Neil Howe: The Fourth Turning Has Arrived

News & Current Events Public News & Current Events
,
21

Chris,
Excellent interview.  Mr. Howe has clearly identified an interesting pattern based on a lot of work that bears consideration.  I also respect the fact that he really has done some homework on the economy and understands a lot of the issues, economically, that are creating the current tremors and quakes in the global markets.

However, Mr. Howe said several things that seemed kind of tossed off, or he assumed to be fact, when they actually are concerning and worthy of a deeper analysis.

1)  Millenials are living at home more.  Isn't that great?  They really must like their parents.  At least that's what they're saying in surveys.

No, it's not great.  A) they can't afford to move out because they either have no job or a crappy job at Starbucks, and can't afford rent or afford a house downpayment and monthly payments, B)  thanks to the wonders of Obamacare, able-bodied adults up to age 26 now get free healthcare simply by living at home with their parents (who might actually, maybe surprisingly to Mr. Howe, want to have a life post child-rearing), C) If I were getting room, board, healthcare, parking, and who knows what else I'm getting from my parents, I would hopefully be favorably disposed to my sugar-daddy.

So no, Mr. Howe, I think this is a bad development, not a good development that so many kids are living at home into their adulthood rather than move out and have a truly independent life.  One doesn't grow until one has to face, and overcome, obstacles.  That's true across generations whether you're a Prophet, Nomad, whatever.  That said, I think there are important benefits of being close emotionally and perhaps geographically to your extended family. 

2)  We're going to have to learn how to cozy up to important government officials in the future to get more of what we want.  If this is true, we are going down a worse rathole than we already are in.  It sounds more like Mr. Howe thinks we're moving to be more like corrupt, and failing, China than what we were in the best days of the U.S.  The size and scope of government is crux of the current problem.  The solution is not to have more government influence and more need to rely on government officials.  The solution is to shrink the government back to a Constitutional size and scope, meaning minimal need for "cozy up to the government".  

I think in contrast to what Mr. Howe appears to think, I that the failure of the collusive (or fascist as some define it) system between the government and markets, operating to the detriment of average citizens and Main Street, is upon us and will lead to pain and suffering of an unknown but probably large magnitude.  And this is likely to lead to a collapse of these wonderful government and financial systems, in a process that may leave a skeleton of the government behind, but a weak and crippled government at best.  And one that will not be able, even it wants to, to provide the glorious benefits that Mr. Howe thinks we need to able to cozy up to.

3)  Mr. Howe, again through some utopian and unrealistic lens he seems to be peering through,  appears to diminish the power and prosperity that follows when individualism is allowed to flourish and instead focuses on how especially the Millenials are going to come together and rebuild a great collectivist society with giant "Sims" databases that will take care of all of our needs.  

After the reset, I truly hope that Millenials learn the failures of collectivism and centralized planning and power, and rediscover the principles laid out by the Founding Fathers, and understand both the impossibility (and arrogance) of the idea that a few people or a computer program can predict and provide all the wants and needs of 300 million people simultaneously, and the dangers of abuse that concentrating power in a small number of people intrinsically creates.  Small, powerful, effective government providing things like infrastructure and standards, and information gathering and publishing- Yes!  Massive taxing to redistribute money based on some semi-arbitrary possibly corrupt formula, telling citizens how to think and live, promoting one special interest group over another special interest group- No!

That being said, I agree with idea of having more well-connected communities, which is one of the best natures of people.  But Mr. Howe, and perhaps Chris are missing a key ingredient of successful communities.  The community contract is that individuals in the community start from a position that they will work hard as individuals to take care of their own needs, and these needs and the needs of their family are their primary responsibility.  Accessing the community is only a secondary support for this fundamental responsibility, and any knowledge-sharing, surplus sharing, temporary safety-net activities go with the expectation that the individual will do all in their power to take of themselves. 

Strong communities start with strong individuals, not the other way around.  Mr. Howe may disagree with or may not realize, but one of the most pressing problems in America right now is the "gaming of the system" by everyone from disability recipients to billionaires.  The suckers are the ones that play by the rules and are honest, and are becoming the minority. 

The law of balances in nature says this cannot continue forever, or as Margaret Thatcher once said, "the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of someone else's money".  Mr. Howe surely sees the need for a society built on a foundation of individuals who make their own money from their own work and creative ideas.

