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.

Thinking with Magic

What could be the harm of "magical thinking"? To ensure understanding of the topic, I will briefly give a definition, some context, and then describe what I see as the heart of our current predicament. First, "magical thinking" is simply a natural tendency for humans to ascribe supernatural causes to events. It can be referred to as "superstitious thinking" as well, because it is often found in beliefs about doing something to ward off unwanted consequences, despite having nothing to do with the situation. It is "natural" because it is an ordinary part of childhood development; most of us could likely recall early attempts to make sense of the world with very little accurate information. A few examples: when a child assumes that wearing a particular pair of socks causes rain to fall, a sports player believes a special ritual assures their success, or someone thinks a prayer sufficient to achieve a desired outcome. What separates this from an error is both its persistence and resistance to logic. It becomes a refusal to acknowledge reality—to the point of actively rejecting it by persisting in the belief despite clear contrary evidence. This gives some sense of problems which can arise.

Allowing outdated notions like miasma or 'evil spirits' causing illness, ridiculous ideas like a 'flat earth' or 'ancient aliens', and just wrong beliefs like 'young Earth' or Geocentrism to thrive does more than frustrate scientists. If everyone knew that such ideas had no value or basis in reality, likely there would be no need to comment. Discussing such absurd ideas would be understood as satire, or something equally innocuous, and dismissed after the laughter faded. Many people have personal "theories", odd interests, or frivolous beliefs. Many do no harm such as "hunting Bigfoot", "studying" UFO/UAPs", or "positive thinking"—as long as they are relegated to humorous aside. When a person becomes serious about such a topic, to the point of insisting others are wrong or ignorant, problems arise. Much like addiction, where the problem is not the substance but the person's inability to exert control, the problem is not unexplained phenomena—rather it is the person's lack of boundaries or perspective. It is an inability to accurately evaluate any information that becomes truly problematic, and not just to the person believing the nonsense.

Something like the 'tolerance of intolerance' paradox, whereby intolerance ascends through forbearance, we are seeing ignorance become mainstream. While many have dismissed the "silly"or "harmless" nonsense that some espouse, this lack of critical thinking and "bullshit detection" is increasing illness and leading to deaths. Inability to recognize basic facts about vaccination has prompted a larger percentage of population in the U.S. (and elsewhere) to avoid vaccines so that public health risks are increasing, including a resurgence of dangerous diseases. Further, suspicion of any public health recommendations lead to increased deaths during the CoVID-19 pandemic. The allowance of outlandish ideas can blur the lines between "tolerance" and "enabling" by not acting to stop the harm they create.

Beyond this, there is a larger or more serious problem: the erosion of consensus reality and decision-making. Frivolous or ridiculous ideas become weapons once they are widespread enough to erode public debate or take time away from serious issues. If dealing with nonsense takes up time which could be spent actually solving problems or discussing real concerns, society is harmed. The time lost to dragging the debate away from absurd distractions uses up the patience of audience and participants. This is likely part of the "win" for contrarians, as attention or disruption feeds their agenda/ego. Additionally, delay allows those who benefit from the status quo to continue their activities for as long as progress is hindered.

Finally, where there existed one single group who could communicate easily and agreed on a majority of implicit and important topics, there now exists multiple groups whose identities are in conflict. It is easy to understand that arguing opinion or objective information is much easier than feeling attacked or having one's identity threatened. If one were incorrect about who won the 1983 World Series—even as passionate as sports fans can be—once the information is corroborated, the wrong person can pay the bet and correct their mistaken memory. However, arguing over subjective information and about identity is often an intractable dilemma. Many can easily think of how it feels to be insulted, and how no productive conversation happens afterward. This can be what happens when the discussion includes those nonsensical beliefs: it is not about the content or information involved, but about who the person is. This can be reinforced by an insidious change that takes place when lost people find community in fringe-belief groups: their loneliness and sense of rejection is healed by having comrades who support their unnatural opinions. This salvation is conditional, of course, and loyalty to the group must be repeatedly demonstrated to "belong". This creates a situation where a person's sense of belonging and identity is dependent upon the group. Many will do terrible things rather than lose their community. Contemporary complaints about men falling into toxicity is this same pipeline, as are many religious/spiritual groups; this is an aside, however, and should be dealt with separately. For this discussion, the focus is how identity can be threatened by accurate information and how that makes discourse impossible. So, rather than simply "correcting someone's mistaken information" by challenging the existence of Bigfoot or aliens, one can be 'attacking' another's identity. This is the problem of discussing basic information about the world when it contradicts someone who is out of touch with reality.

In the end, there is no problem with not knowing or having incorrect information. We can learn, we can grow as individuals and change opinions, and we can even correct our worldview. However, this takes a willingness that is challenging for many. The focus on arguing over the information involved is almost a distraction from the deeper issue of inability to evaluate information. However we proceed, it is important to recognize the component of identity and how it has been weaponized to prevent conversation. I hope that this post has illuminated some of the trouble we face, and that it is not too late to correct.

