Letter Amongst Friends
Joe, just because the rich are getting super rich, does not mean that quality of life for all does not and is not increasing. In fact it only follows that services for all does increase, as the super rich (or merely rich :) ) try to sell more amenities and make these amenities ever more affordable in order for the super rich to dominate their respective markets (eg: AOL, Wal-Mart, MicroSoft) in order to become and stay super rich.
However, Levon, just because the quality of life is increasing for the middle class does not mean the middle class is thriving! Just the mean level of comfort for everyone is increasing across the board. For example, my mobile home I bought for $86,000 last year is now worth about $109,000 on rented land. That's not because the mobile home increased or thrived (they don't as a rule - they are like cars they always depreciate) only that the average house sale or housing market in general has increased as a whole, bumping everything up.
In the same way, my own observations show me that the middle class is decreasing (ie: becoming upper or lower class) - school costs are getting higher, low level jobs like waitress, car salesman, everything now needs some form of certificate or credentials (which costs $), housing costs more (while rent costs the same or less), cars cost more, transportation and insurance, utilities, everything costs more to keep the middle class cash poor and in debt (to the super rich).
They are kept placid by a mean level of amenities, higher "low end" quality of life, and cheap entertainment. Sure they are low level comfortable, like their pets :) but less and less the middle class does not have the resources or opportunity to change their destiny much. Their choices have been removed (by not telling them about the alternate ways of life from changing education to training for a (probably) low level job - again to keep them indebted to the Right) and many areas have been blocked (I could still become a lawyer or doctor or PhD (which is by no means rich in these days), but I could not become a Bill Gates unless I was ludicrously lucky and brilliant and had some connections. The likelihood of me competing with other companies ensures I stay poor and cash strapped except for rare circumstances where I see an opportunity in business and have the *capital* to take advantage of it. That capital in Canada is virtually impossible to come by unless you are already in the rich group (and are opperating in Vancouver, Calgary, Ottawa, Toronto or Montreal). In the States, one can get financial backing more easily (Wall Street, Sillicon Valley, The Strip, etc), but not as easily as one may imagine, and you really don't make that much money unless as I said you are like Bill Gates or Eric Schmidt: very clever and very, very lucky (in the right place in the right time). And who knows what governmental and financial assistance those guys got too. And they were already in good colleges in the states - meaning they must have been from upper middle class backgrounds at least to have that opportunity.
This "american dream" is highly unlikely, and becomes less likely because the right contunies to strengthen their various monopolies. The only resbit we are afforded as their slaves is when a new Right wing oligarch team comes in and tries to undercut the legacy monopoly with new technology. Then they soon become the new monopoly we are enslaved to.
Is this not contrary to the explicit political morés of a liberal democracy? Why is the superrich or the oligarchs allowed to have such various monopolies upon us? It is exactly because of the distinction of the left and right are not taken seriously at the largest, most fundamental, level!
I don't think that the distinction between the left and the right are meaningless abstractions at all. In fact, I see that this view is part of the *cause* of the left being impotent to stop the right from becoming more powerful and keeping the middle class cashstrapped!
Meaningless Po-Mo, critical theory abstractions are shoved down our throats in university leaving us absolutely a) in a dream world when it comes to how the real world operates, also b) more concerned about the welfare of some abstracted group (the Ethiopians, the Wal-Mart slaves in Thailand, the gay baby whales for Jesus, etc.) to c) therefore care enough or know enough to stop the Right (ie: big business / government, the Rich and Super Rich, ie: the Oligarchs) who actually own and run our "democracy".
Meanwhile the right is taught to be practical, efficient. They get their MBA, Lawyer's or MD, or Engineering Degrees. They learn marketting. They know what the score is, they know what they need to do (to get $$$ as that is what they love for those them that do) and they sure as hell have not been shown any alternative ways of life to oligarchy. For those who lean towards the right (who have a guilty conscience) who have been shown any alternatives it always runs in the vein of an authoritative religious commitment - holding them back! Or if they love honour enough they may turn to soldiering. Or a combination thereof; but notice how the oligarchs therefore successfully keep the competition out of the game? Therefore, more and more, the educational alternatives to oligarchy run in the vein of right wing bible college (which is equally ineffective at stopping the Right - as oligarchs have greed, not guilt or honour - they don't care if they are going to hell, they say the man with the most money upon death wins), and not true liberal education, for a liberal soul in all senses, political and philosophical.
An educated, strong left free of meaningless abstractions and that knows the game and can reason freely is exactly what these two regimes need if they are to stay a liberal democracy. As only the left can swing the political apparatus around to freely regulate and control the everly increasing free markets and insert non self destructive morés back into the politeia, morés that regulate and uphold the liberal ideal that allows for free rational consent to even ocurr (and perhaps even amoure de soi, and even eudemonia?)
