Savings and Spending

I just heard a good analogy about our current "savings" in the present budget being presented before Congress!

If one has a budget of $40,000 to buy a car and you find a car that you'd really like to buy for $60,000. You decide to stick with your original budget and buy the $40, 000 car. When you get home you brag to others about how you saved $20,000. when you've really spent $40, 000. The $20, 000 savings was only because you did not buy what you desired.

An increase in the budget is an increase in the budget. What is spent over and above the previous year, is an increase, NOT a decrease!

I wonder how many Americans think in these terms in our credit driven economy? Savings is spending, because the market is driven by spending.  Instead of looking at one's income and budgeting to escape debt, one looks at what one wants and budgets based on whether one can afford the payments! This is presumption on the future for fiscal conservatives. And when government owns the corporations and decides that spending is really savings because the "corporations is "saved"....or the individual is "saved"....because of government expenditures! Then, the taxpayer's budget is being decided by the government and its demands upon those that have learned to be productive and/or save! Is this just?

Anarchism

Anarchists do not believe in government's power or right, because they believe that the people have the right to liberty, irregardless of government's needs. Government is not an established authority, but a "consented authority".

I have been thinking about this, as another blog had a survey on which type of government would be the best. But, they did not include a Constitutional Republic! And I wondered why....

I answered a Democratic Capitalist, because I don't adhere to Socialism, or Dictatorship. And as I believe that our government by it very nature protects individual civil liberties, I didn't go for "Anarchism". But, on further reflection, isn't this what the "tea parties" are about? So, maybe I am an anarchists.

The "tea parties" are tired of government subverting the right of the people, because our government was founded on the premise of be a government "by the people and for the people", as well as being a government given "power by the people, themselves"!!! So, maybe under certain circumstance, I am for anarchism....

Didn't our Founders subvert the previous form of government, a monarchy...and wasn't the Civil War about the rights of those who weren't represented in our "Representative Republic"?

Although there has been debate about State rights, versus Federal rights, or Localism versus internationalism....how can we deny that we are already bound to a globalist economy? Trade has mandated that this is so. But, we are not prepared for the diveristy in which government's do trade, are we? And how do we maintain the individual's free choice, when others do not have those same values?

A lot has to be reflected upon before we get ourselves into further danger. We have let down our borders with no consideration of what this must or may mean to American's values of life and liberty...

I guess I am learning that there is no "ideal" world, but there are "ideals". And "ideals' lead to the wars we have because "ideals' determine what kind of political system one believes in. "Ideals" speak to man's hopes, dreams, and possibilities. And Americans are big on thier ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, for the person, the individual....in his or her own right.

Economics and Choice

I just recieved an "invitation" to a conference on "socio-economics" that had attached a file about psychological/sociological questions concerning economics. It was interesting. And it got me thinking about the reasons of individual choice myself.

The article posed that there was no over-arching theory that unified all the facts about economic behavior, which I didn't find very surprising. Economic behavior seems to be at odds with "neo-classical theory".

Of course, there is suggestion that one's upbringing which not only includes one's personal family, but one's culture will determine what will bring about a "rational choice". The values "caught" or taught are internalized into the individual's cognitive frame of reference in decision-making. But, I question this "universal", because, our children were all raised with the same value orientation, but have vast differences in their "rational choices" when it concerns money decisions. So, are their differences due to their birth order, their personality, their peer group influence, or their genetic determination? And how are these understood in the "cut of the pie" (statistically speaking)?

I think that it is imperative to also include the "meaning of money" in a given familial culture. Was money the most important value for the family, or was it just a "means" to an end? And what was the end? Those who have been pampered materially, but impoverished in other ways, have attached certain "meanings" to money that other would not have and give the impression that they are materialistically motivated, but really, they are motivated more by what is meant by the "meaning or value" given to money. Was there a value of liberty, when it came to the choice about money?

Self-perception is also an avenue of exploration in economic behavior. Has the family of origin given a certain perception about the value of the individual due to its emphasis on money and its behavior toward the child in its monetary decisions? But, this variable must also consider the individual child's personality/temperament in economic behavior. Is the child's personality or pre-disposition toward money 'inherited" genetically, or environmentally?

I think that beginning with the assumption that all people will base their choices on economic gain, is short-sighted. There are other values that an individual might hold that are dearer to him. And this is the ultimate mistake of those studying such matters in the West. It is assumed that ALL individuals in the West will consider economic gain as the ultimate value. The unifying value of the West is not money, but liberty. And liberty is the "environment' of capitalistic enterprise.