Art of the Handshake Deal

It is understandable why one would trust another person when making a deal, as there has to be a certain amount of understanding between the parties. Yet, the expectation is also that there are limits to this trust. Simply taking the word of a stranger that there is a warranty, payments can be missed with no consequences, or even that the item is returnable for a full refund may not be the case, unless there is a written document saying so. The laws about sales, consumer protections, and faulty or misrepresented items can vary greatly from place to place. Especially nowadays, with so much being bought online, and no opportunity to inspect merchandise, the old adage holds true.

However, here we are considering the more traditional scenario of buying something directly from another person. Sales are often in this mode, we agree to something verbally and then sign a document that is supposed to say the same—did you check that? Or a rental agreement, there's the "official" document, and then what the clerk says the rules are—which do you assume is true? These answers will vary, but one thing that can determine whether one trusts the person or the document more is the size of a person's hometown. There are still small towns where people actually have regular contact and their reputations are important. In these places, it is common for a deal to not be written because it is the full weight of the community which is enforcing the terms. This is because if the two parties have a difficulty in resolving any issue that results from dissatisfaction in their deal, the 'injured party' will tell people about it; family, friends, neighbors, and eventually the whole town gets the message that "so-and-so is a crooked dealer". That reputation becomes a real barrier to their life, because others will treat them with suspicion and disdain; they may be a few dollars richer in the short-term, but they lose the chance at future enrichment. This is the mode that persisted for much of human existence, until the advent of big cities where people no longer knew each other. If one never sees the same person twice, it becomes much easier to cheat and escape those reputational repercussions. This is also a trope: the big-city hustler or fast-talking salesman. While such stereotypes may prevent a few from falling prey, most of the time swindlers are aware enough to counteract those warnings. This is part of the reason so many con artists are amiable rather than overbearing. It is a matter not of their own confidence, but of winning the confidence of their target, that is the "art". Additionally, while people may be aware of this in a 'sale' situation, the problem extends beyond this small arena and actually applies to anytime someone makes a claim. Here we find the heart of skepticism: not simply accepting what is presented. Instead, making the effort to understand context—and get it in writing so the claim cannot be changed later.

While there are protections for consumers from some scams, bad deals, and rip-offs, and legal recourse to prosecute such sellers, there is no such protection for society. What I mean is that some people make a living off of telling people one thing and doing another, of selling false hope and quick fixes while collecting large payoffs. Whether this is a religious figure or politician, a celebrity or "influencer", they somehow experience no consequences for their lies. For every Theranos and Elizabeth Holmes, there are 5 climate-change-denying oil companies, cancer-causing-denying tobacco companies, or banking-fraud Enrons (a completely invented statistic, because the amount of scofflaws is likely higher). It takes so much effort and time to build and prosecute a legal case against the largest fraudsters that it overwhelms ordinary citizens. The machinations of these individuals and groups seem too blatant, brazen, and counter-intuitive; less "how did they do it?" and more "how did it occur to anyone to try such a thing?". Even more troubling, if possible, is the fact that the very principles and structures which protect these everyday people from such inconceivably large scams have been under attack for decades. The legal system has been eroded from the inside through influence campaigns like from the Federalist Society. Similarly, the Heritage Foundation has worked to change society by imposing doctrine through the legislative and executive branches of government. Personally, I did rot recognize the attack on education and schools until much too late. The call for "school choice" that has lead to siphoning public money to private institutions has been a tragedy not just for public schools and students, but also those who can no longer escape the ideological indoctrination of those private "schools". All this leads to our current situation, whereby those who say one thing and mean another have twisted the understanding of reality and perverted public institutions to their own benefit. These are, of course, large and complex situations with many repercussions, but the focus here is that somewhere in the process an argument was made as to why something should happen and those making that case may not have been totally honest or forthcoming. This is especially the case when they believe that "the ends justify the means". If someone is convinced that something needs to happen and is then willing to do anything to ensure that it does, we are more likely to encounter deceit and subterfuge.

We've had someone in the office of president of the U.S. who seems incapable of uttering a single truth, and—bizarrely, unbelievably—has returned to that same office. Any attempt to hold this person accountable has utterly failed and—equally incomprehensible—people seem to act like these blatant lies are somehow explainable and/or acceptable. While this is the epitome of our problem, let us not focus too long on a single individual. This is a systemic issue, as evidenced by the ascension of such an individual, and the only real solution is to prevent such criminals from insulating themselves from prosecution. To do this, we can strengthen our education system and include critical thinking skills as core curriculum, we should better define legal issues like "bribery", "graft", 'collusion", "profiteering", and "influence", strengthen governmental apparatus like courts and insulate them from monetary and ideological influence, and overall continue to expand democracy by elevating the many rather than the few.

