Money Talks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Money for Nothing

The notion of "in-game currency" is fairly commonplace these days. The psychological tendency to lose track of the value of this currency in relation to "real money" is also known. It turns out to be much more work to translate or convert the value of "gold coins" or "gems" in a game into U.S. Dollars, so we mostly skip that work. This allows game companies to collect more real-world money from players who purchase in-game money with little thought to budgeting. In fact, many contemporary games which advertise themselves as "free-to-play" are relying on this fact. The tendency of a small number of players spending enough money inside the game to make it profitable is hard to imagine to those of us who have so little, but there it is.

Most see nothing odd about using currency now, excepting those who want to "bring back the gold standard". It is an interesting point that real "currency" is a fabrication not based on any real item. It does not represent an ox, a unit of work, or even a gumball. It is a translation or conversion of time spent working into a portable exchange token that can be redeemed for items that are of actual use. I propose that money is actually analogous to "in-game currency" because it cannot be used outside the system that spawned it. Of course, that system is nearly all-encompassing, and local currencies can be exchanged for travel outside the area. However, one cannot eat money nor use it to fuel a machine, and if one is lost in a wilderness, it serves no purpose until returning to the "game zone". I am not saying there is anything "wrong" with money, only that it is helpful to recognize what money actually is and what it does-both intentionally and unintentionally. One of those effects is that folks do not immediately think of money as a unit of life. If I thought of money as representing the finite resource of my own life, I would approach it quite differently. It is easier to spend $40 than to ask if it is worth 2+ hours of my life in order to obtain a shirt. Yet it is the same thing-it takes at least that long to get the money to buy the item. This reframing of money is not original, as it can be found from a number of financial advisors. Linking this disconnection of how people spend their lives to the new method of paying for entertainment is the focus of this post.

This is because I think what this demonstrates, in turn, is the tremendously unsettling idea that we don't need to know how something works in order to use it-and have it used against us. That the psychological mechanisms of gambling are only loosely understood, yet they are expertly used by casinos to gather tremendous profits from customers. In this case, we didn't need a model of "video game currency" to understand how divorcing currency from it's origin could make people less cognizant of its value, and spend more freely. As soon as we established that we exchange time working for coins and bills, we became more willing to buy frivolous items because we didn't spend the time making them-we just shelled out some tokens to buy someone else's work. We may discover even greater abuses of psychological tendencies which had been exploited by canny individuals or businesses precisely because the phenomenon was not understood. In the end, Barnum may have known "there's a sucker born every minute," but did he ever state (or understand) the companion: "everybody thinks they are not the sucker, which makes them easier to manipulate"?

The First Rule of Power

This is quite a simple one, almost deceptively so. There is a truth which determines the nature of actions taken by individuals of all types, in any arena, and whether the goal is subjugation or community. The foundation is this: the first rule of power is to keep that power. Before rewarding loyalty, before enjoying the conquest, even before resting after an exhausting battle, this must be done. The first actions upon obtaining power must be to hang onto that power, or else all the effort will have been for naught. This can be seen in any number of fields, with numerous examples. It is the reason dictators eliminate potential rivals, sometimes the very moment their coup succeeds. It is the impetus for monopoly companies working to get laws in place to prevent competition or solidify their place in the market. It is also why the first to establish a new profession set criteria for admissions to the profession. It does not seem to matter whether the intention is beneficent or malignant, because even the most magnanimous king has to maintain rule in order to do good works. Any threat to the king's rule must be eliminated, lest a harmful king gain the throne. This is true, and must be true, as long as power is concentrated. This rule only becomes unnecessary when power is distributed among all. Once the "king" cannot be replaced, because it is every person, there is no threat of being overthrown. This applies to ideas as well, I contend. It is not just the person who is king, but the very idea of "king"; the notion that there is-or needs to be-such a thing. As long as the idea of "supreme ruler" is dominant, any other idea about how government can be done must be quashed in order to protect that idea. If this were not done, and continually renewed, then other ideas could creep in to subvert the hold that ruler has on the citizenry.

Rethinking Leads to Improvement

Previously, I have posted on the nature of science as well as taking actions in the face of opposition. Given recent events, and my continual learning and growth, I feel it important to revisit these topics and provide greater context.

