A visit to the laundromat provides a glimpse into the America you don’t see on television, or behind the safety of the deadbolt on your door. At the laundromat you will encounter all manner of Americans different from yourself that you try to avoid by hiding in your house and taking refuge in material comfort. The laundromat disabuses the cultural myth of an America typified by the single family home, two kids, a dog and a yard to play in with a white picket fence; an apple pie cooling on the window sill, baseball games, and backyard barbecues on the Fourth of July; PTA meetings, cherry red convertibles, blond women, and your friendly neighborhood policeman.
Let’s face it, no one goes to the laundromat unless they absolutely have to. It is the most palpable example that the United States is fundamentally a class system where the rich don't mix with the poor. While frequenting a laundromat doesn’t necessarily mean you’re poor, it invariably means you don’t own a home, are on the move or in transition, or recently arrived to stay. So who falls into these categories? People who rent apartments or shared housing without laundry facilities (in particular students), tourists and travelers, immigrants, and the homeless. People who wash their clothes at the laundromat often live unstable, lonely lives, without even a friend with a washer and dryer to borrow.
What’s curious about the laundromat is that people rarely speak to each other or make eye contact, though they are forced to spend hours together in a confined space using shared facilities. This is the result of a pervasive fear and distrust of others, in my opinion a general characteristic of anomic American society, which is palpable in the washed-out neon glow of the laundromat. Furthermore, we are anxious about having to expose our dirty garments, in particular our underwear and bedding, in a public space and to the scrutiny of strangers. We come to the laundromat looking shabby, wearing whatever is left and still clean, and can’t help but feel naked and vulnerable when our name brand and favorite, best clothing, which has become our identity and armor to world, is in the suds. This insecurity is pure vanity. So long as everyone conforms to the status quo, people don’t really care about or pay attention to how others dress and behave in public. The big illusion, which no doubt comes from a visual culture of celebrity worship, is that we somehow matter to strangers. But the truth is that in the public space we are all equally insignificant, provided that we aren’t a threat. Nevertheless, some worry that strangers will be able to read the perversions, eccentricities, and secrets of their lives like tarot cards or tea leaves in their laundry. Neuroses aside, it is always prudent to keep an eye on your belongings in public.
The problem with the laundromat is that it is a no-mans land. Therefore, if you aren’t there, someone can in all fairness take your clothes and dump them on the counter when they are done washing or drying to make room for their own. So if your shirt fell on the grimy floor and got trampled on, can you really blame anyone for it? You were the one who decided in the meantime to pop into the mini mart next door. But what’s worse is when you come back and you find some or all of your clothes missing. This happened to friend of mine once, and in an apartment complex no less. Turned out that the neighbor liked his live-in girlfriend’s designer underwear and kept them for herself. Not that people hang around laundromats waiting for the moment you leave to steal your used clothes that may or may not fit. I can just hear the conversation from the alley, “Hey Frank, look at this guy. He’s just your size and he’s got a big bag of clothes. Hope he steps out later for a pack of smokes. Ha, ha.” Though a rare occurrence, it can and does happen, which brings me to my next point.
I never leave my laundry unattended. My clothes aren’t any fancier than someone else’s, but they’re mine. I’ve established a relationship with them. I’ve worn in those jeans so they fit just perfect, I remember when I wore that shirt to a successful job interview, and those lucky boxers of mine, what would I do without them? So going to the laundromat requires patience if you want to be certain that no one messes with your stuff. It is a lost part of your day, given that eternal vigilance requires you to put your other activities on hold. It is the time-old trade off between freedom and protecting one’s resources. For you followers of organized religion, the laundromat is how I imagine the afterlife: a limbo between heaven and hell. As you watch you clothes spin in the dryer as if they had a life of their own, looking in on that festive atmosphere of dancing, prancing clothing mixed together in a giant orgy of color, you contemplate eternity and your own mortality. In that drab clinical establishment, where the walls are bare and everyone is alone, you learn to accept the frailty and temporality of the human condition. You look at the other customers and feel sorry for them, as they must also pity you. You realize that much of life is a fight against degradation and decay, and that keeping clean is a way to preserve your dignity. Even the homeless man will scrape his change together and forego a meal or a drink for a clean change of clothes. Sitting in that laundromat, you have time to think about yourself and the world you live in. Your distrust of the people around you is replaced by curiosity and compassion as you watch them going about the daily maintenance of their lives. You find yourself wishing that politicians and business leaders could spend a day at the laundromat pondering their own identity and humanity, while appreciating the humble struggle of average Americans with whom they have little understanding or contact and all too often ignore. It would be nice to see these power brokers of our society stripped bare and forced to air their dirty linen to the critical public eye.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Monday, July 21, 2008
Drug of Choice
Sometimes I wonder if Americans could survive without caffeine and alcohol. Our economy and lifestyle are perfectly designed to promote abuse of and dependency on both drugs. First off, the goal of our economy and any other is growth, and growth requires greater productivity and expansion of activity, which means more work. In order to stay focused in our jobs, beyond our normal capabilities or interest, we frequently and habitually resort to an injection of caffeine into our systems. This accelerates us and, we believe, makes us more productive. When the effect wears off, we take another hit and we’re off and running again. Aside from the psychoactive effects of caffeine, it provides workers and employers alike an excuse to take a break. It is also a subject of conversation in the workplace that allows people to connect and show their compassionate side, in other words, their humanity. For example: “How old is the coffee in the break room?” "Oh, I just made some, help yourself.” Or, “I think it’s been sitting there all night.” “No worries, I’m making another pot, you want some?” “Sure.” If you remember this is just the sort of peer pressure and bonding we remember with pot smoking and binge drinking in college. It seems whenever anyone is poisoning their body, they want company. In our professional lives it seems that coffee and the discussion of coffee (how much we’ve had, how much we need a cup, how good it tastes, etc.) is one of the few freedoms we have left, so we make the most of it. When it’s accompanied by cookies and little cakes or chocolate, even better. Then people rhapsodize about how they really shouldn’t have another, that it’s unhealthy or it’ll make them fat, but do anyway and in secret.
