Welcome to Robert Warden's Box-Free Blog: the Psychology of a New World View

A Natural Lefty's 100% Organically Grown Brain Candy -- Here is Psychology in all of its ramifications for Philosophy, Spirituality and all of Science. This is the website that is not only outside the box, there are no boxes.

My name is Robert Warden, and I am a Psychologist with a Ph.D. in Social Psychology from the University of California, Riverside. I currently teach at a local community college. These posts are mostly in the form of progressive series of short essays built around common themes. I also have updates and commentaries about things which are going on in my life or Eunice's (my wife's) life.

Most of these posts are also put on The Thom Hartmann Bloggers Group on Facebook, and the Thom Hartmann Community Blog on Thom Hartmann's site. You can leave messages and comments in either of those places.

February 4

A Capital Idea Part 106: Government Should Regulate Business, Not the Other Way Around

That's what I finally came up with, after quite a bit of meme-searching -- government should regulate business, not the other way around. It was going to be "The Separation of Cash and State," but then I realized that our government wouldn't have any money to work with, although certainly the prevailing business model is built upon the principle of "the separation of your cash from your wallet." Next, I thought it should be something like "The Confinement of Business," which isn't too bad, but I couldn't figure out how to explain: Confinement to What? Confinement to itself? Well, obviously, business must interact with customers in order for there to be any business, and government in order to have rules. After that, I had a bit of a meltdown and thought maybe I should go with something like "Business Money is Like a Nuclear Reactor: It needs to be Contained." Actually I like that one, but it gets a bit wordy, and again, what does "contained" mean in this context. Does that imply that government should not be allowed to tax business? I am getting into Salamander territory here. Oops, I mean Next territory. That's pretty scary.

Thus, I continued my meme search from time to time, and finally came up with "government should regulate business, not the other way around" -- no unfortunate implications there, and it captures the essence of what I intended -- that business has gotten its greedy little hands where it doesn't belong all over our government, when there should be a one-way relationship from government to business in the form of government rules and regulations for business. Notice how I keep repeating my meme, like a good advertiser. It's not that I believe in advertising so much -- it needs to be heavily regulated too and even banned in many circumstances, in another opinion of mine that has been expressed before -- but truthful memes which are intended for the public good and are not selling anything, are an altogether different matter.

Yes, memes are essentially what this post is about. To go back to the beginning, I was thinking about the oft-repeated meme "separation of church and state," and thinking we need a meme that does the same thing regarding business and its money -- thus, the sequence of rejected memes I came up with. I was going to write about this meme in the context of the Occupy Wall Street movement and Capital Ideas, without being too redundant, but I realized that by this time, having gotten to Part 106 of Capital Ideas, anything I could say about the matter would probably be somewhat, if not mind-bogglingly, redundant. Thus, I decided to talk about the importance of memes.

The use of information, "facts," reason, and the scientific method to generate informed decisions and better ideas about how to build the best possible economy and political system, is all well and good, but as I used to do a couple of years ago in some posts, I realized that there is a great need to come up with sticky memes -- you know, phrases or short sentences which act like strong mind-glue. Once you hear it, you cannot forget it. This is most crucial for the relatively uninformed to get some ideas to wrap (oops, I just typed "warp" but I fixed that) their minds around and understand something fundamental about our economy and political system. However, I think having good memes is crucial for more informed people too. For one thing, when such people find that their high-minded explanations are flying over the heads of the explainees, it really helps to have a good meme or two handy. (Catchy phrases and sentences are an important part of teaching, as most experienced teachers can tell you -- I say most, because as I am sure we have all experienced, there are some teachers who never seem to get that fundamental aspect of teaching.) For another, when we thinkers have brain cramps, as so often happens, we can probably at least remember some catchy phrase which can act as a retrieval cue, unless we have gone so far down that whirlpool of our minds that we can't find our way out. (I don't know quite what that means, but it sounds good.) Political strategists are good at coming up with catchy memes, and lord knows conservatives have more than their share of political strategists, who owe their jobs to business money. We on the progressive side, need memes which are not only just as catchy, but in contrast to the conservative ones, are actually true and thus, stand up to scrutiny.

Yes, there it is: "Government should regulate business, not the other way around." It may not be the catchiest meme in the world, but it is the best I can do at this time and it is true. Business people -- especially the wealthiest among them -- have increasingly used their money to influence and yes, regulate their own government to suit their own purposes. Business has been used to regulate who runs for political office, who gets funded in elections (and thus, who usually gets elected), what legislation is written or not written, and which legislation is passed or not passed. There isn't much else new to say about the topic that hasn't already been said, I suspect, among progressives, including the "F" word -- you know, Fascism. Let us progressives use our memes whenever applicable and keep those creative meme-making neurons firing.

By the way, my father just called and told me (again) of my mother's memory lapses and asked me to be a trustee "in case something happens to him." It's pretty sobering stuff, but at least I got some levity into this post. Meanwhile, my wife just woke up from her jet-lagged slumber -- it's about 10:15 a.m. here -- and she isn't yelling at me, so "it's time to finish this post."

January 30

A Capital Idea Part 105: What is "Economic Growth?"

"Economic growth" is one of those terms I have heard in news reports over and over again since I was young, that was never explained, much like other economic terms such as "unemployment rate" (which only counts people who are seeking work it turns out) or "jobs," (as though the type of job and what it accomplishes doesn't matter). I just checked definitions of "economic growth" on the internet, and as I expected, this term represents multiple and often misleading definitions. The basic reason I am doing this, aside from self-education, is because economic growth ultimately relates to capital, standards of living, and whatever potential limits or lack thereof to growth and human potential exist. This is also an extension of my previous post, "The Sky is the Limit."

The most succinct definition of economic growth which takes describes its various permutations, is as follows from a website called investopedia (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/economicgrowth.asp#axzz1kxr3g8EJ):

"Definition of 'Economic Growth'
An increase in the capacity of an economy to produce goods and services, compared from one period of time to another. Economic growth can be measured in nominal terms, which include inflation, or in real terms, which are adjusted for inflation. For comparing one country's economic growth to another, GDP or GNP per capita should be used as these take into account population differences between countries.

Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/economicgrowth.asp#ixzz1kxsvoVLl"

Thus, economic growth could be defined as the growth in the total output of an economy without reference to inflation or deflation, or total population. This is the definition I suspect that nations typically use and is reported in the news, which tends to inflate (speaking of inflation) economic growth figures, since population usually increases and prices usually increase due to inflation. However, better measures of true economic growth can be calculated, which take into account inflation or deflation, as well as per capita measures which take the total population into account. The only true measure of economic growth is both per capita and inflation/deflation adjusted.

The next point from investopedia indicates that true economic growth (per capita, inflation adjusted), generally results from technological advances. In other words, human capital, in particular, intellectual capital, is the main driver of economic growth. Intellectual (also called cognitive) capital in turn, largely depends upon a nation's educational system. In fact, since natural resources are limited, and have basically been largely utilized already by the world's huge human population, any real economic growth in the future must essentially depend upon increases in human capacities to work productively, which means increasing intellectual, creative, nurturant, or any type of capital which increases the capacity of humans to live productively and contribute to the well-being and actualization of humanity.

Here is the quote: "Investopedia explains 'Economic Growth'
Economic growth is usually associated with technological changes. An example is the large growth in the U.S. economy during the introduction of the Internet and the technology that it brought to U.S. industry as a whole. The growth of an economy is thought of not only as an increase in productive capacity but also as an improvement in the quality of life to the people of that economy.

Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/economicgrowth.asp#ixzz1kxw5RGAm"

Wikipedia has a long and very informative article about economic growth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_growth). Essentially, this article makes many of the points that I summarized above regarding true economic growth. (There must be actual progressives writing for Wikipedia despite any efforts to "conservatize" this intellectual resource.) First, the article points out the necessity of defining ecnomic growth as per capita and inflation/deflation adjusted. The article also discusses various theories of economic growth, the history of the concept as well as historical sources of economic growth. Rather than going into these, I will present points relevant to needed economic reforms and reformulation of the concept of capital.

First, in discussing the evidence relating to theories of economic reform, a point is made which is similar to my empirically based post in which I found that higher tax rates result in better economies. Here is the quote: "Perotti (1996) examines of the channels through which inequality may affect economic growth. He shows that in accordance with the credit market imperfection approach, inequality is associated with lower level of human capital formation and higher level of fertility, while lower level of human capital is associated with lower growth and lower levels of economic growth. In contrast, his examination of the political economy channel refutes the political economy mechanism. He demonstrates that inequality is associated with lower levels of taxation, while lower levels of taxation, contrary to the theories, are associated with lower level of economic growth." Got that? In other words, lower taxation rates result in less "human capital" -- that is, less education resulting in less intellectual, nurturant, or creative capital, etc. -- which results in higher birth rates, and less economic growth, CONTRARY TO THEORIES! Most economic theories, other than perhaps some newer, more progressive ones, are built by rich capitalists and serve their interests by coming up with rationalizations which are used to predict that lower tax rates (as captialist, "free-market" loving Republicans so love) should help the economy long term. This analysis apparently did not look at economic regulation levels, but my guess is that similarly, lower economic regulation levels (again, as capitalist, "free-market" loving Republicans so love) result in worse economies long term.

The Wikipedia article also has some additional information about the growth of human capital. According to Wikipedia: "In order to measure human capital more accurately, Eric Hanushek and Dennis Kimko introduced measures of mathematics and science skills from international assessments into growth analysis. They found that quality of human capital was very significantly related to economic growth. This approach has been extended by a variety of authors, and the evidence indicates that economic growth is very closely related to the cognitive skills of the population." Thus, specific empirical evidence demonstrates that the more people learn, the better economic growth becomes. The article goes on the state that economic growth correlates with happiness at the lower per capita GDP levels, but once per capita GDP levels rise above $15,000 per year, the relationship seems to evaporate.

Finally, we go to the downsides of "economic growth." Among these are consumerism, resource depletion, environmental impact, wealth inequality, and global warming. The problems involving environmental destruction -- resource depletion, environmental impact, and global warming -- are such serious challenges and potential threats to the future of humanity and future economies, that it is difficult to overstate them. Regarding global warming, the article states that there have historically been close correlations between carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth, but that this is clearly a trend which cannot continue. In fact "The Stern Review notes that the prediction that "under business as usual, global emissions will be sufficient to propel greenhouse gas concentrations to over 550ppm CO2e by 2050 and over 650–700ppm by the end of this century is robust to a wide range of changes in model assumptions". The Stern Review was published in 2006, and also suggests that an investment of 1% of GDP globally be invested in combating the worst effects of climate change, although the effectiveness of these efforts depends upon how well technological interventions yet to be invented or utilized, work.