Moreover, an individual will also change or prioritize certain values over the course of his life, depending on what he is facing, or has to consider. The complexity is astounding, when one begins to think about all the possibilties and probabilities for the individual, much less formulate a universal theory of a whole population. This is why capitalists argue that theirs is the most "productive" means of propering society. It allows the openness and opportunity of all possibilities and probabilities in a given population and individual choice.

What Is the Basis of a One World?

What is THE issue to unify the world? What should be of utmost importance? These questions have made the world complicated and complex. There seems to be no resolution or forthcoming "unity" for the "Globe".

The globalists insist that "one world" should be based on economics, as the material is the most important value to uphold. Whereas, the conservative Christian says that Christ is to "hold the world together" in unity. Some have attempted to combine these into a "social gospel" that sees the social problem of poverty as THE issue to be addressed.

Environmentalists insist that we must agree on pollution, as without the earth, none of us will have life, anyway. But the U.N. cannot come to agreement on the environmental requirements, so that the focus can be unified.

Those that believe that human rights are of most importance must agree on what basis is a human right a right. Is this individually determined? Or is it democratically determined? Does government matter when it comes to human rights? I believe it does.

So, government must be of utmost importance in addressing the complexities of today. Without good government, then we are doomed to live in abject slavery to the whims of authoritarianisms whatever they be based upon.

I think our form of government is best, as long as that form is being respected.

Just Thinking About....Torture

On Richard Beck's blog site, he is talking about tortue. Is torture right or wrong, and how do we understand our position?

Just recently it has been discussed whether the Bush adminstration should be held accountable to the torture of suspected criminals. The CIA was absolved, but certain lawyers who represented the Bush adminstration may be held accountable to providing a legal means to torture these suspects.

Again, the issue of sovereignty and law, is the "problem". Is our country a sovereign over its interests where it concerns national security? Or is universal human rights as defended by international interests of more importance? Where do self interests protect freedoms, and where do they deter international "peace"? Where do ignoring rights of individual suspects undermine human rights? And where does America have a right to defend its security and help the world defend freedom abroad, while sometimes furthering injustice in specific situations? This is certainly an imperfect and complex world.

Obama has released certain CIA tactics or torture, disregarding CIA concerns of releasing this "classifed" information. Obama is making a heroic attempt at internationalizing our coutnry.

But, what happens to the "law" if there is no balance of power? If Obama suceeds in prosecuting those who differ with him in interpreting the law, while keeping the "other voices' silent in the Congress and the media, suppressing information to the people. America will be changed without most of us even being aware!

I have written about my concerns of the U.N. before on this blog site. There is an attempt to give developing nations more of a voice. But, if these countries are barbaric in their understanding of government, then at what costs will our world pay? Those who think in terms of tribes, and people groups have not developed the individual's identity so that education and the market, and the econcomies can become what America's has been. Those who think in tribalistic ways are loyal to religious conviction. And when religious conviction is understood to be involved in the political realm, then, the world will be "at war" because politicized religion is a danger, as history has often illustrated!

I am afraid that just as in any organizational structure, there have to be those that are "foot soldiers" to carry out the vision or plan of the adminstration or leadership. If the world is one big organization, and everyone is to have equal opportunity, then who are the "foot soldiers" (nations that are to be the "underdogs")? And how is leadership to be decided upon and how are the laws against neopotism to be upheld? And how is leadership to be accountable? ETC. There are many kinks in the garment without us understanding the garments "wash and wear" directions. What if the garment "shrinks", or "becomes stretched beyond fitting for its purpose"? These are real economic, political, governmental, leadership questions.

Hopefully, most of us will not live in a tortuous situation without recourse, or resolution, while the ship is sailing on open waters, with little or no rudder and no map in view!

Is Reality Closed, Open or Flat?

There are many theories out there when it concerns reality, but what are the implications?

In a closed system, there are limited resources that must be protected, as there will be dire danger if we do not "steward" these resources. While this may apply in the natural realm of conservation to the environment, does it apply to the social sciences? A naturalist view is based on natural science.

In economics, free markets allow a cyclic compounding of interests and bring about more proseperity than those that conserve in limiting risk. So, in economics, it seems that controlling the market would be the height of limiting productivity or prosperity. But, the risk is based on an understanding of an open universe, not a closed or flat one.

In a "flat system", "reality is what is, and is what is. This understanding is one of realism. It critiques or assesses the world and sees what is or has been. This is a cyclical view of history and can result in "wisdom" on principle. This understanding of reality fits best in the Christian worldview.

In this worldview, since man is understood to have certain "propensities", then there should be a wisdom about understanding the "universals" that lead to social problems, such as greed, envy, jealousy, etc. Understanding that humans do not change in their nature, our Founding Fathers understood the necessity to balance power. This is the basis of our three branches of government, federal and state balances, the Congress and the Senate and the individual vote in the electoral college.