A Group Effort

It is problematic that benefits accrue to those who already have them—things like being approved for loans for because of having assets already. Being let go for a minor offense because of not having an arrest record. However, it is not be unfair just because of a particular "-ism" involved, but because of the underlying assumption that someone is more deserving or "should" be treated differently. There is a common trope that "X would never happen if we had a woman president", or "some [group] have natural rhythm/can dance", "you know you can't trust anything they say because those people always lie". Whoever is included in that group can change; we saw it with waves of immigration in the 1800's. Whichever was the largest group last off the boat were the scapegoats. "White-ness" (aside from being an invention) was ascribed to longer-standing immigrant groups and withheld from the more recent ones.

Here is the heart of the problem: as long as someone can be marginalized, anyone can be. If some negative stereotype can be given to a group, it can be given to another. As long as it is accepted that there are different "kinds" of people, that some are inherently better (or worse), and that there exists some sort of "natural order", we are at risk of this happening. The only solution is to do away with all of them altogether.

Once no one can be labelled as "the problem" or "those people", then we will have peace. Until then, while we may make progress, it will be a constant vigil that another group is not vilified.

An Inhuman World

Things are made for the benefit and convenience of businesses rather than for humans. This seems odd, as it is people that business, achievement, progress, or innovation is meant to serve—not the other way around. A small example is food, something seemingly obvious that it should be of use and benefit for people. However, food is not processed, packaged, or produced in the most nutritious manner. Instead, the focus is on convenience, yield, and longevity. Most foodstuffs will degrade and rot fairly quickly, from fruits and vegetables to prepared dishes; even with refrigeration, a week is a long time to expect food to last. In the distant past (more than 200 years ago), when people grew their own foods and had to store them, they developed a number of methods for preservation. Salting, dehydrating, fermenting, and cooling (think root cellar rather than ice box) are all long-standing practices. Because food is no longer produced locally, it is just a matter of logistics. We have food that needs to travel from production sites to some sort of store where it sits out on shelves for days before the consumer finally takes it home. This is true even of "unprocessed" foods, like whole fruits or grains. While this is where one reaches the borders of the argument about "genetically modified organisms" (GMOs), we do not need to enter that territory, but recognize that many such plants are quite different than in previous centuries. Most often, even these changes have been to make these crops more marketable (even if just more pest-resistant or larger). While this is a simple example, you may recognize other areas where the trend holds true: technology, clothing, or automobiles, for example.

There is an argument that the very existence of large population centers (cities of 5000 or more) exist as an expedient for business. One version is to get localized group of workers, ready to replace one another in whatever job is required, with infrastructure to most easily transport them to various destinations about the city while minimally supporting their biological needs. Beyond this, there are also ways societal expectations have been shaped by the needs of businesses for space, employees, materials, computers, etc.

Contrast that with a more traditional style, consisting of smaller groups (100-1000) who grow their own foods and make their own clothing, having time to pursue other interests and congregate for various events. For decades, people have been decrying the loss of "third spaces", meaning those places outside the home and workplace where they can gather and socialize. The only places that seem to exist are businesses which allow people to congregate as long as they spend money to do so: coffee house, public house, or event space. Recently, there has been much news about "offices standing empty" and "return-to-office (RTO) mandates" following the pandemic. This is not about people wanting to go back to commuting and being watched over by supervisors—it is driven by businesses wanting to re-establish control over and extract maximal value from employees.

This can only last as long as people allow it to, and that seems dependent upon recognizing how dystopian it actually is already.

The Invisible Fence

Every student in the U.S. is exposed to these phrases: "...Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" and "...with liberty and justice for all." Because we live within the confines of an established, artificial system, it makes sense that we must understand the limits of those constructs. However, there seems to be an increasing amount of disagreement about where to draw the line on liberty. Since this concept is central to the founding and existence of the U.S., who is it that decides what it means? There are numerous laws and legal interpretations, but no particular committee or public office devoted to exploring what liberty means as times—and technologies—change. Additionally, how do everyday people conceive of liberty? Do we understand it as static, or as something adaptable? Do we only think we are free because we are told that? Is it that we are surrounded by media and other influences which tell us that this is what "freedom" is and so we accept this? Are there natural limitations—or only artificial ones—in modern society? These are more than "academic" questions, removed from the mundane concerns of regular people. In fact, they are questions essential for every citizen to consider because they lay the foundation for all questions that come after. Our understanding of liberty sets the limits and expectations about all decisions and questions which follow. If one thinks that liberty extends only to here, then one has difficulty asking what lies over there. These are the beginnings of liberty: thinking there is something which I have that allows me to take action or something I lack that keeps me from taking action.

There is—once again—an interesting aspect to games which is pertinent here. In part, this is because games are also artificial systems. Any game establishes what is allowed or prohibited on the path to victory. These rules are the freedoms players are allowed within the game, but they also reflect the degree to which players give up doing other things which might benefit them. The only succor we may take is that every other player is also bound by the same rules. Additionally, there are the physical parameters to games, but then there are the "soft" limits which determine optimal strategies and "hacks","cheats", or "exploits", especially in video games. Knowing how to work within the game's confines, yet still make marginal advances over other players, can confer large gains over the course of play. This analogy for liberty in real life is especially pertinent in video games using progression, quests, or achievements. These are things which limit a player's development until met or confer advancement (or extra benefits) when completed. They can provide incentives to play certain ways or make particular choices when they are solely achievable through the methods a game maker decides. It then behooves us to ask "who made the rules to the game of 'real life'?" and what have they incentivized or prohibited?

