GuidoWorld

Capitalism: Defeating Its Foes

This is another installment from The Value(s) of Money a book project I started back in 1992.
Capitalism: Defeating its Foes

Our love affair with values and are obsession with monetary concerns appear to be interconnected. Years ago many people resisted the tendency to base life on the value of money. What happened to those concerns?

Americans have not always embraced our system of free enterprise with such fervor. Objections to capitalism have come from intellectuals and common men alike ever since its inception. Since the beginning days of the industrial revolution many people have feared the possible destruction of the soul of man through the over-emphasis of money. Religious figures, moralists and philosophers cautioned and warned man of the dangers inherent in monetary ambition. The desire for wealth was equated with greed and avarice, and directly opposed to the Christian qualities of charity and compassion. A person focused on wealth could not focus on God or his fellow man. “Money”, as every school boy was taught, “is the root of all evil”.

Such sentiments were not only preached from the pulpit, but felt in the heart of most common laborers. The average worker concerned himself with providing food for his family, not with having a career. Owners and bosses were seldom respected by the workers, and most employees harbored no desire to become bosses.

Social thinkers such as Marx focused on the “alienation” caused by mass production and labor. Alienation coupled with the divisions caused by class distinctions between owners and workers were viewed as explosive enough to cause the eventual downfall of capitalism.

Though no downfall came to pass, one cannot overlook the tensions that exist between owners and workers. As Marx had predicted the bitter feelings sometimes turned into worker revolts in many industrialized nations. Our labor unions were formed from the strikes and protests fostered by the friction between labor and management.

The tensions between labor and management are still common in every corporation and business in America. Yet, a national uprising against management becomes more doubtful each passing year. Even though the percentage of people living in poverty has remained high, and the monetary gap between workers and owners continues to grow, more people appear content with the free enterprise system than ever before.

The factors leading to our growing acceptance of free enterprise and the resulting gaps between the wealthy and the poor are numerous and complex. Instead of writing an entire book on the reasons for the emergence of modern commerce, I’ll just mention a few of the more simple reasons.

Marxists who predicted the demise of capitalism did so by the premise of a workers revolt. The exploited and personally alienated slave labor would band together to rise up and over throw the power elite owners. The labor versus management battle which still smolders today has lost a lot of its momentum over the years.

The boss/slave, labor/management conflict at the core of Marxist revolution has undergone many changes over the last century. In the early days of capitalism the structure of the average factory and business was fairly simple. You did indeed have an owner, usually somewhat visible, and a flock of workers he hired and fired. Owners seldom hid their wealth, making themselves an easy target of jealousy and hatred by dressing and acting differently than their employees. Shoving their wealth, position and power in the faces of all they employed the industrialist was an obvious owner of slaves.

Through the years as industry and business expanded the simple two tier system was disposed of for a number of reasons. First, as owners bought out competitive businesses they gave the old owners non labor positions in the company. No matter how humiliating the take over was, the old owner usually retained a supervisory position over the common worker.

Just through sheer expansion itself, owners were forced to delegate management positions to others in helping supervise the workers. When these things happened the owner/boss-worker/slave dyad had settled into the labor-management division.

Since the end of WWII the emergence of very large corporations and businesses has further blurred the distinction between owner and worker. The sheer numbers of tasks and employees demanded that a number of intermediary positions be created. Corporations have a number of divisions, in which a host of presidents, vice-presidents, assistant and associate presidents and vice-presidents supervise professional technicians and engineers, who likewise supervise foremen and supervisors, who oversee a well hierarchical work force.

Over the last few decades the division between labor and management is getting blurred and difficult to distinguish. In today’s marketplace even smaller agencies and businesses have a number of layers of power. The smallest promotion in modern business often results in a worker having supervisory responsibilities over other workers.

Even entry level workers specializing in a specific skill or technique can be given a managerial role of responsibility in their given area. This means that while remaining on the bottom of the corporate totem pole in terms of pay scale and job description an employee may function as a supervisor in his or her area of expertise. One cannot always state that one division is more important than another, therefore, a strict hierarchical chain of command is often impossible to distinguish in even moderate sized business organizations.

The multilevel organizational pattern of modern business often makes it impossible for one to distinguish between labor and management. Even when the administrative cut off point is not arbitrary many of those functioning as laborers have fellow workers they supervise or instruct.
The days of the owner as sole power player are over. In the modern work place power and position is shared by many people. In today’s business world it is rare to find a worker with seniority totally without any roles of power or authority.

A great percentage of today’s workers enjoy (at least occasionally) the fruits of power and position. Though they are exploited and treated as a commodity, they themselves treat others in much the same way. The end result is that most workers are seduced and corrupted by the system and the power it affords.

A salesman who feels abused and exploited by his supervisors will in turn feel a sense of power and retribution when he in turn sells his product to a customer at an inflated price. Though his bosses take an unwarranted portion of his profits, he in turn regains his self-esteem by taking advantage of trusting customers.

In our society almost everyone is given some opportunities to exploit and capitalize on others. This is the free enterprise system available to all. Our acceptance of the system comes from the fact that almost all of us use the system to our advantage. No matter how low on the social economic ladder we might be, we all partake in the exploitation of our fellow man.

Though some bemoan the practices of modern business, most have learned to accept them as a necessary part of life. Our standards make adjustments to the real world, and the flexibility of values accommodates these changes much better than any other term.

The competitive nature of free enterprise resulted in the creation of multinational corporations and huge conglomerates. In these vast structures it was inevitable that the owner-worker dyad would have to be replaced by a more diversified field of power and responsibilities. As technology advanced the administrative divisions had to share their power and position with other divisions such as research and development, engineering and sales.

Smaller organizations desiring to be successful modeled themselves after the larger corporations taking on their multi©layered approach. This protracted managerial style made it difficult for workers movements to grow.

In a structure of unclear divisions between labor and management no one knows who to ally themselves with in a workers revolt. In a system where a large percentage of the work force share (at least minimally) in the fruits of power and control over others it is difficult to organize a workers rebellion.

Offering a few crumbs of power to corrupt and influence the average worker was not always done accidentally. When workers gained political leverage through organizing unions and worker reform groups, it is not pure coincidence that industries and corporations began to restructure their organizations.

Advertising, public relations and sales departments were well aware of how to influence the psychology of both the worker and the consumer. The business world had the best PR money could buy. Winning the loyalty and allegiance of the worker became a high priority for corporate America. The goal of acquiring worker loyalty without sharing a large percentage of the profits was accomplished by many.

History, too, was favorable to the dissolution of popular resistance to the acceptance of monetary supremacy and free enterprise. The people’s revolt in Russia in 1917 had world wide implications. Humanitarians, liberals and many intellectuals hailed the Russian Revolution as a precursor to the over throw of all worker oppression. The Marxist view of freedom gained popularity and its somewhat abstruse theory began to be watered down for mass consumption. Communistic and socialistic ideals fueled the rhetoric behind all social movements. In the U.S., Marxist ideas were central to the public demand for social security, labor unions, paid vacations, workers compensation, the 40 hour work week, and almost every other worker’s right gained in this century.

While worker movements grew in this country, corporate America was busy trying to discredit the ideologies fueling social change (Marxism, Communism and Socialism). Equating democracy with capitalism became a popular theme. The average American was being sold on the idea that Communism was a threat to Democracy and not the ally of social change.

The fears garnered during two world wars and the Depression were easy to arouse and direct towards Communism. The emerging affluence of the U.S. following these troublesome times forged a formidable national pride. Riding the waves of good fortune, the business world was able to share a minimal portion of the wealth being generated with a sizable middle class.

By this time the civil atrocities of Soviet Communism were easy to depict. Whatever truth and benefit Marxist ideas contained were destroyed by its association with Soviet Communism. Just as democracy was equated with capitalism, Marxist ideals were being equated with the Soviet totalitarian state. The American media and business world made certain that no American could support any Marxist idea without being viewed as a supporter of the oppressive practices of the USSR.

The Red Scare of the fifties just sealed the coffin for the expression of Marxist ideals in the U.S. Since any utterable criticism of capitalism could be found in Marx it would be viewed as treason for any loyal American to question the practices of capitalism. The taboo of Marxism in America signaled the death of any social movement in the U.S. which called into question the economic practices of capitalism.

By the end of the fifties almost all political discussion regarding any alternatives to our functioning system of commerce died. Since then almost all ethical condemnations and moral warnings regarding a life preoccupied with monetary concerns have come from the pulpit.