The article also has an interesting graph regarding the world's predicted capacity to produce petroleum over the centuries, which shows peak production about now, with production levels dropping drastically to about 1/7 of its current level, by 2100 (only 88 years from now), and to near zero by 2200. (Sorry, I don't think I can reproduce this graph here, or I would.) Of course, various other resources, both living and nonliving, are being similarly depleted, although economies depend on none of these others as they do on petroleum. Obviously, we need to develop a "green economy," and the sooner, the better! Regarding environmental impact, I have one final quote from the Wikipedia article: "Canadian scientist, David Suzuki stated in the 1990s that ecologies can only sustain typically about 1.5–3% new growth per year, and thus any requirement for greater returns from agriculture or forestry will necessarily cannibalize the natural capital of soil or forest. Some think this argument can be applied even to more developed economies." In other words, according to at least some environmental scientists, there is a true limit to both the growth of ecologies, and that of economies, which is consistent with what I have been advocating all along in the sense that we should treat economies as ecologies. Otherwise, we will act as parasites of the ecology -- which arguably we already are -- and will essentially compromise its health to such an extent that our economic activities will not only threaten our host, but also, ourselves. Once the host dies, so do the parasites.

True economic growth in the future is possible, but only if we advance it equitably -- in ways which benefit everyone and prevent oversized wealth disparities -- and work in concert with this planet's ecology to sustain a healthy ecosystem. Furthermore, any future economic growth will depend on the development and actualization of human potential, rather than increased exploitation of natural resources, since these have already been overexploited. In other words, the way forward -- not only socially, but economically -- is the progressive model. Any other approach will result in stagnation, or worse, degradation of the human condition.

January 22

A Capital Idea Part 104: The Sky is the Limit

When it comes to capital, I have noticed that there is a dichotomy which money fails to take into account. Specifically, natural resources are limited for us, to what we have on earth. So is the amount of space available to us humans on this planet, our ecosystem, and the health of the planet upon which we all depend. In spite of this, money is treated as limitless. This fantasy of an ever growing supply of goods is a huge problem for financial capitalism. However, in another sense, we have potentially limitless capital -- human capital.

By human capital, I mean our abilities, efforts and potentials as people and as nurturers and cooperaters, which I wrote about early in this series. We may only be able to imagine what a future with an enlightened democratic economy which serves the people would be like, but one thing is for sure; great things would come of it from the standpoint of human creativity, intelligence and wisdom in all of its potential.

At the same time, we would also have to use our human potential to effectively deal with shortages of raw materials, as well as the limits of food, space etc. on this planet. Someday, perhaps our descendants will be able to colonize new worlds, but that day is still far, far away, and we may find any habitable new worlds to be already occupied. We must think in terms of what is sustainable on this planet for now, something that financial capitalism fails at miserably. In fact, financial capitalism depends upon creating shortages, not only of material goods and jobs, but also, of human capital. The fewer qualified people, the better they can exploit their positions for financial gain. The goal is to be one of the few people at the top of the humongous pyramid scheme, whatever that takes. If you are the best medical malpractice lawyer in the world for instance, and a true capitalist, you wouldn't want a great medical malpractice law school opening up that would create a great deal of competition. You would rather have a monopoly on your business. You would also want to create a shortage of jobs as a true capitalist, in order to keep others' pay low (i.e., all of your pee-on style underlings). However, if you were not capitalistically oriented, you might actually welcome any efforts to a create smarter, more capable population even though that means that many other people could do your job as well as you could, and you would welcome gainful employment for all who seek work.

In terms of human potential, we must distinguish between the potential to exploit our fellow human beings, and the actual potential of human beings. Both are essentially limitless over time, but the first diminishes humanity and shames the exploiters, while the second enhances humanity and lifts us all. An enlightened society nurtures human potential to do good both individually and cooperatively, through nurture, nature and the will to do good; it does not allow endless exploitation of its own kind. In the world I see for our future, the sky is the limit -- not in terms of material wealth, but in terms of human potential, and it is human potential and well-being that really counts.

Achieving such a world will require universal education, an economic system that is not rigged to create wealth disparities and make the general "worker bee" population too busy and stressed to pursue their own interests, and a culture which nurtures our potential. All of this is well within our reach, in my opinion, not immediately, but over a period of perhaps decades if we collectively pursue this goal.

January 18

A Capital Idea Part 103: A Peacefully Creative Revolution

A little while ago, I had one of my really creative dreams, one in which I wrote a song. This happens for me from time to time. My wife, my parents, a singer and keyboard player who looked suspiciously like Elton John, 3 cute Chinese gals with gold painted faces who played drums and various other instruments, a bunch of candy which spilled onto the floor of the auditorium, and a hispanic guy who sat in the same chair with me (so I got up and sat on the bench with my parents) were all involved in the dream. When I got up from my seat, my wife was there by the way. (She is scheduled to return on February 2 and has been asking me to plan a trip to celebrate our 10th anniversary.)

I would provide the lyrics of the song, but I am still working on that.

This dream may not seem particularly relevant to the present topic, but creativity is what we need, that capitalism, along with thwarting diversity and promoting conformity, also ultimately thwarts. Perhaps the average "worker bee" person becomes consigned to limiting his or her creativity to dreaming.

My friend Ria was talking to me about this topic a few weeks ago, and it is really not a new topic. People have brought it up from time to time that I have heard already. I thought that maybe I had written about it before, but the closest I could find was a post entitled "Capitalism is Antidiversity," so here it is.

How does capitalism thwart creativity? First, corporations want to control the supply of something that people want or better yet, need. This is not a formula for creativity, except for the counterproductive kind which is focused on selling people on the idea that they need something. (Addictive or absolutely necessary products are the best items from the standpoint of corporations to sell.) The focus is taken away from the innovation of new products, and placed on the selling of a particular product. Second, corporations grow fat and lazy; they don't want to bother making something new unless they are virtually forced to. It is much easier to control the market and just continue selling the same product, perhaps with minor tweakings and repackagings to exaggerate any small changes being made to appear as major changes. Third, capitalism promotes monopolization, which is anticreativity. When one has a monopoly on a product, there is no need to create anything different, unless it can be turned into another monopoly, which is unlikely, since the initial stages of product development and innovation are the competitive stages which allow other businesses to succeed. In fact, corporations frequently actually work to prevent the development of innovations by other people -- scientists, inventors, and would be business moguls. They have laws passed, which make innovation difficult, or make the use of certain products illegal, and they even engage in industrial sabotage. Fourth, patent and copyright laws actually stifle creativity. Thom Hartmann just happens to be talking about this topic at this time. He even mentioned that there seems to be more innovation in places where technology piracy is rampant.

Due to these factors, the development of new products is discouraged. Innovation requires research and development funding, from the standpoint of a corporation, which might not pay off. Businesspeople who already are on the receiving end of a corporate gravy train don't like taking risks with their money. Maybe if they could steal somebody else's invention, which is what usually happens, they would do it, but not otherwise.

Thus, in order for society to advance progressively, we need a creative, peaceful revolution. I see this as sort of a catalytic process, much as the development of human culture acted as a tremendous catalyst for human creativity, because culture allows people to exchange ideas, and to act cooperatively to produce life-enhancing items and expressions of our creative impulses. We need a new sort of cultural revolution now, one which allows us to grow beyond the limitations of the corporate-financial system which has built up over the centuries. This is the creative aspect of the current revolution which seems to be fomenting, the OWS movement. Once the paradigm has shifted to a more people-oriented economy, one that cares for and serves the people and promotes their actualization both personally and collectively, a torrent of creativity we could at present only dream of (speaking of dreams), will be unleashed. That will be a great and wonderful happening in the history of humankind.

Rather than most people working for other individuals, as in our capitalist system, I foresee most people being either self-employed or working cooperatively in work collectives (similar to Mondragon) in the new, morally and ecologically resource-based economy. People will be allowed to be far more creative than in the current system -- "doing their own thing," so to speak, pursuing their interests, which naturally, tend to be creative (sort of like I do when I blog, but I am not being paid to do this, get no work credits for doing this and have no guarantee of any right not to live in poverty under the current system). What this blossoming of creativity will exactly lead to, we can only guess or dream about, but surely, it will be a good thing. This is what is at stake in our current situation -- our well-being as a species, the fulfillment of our creative potential, our actualization as a species and as individuals by and large, our future.

Perhaps you will have some ideas about what our creative future will look after having a progressive economic revolution, as I hopefully will as well.

January 16

A Capital Idea Part 102: Should Political Candidates be Psychologically Tested?

Psychological testing for job applicants is commonplace, when people apply for ordinary jobs as employees of large companies or organizations. Such testing tends to focus upon the applicant's character. For example, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory may be given, with special attention paid to the Psychopathic Deviance scale, which predicts psychopathic behavior such as stealing, aggression, impulsive and manipulative behavior. This scale relates to disorders such as Antisocial Personality Disorder and Narcissistic Personality Disorder, which were discussed in my previous post.

Ironically, psychologists such as myself have never been psychologically tested, although psychologists give such tests. I do remember one female graduate student who did take the MMPI and mentioned that she did have a high psychopathic deviance score. She was married but had an "open marriage." In the years after completing her Ph. D., she got a job in the San Diego area, had a child with someone other than her husband, got divorced, and I think had a drug and/or liquor problem. Political candidates are not psychologically tested, either, even though they arguably have the most important jobs that there are. I am here to argue that they should be tested. The same applies for business executives as well.

At issue here is not so much the common psychological reality-distorting disorders such as the mood disorders and anxiety disordrers, but once again, personality disorders. The basic reason that personality disorders are more of a threat, is that people are motivated to get better when they have depression, bipolar disorder or anxiety disorders and can learn to cope with them and function fairly well if they need to. People with such disorders are usually responsible people. In fact, history shows us that many leaders have successfully coped with depression, anxiety disorders, or even bipolar disorder, although in some cases, these disorders can be debilitating. With regard to schizophrenia, having a schizophrenic leader would be a problem, but schizophrenia is pretty obvious and debilitiating, unlike personality disorders, and thus, schizophrenics rarely if ever reach positions of power. On the other hand, personality disorders are deeply ingrained in a person's character, extremely resistant to change, and guide a person's agenda in life. Thus, when a politician has a personality disorder, it guides his or her behavior and greatly affects government policy and actions. We can only make retrospective, informed guesses about which leaders may have had personlity disorders in the past, but my guess is that virtually without exception, such leaders did great harm to others through their positions, and their terms in power did not end well.

