Where Did the Money Go? Part the Second

Now that there are some general statements made about how the system works, we can analyze a couple points that should be evident as problematic.

Continuing with the assumption that spending is the proper function of money, then an obvious problem would be the opposite: hoarding. The refusal to use money robs the Economy of all the activity that money would produce. It cannot be loaned out and no longer circulates. This can also be recognized as “extracting money from the system”. The term extractive processes has become more widely used in recent decades, but typically gets ascribed to industries like mining, forestry, oil & gas drilling, fishing, and even farming. When it comes to the economy itself, or the practice of draining money from circulation into private coffers, it has not been invoked. However, the extreme disparity of “wealth” using terms like “the 1%” are fairly common nowadays. What if even this framework does not adequately contextualize the problem? Here lies the central question prompting this pair of posts. To continue, there are 2 main culprits to address when it comes to extraction from the economy: the obvious and the obscure. The first, which gets attention, is tax havens, off-shore accounts, and generally "mattress money". This is why stories like the Panama Papers are important, but only partly the answer. Certainly, if money is not declared for tax purposes, there are additional issues with that. But for discussion here, the point is the removal from circulation and how that decreases what is possible for others when a single entity stuffs its own "mattress".

Now, for the second and more difficult to spot, issue: separate economies. This may conjure up thoughts of crypto-currency, but that is not what is intended. Here, we must consider another way that money is stripped from the shared or standard economy. One way to begin to picture it that many are already aware of is criminal activity. Mostly conducted with cash, this is often activity which happens along-side rather than with the general economy. Once money is spent on illegal drugs, guns, or other business, that cash has to be processed in order to rejoin the regular economy. This is called money laundering, and indicates that the criminal and regular economies are not entirely separated. A closer example would be "globalization" and the system beforehand. While this is a series of agreements, treaties, and laws which allow businesses to operate more easily across borders, many people see it as just a way for business to move away from their own area. This means that whatever money the business or worker was paid gets taken (or extracted) from that local area. Before globalization, many places did have separate economies; the spending in one town or country did not effect others. However, as many economic crises in preceding centuries indicate, the world was not entirely insulated. With these examples, we can appreciate the intended “second” factor mentioned above. In this case, it is something which operates alongside the regular economy, but has little impact on everyday persons. This would be the economy of the wealthy, whereby those individuals have created a separate pool of expenses and purchases. When it comes to entire office buildings, “super-yachts”, luxury items (cars, watches, clothes, etc.), or personal staff, the amount of money involved is absurd from a typical person’s perspective. Beyond that, however, is the fact of how much of this money is never seen in the typical person’s economy. Here is meant not the amount, but the actual dollars. Measured in millions of dollars, once this money is spent, it does not make its way back to Jane and Joe Taxpayer. These high-end items are produced, sold, and maintained by a group of people who are also wealthy (not the actual technicians, but owners of the companies, of course). The neighborhood mechanic is not working on a Bugatti; Bezo’s super-yacht is not moored down at the public dock. This is the separate economy mentioned before, the place money goes when collected by those rich individuals. Even when it is not in a tax haven, it still does little to benefit the regular Economy the rest of us deal with. It’s counted by someone, and included into the overall economy, but does it really—actually—count? If it never circulates back into the hands of a regular person who spends it at the corner market, does it really circulate? A bit like a tree in a forest that falls when no one is around, does it make a sound?

In addition to the embedded links, the citation below is a useful source of some of the information used herein.

 Robbins, R. H., & Dowty, R. (2022). Global problems and the culture of Capitalism. Langara College.

 

Where Did the Money Go? Part the First

This pair of posts will highlight some assumptions about and practices with money in order to challenge them.


At a basic level, most people recognize that money is a token representing some amount of effort—people work to “earn” money which is then used to purchase things the ‘worker’ desires; this also means that, as a token, money is meant to be spent. [The word “earn” is loaded with connotations about “worth”, “deserving”, and how society values different professions. While this post will not get into those weeds, it is important to recognize such beliefs as a part of the system.] In part, this means money does not drop from the sky, it always comes from an entity or person. The money you have came from someone who got it from someone else who got it from someone else, ad absurdum. The point being, it does not stay still. The purpose of a token is to be used, since tokens are exchanged for something else. For example, money has no use as food, but can be traded for food. Additionally, because its function is to obtain other items, it is not serving this purpose when hoarded. Of course, someone from a poor background will object that any unspent money must be safeguarded, and rightly so. There is an unceasing need for those savings to be used at a moment's notice, often for essentials. Generally, in such circumstances, it is held against need using the "hiding it in a mattress" method; the mattress is unimportant, as the expression only indicates someplace “secure” enough and easily accessible. Because people who are poor have short and urgent timeframes, this ‘saving’ is insignificant from the viewpoint of economics, as it will be back in circulation soon enough. Once again, the morality of people being made to live in these circumstances must be a separate discussion, despite the need to bring such underlying issues to the surface. The reason for stressing the point about spending is because “saving money” is treated as though it is a positive accomplishment, as well as demonizing those who spend. However, it is possible that this is backwards, and mere marketing. Hoarding tokens serves no purpose but bolstering the ego of the hoarder, after all.

Next we will briefly differentiate the personal from the business activity of economics. Basically, gaining possession of something with the intent to sell it is a business activity rather than a personal one. In keeping with the notion of money as a token, we can use event tickets for our example. Ticket scalpers can give a general sense of how the personal differs from business activity. A person will buy a ticket to attend the event, whereas a scalper has no interest in the event and only wants to profit from the ticket. Money is like those tickets, meant to provide the holder with something the person wants. One major difference is that money is infinitely transferable. Once the money is spent, its purpose is served for that person, and it becomes ready for the next person to use. This also fits with the idea that it is meant to “circulate”, a word to describe spending or making money available to the next person. One thing to note is that while the Economy is reported as Gross Domestic Product (GDP), approximately two-thirds (66%) of this is spending! It is not trivial to focus on the circulation of money as an important part of economics. Finally, we can briefly consider using extra money to invest for profit. It turns out that much of the banking system works to ensure money is available for use through lending. For example, banks do not just lock up everyone's money in a vault and wait for them to come claim it. There is a certain amount that any bank is required by law to "hold in reserve" and make available to customers. The rest is used to lend out, as lines of credit and loans for business, homes, et cetera. Additionally, there are private investors (such as "private equity firms") whose entire business is lending money. This all continues the circulation of money while it is understood that the ‘investor’ (lender of the money) is owed the initial amount plus some extra from the ‘borrower’, or person receiving the money. This is the ‘profit’ of investing, oftentimes based on an interest rate agreed-upon beforehand. The Federal Reserve controls interest rates on most loans with the goal of encouraging or discouraging borrowing, depending on their read of which will maintain stability more effectively. This same federal system supports investors to feel confident in loaning out that money with laws around default on loans, collections, bankruptcy, and such. Not all loans go to individuals, of course. Much of investing has to do with lending money to businesses. Because of this, it is accepted practice that businesses publish accounts of their finances for review, which allows investors to determine the risk of lending money to these companies. All these safeguards create more stability throughout the economic system. This also means that, generally, there are records of where money goes and what is done with it. A few years ago the Panama Papers lent greater context to the importance of this transparency.

In addition to the embedded links, the citation below is a useful source of some of the information used herein.


Bowles, S., Edwards, R., & Roosevelt, F. (2018). Understanding capitalism : competition, command, and change. Oxford University Press.

The Selling Never Stops

With all the talk of AI blurring the line between real and virtual, it is good to remember that this is hardly a new problem. Certainly, the fakery comes with more convincing audio and video, but the basic challenge of discernment of what is genuine has been an ongoing problem for much longer. Whether it is makeup or "airbrushing" photos, people have been improving their looks for the duration of civilization. In the computer era, there has been technology which enables live video and audio replacement for years now. It may be questionable if that OnlyFans model is actually who they appear to be, after all. The real issue is that marketing, promoting, and begging for attention have become so ubiquitous it is tough to know the difference. Because every business is constantly needing to gather more, it requires perpetual effort to find that new "angle" or "in" to "reach potential customers". Advertisements that do not look like they are selling anything, a "recommendation" from an online "friend", or a fake dating site profile are all examples of businesses with a "novel marketing campaign".