Clergy from all denominations and faiths often warned their parishioners of the harms and evils inherent in making money too important. Not only did they profess that spiritual matters were more important than fiscal ones, but so were many practical matters. The faithful were frequently told that religious qualities such as compassion, charity, forgiveness, honesty and truth were far more important ingredients to living a good and comfortable life than having a lot of money.

Money was accepted as essential for survival, and an important and practical tool for the success of missionary work throughout the globe. Yet, monetary ambition was an evil, a temptation from the devil, standing in the way of God’s grace. A man moving towards money was surely a man running from salvation and towards damnation.

It is still common for modern religious figures to warn their parishioners of the dangers of worshiping money. Yet, the verbal passion in insisting on financial restraint has subsided. This growing tolerance of fiscal priorities might be explained by increased exposure of churches to the economic realities of competition.

The number of one parish communities continues to shrink. The number and variety of churches in a community is growing. Churches are often in competition with each other for the same parishioners. The survival of a parish often depends on the very same dynamics as any other business. They need to sell themselves to the public and attain a market share to cover their overhead. Without generating a sizable profit, a church may lose out to a neighboring church that is more attractive, comfortable and having the resources available to have a positive impact on the community. Wealthy churches inspire confidence in their ability to be effective and influential in both charitable and political concerns.

Clergy desiring to have their parish not only survive but thrive are forced to accept the economic realities of the real world. Often times they need to walk a thin line between exhorting their flock to live a spiritual and not material existence, and asking for their financial assistance to execute their charitable and moral ideals. Harping too long and hard on the evils of money may either alienate their parishioners into finding another parish, or may cause their incessant requests for donations to look hypocritical.

All of the preceding arguments and points only scratch the surface in helping explain why monetary concerns have become supreme in our society. Monetary issues pervade our personal and professional existence. Other concerns no matter how important are almost impossible to divorce from the intricate web of commerce modern life is woven into. The political and social taboo of even questioning our free enterprise system strengthens its hold on our lives while making even the possibility of an alternative way of life seem impossible. In such an environment any criticism of the free enterprise system is at best unrealistic and more likely unpatriotic, revolutionary or just plain crazy.

If our values are based on the value we place on everything in our life from objects to thoughts, then it is difficult to overestimate the role of economics in our personal and social value systems.

Jim Guido

CEO Pay Regulation

There has been some talk recently that President Obama would like to put a cap on pay for executives of US corporations. Support and pressure to enact such measures come from many sources. Many tax payers are angry that the stimulus programs and bailouts have been funneled to the wealthiest of people. Laid off workers are upset at the reported bonuses, salaries and raises being doled out to executives of major corporations. Economists and financial historians point to the destructive role that salary imbalances have played in previous depressions and economic crisis in the US and other nations since the middle ages.

Yet, there are plenty of voices out there that look at any cap placed upon CEO’s pay as being anti-capitalisitic and potentially very harmful to any chance our economy has of recovering. Some financial historians will cite previous governmental regualtions and interventions as reasons why previous economic depressions have been so severe and lasted so long.

I personally have been opposed to the growing gap in wealth during the entire expansion period since 1980. The increasing percentage of wealth in a decreasing percentage of the population has always seemed cruel and counterproductive to me. More and more wealth into fewer and fewer hands has been with us during our entire economic roller coaster ride.

My thoughts and solutions to this situation have remained the same over the last couple of decades. Rather than place a specific monetary cap on CEO’s I would suggest we put in place a limit in the relationship of a CEO’s pay with the lowest paid workers in the company. In this way CEO’s are free to make as much as they can inside the system, and their pay raises are based on and reflect the pay raises of their workers.

I’m not able to say what the exact relationship should be, but I’m sure a task force comprised of economists, sociologists and international relations experts could come up with a workable scale. Especially if this pay scale was going to be reviewed every few years.

Such a pay scale would look something like the following. A corporation CEO’s total pay and compensation cannot be more than 300 times the pay of the least payed employee. Now, even though 300 times sounds like a huge differential and it is, the pay of our current CEO’s eclipses this by many times.

In the above example a corporation that paid its entry level workers 20,000 a year would only be able to make 6 million per year in salary, bonuses and other compensation. Obviously the CEO could make much more money if his entry level workers made more. A CEO paying his lowliest employees 40,000 could take in 12 million a year.

Now, I just picked the 300:1 ratio out of thin air. A economic task force could better determine a functional and fair CEO to worker ratio which probably would be different for companies of varied sizes and with varied work forces.

Yet, the benefit of the ratio would be two fold. First it would prevent the gaps between workers and management from spiraling out of control. And second it would give management sufficient incentive to improve the pay of their workers. Workers making more pay would have more disposable income to spend on the economy and CEO’s making more money would be doing so only when the company and its workers are succeeding.

A CEO in this type of structure would be highly rewarded for improving the standard of living of his workers, and these richer workers would be better able to spend, save and invest in an expanding economy than in our current system. In our current system workers pay has not kept up with inflation and the pay increase rate of management and executives.

I believe this system is not only fair, but more functional and sustainable than our current format. This same system for business could also be used for government. While pay raises for executives is dependent on pay increases for workers, likewise pay increases for pubic servants could be made dependent on monetary improvements for the lowest 10% of the populace. If a pubic official knew that his potential pay raise was dependent on the monetary improvement of the bottom 10% of citizens in his district, state or nation, then he would make it his main priority to improve their lot in life.

The above suggestion could be played out in the following manner. Let’s say the bottom 10% of the nation was averaging making $10,000 then a senator would only be able to get a 10% raise when the bottom 10% was averaging $11,000 per year. Once again these numbers were pulled out of nowhere and a competent task force could best decide if the ratio would be 1:1 or if a pubic servant would be available for a 1% raise for every 3% gain realized by the bottom 5% of the populace.

The goal would be for politicians to become more invested in the economic improvement of their constituents,

I know these are rough ideas, and there would need to be much dialogue and discussion to prevent these ideas from being abused and worked around. Yet, the potential abuses are not too difficult to imagine and successfully address especially if these pay ratios were reviewed often in a public format in which the public had the power to replace any task force members who appear to be acting in ways which are against the public interests.

Jim Guido

The Trojan Horse President

During the campaign trail Barak Obama seemed like a breath of fresh air in a fear and hatred dominate presidential race. His message was one of hope and compassion often talking about how the US could continue to be the most powerful nation in the world without having to compromise its high humanitarian values.

For those of you who have visited the site often you are well aware of the fact that I had my doubts of Obama’s ability to follow through on his words. I felt that any true challenger to the status quo wold not be allowed to win their party’s nomination. The  media assasination of Howard Dean and Ralph Nader in the previous election and Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich in the recent election formed the basis of my cynical stance.

Yet, in my post following Obama’s first day in office I stated how pleasantly surprised I was with his pledge to close Guantanamo and his stance opposed to torture along with his balanced approach towards Israel and the middle east. I did add as a caveat that I was very concerned about who he had named as cabinet members and policy advisors. These people, especially his economic team, were well entrenched insiders who were major players in the very economic system in crisis that Obama was pledging to reform.

Well it didn’t take long for Obama to move away from reform and back to the status quo. Soon his tough words on torture and Guantanamo softened, his words of diplomacy towards the middle east were belied by his actions in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Isreal, and the bailout and stimulus programs flew in the face of his previous populist viewpoints.

One could make the case that his foreign policies have become even more aggressive and militaristic than the Bush administration. Not only is torture alive and well but the stealth bombings of Pakistan, and the use of banned weapons in Afghanistan is upping the immoral ante of the US as a global bully. The bombing of Pakistani civilians in the hope of killing a few suspected terrorists, and the melting of Afghans through the use of white phosphorous is a step in the wrong direction if your goal is moral leadership.

I was always amazed at how Republican’s who called themselves the moral majority or the religious right could support policies that propagated torture and murder. Now, I’m likewise baffled by the Democrats who are coming up with excuse after excuse to justify Obama’s recent policy decisions and imperialistic actions. Of course, many people, just bury their head in the sand and don’t even acknowledge the heinous actions done in our name.

It appears obvous to me that neither party is willing or interested in making the world a safer and more harmonious place. Fear mongering and bullying is the only game in town.

As a citizen of the US I feel no moral superiority over anyone else on the globe. I don’t necessarily think nations that oppose our policies are inerently evil and dangerous. There are good and mean people in every nation and society on the globe, yet I have a hard time finding any nation’s foreign policies more vicious than ours. Being good is accomplished through good deeds not by living in a specific geographic space or espousing a specific political philosophy.