The following are some personality disorders which would be problematic for a politician to have: Narcissistic and Antisocial Personality Disorders, as discussed in my previous post; Borderline Personality Disorder, which involves impulsive and sometimes paranoid behavior, as well as extreme insecurity; Schizoid (lack of interest in other people and poor ability to understand emotional cues) and Schizotypal Personality Disorders, (highly idiosyncratic and rather bizarre behaviors as well as "loner" behavior), Paranoid Personality Disorder (Richard Nixon comes to mind here); Histrionic Personality Disorder (extreme sensititivity to rejection combined with hyper-emotionality); Avoidant Personality Disorder (social isolation combined with fear of criticism); Dependent Personality Disorder (excessive dependence upon others); and finally, Obsessive-Complusive Personality Disorder (extreme need to be in control combined with obsessions over rules and orderliness). Guess what? This is the entire official list of 10 personality disorders, although some other ones are considered to exist by some psychologists, and the new DSM-V (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Version 5) may have some revisions to the personality disorders (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/personality-disorders/DS00562/DSECTION=symptoms). (There is a website about the DSM-V revisions, but it didn't connect for my computer.) Of these personality disorders, the most common among politicians is likely to be Narcissistic Personality Disorder, the same one discussed in the context of business executives. However, I thought it was worth noting that any of the other personality disorders might occur in a politician, although some seem unlikely, and any of these would be a problem.

I did a search for research about narcissism among politicians, and as I expected, there was relatively little research about this topic. However, what I did find was informative and seems to help clarify a larger picture in which logic and observation are consistent. I shall begin with what little research there is on the topic. A USA Today article notes that there is quite a bit of research about narcissism as a whole, but little that relates to politics (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-09-28-political-narcissism_N.htm). However, it does mention two notable studies on narcissism among politicians. This study, by Robert Hill and Gregory Yousey, reported in 1998 in Current Psychology (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/handy-psychology-answers/201101/the-psychology-politics), compared university faculty, librarians, clergy and politicians, and found that the politicians had the highest scores on narcissism, as well as leadership and authority. These politicians were state legislators, by the way. The second study used biographical and presidential fact sources to rate 39 U.S. presidents on narcissism. This study found that the more narcissistic presidents had the more "charismatic" styles -- think of Adolph Hitler here, although he wasn't a U.S. president. The article concludes that narcissists fail to have brakes on their behavior, and thus pursue extreme agendas that end up hurting people severely. As far as the research on narcissism among politicians go, that is it. However, here come the related studies.

The Psychology Today article goes on to relate political behavior to personality. Of particular relevance, moral dimensions are related to conservative versus liberal ideologies. A large, website-based study by Jonathan Haidt found that liberals place more value on the Care and Fairness/reciprocity dimensions of morality, while conservatives place more value on the Authority-respect, Ingroup/loyalty, and Purity/sanctity dimensions of morality, among the 5 dimensions studied. Another article by Delaney Dean talks about John Dean's (no relation to Delaney Dean) book Conservatives Without Conscience, relating conservatism to authoritarianism, which actually has considerable basis in research dating back to around the 1950s. Thus, it is to be expected that conservatives would place emphasis on authority, respect, ingroup loyalty, and personal as opposed to collective morality, as well as placing more emphasis on the individual rather than the collective. This creates fertile breeding grounds for the monster of narcissistic leadership. Meanwhile, the liberal moral viewpoint, emphasizing caring for other people and fairness, runs counter to narcissistic tendencies. According to Delaney Dean, conservative leaders tend to be high in Social Dominance Orientation, which consists of dominance, opposition to equality, commitment to expanding their own personal power, and amorality, all of which lead to political psychopathy. Conservative followers, on the other hand, are characterized by submission to authority, aggressive support of authority, and conventionality, all of which act to maintain and support the political psychopathy of conservative, socially dominant leaders.

My final source is an article entitled "United States of Narcissism." This article cites research indicating that narcissism is on the rise in America. The USA Today article also hinted at this, saying that previous estimates were that 1% of the American population were pathologically narcissistic, but that recent research indicates that this percentage is over 6%.

I will quote approximately the last half of the "United States of Narcissism" article by Daniel Altman at this point:

"Psychologists have been tracking narcissism through surveys of American college students since the late 1970s, and levels of it—often measured as a lack of empathy—have never been higher, according to Sara Konrath, an assistant professor at the University of Michigan’s Research Center for Group Dynamics. “If you look at the levers in society, almost all of them are pushing us towards narcissism,” she says. These levers go beyond Twitter feeds and Facebook pages, which offer endless opportunities for self-admiration. They also include advertising that tells consumers “You’re worth it” and reality-TV shows that turn regular people against each other in a battle for celebrity.

Unfortunately, the notion that any American can become a superhuman success is increasingly a myth. In recent decades Americans have encountered far more inequality and far less social mobility than their parents. But narcissism leads these same Americans to reject redistributive tax systems, since they’re sure they will succeed and have little empathy for those who don’t. They prefer to receive tax breaks rather than investing in opportunities for future generations (although they may make exceptions for their families, who often fall within their narcissistic spheres of concern).

As narcissism gathers momentum, American lawmakers seem to be making matters worse. “Politicians tend to encourage these shortsighted, selfish trends by promising people they can enjoy a better life without having to make sacrifices for it,” says Roy Baumeister, a professor of psychology at Florida State University.

This rhetoric—that Americans can have everything without having to pay for it—dates back to the Reagan era, when an economist named Arthur Laffer suggested that lowering tax rates would result in more revenue by spurring spending among businesses and consumers. He was wrong, but it’s clear from the budget debate in Washington that people still believe him.

Some media outlets try to debunk political rhetoric, but it has also become easier for Americans to ignore them—as any narcissist tends to ignore feedback that challenges his self-image. “With the fragmentation of media and the Internet, people can more and more easily just expose themselves to information and perspectives that don’t challenge their existing views,” says George Loewenstein, a professor of economics and psychology at Carnegie Mellon University.

If social mobility continues to erode, and narcissism increases, the nation will someday face tremendous economic and psychic costs. Crushing debts left by the Me Generation will fall upon a country ill prepared for its economic future. At the same time, Americans will suffer a moment of epic disillusionment as their narcissistic balloons finally burst."

The article concludes that this trend will continue until parents start raising their children to be more empathetic and socially responsible, and less self-focused. While we may quibble about the causes of the United States current trend toward narcissism, the problem is clear. Altman traces the trend back to people wishing to explore their human potential in the 1960s, which became distorted into something self-serving. (This was a summary of a book by Jean Twenge and Keith Campbell on the topic.) Personally, I doubt the validity of this idea, but rather, I think the narcissism of the United States has more to do with the feelings of American exceptionalism and the "top dog," alpha-male mentality from which so many Americans, especially males, suffer. I believe the origins of this go back to World War I as well as World War II, and has a great deal to do with the American military-industrial complex. The self-fulfillment movement of the 1960s was largely a liberal minded movement, which was socially focused at least in part, on the greater good, although elements of narcissism crept into it. By the way, it would be interesting to check narcissism trends worldwide, but I don't know of any such studies. My understanding is that the United States is one of the most, if not the most, narcissistic society in the world currently, and other nations do not particularly mirror the United States' trend toward narcissism, although they may to some extent.

In any case, the increase in narcissism bodes ill for the United States, and must be reversed if we are to avoid disaster. Also, the higher the rate of narcissism among the American population as a whole, the more American politicians -- especially conservative ones -- can be expected to be pathologically narcissistic, providing us with yet another reason for us to oppose the election of conservatives, since the election of narcissistic conservatives in particular is a recipe for the disaster described in the above quote.

When I see the current assorted collection of mostly narcissistic nutbags vying for the nomination of the Republican Party to run for President of United States, I have to say to myself, please, can we pass a law requiring psychological testing for political candidates? After all, our future may well depend upon the mental well-being of our leaders.

January 7, 2012

A Capital Idea Part 101: Narcissists to the Front of the Line, Please!

My first post of 2012 finds me returning to the topic of personality disorders among the wealthy. This time, rather than proposing a new one, I looked at the prevalence of existing ones as diagnosed in business executives. I found considerable information about the topic, including research findings, and a growing interest in this topic as a whole.

Let me start with some research findings. A study in England from 2001, by Belinda Board and Katarina Fritzon, gave personality questionnaires to 39 high level business executives, and compared their results to prisoners with histories of psychiatric problems. Although the sample was small, the results were unequivocal. According to Belinda Board (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/11/opinion/11board.html) "the business population was as likely as the prison and psychiatric populations to demonstrate the traits associated with narcissistic personality disorder: grandiosity, lack of empathy, exploitativeness and independence. They were also as likely to have traits associated with compulsive personality disorder: stubbornness, dictatorial tendencies, perfectionism and an excessive devotion to work.

But there were some significant differences.

The executives were significantly more likely to demonstrate characteristics associated with histrionic personality disorder, like superficial charm, insincerity, egocentricity and manipulativeness.

They were also significantly less likely to demonstrate physical aggression, irresponsibility with work and finances, lack of remorse and impulsiveness."

In other words, business executives were even more likely to exhibit histrionic personality disorder than prisoners with psychiatric problems! Furthermore, they were as likely to exhibit narcissistic personality disorder as well as compulsive personality disorder as the mentally disturbed prison population. They only fared better in terms of being less aggressive, more responsible in the workplace, and in having more sense of remorse and less impulsiveness. Keep in mind that mentally disturbed prisoners, represents an extreme sample in terms of at least 2 of these personality disorders. Criminals tend to be highly narcissistic, and histrionic. Only compulsive personality disorder, among those mentioned above, is probably not particularly prevalent in the prison population. Antisocial personality disorder was not mentioned, either, although it is known to be extremely prevalent in the prison population. Antisocial personality disorder is similar to narcissistic personality disorder, except that it tends to be associated with disturbed upbringings and poverty, resulting in manipulative, distrustful people who are very cynical about the world, but do not have particularly high levels of self-esteem. In contrast, narcissistic personality disorder is found primarily in manipulative, selfish, privileged people who have an overly high level of self-esteem (literally, self-love which is the meaning of the word narcissism).

The next recent study looked at the prevalence of "psychopaths" among business executives. The term psychopath is something of a catch-all term, but it has utility in terms of understanding those who abuse other people -- people who act in extremely selfish ways. According to Duncan MacPherson, the researcher, Dr. Paul Babiak "designed a 111-point questionnaire with the University of British Columbia's Prof Bob Hare - the world's pre-eminent expert in psychopathy and a regular adviser to the FBI - to determine how many industry bosses were psychopaths.

They found that nearly four per cent of bosses fitted the profile, compared with one per cent among the general population" (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2032912/One-25-bosses-psychopath-hides-charm-business-speak.html).

In other words, business executives are four times as likely as the general population to be psychopaths. There is another quote I find extremely insightful in this article:

"And only favourable environmental factors - such as having had a happy childhood - prevent their psychopathic tendencies turning them into serial killers."

That is, exactly that which separates narcissists from those with antisocial personality disorder, who are prevalent among serial killers, is what turns one person into a bankster or corporate megalomaniac who robs people legally, from the typical criminal who leads a miserable life spent largely in jail.

