GuidoWorld

Politicians and Public Servants

If I were an elected official I would conduct my administration in the following manner.

I would try as much as possible to live up to the term public servant. I would incorporate practices which maximize transparency, engender actual democracy and keep the public up to date.

The first thing I would do is to have my working hours documented for all to see and hear. This could be accomplished by having my meetings, and business telephone conversations and the like taped and played on the internet and cable TV.  Hopefully this would limit the number of people such as special interest groups from attempting to influence my actions by behind the scene influence, as well as keep people informed of what I’m doing in their name.

I also would disseminate the various views on a number of important issues so the public could educate themselves on the issues. When making a decision, I would publish why I chose the solution I did and compare and contrast its merits with the other options that were available. As often as possible I would track the relative success of the decisions I’ve made and let the public know when and why a chosen policy was amended or altered due to its actual efficacy in improving the community.

In a direct democracy people would vote on issues themselves. Therefore, at times I would like to place many issues up for public vote. Citizens could vote by telephone, internet, or by voting booth.

Yet, no one wants uninformed individuals to vote on any issue. Hence, people would have to prove their knowledge before being allowed to vote on an issue.  Sufficient familiarity of the issue could be proven by answering a few questions derived from the issue papers I would have posted on the internet, cable TV, and at voting facilities.

In some cases the actual votes would decide the course of action to be taken, in other cases the vote would be taken just to get an accurate read of public opinion. In a situation whereby a number of possible courses of action were proposed we would list the percentage of vote for each proposed solution or action. This would allow us to try the second most popular plan if the initial plan wasn’t proving to be as successful as hoped.

I previously worked for a non-profit organization which attempted to help the public form and institute actions which would have a positive impact on the quality of life of those living in our community. This process involved choosing a topic that would be discussed throughout the year. The potential topics were arrived at by asking the public which areas they were most concerned about. Our community over several years chose education, housing, health care, transportation and air and water quality to name a few.

Groups of citizens would meet to discuss the chosen issue and be led by trained facilitators to come up with possible solutions. These potential solutions would be presented to the chamber of commerce, city council and all vested parties. If a solution were popular, but not immediately adopted, we would help citizens form task forces and action groups to help them keep their vision alive.

In the initial discussion circles all citizens were listened to and their feelings and concerns hopefully validated and articulated. I found that when people felt hear and understood they were more willing to try a solution which wasn’t their first choice, knowing that their solution would be back on the table if the chosen solution proved to be unsuccessful. All chosen solutions were published and their success or lack of success was followed and documented by agreed upon benchmarks and outcomes. As an example the solutions for improving local education would be evaluated by test scores, student performance, attendance and many other concrete statistics.

There is no perfect governmental structure, and there would be many flaws and complications with an open form of government which I am proposing. Yet, I do feel it is the right direction to go towards.

I would not try to win an election. If people liked my ideas and methods than they should vote for me, if they didn’t like my ideas then they shouldn’t vote for me.

Winning an election should not just be a popularity contest, but rather a decision of how we want to be governed and what type of person fits the attitude of the time. If people didn’t agree with my basic stance and my general principles, why would I want their vote, and what good can I do for people who are fundamentally opposed to my way of being in the world?

Our current format of having politicians being handled and packaged and altering how they express their ideas by the latest poll results is not working very well, and is a very insincere and dishonest means of governing.

Yet, if that’s what people want, then by all means they should continue to support the current system. Yet, if people do not want salesmanship, spin and dishonesty that they need to demand change.

The following lyrics express some of my concerns with modern politics. The songs can be heard in the music section, Mob Rule is on the Edge of Eden CD. Political Guys and Demonic Democracy are on Opportunity Lost and Demonic Democracy can be found on the Surviving Sophistry CD.

