.  Few of us can stare into the face of our own mortality without fear.  We are running out of time to do the things we still want to do.  When we’re gone from this life, we’re gone forever.  When we’ve been dead ten billion years, we will have been dead for only a tiny fraction of the time we’re going to be dead. 

I don’t know whether there’s an afterlife, but I’m sure we only get one life to be the person we are today.  There isn’t a second one unless there’s a Big Crunch that reverses the Big Bang, and we live backward in time.  Perhaps when we’re dead we’ll go to Heaven or (as some of my Christian friends fear) to Hell because we didn’t choose the right set of beliefs.  Perhaps we will be reincarnated as some of my other friends think, but if we are, we won’t be who we are now in the next life.  Perhaps our energy will simply rejoin the universe from whence it came.  It won’t be reorganized into the people we are now.    

Lisa is nearing the place she can pull her Social Security, and she intends to grab it all and go live while she can.  I completely support that choice.  When time is running out, make every day count.  There’s little to be gained by saving for a future that is unlikely to arrive.

And then I began to think a bit wider.  I love Lisa.  I had a schoolboy hormone-hazed crush on her 40 years ago.  In the interim, both of us have had rich, full lives in which our paths only rarely crossed.  I wonder sometimes if our lives would have been different had I found the courage to talk to her in high school.  It’s irrelevant, though.  I can’t change the past. 

I don’t know how much time she has left.  It’s not long enough.  At the same time, I don’t know how much time I have left, either.  I’m nearly 60, I’m a potentially brittle diabetic when my life goes South, I smoke too much (although I have managed to cut it back some), and I need both hands to stand up.  I would like to continue to exist for a while, but the odds are not good.  I’m learning from my friend.  I’m living the best I can while I can.  I have no plans for 30 years from now. 

I started by thinking about her.  I moved to thinking about me.  Then I thought about you.  I hope you have another century to go.  But… let’s take a look at the world for a moment. 

It’s hotter now than it has been in modern times.  It’s unlikely to get much cooler.    The extra heat requires extra air conditioning which adds extra stress to our planet.  Our water supply is running out.  Water is the basis of all life.  With no water, there can be no food.  Climate change is real, it’s nearing the point of no return (if it hasn’t already passed it), and we are, for the most part, just making it worse.  The planet isn’t going to support us for much longer.  The amount of money you have will be irrelevant.

The world is flirting with nuclear war.  We won’t recover from it if it happens.  You won’t be taking your money to the grocery store to get yourself a steak.  There won’t be either a grocery store or a steak to be found.  If you survive, it’s not going to resemble the life you’re enjoying today.

With each passing week, we move, in America at least, closer to an authoritarian dictatorship.  The division between our people is deeper than it has been since the Civil War.  There are more than a few people who believe a second one may come.  There are others who are hoping for one.  (I’m not among them.)

The time we have left to enjoy the lives we have is probably running out much more quickly than we would hope. 

On the other hand…

At this moment, which is the only one in which any of us can live, I’m doing fine.  My dog is sleeping on the couch, and he isn’t even eating it.  I have enough food for the next few days, and I have the means to get more if I run out.  I have plenty of Diet Pepsi and a wonderful bed in which to sleep.  My air conditioning is keeping me cool.  At this moment.

It’s my hope and assumption that you’re doing, at this moment, at least as well as I am.  This is the moment to enjoy.  Bad things may be coming.  They probably are.  While there may be some things we can do, worrying about them isn’t any of the helpful ones.  Ruining this moment with fear of an upcoming lousy moment doesn’t prevent the lousy moment from arriving.  I am simply denying myself of the chance to enjoy this one.  I would rather not. 

I would love to change the world.  That’s why I do this show.  I have no great or intricate plans to do that.  All I have are ideas.  Logistics are best left to experts.  I’m not one. 

What could we do?  We could unite behind a goal I think more than 90% of us share: let everyone their lives, their way, so long as they’re not hurting anyone.  If your way of life is being a serial killer, I will need to object.  If you’re different from me in some other way, I see no problem with that.  Why should anyone else?  Your sexuality might be different from mine.  That doesn’t hurt anyone else.  Your gender, your race, your age, your skin color, your country of origin, your body, and / or your soul are probably different from mine.  Neither of us chose that.  Why should we object to the differences?  Let everyone live their lives, their way.

The number of people who disagree is startling.  Our job is to change their minds.  There are those who want us to live in fear because it helps them.  Money allows them to create that fear.

Think of it like this.  If you had $100,000,000 in the bank right now, would you still go to work tomorrow? 

If you would, you have a job that you find satisfying and that you enjoy.  I’m ecstatic for you.  You’re spending your minutes in the way you want.  You’re living your best life.  Well done.

If you wouldn’t, you’re going to work tomorrow because you want to survive.  You’re scared of homelessness or hunger.  You’re scared of losing what you have earned so far. 

Fascists love fear.  I love hope. 

Fear will get you to do what you’re told.  If someone is holding a knife to your loved one’s throat, the odds that you will do what the criminal tells you to do increase exponentially. 

If we live in a world dominated by money, one in which without money we have nowhere to live, nothing to eat, little access to medical care, and we are living with the constant threat of imprisonment simply for existing somewhere without proper authorization, we live in fear.  Those with lots of money know this, and they use it to force us to do what they tell us, with the same power the knife wielding criminal has. 

My friend, fellow podcast host, (his show is called Interstellar Frequency, and if you want to his real name, you’ll have to listen to that.) and Person on The Porch, Miles O’Brien, told me this week that he was shocked to learn that the President of The United States receives a salary.  Why would a President need one?  What can he possibly want that he can’t get for free?  Money is freedom.  We evidently want the President to have more of it than he already has.

A group called Rage Against The Machine, to whom I rarely listen, made quite a bit of money in the 90s (I don’t know how much.  My Google search didn’t reveal that information.) with a song called “Killing in The Name” in which they repeated a famously unpleasant phrase followed by the words “I won’t do what you tell me” over and over.  It turns out people don’t like to be told what to do.  We want the freedom to choose for ourselves.  Why is that such a radical idea?

I’m choosing not to live in quite so much fear.  That’s bold talk, even from someone who’s not what Robert Duvall called “a one-eyed fat man.” I’m afraid to leave my own house.  I’m afraid of you.  Who am I to talk about living with less fear? 