The final website I will cite in this post (being very selective since there are many websites dealing with this topic), does not report a study on the prevalence of personality disorders among business executives, but does describe the problem of narcissistic business executives as very pervasive, describes their traits, and gives advice for how to deal with them if you are dealing with one of these in a business setting (http://www.leadershipconsulting.com/narcissistic-executives.htm). In this 2009 article, Carl Robinson, Ph. D. writes "many of our most successful executives have strong narcissistic tendencies and it is the positive side of that narcissism that enables them to dream big, chase seemingly impossible dreams, take extreme risks, convince skeptical investors to handover millions of venture capital dollars, and overcome obstacles that most people wouldn’t even attempt. However, it’s the shadow side of the more extreme form of narcissism, or narcissistic personality disorder, that causes havoc, alienates employees and investors and can tank a company. And, what is especially insidious about these extreme cases is that investors are often blind to it or gloss over some of the early warning signs because these executives often have charismatic personas, can sell like crazy and achieve outstanding results. They begin to crash, however, when they can no longer pull the magic rabbit out of the hat. When their charisma and natural sales ability collides with an economic downturn, repeated rejections for additional venture capital funding, questioning or demanding investors, intelligent employees, or encounters with other obstacles that demand substance over flash. They then will resort to anger, outrage, browbeating and other behaviors that alienate top employees and investors who will jump ship rather than work for or fund a jerk. And, if the narcissistic executive is able to stay employed as the leader, employees who remain tend to be those most afraid to leave, who are often the most passive and least creative…not a recipe for continued success."

In other words, the capitalist system creates an atmosphere which promotes narcissists, who often succeed remarkably in the beginning, but ultimately leads to a crash for which the narcissistic bosses refuse to take responsibility, and tend to resort to strongarm tactics in fact, to continue getting their way even after a crash. Does any of this seem familiar? The boom and bust cycles, the financial hostage taking and terrorism perhaps? It certainly should. These problems have occurred in the current economic crisis, on a scale never before seen, and have hurt the 99% at the expense of the 1%, so severely that it has spawned a rebellion (the people "jumping ship" as described in the quote), as it well should. With regulation, the problems described by Dr. Robinson can be ameliorated, but only a system which is so thoroughly protected against such abuses as to render them virtually impossible, can prevent future abuse of the public by wealthy businesspeople, or prevent the predictable occurence of boom and bust cycles which are breeding grounds for personal misery, insecurity and further psychopathology.

In other words, if we wish to avoid being virtually ruled by the narcissists of the world -- a population which is also drawn to politics, sexual profligacy, or anything involving power (largely from a masculine perspective) -- we must, I reiterate from one of my recent posts, create an intelligently designed economic system which serves the people as a public good, rather than allowing a small group of largely narcissistic people to control and rig the economic system in order to serve themselves.

A final note is that it could be argued that perhaps the system makes the wealthy become narcissistic, rather than promoting those who were narcissistic before becoming wealthy and "successful." This could be true in many cases, but an intelligently designed, public-serving economy would prevent this from happening, as well, so the chicken-egg question becomes a moot point. If anything promotes the creation of narcissistic personalities, it is an excessive focus on the celebration of wealth and success, which happens when wealth disparities are huge and which current business culture promotes. Once society is more economically fair, and the business culture has changed from something like an individualistic, competitive wealth lottery, to a more cooperative, people-oriented venture, narcissism will no longer be the natural result of business success. In fact, business "success" in a cooperative model could even promote empathy, especially when success is measured by the ability to serve the public and to help people earn good livings.

December 31

A Capital Idea Part 100: Will 2012 be a Year of Paradigm Shift?

Since my political predictions in the past have turned out to be quite accurate, though usually unwritten, I thought I would write my inutitive feelings about what is in store for the world politically in the coming year and in some cases, years. Actually, I have a special reason for making predictions this year, because my gut feeling is that we are at the cusp of a tangible paradigm shift worldwide, something which will shape humanity's future.

The basic paradigm shift I am referring to is one from a more business, oligarchy-oriented approach to government, to a more people-oriented approach to government -- in other words, a populist, progressive worldwide revolution, an extension of the Occupy Wall Street movement which has already begun. Perhaps I am being too optimistic, but to me, all the signs are there -- the "Arab Spring," OWS, and extremely dissatisfied and volatile electorates, whom I have noticed worldwide have tended to vote whomever is in office, out of office. Where there were liberals, conservatives were voted into office, and where there were conservatives, liberals were voted into office. I noticed this trend over and over again throughout the year, although I don't have an encyclopedic memory for all of the elections around the world. Nonetheless, anybody could google it, and find that people voted for regime change at a much higher rate than usual. I feel that this represents an early, naive stage of populist revolt at the democratic level. Over time, people on the whole, will realize that only progressive politics will take them where they need to go. California where I live, is ahead of the curve, and has already been through this process and concluded that conservatism has nothing worthwhile to offer, only further degradation of our condition. The rest of the United States will come along in the coming years, I believe, as will the rest of the world for the most part.

In the preceding days, I read a couple of things which also indicate to me that observant people are sensing a paradigm shift. Valley Life Today is a local magazine delivered to my mailbox for free, which seems to focus on education in Moreno Valley. In an interview, Dr. Gregory Gray, the Chancellor of the Riverside Community College District (the one I teach for) says "We are not in the midst of a crisis. We are attending a wake!" He then argues for more local control of community colleges, and says that community colleges are in the process of putting "the old system to rest." What is replacing "the old system?" Estate gifts, donations with no strings attached from wealthy businessowners -- Moreno Valley College was just given a 5 acre parcel of land valued at $5.3 million -- and perhaps increased local sales taxes. Frankly, this talk by Dr. Gray about "public-private" partnerships makes me nervous, and seems far too much like the insidious influence of big business that the California Teachers Association has been decrying, with good reason. However, Gray is talking about kindly donations with no ulterior motives, or local businesses partnering with the colleges. The larger point is that we are seeing a localization of the community college economy.

Even more to the point, I picked up a local Japanese American free magazine when I took my step-daughter Isabella and her friend Wendy to a Japanese restaurant a few days ago, and found some interesting comments in an editorial by Masato Ochi, an author and television producer in Japan. In his words: "Japan last year was probably the darkest year in all 46 years of my life. Expressing it in one word, it was the darkness in downward spiral of defeat called Wazawai (catastrophe)." Next, he describes the situation in Japan including Japanese peoples' reluctance to change, and notes the ending of the Mayan calender on December 23, 2012 as well as the major political changes likely to occur. Then he goes on to say: "I believe the highlight of 2012 in Japan is, if Japan realizes the world's paradigm shift and has enough courage to change and develop." Okay, that is where I got the idea for today's post, I admit. I think that the term "paradigm shift" is a good way to put what is happening in this "Fourth Turning" period of revolution.

When Obama was elected in 2008, it was a turning point, no doubt. However, it only set the stage for later change, moreso than causing instant change. This lack of instant change is what has gotten many progressives so upset. Instead, Obama has been a firm believer in compromise, even with uncompromising foes, and has wound up capitulating far too often to the other side. However, I would argue that this was to some extent made necessary by the political realities of the time. In due time, the shackles will come off. I believe that Obama will be re-elected in 2012, bucking the trend seen in so many nations, and -- having experienced four years of horrible, callous obstructionism by Republicans -- will give them less credence in his second term, and focus more on the will of the people and helping the average citizen. I think it will be a pretty good election for progressives around the United States in general, as well, and a bad one for conservatives, with the failure of the "Tea Party" movement and the growing success of the OWS movement becoming increasingly evident. In Taiwan, my wife's homeland, Ma Ying-Jeoh is up for re-election soon. According to Eunice, he has been a very good President and it looks like he will be re-elected, also bucking the general trend. I don't know very much about him, but he seems to be an empathetic, democratic socialist type, which I believe is mainly where world politics is heading. With Taiwan's extensive and intensive experience regarding the development of a more democratic society in the face of opposition from mainland China, Taiwan is ahead of the curve in terms of democracy just as California is. In North Korea, I expect that young Kim Jong-Un will turn out to be a very different type of leader than his father or grandfather were, or his elders want him to be. I think Kim Jong-Un will want to modernize and open up to the outside world, creating a power struggle between his side and the existing power structure which will want him to be their puppet. Perhaps the people of North Korea will actually find some courage and strength to stand up for their rights, at long last.

Aside from these elections, I believe that populist revolts around the world will continue to accelerate, including the continuation and extension of OWS. I don't believe that we will see very many big, immediate changes in the coming year as a result of such populism, but it will be setting the stage for much bigger changes to come. Such revolts will occur both in the more autocratic nations, where "freedom" from oppressive governments will be the call, and in ostensible democracies, where something to the effect of "freedom from the financial oligarchs" will be the cry of the Occupiers. Leaders will change in many nations, and regimes will topple, but it will mostly be a time of regrouping (much as this winter is for OWS) and trying to answer the question "where do we go from here." Expect much larger changes in political structure in the decade or so to come after 2012. When we look back upon 2012, it will be as a pivotal year in terms of paradigm shift, preceding the realization of the radical changes which will follow, I expect.

A general point about change is that we tend not to notice it while it happens. We think that the world is fairly stable, and for most of us, the changes we would like to see either are not happening as far as we can tell, or do not happen "fast enough." In reality, however, the rate of change in human society, as well as in our environment, has accelerated drastically. This is a natural consequence of the creation of a global, technological society. Changes that happen in one part of the world, are quickly transmitted to other parts of the world, whether those changes be technological, economic, political, educational, cultural or whatever. Modern culture acts as a catalyst to enact change. A well-connected populace, cannot help but direct that change, whatever opposition it may encounter.

As a caller to a progressive talk show (hosted by Nicole Sandler, I think) said a few days ago, "What do we do when the Monopoly game is over? We toss the pieces back in the box and play a different game." We are getting to that point in terms of the world economy as well. The people of the world are getting ready to toss the pieces of the world's financial monopoly back into the box -- or the trash. The next game that the people decide to play, will be not one of competition, but one of global cooperation -- a game in which everybody is a winner, and in which the public as a whole is the main beneficiary, I expect. The coming years will see, I think, calls for either an extension of the United Nations to create a global economic framework, or the creation of a new body to do the same. This will be a populist, progressive-style framework, not the economic cooperative councils that we have heard about, which consist of rich people plotting their eventual conquering of the world and winning their game of "Monopoly." This will be the real thing, with documents such as a global economic constitution or bill of rights. At the same time, there will be economic reforms at the national, regional and local levels around the world. The year 2012, I expect, will be the year when all of this change begins -- a year of paradigm shift.

Of course, I could be wrong -- the changes I predict could occur even faster than I expect, or not at all. I never predicted that I would reach 100 "Capital Ideas" posts. By the way, I think I am probably nearing the end of this series, finally. Thus, here is another prediction for 2012: I will finish my Capital Ideas series (at least for the time being) and yet, at the same time, we will begin to see more of the ideas discussed in this series, actually be implemented, or steps being taken toward their implementation.