But what if we imagine for a moment that caffeine isn’t the motivational cure-all we’ve pretended it to be. If we draw a parallel between a spider building its web, and the average worker performing his jobs duties, the effects of caffeine are not encouraging for competence and productivity. As you can see from the photo posted on the following website (http://www.trinity.edu/jdunn/spiderdrugs.htm) the caffeinated spider’s web is lackluster at best. If I were a bug of prey, I would prefer to be flying through American spider web country so I could take advantage of the gaping holes. In comparison, the peyote web is obviously more effective. While caffeine in moderation has an ergogenic effect, in that it can positively affect physical or mental performance, in excess it results in the sort of physical and mental conditions that are detrimental to optimal performance, such as: nervousness, irritability, anxiety, tremulousness, muscle twitching, insomnia, headaches, and heart palpitations. An overdose of caffeine can result in mania, depression, lapses in judgment, disorientation, loss of social inhibition, delusions, hallucinations, psychosis, and in extreme cases, death. If 90% of Americans use caffeine daily, and assuming the great majority of them are getting it from coffee, how much of the anxiousness, irritability, lack of judgment, and psychosis of our bosses and colleagues and ourselves can we attribute to our excessive and repetitive coffee addiction? Nevertheless, it seems that what our society values above all else in our working lives is that we take action and produce, in favor of reflecting and analyzing to determine if we what we are doing is right, and if not, how we can do it differently, or forego doing it if it is ultimately destructive or immoral.
Which leaves me to second half of this discussion. What do most Americans do when they are done running through their job responsibilities each week like caffeine cracked-out robots? Why, when Friday rolls around they put down the coffee cup and grab a beer, a glass of wine, a mixed drink, or a shot, to slowly depress themselves into a relaxed state that allows them to detox from the frenzy of caffeine. You see, what alcohol and caffeine have done in their private backroom meetings in certain unnamed brothels at undisclosed locations is plotted the takeover of America. Their success is apparent in the shocked expressions of one’s friends or family when you inform them you don’t on principal, or for the time being, drink coffee or alcohol. It’s almost as if your refusal were a personal attack, a deliberate attempt to reject their fraternity because you somehow think yourself superior. Anyone who doesn’t or, for whatever reason, has stopped using these two drugs is familiar with that feeling of not fitting in, of being slightly resented, or the subject of bewilderment and quandary. In Norway, for example, it is nothing short of a crime to refuse coffee when it is offered to you in someone’s home. And it doesn’t help that it is equally rude to refuse a second cup. With your friends, refusing to have a beer is tantamount to saying I’ve decided that I don’t want to have fun, given that “having fun” in one’s time off almost always involves some form of drinking.
In my opinion, there are two types of drunks: happy and angry, though both can become sad when they’ve had too much of laughing and clowning, or shouting and fighting. Drinking helps the happy drunks to become more cheerful and entertaining versions of their sober selves; it allows them to drop their inhibitions and not worry about making fools of themselves. The happy drunk, sober and in daily life, is generally an individual who is self-aware and socially inclined, and as a result is interested in preserving harmony and his/her reputation, at the expense of his/her personality; this is the formula for becoming what is conventionally referred to as “nice.” The happy drunk is in many ways a coward living in fear of what others will say, and of making mistakes. The angry drunk is more of a me against the world type. He/she sees him/herself as a loner and a victim, and this is because he/she is not self-aware and often does not take other people’s feelings into consideration, thereby creating all sorts of problems in his/her daily life, particularly conflicts with other similarly selfish individuals. He/she is furthermore an individual with a sense of entitlement who, for lack social skills, intelligence, knowledge, or competence, has not achieved the status, power or wealth he/she believes she deserves and therefore has become frustrated and bitter. This is the powder keg that is released with alcohol.
The social repression that we all experience and seek escape from by drinking, on occasion results in the happy drunk waking up with some stranger in his or her bed that may or may not be up to standard or taste, and some months later perhaps even an unplanned pregnancy. Meanwhile, the angry drunk wakes up either in jail, or with a few missing teeth, bruises, broken bones etc., or both. In the case that motor vehicle transport is involved, happy or angry, drinking has resulted in many a DUI and the unnecessary death and injury of drunks and innocent third parties alike. Needless to say, I wish we had more public transport in this country. I’m tired of the hypocrisy of a drinking culture with suburban sprawl that requires everyone to get in their car and drive to the bar, and no public transport to get you there or back. It’s a mixed message: “It’s Miller Time!” but “Don’t drink and drive!” This is very problematic for people who don’t drink in moderation when they go out.
In the objective sense you have to ask yourself: what is the point of going downtown for three or four hours every Friday or Saturday night and knocking back as many drinks as you can before last call, so you can go home and go to bed drunk, with an intermittent drunken lay or fistfight? I guess the point is reproduction (even when feigned and just for sport), and if you don’t hook up and you're a guy, you fight. In some cultures they dance (now that’s a healthy way to work out stress, tension, and anger), but let’s face it, America is not a dance culture. Grab the average guy on the street and ask him when was the last time he danced. Do this a few times to prove the reliability of the sample. Chances are that it’s been a while, because American men are afraid to dance, insecure as they are about their masculinity. And to stop worrying about whether their dick is big enough, or if they’ve got enough money in their wallet, they drink themselves into a stupor. Or better yet, to forget the jobs that have left them emasculated (through subordinance or poor pay or both): those same jobs that they need a coffee to find the motivation to perform in the first place. Remember the movie Fight Club? Exactly. It would seem to me that there is a better formula and that we need to find the joy in exploring the altered and enlightened states our minds can achieve by being curious and open to new experience, where the experiences and connections we make don’t depend on abusing each other and our bodies in concert and calling it friendship and even love.