I’m an old man with a nice dog and enough to eat, who is replacing their fear with my hope.  There is much to fear.  I’m just not dealing with it in every moment of my life.  I do what I can to fight for freedom and justice, and then I enjoy what I can of my life.  There’s nothing to fear in this moment, and this is the only one I’m certain I have.  When I run out of moments, I have no more chances for happiness.  I’m going to enjoy the ones I can.  I hope you will, too. 

If it helps, I’ll remind you once again… I love you.

Posted on by Fred

A New Educational Constitution

We, the people, the teachers and parents, the brothers and sisters, the adults and the children, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, and ensure domestic tranquility, require an educational system that allows our children to learn not simply facts, figures, skills, and mechanics of life, but to explore their own potentials and find what makes them unique, following courses of study designed specifically for, and by, each student. In each person’s uniqueness is the potential for contributions unimagined by anyone else. Our children need to be prepared not for a life of drudgery defined by empty but exhausting minutes of their lives exchanged for money, but for life defined only by the limits of their own imaginations and abilities. Such an educational system must be the goal. As John Dewey told us, “What the best and wisest parent wants for his own child, that must the community want for all of its children. Any other ideal for our schools is narrow and unlovely; acted upon, it destroys our democracy. ”

How we reach that goal is open to discussion.

In this document, we will make suggestions that we believe will move us closer to that goal.

But, a larger goal is the society in which a school system such as we advocate can serve to help us create The Ideal World. This is a world in which no one is homeless, there is no poverty, everyone has enough to eat, the best medical care is available to everyone, and, more importantly, the citizens are truly free to contribute in a way that is satisfying, creative, and expansive .

This is not a Socialist society. It is Human Centered Capitalism. It’s a world in which there is a solid foundation on which to build, instead of a safety through which to slip.

These ideas are just that: Ideas. Ideas are always open to attack. We recognize there are many other ways to reach the goal. We are certainly willing to consider alternatives. We hope you will consider ours.


There are approximately 74 million children in America.

There are approximately 100 million parents. There are approximately 3.7 million K-12 teachers. Our plan is to bring benefits to all of them.

The Yang Gang K – 12 Educational Plan

Article 1: School districts will eliminate grade-levels. Students will pursue their interests and master the skills needed to advance their interests. They will move up in the same way they are accustomed to progressing in video games. When they master one level, they advance to the next. They move as quickly or as slowly as their abilities allow. Their age is as irrelevant to their education as it is to their ability to play a video game. I’m certain most 10 year olds could beat me in Mario Brothers. They have mastered it; I have not.

Students are not in a race to the finish line, because there is no finish line. Learning is a lifelong activity.

Article 2: Learning must be fun. Play is the most important part of childhood. Through play, children explore their identities, create social bonds, and learn how to interact with the rest of the world. This isn’t simply a 15 minute recess a couple of times a day. This is directed, organize play time. Research indicates this is the most powerful form of learning at young ages.

A great deal of research has concluded that play-based learning is genuinely and positively [useful in] student learning and development. Kathryn Hirsh-Pasek, a well-known child development expert in the Department of Psychology at Temple University and a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, argues that humans learn best when at least one of these four pillars are present:

  1. Individuals take an active role in the learning environment
  2. They are engaged
  3. Information is meaningful
  4. Learners interact in a social context

The information can be found here. https://education.cu-portland.edu/blog/classroom-resources/play-based-learning/

Article 3: Learning will be, to the greatest extent possible, Project Based Learning.
The objective of Project Based Learning is that students pursue their interests through creating solutions to problems that can be presented to others. The results are greater long term retention of information, the reason for learning becomes immediately clear to students, since they are learning what they choose to learn to complete their projects, and student engagement is increased. Some, but by no means all, of the advantages are the following:

Researchers have identified several components that are critical to successful PBL (Barron & Darling-Hammond, 2008; Ertmer & Simons, 2005; Mergendoller & Thomas, 2005; Hung, 2008). While project-based learning has been criticized in the past for not being rigorous enough, the following features will greatly improve the chances of a project’s success.

  1. A realistic problem or project that aligns with students’ skills and interests, and requires learning clearly defined content and skills (e.g., using rubrics, or exemplars from local professionals and students).
  2. Structured group work with groups of three to four students, with diverse skill levels and interdependent roles; team rewards; and individual accountability, based on student growth.
  3. Multi-faceted assessment, with multiple opportunities for students to receive feedback and revise their work (e.g., benchmarks, reflective activities); multiple learning outcomes (e.g., problem-solving, content, collaboration); and presentations that encourage participation and signal social value (e.g. exhibitions, portfolios, performances, reports).
  4. Participation in a professional learning network, including collaborating and reflecting upon PBL experiences in the classroom with colleagues, and courses in inquiry-based teaching methods.

https://www.edutopia.org/pbl-research-learning-outcomes

Students will present their work to the selected audience. Their pride in their accomplishments will be increased, and their desire to learn will be enhanced.

Article 4: The Home Environment will be improved to allow for the best outcomes. Most studies tell us now that academic outcomes are more related to factors outside of teacher control, and that the biggest factor is the home from which the students come. There is no Silver Bullet to make all homes the ideal environments for raising children. There is, however, one thing that can be done to help. We can end their struggles for survival. The tension caused by wondering whether the family is going to make rent, keep the lights on, or feed and clothe the children is sufficient to cause any number of unnecessary problems for families. Domestic violence rises as survival is threatened. Suicide rates and drug overdoses are at an all time high, and the life expectancy in America has actually dropped in the last 3 years. While we can’t cure all these problems, we can help to reduce them by ensuring that all families have enough money to survive. Children benefit from stable home lives. These facts have been known for more than 50 years, at least since 1966 when we had the James Coleman Equality of Educational Opportunity (EEO) study.

This is why a Freedom Dividend, of $1000 a month for every adult 18 and over, must be implemented. If we want to improve educational outcomes, we need to reduce poverty.

For more information, spend some time on the Yang site. It’s here.
https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-freedom-dividend-faq/

Article 5: All learning is individualized. Through technology, we now have the means to ensure that students have the resources to learn what they want to learn, at the pace at which they can learn it. There are on demand videos readily available, even now, for students to learn any skill needed in order to complete the projects they choose to do. Software, perhaps even in the form of video games, can be created that will engage children in interesting activities that teach them what they need to learn.