Jim Guido

Mob Rule

My life keeps reaching away from storm
But who’s that teaching a hateful scorn?
Wisdom’s flame will blow out one day
When fools keep talking their winds of decay
I wonder if they know?
What is believing if not adorned
With wreaths of feeling one’s love restored?
We need a leader today
Who leads the herd not held in its sway
I sit here waiting for you

The people’s man keeps shaking hands
Plays the crowd like a slick magician
His words of hope there is no antidote
He speaks our words so we believe him
Makes me angry, makes me sad
Makes we proud to live in this land
What we want over what we need
Seduces us into feeling free

Feeling ecstasy, popular people telling popular stories
Of comfortable change, popular people telling popular stories

In limousines and dairy queens
The cameras focus on smiling faces
What is shown is all that’s known
Along with words meant to please everybody
Seeking pleasure, needing change
The crowd’s excited just the same
The torch’s ablaze, the mob’s enraged
Self-righteous truth fuels the flame

Mob rule ain’t that true? mob rule it’s what we groom
Mob rule it’s who you know, mob rule to get control
Mob rule just step in line, mob rule and let the anger fly
Mob rule it’s how you act, mob rule now that’s a fact

What’s right is right if you got the votes
In a democratic land that called control
Mob rule we’ve been had, mob rule it’s so sad
Mob rule just one big bang, mob rule let’s wave the flag
Where have all the heroes gone like the sheriff at the courthouse
Speaking words of justice to calm an angry lynch mob?

Public Serpent

You lost my trust, I feel disgust
When I think of how you must live
Your words are feeble, you speak of evil
I feel my lunch coming

You so depend that we’ll suspend
Deny all we know to be true
You smile on screen, I shout and scream
Aigh-aigh-aigh

Say what you want your time draws near
The hate that you wrought is about to come back at you
Your pampered life of strong-armed fear
The friends that you bought are about to find friends elsewhere

You herd the sheep, you bah they bleat
Starting wars with indignation
Self-righteous toad, you seek control
For you have no talents

I seek no harm, just sound the alarm
And hope that our plight’s over
I like to care, be kind and fair
But your venom has poisoned our place in the world

Say what you want your time draws near
The hate that you wrought is about to come back at you
Your pampered life of strong-armed fear
The friends that you bought are about to find friends elsewhere

Though you talk of noble causes there are hisses in your words
When you speak of love and justice, I never feel your heart
Cheaters often prosper that’s a fact of life
But their victories are so shallow for they must forever be on guard

Cryptic reasons to go to war the demons got the bomb
Sordid visions of mass destruction gives us all a shove
Our sovereign goodness we defend, all threats we’ll overcome
When public serpent bares his fangs the masses will succumb

Say what you want your time is going to come
Do what you want, you’re doomed from the start

Political Guys

Lost in the fire of yesterdays is the passion which powers reason
Now we smile at everything, treading lightly avoiding tension
Saying nothing silence is but a tool
Making friendships with bonds that have no clue

How long can we live a lie?
Shaking hands and hugging bodies
Acting like we’re close
Not knowing anything about anybody
Incorrigible lies, lie behind those eyes not blinking
Despicable smiles, convicting you while they’re gleaming

Searching long to find someone willing to drop their mask
That’s all I ask

Locked on the screen I see a smile
Quite like the others I see around me
Every word a lithograph
Every pause so well acted
No one’s thinking reporters explain it to you
The smile keeps talking never missing a cue

It’s hard to swim across the river of contradictions
It’s hard to find a smile which speaks with some distinction

Political guys, decisive roads to indecision
Political guise, leave no trails of comprehension

Searching long to find someone willing to drop their mask
That’s all I ask
Political guys, buy our freedom through corruption
Political guise, use our boys for more extortion

When innocent lives are shattered to pieces

Oh, I don’t love anyone any more
Oh, I don’t hate anyone any more

Demonic Democracy

I partied quite a lot it’s true
My wife killed a boyfriend from school
My dad tortured evil men so cruel
Thru failed businesses my wealth grew

I’ve lived a shallow life well connected well advised
Almost everything goes my way
I will sacrifice a few thousand lives
To gain your support and your praise

I’ve faith in god and so should you
We’ll kill off evil at its roots
If you question me you’re a fool
For god is right and I’m his tool