December 26

A Capital Idea Part 99: The United Fiefdom of Vespucci

Once upon a time (yeah, right) in a land far, far away -- it surely couldn't be anywhere near here, right? -- there was a place called the United Fiefdom of Vespucci. Fancying themselves to be enlightened Lords, the Lords of Vespucci held elections every four years just before Christmas, sort of a Christmas present for the entire fiefdom. However, only the Lords were rich enough to run for public office, so the only choices to run the government, for all of the serfs and vassals of Vespucci were from among the small number of Lords of Vespucci. As a consequence, the 99% of the population who were serfs and vassals, did not have true representation in their government, and the government's policies were essentially run by the Lords of Vespucci, who designed them in such a way as to keep the serfs and vassals poor, and the Lords of Vespucci, rich, pampered and powerful. After all, in the view of many Lords of Vespuccci, the Lord of Lords had given them Vespucci and placed them through the holy inheritance of the lucky sperm club, in positions of wealth and power. In reality, the wealthy ancestors of the Lords of Vespucci and their loyal advisors, who comprised the 1%, had achieved their positions largely through greed. These were the kids who refused to share their toys, and many of them grew up to be prototypical cases of Antisocial Personality Disorder and/or Narcissistic Personality Disorder (not to mention Avaricious Personality Disorder). To be sure, some of them had achieved their positions through skill and talent, and some of the 1% were truly good people, but far too many were pathologically self-centered.

Over time, there were many small uprisings among the vassals and serfs of Vespucci. However, these were always put down by the brute force of hired militia -- oops, I mean police -- and failed to spread given that communications were rather poor in those olden days. Eventually, some genius serfs invented the internet and cell phones, however, which turned out to be a game changer. In the next rebellion, the serfs and vassals communicated amongst themselves extensively, and the 99%ers Occupy Lords' Boulevard movement grew to massive proportions. Yet, as had happened every time before, their movement was squelched by force. Armies of hired militia -- oops, I mean police -- moved in to tear down the Occupiers impromtu encampments. Furthermore, the Occupiers were blamed for their own movement. The news of the day described them as a bunch of dirty (because they had no means of bathing themselves), ignorant (because only rudimentary education was available to serfs and vassals) socialist (as though something is wrong with that), commie (no way -- democracy is not communism), miscreants (the Lords should look in the mirror if they want to see a miscreant) troublemakers (as though it wasn't the Lords of Vespucci who had created the troubles of the serfs and vassals). How dare these "little people" try to upset "the natural order of things" and upset the wonderful "gravy train" of wealth in The United Fiefdom of Vespucci's supposedly enlightened society! In fact, many local governments decided to sue the "Occupiers" after their forced removal, adding insult to injury. This happened even in some of the more sympathetic cities. The media, through its well-financed and coordinated propagandistic actions directed by the Lords of Vespucci, even managed to get 99%ers -- in addition to being recruited to put down the protests for pay -- to blame each other at times for their problems.

However, ultimately, this morally grounded movement for economic fairness, opportunity and true government representation, was too powerful to fail. The serfs and vassals managed to cooperate, using the power of their high-tech communication tools, and decided to select and vote for progressive-minded candidates from amongst themselves in the next election. After all, voting was the one great tool for promoting change which was granted to them. There were two political parties in The United Fiefdom of Vespucci, the Lords' Party -- which was beyond hope of reform -- and the Politicians' Party -- which had some truly civic minded representatives but was mostly lacking in moral fortitude and as in love with money and power as was the Lords' Party. Thus, the serfs and vassals decided to run their chosen candidates primarily as progressive, civic minded candidates who wanted to advance the public good by creating a more fair and representative government which wasn't run by money. Since they lacked access to "The Mainstream Media," the candidates from among the 99%ers had a hands-on campaign approach, attending local events at which they gave campaign speeches and recruited campaign workers. After all, the 99%ers knew that they would win hands down if they collaborated and voted for candidates from among their number. When the election came that Christmastime, the serfs and vassals candidates were swept into office. This was their Christmas gift to the world. Some of the more sympathetic Lords were also re-elected, but the entire composition of the government was transformed by that election. They proceeded to change campaign finance and election laws to no longer favor the rich, opting to use public financing instead. They outlawed lobbying, and prosecuted the worst offenders among the Lords, who were given long jail terms. They also enhanced the education system to make a good higher education widely available and inexpensive for all, and began the withdrawal of their empire-making soldiers from foreign lands. And these steps were just starters in a new, more enlightened United Fiefdom of Vespucci, as the momentum of the peaceful revolution continued and further reforms followed. The gig was definitely up for the Lords of Vespucci. Ironically, the transformation of society which occured, not only benefitted the 99%ers, but also benefitted the 1%ers ultimately, as quality of life as a whole improved, crime rates decreased, and everybody had a society they could be proud of. Furthermore, the democratic transormation of the United Fiefdom of Vespucci allowed people to become better, more evolved and enlightened people as a whole, including the families of the former Lords and their loyal advisors. And thus happily ends my story of The United Fiefdom of Vespucci.

I seem to recall a story often told at Christmastime, about a man who lived about 2,000 years ago, who advocated peace, love and understanding, but at the young age of 33, was branded as a troublemaker, blamed for problems he did not create and was tortured and crucified. That he was -- and still is -- believed to be God by his followers, does nothing to change the tragedy of his story, nor of the untold stories of countless others who suffered and died for the sins of others. As my mother says "That's too bad about Jesus being crucified and all that." Maybe, a tragedy is just a tragedy; lives are wasted sometimes. But if we are wise, we can learn from their tragic stories, and use what we have learned to transform the world for the better.

I have been reminded in recent days, of how the innocent are still being blamed by those with more money and more power, for their own problems, as well as their peskiness in upsetting the gravy train of wealth that the 1% enjoys. On the local news a few days ago, there was a report that Occupy Los Angeles is being sued (or a lawsuit is under consideration) for $2 million dollars due to the mess and damage that their encampment reportedly caused. If anything, the city of Los Angeles should be suing the people that the Occupiers are protesting against, people such as the Koch brothers, Karl Rove, Grover Norquist, et cetera -- people who fight against our democracy tooth and nail in order to keep their elite positions. Yesterday, I was reminded again of this phenomenon of victim derogation, as I filled out Christmas cards. I found an envelope with several Christmas cards in it, sent to us by one of the places that my wife Eunice (Zunliang) donated to in the past year. On the outside of the envelope, was written, "Innocent but punished for the crimes of the guilty." It was referring to children in poor nations who are homeless and ostracized for one reason or another. As I was listening to my radio yesterday, I heard an interview on Pacifica Radio of a man who studies things such as global sustainability. He said that the overuse of global resources is essentially a problem caused by approximately the richest 10% of world's population, around 600 million persons. I couldn't help but think that these children could be well taken care of and no longer have to live as outcasts, fending for themselves, if the "haves" of the world would learn to share their wealth with the "have nots."

For sure, issues such as overpopulation, environmental degradation and global warming -- among others -- must be dealt with as well, but I suspect, when people are better taken care of, better educated, and men and women are treated more fairly and equitably around the world, they will be much better equipped and motivated to do so. It will take a peaceful, democratic revolution in order to make this happen, just the sort of thing that the OWS movement seems to be leading to. We must continue its momentum and translate its energy into voting and political activity in favor of progressive reforms. That such a peaceful, democratic revolution become a reality is my Christmas wish, and this post is my Christmas gift to the world.

By the way, "America" is strangely, named after the given name of an early explorer of North and South America, Amerigo Vespucci. Thus, I chose the name, The United Fiefdom of Vespucci for my story.

December 20

A Capital Idea Part 98: Economic Democracy

Based on my friend Zenzoe's mention of Economic Democracy in a reply to the True Economic Freedom and Public Economy posts, I looked up "Economic Democracy" on the internet. I had heard of this term in passing, but didn't know there was such a large body of literature about this topic or such a large movement toward Economic Democracy, so...there I go again reinventing the wheel, more or less. At least I am learning something, and have my own perspective on the economy actually, which does have differences from these other ones (Venus Project, Peer-to-Peer, Economic Democracy, certain progressive economists' ideas).

First, I found a site at economicdemocracy.org (http://economicdemocracy.org/), but it seems to be pretty much low on content aside from a homepage which says things such as "We can overcome corporate rule." Many of the links say the information is "coming soon" but there were some links to a few specific articles, poems and cartoons. I had better luck with other websites about Economic Democracy, especially Wikipedia, which has an extremely long description of Economic Democracy, despite most of this site's materials being written by conservatives. There is an excellent introduction to the topic there, rather lengthy itself, but well worth reading, which follows here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_democracy):

Economic democracy is a socioeconomic philosophy that suggests a shift in decision-making power from a small minority of corporate shareholders to a larger majority of public stakeholders. There is no single definition or approach for economic democracy, but most theories and real-world examples challenge the demonstrated tendencies of modern property relations to externalize costs, subordinate the general well-being to private profit, and deny the populace majority a democratic voice in economic policy decisions.

Classical liberals argue that the power to dispose of the means of production belongs to entrepreneurs and capitalists, and can only be acquired by means of the consumers' ballot, held daily in the marketplace."The capitalistic social order", they claim, therefore, "is an economic democracy in the strictest sense of the word." Critics of this claim point out that consumers only vote on the value of the product when they make a purchase; they are not voting on who should own the means of production, on who can keep its profits or on the resulting income redistribution. Proponents of economic democracy generally agree, therefore, that modern capitalism tends to hinder or prevent society from earning enough income to purchase its output production. Centralized corporate monopoly of common resources typically forces conditions of artificial scarcity upon the greater majority, resulting in socio-economic imbalances that restrict workers from access to economic opportunity and diminish consumer purchasing power.

Economic democracy has been proposed as a component of larger socioeconomic ideologies, as a stand-alone theory, and as a variety of reform agendas. In most cases, economic democracy promotes universal access to "common resources" that are typically privatized by corporate capitalism or centralized by state socialism. Assuming full political rights cannot be won without full economic rights, economic democracy is a proposed solution for the problems of economic instability and deficiency of effective demand. As an alternative model, both market and non-market theories of economic democracy have been proposed. As a reform agenda, supporting theories and real-world examples range from decentralization and economic liberalization to democratic cooperatives, fair trade, and the regionalization of food production and currency.