Classrooms need to be equipped with computers and other technology for students to use to learn what they need to complete their projects. The technology must be updated as necessary to keep it both functional and cutting edge.

Article 6: Teachers will be paid a living wage for the area in which they teach. If a teacher needs a second job in order to make ends meet, that teacher’s effectiveness drops quickly. The teacher’s attention is distracted from the students because when the teacher’s day is over, it is also just beginning for the second job. This creates exhaustion and the inability to function at one’s best. This means a teacher in San Francisco, where the cost of living is exceptionally high, will make more than a teacher in a city where the cost of living is lower. To attract and retain teachers, it’s essential that the pay is sufficient to attract the best and brightest.

Article 7: High stakes testing is eliminated. Tests are used only to determine mastery of a subject. They are not used to determine the quality of a teacher, or to decide anything about the students’ futures. Students are in charge of their own learning, without regard to test scores.

This is, by no means, an exhaustive list of all the changes we need to make in order to return education to what it is intended to be. These are a few preliminary ideas. They are all open to change based upon data that emerges. Other ideas are welcomed.

We must have an educated populace in order to ensure that America’s Experiment in Democracy can succeed. An uneducated citizenry can solve no problems. We must be able to discuss alternatives to find the best ways to reach our goals.

A government based in reality, and not simple adherence to ideology, is one that can function most effectively. An educated population is one that is adept at the fact checking that has become an essential part of our lives. Such a population is not easily deceived. It may be divided on solutions to the problems it faces, but it will be united on what the facts are. This is the ultimate goal of public education.

This is the time to reform not only the schools, but the world in which they function. We have taken 200,000 years to reach this pinnacle of humanity. We now have the resources to feed, clothe, shelter, and medically extend the lives of all human beings. Many sorts of labor will become unnecessary, and we can begin to pursue our interests and passions. We can help humanity to improve itself by recognizing the unique value of each individual. When we shed the scarcity based economy, and replace it with a post scarcity philosophy, we will improve the lives of all of our people. This must be our goal. These are a few steps we can take to reach it. When we all work together, more steps, and, quite probably, better ones may be found. Let’s begin that work today, while we still have time.

Posted on by Fred

Little Green Pieces of Paper and Freedom

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

How good can she be? She doesn’t have any money. She never earned any money. She just stayed home and took care of her kids all her life. She’s worthless.

Is it really just your ability to earn money that determines your value? There are good people who earn little or no money, and bad people who earn vast sums of it. The reverse is equally true. So, why are we obsessed with it? By itself, it has no value. You can’t eat it. You can’t make a shelter out of it. You can’t grow food in it. You can’t wear it. You can’t use it to make you well when you are sick.

It’s because money allows us to be more free than a lack of money does. Freedom isn’t just absence of coercion. It’s not enough that you’re not in jail, or that no one is ordering you to do this or that and forcing you to comply. That’s undoubtedly a necessary, but not sufficient, condition of freedom. But, it’s also the ability to choose for yourself. If I have billions of dollars, I can choose to visit the Pyramids of Egypt at any time. If I don’t, I may be lucky to visit Wal Mart for groceries. There are more choices available to some of us than others. I think that is clear.

Now, is it right and fair that some people have more choices than others? Frankly, it feels unjust to me. We are, all of us, human beings on this planet for a very short time, and, it seems to me, we should all be able to enjoy our time here to the greatest extent possible. There are always restrictions to our doing this. That’s a part of Nature. Some of us will never see the top of Mt. Everest. Some of us will never utter a complete sentence. This is unavoidable, and those are restrictions with which, whether we like them or not, we must live. And, working together, we could probably find ways to lift some of those restrictions.

But, what about the restrictions we impose on other humans? We have decided to grant nearly unlimited choices to some of us, and almost no choices at all to others, and we have agreed to do this, and to measure how many choices one can make, based on how many little pieces of green paper they have.

I’m reminded of this moment from The Hitchhiker’s Guide to The Galaxy:

“Since we decided a few weeks ago to adopt the leaf as legal tender, we have, of course, all become immensely rich. […]

“But we have also,” continued the management consultant, “run into a small inflation problem on account of the high level of leaf availability, which means that, I gather, the current going rate has something like three deciduous forests buying one ship’s peanut.”

 Douglas Adams, The Ultimate Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
Author
 kalhh (pixabay.com)

Why is money any different from leaves? It’s the peanut that has value, not the leaves.

It is certainly true that one of the things human beings do in order to survive is to work together to accomplish some shared goals. We built all of our civilizations by working together. We would then trade one task, or service, or item for another. Essentially, it was barter. There has been trade since we developed enough intelligence that we were capable of thinking of it. It has occurred in every civilization and every culture on Earth. It is a useful part of our shared humanity. It has allowed us to grow to the point we have now reached.

But, we have lost touch with what the point of all this working together was in the first place. The idea was that we could create a better world in which we could all live. Someone invented the wheel, or discovered it, as the case may be (I wasn’t there at the time, so I’m not sure how we ended up having one), but suddenly life became exponentially easier for us. Heavy things could be moved more easily. We could travel more effectively. In time, the distances we could traverse in our lives was expanded. We had many more choices than we had before. This was an increase in Freedom. And we have had many more since then.

We learned to build houses because someone built some primitive version of one. We found that helping each other to build shelters was better for everyone. We all needed shelter.

Now, of course, we don’t do that very often anymore. We pay someone to do it for us. There are people who are experts in this field. They know how to draw plans, how to implement the plans, how to get the pieces, how to put them together properly, and how to ensure it’s safe to live in this shelter. And it’s almost always a large group of people who have expertise in each of these and many other fields who work together to create the house.

I can’t build a house, myself. First, I can’t cut down a tree. I also don’t know how to make the tree into usable lumber with which to build the house. I can’t work out how to put the pieces together, and I couldn’t pound a nail straight, even if I could do all of the other things. I have to have people do it for me. And, today, that means I have to have many little green pieces of paper. Those are sign of my value, of my right to have something. If I have enough of them, I can get someone to do all this work for me. If I don’t, I can’t.

How did we go from working together to becoming paper obsessed?

Again, there is a value in trade, but the point of trade is to make life better for everyone. We have worked 200,000 years to get to the point that we can now grant everyone the basics they need for survival. We have the materials and the skills to build more than enough houses for all human beings to live in one. We can grow enough food to ensure that every human being has enough to eat. We can fight diseases sufficiently to keep people alive much longer than we once could. We can provide enough clothing to keep everyone warm and safer from some of the elements than we were without clothing.