The first is from early 2012, and can be found here. In it, I encourage people to "act as if". The reason for revisiting this is the recent insurrection at the nation's capitol in the District of Columbia. I thought that a reader might conclude I would agree with a "direct action" such as storming the legislature. This nonsensical idea would be ludicrous even in more sane times, as it is far from the intention or spirit of my post. I have previously expressed my support of peaceful protest/action (ahimsa), whereas the violent mob of 6 January were seeking to impose upon rather than convince others. In 2012, I was considering how much better things could have been if the majority of sympathetic citizens had "revolted" against the idiotic notions and laws about "race" segregation in 1950's and 1960's U.S. If only regular folks had not been cowed or silenced by the authority of Jim Crow laws and uppity segregationists. However, this admonition (I only recently recognized) could be taken to support the very group I wished to oppose. After all, it was very often the racist and political actors who were "acting as if"; they played out the fantasy of "racial superiority" as if it had legitimacy. I recognized that I can be somewhat overly optimistic when it comes to humans. I tend to think that most people have a deep sense of what is right, which they struggle to quiet in those times they do things that I consider wrong-even though there is no evidence that we share these values. It is a simple (or simple-minded) error and projection. However, what I wish to focus on is that statement about subverting backwards norms and prejudice. I still think it is valid to buck convention, and wish more people had the courage to take actions to help one another despite the "rules against that sort of thing". To bake that cake for the same-sex couple and tell off the boss. To let a person without a residence sit inside without buying anything. To not guard discarded food at a grocery store when people come to reclaim some of that "harvest". Essentially, to take the decent, humane action in a situation despite "company policy". The difficulty arises when I have to acknowledge that others think "decency" is something that excuses hateful and dehumanizing actions against groups who look or act differently than themselves. I forget that some people are so narrow-minded that they actually do believe somehow they have a handle on "Truth" and everyone else has it wrong. To those individuals, I still advise you to "act as if"-although in your case, it is to act as if you were a kind and rational human on the same level as everyone else-as if we had equality, equity, and justice. While I recognize that I also operate from opinion and there are other interpretations, mine are based on assumptions of inherent human worth. There are numerous possible actions based on these ideas, none of which lead to condemning another or taking from others because they are "less worthy" than I am. It is one of the worst parts of us that allows suffering because of "rules".

The second post I wish to update is from later in 2012, and can be found here. This is because I had a realization about the nature of human knowledge and thinking, specifically relating to the last line in the post. To begin, I must say that the intensity of denial, refutation, and outright hostility which has accompanied the global pandemic over the past year leaves me aghast. The basic knowledge of the germ theory of disease that escapes people is outrageous; it is almost as if they still believe spirits, demons, or miasma are the causes of disease. However, I want to keep on track in regards to this post, so let us return to the attack on science in general. In the original post, I again projected a few attributes, including the capacity for self-awareness and self-examination. The long history of humans falling for ludicrous notions and snake oil is extensive, but dependent upon ignorance. It is typical of humans to have cognitive biases, logical errors, and non-critical thinking; it takes training and effort to learn to think logically and clearly (not to claim I am successful in same). Fundamental Attribution Error, Confirmation Bias, and Availability Heuristic are only three common problems with thinking, and we are all subject to many more. It is how brains work, and simply part of being human; there is no shame or uniqueness in having them creep into our thinking. However, it means that we need a way to counteract this natural process, in order to better understand our world. This is the genius of the scientific method, and what I failed to previously acknowledge. Whereas we typically want to find things which confirm what we suspect (and be satisfied once we do so), this scientific approach requires that we come at it from the opposite direction. Using science, we seek to prove that what we believe is wrong, and that it can be explained in some other way! If that fails, we may attack it from another angle, seeking again to disprove our thinking. All this work deserves celebration, since each explanation that is disproved will mark real progress towards a more comprehensive understanding. Once we have eliminated enough possibilities, we see more clearly what and how we previously misunderstood the subject. Science is a process which expands our thinking and allows us to witness the beauty of what actually is. There is nothing I could say which will match anything Carl Sagan has already stated, so I will point you to his works rather than subject you to more of my own sub-par offerings. I simply wish to convey that anyone can utilize this scientific approach in order to increase their knowledge, and everyone who is willing to spend more time being wrong is on the right path.

Staying in Lanes

Society is comprised of varying individuals with differing perspectives and motivations. In order for the society to function--just for it to be possible for any citizen to go about tasks involving others--there need to be common understandings and rules. Most of the time, in western cultures, each individual is "looking out for #1" and leaving other people to do the same. This makes rules especially important, as they prevent one person's self-interest from harming another. Pollution, traffic, price gouging and more are regulated by our common laws, which are the agreements we make when we engage in public spaces. Usually, we are operating from an inherent understanding of the rules in society; we do not consider it acceptable to brush our teeth while riding the bus, for instance. These are shared spaces, and where the rules are not set by law, they are determined by norms and mores [MORE-AYS] (those expectations internalized through living in a culture). These laws and rules make day-to-day life possible with the strangers we live amongst because they provide templates for interactions. There is no need to negotiate each purchase, since the price is clearly marked and there is a "check-out" where one pays; the experience is an established routine, no matter which store one enters. If I attempt to change this routine, things get confusing and others will question my capacity to participate in public activities. Similarly, one does not need to guess, or question other drivers about, who goes first at a 4-way intersection since there are clear laws for determining that answer. As an aside, it is actually this situation that alerted me to things being amiss some time ago. Additionally, there are certain fundamental understandings which guide behavior in novel circumstances. We all know which side of the road to drive on. Even non-drivers know this, as it is part of everyday life. Additionally, pedestrians use the same left-hand drive/stay right rule when walking and biking. When encountering another pedestrian, I will automatically tend toward the right, as that is the standard of the country wherein I live. This is also why we will look to others in new situations: to find out what the rules are so that we fit in and avoid trouble. It is only when we are unclear or uncertain about the rules that we recognize how easy they make things. All of this is preamble to explore something which happened to me recently.