The overall concern of this discussion regards infantilization and disempowerment. Infantilization is the process of keeping or reducing someone to a less active status, to make decisions for them, and/or hobble their development. This may seem like it creates a dependent who then requires care-taking, but is often done for power; either the feeling of having power over another or to add that person's power to theirs. To act on behalf of another confers the power of the other onto the action-taker. This is the basis for representatives in a "representative democracy": the power of those citizens is conferred to their elected official who acts on their behalf. However, it often seems less like representatives actually enact "the will of the people" but are utilizing their power to benefit themselves. It seems self-evident that everyday people will vote to give themselves more control, liberty, and power over their own lives, yet their representatives are often doing the opposite. Instead of having more freedom, more free time, and better education to make informed decisions and participate in their lives (including governmental decision-making), people in contemporary society are infantilized. We are told that people are selfish, ignorant (if not downright stupid), panicky, greedy beings and it is better they do not have too much freedom. It may be better if we challenge those assumptions and demand remedies instead of accepting such a disempowering message.

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.

Keeping Down the Jonses

In medicine, the term 'anosognosia' means the patient cannot recognize their own condition. A person literally cannot conceive of the issue or connect the cause with the effect of their own suffering. This is similar to — although distinct from — when we cannot examine own situation as objectively or dispassionately as an outsider could. While this is a common and important human flaw to be aware of, it is different than the patient's blindness: the inability to connect varying symptoms with the underlying disease. It is also different than having others mislead or deny information that would allow one to understand the problem; the term gaslighting may come to mind for some. We need to be clear about these different causes and conditions in order to recognize how to fix our situation. The objective here is to expand the conversation and provide better tools for examining our collective problems.

Additionally, individuals and groups attempt to exploit ignorance, confusion, and desperation by offering self-serving explanations. It is the reason we have scammers, fascists, demagogues, and "influencers" explaining away all problems as due to "godless living", "too many immigrants", "raising 'soft' children", "not 'grinding'/'hustling' hard enough", etc. The insistence that these are all personal or individual issues, despite impacting every person in the society. Claiming that mass shootings are just "lone instances" or "disturbed individuals", rather than the result of choices and influences that pervade the culture. Demanding that nobody look at the arrest, sentencing, and incarceration of minority persons — let alone the violence surrounding law enforcement towards same — as a systemic problem. The 'individual responsibility' narrative serves to maintain things as they are, and benefits those who feed off such conditions. If we were to (or were able to) examine our situation with objectivity and allow for systemic or systematic oppression, we could find solutions that we could not otherwise.

However, the suggestion here is that there exists a greater case of anosognosia than even the collective blindness to violence, inequality, or suffering that people live with every day. In fact, I propose that it is the root cause of those symptoms. It may seem odd to refer to conditions as diverse as police shootings, economic inequality, theft, houselessness, addiction, everyday callousness, political apathy, excessive imprisonment, despair, and extractive practices as anything other than causes themselves. This is due to the blindness — often enforced by self-interested parties — which society has about these terrible conditions being outgrowths of a pervasive condition which supports them. Yet, after seeing the connections, one can recognize a great number of issues as symptoms of that underlying, unacknowledged root cause. Whatever name we know it by, the notion that there is some immutable scale of more and less deserving persons dictated by natural principles. The assumption that there are people who should not have power, privilege, or prestige. This is the underlying belief that makes it possible for otherwise caring and compassionate people to blame victims and excuse the mistreatment of others, thus allowing a system of oppression and suffering to continue.

Let us briefly examine one example as practice at seeing the pattern. While houselessness (previously, homelessness) has been around a long time, people in the U.S. are experiencing it in greater numbers over the past few years. There are a number of rationales for ignoring it, many bordering on the absurd. For this example, set aside budget and history, let us set aside the mundane world and imagine instead that all humans, no matter their limitations or choices, deserve food, shelter, health, and autonomy. If every person were thought of and treated as worthy and deserving — and our systems were oriented to actually ensuring the life and liberty of its citizens — then nobody could be unhoused. If the life of any person living "on the streets" was valued just as highly as any celebrity, it would be impossible to allow that person to continue to live in those conditions. Once, and only when, this ridiculous attitude is abolished, will we begin to progress into the future.

It is only because we allow ourselves to believe that there are deserving and undeserving, worthy and unworthy, valuable and disposable people that so many forms of suffering continue. It causes us to fear being put into the "unworthy" group and look down on those who are called "unworthy". It leads to systems which thrive on and contribute to the prejudicial notion of hierarchy.

The First Step in Fixing a Problem is....