Why can’t everyone have those things, then? Well, they don’t have enough pieces of green paper. That means they don’t deserve them. Wait… what?

I see a value in trade even now. Obviously we can’t all live in 10,000 square foot mansions, or have wheels that are attached to the best vehicles, or the most artistic clothing, or the most tasty food. We should trade for those. That makes sense to me.

But, should we really have to trade for what our 200,000 years of growth have made possible? Shouldn’t everyone have a place to live? Shouldn’t everyone have enough to eat? Shouldn’t everyone have medical care, and clothing and some ability to make some choices in their lives? In short, why should we limit some people’s freedom so much while granting so much freedom to others?

Is there a way we can make sure everyone has enough freedom to live? Is that an unreasonable goal? How can we get there? I welcome your thoughts.

Posted on by Fred · 7 Comments

Online Panhandler

This week has been a difficult one for me. I had to put my dog to sleep. It was incredibly expensive to do it the way I believed it needed to be done: at home, surrounded by everyone who loves her, feeling as happy as I could make her.

I found I couldn’t pay any of my bills after I spent all that money. I set up a Go Fund Me. I asked my friends for help.

And then I was accused by a friend of being “an Online Panhandler.”

Obviously, that hurt me. We don’t talk anymore. But, it also got me to question my own identity.

My first step was to see if there was any truth in the accusation. The best place to start was with the definition of the term. I looked it up.

To approach strangers and beg for money or food.

v.tr.

1. To approach and beg from (a stranger).

Now it’s worth questioning if that’s what I did. In how many ways do my actions fit that definition?

I left a message on my page. I wrote the following:

I suppose no one was thinking rationally last Friday when we had to put my dog, Melanie, to sleep. We didn’t question the cost. It had to be done; it had to be done immediately. It had to be done in our home where she was always her happiest. I couldn’t bring myself to take her to a Vet’s Office where they would lay her on a cold table. And I know I couldn’t have driven in the first place. I’m not sure whether my roommates could.

At Home Euthanasia turns out to be incredibly expensive. We paid it. We paid to get her ashes back. That was extra, and, from a financial point of view, it was a selfish choice. We made it. And now, as was entirely predictable, we can’t pay any of our bills. My paycheck came that day. So did my roommate’s. So we just spent the money. Perhaps it was foolish. I believe it was the right choice.

I did this to myself. I admit that. I am the one responsible for my decision.

Now, however, I’m reaching out for help. If you could help me offset the cost of the tragedy, I would be beyond grateful.

No one owes me a thing. I have asked for too much, too often, and I have no business whatever doing it again. And if no one chooses to help, I completely understand and respect that choice.

I made a financially irresponsible choice, when I decided to spend the money to bring Melanie’s life to the end I believe it deserved. It was peaceful. She was happy. She wasn’t afraid. She left this Earth feeling loved. That was worth more to me than any amount of money, and I would do the same thing again, even if it meant being here again. She meant the Universe to me.

Most of you have already given me the most valuable support I can get. You have been kind, you have offered advice, and you have sent love, hugs, condolences, and empathy. Those are infinitely more valuable than any number of the Little Green Pieces of Paper the world has decided determine one’s value.

But, if you’d like to help us exist a little while longer in the Green Pieces of Paper World, and you would like to send us a couple of them, it turns out we need them.

Thank you for all you have already done.

Love,

Fred

I also gave the link to the Go Fund Me campaign, and to my roommate’s PayPal account.

I didn’t approach anyone individually. I’ve done that before, though, too. Those who saw this message were either friends of mine, or they were people who were, for some reason, interested in what was on my page.

Having said that, I suppose in a wide enough reading of the term, I met the definition. I was, essentially, begging.

And that brings me to the more important point. Whether or not I’m a Panhandler, I would like to suggest that to be one is not always an insult.

When we were at Wal Mart last week, we saw a woman standing outside. She told us she was homeless, and she needed help. We invited her into the McDonald’s inside of Wal Mart, and we got her breakfast. She told us she was glad we helped her with food instead of money, because she’s an addict, and money represents a greater temptation for her to do things that will make her life briefly more pleasant, but in the long run will make her life somewhat briefer than it might have been otherwise.

It was hot. We have an extra bedroom. We have an old mattress since a friend of mine recently got me a new one. We could have invited her to come stay with us for a while. My heart desperately wanted to do that. She’s a human being. She needs some very basic help. We couldn’t, of course. That’s not the way the world works anymore. And I’m deeply sad about that. That’s a topic, however, for a future essay.

I’ve been thinking about her quite a bit since then. She never told us her name, but she looks like she might be an Erin, so that’s the name I’ll be using to refer to her.

How must it make Erin feel to be in a position that requires her to do that? I’m familiar with the contempt people feel toward Panhandlers and The Homeless. They should pull themselves up by their boot straps. They should get a job. They should never have done drugs. They shouldn’t have euthanized their dogs.

I don’t like that way of thinking. It runs counter to logic, facts, evidence, compassion, and decency. Why?

Logic

There are more job seekers than there are available jobs. For any position in America, there are a minimum of 3 applicants. That means, by definition, 2 people won’t get the job. What follows logically from that? There will be unemployed people. If people are unemployed, they have no money. Without money, they can’t provide the basics of living for themselves. If they can’t provide those basics alone, they have only 2 options.

  1. They can ask for help.
  2. They can die.

The logical choice is to ask for help, although it runs counter to our feeling that we need to take care of ourselves. After a certain age, we are supposed to be able to survive independently. If we can’t, people see us as somehow “less than.” To ask for help is logically correct, and emotionally devastating.

Facts

It takes longer to find a job than it once did.

In 2009, the Wall Street Journal noted that job seekers took longer to find work than since the Department of Labor began tracking in 1948. Now in 2013, the average job search takes 38 weeks or 60% longer. According to the Department of Labor there are over 3.9 million open jobs nationally. Why are so few jobs being matched to workers, if there are a record high number of open jobs?

“98% of job seekers are eliminated at the initial resume screening and only the Top 2% of candidates make it to the interview”, stated Robert Meier, President of Job Market Experts. “Fixing the employment market requires helping job seekers become Top 2% Candidates who can meet employer’s rigorous requirements and easily hit the “bulls-eye” of employer needs to ensure they don’t make bad hires,” continued Meier.


https://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=184277#.Usw5G7GEit9

If one can’t get a job, and one can’t get help from the government, one is forced to ask help from others. 38 weeks is a long time to go without a job.