You will have to sacrifice a few basic rights
To make this land totally free
I may have to hide from you many important clues
To insure our national security

I’ve got you traumatized so afraid you’ll buy all my lies
I’ve got you running scared passing laws that give me power
There’s no limit to what I can do give to friends what I take from you
Pumping up our national pride cutting deals that give me power

I’ve got you mesmerized making war and making prisons
I’ve got you mesmerized making war and making money
Making money for me and my buddies
Making money lots and lots and lots of money

Helping Haiti

The response to the tragedy in Haiti has truly been heartwarming. It is so nice to hear of people in the US and around the globe reach out their hands to those in need.When people respond the way they have, especially during these hard economic times, it truly makes me proud to be a member of the human race.

Yet, I would like everyone to take a moment to make sure that the government and all those working on our behalf in this crisis are doing so according to our good intentions. I think it is important to understand what our government is doing in our name and with our money.

I ask you all to take a minute to learn of the political and economic history of Haiti and our (the US) relationship to Haiti.

I recently read some excellent articles about Haiti at counterpunch.com. The writers at this site have some pretty impressive educational, governmental and journalistic resumes. I encourage you to look over their recent articles on Haiti.

I also invite you to Google Haitian history and the US to learn more of our role and function in Haitian life. A good starting point may be to Google Noam Chomsky as he has been one of the most thorough historians of the US’s role in Western Hemisphere politics.

Yet, for the moment let me just say a few things which may explain why I’d like you to do some research. Again what I know is minimal and that’s why you should do your own research.

Haiti has long been a poor nation dependent on fishing and farming to survive. It would make sense that its wealthy neighbor (the US) would lend a helping hand.

Yet, after over half a century of political interventions (interference and control?) and economic programs (exploitation?) the country is worse off than it ever was. Haiti is now the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere.

The farmers of the past have long ago lost their land and jobs to large foreign farming conglomerates which have grown exportable cash crops instead of basic food stuffs.  Neither the profits nor the foods have benefited the average Haitian resulting in the abject poverty and starvation of millions of people. This has resulted in out of work farmers flooding into the urban regions seeking work.

The response to this need has been to set up very low paying jobs in the clothing manufacturing trade often referred to as sweat shops. These jobs have not ended poverty but increased it as the workers still make less than $2 a day. It is hard to imagine $2 a day even covering food expenses for a person living on an island dependent on importing its basic food stuffs.

Politically our involvement in Haiti has even been more controversial and just as damaging.

I will use the following article I found on line this morning to help illustrate some of my concerns about how the US government is responding to the Haitian crisis.

About 5,000 U.S. military personnel were already assisting on the ground and from ships nearby, and four Navy ships and an additional 7,500 personnel were scheduled to arrive today, according to U.S. Southern Command.

The Navy hospital ship USS Comfort got underway this weekend; it is to arrive Wednesday. The ship, which received move orders Thursday, has 250 beds and a 550-person medical team. It was the ship’s fastest launch ever, said Steve Lucas, spokesman for Southern Command.

The military was worried that crime and looting would harm efforts.

“We are going to have to address the situation of security,” said Lt. Gen. Ken Keen, head of the U.S. task force in Haiti.

Haitian police struggled to scatter hundreds of stone-throwing looters in the city’s Vieux Marche, or Old Market. Elsewhere, amid the smoke from bonfires burning uncollected bodies, gunfire could be heard and bands of machete-wielding young men roamed the streets.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Okay here go the red flags I see here. Last night I watched the Haitian piece on 60 Minutes. In this piece they mentioned that US military personnel plans on staying in Haiti for months.  Do we really need to have our military lead rescue and recovery efforts? After Katrina we had trouble even freeing a few national guardsmen to help with the devastation in New Orleans. Now, with even more troops being stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan were able to spare Marines and thousands of troops to lead and or monitor rebuilding efforts in Haiti, something just doesn’t add up.

