Economic Protest

Ok, so here's my rant for the week. Stop calling people 'consumers', and stop blaming 'consumers' for the crappy economy. ("Consumer Spending Down".) We are just people, and it is not the typical American's fault that the economy somewhere in our past became tied to how much we spend. Stop telling us it is our own fault that our personal budgets are in such dire shape, with huge credit card debt and no savings, and then tell us it is our fault the economy is in the dumper because we aren't shopping. Really. Stop it.

Last week, I saw a piece that said that something like half of the people in the United States would be unable to pay their bills within two weeks of losing a job because they don't have enough in savings, and of those, a quarter are living paycheck to paycheck. Well, duh! Didn't we all already know this? Don't we live this everyday? Yeah, Americans have no savings. There is a straightforward reason for this. We aren't merely not taught how to save. We are taught not to save – we are 'consumers', and are taught to spend. So, we spend.
(I find it ironic that we have to pay someone - a personal finance adviser - to teach us how to not spend.)

Of course, there is also that whole thing about how the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer. Today the poor includes the majority of Americans. So more and more people don't actually make enough to save some of it – unless we stop eating, or driving (ha!) or live in a box under the freeway. The cost of housing and food are going up, and wages are going down. Sounds self explanatory why the economy is in the dumper. We don't shop if we don't have money, and we don't have money if we get paid crappy wages in an economy where basic necessities cost a fortune. (Are you thinking to yourself, well, Karin, what about that whole banking scandal, and the stock market plummeting...Don't you think that might have something to do with it? Well, I'll get to that in a later rant. Or write it yourself.)

All this whining about how lending has stopped, and the government needs to do something to get it going again baffles me. Isn't it good that we now are forced to live within our means? Shouldn't we be taking this opportunity to change our wicked ways?

This is what I have noticed. Our esteemed government has noticed our troubling situation, and has started taking steps to get the country back on its feet economically. But no one seems to have noticed the pink elephant in the room, which is called 'an economy based on consumer spending'. Congress bickers endlessly about how much stimulus should go to banks and car manufacturers, and how much has to go to infrastructure projects, because they define the problem as companies being in the tanker, not as people struggling to get by or losing their jobs. It doesn't seem to occur to those pouring money into GM that no matter how much money we give them, you can't force us to buy their crappy cars – especially if we don't make enough to afford one. Or, for that matter, if we become fiscally prudent, and decide our current car suits us just fine. And that they are a manufacturer, not a government entity – we don't actually have to save them. They can go under, just like any other company. Oh, sure, I hear the arguments that they are just too big to fail, like the banks, and that if we don't save them all those people would be out of work. Well, I am beginning to detect a whiff of Communism in that argument. Keeping people employed, just to keep them working, smacks of 'guaranteed employment', which is straight out of Chinese New-Leftism. (Not to say I am against communism, but I suppose Chinese Communism is another story. However, this is a discussion for another time.)

You might say, Karin, isn't arguing that people out of work is the problem and then complaining that we are sinking tons of money into a failing car company to keep people employed a bit hypocritical? I can see how that conclusion might occur. But I am not saying those people who work for GM or the companies that supply GM, shouldn't work. I'm saying we shouldn't shore up a failing company, just to keep them working.(And by the way, those companies that supply GM should have seen the writing on the wall years ago and diversified. Seems to me it is their own stupid management that put them into this position, just like GM.) All these people can get other jobs, just like every other person who works for a company that goes under.

Once we realize this, the problem becomes what to do about all these people without jobs, in an economy that is shedding jobs like a winter coat. This is exactly where the government should be stepping in!!! Forget GM, let it fail. Instead, shovel all that money into creating the opportunity for jobs in the parts of the economy that aren't reliant on consumer spending. This will help us all. My preference is green building, infrastructure, renewable energy and public transit. These vital and necessary areas, and I am sure there are lots of others, need an infusion of 'free' cash to get off the ground in a consumer-based, capitalist economy that will only shovel money to the places that are known entities, and that the shovelers think have a good chance of high returns. There is no track record for some of the stuff we need to focus on, like green building, and for other stuff, like fixing infrastructure and transit, there are no monetary returns on investments, so the capitalist economy doesn't want to fund it. Well, it needs doing, our vaunted capitalism won't do it, and it will create zillions of jobs, so it seems to me it is the government's duty to fund it.