There is frustration that comes from not knowing if someone is being genuine or if that piece of mail is junk marketing. Suspicion begins to creep into everyday interactions; the thought that some "offer" is not just a lure but a scam to get one's time or money. Even a friend calling with a "remarkable opportunity to get in on the ground floor!" is met with skepticism (one should be wary anyway, MLM's still exist). In every aspect of one's life, one must be on-guard against such irritating scams and false claims. It is this wearying battle that one wages everyday and creates another barrier to honest, authentic connection. If you find yourself doubting more of the world, possibly this is part of the reason why. Socialization is important, but it gets sabotaged by factors such as this. We need more spaces free from commercialism, where people are able to just be their messy, flawed selves.

 

Edit Nov 24: Pokemon Go players receive shocking news.

Transactional Relationships

Words are wonderful tools for understanding concepts and discussing them with others. This particular phrase has shown up frequently in recent days, for better and worse. First, let us be clear about what it means, and then we can see where it is impacting the culture.

"Transactional relationship" simply refers to having an interaction (either one-off or longer, on-going relationship) with someone which is based around providing a benefit to both parties as the basis for said interaction. Simple, yes; deceptively so. It may be self-evident that a purchase from the market is a transaction. What about the waitstaff at a restaurant? Or the 'crew' of a fast-food joint? In traffic, does my waving another driver through the intersection count? How about two co-workers who plan a social activity outside work? Finally, what about intimate relationships such as marriage? Truly, there are aspects to this concept which muddy that simple idea we started with.

The above examples are provided because they can certainly be transactional. Even though many cultures have moved away from dowries or bride-prices, marriage for love is still a recent convention, dating back only a few hundred years. However, money being directly involved is also not a determinant in this concept. Being "the beard" is a transactional relationship, but can be of social value to the parties rather than being a cash- or housing-based arrangement. Also, this introduces the aspect that one party can be ignorant of the true nature of their interactions because of assumed or undisclosed intentions. Similarly, if two co-workers seek to commiserate, it could simply be a trade; "give-and-take" or "quid pro quo" are other terms for transactional relationships. However, if one coworker is spying for the company or has romantic intentions, then it becomes a different dynamic. In driving, I could get something out of an interaction with another driver, but it could also simply be enforcing, or reminding them of, the 'rules of the road'. Causing others to adhere to accepted norms is part of social convention, and is less individual choice and more collective conformity. Both "waitstaff" and "crew" above are understood to be "servants" and the customers, "masters" (not the words typically used, but a replication of that traditional dynamic). Both provide customer service, are employed by the establishment, would not interact with those patrons except for the venue, and are limited by their role—but only one gets gratuities. This power differential only further complicates the issue, but neither determines nor precludes a transactional relationship existing. Anytime staff are providing customer service, however, it interferes with any other type of relationship; in other words, there is a transactional relationship as long as at least one party is acting in a professional, business capacity. All this demonstrates the complexity of our interactions and that a solely transactional relationship is rare. Especially if there is the possibility of multiple encounters, people tend to introduce kindness or other social aspects to the process. Think about if you witnessed a person purchase a drink and all they did was state the order, make the payment, and take the beverage—no eye contact or speech beyond "give me a [drink]". It would seem odd, rude, or downright antisocial for not engaging in the niceties we expect—to not even respond to a greeting, nor acknowledge the other individual's person-hood.

Now that we have this basic understanding of a transactional relationship, let us turn to the impact on our experiences. What is happening in the culture that makes this a noteworthy concept? Firstly, we can consider the reduction of social interactions into tools of profit. Secondly, how the culture encourages this approach and who benefits from the tendency. Finally, whether this is something which requires correction, and is that possible? Without going into an exhaustive—and tedious—list of examples and trends over decades, this is certainly a problem. Wave after wave of induced social phobia (things like "stranger danger" the 1980's, the "super-predators" of the 1990's, and the fallout from September 2001—again, from a perspective in the U.S.) caused many to increasingly think of the world as so dangerous that it would be better to just not risk interacting. This constant anxiety and withdrawal has become a self-reinforcing tendency; the more people lack in social connection, the more uncomfortable any interaction seems. Just as vitamin deficiency can easily be treated by adding the required nutritional sources, so can many issues be addressed by increasing socialization. As people double-down on their sickness, by giving even more hours to work (or other isolating tactics) and retreating from shared spaces (and other social adventures), it worsens the symptoms. In typical fashion, rather than acknowledge and address this issue, we are sold any number of remedies. This is akin to ignoring the vitamin deficiency and insisting that surgery is needed to treat the symptoms. One such idea is better living through accumulation: that acquisition can soothe the ache of longing. All this denial leads to the idea that we can buy our way out of any problem, which lends itself to settling for transactional relationships. As the idea that the only things which matter are those that "provide 'value'" becomes paramount, the very things that give meaning to our lives fade and wither. In part, this is because treating symptoms is more profitable than curing illness. Additionally, the tendency to invest in the system which makes the rich even more rich incentivizes them to maintain such a system.

In conclusion, I will answer in the positive: this must change and that change is achievable. Such changes are often as difficult as they are necessary, and begin with acceptance that our ideas have been wrong. Suffragettes, abolitionists, and various other civil rights movements throughout history have attacked oppressive systems, in part by alerting people to injustices perpetuated by the underlying assumptions of those systems. The lasting changes we need are only made when people come to understand the structure itself is the problem, and we must address both the symptoms and the cause.

Business as Usual

Interesting things can be done a number of ways or take a multitude of forms. If there were only one type of flower or bird, they would be boring. Useful, even essential, but dreadfully monotonous to only see one shape and color repeated endlessly wherever one looked, like grass. Playing a game that has only one outcome or way to progress is dull; the excitement of playing is in not knowing what will happen. Whether I win or lose, how we get to the end is novel each time — in a good game, anyway.

People talk about business as if it were interesting; there are entire TV channels and reams of magazines devoted to discussing business. The truth is that business is boring. Not in the sense of filling out forms or collecting data about productivity, although that is certainly tedious. People act as if there is some variability in business or there are novel discoveries waiting to be made in conducting business. While advertising and methods of payment have certainly changed over time, the business of selling is unchanged and unchangeable from ancient history into the future. All it consists of is getting more for something that what one paid. Whatever it is, from bikes to jewelry, clothes to food, babysitting to writing, every single action in business is determined by this simple, underlying principle: buy low, sell high. Whether it is goods or services, the only thing that matters is that I get paid more for something than what I paid to get it. There is no mystery, no novelty, nor any innovation here.

You knew this already. Everyone has heard "buy low, sell high" or that business must turn a profit. This is so commonplace that we don't talk about or recognize it; because it is so ubiquitous, it is trivial. The only thing interesting about this is the mystical, reverential attitude people have about "business". It places emphasis on a tool, the simple practice of conducting trade. Concurrently, this attitude extends to those who conduct it. The reason for pointing this out is simply to question the legitimacy of this worship of business and suggest that the attention paid to the subject would be better spent on other pursuits.

Who is the Best Dog Walker?

You are.

That is the answer, although if you want to know why then you must read on. We can break down the modern system like this: I do not have enough time to walk my dog because I am away from home so much, therefore I need to spend even more time away in order to earn enough to pay someone else to do so. This is part of the endless cycle of consumption and depletion, as we spend our life turning time into money that is then used to buy things with that money which are supposed to save us time. While it may be good for the overall 'capital-e Economy', it does not actually fulfill the promise to participants of freeing them from the spiral into exhaustion and madness. It is the circular logic of needing to work in order to afford necessities, which leads to not having the time and energy for enjoyable activities, only needing to pay for increasing numbers of things; every decision leads deeper into the labyrinth of losing ones' life to working. If the COVID-19 Pandemic has demonstrated anything about our society, it is that there are numerous flaws in its expectations and applications. Many had an opportunity to step back from "the rat-race" and experience a life not dictated by the clock, a job, or other demands outside the home. Why do we spend time on things that do not matter to us in order to be "given" time to do those things which do matter? With news articles and dubious experts lamenting and commenting on the shift away from work and towards life, we can see some of those expectations changing. 