Finally, I worry about two little flies in the ointment of these cycle theories.  1)  We seem to be having an amplification effect of how bad successive crises are during the Fourth Turning, in no small part to technology gains.  The last 4th turning crisis was WWII if I understand things, which was unlike any event in human history in terms of its destruction and death.  It does not give me comfort that our technology, and I don't just mean weaponry but also cyber and biological warfare, is much more powerful than during WWII, so a true WWII-like event will not be just a little speedbump that we skip over and resume the First Turning merrily along, Sims database building and all.  Second, I'm not sure how Mr. Howe views event like the Dark Ages which were centuries long over much more than one "seculum" (sp?).  I realize that was over a thousand years ago, but in the sweep of history, it was very recent.  Just some honest questions that are from one person's views.

22

I forgot to add that, if I understand his views, that Howe is not correct regarding lack of future inflation/ hyperinflation.
Howe is sort of right, the world is "trying to get to" deflation.  The Austrians would say world markets are trying to heal itself from overinvestment and mispricing of assets.  Markets are trying to deflate.  

The problem is that central banks won't let markets deflate.  That is the central reason for their existence.  To smooth out the business cycle.  No inflation, no deflation.  But, oops, they did allow too much inflation over a great many years and a great number of assets.  Thus markets are trying to naturally return to balance but cannot because of extraordinary manipulation by CBs.  So, yes we will get temporary deflation here and there as little attempts at resets, but these have been and will continue to be squashed by the Fed's printing press.

You think QEinfinity was unprecedented, it's likely you ain't seen nothing yet.  Look for QE for student loans, QE for home owners, QE for small business, QE for big business (more than just historically low corporate debt rates), QE for pedicures, the list is endless.  That' s when the real inflation starts.  And we know where it ends.  If you consider a currency reset deflation, then yes, it ends in deflation.  I just didn't get that from Mr. Howes views.

23

Thanks for putting that out there.  Always enjoy specifics here at PP as opposed to theory.

24

Wisewoman:

Pass a constitutional amendment getting corporate money out of politics and specifying that corporations are not people with the same constitutional rights as people.
Agreed.

Your post has many points that need to be expanded on in bite sized chunks.

All: That graph is not my favourite. Sometimes I wish I was an airhead that had never clapped eyes on it. It has caused me many sleepless nights. But as the story teller always ends, "You can't say you don't know, you know now." It was that apple or the red pill.

Dave: your explanation reminds me of reason why magnetic fields do not distort light even though light is made up of a magnetic component and an electric one.

Vegan: I am indeed a babydoomer. Even though my path has not been the same as everyone elses I can see the similarities between me and the rest of us. And yes, my comment was meant to be self-effacing. I was trying to invoke an ah-ha!

25

Mauldin coined that…he's taken recently to calling 2013 "the year of the windshield", incidentally.Cheers,
Mike
 

26

Dave - I'm guessing there aren't too many people here who even know the Hari Seldon reference - which I enjoyed, thank you!  He is a character in the "Foundation" trilogy by Isaac Asimov, the brilliant sci-fi writer (he wrote I, Robot). Hari is a "psychohistorian", if memory serves, who is able to predict long term trends with amazing accuracy. A simplistic summary I know, but my memory has faded. It had quite an impact on me when I was a teenager. You might find it interesting, Arthur.
Nature, of which we are a part, is characterized by cycles. "There is nothing new under the sun" someone said, including the extinction of species on the planet. In discussing the Fourth Turning and larger cycles of time, we are assuming the continuation of our species. Given the precarious position we have put ourselves in, we can no longer assume that. It's an interesting intellectual exercise to talk about generational profiles, but now we are looking down the end of a barrel we created. These times are unlike any other times because we are now a global community connected by air travel and internet in a way we have never been before. We have reached this mass of humanity from cheap energy that allowed our unchecked (despite pandemics and war) proliferation. For the first time, we can kill ourselves and everything else on the planet. "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

So we may be looking at the end of cycles for the human race. Or, if being really optimistic (wishfull thinking?), the beginning of a "new human". The problem is that there is so much inertia in the whole thing that I just can't see it happening under the current paradigm. We have run our course. We have run up against natural laws that specify the limits we thought didn't apply to us.