Why not just beef up support for professional rescue operations such as the Red Cross rather than a military presence which did such a poor job in its humanitarian role in Iraq? Crisis assistance is a profession and dealing with people engulfed in so much medical, psychological and emotional trauma as the Haitians have, needs expert care not military intervention. If you think some military people are needed to help quell the looting and crime and emotional outbursts of people on the verge of death and starvation, well 12,000 land troops is definitely overkill.

If you look on YouTube you can find ample footage showing a number of local Haitian police patrolling the public toting machine guns over the last number of years. Poverty, starvation and police control aren’t new to these parts, the earthquake is the new element.

The USA today article is vague about how the current 5000 troops on the ground got there. In the quote “About 5,000 U.S. military personnel were already assisting on the ground and from ships nearby”, seems to imply our military presence was either already on land or in nearby ships before the earthquake. Doesn’t 5000 seem like an awful lot of troops just to have milling about Haiti? It seems to imply to me that we’ve been militarily interested in Haiti for quite awhile (again read the history).

Second, sending 7500 additional troops six or seven days after the quake seems like a missed opportunity from a crisis point. Having crisis response people arrive a week after the event seems odd in this day and age. That would be like sending snail mail correspondences instead of telephone and emails. In modern day transportation the military ship has got to be one of the slowest mediums available.

To justify the military role as being truly humanitarian and not a excuse for military aspirations the sentence regarding the hospital ship is more telling, “The Navy hospital ship USS Comfort got underway this weekend; it is to arrive Wednesday. The ship, which received move orders Thursday, has 250 beds and a 550-person medical team. It was the ship’s fastest launch ever, said Steve Lucas, spokesman for Southern Command.”

Considering the size of the tragedy 250 beds seems rather small, especially 250 beds which are arriving almost two weeks after the event. When every minute that passes could result in another preventable death, why would you send medical personnel by boat?

Think about it 12,500 military on hand while 550 medical personnel are still out at sea, as lives are hanging in the balance.  Wouldn’t it make more sense to fly in 12,500 medical personnel and boat in about 550 military personnel. In an emergency situation where time is of the essence who would dream of having designing a plan inn which your expert medical personnel arrives some 20,000 minutes after the beginning of the emergency. And this despite the fact that this was done, according to the article, in record time!

In the meantime we will have over 12,000 military personnel on the ground who instead of fighting which they are trained for, are providing medical and trauma care for one of the largest and severest tragedies of our life time.  The military might be minimizing but not denying its military purpose. The article says,”We are going to have to address the situation of security,” said Lt. Gen. Ken Keen, head of the U.S. task force in Haiti, and begins to lay the groundwork for later escalation of troop police action by the following.

“Haitian police struggled to scatter hundreds of stone-throwing looters in the city’s Vieux Marche, or Old Market. Elsewhere, amid the smoke from bonfires burning uncollected bodies, gunfire could be heard and bands of machete-wielding young men roamed the streets.”

Whether intentionally or not, this is a very artfully constructed sentence setting the stage for future escalation of police action. Hundreds of stone throwing people does not support the image of utter chaos deserving 12,500 US troops. Yet, the reference to distant gun fire does get our foot in the door. The fact is that most Haitians no matter how angry they are do not have the monetary resources for a lot of arms and firepower. The guns are either being fired by a few wealthier dissidents or by the police themselves to control rioting. Yet, in this abject poverty there isn’t a whole lot to steal. The term “bands” will probably soon became gangs and slowly morph into terrorists and resistance groups if we amp up our military role in once again “maintaining the peace” as we are doing in so many other nations around the globe.

The hate the Haitians mentality has long been part of our political ideology. The remarks by Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh are not isolated but in fact representative of much of US policy over the last half century of so. But,  don’t take my word for it, look it up.

Jim Guido

The Global Warming Debate

I’m always amazed and fascinated at how efficient US propagandists are in creating a debate which draws people away from the real issue.  At other times they simply find a way to change the focus of a movement which suits their purposes.

The women’s movement which started out as a quality of life issue, got morphed into a rather narrow personal rights and monetary issue. This subtle shift in the national discussion allowed our government and corporate structure to capitalize on the women’s movement and slowly have two pay checks equal the purchasing power and standard of living of one pay check a few decades back.