These leads me to the question of whether societies exist, or have ever existed, that do not drug themselves in some way. For it is a very human drive to want to alter one’s reality by external influence. Just look at children in the playground that spin around endlessly until they get dizzy, or that stuff dirt into their mouth wondering what will happen. The desire to alter one’s mind and body is something quintessentially human, and drug use is just one of many ways we do so, though the least rewarding in that it impairs our reasoning and damages our body. There is much more value to be found sober in critical thinking, creative expression, open communication, and novel experience.
But what if we imagine for a moment that caffeine isn’t the motivational cure-all we’ve pretended it to be. If we draw a parallel between a spider building its web, and the average worker performing his jobs duties, the effects of caffeine are not encouraging for competence and productivity. As you can see from the photo posted on the following website (http://www.trinity.edu/jdunn/spiderdrugs.htm) the caffeinated spider’s web is lackluster at best. If I were a bug of prey, I would prefer to be flying through American spider web country so I could take advantage of the gaping holes. In comparison, the peyote web is obviously more effective. While caffeine in moderation has an ergogenic effect, in that it can positively affect physical or mental performance, in excess it results in the sort of physical and mental conditions that are detrimental to optimal performance, such as: nervousness, irritability, anxiety, tremulousness, muscle twitching, insomnia, headaches, and heart palpitations. An overdose of caffeine can result in mania, depression, lapses in judgment, disorientation, loss of social inhibition, delusions, hallucinations, psychosis, and in extreme cases, death. If 90% of Americans use caffeine daily, and assuming the great majority of them are getting it from coffee, how much of the anxiousness, irritability, lack of judgment, and psychosis of our bosses and colleagues and ourselves can we attribute to our excessive and repetitive coffee addiction? Nevertheless, it seems that what our society values above all else in our working lives is that we take action and produce, in favor of reflecting and analyzing to determine if we what we are doing is right, and if not, how we can do it differently, or forego doing it if it is ultimately destructive or immoral.
Which leaves me to second half of this discussion. What do most Americans do when they are done running through their job responsibilities each week like caffeine cracked-out robots? Why, when Friday rolls around they put down the coffee cup and grab a beer, a glass of wine, a mixed drink, or a shot, to slowly depress themselves into a relaxed state that allows them to detox from the frenzy of caffeine. You see, what alcohol and caffeine have done in their private backroom meetings in certain unnamed brothels at undisclosed locations is plotted the takeover of America. Their success is apparent in the shocked expressions of one’s friends or family when you inform them you don’t on principal, or for the time being, drink coffee or alcohol. It’s almost as if your refusal were a personal attack, a deliberate attempt to reject their fraternity because you somehow think yourself superior. Anyone who doesn’t or, for whatever reason, has stopped using these two drugs is familiar with that feeling of not fitting in, of being slightly resented, or the subject of bewilderment and quandary. In Norway, for example, it is nothing short of a crime to refuse coffee when it is offered to you in someone’s home. And it doesn’t help that it is equally rude to refuse a second cup. With your friends, refusing to have a beer is tantamount to saying I’ve decided that I don’t want to have fun, given that “having fun” in one’s time off almost always involves some form of drinking.
In my opinion, there are two types of drunks: happy and angry, though both can become sad when they’ve had too much of laughing and clowning, or shouting and fighting. Drinking helps the happy drunks to become more cheerful and entertaining versions of their sober selves; it allows them to drop their inhibitions and not worry about making fools of themselves. The happy drunk, sober and in daily life, is generally an individual who is self-aware and socially inclined, and as a result is interested in preserving harmony and his/her reputation, at the expense of his/her personality; this is the formula for becoming what is conventionally referred to as “nice.” The happy drunk is in many ways a coward living in fear of what others will say, and of making mistakes. The angry drunk is more of a me against the world type. He/she sees him/herself as a loner and a victim, and this is because he/she is not self-aware and often does not take other people’s feelings into consideration, thereby creating all sorts of problems in his/her daily life, particularly conflicts with other similarly selfish individuals. He/she is furthermore an individual with a sense of entitlement who, for lack social skills, intelligence, knowledge, or competence, has not achieved the status, power or wealth he/she believes she deserves and therefore has become frustrated and bitter. This is the powder keg that is released with alcohol.
The social repression that we all experience and seek escape from by drinking, on occasion results in the happy drunk waking up with some stranger in his or her bed that may or may not be up to standard or taste, and some months later perhaps even an unplanned pregnancy. Meanwhile, the angry drunk wakes up either in jail, or with a few missing teeth, bruises, broken bones etc., or both. In the case that motor vehicle transport is involved, happy or angry, drinking has resulted in many a DUI and the unnecessary death and injury of drunks and innocent third parties alike. Needless to say, I wish we had more public transport in this country. I’m tired of the hypocrisy of a drinking culture with suburban sprawl that requires everyone to get in their car and drive to the bar, and no public transport to get you there or back. It’s a mixed message: “It’s Miller Time!” but “Don’t drink and drive!” This is very problematic for people who don’t drink in moderation when they go out.