Something like 98% of the species who have ever lived on the planet have gone extinct. Maybe we're just another one of them, only we have the capacity to analyze our shortcomings and see where they have led us. We are self-aware but not enough, so far, to change our trajectory. My question is, is there still time to change even if we could? What would it take? How much would need to be sacrificed so some could survive? We have created this complex, intertwined, fragile system that is ready to fall apart at any moment. We are teetering at the edge of a precipice - or maybe even an even more accurate analogy might be, commenting on the scenery on our way down.

I'm sorry that the current generations - the whole lot of us - are stuck facing the culmination of our species' actions over the timeline of our existence. We're facing challenges none have ever faced to this degree before. All of us, every generation currently on the planet, will witness the dissolution of all that we have known. Chaos and collapse are already the reality for many of us - severe weather, power outages and economic and social turmoil. It's only a matter of time before the rest of us experience it.

I know this sounds negative, I know this sounds defeatist. But it is where we are headed barring a major change in how we live on the planet. Or, maybe a miracle. Does it really matter anymore what any generation did or will do? Only if we do the opposite of what we've done up to now do we have a chance. Only if love prevails and self-interest is replaced with a focus on the greater good do we have a chance. Only if we acknowlege our place within the web of life and learn to live in balance with all that is, do we have a future. If it's not too late that is.

It's hard to face the truth of what we've done and how we've behaved. But with the loss of each species, with the loss of habitat, with the loss of arable land and clean water, with the loss of jobs and homes and hope, we are confronted with the consequences of our actions and inactions.

All that is left is to live in the moment and to treasure what we still have right now. To find joy and to love fiercely. To be present to everything as it is happening no matter how difficult. I'm grateful I can share these experiences with those here at PP so I don't feel so alone, even if we don't always agree on everything. At least we are aware and talking and sharing which are all valuable. Thanks for listening.

27

Ptwisewoman,How many of the things on your list require force to achieve?  All of them?  Do you not think that many of the rules that we currently have were put in place by people just like you who thought they were doing the right thing and used the force of government to make sure people comply.
I think if we are going to reach a state that we don't go through these cycles we will need to address the fact that we need to change the conversation about how we organize.  Why is it that we can discuss voluntary community, voluntary cooperation with neighbors, but then insist of having a government to force our will onto others?  To force those we don't agree with to comply to our will.
How about we don't have a government that determines what I can eat or put into my body? How about one that doesn't decide for me what I must support with my labor?  How about one that doesn't try to dictate morality to me?  One that doesn't dictate what I must use as money? Anytime you force your will onto others there will be resentment and eventually conflict.
Just keep in mind, all those lofty goals you have listed mean you are willing to steal, hurt or kill to force people to comply.  When you force compliance is that community?  Is it a world you want to live in?  How about if you are on the wrong side of that force?

So what if I don't believe in your utopia you have described?  What are you going to do if I don't agree with you?  Are you going to force me to comply?  Isn't that what war is?

28

@rhare, did you actually read my post?  I was asked for 5 specific things I thought we needed to do now to move away from this economic mess.  My 5 in summary were: 1) Decrease the size of government and the influence and destructive power of multi-national corporations and I listed a number of specifics to begin to accomplish that. 2) Eliminate gerymandering and fix voting so that everyone's vote really counts. 3) Eliminate the Fed. 4) Eliminate WTO and the World Bank. 5) Start having serious discussions about better living through less stuff not rifts into conspiracy theories and demagoguery.  There was no effort to create a utopia and I could care less if you don't agree with any or some of them.
The above barely scratches the surface in dismantling so we can re-build something better.  There is no force or war in the above unless you imagine that the banksters and the elderly are going to take up arms when they loose some of their bennies from the government and that we have become so rigid that we can not democracticly change our government?  But I don't see how we even remotely get to what you think would be your utopia if we don't do some of what I suggest as a start.  Nothing in there rounded up or forced anyone to do anything other than adapt to less, which we are all going to have to do either voluntarily or nature will force us to.  Now if you imagine that your utopia of everyone just doing their thing with no government and no one telling anybody what to do is achievable in the near future, I would certainly like to hear how you think we could get there without any of the above and without a civil war that would make the last one look like a skirmish as change occurred too fast and the government refused to go quietly into that good night.  Specifics please.  It is relatively easy to take pot shots at folks who do make specific suggestions and paint them with motives that are only imaginary.  A favorite tactic of demagoguery.

