While I haven't yet read The Fourth Turning, I've heard enough interviews with Howe to be familiar with his overall thesis. And this interview was a good way of slightly updating it in terms of current events – but didn't really update anything on substance. And that's OK, because the views of Strauss and Howe on generational cycles deserve a wide audience because they have merit.
However…
Where Howe lost me was when he tried to project his generational cycles into the future, namely because his views became a contradictory mess. While looking at history through a cyclical lens, his projections into the future are pure positivism – that the future will be, for the most part, "more of the same". Greater government intrusion and oversight (Sim City), greater proliferation of hand-held technology like smart phones, etc. It is here that I think that Howe's arguments fall pretty much flat on their face, because he completely ignores the relationship between available energy and complexity. In this vein, a much more useful guidebook is Joseph Tainter's "The Collapse of Complex Societies".
But all that's OK, because in the end I can use my own brain to sort out the items from Howe's argument that I find useful and to toss out what I find to be the chaff. And I do think that some of the most valuable insights he had regarded the way that people want to be a part of something again, of a real community – even if I think he's off the mark in seeing wider proliferation of communication technology (if the declining energy base even allows it) as a positive force in that regard (I think it's actually negative).
@westcoastJan, I agree with you that failure needs to become an option, at all levels of society. Your points on the health care system are meaningful because they are personal. There is much wrong with the existing system, it is a poster child for how not to create a system that helps people manage their health without creating poverty for everyone except the people at the top of the pyramind. While people do need to take responsibility for their health and for paying for it when they seek assistance, it will take some time to move people back in that direction. I meet people every day who have come to believe that they have no ability to know what is best for their body and have to take everything a doctor says as gospel. If we stop all effort of the government to pay for health care for anyone; veterans, poor, seniors we will not have a system that will suddenly become affordable. We will just have a system for the wealthy. @Wendy, while I agree with your statement that big governments are addicted to fossil fuels and fractional banking and that in time those will fail and therefore big governments will, do we just wait for that to happen? And if we wait does it then get easier to deal with the aftermath or might it be easier to try to transition the system down toward where it needs to be as quickly as we can while we still have something like a democracy to work in. As to the question of what have I (since I'm one of the folks here) done lately for people who have less than me, I will say I give from 5-10% a month to local and national charities and I provide some of my homegrown produce to a neighbor that distributes to some of our neighbors who have reached the point of not being able to garden much. And I regularly share garden production with a neighbor who I know doesn't have much. It is just sharing because neither they nor I see them as needing charity. I do think people should voluntarily do many things but again we have forgotten how to do that with dignity and caring and I believe we can move in that direction with some transition toward the government having a much smaller role and not see major starvation if we move without massive change all at once but make some decisions to move and then do it. And I agree that multi-generational households are a good thing. I live in one and consider it a blessing every day.
@Christopher, yes, failure is a vital part of learning and we have to create the space to do that in our personal lives, our communities and at the national level. Gardening is a great way to learn to adapt and embrace failure because it just doesn't always do what I want.
So, if you saw someone injured or in need would you help them? Voluntarily? If you say yes, why do you assume that we have to use force to get the same outcome? Are you the only good person and everyone else has to have a government force them to be good?
When you are forced to do something are you happy about it? How does it compare to when you do it because you want to out of compasion?
Goverment programs that aim to help the poor or disadvantage end up creating dependence by those who receive the aid and resentment by those forced to pay for it. You are much more humble when you receive freely given aid, since it's clearly charity versus when a government confiscates it from others on your behalf. People begin to feel entitled because of the disconnect, it's not someone elses money, it's the governments. Those that would be charitable also begin to disconnect, why do I need to help others, I'm already paying the government to do so.
One thing that I think many people miss when they come up with new legal means to curb the influence of corporations is that corporations themselves WOULD NOT EXIST were it not for laws. They are legal fictions, and if the laws supporting them were simply removed, then many, or even most of them would almost immediately cease to exist.
Perhaps the most earth-shaking effect of removing the legal protections for corporations would be in the area of liability. Corporate officers and board members would be directly culpable for the business decisions made on their behalf. In a society that actually concerned itself with matters of right or wrong (instead of profit and expediency), then that would likely result in many of those officers and board members being faced with banishment or the noose or guillotine.
And from a minarchist/anarchist view, such steps would return the locus of decision-making to the local community. While I am not under the naive pretense that this would be nirvana, I do believe that it would be a better fit than what we have right now – a system where those wreaking the most destruction on people and the earth are able to insulate themselves from the effects of those decisions. It would at least move us back to a system where decisions are largely made by those with real skin in the game.