Jim Guido

Value(s) and Monetary Supremacy

The following is the second installment from a book I began writing in 1992 entitled The Value(s) of Money.

In the introduction I attributed the true source of the popularity of the term values to its economic origins. Though other reasons were found to exist, our society’s obsession with money was regarded as the central reason why values has become our term of choice when discussing and evaluating human behavior. Our values are viewed as being the basis and at the heart of all our ethical and moral decisions. Our values define who we are, prioritizes our options and are at the core of our personality and character.

Our values are dependent upon the value we place on not only every object we see and situation we encounter, but also on almost every emotion and thought we possess. Yet, isn’t it extreme to assert that everything in life has an economic value? Aren’t we taking the association of values with economic value too far?

Even if everything were to be found to have a cost or value, wasn’t that always the case? How can we say our society is any more money conscious than it ever was? Why then, has values been a recent addition to our common vocabulary?

Let’s first take a moment to try to find some free things in our society. At first glance many things look like they are free. We are able to move without someone shoving their hand in our face asking for money. Yet, does that mean we aren’t being charged.

The land in all the cities is owned by someone. The land you live on, you either bought or is factored into your rent. Your taxes pay for the sidewalks you use and the parks you visit and play in. Every step you take is on private, state or national land which carries a price tag. Sometimes the charges are obvious, like when you stop at a toll booth, pay to enter an amusement park or play on a handball court. Other times the charges are hidden in taxes in which case we pay the bill without thinking of everything we are being charged for, from street and baseball diamond maintenance to paper work and public servants.

Everything involved with food, shelter and health care obviously cost us money. Even our air and water has many price tags. First, we pay for our air to be polluted by industries, then we often pay a second time (often to the same corporation) for devices such as filters to remove the very same pollutants from the air. Many gas stations now even charge us to put air in tires.

Even if we avoid pay toilets, we still have a number of service providers cashing in on our natural functions, including the sanitation and health departments, paper and drug companies. Though sometimes we can speak for free, there are many situations in which we must pay for the privilege to speak or even listen. We pay directly or indirectly anytime we attend conferences, church or partake in any civic gathering.

We are often charged for our thoughts, feelings and ideas, especially if we desire to share or express them. Therapy is only the most blatant form of how we pay for our thoughts and feelings. Most forms of expression demand a medium which costs money, such as paper, computers, telephones, musical instruments and art supplies to name but a few. Learning too, carries a steep price tag, from trade schools and universities to television, tutors and books. Even the “free” books at the public library are funded through our taxes.

One would be hard pressed to find even one totally free activity untied to any direct or indirect expense in our society. Yet, even though our basic economic theory has existed generally unchanged over the last two hundred years, the range and intensity of our commercialism has drastically increased over the last few decades.

As our urban population swells, so does the amount and area of cities in our nation. Not too long ago, many American’s lived in or near fairly virgin land. Rural and wilderness areas are shrinking and with them is the opportunity for us to visit and walk on inexpensive and relatively free land. Each day sections of earth previously undisturbed are being used for commercial purposes. Inexpensive, unincorporated lands near cities are annexed, causing an immediate rise in taxes for all those living in these areas.

Yesterday’s prairies, wetlands, forests and parks become today’s suburbs as engorged urban populations swallow up surrounding territory. As hundred and thousand acre lots become divided into a swarm of tiny residential plots, the expense of the land rises with property values. The vertical rise in the commercial and multi-dwelling structures is directly reflected in the meteoric climb of expenses of those traversing or living next to these mammoth buildings.

Every nook and cranny of exploitable land and the air above it is being used for commercial purposes. Cities running out of land need only to build taller buildings to capitalize on every available penny. Each penny spent is an investment in future profit, which means all space even up to the clouds is becoming more expensive for modern man.

In sciences such as particle physics, chemistry and bio-genetics we are finding ways to capitalize on every molecule and subatomic particle. Industries and corporations are battling for ownership of parts of genes and molecules. Once owning the commercial rights to these “commodities”, they will be able to charge us for their regulated use.

The commercial world is teeming. Every nook and cranny of existence is being converted into a commercial product. The moment a new electronic invention hits the market, a series of new businesses emerge tending to the production, maintenance and servicing of the product. Though one might be able to argue that nothing was ever free, it cannot be disputed the density of commercialism is growing geometrically. The speed and range of commercialism has skyrocketed since the end of the World Wars. A global economy has formed reducing the amount of free space and drastically increasing the cost of commercial space all over the planet.

People talk of the communications explosion ushered in by the discovery of electricity and modern machinery. They talk of how small the world has become because of transportation devices such as the car, train and airplane. Also recognized in shrinking the planet is the role played by devices such as the radio, television, telephone and computer.

As the planet shrinks the pervasiveness of commercial exchange intensifies. The speed by which business transactions are conducted has quickened dramatically over the last three decades. Products which used to take months by ship to arrive, are now transported in days. Exchanges of information which could take weeks by phone and mail, now are concluded in seconds thanks to the instantaneous communication offered by computers, the internet, cell phones and fax machines. Transactions on the major stock exchanges themselves have sped up dramatically. Reactions to market trends and volatility of individual stocks occur almost instantaneously with even the moderately interested investor able to comfortably watch the ticker at home on his television, or his computer screen.

The snowball of commerce took a long time before becoming the avalanche of modern life. Life for the average worker could amble along at a relatively slow pace well into the 20th century. Before the popularization of television and the computer the time between potential business transactions could be hours. Now, our streets are lined with businesses frantically vying for our business with flashy seductive signs and advertised deals. Our recreation time is likewise dominated by incessant advertisements for countless products. Television, radio, movies and magazines are often times little more than window dressing for the products and services being forced on us from every angle.

Not to long ago a good portion of many people’s business did not directly involve money. Even professions such as doctors and lawyers were not adverse to barter, or finding an alternative means of compensation for their services. People were less concerned with money, and those who were monetarily ambitious were careful not to alienate their friends and customers by appearing obsessed with money. Yet, now times have changed and the average person has no qualms displaying their love of money openly.

We are involved in an ever escalating capitalistic colonization where everything real and imaginary can become the commercial property of an individual or corporation. Anything in the universe able to be named, identified or theorized is capable of becoming the personal commercial domain of a business enterprise. The entire teeming telescopic and microscopic universes are, therefore, open game for commercial exploitation. Meaning unlimited profit for some, and escalating expense for all.

Almost everything we can see touch, feel, taste, smell, hear or even imagine now has a value, a price tag tied to the capricious volatility of free enterprise. In a society where everything has a value and the respective values of everything from products to activities to time itself dictates how we live, it should not be at all surprising that our codes of behavior are based on our values.

The landscape of our daily life is filled with the respective values of all we encounter. The value of any commodity be it real or imaginary is extremely elastic in our culture. Everything from the relative worth of our labor time to our car is in a constant state of flux. The market value or worth of any object changes often, sometimes daily. Our ability to make decisions in such a society likewise needs to be flexible and adaptable.

Morals, ethics and principles have always been fairly inflexible and rigid terms. Even though these terms were intended to guide us into making prudent decisions and engaging in right conduct, they were thought to be somewhat eternal. One’s morality was to remain a constant in life. One’s ethics and principles, likewise, transcended the viscidities of the situation remaining firm and unalterable.

The value of any product is free to fluctuate and adapt to the unique dynamics of the current situation. We, surrounded by a world of values, are all but demanded to remain flexible. The goal of modern values is to be more flexible than the other terms, while staying true to their basic integrity. Our personal values are able to adapt to the uniqueness of a given situation while retaining the highest standards and expectations available given the realities of the situation.

Another advantage values has over any other term is its universality. No matter how diplomatic and open minded any nation is, it is impossible to rectify the cultural differences in their ideals. There is no avoiding the fact that there are, and will continue to be irreconcilable differences between the morality, ethics and principles of any two nations, cultures or religions. Existing differences in morals and ethics between cultures and nations often result in the intense conflicts which give rise to war. Differences in the assorted values of products and commodities, on the other hand, are just part and parcel of doing business. Though economic differences can lead to battle, it is more likely the underlying morals and politics of a culture propel them towards war.

Our global economic community puts us all on the same playing board. The rules of commerce are mainly dictated by what is most profitable, and therefore, understandable to any nation willing to play. Modern commerce is a common language which cuts across many cultural conflicts which are inherent in rigid concepts such as morality and ethics.