Not so much a mystery as it is an assumption. Anyone in a recovery program will recognize, "The first step in fixing your problem is admitting you have a problem." Others might say it is, "...defining the problem", "...understanding the root cause", or "...recognizing there is a problem". These are all very pithy and goal-oriented. You may have surmised, by this point, that I have a suggestion which differs from these. This is correct, and not only that, I believe it is a vital difference. The baked-in assumption is that we can fix the problem, since the sentence begins with, "...first step in fixing...". It is here that we have already lost a large number of people, because they do not believe a fix is possible. It may seem strange or illogical to imagine that anyone could think we are just stuck with problems, that there is no solution for some things. However, this is the issue underlying many conflicts in relationships and life: one side thinks we can fix it and the other side does not.

In a previous post, I made mention of growth and fixed mindsets. These terms refer to the belief that either change for an individual is possible or not, respectively. In terms of nature versus nurture, one with the fixed mindset will hold that nature wins out and cannot be changed. This can be expressed, "Some people are just born bad" or "You can't fix stupid". This may seem to some as an antiquated notion, something that has been superseded by progress and scientific discovery. However, the fact we can hear people continue to use such expressions should be enough to demonstrate the tenacity of this perspective. It is this attitude that poses a barrier in fixing problems, ironically enough. Those with a fixed mindset will work around the difficulties that others present, assuming that there's nothing to be done to change those others' actions. "It's just the way they are," they will shrug to themselves as they assume the other person cannot change. Rather than pointing out this other person's actions as being problematic, looking for ways to fix the situation, or even contemplating how to address the problem, these folks will take it upon themselves. This situation or attitude may begin to seem familiar, as you contemplate times in your life when someone acted this way.

The point here is not that people are incapable of change, and certainly not to berate anyone for thinking such. Having experienced such change in my own life, I hold with the growth mindset and can attest that it can happen. Because of this, I can believe that the same is possible for you, even if you currently hold a fixed mindset. My hope in writing this is to point out how the presuppositions we do not recognize can end up sabotaging our efforts to make things better. Therefore, my suggestion is that the first step in fixing a problem is simply to believe change is possible.

Proposal for a True Universal Currency

How we currently calculate the value of an item is purely economical, in the pedestrian sense. Some version of: “I’ll pay a little more than the total price of components, production, transportation, and sale of the item”. Let us look at a small example to understand the process better. In creating clothing, the demand for various other components was also born; in order to make one thing, we need various tools, ingredients, or processes. The basis for clothes is thread, which can come from sources like cotton, wool, or newer artificial fibers. Any of these require land, water, and effort in order to cultivate, harvest, and produce. While animal or artificial fibers require somewhat different ingredients, they are similar enough for our discussion. Land must be cleared for farming and/or factories, requiring energy for labor and machinery to make a plot usable. The crop must be cultivated, and most often water is involved, requiring further energy output for reservoirs and distribution networks. Finally, once ready for harvest, energy must be used to gather it for processing: reaping crops, shearing sheep, or manufacturing plastics. Additionally, fibers can be stored for the future as well as transported to where the fibers will be transformed into usable thread and then clothing. If we are to create enough thread to clothe a population, there is tremendous infrastructure and construction necessitated. While shoppers see the price of a shirt, the production of that one article is repeated tens of thousands of times requiring a tremendous apparatus that extends beyond just the shirt company. To arrive at a final price, many contemporary examples would also include government subsidies, tax breaks, undercutting competitors, advertising, and on ad nauseam. Additionally, we are not accounting for the loss of habitable land given over to industry, the toll on workers (physical or otherwise), or the environmental impacts of various practices. There are many costs which only get calculated later if enough people raise enough of a fuss. Once established, technologies become more political and decisions have more to do with what industry will allow to be considered than the actual components. In short, what gets considered a “cost” is subjective and often poorly understood. This illustrates some of the underlying problems with the current system. It would be better to have a simpler, universally applicable, and objective way to arrive at the value or cost of any item. As you might expect, there may be such a thing, but we must first explore some basic science in order to make the connection.

First, notice that the word “energy” appears a number of times in our example above; whether electrical, physical, mechanical, or chemical, the work done can be expressed as units of energy. While we may be accustomed to using this term in various ways, for our discussion here we need to think of it as it is used in physics. This means two things: energy exists along an electromagnetic spectrum and only some of it is useful. Energy exists on a scale from radiation at the high end to heat at the low end. It moves "down" easily, i.e. standing in the sunshine warms you up. However, to convert heat back into electricity it takes more energy than we get from that change to heat. We can generate electricity using the falling water at a dam to turn an electromagnet, converting potential mechanical energy into electrical energy, but we would not be able to draw the same amount of water back up into the reservoir using the electricity we gained. This is because there is always some amount of loss in converting any form of energy into another. Once energy translates from light into heat, it is no longer available to perform tasks; once the water is boiled, that heat cannot be used as electricity again. Next, everyone recognizes that it is easier to destroy than create; it takes time and effort to make the sand castle, but it will quickly fall apart on its own. That is entropy: the tendency towards loss of order and need for energy to maintain order. Further, entropy is a universal process. While the news mentions "peak oil", "post-oil economics", etc., which are different ways of expressing our limited supply of petroleum, the same is true of all energy sources. You may remember learning in school that our Sun has a lifespan, and will burn up at some point in the future. More broadly still, there is a finite amount of usable energy in the entire universe and when that is expended further change will be impossible, expressed as the "heat death of the universe". Recognizing this might encourage some to “conserve energy”, but the purpose of this post is just to point out the limitations of our current financial reckoning and suggest improvements.