This raises the next question of why is time caring for others not valued? Here, we are reviewing some critiques leveled previously by feminists. Let us take an important example: raising children. Certainly, if we repeat the above example and substitute dog-walking with parenting, there is a clear malfunction in the system. The desire to have children is similarly from a menu of selfish motivations, the most popular being love. This loving motivation makes parents want to spend time with and care for their own children. Now we return to the original question in its new form: since a parent should have the time and resources to care for their own child, why is that not a societal expectation? Why is the parenting role (or job) looked down upon as less important than working for someone else? Why are children made into a burden on individuals when all children grow up and join the surrounding society, which collectively benefits from another generation of adults? Kahlil Gibran wrote, "Your children are not your children." He was elucidating the point that while parents care for children, they do so temporarily and with the goal of turning them loose on the rest of us. It seems obvious that even a selfish person would want those parents to do the best possible job of raising healthy humans. This ought to make some of those flaws in society referenced earlier stand out more clearly. Let us conclude by examining one last aspect of this maddening system. The question of why this is not apparent to everyone and discussed in public as with other important issues we face?

This is a byproduct of the pace of life under the consumerism model. Both because we are trained to think that fulfillment comes from buying things and simultaneously to believe that we are the only ones responsible for our own condition. Also, being exhausted does not lead to reflection in those brief moments between work, shopping, and recovery from those activities. This is why it was only during the pandemic that people could get more of an outsiders' view of these issues, when so many distractions were unavailable. Also, why so many were uncomfortable with the state of leisure, similar to those who retire and do not know what to do with their time away from work. We could say that our exhaustion is a feature and not a bug of the system. The question now becomes what to do with the realization that this model does not serve the majority of people.

What is this "Labor Movement"?

I have often heard the concept mentioned, especially when referring to history, such as learning about early industrialization and the shift to factory work. However, it seems like it is equally distant when mentioned in the news today. It is talked about as if it were somewhere remote or unreachable, like a group of people separate from those I know and detached from society in general. This seems similar to how "the economy" is discussed; it is not talked about as the collection of purchases made by the citizenry, but as some distant and unknowable beast. However, these are similar as they are both the collective actions of all people in a society. This can be a challenging idea in a capitalist and individualistic society.

The labor movement is you, and me, and them. It simply refers to the collective actions of workers, and it can be beneficial to workers or to owners. When employees know and demand their rights, the labor movement is stronger than when employees are cowed and allow themselves to be taken advantage of. Believing that employers have the power at work keeps the labor movement from acting. Every time someone is paid less than another, time off work is denied, an employee is told to find their own replacement when ill, pay raises do not keep up with inflation, or a worker is fired for no good reason, the labor movement is weakened. It is imperative that the labor movement be strong, as it is the only balance to the overwhelming power of owners who gobble up more of society and the planet.

The Freedom to be Fleeced

Some people argue that boundless freedom is best, that liberty can only be a good thing and should therefore be applied without restriction. This seductive idea seems to hold promise in promoting equality and equity, drawing power away from structures and returning it to individuals, and encouraging self-sufficiency. Let us quickly see if these claims could hold true. Simply put, if we assume everyone operates on a level playing field, as total liberty would suggest, then every transaction must inherently be fair. For that to be true, all parties would have equal power and privilege in the exchange so no one is unduly pressured as well as having total knowledge of the market and items in question. This is similar to the field of economics "homo economicus" (the fictional 'rational actor' constructed to make economic models work), in that it also makes assumptions divorced from current reality and the irrationality of humans. It is precisely because people have urgent needs, limited knowledge, and less power that they are disadvantaged in commerce. I am not a fully informed buyer, and so get ripped off by a disreputable seller. I, as an inexperienced seller, get low-balled by a dishonest buyer. Whichever way the exploitation goes, it makes the entire process of commerce less safe for everyone-whether they were involved or not. These transactions end up influencing retributive behavior or driving inexperienced actors out of the market. Freedom on its own is insufficient to produce fair markets. Rather than the results of liberty, ideal conditions turn out to be the precursors or necessary foundations for a free and fair market. This is where the title of the post comes in: if there is no regulation, capitalism tends towards exploitation and unfair practices. Therefore we cannot implement total laxity and deregulation of markets without seriously hurting people. Further, absolute freedom will tend towards the same undesirable outcome in other aspects of life.

In considering personal liberty we may like the idea that individuals choose freely what to say and whether to attend school. These choices seem to be under the sole purview of the individual, but they have an impact greater than just that person and therefore concern the community at large. This is because the argument of liberty has an obverse that seems often to be downplayed: responsibility. While I may have a right to speak them, my words have an impact on those around me. Just as I am liable for my actions, I also have an obligation to the consequences of my words. This is because others have equal rights, such as not being attacked or slandered. Similarly, when I elect to keep my child home to educate them, I seem to be choosing only for myself or my child, but these choices also have an impact on society. When a person does not have the same basic information as everyone else, not only are they personally handicapped, but they interfere with the functioning of community, business, and government because of that lack. This is the basic argument for compulsory public education, and the responsibility of every participant in an open society: the capability to interact with all the other peoples in that society. Beyond that, the selfish motive of not wanting to be taken advantage of because of ones' ignorance should impel us to embrace the best education available. An absolutist response to this might be, "you just want to take away all rights and impose what you think is right on everyone else!", and that would be a hysterical, hyperbolic straw man argument. As with other aspects of life, there needs to be balance to how much liberty each person has and what duty is owed to the community. Finding that balance is part of the project of forming a more perfect union.

Moving at the Speed of Science

There are frequently headlines, news stories, and announcements circulated of breakthrough discoveries in various areas of scientific research. This is problematic for a few reasons, but let us focus on two: errors and implementation. While our current system functions, that is 'makes discoveries and produces results', it also gets enough wrong to retard progress and erode the public's confidence in scientific integrity. These issues are enough to rethink and modify our approach, as well as highlighting a need for better scientific literacy from the public.

First, the number of results which need to be retracted or modified is quite high. There have been a few widely circulated news items in the recent past addressing this issue, and acknowledging the inadequacy of measures to alert the public to such errors. To be clear, there are two parts to this: that erroneous information is publicly announced prematurely and that corrections are not announced as vigorously. These two factors lead to a tremendous amount of scientific misinformation being circulated needlessly. This is a historical trend that has been exacerbated by changes in news, mainly the intensification of the push to be first with a story that will get attention. I want to recognize that there has been a concurrent improvement in the scientific literacy of reporters, as well as increase in the number of science "communicators" (those specializing in explaining specialized information to laypersons). To be clear, disproving something or changing our understanding of information are not problems of science; those are both goals of and inherent to the process. The problems arise when non-scientists hear erroneous information presented as accurate and either never hear the correction or think the correction (or just later improved discovery) means we do not (or cannot) understand the area of study. To resolve these issues, in addition to laypeople understanding the scientific process better, the release of information needs to be slowed and de-sensationalized, results should be corroborated by reproducing experiments, and retractions or corrections need to get as much attention as the initial announcement.

Second, there are few actual emergencies. There are some times it truly is necessary to implement an immediate remedy; certainly a global pandemic is one example. However, most often there is time enough to study problems in depth and evaluate varying options for addressing them. Additionally, there is a basic need to recognize and mitigate safety concerns. This is not the approach we typically see. Probably due to the financial incentive to introduce new products or "improvements", science is treated as a business tool. By rewarding novelty and downplaying the predatory nature of the system, it perpetuates the cycle of unnecessary and disposable items that are introduced every year. I suggest most people can find discarded items in their home they thought (because advertising told them) would drastically improve their lives. Returning to the scientific realm, this same approach is applied to discovery. Because testing and improving safety of products is expensive, companies are more likely to just accept a certain percentage fail or injure users. Similarly, there seems little consideration as to whether the new item is actually of use to consumers, only if the company can make money from its introduction. There is less concern with making a good product than with getting a product out to market before someone else does. What this indicates is that the above-mentioned suggestions are not counterproductive or extreme by advocating for slowing the speed at which "discoveries" are implemented. If anything, there has been an artificial speeding-up of the process, and these suggestions  return the processes to what it should be. Not only would it improve public perception of science and progress, but would actually make a positive difference by ensuring that progress was, indeed, happening as announced.