A nation’s principles and morals give them an economic style, but do not necessarily bar them from investing themselves in a global economy. Efforts at forming international consensus of morals and ethics are far more difficult to achieve, and agreement is usually attained in only most basic and general of issues.
Since money is everywhere even the most reluctant of nations is finding it difficult to resist becoming active members of a global economy. Even though the US controls or has its hands in many key commercial ventures in almost every land on the globe, the role of every nation is vital in the daily operation of the world economy.

In assessing why values has become such a popular and ubiquitous term we have noted a few things. First, our love affair of values is a natural outcome of our obsession with economic value. Monetary issues more than any other, dominate our international as well as personal existence. Our values are anchored in the value we place on value itself. This is not to say that only money matters or has value, but money is the foundation of our entire practical existence.

To summarize, values has become our term of choice regarding our codes of behavior for several reasons. Unlike the other terms concerned with right behavior, values is a flexible term able to adapt to the practical realities of modern life. Its economic roots give it a utilitarian advantage over the rigid and inflexible ideals which we previously used to help govern our behavior. Since everything in life has an economic as well as emotional value, the term values is able to address each and every aspect of our existence. There is no event or thought to small for the concept of values.

The economic reality of a global economy forms the basis of a third reason or the superiority of values as a term addressing human conduct. The morality, ethics and principles of a culture being steeped in specific beliefs, philosophies, customs, laws, arts and sciences, create formidable walls of difference. Values, being less tied to cultural differences and history is better prepared to bridge the gap of finding a common language.

Jim Guido

The Values of Money

Over 15 years ago I began writing a book entitled The Values of Money the following is the Intro to the book. I will use some of my posts to update the book and I will place the updated chapters in the words section of this site next to my other books. This post is lengthy but hopefully you can read it all for the second half of this intro is very important in understanding the book.

Even in a “free” society there are numerous rules and expectations placed upon each citizen. Many of these restrictions are merely recommendations, while others are stringently enforced prohibitions. A society may ask its citizens to be kind and caring while demanding they not do bodily harm to each other. The strictest expectations of society are made into laws while many others become ideals or desirable attributes to work towards.

The majority of these societal guidelines have to do with right conduct and codes of behavior. The number of words in the English language referring to proper human behavior reflects the importance our society places on the art and science of right conduct. Appropriate conduct is an important issue from a democratic as well as spiritual perspective, from a practical as well as idealistic viewpoint.

Some of the words regarding proper conduct have relatively narrow or specific applications such as duties, responsibilities and obligations. Others, such as taboos, rules and laws are terms focusing on prohibitions being placed on us from the outside. Some, like customs and traditions, gain importance from a historical, ethnic or cultural perspective.

The more flexible and comprehensive the term, the more global its application. A few terms, being highly conceptual, deal with the ideal of right conduct from both internal and external origins. Ethics, morals, values, standards and principles are extremely elastic terms intended to address the entire realm of human behavior, thought and intention. These terms deal with not only societal expectations, but those originating internally in an individual’s consciousness.

People talk of personal and individual ethics and morals as often as they do social ones. Decisions based on one’s values and principles are often so pure as to go against the grain of accepted social behavior. When talking of these ideals, one not only hopes to meet social expectations, but surpass them. One’s morals, values, principles, standards and ethics should not be satisfied with meeting society’s minimal expectations, but aspire to the highest form of human conduct attainable.

Though each of these five terms deal with right behavior and conduct, they each have their own separate history and points of emphasis. I cannot speak of what these terms have meant to every one, but I can talk about the people I knew and how they discussed and used these terms.

Since I attended a Catholic grade school, morality was a concept I was introduced to when I was very young. Much of my early education focused on right behavior and on my being a moral person. Even the most trivial and insignificant behavior was often interpreted as being indicative of my inner most character. The nuns and priests routinely evaluated our daily behavior, and labeled each behavior as either immoral and evil, or moral and good.

The emphasis our society places on moral behavior has remained strong over the last few decades. In many ways the discussion has become even more intense and urgent. Though still a flexible concept, morality is more often than not considered to be a religious issue. The bulk of modern discussions place morality in a religious context equating one’s morals with religious conviction and commitment. A moral individual is a God-fearing pious person, whereas all immoral people are either pagans or people whose faith is weak (at least temporarily).

The focus of morality has become more specific through the years. In the 50’s and 60’s morality dealt with every aspect of our behavior, desires and thought. Personal morality was involved whenever an issue regarding our honesty and integrity was called into question.

In the 80’s and 90’s the social discussion of morality has grown even more religious in temperament. People talk of the need for moral instruction implying that humanity is immoral by nature. Most of our interest in morals has shifted to one area of human behavior, that being sexuality. Criminal behavior of all types are still labeled as immoral, but all aberrant and alternative sexual behaviors are stringently attacked as being immoral. The emergence of psychoanalysis, particularly Freudian, with its emphasis on the pervasiveness of the human sex drive and its primal role in neurosis and deviancy has greatly added to our culture’s escalating obsession with morality.

Morality is being reduced to a concept dealing with religious instruction and sexual conservatism. It is becoming a rather rigid ideal focusing on rules and laws and less on individual choices. Any deviancy from the religious sexual norm is immoral regardless of its intent or sincerity. No matter how honest and compassionate a person may be they run the risk of being considered immoral if they are nonreligious or engage in alternative forms of sexuality or sexual lifestyles.

The possibility of being generally moral but promiscuous or sexually flawed is becoming less of an accepted concept. This rather strict definition of morality makes it almost essential that all people must think, act, desire and feel the same. The ability for people to act and be moral is made even more difficult when you consider the fact that no two religions, or even sects have the exact same morality.

Though the proclivity for religious and sexual issues to dominate the popular discussion of morality is hard to over state, we should not be blind to the fact that people’s concern over morals deal with many other issues. The lack of an individual’s morality is looked to as being at the root of all social problems. Crime, violence, drug abuse, divorce, physical and sexual abuse and even gambling, mental disorders and the varied forms of dependency are all thought to be enhanced if not caused by a breakdown in an individual’s morals.

The ability for morality to openly address all issues of human conduct is curtailed when it focuses on sexuality or the dogmatic agendas of religious groups. This is not to deny the sexual and religious aspects of morality, but is only pointed out to protect the purity and flexibility of the ideal.
Equating religion with morality engenders other dangers. One is in having us ignore or minimize the immoral behavior of the clergy and other religious personages. When morality is viewed as being a subset of religious faith and belief, it allows one to view such atrocities as killing in the name of God as a moral act.

Not just morality, but ethics, principles, standards and values have all been contaminated through popular use. Any time one looks at these idealistic concepts one should keep in mind their original intent while analyzing their current usage. The goal of each one of these ideals is right action, and any abuse they endure through popular opinion does not destroy the integrity of their initial purpose.

When growing up I often heard people refer to their or other’s principles. A person resisting popular opinion, or declining a tempting opportunity often was said to do so because of their principles. Where as morality was based on dogma and social laws, principles were more often than not internal mechanisms. The origination of one’s principles were a form of self-consciousness in which a person decided to “do the right thing”.
A principled individual was one who stuck to his position even if it were unpopular or potentially damaging. A principled person feared no hardship, or found no reward worthy of sacrificing their principles.

In the 50’s and 60’s people (especially  men) would announce and enthusiastically defend their opinions in the name of their principles. The willingness to risk the loss of friendship and popularity for the personal honor of sticking to one’s principles was valued by many.
The drawbacks to the age of principles were numerous. Stubbornness and prejudice were often mistaken for principles causing many hateful acts to be done in the name of honor and nobility. Arguments often became quite heated when individuals righteously defended the validity of every one of their opinions as a matter of principle. Close mindedness and intolerance were glorified in the name of one’s principles and made qualities such as compassion, empathy and understanding weaknesses to be defeated. A person able to look at different perspectives was often viewed as wishy-washy and lacking in principles.

The downfall of the red-faced patriot defending his country and the honor of his opinions happened sometime during the 70’s. One could never be sure if the fallout from the Vietnam war or the public amusement of the caricature of Archie Bunker were more responsible for killing the fiery combative nationalist. Yet, in any case the appeal of being principled seemed to die at the same moment as the passionate self-assured political animal.

One has to wonder if we lost more than hot air at the death of the principled blue collar worker. These individuals did more than foster prejudice and intolerance. It was upon their shoulders that the post world war middle class was formed and groomed. Without their determination and pride in America it is doubtful we would ever have become the world’s leading industrial giant.