With this understanding, of both the limitations of current economic accounting and entropy as a basis for the true representation of costs, we can construct a system which would express all activities as consumption of our total energy “budget”. Thus entropy would become a basic unit of currency and evaluation at once. For true cost-benefit analysis, we could do no better.

Speeding Through Life

Many are aware of the practice in production of "speeding-up" a manufacturing line. A popular example is found in The Jungle, where slaughterhouse workers are told to move faster in their work. This is desirable for the business, as more product means more money; however, it is largely deleterious to workers. In a slaughterhouse, workers are in dangerous surroundings using devices meant to inflict harm. Cutting muscle from bone is helpful when converting a carcass into meat, but a mistake can result in that same cutting of the human worker. In any industry with repetitive movements, the necessity for breaks is clear and the push from supervisors to keep on the line is harmful. Many industries want to mechanize to further increase output and profit, but the closest they have is to treat human workers as if they were machines. One way to do so is by insisting they get few breaks or vacations and longer work hours. The threat of firing is most often used to coerce workers to continue even after their bodies have begun to fail. It is the promise of having employment choices which convinces most people that capitalism is a beneficial system. This requires that there be other options available, of course, and it is often not true for low-skill, entry-level, or rural workers. When factory workers are told they can work harder at the only plant for hundreds of miles or be fired, the choice is either sacrifice their lives slowly on the line or quickly by not having income. Of course, working conditions have been an issue of public discourse for well over a century, and there is little to add. However, we can look at how these same practices are being introduced outside traditional industries and even beyond the workplace.

You may think that because you don't work on a production line that you would be immune to the harmful practices of manufacturing. However, increased costs of living induce people to work longer or accept multiple jobs in order to survive. With the advent of email, text messaging, and expectations of being 'always-connected', workers find that they are asked to give more of their time to their employer. If your job haunts you at home or wears on you during your commute, that is a cost you assume on behalf of the business. Additionally, the spread of "grind mentality" makes it seem appealing to 'always be hustling', or that you are missing out if you are not 'grinding'. In this, every aspect of life is an avenue to be exploited for gain and turned into a "revenue stream". Even if you aren't 'on the line' at a plant, you are inundated with messages that you are slacking and should be busy doing something. This all adds stress to takes time away from the everyday tasks, chores, and recreation people consider their actual "life". In this case, the entire society becomes the manufacturing plant and every citizen is a harried worker. Job insecurity, fear of missing out, pressure to compete, conspicuous consumption, and substandard wages all combine into workers feeling dis-empowered in general, and now not just at work. Even recognizing this tendency and the changes we experience as things get worse requires time, which is the very resource that is being taken from us.

Why Villains Always Lose and Heroes Are Reluctant

It is odd that heroes in entertainment are the ones who just react to the villain's plan. Superheroes in comic books and movies, the "good guys" on TV shows, and even in literature and documentaries. From Bond to Batman to Brockovich, the individual the audience is supposed to identify with, who conveys the morality of the story, is not the one initiating change. In Joseph Campbell's hero's journey, it is the passive protagonist who is forcibly taken away from the known world and endures events which unfold around them. Why is it that we are meant to idolize the person in the story whose motivation is to stop the plans of others? This is a question about the psychological impact in the real world on the audience: us. If it is the case that we grow up with the notion (conscious or not) that being a good person means reacting or waiting for someone to rescue, what sort of expectation is that? These are the stories we share with our children. If we expect children are smart enough to pick up on the morality of the tale, do we really think they miss the message that the focus of "good guys winning" is just to stop the baddie from completing their scheme? This is the ideal we inculcate in our society: do not plan, do not attempt to influence others, and do not seek to shape the world, because only villains do those things. Just sit back and allow things to unfold, only taking action when something "bad" happens. Change is aberrant, and to be endured; events are out of our hands and happen to us, rather than because of us. The person who initiates or explores, who takes action, is somehow wrong. This means that having a plan is suspect, and the good act to prevent others from completing their plans. In short, our stories tells us to be reactive.

There are some arguments to note in this examination. First, that this narrative flow arises from human thinking and therefore demonstrates a natural occurrence reflecting the basics of storytelling. After all, conflict is drama, and drama drives interest; it makes no sense to tell a story that is not interesting to the audience. Second, that due to complex social networks, humans benefit from reactivity and passivity. These approaches maintain stability and conserves traditional structures that work, allowing steady and safe progress, rather than upheaval. Finally, that proactivity can lead to overbearing interference or invasive progress. The reason they are villains is that they are over-reaching in their plans, and should seek only to change their own lives, or at least set more humble goals. While these are fine points, they are more complex or deal with rational thinking, and the problem is more like subliminal messaging. The basic idea that good people only act to stop villains is so simple and pervasive that it is only a question now that we are examining it. Before now, it would have seemed unnatural to think of such a fundamental aspect of the stories we have heard all our lives. Most of the arguments around these three points can be allayed quite simply. We can recognize that stories could be just as compelling with protagonists who see problems in the world and begin to construct ways to overcome them, upsetting the status quo and building coalitions towards the betterment of all. There are a few of these stories already.