I know it was long but if you are interested in a meaningful discussion, please re-read and let's actually discuss specifics.

29

While watching this video I couldn't help but notice the similarities that being king is like raising children.
Rose

30

@ Arthur, having read many of your posts, I thought there might be something there that I was getting.  It apparently is much harder to communicate in writing without benefit of facial views than any of us can imagine.  These really large cycles are overwhelming and hard to ignore, unless someone already is inclined to the fetal position with head nicely tucked.  And I agree they are the driving issues we are facing, not Mr. Howe's generational cycles.  Much has been made of Howe's cycles, I guess because he forecasted a crisis 20 years ago and has proven correct.  And while I find his research to be helpful in looking at history and the present and understanding how we collectively respond, it isn't the grand answer folks seem to be looking for.  As others have pointed out, now he seems to be interpreting things in ways that aren't necessarily grounded in reality.  Maybe because his role as a consultant means he generally can't feed the really bad stuff to his clients.  Been there, done that.I would really like to hear your expansion on my suggestions.  We have got to get past the current lightweight dialogue that serves no useful purpose and get clear on where we need to go, as a nation and a world.  If not, the vacuum will be filled, likely with more of the same x2 and that scares me even more than where we are right now.  I'm a practical person.  And have worked as a change agent for many years.  While it is nice to have a vague, lovely picture of the end point, we live now and must start making changes now that move us toward a culture more in balance with the earth we are on.

31

That would be that I "wasn't" getting.  Apparently it is hard to type correctly as well.

32

jdye51, I love Hari Seldon and the Foundation Trilogy. As a very young teen Isaac Asimov formed my first attempts to think about history and life and philosophy.  The Dominican Fathers took on the formal job a little later and dragged me kicking and complaining through formal philosophy, logic, language and history.  I did not appreciate it at the time but both Asimov and the Dominicans taught me how to think and to annalyse the world around me.  Together they gave me a gift that far too few people are given in school today.
I have read Howe's book.  I raises some interesting points that I think can help us understand society and history.  Part of what he speaks about is rooted in biology.  Eighty years is roughly a human life span.  New generations appear as people reach their twenties and begin to have children.

In my own life I am presently accompanied on the journey by my elderly parents, my children and my grandchildren (who are just reaching the age of voicing their own views and opinions).  Each of these generations had a very different life experience.  From my parents great depression. WWII upbringing, to my wife and I in the cold war, Vietnam, racial and sexual equality struggles, to my own childrens' well off suburban, 911, rally round the country experience, to my grandchildren growing up in increasingly troubled economic times.  Each of the generations in my own house have very different views of the world based partley on what was occuring around them when they were growing up. 

I believe Howe shows us how this influences not just indvidual families and groups but the society as a whole.  Does this answer the questions, or resolve the issues confronting us?  No.  But I believe it does give and insight as to why it is so hard to form a consensus as to what needs to happen and how to get there.  In addition to all the political, social and religious differences in society there are also these underlying, almost biological, separate generational ways of understanding the world.

 

 

33

Wisewoman: Your apology was neither earned nor deserved. You have nothing to apologise for. The fault is mine and this poor medium of communication.
JT Walsh: I am glad that I don't have to lug all the Asimov books that I have read around with me. He had a phenomenal mind. I wonder what he would have made of our present circumstances?

At the Cold Fusion conference in Daejeong Korea I caused quite a stir as no-one could believe that I was who I said I was. Therefore they ambushed me with the microphone, an instrument that I wield awkwardly.

I spluttered something along the lines that Isaac Asimov used to digest the findings at the frontiers of science and present the nub of the discoveries in such a way that the general layman could understand. I said that I was hoping not to fill his shoes, but to stand in them.

Wisewoman: I see the situation thus. As humans escaping from Africa we have had the advantage of moving on into virgin territory. Since the time of the Vikings there has been no more virgin land and so the game changed. Now we treat lands ocuppied by others as virgin if our technologies are superior. This is how we are made. It is our modus operandi.