The open understanding of reality, not only affirmed a free market economy, but also limited government, as a means for the individual and freedom of choice, which our Founding Fathers found to be important. Democracy allows the free exchange of information through our media outlets, where people can have difference of opinion and conviction. It also allows difference of commitment in intellectual understandings and convictions. Democracy allows diversity. And diversity demands openness!

So, whether one views the world as closed, flat or open, one must understand the necessity of allowing another view, so that our views can meet all the needs that are in this world. Otherwise, we will limit one aspect of human reality which will result in much suffering and pain.

The Media, Bias, and Education

On the radio today, a discussion over the place of the media in educating the public was made. In the program, it was suggested that Rush Limbaugh was the "talking head" of the Republican Party. Just before this program there was discussion on Reganomics. I find this interesting that these discussions were held back to back.

The media is responsible for reporting the facts, informing the public about what is happening. Most of our national news is just that, national, as it concerns national interests. But, with globalization, we cannot hide our heads in the sand without limiting our free society. The media assures a free society, when there is an affirmation of our Bill of Rights, which assures that our press remains free, in speech (what is said), opinion (religion or political party), and access (information in all areas of our public discourse).

These discussions, I thought were biased attempts at expressing a liberal agenda. Many have attempted these days to lay the crisis in our economy at the foot of Reagan, because of deregulation, capitalistic interests, and military support. Rush Limbaugh would probably represent the epitome of these opinions concerning the free market, and the political scene. But, this is his right to do so, in a free society.

The majority's rule in Congress is leading to an abuse of our bail-out, in my opinion. What criteria is there for deserving a bail-out? And those that are bailed out by the taxpayer are to be responsible and conservative in their future plans for business. Just today, I read where a company had scheduled an extravagant conference (holiday?) in Las Vegas, only to be reprimanded and cancel their plans. More companies need to take this type of responsibility themselves, instead of having a police state watch every footstep. The executive limiting their salaries to $500,000. is a good start, especially since those who make so much less are paying for their position, as well as the company's solvency.

Our society has gotten out of bounds concerning the free market, and what type of vocation deserves the highest pay. Of course, in free societies it depends on what the market will pay a particular person for their expertise. This is a question of "free market economics" and "the greater good", which is both Republican and Democratic values. If one or the other dismisses it's balancing "other side", then, we are headed down the road we have been on. And that only leads to greed, self-indulgence, and a lack of social responsibility. I believe that the two sides to the Golden Rule is a necessary balance to abuse. Whichever position one is commited to, is what basis one should make decisions about others...doing unto others. This allows freedom of conviction and commitment, while balancing each side.

The question of balnacing bias in journalism is a well-known fact in some circles, even though reporting is to be done in an unbiased way. Anyone who has taken two newspapers and read the same story covered by these different commitments (conservatism/liberalism) will see the differences in how the story is written. It is quite interesting and an education itself.

An Owner's Responsibility and A Worker's Right

Yesterday, I wrote about government being "man's best friend". Government is any form of leadership. In the economic realm, the relationship between "boss" and "worker" is a governing one and I mentioned how important it was that there be a mutuality of respect and trust.

These past couple of weeks has challenged my son in these attitudes. He is a "worker". In his company, the "boss" decided there must be "cut-backs" and suggested that the work week be cut to four 10 hours days. This "cut-back" would bring savings in many areas to the company. This is just good "business sense". But, my son found that many of the workers were hesitant about going to a four day week, suggesting that their pay would be cut from "over-time". My son argued that the "workers" could choose to look at their four day week as a three day week-end and that saving the company would save many of their jobs. I was proud of his attitude, as were his bosses.

Workers do need to respect and regard their bosses, but they also deserve respect in their commitment to their company and their work. A mutual attitude of co-operation and an understanding that no "role" determines the value of the person is an important atmosphere for companies who want to prosper through another's "work" and commitment. It is unfortunate that in a competive market, this atmosphere is hindered and attitudes of disregard for another further anomoisity and suspicion. There can be no "winners" when competition leads to disregard and disrepect and a lack of consideration for another's life.

My son has learned that a proper attitude on his part and defending the companie's right to consider beneficial options were only the result of being respected by his company as well. He has worked for this company for several years. It is hard manuel labor on third shift. He hopes his commitment and loyalty pay off with promotion.

It behooves all of us in this economy to respect both worker and boss, as the only way out is the way of "respect" and a concern for the future welfare of all. It used to be an assumed attitude of civility in the past, but our market economy has made beasts of us all.