The women’s movement quickly dropped its emphasis on intimacy and personal development and traded it in for consumption and jobs which men were finding oppressive and unrewarding. Instead of freeing men and woman from oppressive roles and serfdom the women’s movement was seduced into joining men in their prison with such deceptive slogans as “you’ve come a long way baby” in a series of commercial celebrating the fact that woman could now use their new found economic life to get cancer like their workaholic husbands they felt so alienated from.

Likewise the propagandists artfully steered the American public away from their fervent opposition to our many wars treating other nations as US property, to a demand that we “support the troops”. Any words spoken against the war(s) were both a source of motivation and “support to our enemies” while undermining the “courageous” efforts of our young men and women in battle. Never mind the fact that the reasons for war were fictitious at best and more than likely morally indefensible.

When the Soviet Union fell the US became the undisputed world superpower. Despite this, the US’s involvement in military conflicts and police actions continued to escalate. Public anger with our government’s international actions and policies grew along with a reluctance to encourage our children to get involved in such military actions.

Then voila we suddenly found (created) an enemy worthy of our fear and hatred. This, of course, is terrorism and the war on terrorism. Terrorists exist no where in particular, but can and as the propagandists say, do exist everywhere.  Terrorists are  as hard to identify as they are to define.

Since terrorists sole goal is to destroy us and our way of life, it is “imperative” that we act aggressively and savagely to extinguish them before they proliferate. The propagandists have used this logic to defend our use of torture, banned substances, and unilateral and unsanctioned military action. The war on terror gives the US reason and the duty to invade any country at any time with or without that country’s permission.

So, now let’s take a look at how the “debate on global warming” is just another example of how good our government and corporate propagandists are at diverting the public’s attention away from the obvious.

The battle between environmentalists and corporate spin doctors and propagandists has been lengthy. At every turn spin doctors have found a way to change the dialogue or find a way to make the most profit out of a situation.

The ecological movement which began in the early seventies suffered a huge set back in the late seventies when an OPEC driven energy crisis and stagflation were used to outweigh all concerns regarding pollution caused by fossil fuels. Public relations departments trumpeted their new “concern for your total environment” putting fisheries next to energy plants while the smoke stack industry tried to make their toxic discharges look more environmentally friendly.

Neatly tailored industrial parks, and beach renovations were used to paint lip stick on the environmental pigs. Nuclear power plants which were not as profitable as coal based plants were phased out as a sign of corporate concern for the public health. Newer plants were able to have the toxic releases of coal plants be less visually obvious, and through the efforts of spin doctors and narrow and highly funded scientific studies industries were able to convince the public that their environment was becoming cleaner and healthier.

The debate over ecological concerns regarding the efficient and frugal use of natural resources would slowly resurface in the early eighties as the economy recovered. It was at this time that a lot of the discussion focused on the deterioration of the ozone layer and its effects on people and wildlife.

Once again corporate spin doctors did an excellent job of posing themselves as well intentioned victims of fanatics and potentially harmful idealists. They fended off attacks by environmentalists concerns regarding species extinction by forming and funding fraudulent and extreme conservation groups who were given ample TV and radio air time as they tried to halt progress in order to save a single bird (like the spotted owl).  Soon the bulk of the American public viewed ecologists and ecological activists as being goofy reactionaries disconnected from the real world.

Likewise, environmental health concerns regarding lead paint, asbestos, PCB’s etc. were posed as extreme measures tending to minor problems. Public sympathy was swayed by the expense, tediousness and inconvenience of the governments (EPA’s) clean up programs and interventions.  Once again the environmental and health concerns of ecological activists were successfully posed as being unnecessary and economically unrealistic and harmful.

The changes and concessions made by corporate America were, like always, done in a manner which increased their profits while at the same time fostering public support and sympathy. Concerns regarding the effects of ozone depletion gave rise to skin and sun screen products as well as more profitable delivery systems than the aerosol can. Highly profitable green industries began to sprout up everywhere from organic food stores to recycling industries and businesses.