I will mention here just how good Black Panther is, and how well it illustrates my points. Certainly, one part is about how a prince becomes king, the hero's journey. However, the entire movie revolves around the tension between tradition and modernity, centered on maintaining morality in a changing world. The central character does not drive the action, because he is again reacting to the events being imposed by the outside world. T'Challa's idyllic life in Wakanda is ended by the murder of his father. Afterwards, his smooth transition to sovereign is interrupted by the return of a cousin (N'Jadaka) who was left to die by that same father. We get to see how stability can become stagnation and that the certainty of accession does not grant perspective. Here, we have an encapsulation of the entire discussion about villain versus hero, proactive versus reactive. The villain is right, has a plan, and in the end everyone benefits from his vision; however, the entire movie is about the hero who has to be dragged into the present and face the world because of the actions of that villain. T'Challa was not setting out to discover the best course of action for himself or his nation, he did not even recognize the problems of the world as important, and would not have questioned the policy of isolation on his own. It was only through the actions of N'Jadaka that Wakanda gained a ruler who was capable of appropriately leading.

It should give us pause when the villain is beaten, and the hero goes back to waiting for something else to go wrong. Why are they not planning how things can be better, or challenging themselves to prevent the need for such extreme plans? How are we emulating that reactionary model in real life?

How Success Can Lead to Failure

Historically, it seems there has been an acceptance of "successful" peoples' actions, methods, and recommendations for others, as though wealth or popularity conferred a sort of impunity and entitlement that those without were meant to subscribe to. The belief that the "powerful" and "elite" must know what they are doing, and inherently are to be trusted and obeyed. While in feudal times lords and ladies had both social and legal prerogatives, this was shifted during the European Age of Enlightenment. There was a sense that those in power were fallible and human, therefore structures should be enacted to combat such troublesome tendencies. During the more recent era (let's say from the Industrial Revolution) that seems to have swung back towards expansive privilege, and came to include "tycoons". It may be that these robber barons were given social cachet as their wealth allowed these individuals to craft a positive public persona. We ended up with the notion that the wealthy "can do no wrong" inculcated into public consciousness. We could seek explanation in psychology, and the desire for idealized role models; however, it is unimportant for this introduction. The point is to notice the shift in attitudes towards more or less latitude given to those "in power". A frightening example in recent years is the trend of "celebrities" who are "famous for being famous". This seems to mean that they are given status, afforded media attention, and discussed by everyday folk simply because they reached a threshold of public awareness. This recognition indicates no greater education, simply that the person has skills and resources enough to become noticed. A feat, we must recognize, that is easier in recent times with the prominence of social media added to the dearth of "news savvy"; if you disagree, I would point out how serial killers and, more recently, various "shooters" became household names. After some amount of time this recognition allows them to build a "following". Once established in the public consciousness, they can expand out from the initial event they became known for (in this I refer to sports figures and local political operatives—hopefully not murderers). This aspect demonstrates how people in the public eye are given no small amount of deference and power by those who listen or watch them, and how this is problematic.

Whether it is a celebrity product endorsement, an economic pronouncement from an industry leader, or just a fad hocked by an attractive also-ran, the attention paid to these individuals comes at a price. Not just because the latest diet does not work, the product is shoddily made, or the economic plan is self-serving, but also because it takes the thinking and discussion away from citizens. Inherent in the history of this issue is that "they know better"; that royalty, tycoons, or celebrities have a better understanding of the situation than those who are in it. It seems like some sort of confabulation between being trained and informed as a professional and just being popular. It can be alluring to trust: someone else has already done the tough job and all I have to do is agree or disagree. However, citizens are not only meant to be informed and engaged, but also the public should have a sense of how to analyze and discuss issues. If regular citizens are not involved in their own government operating in their best interests, and instead rely on industry or popular figures to make those decisions, the democratic process is suspect. The function of a public hearing and of voting is to get as many of those differing experiences of the problem under discussion and come up with a solution that will address it as best we can. The skills to do that work are not commonly taught in our schools, or discussed at the dinner-table. Most people do not have the time or inclination to learn how to come to consensus, and that is aside from having time to actually use such skills and discuss public issues. The other side to this is that without a wide section of the community involved, many aspects of issues get missed. Above, it was noted how professionals are expected to come up with solutions, and that expectation extends to the successful. The notion that we should listen to "experts" over those impacted by a situation becomes increasingly problematic. Look at recent discussions of 'race' and policing. How can we expect to make the best decision without getting an accurate picture of the issue? It would be like expecting a medical doctor to diagnose a condition without any tests or background from the patient. At that point, it is just guesswork and the treatment is more likely to fail. This exposes the biggest problem with handing over agency to someone whose credentials are just having been on TV: the image is not the reality.