In the 60’s and 70’s people believed in the power of the individual. Even if blind to its weaknesses, their love of their country was played out in the passion of daily political discussion. Average citizens stood behind their political beliefs and even politicians were known to look for a good debate.
Political animals used to be passionate, self-righteous individuals who would take on all challengers. Even when you disagreed with these principled men, you knew where they stood and had no doubt in their sincerity.

Now, politicians are polite, diplomatic and careful not to alienate their voters. They may attack their opponent, but never the public. A politician is now known as a popularity hound whose opinions are tailored to appeal to the views of the greatest number of voters. Modern elections are often little more than popularity contests in which candidates look for ways to appeal to the most while alienating the least.

When I was young the ideal politician was strong, energetic, charismatic and somewhat daring and controversial. Politicians are no longer rough and strong leaders committed to a cause, but slickly groomed products looking for the largest market share.

Politicians are not the only one’s lacking fire and commitment. Today, the principled average citizen fighting for a cause is viewed at worse a fanatic and at best a crass and socially inept cynic. The belief in the importance of the individual has been replaced with the acceptance of the “game”. Even the most fervent nationalist believes that our government engages in illegal and unethical acts. Yet, most feel that a certain amount of impropriety is needed to win the game, and no matter what our country does its underlying intentions are good. No matter how crooked our government and intelligence agencies are, they are still a far cry more principled and humanitarian than any other nation on the face of the earth.

In the 60’s and 70’s the general populace felt that energetically defending our highest principles was necessary to keep our nation strong. If our principles fell, so would we. Americans took pride in terms such as justice and truth.

Today, we still view our nation as being generally good and as our system of justice (though flawed) as being the best. The old view of a perfect America is now thought to be unrealistic and naive. We, so much smarter now, see no reason to even strive to build a principled nation.

Yet, why should we hold on to an ideal of a nation which we have even lost for ourselves. Most American’s admit that they sometimes lie or cheat for the overall good of their family or career. In fact in recent surveys of college students, over 80% of the students claimed cheating was a necessary element of success. Every salesman knows a certain amount of guile and deceit goes a long way towards keeping one’s job and achieving success. Everyone knows the conflict and stress of life only increases when one tells the truth regardless of the consequences. The truth can hurt, and avoiding or ignoring an unresolvable difference can save a marriage or friendship as well as a business relationship.

It’s hard for us to imagine our leaders being principled when we ourselves have become less principled. In the real world people do what they have to do in the best way possible in a given situation. Most people don’t want to lie or deceive their neighbors, and do so only when they feel the situation demands it.

The lies of most politicians are often ignored or forgiven for the same reasons. A hot-headed principled politician would be viewed as a dangerous player in today’s sophisticated and volatile world affairs. We want our president to be strong, but prudent and realistic in tending to international problems and crisis. Compromises in both the truth and one’s principles are often necessary in diplomacy and economics.

Yet, are our only choices between a rigid, inflexible and bigoted man of principles and an adaptable but somewhat spineless slave to popular opinion? Can a principled leader or politician be both open minded and committed to living our highest ideals?

Standing up for what is right does not necessitate one be close minded. One can be committed to compassion and empathy as strongly as many have been to prejudice. A truly principled person would not be cruel, vicious or close minded. Such behaviors are by definition improper conduct and, therefore, opposed to the true realm of principles.

Yet, expecting our leaders to rise above the corruption in modern politics while we passively (if not reluctantly) accept the lack of principles in our everyday lives is unfair, unrealistic and hypocritical. Our politics would serve little purpose if they did not reflect the way we live our lives.

The responsibility lies on our shoulders. If right conduct became our major priority, a number of principled political candidates would once again surface. Yet, as long as we accept deception as “business as usual”, our politicians will continue to be as corrupt as the nation they lead and represent.

The terms standards and principles were often interchangeable. One’s standards or what one found acceptable, was most likely based on one’s principles. The major difference between the terms was that one’s standards were more open to personal interpretation. While principles were generally thought of as being guidelines to behavior applying to everyone, standards were more a matter of personal choice. My standards in a given area me be higher of lower than yours just due to our priorities. If I were a carpenter my standards regarding the organization of tools would be higher than the average home owner. Likewise, if I were a coach, my standards regarding physical effort would be higher than the casual participant in recreational sports.
While morals, standards and principles were words I often heard spoken, ethics was a word I seldom came across in conversation. Other than occasionally coming across allegations of unethical behavior on television or the newspaper, ethics remained a dormant topic. Yet, I cannot be sure if my experience was common to all or just a result of class consciousness.

Morality, standards and principles were very blue collar topics. Ethics on the other hand was a course offered at universities. Esteemed professions such as medicine and law joined philosophers in discussing the relative merits and problems of ethics while the common man talked of standards and principles. Ethical discussions were an academian’s dream, theoretical, abstract, and reflective. Morals and principles, on the other hand, were often based on “gut feelings”, logic  and religious doctrine, seldom open for discussion or intellectual interpretation (evolution).

Though some of the current debates in medical and legal ethics have become popularized, ethical discussions are generally reserved for academic and philosophic circles. Not tied to religion or ideology ethics remains a relatively pure concept of right conduct. Yet, its theoretical overtones often limit its ability to deal with practical existence. The conceptual doubts and complexities which give philosophical ethics its rigor and beauty bar its being a finished product to be implemented in society.

Unlike the other three terms, values is one I never heard mentioned at all throughout my formative years. My introduction to this term came from pop psychological, anthropological, and sociological texts I read while working with delinquent adolescents. Solely in this context did I hear the word used as therapists and psychologists developed “values clarification” tests and exercises for fellow professionals to administer to their clients.

Values clarification remained a buzz word for a greater part of the 70’s, and only at the end of the decade did its popularity boil over to the general public through talk shows, books on pop psychology, and hip religious services.

As a demonstration to its previous novelty, a 1962 Roget’s College Thesaurus I have does not list values as a synonym for ethics, principles or morals. The term values seldom used before the mid-sixties exploded in popularity over the last three decades.
Values, now, is used far more frequently than ethics, principles or morality. Though morality is still discussed frequently, especially in sexual/religious contexts, values is talked about in almost every social dialogue. One’s values are now discussed in every field from science, politics, and education to religion, psychology and economics.
One has to wonder why values has become the term of choice regarding right conduct and codes of behavior. Why do we prefer to talk about our values rather than our principles, standards, morals or ethics. Is it simply an easier word to say? Does it just have better PR, or the right spokespeople?  Does it have a specific meaning the others don’t which makes it more attractive or applicable?

When searching at possible reasons for the popularity of values we have to look no further than the beginning of this introduction. Values being a relatively new and technical term lacks the negative emotional baggage and stereotypes of the other terms. All the other conceptual terms regarding right conduct are limited and corrupted by their centuries of use.

Yet, this process of elimination logic answers why the other terms have lost popularity more than why values has exploded in usage. There seems to be a need for a better reason to explain the fascination this term currently holds for our culture.

Though somewhat silly sounding, it is true the term has had popular spokesman. Our society’s interest in pop psychology coincided with the explosion of professional usage in that medium. Religious figures too, at that very time period became not only accepting but very interested in psychology. Prior to the seventies many priests and ministers were leery of, if not opposed to, psychology and psychological methods.
During the early seventies many young priests and ministers found their beliefs echoed in the emerging popular theories of psychology. The clergy themselves quickly adopted the term values, and used it as a synonym for morals and morality.

The seventies also signalled the beginning of the topical daytime talk shows. Reflective, provocative and emotional topics  were ripe for discussions regarding what we all hold dear and view as important. Whether the topic was ERA, the KKK, or cross dressing prostitutes, a discussion of people’s values was almost impossible to avoid. Today a swarm of therapists, psychologists, and sociologists are daily paraded by our ears and eyes as they attempt to referee, interpret, and explain the stories being told on TV and radio talk show stages from morning till night.

These factors certainly help in explaining the rise and popularity of using the term values when discussing personal behavior. Yet, I believe people speak so comfortably of personal and family values for another reason. While it is often difficult to rectify one’s ethics, principles and morals with everyday life, it is much easier to have our values adapt to our everyday existence.

Values are based on what we feel has worth, on what one deems as important. There is an intrinsic relationship to values and to  money. Value is the economic term from which “values” was derived.
While ethics, principles and even morals can be idealistic and somewhat unrealistic in today’s world, values is a term firmly anchored in everyday life. Everything we see, touch and feel in life now has a value (worth). Many of our decisions are not necessarily right or wrong, but more often beneficial and productive, or limiting and harmful.

Assessing and evaluating what we value or deem important, helps us deal with the harsh realities of our fast paced life. Our values are reflected in our priorities, in how we spend our time and how we treat our family. In an unethical world one often has to forsake the ideal decision for a practical and attainable one.