Evidence

“In 2014 , 1.49 million people used homeless shelters and 578,424 were recorded as being without shelter: sleeping on the streets, in tents, in cars, and other exposed places. Cities completed the 2016 point-in-time count in January.”


https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2016/02/22/how-many-homeless-people-are-there-in-america

How many of those are Panhandlers? I honestly don’t know. I searched, but was unable to find, a reliable source for the number of Panhandlers in America. If someone has such a source, and wanted to share it, I would be grateful.

I’m going to assume that, at some point or other, at least 500,000 people in America become Panhandlers. Some of them may do it professionally. I’m told that, in rare cases, some of them make as much as $80,000 a year. That’s a hell of a lot more than I make. It’s probably more than you make. If it’s not, send me some money, please. (Yes, that was a joke.)

But, the evidence suggests there are a large number of Panhandlers, and I don’t believe the vast majority of them are doing it because they want to.

There is the anecdotal evidence of those we encounter. My experiences with them have mostly been nice. I’m sure others have had negative experiences with them. There are good and bad people in any group.

Three Fast Facts About Panhandling

1. Only 3% of panhandlers don’t want some form of permanent housing that would help to get them off of the street.
2. 48% of panhandlers are African American.
3. 1 out of every 4 panhandlers in the United States has served in the military at some point in time.


https://brandongaille.com/21-amazing-panhandling-statistics/

Compassion

The quality of mercy is not strained.
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blessed:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes

The Merchant of Venice

Previously, I have argued that The Value of a Person cannot be calculated by the number of little green pieces of paper that person is able, in whatever form, to collect.

frededer.home.blog/2019/03/25/the-value-of-a-person/

If a person is alive, that person has a human right to certain basics. All living people deserve food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, and the means to explore this life. This is an opinion that I hold deeply, and it would be difficult to convince me to change it. There are examples of people who may deserve to die because they have done something so heinous that they have forfeited the right to breathe. But such people are few and far between, and none of them makes the list simply for having an insufficient collection of money.

So…

Am I an Online Panhandler?

This question reminds me of one Jimmy Smits had to answer in an episode of The West Wing. Alan Alda asked him if he was an Unthinking Liberal. He asked it in the same smug sort of way that the question about me being a Panhandler is asked. It assumes that being a Liberal or being a Panhandler is necessarily and obviously evil. This is their exchange:

Congressman Matthew Santos (Jimmy Smits): I know you like to use that word ‘liberal’ as if it were a crime.
Senator Arnold Vinick (Alan Alda): No. I’m sorry. I shouldn’t have used that word. I know Democrats think liberal is a bad word. So bad you had to change it. What do you call yourselves now, progressives? Is that it?
Santos: It’s true. Republicans have tried to turn liberal into a bad word. Well, liberals ended slavery in this country.
Vinick: A Republican President ended slavery.
Santos: Yes, a liberal Republican. What happened to them? They got run out of your party. What did liberals do that was so offensive to the Repubican party, Senator? I’ll tell you what they did. Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those programs… every one. So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, ‘Liberal,’ as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won’t work, Senator, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor.

– The West Wing
from the episode “The Debate” written by Lawrence O’Donnell

If you would like to watch the scene, you can find it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqrG9N-cmds&t=3s

I’m not going to claim Panhandlers are as heroic as liberals, but I still see the same nobility in them that Billy Joel found when he was done being an Angry Young Man. “I’ve found that just surviving is a noble fight.”

I know that when someone calls me a Panhandler, they don’t mean it in a kind way. They are not being friendly toward me. I don’t feel insulted by the epithet, though.

I’m supposed to trade what I have that is of value in order to collect little green pieces of paper. I maintain I did. What I have that is of value is kind, loving, and compassionate people in my life. I wouldn’t trade them for anything. But I don’t believe any of you are in my life because I forced you to be. It’s a choice you made because there must be something in me that you value. There is certainly something in you that I value, or you wouldn’t be reading this. It may be your sense of humor, your ideological bent, the interests we share, the ideas we debate, or just that seeing your name popping up on my page makes me smile. It could be any of a billion or so things. But, I value you. And I believe you value me.

Decency

No one insists you donate your hard earned money to a Panhandler. You have every right to decide to ignore them completely. They have done nothing of any value to you. And, you may even resent them for not appearing to you to be working, and you know how hard you worked for what you have. You don’t need to pay for anyone but yourself.

What I would ask, though, is that you spare them your contempt. Please don’t give them your unsolicited opinion.

“Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great.”

  • Mark Twain (mostly)

Making someone else feel small does nothing to make you taller. It just makes you cruel. Let’s be Kind to one another whenever we can. It matters.

Posted on by Fred · 2 Comments

Hard Work

The life of man in this world is, for the most part, a life of work. Every man worth calling a man should be willing and able to work. How can one be idle when others are busy? How maintain social respect, honor and responsibility? Work is the best of all educators, for it forces men into contact with others, and with things as they really are. If we consult biography, it will be found that the worthiest men have been the most industrious in their callings. Labor is the price set upon everything valuable. Nothing can be accomplished without it.


Samuel Smiles, Life And Labor (1887)

“…and Brutus is an honorable man…” — Marc Antony

In The United States, in 2019, there is a prevalent attitude that everyone should be required to work. Simply enjoying life is inexcusable. The idea is that if I had to work hard to survive, everyone should have to. Laziness is also sinful. I know because in about 600 A.D. Pope Gregory the First said Sloth was in the Top 7 Deadly Sins.

Another argument in favor of Hard Work is that society will break down without people working. If everyone just sits around watching TV, or more likely, Netflix or something of that sort, how will we ever do anything? SOMEONE has to work.

Finally, I’m told no one owes anyone anything. There is a blank piece of paper shown on Facebook frequently that depicts what the person posting it evidently believes anyone owes you. It’s terribly clever, albeit not terribly persuasive.

I’m going to address each of these arguments, and then I’m going to recommend that we pay a Living Wage to anyone who works full time. You’re welcome to disagree with me, but at least read my arguments before you do.

Is Sloth a Sin?