Unless we find more Virgin land we will continue this process of conquest by superior technologies. Even if we revert back to bows and arrows and horseback skirmishes, the same rule will apply.

The idea of an agrarian solution is a myth. Why stop there? Why not become stone age hunter-gathers?

I do not have the stomach to exterminate another people, nor do I wish others to exterminate my beautiful grandchildren.

So if the path is not back, surely it must be forward. We have to find fresh truely Virgin land. So in a typically dictatorial and dogmatic Boomer fashion I will place these ideas in front of you again.

Read my Sci-fi story. It is all laid out for you right there.

The way back is gated by horror. We have only one way, and that is forward.

34

[quote=ptwisewoman]@rhare, did you actually read my post?
[/quote]
Yes I did read your post very carefully before I responded.  I found it filled with lots of good things, but like many people who are well intentioned, but simply pushing along tyranny by a different group.

Excerpts from your original post:

So what we have here, is we don't need big government to do the things we do now, but we still want government to take from others to provide the things I want. What if I don't want to give up my labor to help people in poverty or assistance in job training or family planning?  What if I don't agree with your methods or those of the government?
The point is, we have large corporate controlled government (fascism) because we give power to governments to force the will of one group onto another.  Socialism is the same thing, just with a different group being oppressed.
How about we take that power away from a government and let individuals control their own destiny.  You want assistance for those in poverty, then convince me to voluntarily "give" the results of my labor - not via force.

Once again, just saying government should force compliance but with a different set of rules.  How about no stealing from people?  How about no taxes, but voluntary contributions?  You want me to support some program then convince me it's in my best interest.  Do you not see your still saying "you need to live my way", it's just better because it's how I think it should be done.    Do you not voluntarily support things with your money and time that you believe are necessary?  Why do you not think others would do so without violence?

Why 3?  If you happen to be one of those affected why does the corporation get 2 free passes?  How about you just have a legal system that protects property rights.  These type of laws have a tendency to go awry, just look at Oil Polution Act of 1990.

More laws, how about eliminating the reason corporations and individuals are drawn to goverment power?  It's because they can use government to gain special favors or gain advantage over competitors.   Take away the power of government "force" and you will not have to have laws like this since there would be no incentive to control government.

Yet more, let's change it to my way.  All you've done is say "my way would be better", but I'm still going to force you to comply.  Why should I be forced to contribute to any of this?  You want everyone to have basic coverage, then set up a charity and convince me to contribute.  If you think this is very important then I'm sure many others will as well.   If I was a charity and I could force you to give me money, how careful of a steward for those funds would I be?

More of the same.

But bullying people here at home is okay?   How much war mongering do you think would occur if you weren't forced to contribute?

Again, get rid of the ability for government to steal or force you to comply and you get rid of the incentive for this type of crap.

[quote=ptwisewoman]
Eliminate the Fed. …Have the government go back to being accountable for printing money… Eliminate pay day loans. …

[quote]
How about let me as a consumer choose?  Why should the government force me to use any money?  Why can I not choose who I want to bank with or if I want to use a bank at all?  Who says you or anyone knows the amount of money a bank needs to have on hand.  Why should you or anyone get to decide who I can borrow money from?
Your comment about pay day loans just shows complete ignorance of the situation many people find themselves it and economic realities.  Would you rather people just loose their cars, be forced onto the street, go hungry?  What would you have someone do that is poor and can't borrow from a bank or family?   Or do you steal from others to give loans at rates that don't cover losses, that's why pay day loans are so high in interest because the risk of being paid back is correspondingly high.

Hmm, I wonder how many of your ideas might not be too bad initially…

I think this is called living within ones means.  Kind of like we would be doing if we didn't have such huge distortions in money, energy, labor, etc created by government control.

Peace occurs when you aren't trying to force your views onto others or steal from them for your behalf (whether well intentioned or not).
All of this comes down to are we going to live in a voluntary society, or are we going to simply keep passing control around?  I'm guessing that if we look at the cycles Howe describes it might correlate to the amount of government control forced upon citizens.  Just look at the crisis and war - they correspond to the height of government control over a population.  When one group pushes just a bit to hard and war breaks out.
 

35

I asked the question - it sorta required a response using a 'wide brush'. 