Well, now that I am finished the rant of our forbears :) I'll just say that I am surprised you two have strayed so much from the flock!
josh
However, Levon, just because the quality of life is increasing for the middle class does not mean the middle class is thriving! Just the mean level of comfort for everyone is increasing across the board. For example, my mobile home I bought for $86,000 last year is now worth about $109,000 on rented land. That's not because the mobile home increased or thrived (they don't as a rule - they are like cars they always depreciate) only that the average house sale or housing market in general has increased as a whole, bumping everything up.
In the same way, my own observations show me that the middle class is decreasing (ie: becoming upper or lower class) - school costs are getting higher, low level jobs like waitress, car salesman, everything now needs some form of certificate or credentials (which costs $), housing costs more (while rent costs the same or less), cars cost more, transportation and insurance, utilities, everything costs more to keep the middle class cash poor and in debt (to the super rich).
They are kept placid by a mean level of amenities, higher "low end" quality of life, and cheap entertainment. Sure they are low level comfortable, like their pets :) but less and less the middle class does not have the resources or opportunity to change their destiny much. Their choices have been removed (by not telling them about the alternate ways of life from changing education to training for a (probably) low level job - again to keep them indebted to the Right) and many areas have been blocked (I could still become a lawyer or doctor or PhD (which is by no means rich in these days), but I could not become a Bill Gates unless I was ludicrously lucky and brilliant and had some connections. The likelihood of me competing with other companies ensures I stay poor and cash strapped except for rare circumstances where I see an opportunity in business and have the *capital* to take advantage of it. That capital in Canada is virtually impossible to come by unless you are already in the rich group (and are opperating in Vancouver, Calgary, Ottawa, Toronto or Montreal). In the States, one can get financial backing more easily (Wall Street, Sillicon Valley, The Strip, etc), but not as easily as one may imagine, and you really don't make that much money unless as I said you are like Bill Gates or Eric Schmidt: very clever and very, very lucky (in the right place in the right time). And who knows what governmental and financial assistance those guys got too. And they were already in good colleges in the states - meaning they must have been from upper middle class backgrounds at least to have that opportunity.
This "american dream" is highly unlikely, and becomes less likely because the right contunies to strengthen their various monopolies. The only resbit we are afforded as their slaves is when a new Right wing oligarch team comes in and tries to undercut the legacy monopoly with new technology. Then they soon become the new monopoly we are enslaved to.
Is this not contrary to the explicit political morés of a liberal democracy? Why is the superrich or the oligarchs allowed to have such various monopolies upon us? It is exactly because of the distinction of the left and right are not taken seriously at the largest, most fundamental, level!
I don't think that the distinction between the left and the right are meaningless abstractions at all. In fact, I see that this view is part of the *cause* of the left being impotent to stop the right from becoming more powerful and keeping the middle class cashstrapped!
Meaningless Po-Mo, critical theory abstractions are shoved down our throats in university leaving us absolutely a) in a dream world when it comes to how the real world operates, also b) more concerned about the welfare of some abstracted group (the Ethiopians, the Wal-Mart slaves in Thailand, the gay baby whales for Jesus, etc.) to c) therefore care enough or know enough to stop the Right (ie: big business / government, the Rich and Super Rich, ie: the Oligarchs) who actually own and run our "democracy".
Meanwhile the right is taught to be practical, efficient. They get their MBA, Lawyer's or MD, or Engineering Degrees. They learn marketting. They know what the score is, they know what they need to do (to get $$$ as that is what they love for those them that do) and they sure as hell have not been shown any alternative ways of life to oligarchy. For those who lean towards the right (who have a guilty conscience) who have been shown any alternatives it always runs in the vein of an authoritative religious commitment - holding them back! Or if they love honour enough they may turn to soldiering. Or a combination thereof; but notice how the oligarchs therefore successfully keep the competition out of the game? Therefore, more and more, the educational alternatives to oligarchy run in the vein of right wing bible college (which is equally ineffective at stopping the Right - as oligarchs have greed, not guilt or honour - they don't care if they are going to hell, they say the man with the most money upon death wins), and not true liberal education, for a liberal soul in all senses, political and philosophical.
An educated, strong left free of meaningless abstractions and that knows the game and can reason freely is exactly what these two regimes need if they are to stay a liberal democracy. As only the left can swing the political apparatus around to freely regulate and control the everly increasing free markets and insert non self destructive morés back into the politeia, morés that regulate and uphold the liberal ideal that allows for free rational consent to even ocurr (and perhaps even amoure de soi, and even eudemonia?)
Well, now that I am finished the rant of our forbears :) I'll just say that I am surprised you two have strayed so much from the flock!
josh
posted by JB @ 9:38 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home