In the objective sense you have to ask yourself: what is the point of going downtown for three or four hours every Friday or Saturday night and knocking back as many drinks as you can before last call, so you can go home and go to bed drunk, with an intermittent drunken lay or fistfight? I guess the point is reproduction (even when feigned and just for sport), and if you don’t hook up and you're a guy, you fight. In some cultures they dance (now that’s a healthy way to work out stress, tension, and anger), but let’s face it, America is not a dance culture. Grab the average guy on the street and ask him when was the last time he danced. Do this a few times to prove the reliability of the sample. Chances are that it’s been a while, because American men are afraid to dance, insecure as they are about their masculinity. And to stop worrying about whether their dick is big enough, or if they’ve got enough money in their wallet, they drink themselves into a stupor. Or better yet, to forget the jobs that have left them emasculated (through subordinance or poor pay or both): those same jobs that they need a coffee to find the motivation to perform in the first place. Remember the movie Fight Club? Exactly. It would seem to me that there is a better formula and that we need to find the joy in exploring the altered and enlightened states our minds can achieve by being curious and open to new experience, where the experiences and connections we make don’t depend on abusing each other and our bodies in concert and calling it friendship and even love.
These leads me to the question of whether societies exist, or have ever existed, that do not drug themselves in some way. For it is a very human drive to want to alter one’s reality by external influence. Just look at children in the playground that spin around endlessly until they get dizzy, or that stuff dirt into their mouth wondering what will happen. The desire to alter one’s mind and body is something quintessentially human, and drug use is just one of many ways we do so, though the least rewarding in that it impairs our reasoning and damages our body. There is much more value to be found sober in critical thinking, creative expression, open communication, and novel experience.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Made in America
There was a time when the United States was known for quality. Whether clothes, appliances, or cars, Made in America meant it was built to last and worth paying for. In the not so recent past, the United States possessed a strong manufacturing base and a skilled labor force that took pride in its work; it was a time when blue-collar jobs came with comprehensive health benefits, retirement plans, vacation time and holiday bonuses, and paid enough to raise a family and own a home. Manufacturing plants were locally owned and represented the economic heart of their communities. The money workers earned at the factory supported a secondary service sector of local retail stores, restaurants, car dealerships, and other businesses. As a result, the United States developed into a series of vibrant, self-sufficient towns characterized by their strong sense of community, unique identity, and quality of life.
Today these same communities have become ghost towns as manufacturing moves abroad for cheaper labor, and blue-collar workers are laid off and often have to relocate and gain new skills to find future employment. Those that remain in the manufacturing sector have lost many of their benefits, and their wages have declined relative to inflation and are no longer sufficient to buy a home and raise a family. How did this happen? Without going into detail, after the post World War II economic boom, and coming to a head in the ‘80’s and ‘90’s, businesses began to incorporate and conglomerate through hostile takeover or otherwise. The result was shareholder control of businesses that were once local, and the pursuit of profit with disregard for workers’ rights and community life.
We’re all familiar with the film Wall Street (1987) in which Gordon Gekko, the successful stockbroker, speculates on brick and mortar businesses, concerned more with making a profit than producing anything of value. He represents the transition in America from an industrial to an information economy, and the film anticipates well the early ‘90’s high tech boom and the internet boom of the late ‘90’s. Gekko is heir to a long line of corporate parasites that prey on economic producers though anti-competitive or illegal business practices, often in collusion with government, exemplified by the robber barons of the 19th century, the most notorious of which were “The Big Four” of the Central Pacific Railroad, who fleeced agricultural producer by charging exorbitant rates to transport their produce to market. In regard to the collapse of America’s modern industrial economy, corporate shareholder profiteering was abetted by Ronald Reagan’s war on labor, initiated in 1981 when he fired 13,000 striking air traffic controllers and destroyed their union. That was the beginning of the end for workers rights in America. Reagan appointed management representatives opposed to unions to the National Labor Relations Board, which then abandoned its legal obligation to promote collective bargaining and permitted employers to permanently replace workers who exercised their legal right to strike. By repealing many of the benefits American workers had earned through political activism and labor reform, the Reagan administration had effectively set us back nearly a hundred years to the time of Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle (1907), the seminal muckraking novel which depicted the poverty, unsafe working conditions, and hopelessness of a working class that lacked the legal means and political agency to protect their own interests. Relatively speaking, the American worker today finds himself in a similar marginalized position. Now that the bottom limit of wages and workers’ rights have been reached, and with the legal restrictions posed by environmental health and safety laws in the United States, corporations have moved their operations abroad where these restrictions to do not apply, local labor cost is much cheaper as a result of poverty and desperation, and raw materials are readily available for exploitation. In effect, the reality of “the jungle” has simple been exported abroad in order to increase shareholder profits, while blue-collar workers have lost their jobs and done their best to adapt to a service economy.
Service Economy
The myth of the service economy is that it replaces low-wage, low-skilled, manual labor with high-skilled, high-tech, service labor. Industrial jobs were traditionally neither low-wage nor low-skilled. In order to make a product, workers had to have an understanding of the materials and assembly of a product throughout the production process. Alternatively, modern service labor is low-paid compared to its traditional manual counterpart, is not high-skilled, and employs technology at the end user level, in the form of a cash register, credit card machine, word processor, database, etc. When the services are abstract, such as the provision of insurance, the service worker is nothing more than a clerk managing client information, billing, and claims. There is nothing particularly high-skilled or high-tech about this service. The distinction between the service economy and the information economy is consequently porous and vague. Most of what people claim for information economy falls into the information management category, i.e. the above-mentioned insurance example. These are services that have been around since before computers and have subsequently been made more efficient and less personal, often resulting in a lack of quality. High-tech information management is the modern equivalent of copying and filing; no one wants to do it because it is repetitive and boring; nevertheless, it needs to be done. Ultimately, only a small percentage of information jobs are creative, and these are often related to the creation of hardware and programs to facilitate certain lower level tasks performed by high-tech clerks. The hardware may be either primary hardware used for manufacturing, or as an end product; if it is the former and very specialized, it is likely to be produced in the developed world to be sold later to the developing world; if the latter, it is produced in the developing world. So it seems that the reality of the modern service cum information economy is one of administrative work that is neither high-skilled nor creative, and lower paid that the manufacturing jobs of the past. By outsourcing manufacturing abroad, the United States has passed from being a producer nation with skilled labor to a consumer nation with unskilled labor.