Cowardice in Competition

Competition has long been a way for individuals and teams to determine who is the best at something. An honest contest, meaning no influence or interference, among the most able. Just being a competitor means already having overcome any number of previous challenges, and participation in this latest signifies a desire to meet the next one. Think of those who compete at the Olympics, a series of contests of athletic prowess by a world-wide selection of those at the very height of their sport. They have all worked audaciously hard in order to have a spot in the contest, and each seeks to outperform the others and their own previous best. There is courage in the attempt, in just showing up to practice or a local competition. Bravery in taking one's own skill to the very limits of one's individual ability. Finally, there is the need for other contestants. It does no good to be the best in a field of one; better having pride in achieving against the best in their chosen field. As much as highly competitive individuals are fighting the adversary of themself, there need to be close opponents to measure their performance against. Others who challenge them to do better, in a cycle of competitive encouragement. Even rivals in sport can appreciate how the other team raises the level of the shared game.

Once a competitor reaches the end of their training, conditioning, and prowess, there is nobility even in accepting those limitations. This can, admittedly, be difficult to gauge. There are often 'plateaus' in training and competing; areas of performance during which the limit seems to have been reached, but which can still be surpassed by some new adjustment. However, there is also temptation to augment what one can do through artificial means; to overcome the natural limitations we all have. Rather than accepting those limitations, some seek to win when they otherwise would not be able to. These can range from using proscribed methods or substances to sabotaging rivals, exerting undue influence on self or other. This approach is generally agreed to be undesirable. Whether one personally cares about cycling, skating, baseball, or other game is less the issue than is the general agreement of a fair competition. If that is not the basic understanding, then much of the excitement is lost. It would no longer be a contest of human spirit, but of money spent. It would be less interesting to observers as the rules would no longer be understandable, but become a constantly shifting morass of who can get away with what. Referee, umpire, and judge would become much different roles, akin to assassins for hire.

The point of all this discussion is to establish the simple truths of what is healthy competition. While you may not (as I do not) have a significant interest in sports, I do believe we all have an interest in the arena of business. This is because private enterprise has tremendous impacts on individual success and politics. Whether it is how much we are paid as a worker, the likelihood of our personal venture succeeding, how much influence we have in our government, or what gets built in our neighborhood, there are impacts. Some believe that a free market economy is essential to efficiency and innovation. Those individuals should already understand the points I will outline and agree that regulations are necessary to keeping the game fair, otherwise they are being disingenuous in their assertions. The focus on courage here is to give a human sense to the artificial, impersonal, and depressing environment of competition in business. Despite being comprised of humans, displacing human beings, despoiling human environs, and arising out of human desires and needs, business has become a game nearly exempted from human concerns. The re-introduction of humanity into business practices is long overdue, as exemplified by companies lying about impacts to boost their profits (tobacco and oil being well-known examples). Which brings us back to the title of this post.

Above, we listed some attributes of courageous competition. Now we can look at well-known business practices and determine whether they fit with these ideals. First, keep in mind that while these mostly happen in larger businesses, the temptations and opportunities exist even in the "minor leagues". One such is the purchasing of competitors, which has expanded into buying intellectual properties before they are even in the market. Another avenue is to determine for buyers what is popular, historically by paying beautiful and/or successful people to use them, and more recently by utilizing social media to make it appear that it is already popular. Beyond this are the "bot farms" and "trolls", spreading messages and disrupting free speech to further the agenda of industry. This is also tied to the rise of "influencers", an absurd extension of marketing that is designed to not seem like advertising. It most resembles a multi-level marketing scheme, where personal connection is exploited in order to access otherwise unreachable customers. A related tactic is to utilize psychological research to manipulate consumers, like some guerilla COINTELPRO marketing operation. From flooding an area with messages and signs (relying on "mere exposure" effect) to putting inflated items on "sale" (FOMO and "anchoring effect"). In this technological age, where everyone has an online presence, that personal information has been commodified. The term "surveillance capitalism" puts some context to Facebook, Google, and others; rather than providing services to users, platforms typically collect consumers' info to sell. Or when an established company moves into a new area, it can use the profits from its other stores to fund the new one; allowing it to undercut existing, local businesses and eliminate competition altogether. If the low prices were genuine, we might consider this as benefiting the consumers, but usually those prices are adjusted upward after the competition is gone. Additionally, "green-washing"campaigns which foist onto consumers the impacts of industry. People are recognizing the silliness of a fictitious "carbon footprint" and how it focuses on minor, end-user contributions and steers discussion away from large-scale producer liability. The most egregious, however, comes in the form of manipulating the playing field and the very rules of the game. Here, of course, we come to "lobbying", the way that companies and industries corrupt governmental processes in order to succeed. Exemptions leading to the aforementioned harms are provided by government bodies influenced by the industries who did not want to lose profits to necessary limitations and safeguards. This is in addition to utilizing huge amounts of capital to fight basic complaints and lawsuits against harmful industry practices. Then the appealing of any judgements against (again, mostly larger) businesses, delaying cleanup and/or compensation to communities and individuals. Worker safety, healthcare, adequate wages, environmental impacts, collective bargaining, and whistle-blower protections are all basic rights that have been degraded by industry lobbying. We are all less healthy and less safe because of the hubris and cowardice of corporations, some just think they can buy their way out of unsafe surroundings-or even leave the planet.

Now we come to the section to evaluate the two areas of competition. I leave it for you to contrast the idea of brave competitors to cowardly businessmen. Do these examples sound like valid tactics that competitors who are confident of their skills, aware of their limitations, and proud of their ability to compete on a level playing field would employ? At a baseline of competition in an open field of opponents, the best-prepared and best-suited would prevail. This is often the stated goal of "free market" proponents: just give businesses an honest chance to compete and let the best ones win. If that were truly the case, they would relish the challenge of strong competition. If they were courageous, and capitalism were the valid pursuit they claim, it would lead to real innovation and improvements for all, rather than solely benefiting the few.

Why More People Should Feel Entitled

I was struck recently by a strange realization, during a perfectly normal conversation about what kinds of foods I ate growing up. As a child, we lived in some amount of poverty, though not severe. What occurred to me is that while I did not eat what I wanted, it was also not what my mother would have wanted. Rather, it was determined by what we could afford. Of course, this is also fairly commonplace, as many who live without adequate income do the same. What is remarkable is the impact it had on me, and this is the odd part. It is not just the food choice, but that along with other factors of poverty that all boiled down to a profoundly dis-empowering message: what I want does not matter.

Let that fester for a moment, and especially if it has never occurred to you before. Try on the idea that what you want has no impact on the world around you. Hungry? Unimportant, you will eat what and when you are fed. Tired? Inconsequential, you must get up and get busy. Need a break, want some help, a birthday present, to see friends? Does not matter; what you want does not matter.

That should be a horrifying sentiment, and one that never enters a child's mind. To be raised with the idea one can never get what one wants should be something we all agree is unacceptable. Consider the immediate impact of devaluing the child, and how that begins to influence how they see themselves. Because this is not about winning or losing a fun game, this is about their sense of who they are. Even if it seems a minor issue, or one that can be overcome, why would it be one we add to the difficulties inherent in growing up? Further, if this thought is allowed to take hold, it can be debilitating and impact so many aspects of a person. Imagine living with such a person, one so monumentally unmotivated to do anything since throughout their whole life they never get what they want because wanting does not matter. Even if these were "just" coworkers, their basic lack of motivation would make getting any work from them a struggle. What other impacts to society, and everyday interactions, stem from these people having a hopeless and futile feeling about agency in their own lives?

Personally, I took that message to heart; I believed it and it became such a part of my world that I forgot that I could have wants or even preferences. I was well into adulthood before it even occurred to me to question that bedrock truth: what I want does not matter. This is not to excuse that belief, nor to blame anyone else for my own failings. As ever, there were a number of factors involved. Understanding and explaining something is different than forgiving or excusing that thing, and is a topic for another discussion. I simply point out that throughout my own life there have been a number of negative impacts because of this simple, fundamental belief; the only positive has been that I was remarkably easy to get along with, which could be accomplished through healthier means.