Most of us believe that if we lived in a perfect world we would always be moral and ethical. If we had the choice we would live life quite differently than we do. Morally we would never choose to lie, or leave our children in the care of another, but many important and necessary things make us tailor our ideals to the real world. A world of values is much more realistic and attainable, and allows us to set high standards without failing or feeling perpetually guilty.

Since everything in society has a value, it is only logical that we should think in terms of values. Principles, morals and ethics often seem useless unless one is involved in a major decision. One’s values on the other hand can be a part of almost every thought or feeling. It would seem silly to think of making the average purchasing decision based on one’s ethics, but knowing what one values helps in even the most mundane of tasks.
Our lives are increasingly being dominated by economic concerns and making the best decision in an imperfect world. Value is something we come across each day. Our survival depends upon our boss valuing our work, or a customer finding value (worth) in our products or services. Though we would like to be respected for our morals and ethics, our careers seldom are weighed by such lofty ideals.

Much of our day-to-day existence centers around economic concerns. Issues such as sex and religion continue to be important, but even these topics are saturated with economic realities. The one constant in almost every facet of our modern existence is money. It should be no surprise that values are vital in a society which views freedom as its cornerstone and equates free enterprise with personal freedom.

In this book we will look at the impact our values have on the many disciplines, professions and activities which comprise modern life in America. We will strive to assess in what ways our emphasis on value and monetary worth is changing the way our society functions.

Is the supremacy of the term purely one of convenience, or does it signify a radical change in the way we evaluate our behavior and the society in which we live? How much does the economic aspect of value effect our values? Is our emphasis on values indicative of a downfall in our respect for principles, morals and ethics? Or is our preference for values just a way for us to avoid engaging in the bigotry, elitism and self©righteousness contaminating the other ideals?

One thing is for certain, and that is even though the terms are similar they are not interchangeable. Though each term deals with human conduct and behavior they each have their own applications and points of emphasis. Let’s now take a long look at some of the ramifications of living in a value obsessed society.

Jim Guido

PS While much of this could be written today, the emerence of Fox News has restored the red-faced patriot that appeared to be extinct in the early nineties.

Eroding America

Some time ago I referred to the US as a veneer society, meaning a society that looked good on the surface. I’ve felt the affluence of the US a total sham since the nineties, and a growing sham since the Reagan years. We have borrowed and pillaged to maintain our self-proclaimed world leading life style, and the signs of decay have been present for anyone willing to look beneath the veneer.

The erosion of the life of the American middle class has been steady and almost imperceptible in real time. Yet, a simple comparison of the standard of living of those in the 1950’s to today is quite remarkable. The growth in technology and modern conveniences has done well to cover up the steep fall of the modern middle class. Yet, despite having more objects, toys and conveniences the life style of the American middle class is plummeting.

Two paycheck familes no longer can afford the life style that one paycheck generated in the 1950’s. The bursting of the housing bubble and the fall of the stock market have revealed a good portion of American wealth,  for what it has been, factitious.

In the real world middle and upper middle class wealth has been on the decline for a long time. For decades the rise in wages has been lower than the rise in inflation (cost of living). Yet, only through near doubling the workforce per home, increased borrowing, a bull market in stocks and a housing bubble have  we been able to deceive ourselves into believing that we were keeping up.

Since the 60’s workers and workers unions were convinced to take increases in benefits such as health and dental care, retirement plans, shares of company stock and insurance policies in place of higher wages. Workers were sold on the idea that these benefits would generate wealth and security for all in the long run.

Corporations and businesses claimed that deferred pay helped cut down on overhead. Reduction of overhead (business expenses) allowed compaines to expand their operations and invest their profits to generate jobs and future wage growth.

This model of deferred payment being used to propel future profits and growth of companies and the economy in general became the frame work for Reagans famed trickle down economics. Yet, despite all the rhetoric the truth of the matter was that the lived reality of the American worker was that growth in their wages was not keeping up with the rise in the cost of living.

These contractual promises of businesses to provide long term benefits in exchange for workers taking less pay per hour of work came to called entitlement packages. Now, it turns out that many corporations are reneging on these promises and are cutting benefit and retirement plans that were agreed upon years ago.

Without the stock and housing market booms the average middle class American would have been far more aware of the steady decline in their real wealth and the life style it could support. Couple all these bubbles with the credit card and loan booms and most Americans were able to be deceived that their relative wealth and standard of living was actually on the rise.

I see many examples around me of the erosion of the American life style. I hear many people talk of how wages have stayed flat in their profession for years, which of course means their life style has been declining when you factor in yearly inflation. Many health care professionals state that their profit margins have been steadily shrinking because of payment reductions introduced by insurance companies and governmental bodies. I’ve heard some state that they now need to work 60 a week to earn what they used to in 40.

When I was growing up the doctor’s families I knew lived quite well. Even though I lived in a relatively poor suburb of Chicago the two girls I was fiends with whose dads were doctors had very comfortable lifestyles that included swimming pools, country club memberships, maids, frequent travel, private schools as well as ample donations to local and national charities.

The medical and professional doctors I know best today have drastically different life styles. A pharmacist I know though still having most of the historical perks of being a doctor, is having to work many more hours to keep his life style from falling. I know two single female professionals with doctorate degrees who are having to take in borders to make ends meet. One of the women still has a child at home while the other has been living on her own for a number of years.

While I realize that many people’s life styles are in crisis due to conspicuous consumption and living beyond their means I do believe it is masking the real erosion of the American middle class just as well as did the bubbles in real estate and financial markets. One, the bubbles, distorted reality by creating illusions of wealth, the other, bad loans, mortgages and credit is overemphasizing the role greed and irresponsibile behavior has had in harming the middle class life style.

I erosion of the American life style is far more systemic than the illusions lead one to believe. The illusions not only prevent us from seeing the decay, but also have us find false scapegoats and fall guys. This is not just about self-responsibility it is far bigger than that.

It is about the myths of modern economics and capitalism. Our wealth was created by and dependent on empire building. Capitalism is neither the reason for our economic rise nor our eroding life style. Capitalism has been a fortunate benefactor of the empire and is begining to be the recipient of the fallout of a declining empire.

True wealth creation is not something a ruling empire has to concern itself with, but it is a concern for any nation not basking in the protection of the empire.

Hopefully the creation and definition of wealth doesn’t just go from empire to empire, but soon gets framed in terms of a sustainable global community. Wealth, like any other god, should not depend on myth to sustain its existence.

Jim Guido

Fictional Space

In this post I’d like to pay homage to our ability to live in time, to not be imprisoned in the present. Many of today’s spiritual practices have a tendency to glorify the present while tacitly demeaning the past and the future. Some thirty years ago I wrote a song entitled Fictional Space which I will use to highlight some of my points.

By fictional space I’m referring to our ability to go beyond the present moment by drawing upon our past and projecting into the future. Since the present is often considered “the real” the “what is really happening” the past and the present could be viewed as being non-real or fictional.

My memories, my past, infuses my life with meaning. My personal history constructs my sense of self and allows me to have relationships with others, to develop skills and talents, and to perceive growth and development.

The ability to project my life into a future provides me an opportunity to plan, set goals, change direction and anticipate. Anticipation is an important ingredient in my ability to feel and experience pleasure.

A life lived totally in the present would lack depth and meaning it would be a flat and unguided existence. Totally bereft of meaning and a sense of purpose.

These thoughts are contained in my song Fictional Space which follows. I’ll talk more on a few of the following lines.

Fictional Space

There’s something of the mind which plays off circumstance
Like a servant pampered king it can be wise or frivolous
Unencumbered one used for strategy of evasion
Place me straddled on this life
Vision gives me power and might
Bash their monstrous heads, the survivors scheme
Lovers engulfed orgasmic anticipation
The hunter laughs at the snap of the trap

Fictional space

There’s something that’s the style which I won’t represent
It’s a feeling of denial wan discouragement
Harlots of the soul lost in merriment
Visceral drives buried by excitement

Moments take pride in invention
Problems provoke awkward hesitation
Solution, look to friendly vistas
The future beckons the agile dancer

Fictional space

Make me alive set me on fire
Make me alive celluloid fire

——————————————————————————-

There’s something of the mind which plays off circumstance
Like a servant pampered king it can be wise or frivolous

My ability to have a future and a past is a function of my mind which plays off the present circumstance. This ability can be used well or wasted. One can use this freedom and talent to make a life fulfilling or construct a babbling mind dedicated to avoiding the world and personal experience.

