I asked myself this Q the other day: "What keeps a country together?"
For me, the answer was caring about each other and building bonds across communities. What I have seen instead in the history of this country since the 1980's is a mass-culture of trying to make as much money as possible to live your best life and give your kids their …
I asked myself this Q the other day: "What keeps a country together?"
For me, the answer was caring about each other and building bonds across communities. What I have seen instead in the history of this country since the 1980's is a mass-culture of trying to make as much money as possible to live your best life and give your kids their best lives--even if it is at the expense of other members of society. That's how we got a nation of individuals and families going it their own way instead of citizens trying to advance the nation. That's how we got a broken meritocracy that revolves around money and which schools you came from instead of true talent. That's how we got The Big Sort and geographic political polarization. That's how we got runaway wealth inequality and a broken economic ladder. That's why nobody is fixing it. Capitalism and the rat race for riches gave us an unequal society, and why fix an unequal society when you're on top? Why not just keep that exploitation going? It basically guarantees that your kids don't have to run as fast when it's their turn to enter the rat race. Imagine a game of Texas Hold Em where the players doing the best can buy aces from the dealer with their profits when they don't have a hand they like. That's the unequal economy we're living in. That's the exploitation we're living under.
If the country is full of individuals, and the individuals doing best are of a "fuck it, I've got mine" attitude at scale, then this country is destined for civil war, plain and simple. And I've seen what happens to the well-off families during civil wars. Their neighbors kill them for their money. Think there are homicide investigations during civil wars? There aren't. Not even when there's a central government in control. The bodies just get chalked up as another political killing, nothing more. The folks who have it good in this country ought to think real hard about that as we move into increasingly-unstable political territory as a country. Foreign wars work out great for the rich (their profit shares increase), but civil wars do not.
It used to be, in the olden days (the true olden days, which ended basically the same time this country started). There was no real expectation of fairness or equality or the same law for everyone. There were clear social classes and (by and large) you were expected to stay where you "belonged." There weren't really any ladders other than through getting rid of the people above you (which rarely worked domestically and usually only happened when outsiders came in and took their place).
Then we started talking about law and equality. Expectations were created. Since there was a fair amount of land and resources that could be taken from the natives, there was room to climb up. Opportunities to be had if you were ruthless enough or corrupt enough, or connected enough. But that is gone now. Taking advantage of the "new" frontier requires education, connection, funding--which means in many cases the people with actual ideas end up holding the brown end of the stick, while others make tons of money off their ideas and innovations... or they just got bought out and shelved so as to kill competition.
A lot of this stuff was largely invisible because there was no video, no internet, no social media, no 24/7 news cycle. The higher visibility of the actuality of existence and the limits of opportunity creates anger and resentment--because the words and actions don't match the narrative, don't match the grand principles.
Having Mammon as your God (regardless of what God you might supposedly confess) amplifies it. Capitalism atomized culture and society. Niche marketing is increasingly a thing, The isolation of segments of society into smaller groups based upon interests is a thing. The internet did not connect people, it segregated them--because now you can see and hear only what you WANT to see and hear.
Most of these people truly believe they are invincible and that they can keep doing what they are doing with no repercussions. It is blatantly obvious--and it IS true, until you reach that magic point when it is no longer true... and it is almost always a surprise.
The 'atomization of culture and society' (a great description) by capitalism is a real problem and a real danger to democracy...an economic system that mirrors and encourages one of the driving aspects of human nature. As with many things, when used in 'moderation' (read smart and meaningful 'regulation' here??), not particularly or at least overly harmful, I think. 'Penny capitalism' works great. Local and regional pretty well, too. When it gets to national level large fault lines and cracks start to appear and global capitalism is a bunch of tectonic plates waiting to slip and shift. Absent 'moderation', not sure what other 'ism' might be the answer to this danger.
Like nearly all our problems, it comes down to our 'nature'. We're all greedy to some degree. Not many of us are satisfied with the bare minimum. But many of us seem to have a built-in 'governor' on the throttle of our desire to acquire things. The word 'enough' actually has meaning. Those for whom the word has no meaning are the real danger. Not only to us, but ultimately to themselves as well.
Your observation about the internet and its segregating effect is spot on. Are we here in this comment section not the perfect example of that?
It seems to me every citizen in the richest country in the world should have a baseline prosperity at least somewhat above the poverty level. There will always be people who want more than the baseline, and they should be free to work l.awfully towards the goals. The vast income inequality should not be a feature of a well-governed republic.
But let the bottom even start pulling themselves up by their bootstraps (see https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-06-08/us-income-inequality-fell-during-the-covid-pandemic) and the first thing the GOP wants to do is put "entitlements" and government benefits on the chopping block, because they see it as a zero-sum situation. Every dollar that goes to the poorest among us is one less dollar for them, even if they already have more money than they or their offspring for at least three generations can possibly spend, even after paying for, say, a vanity rocket to space.