Finally, there is the problem of disposability. The tendency to get rid of someone because of the slightest perception of impropriety. What this means is so subjective as to be meaningless, but every scandal is another possible end to a career. This demand for perfection traps not only the celebrity, but the citizen as well. In order to remain an ideal, these people are required to live up to unrealistic expectations. Those who aspire to public office face meeting those unachievable standards just to have a chance. This is only reinforced when a public figure makes an inevitable mistake and is thrown out. Most situations are multifaceted and need some unpacking to understand, and we rarely get that in public discourse. I am gladdened to see some public figures (a current example would be Senator Fetterman) having real-life struggles that do not immediately result in resignation. To admit frailty and failure—to be human—and still retain agency and engage in discourse as we are. Of course, I hope the Senator recovers, but moreover, I hope this is a sign that we no longer demand the impossible from each other and are instead able to accept human limitations while engaging in public discourse. This can only help more citizens to become involved and allow the bumptious process of democracy to flourish.

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.

Why Does Context or Intent Matter?

While in philosophy, we could speak simply of utilitarianism (consequence or impact) and deontology (moral duty or intent), let us take a more pedestrian, and relevant, approach to understanding this question. Most often, in the news and in law, people are focused on outcomes. It is too messy or time-consuming to investigate, report, interpret, and adjudicate motives. Psychologically, it is difficult to narrow down behavior to either intent or impact, as there are so many influences and factors. Individuals may consider both when choosing, but are also motivated by drives separate from either (i.e. illogic, coercion, trauma, etc.) as well as various impairments. Additionally, it is important to note that every choice is made with incomplete information; no one knows what the outcome will be, it is just a best guess as to what seems most likely. Some may say there is only one way to do things, and therefore no need to question intent or impact. It is more accurate to say life is open to interpretation and allows for numerous successful approaches. Otherwise, there would be neither need nor ability to improve or discover. Once we accept there is no predictably "right" answer, what is left is to determine how to learn to make better choices. Given the liberty that most expect in the modern world, learning how to do that can be a difficult, protracted, and harm-producing process. This leaves the culture considering outcomes and ignoring context in arriving at those outcomes.

A particularly destructive result of this tendency is to eliminate understanding or finding of common ground. These similarities exist, even in the most intractable fight; being that we are all human, we share fundamental traits and desires. Wanting to feel safe means different things to different people: it could be carrying a gun for you or me knowing that no one has a weapon. That fundamental need for safety is shared, even though we meet that need in different ways. Once we begin to relate, it becomes less a question of whether we can agree than how we resolve the issue. To those who question this, or think that "if it is so easy, why isn't everybody doing it?", I raise two points. First, I never said this was easy; it is challenging to do, and ever harder to do well. Second, I refer you back to the fundamental question "qui bono?": who benefits? Who benefits from the masses thinking they face intractable differences everywhere? Who gains or retains their power by giving frustrated people simplistic answers that allow for no compromise or alternatives? For whom is it easy to let others make difficult decisions instead of facing uncertainty and correcting their errors? Who prefers not having to explain or confess dire circumstances, or risk not getting what they need by involving others? The answer, of course, is that everyone has some benefit from the current system. As with many such problems, it works just well enough or does not fail enough to overcome the shared resistance to change.

I propose the real issue is treating people as disposable, which feeds into and is fed by the disregard for motivations. Rather than determine the cause of a crime, people will say "It doesn't matter, a law's a law," or "Some people are just criminals". These platitudes are verbal shrugs of surrender and passivity that signal "people are disposable, so circumstances don't matter". This black and white thinking leads to executing someone stealing food for their child. There are circumstances that drive people to do the otherwise unthinkable, which is the context. Outside of that situation, the same person would not make that choice. Maybe they would even stop another from taking that action; we evaluate choices differently when they are ours to make, after all. That mutable aspect of human nature demonstrates how adaptable we are and that we are shaped by our environments. The truth is that people are reachable, and able to change; however, ostracizing them does not lead to change, improvement, or re-integration. It takes more effort, and self-examination, but it is possible make the necessary social adjustments. I say self-examination, because to enact changes that will work means tackling assumptions in the culture that most prefer to avoid. These includes underlying beliefs that people are disposable, that there is only one way to be or act, and that change is impossible.

In the end, understanding and explaining something is different than forgiving or excusing that thing. Discovering the cause or context is more like diagnosing an illness, as it gives us the information needed to treat that dysfunction and make things better. It is what allows us to correct a problem, rather than suffer it and feel powerless. We cannot correct something we do not understand, and an aversion to nuance and exploration of how things happen keep us from knowing how to prevent them. We need to ask the question "how could this happen?", investigate the actual causes, and be open to the answer so that we stand a chance of stopping the next such event. We need to compassionately understand the motivations of others, and allow that they can be good people, in order to prevent further harm.

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.