With all the talk of an "entitled" younger generation, I would encourage folks to remember how harmful the opposite tendency is. Celebrate people knowing what they want, and expecting the possibility of obtaining it. A world full of those people is at least a hopeful world,

Business Problems Require Business Solutions

It is ironic that many in business nowadays quote the aphorism "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail", and yet fail to apply it to business itself. If one only thinks about businesses, then every problem can look like something a business could fix.

It seems common knowledge nowadays that we tend to stay within a "zone of comfort" and that what one knows determines what is possible. Let us establish, first, what these mean in everyday life, and, second, how they relate to the topic at hand. The phrase "getting outside your comfort zone" is easily understood. This is about how it takes effort to break away from our typical pattern and feels risky, with the result of staying comfortable unless pushed out of that zone. We generally stick with a few standard skills or plans to overcome challenges, and struggle when those fail us. Next, what we think of as possible is dictated by the knowledge we have available. For instance, if I am ignorant of rechargeable batteries, then I will think they can only be replaced. It will not be possible for me to consider charging them again, because it is outside what I know. Therefore, it is easiest to stay inside of a comfort zone and be blind to information extraneous to one's usual activities. Our interests and education are additionally bound by the hard limit of time available each day. In the business world, there are many artificial skills necessary for success: laws and specialized regulations concerning each industry, best practices and tips from colleagues, as well as general workplace standards and culture. These things set the parameters for the business world, establishing what is possible and where people are comfortable operating. Finally, so much time is consumed by the functions of working that there is little opportunity for exploration. Being good at business and focusing on building one's skill in business naturally results in other areas of life not being as developed. Additionally, succeeding in business drives folks to stay within their successful areas, where they earn their status and self-esteem. Once this goes on for long enough, it may seem business should be the focus of everyone. Indeed, when the majority of socialization comes from the workplace, and even in off-work hours one is listening to business news and learning more about business through reading or schooling, then so much of life revolves around the activity it would be no wonder someone would think business is all-important.

However, there are problems in looking at the world through a business lens. One is simply that business remains an artificial pursuit. Spending so much time in this artificial environment, pursuing artificial demands to artificial ends, takes away the context and connection to what is real. People focused on business can lose connection and compassion for others. An example is distancing and downplaying impacts by referring to them as abstract concepts, such as when insurance companies describe amputating the wrong limb as a "medical misadventure". Another relates to areas of life which are counter to business practices. Frankly, medicine is one such area; medical decisions are not for financial gain or profitability. This is partly due to considerations about quality of life, as there are few objective measures to cover that. Additionally, an emergency is not the time to be considering money issues. Not just because it is such an emotional situation, but also that extraneous concerns can interfere with necessary treatment decision-making. Returning to the subject of a business mindset being problematic, we can recognize that business is a hierarchical practice. This means that it does not lead to egalitarian or democratic thinking, which is antithetical to much of our social and governmental aspirations. The tendencies of those in business to only consider certain viewpoints and respond more positively to higher-status individuals illustrates why. These are three of the most prominent examples, and should already demonstrate why it is important to recognize the limitations and dangers of this type of thinking.

Why Should Religions Pay Taxes?

There is a long history of debate and numerous arguments on both sides of this issue. I am not here to reiterate those points, nor would I be the person for that. However, I do have a couple points to make I have not heard before. First, it is important to know that the central issue behind tax exemptions for religious groups here in the U.S. comes from the old slogan "No taxation without representation". The reverse of the original statement is that if one does pay taxes, then one should receive representation for that payment. Because of the historic separation between religions and federal government, the notion that taxing religious organizations would entitle them to a say in the government was a deciding factor in exempting them. Second, the current state of government and all entities (religious or not) that operate within the U.S. is that everyone benefits from taxes paid. Roads, emergency response (although not all--a topic for another time), and public assistance are a few of the notable items which all citizens and entities gain from having in place. Whether or not your house or office burns down depends on your neighbors' as much as your own fire prevention. Similarly, if your neighbor draws from public assistance, you benefit by continuing to have a stable neighbor who is not incentivized to commit crime to survive. These facts adequately demonstrate the inter-connected-ness of all in the society. This includes religious entities, who draw from the public citizenry and utilize all those same services as other private and public institutions.

On to the big idea. I propose that the benefits religious organizations enjoy should only be extended to groups like Amish, who truly separate themselves and adhere to a dogma which does keep it from engaging in public life. All the other ones should be taxed, regulated, and expected to contribute as any other business, which they are. If religious organizations had no need of "act of god" riders in their insurance policies, and did not influence the insurance of others by their claims, then fine. If they truly were non-secular, uninvolved in contemporary affairs, and not subject to the benefits of government already, then I would support (and agree with others about) religious tax exemptions. If they did not involve themselves in government and have influence over elected officials, I could see how there was a separation. However, those are not the case, and they do all impact the society at large. Even without investigating their impacts on public opinion, policy decisions, and debates about various societal topics (which are many here), it is clear that the so-called separation is a contemporary illusion and needs to be addressed.

Trash Talking

First, let us recognize that capitalism drives much of how things work in nearly all industries. The reason behind this seems to be the belief that a free market will arrive at the best solution while not compelling actions of citizens. The trouble with recycling is how the incentives are monetary and the consequences are environmental and physical health. We are finding that all the things we produce are becoming our death as plastics are found in increasingly dangerous places, including our own bodies. While the purely capitalist solution has been to rely on businesses being able to make money by collecting and processing recyclables, what we find is that is not adequately addressing the issue. Places previously providing these services are rejecting materials, leading to more recycling being trashed instead. There may be ways to rectify this using capitalist incentives, however it begins to call into question if a for-profit business will be sufficiently conscientious. 

Second, in recent years, things are invented to make money for people and not because they are necessary. Planned obsolescence and consumerism make the plans, not real inventiveness. Examples include car models which change year-to-year, fashion that has moved from seasonal to by-the-week (see "fast fashion"), and electronics which offer no improvements, but come in a new color. This results in tremendous amounts of waste, as excess stock which is not sold must be disposed of. This is not a critique of such already-condemned business practices, but to emphasize how critical the issue of waste and recycling have become.

Finally, so many items are made without being able to be un-made. While glass and metals can be melted and re-formed into new items, other materials have no such clear recycling possibilities. Electronics, for example, are complex items comprised of differing materials which require specific and thorough processes to dispose of them properly. There may soon need to be a serious discussion and examination of how things are produced in order to seriously address all the above issues.

To that end, I propose that any invention must include the full life-cycle of the product in order to be granted a patent. What I mean is that for any product, it will need to be clear how the disposal or recycling is to be done at the end of its use. Currently, patents are approved if they meet the basic criteria of being "novel", as in they have not been patented already. Patents describe the item, its assembly, workings, operation, and principles; there is nothing about how it adds value to the society or fills some need that citizens have. It certainly does not describe how the hundreds, thousands, or millions of units created by a business will be eliminated from the environment when the purpose of the unit is fulfilled. I think that must be a basic requirement if we are to make sustainable changes to business, manufacturing, and our environmental impacts.

Money Talks

I appreciate the increasing debate about Universal Basic Income or a suitable minimum wage, and hope to contribute on what makes an economy ethical. I find that examining the foundations of systems to be most impactful and revealing, although I recognize I have only a rudimentary understanding of this topic. It seems most public and "expert" discussion about the hyper-capitalist economy in the U.S. assumes that it has nothing to do with "right and wrong". Money and economics are said to have nothing to do with ethics, because money is neither good nor evil, it is just a neutral tool. I will say this is nonsense, and not solely because it is heartless and demeans peoples' intelligence. As with most tools, it is use which determines right or wrong. Consequently, if I fail to use a tool to do good, then I am choosing to allow bad to occur. It is past time to own up to this, because it determines life-or-death outcomes for citizens.