You are correct that most people talking up a hot civil war have no idea what they are talking about.
(As an aside, there are a few things we could do with Social Security, which is designed as an insurance program against indigent o;d age. One reason there is a Social Security income ceiling is the assumption that if you are making $over 147,000 per year (in 2022), which is nearly twice the median income (https://seekingalpha.com/article/4491634-median-household-income-january-2022), then presumably you do not need the insurance and do not need to be paying premiums, also known as your FICA contributions.
If you made twice the median income and start drawing Social Security today, you can expect $3400 in benefits. This is a cap. You will not receive more as your income increases. Perhaps that amount should gradually reduce as your retirement increases until at some point benefits cease entirely. Because of the ceiling, some wealthy people pay as little as 0.8% FICA. Means testing as been proposed. In this report, the reduction starts at the 75th percentile. https://www.nber.org/digest/sep16/means-testing-social-security-income-versus-wealth).
Too true. And they're likely to be done away with by their own side too. It isn't like the guys playing militia in the forest have some great love for the wealthy sons, daughters, and or grandchildren of the people who had the actually success. Way too easy to come up with a justification to simply take what they have.
In the end, most any of us can come up with a justification for just about anything, don't you think? Human nature being what it is? Kind of makes me wonder sometimes how we've managed to not only survive but 'thrive' as a species for as long as we have. Answer to that way above my 'pay grade', I guess.
Probably a survival trait to be able to rationalize away moral qualms. If you can't sleep at night after hitting Oog over the head and taking his stuff, you aren't going to be well rested enough to defend your prizes. ;)
You're welcome. IDK...just what came to mind as I read your comment here, which I think is pretty spot on.
(Have since pictured Madame knitting away and suddenly exclaiming in French "Mick Mulvaney? What the hell kind of name is that?? Spelling, please." My brain gets a little weird sometimes, I know.)
Like a lot of writers and commenters I follow on Substack and elsewhere, he has a lot of knowledge about a lot of things that I do not. But the mark of a *good* writer to me (and the mind behind the writing) is that, more often than not, when this situation arises, I can follow along - even with an occasional pronounced limp, which a few minutes with Google can often cure sufficiently to hobble to the end with at least the satisfaction of having learned something new, and the added bonus of having found it interesting to do so.
I'm writing a book, actually. You get a free signed copy. That shit won't be ready for another few years though. Hoping to flip it before I turn 40 lol.
I asked myself this Q the other day: "What keeps a country together?"
For me, the answer was caring about each other and building bonds across communities. What I have seen instead in the history of this country since the 1980's is a mass-culture of trying to make as much money as possible to live your best life and give your kids their best lives--even if it is at the expense of other members of society. That's how we got a nation of individuals and families going it their own way instead of citizens trying to advance the nation. That's how we got a broken meritocracy that revolves around money and which schools you came from instead of true talent. That's how we got The Big Sort and geographic political polarization. That's how we got runaway wealth inequality and a broken economic ladder. That's why nobody is fixing it. Capitalism and the rat race for riches gave us an unequal society, and why fix an unequal society when you're on top? Why not just keep that exploitation going? It basically guarantees that your kids don't have to run as fast when it's their turn to enter the rat race. Imagine a game of Texas Hold Em where the players doing the best can buy aces from the dealer with their profits when they don't have a hand they like. That's the unequal economy we're living in. That's the exploitation we're living under.
If the country is full of individuals, and the individuals doing best are of a "fuck it, I've got mine" attitude at scale, then this country is destined for civil war, plain and simple. And I've seen what happens to the well-off families during civil wars. Their neighbors kill them for their money. Think there are homicide investigations during civil wars? There aren't. Not even when there's a central government in control. The bodies just get chalked up as another political killing, nothing more. The folks who have it good in this country ought to think real hard about that as we move into increasingly-unstable political territory as a country. Foreign wars work out great for the rich (their profit shares increase), but civil wars do not.
I agree.
It used to be, in the olden days (the true olden days, which ended basically the same time this country started). There was no real expectation of fairness or equality or the same law for everyone. There were clear social classes and (by and large) you were expected to stay where you "belonged." There weren't really any ladders other than through getting rid of the people above you (which rarely worked domestically and usually only happened when outsiders came in and took their place).
Then we started talking about law and equality. Expectations were created. Since there was a fair amount of land and resources that could be taken from the natives, there was room to climb up. Opportunities to be had if you were ruthless enough or corrupt enough, or connected enough. But that is gone now. Taking advantage of the "new" frontier requires education, connection, funding--which means in many cases the people with actual ideas end up holding the brown end of the stick, while others make tons of money off their ideas and innovations... or they just got bought out and shelved so as to kill competition.
A lot of this stuff was largely invisible because there was no video, no internet, no social media, no 24/7 news cycle. The higher visibility of the actuality of existence and the limits of opportunity creates anger and resentment--because the words and actions don't match the narrative, don't match the grand principles.