The current debate on global warming is just the latest manifestation of how corporate and government spin doctors divert and win public opinion and support. The science regarding the effects of industrial pollution and practices on the environment is still in its infancy. Though much compelling information exists, its models and long term predictions are still crude. The number of variables are vast making it difficult to make any reasonable forecast for the foreseeable future.

The complexity of the situation and science makes it so easy for the spin doctors to make the global warming crowd fit the standard role of naive reactionaries who pose a threat to our economic progress and stability. By forcing scientists and activists to prove their viewpoint through specific predictions over short time frames, they are demanding the impossible, and setting up the ecologists to fail and look ridiculous.

Let’s say when psychologists first talked of the harms caused by physical abuse and torture they were scoffed at and demanded to prove their case. Early psychologists would likely say that abused children would develop many psychosocial problems including depression, increase aggression and violence, low self-esteem and inabilities to establish and maintain relationships. Those who have endured long term or severe torture would have similar social deficits and personal handicaps.

Let’s go on to say that the psychologists were demanded to give specific time frames for the manifestation of these problems to arise. They would say many things, but some psychologists would point out that the onset of many of these problems could be almost immediate.

Therefore, any spin doctor opposed to the psychologists viewpoint could easily distort and destroy the psychologists assertion. One could easily find children and even adults who have been physically abused and tortured who function and appear to be happy and productive people. By writing a few articles stating psychological theories and well documented probabilities as predictions of fact, one could sway the reading public to view the psychologists as reactionary and wrong about their assumptions and predictions of the effects of violence on human beings.

This is what is happening in the global warming debate where spin doctors are now popularizing specific dire concerns and possible scenarios of the effects of industrial pollution as specific predictions. If we do not flood in five years, or all polar bears drown than global warming doesn’t exist or at least does not pose any immanent danger.

Think how easy it would be to form some bogus ecological body and pay them to make outrageous statements or popularize data which negates specific claims. Talk about your low hanging fruit. Think of how many pilot studies and papers are written each day. What if I were paid handsomely to find dubious studies or to find ways to interpret studies to give the impression that if such and such doesn’t happen this winter or this year than the global warming perspective is wrong.

Even though I find much of the current evidence regarding global warming somewhat compelling, to me it isn’t the point. Even if global warming isn’t happening, or at least not to the point to usher in a global disaster or ice age, it doesn’t mean that ecological concerns are myths or needless fear mongering.

The point is that dumping tons of toxic waste into our air and water on a daily basis is most likely not a good thing. It’s hard to prove that abuse is destructive to the human spirit, but its harms are well documented. Just as we could never prove smoking caused cancer, it was obvious it had a terrible track record in terms of personal health.

The debate over global warming is a spin doctors dream. It is diverting the attention  away from the obvious harms of toxic pollution and onto a debate which cannot be decided or proven. Those opposed to global warming do not have to prove that global warming isn’t happening, they only have to show the ways in which any global warming model of their choosing is wrong or inaccurate.

Jim Guido

Buying According to Need

Since the recent economic downturn it has become fashionable to complain about the obvious excesses of our consumer culture. People are being told to save money and pay off their debt. Those with excessive debt are viewed as being reckless and harmful to the stability of our nation’s economic superiority.

Not that long ago US citizens were being told that buying and borrowing were the only true ways of having our economy and way of life defeat terrorism and keep our country strong.  Almost every day we were told that 70% of our economy depended on the American consumer. Consumption was both our right and duty as patriotic Americans. Staying out of planes and out of shopping malls would bring joy to the terrorists and help them defeat the US.

Since March the stock market is on its best run in history. The Nasdaq 100 best known as the father of the dot com bubble finished 2009 as its second best year ever, with over a 50% gain. Since March it has risen over 80% the sharpest rise ever on record.

The reasons for this rise according to the financial media are simple. First, the bailouts worked and the financial crisis has been averted. Second, the recession is over and the economy is bouncing back. Third, the “resilient”  American consumer has continued to spend.