First, a few basics. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the common gauge of "economic health" and is often measured in spending (as a way to calculate the amount of actual "product"). Most estimates place consumer spending in excess of two-thirds of GDP. That is, all the everyday citizens who spend their money on food, cell phones, clothes, and housing. This indicates how much an economy relies upon citizens having money to spend on goods and services. Money is collected by businesses-they do not "make" money in the sense of producing it for others to use. Nor do businesses make money useful by circulating it about the economy in quantities which rival that of regular citizens. Indeed, the money businesses collect tend to be given mostly to other businesses; businesses do not give their money back to citizens in a simple and direct cycle between the two. Further, businesses are not the cause of an economy, but the result; the desire and ability for citizens to spend their money on products would exist whether any particular business or industry was available or not. Finally, any business is owned by people, who are beneficiaries of the business's success-and also responsible for the business's impacts. This is all to point out that people remain more important than businesses, and that businesses are beholden to people in numerous ways.

This last should be self-evident; it really ought not require explanation that humans are of more value than a constructed legal fiction designed to allow commerce. However, in the time of Citizens United, economic downturns, and global pandemic, it seems things have been turned around. The rationale given is that businesses get the largest portion of relief because they are what cause citizens to be able to live and will draw us into a recovery. This would be absurd, and a repeat failure of the 2008-9 TARP plan wherein businesses were given the most money. This is, again, a problem with not acknowledging that money is used for good or bad. When the government gave its limited relief monies to businesses, it was choosing to allow humans to die. Citizens' money was given to businesses rather than used to directly pay for those same citizens' needs by giving them back their money to spend as necessary. This was especially true of citizens who ended up losing their homes, unable to pay back the banks which wanted that money to pay for the banks' own bad decisions. This lead to not just a loss of property or credit scores, but of peoples' lives as the reality of homelessness took its toll. While not bailing out businesses may have meant that some of them did not survive, more actual humans would have. A business can be replaced or rebuilt, but not so a human life. In truth, some businesses should fail; something we will come back to momentarily.

Currently, we are in the midst of a physical health crisis as the global pandemic progresses. Again, and even more directly this time, if citizens do not receive adequate support from the government, people will die. Rather than focusing on businesses this time, we should focus on human lives and preventing unnecessary suffering by providing government relief directly to citizens. This may be a good time to point out an additional fact of economics and further difference between business and person. Most large businesses hoard money, as do the wealthy who benefit from those businesses; they actually diminish the economy when they secret their wealth 'off-shore', as it becomes inaccessible to the economy it came from. In contrast, regular citizens will save a small portion of their income (if possible) and spend the majority of it. This is a two-fold point as it reinforces the importance of consumers to the economy, but also highlights the necessity of adequate regulation and taxation of wealthy individuals and businesses. When lamenting the lack of funds available to provide relief to citizens, and forcing people to work in harrowing, life-threatening circumstances, it is helpful to look at how much would be available if this simple step were taken. Again, businesses do not "earn" or "make" money. The money businesses collect from citizens owes as much back to the economy as those businesses get from it; the cycling of the economy demands that no individual or group stop the circulation of money. This goes back to the GDP and how vital spending is to the health of an economic system. Much as with a real person's budget, once a portion is set aside as savings, the rest can be disposed of. This is where a healthy tax system can benefit an economy, by making those excess monies available again.

Meanwhile, because an economy is comprised of humans and devised to serve human needs, it follows that the system must address such issues. That is, since life is unpredictable, the crucial function of an economy is allowing citizens to reliably obtain what they need to live. Ideally, it would also serve to improve their status, which is what proponents of capitalism have claimed it does. However, when government under-regulates vital industries and fails to prepare for inevitable disasters (especially when doing so due to the influence of private interests) then the economy nearly collapses and magnifies the impact of otherwise manageable events. This is what turns an urgent need for action into an emergent crisis which could cripple the nation. So far this century, the U.S. has seen two major economic "downturns" in which spending was significantly diminished. In each, those most impacted were the most economically vulnerable, which is to say poor. That disproportionate impact has been death, which is just an acceleration of the typical trend of the economy. Even in "good times", those without adequate income are not always able to manage and survive. These are clear signs that the economy is not healthy and our current approach does not work on the practical level, let alone the ethical.

Let us return, finally, to the idea of businesses not having a "right to life". Looking at the history of various industries, it is evident that long-term success or reliability has not been a goal. Beaver trapping, whale hunting, timber logging, commercial fishing, coal mining, and on along the list continues with examples of failure to account for anything beyond today. What does it benefit a nation if they have no future built upon their current practices? Each practice and industry ought to be building towards a better future, or else it is contributing to stagnation and failure. In economic terms, the practices which lead to each of the above-named industries being so lucrative were the same which lead to their collapse: exploitation. It's possible that analysis of these industries could have slowed the commercial pillage of resources and contemporary mitigation practices could have been implemented earlier. Possibly that collapse and the resulting unemployment of large numbers of loggers, fishers, and miners would have been avoided. The current practices around energy production have echoes of these past failures, as we are encountering the consequences of diminishing supply along with environmental damage. These are not businesses which need to continue, nor do citizens need to take on further burdens to sustain their out-sized profitability. Again, the purpose of an economy is to meet needs, and the basis of capitalism is supposed to be that as "markets" [potential customers] become available, then businesses will develop to meet the new needs. This necessitates the end of old or unfit businesses, as economic factors change.

Here is where the disparate strands of this post converge: the responsibility of economics. One way of explaining ethics is through who is responsible for what and to whom that responsibility is owed. General conversation about economies and economics takes the stance that there is no responsibility involved. I think we have established that is nonsense, and that any economy has impacts on the general populace. Anything that has an effect on a person has a responsibility to account for, and an economy is not exempt from that accountability. An economy does good and bad, and by choosing not to take this into account or denying those impacts we hamper our ability to make improvements.

Servant's Industry

There is an acknowledgement of the shift from a previous economic base of manufacture and innovation to one of services and personal attention. This has been going on for decades, and is a byproduct of the globalization of trade and business. What it essentially means here in the United States is that workers no longer have a solid employment future at a company that makes goods because of the need for those goods. People are instead increasingly at jobs which perform services for others. These jobs regularly place individuals into lower-status and lower-power positions related to those they service or serve. The categories are huge, from hospitality, caring, and leisure, to financial, education, and sales. These include numerous specific titles: clerk, teller, waitstaff, nurse, consultant, cook, painter, instructor, manager, sitter, mechanic, driver, therapist, technician, and on ad astra. Included are food service, personal assistant/shopper, driver (chauffeur or taxi), host, and performer. Here "performer" includes not only actor, artist, athlete/competitor, or musician, but also buskers, content creators (YouTube or otherwise), and sex workers. This last group is no longer restricted to in-person services or pre-recorded videos, but nowadays includes "camera models" who can interact with online audiences through chat features. It is also this last group which I think best illustrates the issues I find with this trend. It is not about the commonplace argument about loss of talent, as I think many individuals could be incentivized into a manufacture trade if that were necessary. After all, all the folks in these jobs are skilled, often talented, and intelligent workers. It is actually about status and power, the ability of professionals to maintain autonomy and pursue advancement, and an overall stability for the economy.

In many ways, the move to "independent contractors" was not driven by employees seeking to expand their freedom and escape the confines of employers, but was a move on the part of employers to escape the confines of legal requirements around employment. Rather than pay one full-time person a guaranteed wage and minimum hours, providing benefits like holidays (or other paid time off) and medical insurance, it turns out to be cheaper to pay just a wage more workers to do the same work in a part-time capacity without all the other requirements. This has lead to not only a decrease in the number of individuals who can afford to live, but an increase in the costs to communities as those workers must find public services to offset the lost benefits. Similarly, the supposed "disruptive technologies" around sharing apps are advertised as an 'opportunity' for workers; they end up being just another way for the few to exploit the many. Much of this is what has been called the "gig economy", where a worker will not have a single job but cobbles together a living out of multiple "gigs".

Supposedly individuals more directly 'own' their work (or effort and skills) and are empowered to sell it to business owners in the 'free market'. Claiming that 'independent contractors' are in a better position than an employee, I think misses a few points. These workers are not subject to the protections employees are, and are desperate enough to jump into something-even if it's as risky as a pyramid scheme (Multi-Level Marketing, or MLM). Being ignorant of the practices and standards of a profession they are only in as a "side hustle", they don't know the history of folks who have worked in the field which led to the protections these self-proclaimed "disruptors" are side-stepping. Not that taxi driving is glamorous-nor is it the road to riches-but it is an established profession with understood guidelines and protections. Those are all the results of years of struggle by drivers to obtain the bare minimum of legal recognition and safety regulation. This cycle is played out in various fields in diverse ways, all summed up in the same manner: eliminate security for workers and increase benefit to owners.