Unencumbered one used for strategy of evasion
Place me straddled on this life

This freedom to play with time gives my life depth and meaning, and at each moment I am free to weave together my past, present and future into a life.

I’ll let you play with the rest of the lyrics.

Yet, in the end I prefer to see “being here now” or “existing in the present” as useful tools and not absolute goals. Being fully aware and immersed in the present would be a form of imprisonment and would not lead to “enlightenment” , “fulfillment”, or a better life.

I embrace my humanity and revel in my sense of time and the fullness it brings to my experiences and my sense of self.

Jim Guido

Bride of FrankenMarket

In February I wrote a series of posts regarding  the stock market saying that the Dow had to get above 8400 and stay there or it was going to roll over. Well, it did roll over. At that time I mentioned that I had expected more out of the rally out of the fall low.

Well were back at it again.

After the low on March 6 we have seen the type of rally I had expected earlier in the year.  The Nasdaq is up some 40%  in just two months. The S&P and the Dow could get there this week.

Does this mean the bear market is over and a new bull is here?

From a historical perspective this seems very unlikely. In fact during the last depression we had a number of these breathtaking rallies which sucked everyone back in only to have their hearts and bank accounts broken.

How much further will this rally go? Well it could stop at any moment, but could take the Dow all the way up to 9000 or even 9500.

Yet, this rally seems less impressive when you realize that in early February I was talking of the Dow needing to get and stay above 8400 and today some three months later we’re celebrating the largest rally since 1932 when the Dow is a little more than 1% above that same 8400 mark.

Today I’d like to point out one statistical measure that would seem to have us be extremely sceptical of any talk that the economic and market downturn are over.

The Price to Earning Ratio (PE) is often used to help assess the relative worth of a stock. The PE ratio is determined by dividing the price of a stock by the earnings of the company.

As an example if a stock closes at $50 and the company’s current earnings are $5 per share than that stock is selling at 10 times earnings.

Now, expected PE ratios differ from company to company for a variety of reasons such as the kind of business  it is or if it is a new company or part of a new industry. Yet, the Dow and S&P as indexes have historically averaged around 12 to 14 times earnings. When the companies of the these indexes fall below 10 times earnings the stock in these companies is generally considered to be under valued, when above 15 times earnings the stock is often regarded as over valued.

When the PE of the entire Dow or S&P is over 20 we are said to be in a bubble.

Seldom does an index PE ratio rise much above 24 times earnings. Historically, every time this has happened the market has entered a bear market which has continued until the index’s P/E  has gone into undervalued territory.

Bear markets continue until PE’s get down to about six or seven.

When this bear market started the Dow and S&P were in historically high PE ratio territory. Some estimates has the Dow’s PE over 40.

While the bear cut the Dow from 14400 to 6400 in a savage fall in a little over a years time, the PE ratio tumbled. As stock prices fell so did the earnings of  the companies, so that while the Dow lost over 50% of  its value, its PE ratios still stayed in overvalued  territory.

In fact the Dow and S&P never even got below bubble territory as the PE’s of the indexes remained above 20.

With this current rally the PE’s are currently up in nose bleed territory. The Dow’s PE is currently over 33 and the S&P is over 50.

In previous bear markets following bubble markets the bear market does not end until the PE of the Dow gets under 7. In order for this bear market to follow the historic norm the Dow would have to fall to somewhere between 1600 and 2000.

Am I predicting this. No, not really.

But, I do feel pretty safe in saying that we are going to be a lot closer to 2000 than 1000 before this bear market is over.

Not once has a bear market following a bubble market ended with the PE of the Dow staying above 10.

Now, earnings could improve some while the bear is doing its job, especially if we get an inflationary environment rather than a deflationary one.

So, just maybe we’ll be able to get the PE ratio below ten and keep the Dow from bottoming out below 3000.

It could happen, but I wouldn’t count on it.

Yet, to think the worst is over when PE’s are still in bubble territory is fool hearty at best, and just goes to show how far we still have to go.

When most bear markets end the average person hates and is out of the stock market. At the end of bear markets interest in and participation in the market is at a low.

We’re not any where near that happening yet. People are still trying to make the money back they lost last year in the market, and that is the mixture of hope and desperation that bear markets feed themselves on.

Yet, if this time were going to be different our PE ratios would not be in nose bleed territory.

Please be careful and heed the warnings of history.

Jim Guido

Joe Biden’s Error?

Okay, here’s what Joe actually said.

We quote: “I would tell members of my family - and I have - I wouldn’t go anywhere in confined places now. It’s not going to Mexico, it’s you’re in a confined aircraft when one person sneezes it goes all the way through the aircraft. That’s me. I would not be, at this point, if they had another way of transportation, suggesting they ride the subway. So from my perspective, what it relates to is mitigation.

“If you’re out in the middle of a field and someone sneezes, that’s one thing. If you’re in a closed aircraft or a closed container, a closed car, a closed classroom, it’s a different thing.”

Less than 12 hours earlier President Obama urged caution along with hand-washing and covering the mouth when coughing. After Joe’s comments Mr. Obama felt it necessary to add that one should feel free to travel unless they themselves are coughing or feeling sick.

While the President’s words regarding pubic safety were welcomed Mr. Biden’s were viewed as foolish and a possible cause of social panic.

In both remarks the president and the vice-president were expressing typical public health truisms. The president urged the public safety by asking citizens to wash their hands and to cover their mouth. The vice-president urged people not to take unnecessary risks by not putting themselves in confined environments where shared breathed air is conducive to the spread of socially transmitted diseases.

From a public health perspective both are extremely similar. The president focused on individuals taking actions which limited the spread of germs while the vice-president urged people to avoid potentially harmful environments. It really is the same message one is personal responsibility and other is being cautious.

After the outrage over the vice-president’s comments, the president felt it necessary to state that only people who appear sick should avoid putting themselves in confined spaces. The president’s follow up comments were a bit weak on two levels. First, the vice-presidents comments were about personal caution and not putting oneself unnecessarily in harm’s way. Not about endangering others. And second, it is not necessarily true that only people who are actively coughing or visibly sick are contagious. Another public health truism is that often times people are most contagious before they start to exhibit symptoms.

So, why are Joe’s comments considered to be so over the top and alarmist. All he is saying is that if one has a choice right now they should not put themselves in harm’s way. He said we would urge a family member to find alternative forms of transportation to one’s which involve a whole bunch of people being packed into a cramped area to help reduce the odds of being around an infected person.

How is that crazy? How is that extreme, or fear mongering?

If through everyone’s caution, even if a little unnecessary, the pandemic were to be averted isn’t that a good thing? Wouldn’t they be able to go back to the subway or the plane once the WHO and local public health officials give the green light? Even if unnecessary where’s the harm?

On the other hand if people just assumed that there was no danger and their actions actually helped with the spread of a disease with a high kill rate how can that be defended? Even if this turns out to be a more normal flu what’s wrong with a little caution?

I’ll tell you what the media found wrong. The real fear is about money. It is another example of how human life is less important than commerce and insuring the fiscal interests of the wealthiest of individuals.

Joe’s comments asked the “consumer”, in the name of public safety, to ease up a little on a specific form of consumption (mass transportation). Actually he suggested people find alternative transportation rather than tell them to stay home.

Currently Mexico, who is our number one trading partner for much of our short term needs, is actively restricting the social and commercial flow of the nation. The Mexican population seems to be willing to make some commercial sacrifices to help control the spread of a potentially lethal disease.

In the US a few isolated communities have closed schools and canceled densely populated social events such as sporting events  to try and avoid the very situation which the vice-president was alluding to. Such communities are trying to eliminate the cramped and dense social situations which, like mass transportation, help foster disease transmission.

Yet, the US in general is avoiding placing any restrictions on either commerce or social gatherings. In essence the fear is the negative impact any restrictions would have on commerce and the economy.

Call me old fashion, but I still place a higher value on health and quality of life over monetary gain.

Mr. Obama talks and appears to be a compassionate, sensitive person who is concerned about the plight of the common man. Yet, the people he’s chosen to surround himself with, his actions including the bailouts and his international policies are showing his priorities lie with the status quo. His recent comments attempting to modify Mr. Biden’s comments show once again that the interests of big money is still more important than human life, especially the lives of the common man.

Hopefully, our lack of response and desire to keep our society running at full steam will not result in assisting the spread of a sizable pandemic.  It may be true that we can neither cause nor prevent a pandemic, but we do know we can take actions which can reduce its severity and impact.