Following this, Wikipedia discusses topics such as:

"Deficiency of Effective Demand" (the loss of capital due to accumulation by the wealthy);

The need for unemployment created by the capitalistic system;

The need for artificial scarcity created by the capitalistic system;

"Enclosure of the Commons" (the private holding of what should be public resources);

"The Rise of Corporations" (a historical perspective);

"Imperialism" (considered an advanced stage of capitalism by the author, at present being the United States' massive international military-industrial complex);

"Alternative Models," citing several people including Martin Luther King, Jr. and a Hunagarian historian named Karl Polanyi, and one named Schweikert who defines Economic Democracy in terms of Worker Self-Management (eg., unions and workplace democracy), Social Control of Investment (eg. public banks or credit unions), and The Market (in which profits are equitably shared among all employees rather than hoarded by "owners");

"Inclusive Democracy" which includes "Demotic Self-Reliance"(decentralization and self-reliance), "Demotic Ownership of Productive Resources" (economic decision making by the entire community), and "Confederal Allocation of Resources" (planning and decision making at the regional, national and international levels). The words used in the article are indeed "demotic" and "confederal," by the way;

"Social Credit" including "Credit as a Public Utility" (eg., zero-interest loans from public banks), and "A National Dividend" (cash dividends and pricing subsidies instead of allowing capital to be accumulated by business owners);

"Monopoly Power versus Public Utility," in which J.W. Smith advocates using public utility to basically collect public rent for the use of all resources (similar to my recent "Public Economy" post with the addition of the idea of actually collecting rent from business people for resource usage, which is a form of tax);

"Democratic Cooperatives" including worker cooperatives, consumer cooperatives, and food cooperatives;

and finally (yes finally, as this took quite a while for me to go through), "Regional Trading Currencies" (which I understand as each nation or region issuing its own trading currency, which would help resource producing third-world nations economically by allowing them to take control of their resources rather than having to give them up at low cost to richer nations). In summary, yes, I have indeed more or less reinvented the wheel, but without some of the ideas included in this article and with much more psychology and ecology involved in my approach. Thank you to whomever wrote the Wikipedia article on Economic Democracy, which was the most comprehensive and excellent Wikipedia document I have yet seen. Due to its length, I only summarized as well as I could the major content of this article.

Aside from this article, I found another article by J.W. Smith, but it focused on eliminating poverty and never directly discussed Economic Democracy (http://www.globalissues.org/article/5/economic-democracy). I also found a short description of Economic Democracy in a British website (http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/take-action/economic-democracy). There was even a link to a mention of how to "restore" (as if it had ever existed) Economic Democracy on the Forbes magazine website, but when I clicked on the link, I only got an advertisement, then the Forbes magazine homepage. I guess the thought of Economic Democracy was subsequently banished from Forbes magazine, and I guess my description of Economic Democracy from Wikipedia will suffice.

Clearly, this is another example of the breadth and magnitude of the economic reform movement around the world, as well as the great degree of agreement regarding the sources of our economic problems and commonalities in the suggestions for reform. Such ideas in my opinion, shared by so many people -- eventually by the entire 99% I think when we all become aware of these ideas -- are the intellectual basis of the Occupy Wall Street movement and thus evidence that the movement will continue growing. Good ideas can never be killed. Good and necessary ideas will only keep growing until they become beliefs which must be acted upon.

December 13

A Capital Idea Part 97: True Wealth

Every person wants to be happy. Presumably, every person also wants to achieve his or her potential in some way. Yet, wealth is measured in monetary terms. Perhaps it is time we started measuring wealth in terms of the things that really matter.

As I have mentioned before, money isn't even real, in a physical sense. It is only a social construct used as a placekeeper, of which people end up having trouble equitably keeping track. Money exchanges hands in various phantom ways, through wires, through stock market exchanges, and so forth. It is merely a claim on resources, mostly, material ones. This makes the concept of monetary wealth all the more bizarre. On the other hand, there are sources of true wealth on both a personal and social level.

One form of true personal wealth is happiness. Happiness is difficult to quantify, but it is something which every person values, quite properly. Actually, there nonetheless is a happiness index which has been created and used to compare various nations, and I wrote about before in this series.

An even more appropriate form of true wealth is how well people reach their potential as persons, the goal of life called "self-actualization" in humanistic psychology. Facilitating self-actualization is what I argue is the goal of a fair and just economic system.

Also, resources are forms of true wealth, including natural, human-made, and human-capacity resources, as described in my Capital Ideas posts and which are all part of a resource-based economy.

I would say that there is also interpersonal wealth. What can be more rewarding and enabling than being in love, or participating in a happy family? People in small groups can accomplish things that we could never do as individuals, and as people sometimes say, "Love is its own reward." Love is the ultimate source of emotional and spiritual wealth.

However, there is another aspect of true wealth which transcends the level of the individual's resources or even immediate family and friends. I believe that there is such a thing as collective wealth, which transcends personal wealth. To paraphrase a German businessman sometimes mentioned on the Thom Hartmann show, when asked why he didn't mind paying such high taxes as a German citizen, he replied that it is better to be a normal person in a wealthy society, than a wealthy person in a poor society. To put it in psychological terms, according to Gestalt principles, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

We can easily see this fact when we look at the interdependence people have in attaining progress. Without education, few people would be able to advance scientific knowledge. Without infrastructure, it would be difficult to educate people. Without labor, there would be no infrastructure. On the other side, without an educated populace, there would be no one to utilize new technologies, and of course, without money, there would be no customers to buy the new technologies, if money is required as it generally is in a society which depends upon money to acquire just about anything. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts; everything works together to make an integrated whole. The same for that matter, can be said of a body, although that is far less relevant to the current topic.

Thus, another goal of my Capital Ideas is to create and present ideas which can facilitate a wealthier worldwide human culture, in which the interlocking parts work together synergistically as a whole. When people don't have to worry about going broke, or finding adequate health care, or being oppressed, or compromising themselves to please their bosses, they have all the more opportunity to self-actualize as well as to be happy. When people have the opportunity to explore their interests, when people are socialized to be caring, civic-minded, socially responsible persons, who respect others and do not abuse them, this gives all of us all the more opportunity to self-actualize and find true happiness. A society in which all people -- or as many as possible to avoid sounding overly utopian -- contribute to the general well-being, is truly the most wealthy kind of society. This is the kind of world which I envision with every intention of helping to make a reality. Just imagine what true treasures of love, happiness and human potential we would enjoy in such a world!

December 8

A Capital Idea Part 96: True Economic Freedom

As long as I am writing about freedom issues, this is an opportune time to discuss another blog post idea which had been waylaid and sitting on my notepad since July, due to my trip to Taiwan plus the advent of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Nowadays, we are hearing Republican candidates such as Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul talk about eliminating minimum working ages, and utilizing prison labor. This is really anti-economic freedom talk. This is about the ruling class finding the cheapest possible labor to exploit, which could not be further from economic freedom. In fact, I wrote a post a while back, in which I speculated that low-wage sweatshop style workers around the world, and even here in the U.S., are probably cheaper for business owners than slaves were to keep in the bad old days of legal slavery. After all, these workers are supposed to take care of themselves on their itty bitty salaries. I could not find any actual estimates of what it cost slaveowners to take care of their slaves' needs, interestingly. I wonder if "the ruling class" considers that a secret that it wouldn't want to be known, lest it be found out that modern minimum wage workers are cheaper than slaves. In any case, the financial capitalist system clearly craves cheap labor -- the cheaper, the better -- and that is an anti-freedom thing.

I am sick of hearing about "the free market," as though such a thing existed, as though it made people "free," and as though there were real alternatives, for that matter, to having a market of one sort or another. Obama even mentioned the free market in his speech a couple days ago as the world's greatest creator of wealth, just before assailing trickle down economics. It was definitely the sort of speech I have been waiting to hear from Barack, but it did include too much deference to "the free market," the role of banks, the military, and way too much nationalism in my opinion. However, it was a good beginning toward changing the direction of our economy which clearly implies that anti-corporatocracy type actions by the Obama adminstration will be -- well, attempted in the face of stiff, uncompromising opposition by the miscreants on the other side of the aisle. Obama even talked about reducing wealth disparities, a very welcome thought.

Thus, here is another premise: Human exchanges will always involve some sort of market where people get together and exchange things (unless somebody invents a "replicator" a la Star Trek which people simply ask to create anything they want). Even taxes and government are a form of market in a sense, with taxes being exchanged on the government market for services which the public barters in a democracy through electing representatives and informing them of "the will of the people" which the people demand be met, or else, well, they will unelect their representatives. In theory at least, that is how it works. When the market is unfair, people are less free. It's really a pretty simple fundamental rule. When the government does not represent the people, the people are less free. When the market is rigged, and the so-called "playing field" is slanted toward one side, people are less free. When government "representatives" actually represent the rich instead of their constituents, people are less free. This is why people are waking up and starting to rebel -- our economic freedoms, as well as other kinds of freedoms, have been eroded by the corrupting influence of money, as we find that we live in a society in which the so-called "free market" becomes more and more slanted toward the rich, as the market itself becomes "freer" in the parlance of economics, and our government becomes more and more "bought and paid for" by the rich. In other words, not only is "the free market" not a producer of freedom, but to the contrary, the less regulated and the "freer" the money becomes, the less free the citizens become!

True economic freedom involves a truly "level playing field" in sports parlance. In other words, a system which does not favor any one person or any one profession over another -- a truly fair and impartial system. It is my contention that as long as we have a system dependent upon using money itself to acquire more money, through such means as stock markets, and usury (loan interest), we will never have a fair, economic-freedom producing financial system. This is another way of explaning why I believe that stock markets should be eliminated (in addition to their general uselessness and waste of human resources), and usury should be strictly regulated. And of course, monopolies should be broken up, and our economy well-regulated by all the means we know to be effective. These are things which are feasible and could be done in the relatively near future, given the political will to do so and a progressive enough Congress to take these steps.

However, none of these steps will prevent those so-inclined -- a group which includes just about every greedy businessman or greedy businesswoman -- from working to slant the playing field again. You can count on this: The greedy among us will always be looking for ways to rig the system in their own favor. This is why we need to take drastic steps to reshape our economic future, away from financial capitalism, and toward a more resource-based, public economy. This is ultimately what I think the current revolution -- which I suspect is only in its infancy -- will be about, so that such abuses and restrictions of freedom by the wealthy class against everyone else as we are currently experiencing, can never happen again, and so that people can enjoy more true freedom, both economic and personal. Elements of this new economy will include localization of economic activities -- perhaps even local currencies -- plus at a national or even international level, the ensurance of human rights to basic needs such as food, health care and education, and the usage of specific methods of exchange in the market, such as credits, vouchers, etc. which can be used to acquire things that people need but not to accumulate excess wealth. As mentioned in the previous post, people will be entrusted with a certain share of resources, pending good standing as citizens, but will not be considered "owners" of resources who can treat their acquisitions as part of an expanding, personal empire. Rather, their use of resources will be contingent upon their responsible, socially productive and environmentally sustainable use of these resources. There should also be limits on how large a business can be, and still be run by a single person. Perhaps all businesses above a certain size will ultimately be required to be collectively owned and operated, although smaller businesses can still be run by an individual and self-employment will be encouraged. When people don't have to worry about where their next meal will come from, or about "pleasing the boss" which may entail intense sacrifices and compromises, they will be all the freer to pursue productive activities which please them and lend themselves to self-actualization. When education is free and equally available to everyone, and people are socialized to be civic minded and socially responsible, with the help of good role models, people will want to engage in productive activities. That will only be natural.