How to Ruin Any Game in One Easy Step

I have played games since I was a child (before we had to specify "tabletop"), and am thrilled to enjoy the variety of games that are available these days. After years of playing casual as well as competitive games in various settings, I have noticed one trend. Being something I considered disappointing, I began thinking about this trend and have come to believe it illustrates a larger pattern. You may recognize this once I describe it, as I consider it to be quite commonplace. The effect is that which a 'rules lawyer' has on a game. A 'rules lawyer' (RL for this post) is an individual who spends time getting to know the rules of a game with the intent of being better-versed than other players and using that knowledge to exploit lesser-known aspects of the game or make arguments to their favor. Usually, the game will involve complexity or advanced strategy in addition to aspects of chance. Rules are, in one regard, just another aspect of the game that every player can access. They are readily available and essentially in place to keep things fair by eliminating confusion, imposing limitations, and level the playing field. However, most people just want to play, not 'waste' time with an intimate understanding of the rules. After all, the point of a game is to play, not sit around reading how to play. They get a 'good enough' sense of how to play and then set off to have fun. Instead, what often follows is everyone playing around the RL and trying to not get caught in some minute detail. If the game has a "master" or impartial arbiter, then the RL spends time using the rules to convince that person to decide in their favor. The RL will allow other players to make mistakes, then point out the error and declare a penalty; this can also lead to players resenting or fearing the rules being used against them. RL's will spend time haggling and protesting until others simply give up, also setting a tone for the rest of the game. The RL does not need to be successful-or win-in order to alter the course of the game; just the constant threat of their antics is enough to change the mood and decisions of other players. Rather than playing the game for enjoyment, everyone else is left playing around one person; this is because if they do not counter the RL, they stand no chance of continuing to play. Once this process has started, there is no 'legal' way to change it; after all, the RL is "just playing by the rules". It is also a challenge to object because a RL is not entirely a bad faith actor. It is not that a RL seeks to stop the game, prevent others from playing, or derail the game into pointlessness. The RL is usually playing to win, even if that is accomplished by every other player quitting in disgust. Again, this is contrary to what most people see as the spirit of competition, or "sportsmanship". There is no rule that says which ways of playing are acceptable, and it isn't contained in any rule-book. It is just generally understood that games are for enjoyment, and that anything which diminishes players' fun is discouraged. In a low-stakes, relaxed setting wherein people are just together to have a good time, this is merely a nuisance. My proposition is that the same pattern plays out in other areas of life, with significantly more serious consequences.

Indeed, if we take the above examples and apply them to actual lawyers, we can find similar situations. An attorney-at-law will study the 'rules of the game' (laws, administrative rules, legal precedents, etc.) and interpret them to persuade judges. These legal rulings determine how things work in the real world and reflect what is considered "just".  However, lawyers are not hired to pursue justice, but to get the result the client wants. These legalistic opportunists seek to exploit every angle and loophole in order to win. In doing so, they leave no room for actual justice, arguments for virtue, or humanity. After all, the "justice system" is intended to strip away the human, emotional component in order to arrive some dispassionate and objective ruling. It was meant to eliminate the arbitrary and biased system of personal favor and "keeping people in their place". This is where the examples from above begin to sneak in, because those same RL tendencies to bend the rules towards personal goals are what have crept back into the legal system. Just the same as in the above RL examples, it is all there, in black and white, they are "just playing by the rules". Just as above, even if it is a minority of 'players' using the RL approach, it begins to change the way the 'game' is played for everyone. I recognize this can sound harsh, and I am using this tone in order to convey how harmful I see this approach as being. It is not to disparage the professionals who work within the system designed in this flawed manner. The criticism is that some number of actual attorneys are willing to take the RL approach, and this serious flaw has been allowed to warp the legal landscape.

There is no "level playing field" when a minority of the players start out with an intent to play the game to crush the will of other players rather than adhere to the "spirit" of the game. Because, truly, there is no way to demonstrate-clearly and ineluctably-that supposed "spirit". Finally, it is an irony that laws are the rules of our "justice system", yet even they cannot determine what constitutes justice.

Back to Branding Cattle

I recently learned about Edward Bernays and how he changed the way advertising is done. The basis for his work was that of his uncle, Sigmund Freud. In case you are unaware, here are a couple facts: Bernays instigated the field of 'public relations' (around the time of the first world war) and later wrote a book called The Engineering of Consent. Similar to how the weaponization of racism by the Republican Party in the mid-1960's represented a fundamental change in politics, so did the introduction of propaganda at home alter everyday life. Rather than advertising a product on its merits (or outright lying), Bernays used techniques to manipulate consumers in subtle and gross ways. Rather than a factual, rational basis for buying a product, the intent was to introduce an emotional, non-conscious desire for something (or what the object represented: freedom, power, etc.). A common example is hiring attractive women to smoke cigarettes in public so as to reduce social stigma in order to sell cigarettes to the other half of the population. It is commonplace for "celebrities" to endorse a product in order to lure customers, with the most recent version being social media "influencers". The very label is indicative of the crass nature of the field, and a blatant (if unheeded) warning to individuals about what they are consuming. In recent years, there has been much made of 'building brands', discussions of what a 'brand' means, and how 'branding' builds customer loyalty. This can be seen in advertising slogans and campaigns going back decades, telling us we are part of something when we make the choice to buy one product over another (sodas or cars). All of this is actually just refinements on the original use of psychological discoveries to lure consumers and keep them "loyal", which is to say "spending their money with us instead of elsewhere". This is the basic concept of advertising: to turn individuals into consumers (a commodity to be drained of capital).

 

Now we return to the subject hinted at above, since this all seems to me related to the idea of "race". This notion of "race" was initially used to differentiate groups of people based on appearance and eventually to justify slavery. The seductive excuse of 'superior' and 'inferior' races, for instance: ones which possessed inherent traits that determined whether they were capable of reason or not. For a quick explanation of this, I highly recommend this TED talk. To this day, the discussion of race bears the mark of this origin; just by using the term, we are framing our conversation around an imaginary, outmoded idea of differences which do not truly exist. While advertising and "race" may not seem immediately related, allow me to conjecture a link. Bernays' version of ads are about utilizing psychological understanding in order to manipulate consumers and drive behaviors. The explicit goal is to collect more money; the underlying goal is to trap consumers in a system whereby their primary drives are used to steer them into choices, in other words: to exert control. Can the same be said for the concept of "race", or its concomitant, racism? Whereas advertising is a relatively straightforward process, the weaponization of "race" seems less so. I will rely on former U.S. president Lyndon Johnson, who most clearly expressed it thus: "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." Again, while he is overtly speaking in terms of 'emptying pockets' of money, unpacking it reveals the real motive is power. He is speaking of the utilization of "race" as a means to drive citizens to give up their independence of thought, freedoms, and even rights in order to prevent some prophesied calamity due to an other "race". Again, this can be seen in history; one recognizable example would be the trope (at least in the U.S.) which sexualizes "black" men and creates a primal fear in "white" men about loss of status and potency. You likely know the name of Emmett Till, who is but one of many innocents who lost their life to this insidious lie. So there is no confusion: I am not excusing racism or racist behavior, only seeking to understand how it works; understanding something allows for change to that thing.

 

To resume this exploration of how "race" is used to control individuals, we must understand that while the idea is to place some group "superior" to another, neither is free as long as the structure of "race" exists. Just as the above trope illustrates, any supposed "superiority" must be jealously and closely guarded. This means that the "superior" group is trapped in a fight (with an imaginary foe, played out with real persons) and cannot have an unguarded moment, lest some sign of the falsity of their narrative be found out. After all, what would it mean for Johnson's "lowest white man" if they were just the same as that "best colored man"? Because we are looking at this through a (non-professional) psychological lens, we can recognize that these motivations can play out without conscious thought or direction. In fact, the strategy of racism, and subsequent control of racists, does not require any particular cohesion. Just inculcate a fear and hatred of some group, and let those motivators work on people; the results are stunningly predictable. This is terrible enough, but-as mentioned above-what is worse is that no one is free of this system as long as the concept of "race" holds sway. The greater risk is that a construct becomes an overwhelming force within society-something one can either work for, or against, but cannot ignore or escape.