36

@rhare, we live in a democracy where people who bother to vote should have input.  I assume you fall in that category, whether or not you indulge.  In this kind of system, we should discuss (actually suggest real alteratives and find compromise not demagogue and focus on some distant future) and vote and the majority wins.  Hence one of my top five things to do now includes fixing our sick voting system so we can take back more control of this disfunctional and bloated government.
I was asked for some of my suggestions for now not some distant future where neither governments nor corporations nor greedy people nor people with needs to dictate to others exist any longer, and I gave them.  I don't give a flying flip about being in charge of anything other than my little piece of property, forcing my will on others, or trying to have a conversation with someone who has such a case of blinder disease they can't get pass their limited view of utopia and no one else's views are pertinent.  If you want to try to go to an all voluntary society right now, tell me how we do that without causing so much chaos and discontinuity that we wind up with all that bloodshed you've accused me of wanting to supposedly enforce my will.  Come on, man, get off your high horse and try to actually have a discussion.

Would I like a world where voluntary good behavior was the norm, yes I would.  Do I think we can get there by suddenly dismantling all government while leaving the existing corporations in the trans-national state they inhabit, NO, I don't.  Too many people, too many bad bahaviors, too many multi-national corporations, well armed governments who can't be overthrown without bloodshed, do I need to continue?  Government actually run by the people for now is the only way to bring multi-nationals under more control.  And yes, they need to be controlled or they will, along with their puppet governments we also don't have control over now, will drive us all to extinction.  If you want a fascist dictatorship where you don't get to have any say in how you live, dismantle government immediately and leave a vacuum for multi-nationals to fill.  And suddenly disconnecting people from what they have been counting on will start a civil war.  So can we move toward change without causing chaos and bloodshed?  I sincerely hope so because we are really screwed if we can't.  You seem intent on focusing on some lovely place far in the future while I'm trying to focus on right now and moving us, right now, in a different direction.

If you don't want to be in a society where we do care for each other and create major change without suddenly causing suffering that will spill over and impact all those who imagine they can protect themselves from it, I would really suggest a more isolated place for you to inhabit.  Because that will be the only way you will get there in your lifetime.

37

To expand on the excellent points made by ptwisewoman, I see systemic removal of failure, whether from the business side of things or the human/sociological side as being key to our current predicament. Lobbying, cronyism, subsidies and bailouts have made a joke of true capitalism, enabling the greed model to thrive. Irresponsible lifestyles have contributed to the over-burdened healthcare systems, with people getting medical bail-outs to their poor decisions, only to keep on doing more of the same. The educational system does not educate in a meaningful way, graduating millions of ill-prepared, debt laden people who have little in the way of real life skills.
We must allow failure to happen. We must allow businesses and people who do not thrive to die. We must allow people who do not take responsibility for their lives to face the consequences. There, I said it. An elephant in the room. An admission that it really is survival of the fittest. How will we decide which, who, and when?

When our healthcare systems were first devised, the premise was basic healthcare for everyone. The problem is, as time went on and technology evolved, "basic" was never defined, to the point that "basic" now covers things like cochlear implants, of which I am a happy recipient. To use this as an example, each cochlear implant performed in Canada costs between $50,000 and $100,000 dollars, depending on the patient. Other than the healthcare premiums which I pay monthly, which have averaged about 60 bucks per month over my working life, I paid nothing for this. The rest was paid by the taxpayer. Thank you! This more than generous system will never see me bitching about my monthly premium. That being said, I am sure that Tommy Douglas, the founder of the Canadian healthcare system, would roll over in his grave if he saw what was being funded now. And so it goes. We keep on inventing new treatments and methodologies without having any inkling of how we are going to pay for them. (Ditto for things like infrastructure.) And with this wave of babydoomers (thanks Arthur!) entering retirement, one just knows they are going to demand more and better treatments to extend their lives as far as possible, with as much quality as possible.