It is in such an atmosphere of fair exchange that true economic and personal freedom can thrive, and the wonders of the greatest of resources, that of human potential, can be unlocked as it never has been before.

December 6

A Capital Idea Part 95: The Public Economy -- An Intelligently Planned, People-Powered Approach

A new concept has been gelling in my mind recently, one that integrates and unifies several more familiar (at least to me) concepts -- the public economy. This may be a better way of framing the future of a better economic system than the various ideas I have heard thus far. Actually, I have heard of public capital as a concept. From there, it is not much of a jump to think of a public economy.

Let me explain what I mean by the public economy. First of all, when people talk about the economy, they often mention "the public sector" and "the private sector." The public sector works for government in one capacity or another, which is the type of job that conservatives are trying to eliminate. The private sector consists of people who work for private corporations, which conservatives apparently think should be everybody, so that the business-owner faux "job creators" can run everything, including government. More reasonable people think that there should be a balance between the public and private sectors.

Let's start with this premise that there is such a balance which is optimal. Next, let us redefine what the private sector does, and change the way it functions correspondingly. My wife often says that the entire world -- or The Universe for that matter -- belongs to God. A form of this is my second premise. That is, the world does not "belong to us" humans, neither as individuals, or even in the collective. It belongs to a higher order, which is "God" to some, nature to others. Thus, the concept of "private ownership" is not really valid. If we do not "own stuff," then how do we consider the stuff that we use? It's pretty simple, but it requires an out-of-the-box leap in thinking. We are entrusted with things as citizens of the world. We do not "own things," but we can have and use the things that we are entrusted with. Whoever thought of the idea of "ownership" was being very egocentric.

Next, what entity does the entrusting? Religions are very fond of saying that God entrusts them with something -- that is, God gave them this land, these animals, these plants, these minerals, and so on, and meanwhile, God made these wonderful promises to the people as "the promised ones." This is a very toxic place to go, especially when other people with different ideas about what belongs to whom, want to occupy "the promised land." As a human culture, we must make a third premise, that God or Mother Earth -- Gaia -- has entrusted us collectively with the right to figure out "who gets the goodies" (as a sociology class at my alma mater Pitzer College was called). In other words, it is up to us as a species to create a fair, moral, sustainable and productive economy, and at the same time, protect the environment upon which we depend. Thus, anything which is entrusted to us, is entrusted by society as a whole. It is government -- at its varous levels -- which in effect should bestow the entrusting of resources upon people, with the knowledge and consent of the people.

Now that we have gotten to the point in this conversation where individual people are entrusted with a certain share of resources, as a right, let us consider what the individual's obligations are, a la the social contract. The individual is responsible for taking good care of those resources with which he or she is entrusted, and not degrading them. Furthermore, the individual is responsible for the so-called externalities of his or her use of the resources, such as costs of environmental cleanup when the individual's actions do in fact degrade the environment. The individual does not operate in a vacuum, so to speak, separate from the rest of society. To an extent, our legal system as it exists, does hold people responsible for the consequences of their economic decisions, but quite ineffectively. Business people tend to get away with environmental crimes, and even manslaughter (as Thom Hartmann is talking about at this moment) due to the money-bought laxness of our economic system, which favors business owners over the rest of us, and the bigger the business, the more the person is favored. Rather than what we have, we need a comprehensive legal system which holds all people equally accountable for their economic actions. (I know I have written about this before, but this is a new way of framing this idea.) Creating a fair, moral, sustainable and productive economy demands nothing less. Also, there needs to be cultural oversight -- presumably through democratic governance at local, regional, national and international levels -- of fair wages for all, economic morality which means ensuring our rights to a certain share of resources, and economic sustainability and productivity.

The concept of the public economy also subsumes the concept of a resource-based economy. The idea of a resource-based economy, as I understand it, is to take all of the "goodies" with which humanity has been entrusted, and divide it up according to criteria including human rights and needs, and the value to society of the work that a person does. The resources are divided first at a central level, most likely, then subdivided at a more local level. In addition, local economies may exist in which certain resources never leave the region. Instead of using the same currency for everything, there may be different credits, vouchers, etc. which are good for different basic needs such as food, utilities, and so forth, while the familiar money could be used to buy specialty items of personal interest, or extra items relating to basic needs. The public economy places the resource-based economy in the context of a larger system which employs government oversight in a democratic manner. It also allows for a wide variety of economic activity, including businesses run (but not literally "owned") by individuals, cooperatives, and public employment as well as being able to coordinate local, regional, national and international economic activity in a people-powered manner. It places the people collectively -- rather than certain individuals -- wholely as in charge of the economy, as entrusted by the greater forces of The Universe in the most rational possible manner.

Before finishing, I want to discuss the issue of a having a rational economy a bit more. The public economy is the most rational -- and thus the best in my opinion -- way to run an economy. It is a planned economy, which is a radical departure -- again in my opinion -- from what has ever actually occured in the history of humankind. Much as the founders of a nation, most famously those of the United States -- U.S. spells US by the way -- planned their government through the creation of a Constitution, much to our benefit, the economy should be planned. Perhaps creating a sort of global "economic Constitution" would be an excellent idea. This is the kind of thing that the public economy would endorse. However, the economic system that we have, evolved haphazardly out of the exchanges of peoples over the centuries, and particularly with the influence of wealthy people who rigged and built the system to suit their own greedy aspirations. This stupid, unplanned, might-makes-right system must be stopped, and replaced by an intelligently planned (to borrow a phrase from debates over evolution) economic system which does not allow the sort of abuses and economic oppression that our current system manifests; this system which is intelligently planned and modifiable with democratic consent and input, is what I call the public economy.

November 27

A Capital Idea Part 94: The Great American Freedom Scam

Here is another post about "freedom" as presented in the United States. I have written around the edges of this topic previsouly, but hearing or seeing so many Americans give obligatory "thanks" to our military for the second time in two weeks, made me realize that this is a scam perpetrated by the military-industrial-religious-political complex in the United States, and thus needs to be framed that way. Also, this time, I did some research comparing the "freedom" of the United States to that of other nations.

First of all, here is the scam. We are brainwashed into believing -- those among us who are susceptible to the message -- that it is American military might that made us "free" and keeps us "free." Our military "must be strong" and "must respond to challenges around the world" in order to "maintain our freedom" and "extend freedoms to other nations." Does this sound familiar? It should. This is the language of empire, and empires are destined to collapse to the right, under their own weight. How does this scam relate to the economy and capital ideas? The answer to that question does not require much of a stretch. We know that several trillions of our national debt -- probably most of the national debt which is such a hot topic in politics these days -- is due to military spending. This is a horridly misplaced priority, this military spending, however one conceives the motives to be. I would say that it is mainly in order to build and maintain an international military-industrial complex for the 1%ers, but if the motives are more noble, it is a horribly ineffective, even counterproductive, strategy. It only works as a strategy in order to enrich people who are part of the military business, to keep distant flocks of sheeple who work for tiny wages, under control, and to placate the enormous egos of American politicans.

In order to maintain the current military order, our government needs a certain level of cooperation from the public. It needs military personnel who are willing to carry out orders with unquestioning patriotism, for one thing. It also needs to justify in the minds of the public, the military budget and various military actions and bases around the world, for another. The lie which we are constantly subjected to, that we owe a debt of gratitude to the military for giving and maintaining our "freedoms," is the primary means by which public consent to these horrid policies is attained, as well as acting as an effective military recruiting tool. We are especially subjected to this enormous untruth during holidays, which tend to have conveniently militaristic (Veterans Day and Memorial Day) or nationalistic themes (Fourth of July and President's Day), or offer thanks to people such as military personnel (Thanksgiving and Christmas). Thus, the United States' military can go on spending profligately, military contractors can continue living in their mansions, and military equipment used to kill people, including Americans, around the world can continue to be perhaps the United States' biggest export. Meanwhile, international businesses feel that their overseas investments are protected, and American politicians can proudly point to the "accomplishments" of the military that they run, even while American troops are accidentally killing Pakistani soldiers as happened yesterday, or killing innocents by remote control drone attacks, and excusing their actions with an "Oops, mistakes happen!"!

If military spending "makes us free," then the United States should be the most "free" nation in the world by far, so is it? The answer is most definitely "no." There are a large number of nations which are just as "free" as the United States, if not freer, including military-less Costa Rica according to Freedomhouse.org, which has been measuring freedom in the nations of the world since 1972 (http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=351&ana_page=379&year=2011). To be exact, there are 87 nations out of 194 nations for which their was data, which ranked as free in both civil and political rights in both 2010 and 2011 according to their surveys, one of which was the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_in_the_World). This represents 45% of the nations in the survey. Each nation can get a score from 1 to 7 on civil rights and on political rights, with lower scores indicating more freedom. According to the survey, the majority of the nations (48 of them) described as "free" in terms of both civil and political rights had scores of 1 on both measures, including the United States, the best scores that they could have had. Moreover, the percentage of nations considered to be "free" in terms of both civil and political rights has trended upward over the years since this measure began, beginning with only 27% of the nations enjoying such "freedom" in 1975. Thus, the rest of the world is "catching up to" the U.S. in terms of freedom, and most of these nations who are doing the catching up, appear to be ones that spend relatively small proportions of their national treasure on their militaries, at least, relatively little compared to the U.S., and also, they in no way owe their freedom to U.S. military "protection," based on my admittedly subjective perusal of the data.

On the topic of "freedom" in the United States, anybody who thinks that people in the United States are as "free" as people could be are living in dreamland. The following critique of freedom in the United States, for example, as well as the definitions of freedom used by Freedom House was presented in Wikipedia. "The definition of Freedom in Gastil (1982) and Freedom House (1990) emphasized liberties rather than the exercise of freedom, according to Adam Przeworski, who gave the following example: In the United States, citizens are free to form political parties and to vote, yet even in presidential elections only half of U.S. 'citizens' vote; in the U.S., 'the same two parties speak in a commercially sponsored unison,' wrote Przeworski" in 2003.

Apparently, and surely to be expected, "Freedom House" is basically a right-wing organization, so when I use its own statistics against it, that is damning evidence indeed. The quote continues as follows:

"More recent charges of ideological bias prompted Freedom House to issue this 2010 statement:

Freedom House does not maintain a culture-bound view of freedom. The methodology of the survey is grounded in basic standards of political rights and civil liberties, derived in large measure from relevant portions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These standards apply to all countries and territories, irrespective of geographical location, ethnic or religious composition, or level of economic development."