Top down versus bottom up

The idea being that collectively deciding, or cooperative (like the old idea of the co-op), we make better decisions and more people benefit. When an individual decides or makes the decision for a group or multiple others, a person can easily and erroneously make decisions based on their own interests rather than that of the groups. In business, decisions made by "thought leaders", CEOs, a small number Board of Directors, or just the owner of the business – these are all examples of this tendency. It is also this tendency for small groups to think small, or to limit their scope of value, that leads to cutting corners, outsourcing, and overvaluing the bottom line, and in the end disaster (see: Bhopal, financial crisis 2008, Exxon Valdez, Deepwater Horizon, Hurricane Katrina/New Orleans, etc.).

So this tendency is inherent in hierarchical system, and most businesses, and does not lead to the greatest good for the greatest number. The values and priorities of the few (elite) do not reflect those of the many (majority).

On the other hand, collections of individuals (working toward a common goal) value "people goals". Instead of maximizing profits for the business, people value maximizing happiness, capability, and helping others. It is through these actions that people both get and give fulfillment. So rather than a successful individual driving the economy, as happens now with "luxury" being prioritized over functionality – see Flint Michigan. Rather than expensive vacations to exotic locations, custom vehicles, designer clothing, and mansions, what most people would choose to value is stable income, safe and reliable housing and transport, some expendable income and leisure time, and choices around having children. These priorities are not reflected in the economy, where Apple, ExxonMobile, deBeers, and Microsoft top the investment banking worlds.

Much like micro loans, being given the power and opportunity to fulfill everyday citizens' dreams, this is very important. What is currently happening is, instead, the same individuals being told what opportunities they will be allowed to have and even what dreams to pursue.

I recommend The Wisdom of Crowds, published in 2004, written by James Surowiecki.

The Case Against Charity

I recognize that charity does good, and I think we can all see some of its positive effects. The part I don't hear in any discussion is the attendant negative, where charity causes harm or gets in the way of greater positive change. I will be using the term "mendicant" only because I like the sound and broad applicability, not because it is proper or best; I prefer it to 'poor', 'beggar', 'of modest means', or any number of synonyms or euphemism.

If two acquaintances meet and one who cannot afford it asks the other to pay for the meal, that's considered rude and the mendicant will be told so in a manner either large or small. When the same two people meet and have equal means to pay for the meal, often one will offer to pay for the other without prompting or judgment. The only thing different in this example is how able both are to afford the meal. The absurdity is that paying for the other is acceptable when there is no need or request. This situation seems to put the value on perceived status rather than the inherent worth of the person.

Then comes the case of giving to a mendicant on the street. The scenario seems straightforward: here is someone in need, and I have the ability to help with minimal effort/impact to myself, so I'll pitch some coins into their cup. However, not everyone who can contribute does so; again, there are judgements involved and different factors to consider. These may include one's sense of security, mood, visibility of the act of giving, having already given recently, if this mendicant has money in their cup, how long they have been in this same spot, and more. Society expects that the act of giving/helping is an individual choice, so that each contribution is not coerced, while at the same time leaving the decision (and potentially someone's life) totally to the caprice of various strangers. None of which is connected to the needs of the mendicant. There is no way to determine, in the context given, whether the donations are needed, suitable, adequate, or effective. This begins to demonstrate an inherent flaw in the current system of charity.

Another scenario is the "donation/resale center". This is a place where people with means can give items they don't need to people who do. It could be directly, with the items provided to the mendicant, or a larger operation that sells the donations to "give the proceeds to those in need". One thing that seems to appeal to those donating is that it's a more sterile and removed process. One never need to even see the unappealing mendicant, but simply drop items off at a convenient, aesthetically pleasing, well-lit location. This begins to show other issues with the charity system: since we rely on staff to do all the work, it is susceptible to various abuses. From embezzlement and graft to extortion of vulnerable persons and outright fraud. I'm not saying these things are common, just that there is no way of knowing with the current system. I believe that most workers in this field have noble intentions and wouldn't think of abusing their position. However, there is no oversight outside of each company/corporation/foundation. The closest thing would be a complaint to a government agency that oversees taxation, labor practices, or possibly business practices. I'm looking at you, Cancer Fund.

Finally, the establishment of a charity for a particular cause, such as an under-studied disease or other specific need (domestic violence or animal shelter). Here we can have specific individuals who have enough passion, or money/influence, to work towards change in a special area; often this will be a Foundation. Many times I have heard the founder or most well-known proponent for an organization talk about a personal impact; they had a friend or family member effected, driving them to take action. Noble, but so random and narrow to be laughable. This model also demonstrates an underlying inequity: who establishes and contributes to such charities, and therefore decides what is a "worthy cause"? I put this in scare quotes because - again - every individual is inherently worthy. That cannot be otherwise, else we risk the other-ing that leads to sanctioned and targeted neglect, killing, and even genocide. I may seem to digress, yet this is an important point in the discussion. By making certain individuals (be they mendicant, or person of color, or differing sexuality/gender than oneself, or religious affiliation) other we take away some of their power because we consider them to no longer have the same status as we do. This is easily seen when discussing mendicants, just notice your own reaction when hearing "vagrant", "bum", or "beggar". Returning to the point here, consider that impact on how charities could select only certain individuals to assist, while leaving others without. In order to receive what a mendicant needs, they need to conform to some established criteria and be an acceptable case - not a "lost cause". Those in power continue to determine how "worthy" someone is and whether they receive aid, directly and indirectly, by tying support to metrics established by those in power. For example, let's say an orphanage receives funding from a religious group. That funding could be limited to helping people the religious group deems 'worthy' and not for helping "unrepentant sinners". I say this demonstrates the core of unhealthy power dynamics: that one would consider a mendicant to not have the exact same rights or is incapable of having them.

This leads to another point, one central to helping others, which is that of self-determination and empowerment. When I give something to another person, it makes a difference whether they "earned" it or not; this can be seen in the difference between a busker and a mendicant. Giving to someone who is sitting passively with a cup feels different than giving to a performer-this is true on both parts. When a busker performs, they are demonstrating a skill and pride in their abilities. Contrast this with a mendicant who simply asks for others to act on their behalf. I am exclusively using this to demonstrate how an active or passive part in ones' own life changes more than having a single meal; this leaves aside ability/capacity, for example. The notion of autonomy is central to mental health and recovery. Think of times when you may have felt helpless or taken advantage of and get an idea of how important this can be. When that state becomes typical or standard, self-esteem and even hope are lost.

Finally, I will mention another point from a mental health view. A number of charitable organizations have taken to providing impact statements, documents that demonstrate action on the factors mentioned above. This is the start of accountability. However, when services/items provided are not adequate the assumptions seem to be 'they got something, that is all that matters', 'we can't do enough with our current budget/we need more to do more', or 'this is not meant to actually solve the issue, we are only providing enough to keep mendicants out of the way'. Harm reduction is important, and I do not intend to dismiss this aspect. It is simply that when we forego solutions we are not reducing but instead prolonging the harm; what sense is there in treating a condition instead of curing it?

The points so far: the focus on perceived status/value of mendicants, the random nature of giving that is not tied to outcomes, continued dis-empowerment of mendicants, lack of accountability, and vagaries of what cause is recognized as needing. My intention is to demonstrate how the underlying truth of our current system of charity is control. It is, in fact, an expansion of the Capitalist System that forces individuals to conform to the demands of those with money/power. This ranges from whether one gives to a mendicant on the street (act nice to the passers-by to get money to survive) to establishing a foundation (fill out these forms to apply for benefits...to survive).

"Charity" comforts us that we are 'doing something' instead of recognizing how backwards and broken the system is. Rather than fooling ourselves this way, it is time to analyze and address improvements to this system. The real value must be placed on choice and empowerment for the mendicants, with the end goal being the ability to dig oneself out of a difficult circumstance.