Our healthcare system is the product of a civilized society that places human rights near if not at the top of the totem pole. If one were to truly subscribe to the survival of the fittest model, then this has meant saving lives that should not be saved and helping people who should not be helped. And yes, that means people like me should not be given these expensive medical procedures to help them. We have to live with the cards we are dealt. I was puttering along through life deaf prior to my implant. Sure it was a tough go, but I was doing okay. I could have kept on going the way I was. I am sure that many will say "ya, easy to say now that you have had it done and paid for". This is true. I am so fortunate and so grateful. But I also acknowledge that I am (unwittingly) part of the problem, and that others, all of you, and those who will come after us, have paid for my artificial hearing, as well as all of the other fantastic things that we can and are doing on a regular basis. Where do we draw the line? Once again, it often comes down to needs vs. wants. How many surgeries and procedures are done and paid by healthcare that are more on the want side, and therefore avoidable? But to add another side to it, studies have shown that giving a deaf person a cochlear implant can save up to a million dollars in other social spending, such as specialized education, interpreters, assisted living etc. Sounds like a good cost/benefit tradeoff. So again, where do we draw the line and how do we decide who gets what done and when?

Humans are not very good at accepting their mortality. Our healthcare system is evidence of this, with extreme measures being taken to extend life. "First do no harm" has been the model for medical care. And assisted suicide and helping/allowing people to die with dignity has been the political hot potato avoided at all costs. And of course there is the abortion debate, which I believe is a banned discussion topic on this site. I mention it only in the big picture context of those difficult conversations that society must have. We are going to have to decide who will live and who will die. That we have to make that decision at all is of our own doing - we put ourselves in this position by creating the technology to give us the choice. We have achieved the ultimate power. How will we use it? Will we do all we can to ensure everyone survives as long as possible even though we don't have the resources to support them? Or will we admit to ourselves that there are natural cycles of life and death that we are in actuality defying?

These are very difficult decisions, but from my perspective they will have to be made sooner rather than later. As with many of the tough decisions we face, we can start to do these things now, on our terms, or allow things to run the course and let it all unfold as it will. I prefer the former. And that is saying that I accept that perhaps in eras gone by, as a disabled person who would have been a burden to the tribe, I would have been thrown out with the bath water. It would have been the right thing to do.

Jan

38

Large governments, be they communist, socialist, democracies, republics or whatever, are depended on (a) cheap fuel and (b) fractional reserve banking.
Both are about to go the way of the dodo. We cannot afford large government programs now, and are not going to "grow our way" out of the massive debt we are in to afford them later. There will be a reset. The solutions that involve community and local resources will be more viable that central planning of any sort, simply because of transportation issues if nothing else.

One of the highlights of the above interview for me is the forecast  of a return to extended families and communities. And just because we will need each other to survive does not mean that will be a bad thing. Your tax dollars, which get half-siphoned off to pay bureaucrats, will never provide love and friendship, trust and community. While I am of course not suggesting such programs be immediately abolished, inflation continues to make those benefits worth less and less.

I will say this. Those who substitute impersonal taxes for volunteerism and one-on-one charity are leaning on a sharp stick that will not support them Or their communities. All of you: what have YOU,  you personally, done for local disadvantaged folks? I mean recently and I do not mean by paying taxes. Let me give you an example of local systems we will need to transistion to.

Yesterday my husband and I went over to our nextdoor neighbors–by request–to fix their computer. There are four generations living in that home, and the computer was needed. Two family members used it for school, including the grandmother and grandson, and the daughter worked on it from home. Great grandmother, in her 90s, was not stuck in some impersonal nursing home but was being watched by them all. We reached out to this family when the water company shut off their water last summer, providing water from our well, and they now consider us non-judgmental friends. We took another old, broken computer of theirs for parts as compensation, which was not just a face-saving gesture since hubby fixes legacy machines for his customers.

My experience is that government assistance is somewhat annonymous, and that those in need can be proud (God knows I was) and not let you know they need help. Keep an eye out and be a friend to those in genuine need. Let them do you a good turn next time: that's what community is all about, and that is what we will have to fall back on when the going gets tough and the annonymous monies fail.

39

Westcoastjan wrote:


We must allow failure to happen. We must allow businesses and people who do not thrive to die. We must allow people who do not take responsibility for their lives to face the consequences. There, I said it. An elephant in the room. An admission that it really is survival of the fittest. How will we decide which, who, and when?