Where does that leave us? The next argument might be, all these people are out of work now, how long is it going to be before all these zillions of jobs in my dream scenario are available? That is the other place the government needs to step in. They have to fill in the holes. Job training, better unemployment benefits, and useful job placement programs – these are the other half of the solution. You can't just chuck all these people on the street, without some help from the government. Call it socialism if you will (which I don't consider a bad thing, by the way) but it is the government's duty to take care of its citizens, else what is it there for? And I don't think it needs to take very long for stuff to start happening, either. The recent stimulus given to states was implemented pretty darn fast, and is expected to be spent in 90 days, or they are taking it back. So the federal government can work quickly when it wants to. It just needs some encouragement.

Stop buying GM cars. There's a start. And start socking money away in a savings account. There's another step. Demand government investment in new bridges, high speed rail, fully funded decent public transit for everyone, and renewable energy. Hmm, what else? Protests, anyone?

Jenny is... writing

Thanks to Stephanie Meyer, there have been more than a few discussions in our house recently about the relative merits of brain candy books. You know- the ones that aren’t necessarily profound or complex or even particularly well written, but are just a fun ride. My position has always been that just because a book is lacking in any real substance doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be read. In fact, ‘brain candy’ is probably not even the best metaphor, since it does inspire a certain negative connotation.

“Stop reading that garbage or you’ll rot your brain out!”

While I certainly don’t want to read anything I don’t enjoy, this is a determination I make based simply on personal taste, not out of some concern that reading said book would eat holes in my occipital cortex. No matter what you read- comic books or cosmological theories- you are still reading. Synapses are firing, cognition is engaged, information is gathered and opinions are formed. Whether you come away with the erudition that Charles Xavier represents the anthropomorphic embodiment of social justice and racial tolerance, or just end up thinking string theory is a crock of shit, you have been thinking.

With my recent foray into the world of social networking, I have been struck by a similar phenomenon in written correspondence. Criticisms of this type of interpersonal discourse abound, of course. Some people lament the final nail in the coffin of letter writing. Some disparage its intrusiveness. Some people are just annoyed by its banality. A web page whose sole purpose is to encourage every person you have ever known read about every mundane detail of your life? I understand why some might be concerned. Its narcissistic, presumptive, pointless, time consuming. We seem to have degraded from eloquently composed letters to abbreviated phone calls to a paragraph in an email to this, a single line on a web page:

Ellie is tired.

George is making soup.

Fred stubbed his toe.

But although I do acknowledge the danger of insipidness, ultimately I take the position that, like reading, talking to each other can never be a bad thing. Facebook is communication candy, true. But in the end, it’s really just another way of staying in touch with people. And let’s face it, most of us are pretty bad at staying in touch. As much as people profess nostalgia for the good ole’ days of letter writing, how many letters did any of us ever actually write? And while we’re being honest with ourselves, how often do we call people back in a timely manner, or respond to emails? Having another option for contact with friends and family really just increases the chances that we actually might. True, finding out that George is making soup is not exactly earthshaking news. But maybe I’ll ask him what kind of soup, and end up with a new recipe. Or who he is making it for, and find out he is having dinner with some mutual friends. Or why he is making it, and find out his kid has a cold. And I didn’t even know he had a kid! Ok, I admit the examples are a bit of a stretch, but you get the idea. Social networking sites certainly won’t replace a phone call or a chat over coffee when I want to really catch up with someone, but that is not their intention. With one click I can get a brief glimpse into everyone’s life- something I could never do even if I made phone calls all day long.

I am a newbie to this world, though, so I will admit that this all might just seem fun and not the least bit annoying because I haven’t been reading the same updates over and over for months.

Ellie is making soup and George is tired.

George is making soup for Ellie because she is tired.

Fred stubbed his other toe.

When I hit that status update tab, I confess I already scan down the list pretty quickly sometimes. And honestly, if this was all one used social networking sites for, they would certainly become as fervently ignored as our inboxes and voicemails often are. But it turns out that not everyone sticks to the routine conveyance of current activity when answering the ever present query “what are you doing right now?” There are a few friends on my list for whom the question is a catalyst for creativity. Their responses are often laconic little nuggets of insight or information; essentially, social aphorisms. Although I admittedly fall into the ‘Fritz stubbed his toe’ category, I greatly admire those who can communicate the essence of their mood or their day into one clever line. Being a great fan of the aphorism, this unexpected creative outlet is what really keeps me refreshing the page, as they say. (Ok, no one really says that. But they will…) It would seem that just as some people can discover the profound in even the most superficial books, some people can create the profound on even the most superficial websites. And that, truly, can never be a bad thing.

Because after all…

Words are the most powerful drugs used by mankind.

-Rudyard Kipling