Nonetheless, it seems pretty clear to me, that virtually nothing would prevent the United States from obtaining the highest possible scores in "Freedom House's" survey. There is a clear cultural and nationalistic bias there. The way that these ratings are obtained, is not by surveying residents of each nation, but rather, by having a panel of "experts" rate each nation on 10 political rights questions, and 15 civil rights questions, then obtaining average scores for each nation. Although the questions themselves seem good ones as far as I can tell, the reliance upon "analysts" and "academic advisors" (probably mostly or all U.S. citizens) for ratings seems very suspect in terms of subjective bias potential. Even with such bias, however, it seems very clear that spending our resources (i.e. human, natural resource and financial capital) at such an enormous rate as the United States does, on military endeavors, is not making us any freer. In fact, quite the opposite is most likely true. That is, it is impinging on both our civil and political rights, as well as our economic freedoms.

The fact that "freedom" itself is a bizarrely abstract concept, makes it easier to use as a tool to manipulate public opinion. I will end here with some of my personal perspective on the concept of "freedom" which helps to explain my constant use of quotes around the word, as well as helping to frame the topic.

First, the word "freedom" implies a lack of limits or restaint, as in being totally free to do whatever one wants to do. Of course, this is nonsense. Although using the word "freedom" tends to invoke the notion of unlimited choice, in reality, only an omnipotent being would have total freedom. Freedom is relative, and actually denotes being granted the right (or left) to make certain choices for oneself.

Second, the concept of freedom is biased toward an individualistic world view, which itself, is biased toward conservative ideology. We are taught to think of freedom as applying basically to the individual. There is such a thing as collective choice, or collective freedom, if you will, which operates at the societal level, and which outweighs individual freedom in many regards. Elections, if done fairly, are a good example of collective choice. However, the concept of freedom is seldom thought of as collective in an individualistic culture such as this, at least. Perhaps it is in more collectivistic cultures, which helps account for differing perceptions on topics such as civil and political rights. If members of the OWS movement began referring to themselves as fighting for the collective freedom of the 99%ers to direct their own governance such as by having truly fair elections, and truly representative democracy, it would help focus the movement. That is happening to an extent, which is a good thing, but due to our cognitive training it is difficult for Americans to stop thinking in terms of their own personal freedoms, and their own economic plights.

Third, the freedom that matters most is mental, not behavioral. Freedom (the right to make choices) can be thought of as having emotional, cognitive, and behavioral components. However, the act of choosing, is essentially a cognitive process, aided by emotional processes. A person can have considerable freedom to behave as he or she chooses, yet still be mentally trapped into a certain way of thinking. On the other hand, a person who lacks much behavioral choice, may mentally be free to think and feel quite freely. (Think Stephen Hawking, for example.) We probably all have had experiences, in which we found ourselves trapped in a certain modality of thought which limited our ability to choose, or on the other hand, have found our choices taken away by others, but we essentially remained as free as before because our mental alacrity to think and feel as we pleased, remained unaffected. However, the discussion of "freedom" focuses obsessively on the idea of behavioral freedom.

Fourth, here is something which I have heard from several people to whom I am very close: Freedom is overrated. This is not to say that freedom is unimportant, but rather, that it does not always lead to the desired outcomes, as I understand it and agree with. The phrase, "Be careful what you wish for" comes to mind. Perhaps we would find ourselves happier and better off, if rather than obsessing over personal decisions and what is "right for me," we deferred somewhat to those with more experience and especially, to the greater, collective good. The concept of freedom that we have here in the United States, at least, and probably around much of the world, is akin to being a teenager who is given several credit cards, and told to go shopping, buy whatever you want, and money is no object. Now, that's freedom! It is for awhile, anyway. And people in such situations tend to be inordinately happy, until the bill eventually comes due, when they suddenly become alarmed and stressed. That is exactly what has happened with the huge scam that U.S. politicians and the military-industrial complex has perpetrated upon the people of the United States, and predictably, they don't want to pay; they want us to pay the bill and go through severe austerity in order to do so. Freedom in the hands of a fool, is a dangerous thing; it must be used wisely if we are to enjoy our freedoms.

November 22

Made to Love

Tomorrow is Zunliang (Eunice) and my tenth anniversary. Sadly, Eunice is in Taiwan, has been there since we went to Taiwan together in early August, and will be there until around Christmastime. She asked me to write something for our anniversary, but I was going to do that anyway. I could write a silly love poem, but not this time. Rather, I will let my mind meander a bit about love and Eunice.

We have a magic Guava tree. I don't know how many people out there have a magic tree, but we do. I collected a large (1 gallon, I think) bowl of Guavas yesterday. A while ago, I almost got another gallon of Guavas. These are Pineapple Guavas, one of those tricky fruit which for some reason, evolved to remain inconspicuously green, making only the cleverest and most knowledgeable critters among us, savvy to their delicious ripeness. The ways to know which ones to pick, or pick up, or basically, to pick up ones that have recently fallen to the ground, shake the tree and pick up the ones that fall to the ground, or lightly pull on different fruit and pick the ones that detach from the tree with the light pull. These are the ones that are ripe. Fortunately, Eunice and I both like Pineapple Guavas, but unfortunately, she is not here to eat them. Thus, in the past 9 days, I have given a large bag full of them to Occupy Riverside, and another to my Okinawan neighbors. I know that Doreen's 93 or 94 year old mother, Mabel, likes them a lot, at least. A few years ago, I wrote about this tree on my blog when Eunice was in Taiwan, and I basically used the tree to provide all my fruit needs at the time (and still had bags full in the refrigerator when Eunice returned). I estimated that the tree produced about 900 Guavas that year. This year, I would have to say that the total will be well over 1,000 Guavas, perhaps around 1,500 or more, another new record amount. Yesterday, I probably picked up at least 150 Guavas that had fallen off the tree (and left a few that were difficult to reach). Today, I probably got about another 150 of them. This may be the peak of the season, which lasts from about September through December, with a few possibly in late August and in early January, but I had already picked hundreds, and there are still hundreds on the tree. The particularly magic, strange thing about the tree, is that the fruit are very difficult to see on the tree. Although some fruit can be seen, the tree has far more growing on it than it appears to. They seem to appear out of thin air as they fall to the ground. Today, as I was picking up the fruit, I found myself laughing repeatedly as I found bunches of fruit on the ground which had appeared since yesterday, and as new fruit kept falling as I was rummaging around under the tree. It occured to me that such laughter has been a common occurence while picking up the Guavas over the years.

It also occured to me that this tree has had a lot of help in becoming so "magical." It was one of our first purchases for the yard at our house, and we placed it on the side of the front yard, in a place with good soil and not far from the front door, making it convenient to toss fruit peels, veggie peels and other stuff that is yummy for plants, under the tree. Eunice in particular, has had a habit of nurturing the tree in this way, but I do too. I know that the productivity of the tree is a result of good genetics, good soil, good climate for this species, lots of natural fertilizer, and tender loving care -- in other words, compatibility between the tree and its environment. On the other hand, we also planted a Pineapple Guave tree on our back hill, which for the most part, has been a tree graveyard. Aside from the point, it was sold to us falsely as a "Strawberry Guava," but clearly, it appears to be a Pineapple Guava tree. I say it appears to be a Pineapple Guava tree, because it has never succeeded in producing a single fruit. Being a hardy tree, it has remained green-leaved and healthy throughout these years, but cannot find enough nutrients to produce fruit. Last year, it had a few blooms for the first time, and this year, it had probably around 30 flowers, so I was hopeful that this was the year it would have fruit, but they all fell off. I have tried to fertilize the tree, but it is difficult to do on a fairly steep, dry, hot granite soiled hill such as this. Can you see where this is heading?

Yes, love must be nurtured, too, in order to work. I know that both Eunice and myself have always nurtured our relationship, because we treasure it and it is of the greatest importance to us. If only every couple was so commited to their relationship, and so nurturing, divorce would be a rarity. Our love is like the "magic Guava tree," which keeps producing so many goodies that it gets ridiculous to the point of making us laugh.

I believe that the most important factor in being loved, is being lovable -- being loyal to the relationship and worthy of love. There is another side to our relationship, however. Of course, there is a very strong compatibility factor, but there is also the greater issue of life's purpose. Perhaps the Universe has brought us together, in other words. I won't go into the circumstantial evidence for that here. I know a lot of people don't believe in that, while many others do, but the evidence is there. I have a friend who believes in reincarnation, who says that every soul must experience being a male, a female, a father and a mother, in order to be complete. Perhaps, our souls also need to experience true love in order to be complete -- deep, soul-wrenching love, I mean, the kind that Eunice and I experience. If so, I pity all the people who fail to find true love or do not pursue it. I know that Eunice and I have found such love. Perhaps this is our time to complete our souls through love. We have sacrificed a great deal to be together, have suffered in many ways and spent much time apart, but none of that dissuades us. Whatever happens, wherever life leads me, however long we may live, or however long we may be apart, I will always know that I have experienced true love. I take this gift from Eunice with me always. Xie Xie (thank you) You-Nice, or as she is known in Taiwan, Chairwoman Chu, the adorable, kindhearted, living doll of a person that I was fortunate enough to have love me and be my wife. Understand this as I do; we are made to love, as much and as deeply as we can.

Imagine the cultural evolution and the progress we would make if we lived in a love-based society, instead of the greed-based one we currently find ourselves in.

Archives by category

2011 Topics

WorldPeace2011

Taiwan2011

HealthCare2011

One World

Education 2011

Capital Ideas 2011

2010 Topics

Election 2010

Capital Ideas 2010

Trips 2010

Pets 2010

Personal versus Collective 2010

Personal 2010

Economics and Politics 2010

Education is Progressive

2009 Topics

Holidays 2009

Tributes 2009

Miracles 2009

The Universe 2009

Eunice 2009

People 2009

Popculture 2009

Evolution 2009

Nature 2009

Pancreas

Love is Progressive

Tahoe Trip 2009

Rational Spirituality

The Myth of War

President Obama

Chinese Culture

Diet

Economics 2009

Life is Hard Work

Good Riddance to Bush

Pets 2009

The Barnum Effect

Trips 2009

Research

Site

Updates

2008 Archives

Please note that some posts are found under more than one topic.

Other

Links

About Me

Links Exchange Sites

The Thom Hartmann Bloggers Group is the bloggers group that I formed on Facebook. Yes, it's my own group with much of the same material, but it has lots of other stuff, too, and I do link to this blog from there.

(Regarding the photo: The photograph at the top of the page was taken on Mount Cadillac in Maine, which is said to receive the first light of the day in all of the United States. The pools of water are rain pools because it had rained heavily the night before. The photo was taken by Eunice.)