Taking precautionary measures is not the same thing as being an alarmist. The alarmist seem to be the one’s who think being cautious is dangerous or crazy.

I guess I’m in the rather safe than sorry camp. Even if I was in the money and consumption is our first priority camp I can’t see how fanning the flames of a pandemic is good for the economy.

I’m not sure if putting commerce first is more short sighted or short hearted.

Jim Guido

Earth Day Trojan Horses

In the last few posts I’ve pointed out how incredible man’s progress has been over the last few centuries. Yet, I also mentioned that despite these accomplishments we are missing many opportunities for making human life more rewarding, happy and safe.

In this post we’ll some of the issues which surround earth day to demonstrate how our current economic and political structures are retarding and in some cases harming the quuality of human life. Many of these ideas have been dealt with in a more in-depth fashion in previous posts over the last couple of years.

I’m using the image of the Trojan Horse to conjure the image of something offered as a gift, which in reality if meant for harm. This image does fit with some of the less wholesome aspects of modern capitalism.

Consumption is a major aspect of capitalism, and sales is a major component of consumption. A salesman’s job is to make his product appealing to the customer. Successful sales are often dependent on convincing the customer of the need or benefit of the product. Sales techniques often involve the following strategies:

1) Deception
2) Misrepresentation
3) Propaganda
4) Distortion

These techniques are used to help cast the product in the best light while omitting or under-stating its weaknesses. These techniques are also used to induce a potential consumer into making a purchase that they have no need for at that time.

The modern drug commercial is a perfect example of the above sales techniques. In which the supposed benefits of the drug are depicted in the most alluring terms while the potential drawbacks to the drug are rattled off breathlessly beyond the realm of cognition. This feeble attempt at providing balanced information is only done because of legal pressures on the industry. In most industries and businesses there is no requirement to present any case but the one which makes your product or service look as attractive as possible.

This lack of truth and skillful misrepresentation even dominates our legal system. Instead of justice, the goal of lawyers is to win cases and make money. In a justice oriented system the focus would not be on guilt or innocence, but rather on a total exploration of the facts to best understand motives, conditions and extenuating circumstances. In a system of justice the goal would not be to deceive or influence the jury and judge, but to present an honest exploration of the harm done (prosecution) and the reasons for the offense (defense), and how to best accomplish both restitution and rehabilitation.

In our legal system even though a witness is supposed to “tell the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”, the sad reality is that both lawyers are trying to get the witness to tell only the part of the truth that benefits their client or purpose.  One would not have to look very deep to see how the need to make money and procure clients leads to this logical outcome of guilt vs innocence over justice. Yet. most defend this immoral legal system, because they take capitalism for granted and can’t even imagine a system of justice which is not capitalistic in nature. Justice should not be a service and product offered clients but rather a system which promotes the safety and quality of life of its citizens.

Let’s take a moment to review some of the ways in which modern capitalism limits or runs counter to our efforts to create a healthy, safe and sustainable environment composed of healthy and happy individuals.

A healthy and safe environment would have products and infrastructure which was:

Efficient
Durable
Enduring
Self-replenishing
Safe

Yet, we live in a system which promotes:

Over-consumption
Fads and fashions
Planned Obsolescence
Products which need repair
Unnecessary packaging and waste

Many studies over the past few decades have documented the role over-consumption plays in various psychological disorders.  Spiritualists and psychologists alike have pointed to high consumption of food, products and services as an ineffective means of an individual attempting to fill their emotional and psychological needs.

Many addictions and compulsions are routinely exploited by our capitalistic system. Which has many motives to keep the consumer unsatisfied and unhappy. A happy and sated person will have less reason to consume and will more often consume according to need.

How to get people to consume as much as possible has long been a science in our culture. Research scientists for many companies played with their products recipe and delivery system to maximize sales and consumer loyalty to the product. Researchers at coffee companies soon realized that the amount of caffeine on their product directly correlated to the amount of coffee consumed by the public. Too high a level of caffeine and the drinker could stop at one cup, too low a level and the drinker could lose interest in the beverage. Yet, a happy medium and the consumer would drink many cups of the beverage in search of the lift they sought from coffee.

The same balance of too potent and not strong enough was found by researchers of beer and cigarettes.  They could maximize their products consumption and the loyalty of their consumers by finding the right mix of addictive high and watered down delivery.

Likewise in many aspects of the food industry this science of how to maximize consumption has been quite fruitful. Diet soda recipes often induce one to feel more thirsty after drinking than before, inciting its consumers to drink can after can in a fruitless attempt to quench their thirsts. High amounts of sodium are used in many restaurants to heighten beverage sales at their establishments (beverages have some of the highest profit margins at food establishments). The list of cravings one can elicit through careful manipulation of recipes is quite extensive, and it is safe to say that most food companies and eateries use these techniques to maximize sales and profits.

Fostering over consumption is neither healthy nor good for the environment.

Capitalism’s dependency on profit makes if prone to encouraging over-consumption. From a capitalistic perspective neither the ecological movement’s disappearance nor its re-appearance in the form of the recycling industry is surprising.  The ecological movements concerns were harmful to the bottom lines of many corporations and industries.Yer, recycling has been designed and implemented in a way which benefits most businesses bottom lines.

First, it is great niche marketing. The recycling industry appeals to the good conscience of people and to the earth lover’s who have a tendency to consume less than the norm. A combination the recycling and organic food industries got the ecological crowd excited about consumption. A crowd which formerly avoided many forms of consumption based on morality could now be seduced to consume according to the same morality. In fact, this earth loving crowd, would be willing to purchase goods and foods at higher prices in their effort to be healthy and kind to the earth.

I know that I myself by products and recycle due to my desire to do the right and healthy thing. I do this, even though, I see through the Trojan Horse aspect of the recycling industry.

Our current recycling industry is a far cry from anything resembling a movement with ecological integrity. It is, after all, a recycling industry whose existence is dependent on making money. The recycling industry only returned because it adapted to capitalism and became a very profitable business. The recycling industry is not a charity, nor a humanitarian service, it is a profit hawking free market survivor.

While purporting to get rid of waste and inefficiency it is in fact dependent on ever escalating levels of waste to support its growth and expansion. If we were to become truly efficient, the recycling companies would be the first to go out of business.

In addition, the harms caused to the environment are often stronger than the benefits gained trough recycling. The recycling processes involved in newspapers and plastics are only two examples of the ethical dilemma the industry poses. Though trees are saved when we recycle paper the amount of toxins and hazardous chemicals put into our water supply in the process of stripping newsprint off of paper is greatly increased. Likewise, the amount of energy used and chemical damage incurred through recycling many plastics call into question it’s ecological benefits.

Could we make recycling more ecologically friendly. Yes, of course we could. But any movement adapting to our capitalistic system will have to make great concession to become profitable. In a previous post I talked of how we could replace most plastic container uses with glass. The two objections given to the use of glass by industry spokesmen are that reused glass would be  unhealthy and unsafe. Unhealthy because of germs and unsafe because glass breaks.

Well, it would be easy to create reusable glass bottles that were shatter proof or break resistant or make reusable skins made of materials which were effective and environmentally friendly.  One could also easily create sterilization stations at grocery stores, etc. which would tend to the germ problem in a safe and cost effective manner.

Yer, the reason we won’t do this is because it isn’t profitable. The reason we’ve refused to make cars more efficient is because it hurts proit margins. If we created true cures to diseases and medical conditions rather than pills which mask symptoms or depend on your constant use, then phamaceutical companies would not be profitable. Therefore, why would any research go into discoveries which would kill the business.

Capitalism depends on waste and inefficiency, for profit is dependent on waste and inefficiency.

In a system of competition each company produces more than they sell out of hopes of increased market share and their fears of running out of the product to meet consumer demand. Some estimates are that as little of one tenth of food that is raised and harvested is actually consumed.

Once again I will print the following logic chain and hope you ponder its validity.

PROFIT = Surplus = Excess = Waste

Capitalism is a system which we’ve outgrown. We need a system that thrives on efficiency, that rewards mutually beneficial solutions and actions rather than win/lose competition, and that encourages self-actualization rather than view individual contentment as a threat to consumption.

We need a structure which rewards people for being kind and compassionate rather than one that rewards artifice and views people as consumers.

As human beings, we have come along way, and our political and economic systems have contributed to this growth. Yet, we now are at a juncture where optimal growth and satisfaction require new structures. If not, our current path will further erode the quality of life of an increasing percentage of people all across the globe.

Jim Guido