Globalization
The problem with the globalization is two-fold: wages have not increased relative to the cost of living, so we have less buying power; and we have become consumers not producers, with our savings replaced by debt. Today, the majority of the products we consume are manufactured abroad with the result that they have become cheaper due to the efficiencies of cheap labor, lack of environmental regulation, economies of scale and global distribution networks. Corporate consolidation means that fewer and fewer companies are providing the products we use, and when this is not the case competing products often come off the same assembly line of factories abroad. In reality, what we get is not greater choice, but the illusion of choice in homogenization and production consolidation. The combination of cost saving measures, including the use of low quality materials, and subsistence wages and high production quotas for workers, results in an inferior product that is not built to last. On the material level, this formula produces a lot of losers: namely, the worker, the consumer, the environment, the small businessman, and the local community. The only winner is the multinational corporation. Taking the corporate growth model the extreme, global free market capitalism begins to resemble communism, in the sense that individual companies seek to monopolize markets, resulting in Brand X for everything from cars to clothes to banking. Because nearly all companies are hierarchical in structure, this produces an increasingly exclusive business elite that can dictate with impunity the price of goods and the wages, benefits, and working conditions of their employees. While a global monopoly of all goods and services has not come to pass, monopoly, or centralized control, is the agenda of all corporations, as certain sectors of the economy demonstrate, and the ultimate goal of capitalism as an ideology. As corporations cannibalize each other to increase market share, quality, privacy, diversity, individuality, personal freedom, consumer choice, labor rights and environment health are increasingly sacrificed.
Throw-Away Culture
We live in a time of ubiquitously available low-priced goods, and as a result we either do not value craftsmanship and quality, or can’t tell the difference at face value between a product made with care and on a small scale, and mass-produced short-lived junk. It seems so-called durable goods aren’t so durable any longer. Corporations have taken this one step further by designing products to be prematurely obsolete, and convincing us that novelty and instant gratification of our material wants supercede the long term utility value of a product. No longer do they produce quality goods, but rather goods that fail, degrade, or break prematurely so as to ensure future consumption. Another strategy to bolster consumption is to produce so called “next generation” goods that are superficially different in design, or in the case of electronics supposedly “improved” in function, where these functions are often unnecessary vanity extras that feed on that human need for acceptance and status. The result is glut of discarded, obsolete, worn-out or fad products that are not only a waste of resources, but an environmental hazard. This philosophy of production is not merely wasteful but a case of criminal negligence. The earth can afford neither overproduction nor waste in the production process. By embracing the reduce, reuse, recycle philosophy product life cycles can be extended, and negative environmental and social externalities can be eliminated. In order to develop a more efficient system of production, a sea change is necessary in the way we perceive our world; this requires that producers and consumers alike accept that the material world is finite and discard outmoded illusory perceptions of abundance. Because we need to consume to produce, and reproduce, it is essential that we find a way to do so that does not exhaust our resources. Technological innovation, coupled with an attitude and behavior adjustment that embraces moderation and thrift, can help us to reach our goal of sustainability.
Consumer Responsibility
Through their cynical marketing campaigns, corporations have taught people to believe their self-worth and individuality is determined not by the content of their character but by their material possessions. Consequently, we have accepted materialism as an ideology. We all know better, but it is much easier to buy a new product to show status to others than to learn a new skill or improve our character. Easy is the operative word of the modern capitalist ethos. Everything is supposed to be easy, but we all know through the management of our daily lives and in our relationships, that it’s not. What is easy is by definition not rewarding. What is easy is ultimately not worth having. Our common sense tells us that there is no fulfillment in conspicuous consumption; if prosperity is what we seek, we should pursue it in the tried and true American fashion of thrift and moderation which allows us to best conserve and apply our accumulated resources where they will produce the most benefit, instead of wasting our time and money on material one-upmanship with the Joneses. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the individual to see the game for what it is, and to have to backbone and strength of character to develop their own identity, form their own opinions, and make socio-economic decisions that reflect a balanced emotional, spiritual, and material well-being. Consumers have the choice to buy products that are sustainable for labor, the environment and the community, and boycott those which are not, thereby sending a message to industry to improve their operations, business practices, and the quality of their products.