There may have been good reason for Pope Gregory to suggest that Sloth is sinful, from his interpretation of the Scriptures, and certainly, in the culture in which he was living, it was essential that everyone work hard. One’s survival was often dependent on one’s ability to grow food and create the homes in which they lived. There was no time to dawdle. The Roman Empire had fallen, and Trade was all but destroyed because roads were no longer safe. Lying around reading or watching a sunset were recipes for disaster. Sloth was, from that point of view, sinful. In Poor Richard’s Almanck, Ben Franklin told us, “Sin is not hurtful because it is forbidden, but it is forbidden because it is hurtful.” Sloth was hurtful in 600 AD. It fit Franklin’s definition. Is that still true?

Most of us now have at least SOME leisure time. It’s why I can write this. It’s what enables you to read it. Is it sinful that we’re not “working” right now? I don’t have a field to cultivate. I can go to the grocery store to get my food. So can you. We don’t need to grow our own food to survive. That’s a significant advancement.

We produce more than enough food to feed the world now. That can be shown over and over in a brief Google Search. Here are facts gathered from my search. I picked worldhunger.org because they had plenty of data. You’re welcome to check yourself. The link is included below.

“The world produces enough food to feed everyone. For the world as a whole, per capita caloric availability and food diversity (the variety of food groups in a diet) have increased between the 1960s and 2011 (FAO, 2017). This growth in food availability, along with improved access to food, helped reduce the percentage of chronically undernourished people in lower-middle-income countries from about 30 percent in the 1990-92 to about 13 percent two decades later (FAO, 2017). A principal problem is that many people in the world still do not have sufficient income to purchase (or land to grow) enough food or access nutritious food.” https://www.worldhunger.org/world-hunger-and-poverty-facts-and-statistics/

2018 World Hunger and Poverty Facts and Statistics

It’s not that we don’t have the resources; it’s that people don’t have the money. And that’s because they don’t work hard enough, right? I think you already know that’s not true. If it were, the little girl pictured at the beginning of this essay would be among the wealthiest people on the planet.

We all know plenty of folks who work 40 or more hours per week, but still can’t feed themselves or their families. And we also know people who hardly work at all, but have obscene amounts of wealth. Congressmen and women, for example, who have great power over all of our lives, work 138 days a year. They have 227 days off every year. They make a low average of $175,000 a year. That’s well more than $1000 a day. I don’t know anyone who makes that kind of money. But, of course, it’s because the people I know didn’t work hard enough to better themselves. They should go get a degree so they can get better jobs. You know, they could be teachers or something.

I did that. I have many many friends who did that. None of us ever made $1000 a day. There were times my monthly pay was little more than that. Today, it rarely gets above that figure.

But, hang on… isn’t the argument that we need to be working harder? That doesn’t seem to follow, does it? Those who work less, make more, in many cases.

So, can we dispense with the argument, please, that failing to work hard enough means a person doesn’t deserve a decent living? If you really believed that, you would have to accept the conclusion that follows from it: A person working 40 hours a week deserves a decent living. It’s about hard work, right? So… they’re working hard. They should be able to afford the basics. If you don’t buy into that, it’s not because you believe in hard work, it’s because you believe in Capitalism. A person’s work is worth what the Market will bear. That’s a different argument.

Will Society really fail to function if no one ever works?

Yes, I suppose it would. We need someone to grow our food. We need someone to ship it to us. We need someone to sell it to us. This is true of all commodities. We need people to work. But we’ve already established we don’t need everyone to work themselves to death. We are now capable of doing what they call “working smarter, not harder.” Hard work guarantees nothing in a Capitalistic Society.

But, let’s remember the words of George Bailey in “It’s a Wonderful Life.” He’s explaining why Bedford Falls needs a Savings and Loan. The evil Mr. Potter wants to get rid of his bank’s last competition, Bailey’s Father’s Savings and Loan, because otherwise we’ll have a discontented, lazy rabble instead of a thrifty working class. “This rabble you’re talking about, they do most of the working and paying and living and dying in this community. Well, is it too much to have them work and pay and live and die in a couple of decent rooms and a bath?”

This is the function of a Minimum Wage. Since our world no longer requires all of us to work so hard that we can’t enjoy the Moments of our lives, it seems to me we would be remiss if we didn’t avail ourselves of the opportunities. When you spend a dollar, you can go to work and make another one. When you spend a minute, there is nothing you can ever do to get it back, even if you’re Jeff Bezos or Richard Cory. You get each one exactly one time. You may have millions of them left, or you may have only one more. But they’re irreplaceable. You sacrifice some minutes in exchange for improving other minutes. Make those leisure moments worth the lousy ones.

I’m told that the Minimum Wage isn’t intended for people to make a living. It’s meant for teenagers who still live at home so they can have some spending money. In other words, we don’t need to pay people a living wage just because they work full time. They need to do more to deserve that.

First, that argument is factually incorrect. FDR, in his Statement on The National Industrial Recovery Act, which became the basis of the minimum wage, told us, “No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.” And just to be sure there was no misunderstanding, he defined his terms. “By living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level – I mean the wages of decent living.”

If you want to use Capitalism to defend the fact that there are those struggling even to survive, while at the same time, others have more than they could spend in 50 lifetimes, then let’s see what Capitalism really is. The basic dictionary definition is “an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.” That doesn’t shed a whole lot of useful light on the issue. I would want to go farther, and say that it is based on what markets will bear. If someone produces goods or provide services that are highly valued, at the best price, and at a higher quality than one’s competitors, someone will profit. The rest is good business sense.

The most conservative estimates put small business failures in the first year at 20%. 30% fail in the second year. Half are closed within 5 years.

Click to access Business-Survival.pdf

Capitalism offers no guarantees for business owners. It’s the competition within Capitalism that is often touted as its greatest asset. If a business fails, it’s because someone else is doing the same thing, better and/or more cheaply, or simply because the goods or services they provide are not in demand. If a person can’t make a living, it’s for the same reasons.

Why is it unreasonable to require business owners to pay a living wage to their employees? If a business can’t afford to do that, the business is not yet successful enough to afford employees. They have to do it themselves a while longer. They’ll have to work hard and be patient.

If “work hard and be patient” seems unreasonable when directed at a business owner, why isn’t it unreasonable when it’s directed at an employee? The employee is not yet successful enough to deserve… what?…a living wage? So, for a certain amount of time, they are expected to work for less than they need to earn to have their basic needs met. Why? And for how long?