Having Mammon as your God (regardless of what God you might supposedly confess) amplifies it. Capitalism atomized culture and society. Niche marketing is increasingly a thing, The isolation of segments of society into smaller groups based upon interests is a thing. The internet did not connect people, it segregated them--because now you can see and hear only what you WANT to see and hear.
Most of these people truly believe they are invincible and that they can keep doing what they are doing with no repercussions. It is blatantly obvious--and it IS true, until you reach that magic point when it is no longer true... and it is almost always a surprise.
The 'atomization of culture and society' (a great description) by capitalism is a real problem and a real danger to democracy...an economic system that mirrors and encourages one of the driving aspects of human nature. As with many things, when used in 'moderation' (read smart and meaningful 'regulation' here??), not particularly or at least overly harmful, I think. 'Penny capitalism' works great. Local and regional pretty well, too. When it gets to national level large fault lines and cracks start to appear and global capitalism is a bunch of tectonic plates waiting to slip and shift. Absent 'moderation', not sure what other 'ism' might be the answer to this danger.
Like nearly all our problems, it comes down to our 'nature'. We're all greedy to some degree. Not many of us are satisfied with the bare minimum. But many of us seem to have a built-in 'governor' on the throttle of our desire to acquire things. The word 'enough' actually has meaning. Those for whom the word has no meaning are the real danger. Not only to us, but ultimately to themselves as well.
Your observation about the internet and its segregating effect is spot on. Are we here in this comment section not the perfect example of that?
It seems to me every citizen in the richest country in the world should have a baseline prosperity at least somewhat above the poverty level. There will always be people who want more than the baseline, and they should be free to work l.awfully towards the goals. The vast income inequality should not be a feature of a well-governed republic.
But let the bottom even start pulling themselves up by their bootstraps (see https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-06-08/us-income-inequality-fell-during-the-covid-pandemic) and the first thing the GOP wants to do is put "entitlements" and government benefits on the chopping block, because they see it as a zero-sum situation. Every dollar that goes to the poorest among us is one less dollar for them, even if they already have more money than they or their offspring for at least three generations can possibly spend, even after paying for, say, a vanity rocket to space.
You are correct that most people talking up a hot civil war have no idea what they are talking about.
(As an aside, there are a few things we could do with Social Security, which is designed as an insurance program against indigent o;d age. One reason there is a Social Security income ceiling is the assumption that if you are making $over 147,000 per year (in 2022), which is nearly twice the median income (https://seekingalpha.com/article/4491634-median-household-income-january-2022), then presumably you do not need the insurance and do not need to be paying premiums, also known as your FICA contributions.
If you made twice the median income and start drawing Social Security today, you can expect $3400 in benefits. This is a cap. You will not receive more as your income increases. Perhaps that amount should gradually reduce as your retirement increases until at some point benefits cease entirely. Because of the ceiling, some wealthy people pay as little as 0.8% FICA. Means testing as been proposed. In this report, the reduction starts at the 75th percentile. https://www.nber.org/digest/sep16/means-testing-social-security-income-versus-wealth).
I don't think many of the wealthy and 'elite' ever consider the possibility of some modern-day Madame Defarge knitting their names between the slices.
Too true. And they're likely to be done away with by their own side too. It isn't like the guys playing militia in the forest have some great love for the wealthy sons, daughters, and or grandchildren of the people who had the actually success. Way too easy to come up with a justification to simply take what they have.
In the end, most any of us can come up with a justification for just about anything, don't you think? Human nature being what it is? Kind of makes me wonder sometimes how we've managed to not only survive but 'thrive' as a species for as long as we have. Answer to that way above my 'pay grade', I guess.
Probably a survival trait to be able to rationalize away moral qualms. If you can't sleep at night after hitting Oog over the head and taking his stuff, you aren't going to be well rested enough to defend your prizes. ;)
;-)) !!
I do appreciate a good Dickens ref. Thank you for that.
You're welcome. IDK...just what came to mind as I read your comment here, which I think is pretty spot on.
(Have since pictured Madame knitting away and suddenly exclaiming in French "Mick Mulvaney? What the hell kind of name is that?? Spelling, please." My brain gets a little weird sometimes, I know.)
You know, I read a lot of what this guy posts, and I actually had this thought myself a couple of times. He ain't half bad, is he?
Like a lot of writers and commenters I follow on Substack and elsewhere, he has a lot of knowledge about a lot of things that I do not. But the mark of a *good* writer to me (and the mind behind the writing) is that, more often than not, when this situation arises, I can follow along - even with an occasional pronounced limp, which a few minutes with Google can often cure sufficiently to hobble to the end with at least the satisfaction of having learned something new, and the added bonus of having found it interesting to do so.
I'm writing a book, actually. You get a free signed copy. That shit won't be ready for another few years though. Hoping to flip it before I turn 40 lol.