Speculative Economy
United States prosperity has come to depend on cheap energy, foreign sponsored debt, and market speculation. Aside from a few prosperous and innovative industries, we are in the unenviable position of being a consumer nation that produces few material goods of its own. As a result we have become reliant on the service sector to create wealth. The services we provide are primarily related to finance, R & D, management, marketing, and distribution of goods produced elsewhere. We have been able to position ourselves as the middleman of global commerce largely because of the trust the world has placed in our currency and our consumer market. The acceptance of the dollar as the global fiat currency is the result of our historical legacy as a producer nation with abundant natural resources and an educated and productive workforce. The value of a fiat currency is based on trust and not concrete commodities or resources of a certain value and scarcity, such as gold. Ironically, our fiat currency has become our Achilles’ heel, given that the federal government can inject or withdraw money from circulation as it sees fit. This speculative addition of “funny money” into the economy resulted in the boom and bust of the dot-com bubble from 1995–2001. The gains made by certain fortunate and connected investors were then transferred to the housing market where they created another speculation bubble abetted by low interest rates and predatory lending policies to average Americans resulting in overvalued housing stock nationwide and culminating in market failure by 2007. Housing was the biggest asset and source of wealth for most Americans, and when it lost its value and could no longer provide equity for additional consumption, or interest rates increased and forced foreclosures, then the economy slowed and the dollar declined. That decline in the dollar was the consequence of government and corporate opportunism and mismanagement that resulted in a fundamental and justified loss of trust in the U.S. economy worldwide. Instead of seeing the light, the Federal Reserve mistakenly continued to lower interest rates to stimulate falling domestic consumption based on job insecurity, low wages, high cost of living and other factors, thereby prompting capital flight from U.S. markets and a further decline in the dollar. The last and perhaps final straw of financial mismanagement can be seen in the proposed $15 billion bailout of Fannie May and Freddie Mac by the U.S .Treasury and the Federal Reserve; this further addition of currency into the domestic money supply will continue to undermine the value of the dollar because it is not backed by tangible commodities or resources. The failure of the housing market was a natural systemic adjustment to a nation living beyond its means. When the majority of the population can’t afford a home unless mortgage lenders give it to them at no money down or rock bottom interest rates, then homes are too expensive. Furthermore, the federal government can’t keep printing money to bail out speculators and promote domestic consumption and expect the rest of the world to continue carrying our debt in the form of excessive dollar reserves of declining worth.
The question that remains is how long is the U.S. economy going to continue to play chicken with reality? Now we are seeing a third stage of asset transfer from housing to commodities. While for many in America and elsewhere in the world these are difficult economic times, according to the Financial Times the very wealth are reporting an increase in value of their portfolios. The result of this speculation, by the wealthy and others who are seeking to protect their money, is an increase in the cost of everything from oil to steel to foodstuffs. According to Global Research, “As much as as 60% of today’s crude oil price is pure speculation driven by large trader banks and hedge funds.” As for food, when the cost of oil goes up so does the cost of transporting food to market. So what’s really happening? Basically, large investors and corporations manipulate financial markets while governments facilitate their operations with lax regulation and at times collusion, prompted by special interests, resulting in a speculative trade of goods and service not based on their true value as defined by the economic fundamentals of supply and demand. This game always ends with market failure where the small investor is left holding the bag while the profits are concentrated in the hands of large investors, banks, and shareholders who have increasing power to manipulate markets for their benefit. Aside from irresponsible and excessive printing of fiat dollars, the money they’re taking is yours and your neighbors.
Back to Basics
It might be unpopular to say it, but we can’t go on like this. In terms of speculation, commodities are the final stop. The market failure that comes from speculating in food, oil, and other natural resources we need to survive, is one that sows the seeds for political instability. It would be a mistake for those in control of the speculative globalized financial and economic regime to think that they are immune from the potential conflicts that could result from artificial scarcity. A prosperous nation is one that effectively manages its natural resources and produces what it can while trading to acquire what it needs and does not already possess. From that model comes a strong culture that is unique to its geography and history. Such a culture bases its wealth on what is tangible, and does not allow the concept of wealth to become disconnected from the land and the labor of the people. Furthermore, this successful culture does not base its value system on individual success, but the success of the community as a whole in all its administrative gradations. In other words, it is not permitted in a healthy society for the individual to be a coward, avoiding the difficulties of social living and political debate in favor of leisure and self-gratification. The America I have just described existed once and can come to exist again. But first we must do some necessary soul searching to properly understand what we have become, and to make the tough decisions that will help us change for the better. This journey to recovery will be facilitated by our impending economic decline, which ironically has the power to bring out the best in people, in terms of hard work, thrift, solidarity, compassion and hope. For some time now, the rest of the world has indicated that it prefers we change course from our selfish, greedy, unilateral, fear-based, and uncompromising attitude and behavior and become the America we once were, and that they looked up to. This process starts with each of us from the bottom up.
Today these same communities have become ghost towns as manufacturing moves abroad for cheaper labor, and blue-collar workers are laid off and often have to relocate and gain new skills to find future employment. Those that remain in the manufacturing sector have lost many of their benefits, and their wages have declined relative to inflation and are no longer sufficient to buy a home and raise a family. How did this happen? Without going into detail, after the post World War II economic boom, and coming to a head in the ‘80’s and ‘90’s, businesses began to incorporate and conglomerate through hostile takeover or otherwise. The result was shareholder control of businesses that were once local, and the pursuit of profit with disregard for workers’ rights and community life.
We’re all familiar with the film Wall Street (1987) in which Gordon Gekko, the successful stockbroker, speculates on brick and mortar businesses, concerned more with making a profit than producing anything of value. He represents the transition in America from an industrial to an information economy, and the film anticipates well the early ‘90’s high tech boom and the internet boom of the late ‘90’s. Gekko is heir to a long line of corporate parasites that prey on economic producers though anti-competitive or illegal business practices, often in collusion with government, exemplified by the robber barons of the 19th century, the most notorious of which were “The Big Four” of the Central Pacific Railroad, who fleeced agricultural producer by charging exorbitant rates to transport their produce to market. In regard to the collapse of America’s modern industrial economy, corporate shareholder profiteering was abetted by Ronald Reagan’s war on labor, initiated in 1981 when he fired 13,000 striking air traffic controllers and destroyed their union. That was the beginning of the end for workers rights in America. Reagan appointed management representatives opposed to unions to the National Labor Relations Board, which then abandoned its legal obligation to promote collective bargaining and permitted employers to permanently replace workers who exercised their legal right to strike. By repealing many of the benefits American workers had earned through political activism and labor reform, the Reagan administration had effectively set us back nearly a hundred years to the time of Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle (1907), the seminal muckraking novel which depicted the poverty, unsafe working conditions, and hopelessness of a working class that lacked the legal means and political agency to protect their own interests. Relatively speaking, the American worker today finds himself in a similar marginalized position. Now that the bottom limit of wages and workers’ rights have been reached, and with the legal restrictions posed by environmental health and safety laws in the United States, corporations have moved their operations abroad where these restrictions to do not apply, local labor cost is much cheaper as a result of poverty and desperation, and raw materials are readily available for exploitation. In effect, the reality of “the jungle” has simple been exported abroad in order to increase shareholder profits, while blue-collar workers have lost their jobs and done their best to adapt to a service economy.
