How I am not Unique

When I was a child, I lived with what I now know was an unbearable amount of shame. I believed there was something inherently wrong with me. I was separate, and unique. This belief meant both that I could never be a good person and that everyone else must be-since they could not be contaminated in the way I was. This shame lead to me believing that because others were better, they were also smarter than I; it followed, in this flawed logic, that I was only capable of a narrow understanding contained within the broader knowledge that others had. In addition, I believed they could see and think the same things I did; again, because they had access to better and more in everything. I had to spend my my life hiding my brokenness, because if I were found out then I would be rejected and ostracized. It took a long time to discover that I was not that different, and that others were not "better". However, for all those years, I had to make sense of things from the perspective outlined above.

In the time before I was aware of this tendency, it was a tremendously antagonistic world that reinforced my shaming beliefs. Because I thought everyone was seeing the same things in the same ways as me and drawing the same conclusions (because "it is just obvious given the information at hand"), I assumed that every act contrary to my own thinking was an intentional insult. It was as if someone were pointing out my faults through the circumstances. If there was anything wrong in a situation, it was because of me (being that I was the broken one) and everyone was going to see how wrong I was. Every error was a chance that someone could find out my secret: that I was semi-human and a danger to others. It is an incredibly complex dynamic that I am simplifying here in order to focus this discussion. There were compensatory mechanisms whereby I would point out the mistakes of others in order to bolster my own ego, or pretend indifference to avoid rejection, or many other methods to combat the central belief around being broken.

The impetus for writing this, and the title indicating that I am not alone in these things, comes from an understanding that not admitting it is part of the problem. I was convinced that anyone who found out the "truth" about me would expel me from from society; however, I have learned that is not true. Secrecy is the lie that shame uses to shield itself from discovery, because exposure is the event which leads to recovery. At this point, I will recommend the work and writing of Dr. Brené Brown for more on the topic of shame. My own efforts here are a further exposure of my shame in order to continue to diminish it while empowering more helpful beliefs. Moreover, I think that you, in reading this, have underlying assumptions which guide your own thinking. It may be that you have shame, or another harmful dynamic, at work keeping you from even contemplating the possibility of connecting with others and of being vulnerable with those important to you. Or of sharing with those who are seemingly different from you.

Given how divided and divisive these times are, I am hopeful that this brief story can introduce the idea that we are all not that different. None of us are so unique that we cannot connect with others. Others likely saw an egotistical, aloof, solitary, belligerent, and angry man when they looked at the younger me, yet all that came out of pain and self-hatred. No one is so far gone that there is no hope. Consider only that it may be our own shortcomings, or those issues that others are facing, which get in the way of attempting to bridge those divides.

Trash Talking

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

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

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

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

Money Talks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.