So how is that the American consumer is simultaneously paying off its debts and increasing its consumption? The rebound in consumer spending is occurring despite the fact that the employment situation continues to look bleak and wages growth is stagnant.

Though the financial media claims the recession is over, polls show that the average US citizen still feels like they are living in a recession. I’ve already covered this apparent contradiction in a post entitled Stock Market Loves Bad Economy written less than two months ago.

Today I’d like to talk about what would happen if the US consumer truly began to pay off his debt, save money and reduce his purchases.

What would your purchases look like if the bulk of your expenditures were limited to satisfying your basic needs? First of all most purchases would be restricted to food, shelter, clothing and medical care. Second a lot of semi-essentials or things that are not needed on a daily basis could be borrowed from or shared with friends.

Think of how much you could save if you pooled resources with friends. We know the economic and environmental benefits or carpooling or taking public transportation. Yet, think of how much money you could save by sharing tools such as ladders, hammers, lawn mowers, etc. that you use on a weekly, monthly or occasional basis.

When I was a child we borrowed frequently from friends and neighbors and were glad to buy some items which we knew others would borrow from us. If our neighbor had a six foot step ladder good for many tasks, we might buy an eight foot step or an extension ladder which would successfully handle other tasks. It seemed silly to clutter the garage with two ladders and duplicate resources, and was both practical and neighborly to lend and borrow tools.

If a sharing relationship ever became too inconvenient you could always buy your own duplicate item, but for the most part sharing is both economically wise and socially reinforcing. It’s nice to be helpful or of service to others and to feel part of a practical caring community.

Now, even if we didn’t share we would drastically reduce our expenditures if we bought more according to need rather than convenience.  Eating at home and preparing simple meals is both healthy and inexpensive.  Buying clothes because of practicality and usefulness rather than fashion would save many people a lot of money.

Yet, we have barely scratched the surface of how much money we could save if we became conscientious purposeful shoppers who made the majority of the purchases based on need.

The next time you go down a non-residential street or to a commercial district such as a shopping mall, think of each store in terms of need. What in the store does anyone really need? How many stores are dominated by objects that people have no need for? What percentage of stores you see do not contain a single item which you could realistically say you would ever need?

When I personally have done this exercise I find relatively few stores that actually tend to my basic needs. I find that even shopaholics have to admit that the majority of shops they know would fall into the category of inessential in their lives.

I think it is pretty safe to say that many of the shops and commercial establishments in every town would cease to exist if people reduced their purchases to meet their needs, or even slightly above their needs.

Over the last few decades the percentage of jobs related to services has risen while the percentage of factory, craftsmen, professional and skilled labor positions has decreased. The vast majority of service jobs are far less essential and need based than are the others and hints at how hard our labor market would be hit if we began to live and consume according to need.

The simple fact is our economy would fall apart if people became thoughtful consumers and lived within their means. Our society is dependent on conspicuous consumption, without it, most businesses would fail or not even exist.

In a few previous posts I have pointed out in a variety of ways how dependent our profit based system of economics is on waste. Once again I’d like to write the logic chain which I think most succinctly depicts the limits and dangers of free market capitalism:

Profit = Surplus = Excess = Waste

In this post we have just noted another way in which the above chain is true. If we lived efficiently and need based, their would be no surplus and all profit would vanish.

The fact of the matter is our economic system is dependent on flagrant consumption and wastefulness.

Sharing, being honest, kind, charitable, conscientious, frugal, safe, and contented are human characteristics and qualities which are in opposition to and a danger to our economic system.

The question is how dangerous and destructive is our economic system to our humanity? How much harm does our economic system do to our sense of pride and self-esteem?

Many think that our economic system though flawed is the best option available. Many would go on to say that we can’t live without an economic system, and that our free market economy is the best and most humane system possible.

Yet, how can this be, when living according to one’s needs would actually destroy the economy and many of man’s best qualities are in opposition to the essential competitive nature of a free market economy?

Jim Guido