Service Economy
The myth of the service economy is that it replaces low-wage, low-skilled, manual labor with high-skilled, high-tech, service labor. Industrial jobs were traditionally neither low-wage nor low-skilled. In order to make a product, workers had to have an understanding of the materials and assembly of a product throughout the production process. Alternatively, modern service labor is low-paid compared to its traditional manual counterpart, is not high-skilled, and employs technology at the end user level, in the form of a cash register, credit card machine, word processor, database, etc. When the services are abstract, such as the provision of insurance, the service worker is nothing more than a clerk managing client information, billing, and claims. There is nothing particularly high-skilled or high-tech about this service. The distinction between the service economy and the information economy is consequently porous and vague. Most of what people claim for information economy falls into the information management category, i.e. the above-mentioned insurance example. These are services that have been around since before computers and have subsequently been made more efficient and less personal, often resulting in a lack of quality. High-tech information management is the modern equivalent of copying and filing; no one wants to do it because it is repetitive and boring; nevertheless, it needs to be done. Ultimately, only a small percentage of information jobs are creative, and these are often related to the creation of hardware and programs to facilitate certain lower level tasks performed by high-tech clerks. The hardware may be either primary hardware used for manufacturing, or as an end product; if it is the former and very specialized, it is likely to be produced in the developed world to be sold later to the developing world; if the latter, it is produced in the developing world. So it seems that the reality of the modern service cum information economy is one of administrative work that is neither high-skilled nor creative, and lower paid that the manufacturing jobs of the past. By outsourcing manufacturing abroad, the United States has passed from being a producer nation with skilled labor to a consumer nation with unskilled labor.
Globalization
The problem with the globalization is two-fold: wages have not increased relative to the cost of living, so we have less buying power; and we have become consumers not producers, with our savings replaced by debt. Today, the majority of the products we consume are manufactured abroad with the result that they have become cheaper due to the efficiencies of cheap labor, lack of environmental regulation, economies of scale and global distribution networks. Corporate consolidation means that fewer and fewer companies are providing the products we use, and when this is not the case competing products often come off the same assembly line of factories abroad. In reality, what we get is not greater choice, but the illusion of choice in homogenization and production consolidation. The combination of cost saving measures, including the use of low quality materials, and subsistence wages and high production quotas for workers, results in an inferior product that is not built to last. On the material level, this formula produces a lot of losers: namely, the worker, the consumer, the environment, the small businessman, and the local community. The only winner is the multinational corporation. Taking the corporate growth model the extreme, global free market capitalism begins to resemble communism, in the sense that individual companies seek to monopolize markets, resulting in Brand X for everything from cars to clothes to banking. Because nearly all companies are hierarchical in structure, this produces an increasingly exclusive business elite that can dictate with impunity the price of goods and the wages, benefits, and working conditions of their employees. While a global monopoly of all goods and services has not come to pass, monopoly, or centralized control, is the agenda of all corporations, as certain sectors of the economy demonstrate, and the ultimate goal of capitalism as an ideology. As corporations cannibalize each other to increase market share, quality, privacy, diversity, individuality, personal freedom, consumer choice, labor rights and environment health are increasingly sacrificed.
Throw-Away Culture
We live in a time of ubiquitously available low-priced goods, and as a result we either do not value craftsmanship and quality, or can’t tell the difference at face value between a product made with care and on a small scale, and mass-produced short-lived junk. It seems so-called durable goods aren’t so durable any longer. Corporations have taken this one step further by designing products to be prematurely obsolete, and convincing us that novelty and instant gratification of our material wants supercede the long term utility value of a product. No longer do they produce quality goods, but rather goods that fail, degrade, or break prematurely so as to ensure future consumption. Another strategy to bolster consumption is to produce so called “next generation” goods that are superficially different in design, or in the case of electronics supposedly “improved” in function, where these functions are often unnecessary vanity extras that feed on that human need for acceptance and status. The result is glut of discarded, obsolete, worn-out or fad products that are not only a waste of resources, but an environmental hazard. This philosophy of production is not merely wasteful but a case of criminal negligence. The earth can afford neither overproduction nor waste in the production process. By embracing the reduce, reuse, recycle philosophy product life cycles can be extended, and negative environmental and social externalities can be eliminated. In order to develop a more efficient system of production, a sea change is necessary in the way we perceive our world; this requires that producers and consumers alike accept that the material world is finite and discard outmoded illusory perceptions of abundance. Because we need to consume to produce, and reproduce, it is essential that we find a way to do so that does not exhaust our resources. Technological innovation, coupled with an attitude and behavior adjustment that embraces moderation and thrift, can help us to reach our goal of sustainability.