Small businesses are job creators. If they fold, it causes unemployment. Unemployment is worse than not having enough money. It means having no money at all. Small business owners can’t afford to pay a living wage. Neither, as far as that goes, can giant Corporations. This is the argument against paying a living wage? I don’t buy it.

All right, but do you really think, Fred, that a guy who works at Circle K deserves to make as much as a paramedic? A paramedic earns, on average, $36,700 a year. That’s three times the federal poverty level. They can live on that.

Can they? Maybe it depends on where.

“…the average cost of a two-bedroom in New York is around $3,789. This means that New Yorkers would need to earn a minimum of $162,386 in order to spend no more than 28 percent of their annual income on rent. If you head to Brooklyn or Queens, the average rent prices of two-bedrooms are slightly less at $3,200 and $2,660, respectively, however you would still need a substantial income to be able to afford a two-bedroom in these boroughs.”

https://ny.curbed.com/2018/7/30/17630428/nyc-rent-prices-two-bedroom-apartments-annual-income-needed

A person who works at Circle K earns about $23,000 a year. That’s twice the federal poverty level. They should quit whining. But did you notice? Neither the paramedic nor the Circle K employee is making enough to afford a place alone. They’re working 40 hours a week. They’re working hard. And they can’t support themselves effectively.

It’s not that the Circle K employee is paid too much; it’s that the paramedic is paid too little. Both should be paid at least a living wage. If you want to make the case that the paramedic deserves more, I won’t argue with you. The paramedic deserves more than a living wage. This worker should be able to have a nicer car, a nicer house, eat better food, or enjoy life a bit more. But why shouldn’t the Circle K employee make a living wage? The answer is that businesses can’t afford to pay that much.

In deciding between the need for sub par businesses or human beings to thrive, I’m going with human beings.

And, how many jobs do you think those poor people create? We need businesses for that.

Oh, no, I’m so sorry. You’re mistaken. Jobs are created by a thriving economy. When people, particularly those just barely making it, have money, they spend it. When they spend money, they create jobs for those businesses they patronize. When the Wealthy have more money, they put it somewhere else. They don’t inject it back into the economy because they don’t need to. Poor people do. The more money people have to spend, the more jobs will need to be created to help them spend it.

But, no one owes anyone anything. Remember?

If people can’t make it on their own, that’s their own fault. I worked my ass off all my life to have what I have, and I’m not paying for someone else to sit on her ass and watch talk shows all day!

First off, oh, of course you are! Your Congressmen and women have more than 200 days a year to do that. You’re also paying for the President to play golf. We’ve spent in excess of $100 million on that. That’s one HELL of a lot more than you’re paying for welfare for those that can’t afford to eat even though they live above the poverty line.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-golf-102-million-taxpayers_n_5ce46727e4b09b23e65a01bb

The idea that because you had a horrible experience, everyone else should also be required to have it, is just childish and mean. I have friends who were raped, and I promise you, not one of them wants anyone else to have to go through that.

Did it suck to have to work and sweat and strain? I feel certain it did. I’m sure it was even harder for generations preceding ours. It certainly sucked for me. Why do others have to face that horror? If we can do better, isn’t that what we’re supposed to do?

I would really like it if everyone had a few minutes to enjoy being alive. I would like them to be able to watch a movie, or read a book, or listen to a symphony, or do whatever it is that makes them happy. I would prefer they not need to spend the few hours they’re not working, sleeping, so they have enough energy to go to work tomorrow.

But what about the business owners?

A Modest Proposal

If we really want to help business owners, we could eliminate the need for them to pay a wage at all. Slave labor is much less expensive. We can always find a way to get slaves. We can invade a country, or we can lock up more of our citizens than any other country on Earth, and we can use the convicts we make as slaves, or we can just decide one group isn’t as good as the rest of us, turn on them, and make them all slaves. My suggestion would be Straight White Christian Males. Others may have different ideas.

Or, in the alternative, we could move toward automation, if you’re opposed to slavery. Then they don’t have to pay anyone, except the manufacturers of the machines they use. This is already happening in many places. We’re becoming our own cashiers, we use ATMs so commonly we forget they took the jobs of many many bank tellers, and talking to a human being on the phone at a business is becoming nearly impossible. There will be more automation, not less, and I don’t think it’s an unmitigated evil. Machines are eliminating jobs, but they’re working smarter, not harder. They are removing some of the burdens from human beings. This gives us time to do other things. Technology has always done this.

My mother used to have wash my diapers. She had to hang them on a clothesline. This took a lot more of her time than Pampers do. Pampers are probably more sanitary, too, although they’re arguably worse for the environment. We have dishwashers. We have cell phones. There was a time when sending a message across the world would take weeks or months, if it were possible at all. Now it takes seconds. Automation makes human lives easier.

The Need for A Living Wage as the Minimum Wage

But… as long as you’re going to employ human beings, I submit you need to pay them a living wage, as a moral imperative. If you can’t do that, you have no right to the employees.

It’s wrong to make people take jobs that pay subsistence wages. We can, and we should, have a minimum wage that accomplishes FDR’s original purpose. Let’s pay workers enough for them to have the basic necessities of life. Let’s let them have a life that’s worth living. We can afford it.

If we can agree on nothing else, I think we should be able to agree that life is agonizingly brief. Few of us get a single century. None of us gets two. Why can’t we have a little while to enjoy ourselves? If we’re working full time, we shouldn’t need to hope we can put enough gas in the car to get to work tomorrow. We shouldn’t need to worry about eating this week.

It took us roughly 200,000 years to get to the place that we can take care of everyone. We can support the entire population, now, and not just the few. Any advanced civilization would take care of its population. Aliens will think us childish if they ever get around to visiting. Let’s try not to embarrass ourselves.

Posted on by Fred · 1 Comment

Can We Have a Star Trek Economy?


The economics of the future is somewhat different. You see, money doesn’t exist in the 24th century… The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity.

Captain Jean-Luc Picard, First Contact

I loved Star Trek, as a child, because of its cool technology. Who wouldn’t want to have a gun that doesn’t have to kill? Wouldn’t it be awesome to be able to beam from one place to another? And, who wouldn’t want to carry around an instrument that allowed you to talk to people thousands of miles from you? And, as I grew up, I saw some of those wonderful devices invented. You’re probably reading this on one of them.