While I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiment of bringing back failure, taking that to confirmation that "it really is survival of the fittest" is just wildly off the mark, in my opinion.  That's the Victorian outlook of scarcity and extreme individualism that has gotten us to the point where we currently sit, surrounded by predicaments on all sides.  I think that the context in which we look at failure is perhaps even more important than bringing back the possibility of failure itself. The reason we need to bring back failure is that it is how true learning happens.  We learn by making mistakes and adjusting our approach.  This is one of the prime tenets of permaculture -- gaining and learning from feedback.  It doesn't matter whether you're a toddler learning to walk, or an adult trying to start a business.  Failure, no multiple failures, are going to be a central part of the process.  They're the world providing you feedback that what you are doing isn't working the way you want, and if you want things to work better, you need to adjust your approach and try again. By framing failure in the terms of Social Darwinism, it creates the dynamic where people actually become more fearful of it.  By framing it in terms of being a necessary part of adaptation and improvement, then it loses some of that baggage.
40

We have exactly what you want, the majority wins.  This is what happens when you let the majority force the minority to comply.  We have a system in which everyone votes themselves favors at others expense.  It's so much easier to do that than live within your means.  You get to steal via proxy, just some happen to play the game better than others and get rich.
What I'm suggesting is that we get rid of the game.  No more forcing your will on others via government.  Instead if you want change, you have to change yourself, be an example, and talk to others to convince them if you have a better solution.  Government and democracy is the opposite of that. 

Pot. Kettle. Black.
The first step is to stop making new laws and start repealing many that we have.  The answer is to start dismantling the things that limit individual choice and responsibility.  So let's take your list and see what alternatives their might be:
The Fed - don't have to abolish it, all you have to do is get rid of the legal tender laws and penalty taxes that limit what you can use as money.  If the Fed can provide a system that works, no problem, but choice by the populace will ultimately solve the problem.  We don't need to transfer that power to the government so they can be just as abusive as the Fed.    What's the difference between the Fed stealing via inflation versus the government doing so?
Medicare, Medicaid, SSN - Dismantle them.   While people are dependent on them, how can you justify that the young have to give up their lives to pay the old.  The people who voted to steal from the future, dont' have a right to do so.
FDA, FDIC, DOE - gone.   
Dept. of Education - Gone immediately.  There is no reason for the Federal government to be involved it what is a stricly local/parental matter.

Note, I never said all government, and I didn't say immediately (well I kind of did above).  So you mean our well armed government that we can't overthrow without bloodshed is one we don't want to dismantle? 
Do you not even consider that those evil multinationals only exist because our government keeps them in power by limiting our choices.  Just look at all the recent legislation on behalf of Monsanto.  How about our use of force to keep oil flowing from the middle east to keep our energy prices cheap so we can have international trade instead of local production?   How about all the distortions caused by the Fed that allow the big boys to borrow cheap or free.   All these distortions via the force of government are what allow the big corporations to florish without providing a good product or service. 
 

But your not moving in a different direction.  You are advocating more of the same.  Perhaps you should ask yourself why my points have brought such repulsion on your part that you have chosen to attack rather than discuss.  Chris M. says this is what happens when you challenge a belief.
 

[quote=ptwisewoman] If you don't want to be in a society where we do care for each other and create major change without suddenly causing suffering that will spill over and impact all those who imagine they can protect themselves from it, I would really suggest a more isolated place for you to inhabit.  Because that will be the only way you will get there in your lifetime.
[/quote]
I choose to try and get people to think about what government is.  To understand that government is force against others on your behalf.  Is it necessary?  To what degree is it necessary.  Unless you actually think about that how do you not fall into the same trap as all those before you.  
Anytime you sit around saying "there should be a law" you really need to ask why?  Are you simply trying to force others to your way of thinking and using force via proxy of government?
On top of all this, we are going to probably collapse, because people aren't willing to seriously question what we must have.   In order to even remotely get back into balance we would need to cut government dramatically, maybe 80% to live within our means, particularly once we loose reserve currency status.  So yes, discussions like this where we discuss what should the role of government be in our lives is important.

Don't get me wrong, some of your suggestions might be good, but I also think many of them are just throwing a band-aid on the problems instead of looking at the root cause.

Demagogue - just another ad hominem attack word used by so many people when they don't want to discuss things that are against their view.  However I'll take the alternate meaning and accept it as a compliment:
a leader championing the cause of the common people in ancient times