Consumer Responsibility
Through their cynical marketing campaigns, corporations have taught people to believe their self-worth and individuality is determined not by the content of their character but by their material possessions. Consequently, we have accepted materialism as an ideology. We all know better, but it is much easier to buy a new product to show status to others than to learn a new skill or improve our character. Easy is the operative word of the modern capitalist ethos. Everything is supposed to be easy, but we all know through the management of our daily lives and in our relationships, that it’s not. What is easy is by definition not rewarding. What is easy is ultimately not worth having. Our common sense tells us that there is no fulfillment in conspicuous consumption; if prosperity is what we seek, we should pursue it in the tried and true American fashion of thrift and moderation which allows us to best conserve and apply our accumulated resources where they will produce the most benefit, instead of wasting our time and money on material one-upmanship with the Joneses. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the individual to see the game for what it is, and to have to backbone and strength of character to develop their own identity, form their own opinions, and make socio-economic decisions that reflect a balanced emotional, spiritual, and material well-being. Consumers have the choice to buy products that are sustainable for labor, the environment and the community, and boycott those which are not, thereby sending a message to industry to improve their operations, business practices, and the quality of their products.
Speculative Economy
United States prosperity has come to depend on cheap energy, foreign sponsored debt, and market speculation. Aside from a few prosperous and innovative industries, we are in the unenviable position of being a consumer nation that produces few material goods of its own. As a result we have become reliant on the service sector to create wealth. The services we provide are primarily related to finance, R & D, management, marketing, and distribution of goods produced elsewhere. We have been able to position ourselves as the middleman of global commerce largely because of the trust the world has placed in our currency and our consumer market. The acceptance of the dollar as the global fiat currency is the result of our historical legacy as a producer nation with abundant natural resources and an educated and productive workforce. The value of a fiat currency is based on trust and not concrete commodities or resources of a certain value and scarcity, such as gold. Ironically, our fiat currency has become our Achilles’ heel, given that the federal government can inject or withdraw money from circulation as it sees fit. This speculative addition of “funny money” into the economy resulted in the boom and bust of the dot-com bubble from 1995–2001. The gains made by certain fortunate and connected investors were then transferred to the housing market where they created another speculation bubble abetted by low interest rates and predatory lending policies to average Americans resulting in overvalued housing stock nationwide and culminating in market failure by 2007. Housing was the biggest asset and source of wealth for most Americans, and when it lost its value and could no longer provide equity for additional consumption, or interest rates increased and forced foreclosures, then the economy slowed and the dollar declined. That decline in the dollar was the consequence of government and corporate opportunism and mismanagement that resulted in a fundamental and justified loss of trust in the U.S. economy worldwide. Instead of seeing the light, the Federal Reserve mistakenly continued to lower interest rates to stimulate falling domestic consumption based on job insecurity, low wages, high cost of living and other factors, thereby prompting capital flight from U.S. markets and a further decline in the dollar. The last and perhaps final straw of financial mismanagement can be seen in the proposed $15 billion bailout of Fannie May and Freddie Mac by the U.S .Treasury and the Federal Reserve; this further addition of currency into the domestic money supply will continue to undermine the value of the dollar because it is not backed by tangible commodities or resources. The failure of the housing market was a natural systemic adjustment to a nation living beyond its means. When the majority of the population can’t afford a home unless mortgage lenders give it to them at no money down or rock bottom interest rates, then homes are too expensive. Furthermore, the federal government can’t keep printing money to bail out speculators and promote domestic consumption and expect the rest of the world to continue carrying our debt in the form of excessive dollar reserves of declining worth.
The question that remains is how long is the U.S. economy going to continue to play chicken with reality? Now we are seeing a third stage of asset transfer from housing to commodities. While for many in America and elsewhere in the world these are difficult economic times, according to the Financial Times the very wealth are reporting an increase in value of their portfolios. The result of this speculation, by the wealthy and others who are seeking to protect their money, is an increase in the cost of everything from oil to steel to foodstuffs. According to Global Research, “As much as as 60% of today’s crude oil price is pure speculation driven by large trader banks and hedge funds.” As for food, when the cost of oil goes up so does the cost of transporting food to market. So what’s really happening? Basically, large investors and corporations manipulate financial markets while governments facilitate their operations with lax regulation and at times collusion, prompted by special interests, resulting in a speculative trade of goods and service not based on their true value as defined by the economic fundamentals of supply and demand. This game always ends with market failure where the small investor is left holding the bag while the profits are concentrated in the hands of large investors, banks, and shareholders who have increasing power to manipulate markets for their benefit. Aside from irresponsible and excessive printing of fiat dollars, the money they’re taking is yours and your neighbors.
Back to Basics
It might be unpopular to say it, but we can’t go on like this. In terms of speculation, commodities are the final stop. The market failure that comes from speculating in food, oil, and other natural resources we need to survive, is one that sows the seeds for political instability. It would be a mistake for those in control of the speculative globalized financial and economic regime to think that they are immune from the potential conflicts that could result from artificial scarcity. A prosperous nation is one that effectively manages its natural resources and produces what it can while trading to acquire what it needs and does not already possess. From that model comes a strong culture that is unique to its geography and history. Such a culture bases its wealth on what is tangible, and does not allow the concept of wealth to become disconnected from the land and the labor of the people. Furthermore, this successful culture does not base its value system on individual success, but the success of the community as a whole in all its administrative gradations. In other words, it is not permitted in a healthy society for the individual to be a coward, avoiding the difficulties of social living and political debate in favor of leisure and self-gratification. The America I have just described existed once and can come to exist again. But first we must do some necessary soul searching to properly understand what we have become, and to make the tough decisions that will help us change for the better. This journey to recovery will be facilitated by our impending economic decline, which ironically has the power to bring out the best in people, in terms of hard work, thrift, solidarity, compassion and hope. For some time now, the rest of the world has indicated that it prefers we change course from our selfish, greedy, unilateral, fear-based, and uncompromising attitude and behavior and become the America we once were, and that they looked up to. This process starts with each of us from the bottom up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