Because we are in the midst of a pandemic, the standards are set and widely known. The understanding is, and has been, "wear a mask, and stay six feet apart." This pandemic is complicated by folks seeming to seek out conflict regarding masks, denying that this disease is worrisome, and disregarding the health and discomfort of others by violating the reasonable, minor precautions most people are utilizing. Where I live is a low-traffic, residential area, and there is a common standard that has grown out of living through the past year. As a group, people here seldom wear masks outdoors, instead choosing to keep extra space between us. This is the expectation or social norm that has been 'agreed to' by common practice in public, outdoor spaces. I was walking on the sidewalk and there were a couple people approaching from the opposite direction. There were many factors to consider with these strangers, but I had many previous instances to guide me. However, as these folks grew closer, I felt my apprehension rise and I began to consider that I might get "too close" to them. It happened that they did not move to their right, nor acknowledge our proximity in any way. We came abreast each other at a place with a fence to my right, so I had nowhere to retreat. We were so close I could have reached out and touched them, and my reaction was nearly to push them away, so strong was my revulsion and alarm. Instead, my arm acted as a sort of spacer as I raised it with my hand open, and we passed this bottleneck as I quickened my pace. In a few steps, I heard one of them say something like, "What's that about?!" I turned, and expressed (repeating to myself to remain calm) that they had been too close; the reply was effectively, "Just say something!". I took this to mean that my reaction was too impactful, although I remain uncertain how my panicked "Get away!" would have been received. It is common to believe oneself to have the correct answer in a situation, and their response indicates a desire to modify my reaction rather than examine their own assumptions. I do not claim that I am without fault, as in writing this I have recognized how anxious I have become over the course of the past year.

This post is mostly about expectations, and when it may be acceptable (or necessary) to violate them. As I outlined above, we operate daily on shared expectations and are thus able to function together in public. However, I also firmly believe that we are expected to accept and account for different perspectives in a democratic society. My experience is about a willingness to allow others to violate norms-even when I feel wronged by their actions. For example, I have crossed the street when someone pushing a baby stroller was on "my side" (my right, their left). An inconvenience, and something I "should not need to do" given the reasoning in the first paragraph. However, I remain willing to make an effort to maintain my own safety, to accommodate the limitations of others, and accept that--when I am uncomfortable--it is up to me to resolve that discomfort insofar as it does not conflict with others' needs. A society must work together through disagreements, even when certain citizens do not understand or experience the conditions that others are complaining about. We have been living through two such experiences simultaneously: irritation about wearing masks and protest of state-sponsored, racist murder. I am not equating them, but wish to point out how they have similarities despite being fundamentally different. My hope in doing so is to alleviate some contention between said groups, or prevent others from conflating them.

Because this is intended to be a democracy, for the safety of the greatest number of citizens we should "err on the side of caution". In the pandemic, we have a small number of folks who claim that masks are an unnecessary burden, and consider themselves "protestors". In this case, the cost of accommodating these citizens would be an increase in illness and deaths. However, if we investigate their claims while  continuing to wear masks (properly, and including those citizens), fewer people will die. If it had turned out that we all looked a bit silly afterwards because it was not as serious as most feared-then that's the price. We sacrifice a bit of pride by looking silly, but can hold our heads high because we did it in order to protect others. Thankfully, it has become clear that the preventative measures we were able to enact are adequately effective, and the numerous anti-mask "protestors" who have recanted on their deathbed attests to the seriousness of this situation. This last point also indicates how easy it can be for any of us to downplay a situation until we experience it. This leads us to Black Lives Matter, and the statement that persons of color are targeted and killed by police. Here, the cost of continuing under current policing practices does not lead to more lives being saved. If we kept the status quo and had those protestors await changes until a full evaluation could be done, more lives would be lost if they were right. This is complicated by needing an objective set of studies to determine the truth of the matter, which is part of the very problem needing evaluation: racism skews how issues are seen. Any of us who have not experienced it cannot understand what it is like. The same policy of erring on the side of caution dictates that we act swiftly to change police practices and save lives.