There are parts of Star Trek that probably simply can’t exist. In fact, its most basic concept is almost impossible. We’re never going to travel beyond the speed of light. Einstein showed that to me when I was 15, and no one has ever been able to show me he was wrong. If we produce a warp engine, I will be ecstatic to admit my error. And, I will be equally excited to acknowledge my mistake in my near certainty that we will never be able to beam down to a planet as soon as we do it.

We do have weapons that are approaching the phaser. One need not fire lead bullets anymore. Tasers exist. And nearly 2/3 of the population of the planet now has a cell phone which is at least as good as Captain Kirk’s communicator. There are even cell phones that can act almost as Tricorders in their ability to measure certain functions of the body.

While some of Roddenberry’s fantasy can never be reality, much of it already is. And we’re better off for it. But what of the rest of his vision?

I love Star Trek, as an adult, because of its extraordinary society. Their greatest concerns in life truly are bettering themselves and the rest of humanity. Their physiological needs are all met. For the most part, their safety needs are met. They aren’t struggling to pay rent or put food on the table. Much, but not all, crime has been eliminated because people have no need to commit crimes to fulfill their physiological needs. I’m much more likely to go rob a store in order to feed my wife and children than I am to do it for the fun of it. If my physiological needs are met, most of my motives for committing crimes evaporate. I expect the same is true for you, and for the guy next to you, too.

The higher level needs of Maslow’s famous hierarchy are all needs to be met by each individual. How one finds love and a sense of belonging is an expression of identity; it’s not the work of the world, but of each unique person in each one’s unique way. This is also true of Esteem and “Self Actualization,” or the ability to be creative and to work for the benefit of the rest of the world. The world’s interference in those endeavors would be a Borg-like threat to our individuality.

But I believe that we live in a world in which we are now able to meet the bottom two rungs of Maslow’s Hierarchy for all human beings. We have the resources and the technology necessary.

It seems to me that The Economics of Star Trek that I admire and envy so much are based on three realities.

  1. A Post Scarcity Society. There are thousands of hours to be done on this subject, and the debate about the use of the Replicator, alone, is sufficient to be worthy of a Doctoral Dissertation, but I’m using this in the limited sense that the world is capable of providing all the basic human needs: food, water, shelter, medical care, clothing, and the means to participate in society (transportation, communication, and education). Our civilization is already capable of meeting the bottom two rungs of Maslow’s hierarchy for every human being.
  2. A Resource Based Society. There’s a group called The Venus Project that is actually working toward achieving this goal. What is it? It begins with the radical idea that the planet is the heritage of all people. We need to work out how to use the resources the planet can produce to provide what people need as efficiently as possible. This is their basic goal, from their website:

The Venus Project proposes an alternative vision of what the future can be if we apply what we already know in order to achieve a sustainable new world civilization. It calls for a straightforward redesign of our culture in which the age-old inadequacies of war, poverty, hunger, debt and unnecessary human suffering are viewed not only as avoidable, but as totally unacceptable. Anything less will result in a continuation of the same catalog of problems inherent in today’s world.

The Venus Project

You can learn more about them here:
https://www.thevenusproject.com/

3. An Empathetic Civilization. The idea is that we extend our empathy not just to our blood ties, or our tribal ties, or our religious ties, or our national ties, but to the entire species, and finally even to our shared biosphere. We know we have the technology necessary for this because we can all feel empathy at the same time in response to disasters. This is true when we hear of horrifying tsunamis, devastating earthquakes, or miners trapped beneath the Earth. We have global communication, and we know almost instantly what is happening to each other. Just as when one infant in a Day Care begins crying, all the others will join them within a few minutes (this is due to something we’ve discovered recently called Mirror Neurons. We are soft-wired for Empathy. There’s a neuroscientist named Marco Iacoboni who’s done interesting research on this ), so will human beings share the distress of others in trouble. Empathy is, in my view, the most important human emotion, even if “The Empath” was something less than Star Trek’s most successful episode. The ability to feel for others is what makes us human. If we have the resources and the technology to meet the first two of Maslow’s needs on the hierarchy, people can spend their lives meeting the last three. In other words, once people no longer need to be concerned with physiological or safety needs, they can spend their lives working on the others.

What would be the result of such a world?

My crystal ball ran out of batteries, so I can only guess. I believe we would see a reduction in crime (but not its elimination), we would see better and greater technologies emerging because people have the time to devote to learning instead of trying to feed their families, and we would see, most importantly, a happier world where people really, honestly can work for the betterment of themselves and the rest of humanity.

I’m told this is fantasy, and worse, it’s Socialism. I reject that idea. It can be accomplished, but it’s a question of changing our mind set. I have written quite a bit about the need to increase our empathy, and that embracing Art is an effective means of doing that. You can find that here.

https://frededer.home.blog/2019/03/27/empathy-and-art/

I believe it is wrong to judge a person based on how much money that person earns. The Value of a Person is much more than their ability to monetize their skills, passions, and abilities. Our Value to each other is in what we can do for one another. Empathy is also a part of one’s actual value. I have also written about that, and it’s available here if you need me to make the case more strongly.

https://frededer.home.blog/2019/03/25/the-value-of-a-person/

So, will we ever live long and prosper? I don’t know. I do know, however, it’s worth it to try.

For Roddenberry to accomplish his society, he needed a Eugenics War and then World War III. The society became a barter system when we had to start over because we had destroyed a quarter of the Earth’s population and many of our resources. One of my friends, a lifelong member of Slytherin House, believes we could manage this right now by simply removing the populations of India and China and replacing them with trees and arable land. While Kodos might admire her thinking and endorse her methods, I can’t.

Can we realize Roddenberry’s vision without the need for violence and destruction? I certainly hope so. I also know that Edith Keeler believed as I do. And, when she managed to talk FDR into delaying our entrance into World War II the results were disastrous. We lost the War and with it the concept of Freedom. However…

“She was right. Peace was the way.”
“She was right. But at the wrong time.”


– Kirk and Spock, “City on the Edge of Forever”

Keeler asked Kirk, “Are you afraid of something? Whatever it is, let me help.”

Kirk answered, “Let me help… A hundred years or so from now I believe, a famous novelist will write a classic using that theme. He’ll recommend those three words even over I love you.”

That happened on Earth in 1930. We’re just about a hundred years from that time, now. Is it time for us to begin down Edith Keeler’s path? I don’t know.

But if you’re afraid of something…

Let Me Help.