I was just finishing a post and lost power for a moment or two due to a thunderstorm, so -
To summarize:
Arthur - if you are referring to another planet as virgin territory, I have to ask whether we have the right to move our contagion onto another world? Because we've done such a good job here.
I don't want to go backwards either, but we are heading in that direction. When I fantasize it is about some kind of new energy, like zero point energy, that would provide basically limitless energy with no pollution. It would change everything. We would go from being preoccupied with survival to having the breathing room to focus on everything else. We would need to restructure our societal institutions like government to reflect this. Resource wars would subside and we would be able to pause long enough to examine who we are and where we are heading. We might look more kindly on one another if we aren't competing for finite energy. We could redefine what it is to be human. We might have a chance.
But, right now, that is a fantasy. Our reality is grim and getting grimmer. I worry that we have run out of time and our options are dwindling with each day that passes. Without a major game-changer, we are proceeding along the same path that has gotten us into trouble. Nothing has changed in a significant enough way to turn this ship around. The inertia is just too great. By the time those aboard realize we're taking on water, it will be too late to save the ship. And we may find any lifeboats have holes in them too.
Failure is how we learn but will we learn in time to prevent our extinction? Have we caused too much damage to overcome now? Bees are dying and in the U.S. we are still allowing the corporations to make poisons that kill them because their short-term bottom line is more important than the bees we rely on for much of our food. How stupid is that?!
My point is that "survival of the fittest" doesn't really exist in the natural world, except in a sense of absolute individualism. And even then it's not entirely accurate, since whether or not a single organism survives is dependent as much on luck as its "fitness". Your post is projecting things on to my statement that I never said, nor even implied.What I'm talking about here is what Charles Eisenstein calls "the story of the people." Our current story is one of extreme individualism, separation, and a war against the biosphere in attempts to "control" it. It is through that lens that any discussion of "failure" makes a leap to "survival of the fittest". As a permaculture practitioner, I agree with Charles that we need a new story, because the current one isn't working. If we start moving toward a story that embraces connectedness, individuality within a group, service, and working with nature as a partner, then the notion of "failure" takes on a whole different meaning. Failure isn't something ultimate, something to be run from (or, in the current climate, fixed or prevented). It's just feedback letting us know we need to change our approach.
That's it. That's all I wanted to say. I wasn't denigrating the notion of bringing back failure – I'm actually very much in favor of it. I also wasn't saying anything about government, state coercion, or any of the other things that you projected on to my argument.
[quote=Christopher A.]You're missing my point, rhare
[/quote]
Your right I did, sorry. I was in the middle of responding to ptwisewoman and my commentary bled over.
Sorry, but for guessing into the future T4T nuts it. The 2008 crisis - they were off by like, a year or two. And more - give it a read, tell us what you think. I think you'll enjoy it, if not, tell us why.
With regard to allowing failure to happen and survival of the fittest, I am framing this in the lens of having the courage to say "enough", in order that resources may be channelled to those who are better positioned to be contributors to the ongoing survival of our society. For example, we know that most health care expenditures are made in the final 10 years of life. Is it reasonable to fund things like hip and knee replacements for the elderly? Is it not more prudent to channel those funds elsewhere, to be used for the care of people who are still contributing societal members? I feel like I should be struck by a lightening bolt for saying that, however this is what I am alluding do when I say we have to make choices. We are trying to do and afford everything for everyone, which is not reasonable. Instead of these heroic efforts to keep people going regardless of age, can we make them comfortable and simply accept that their body is breaking down as nature intended it to? Must we manage everything?
Re survival of the fittest, I do understand what has been said in response to my earlier post. I believe that at the most basic level that is truly what governs us. It is raw, and primitive, and we don't like to think in those terms. But we are animals. In the predator/prey world it is always the weak and the old that get eaten first. In the plant world the noxious, dominant weeds take over the more passive flowers or vegetables. In our lives, if we let nature take its course, the weak and the old would not survive as long as they do with us trying to control everything. I believe that is where we have erred (stike me down again!) It seems like everything we try to manage we screw up. There are reasons for pandemics and plagues, droughts and floods. But we humans with our so called superior intellect have found ways to mitigate these things. But in doing so, we have buggered up other things. For every action there is a reaction. We have done some good things, however they are clearly outweighed by the damages that we now face. I often wonder what the world population would be if nature had been allowed nature to take its couse without any human intervention. An off the wall thought for sure.
I am not saying we have to start down a path of getting rid of the elderly, or make no effort to save sick premature babies. What I am saying is that we are using finite resources, with not enough to go around for everyone or everything, in order to defy what happens in nature. Something has to give, and it only makes sense for that something to be allocated to the members of society who will be carrying the torch going forward.
It remains to be seen how people will react to losing social security and medicare benefits as they get more squeezed and lose their health. Yes, at some point the boomers will cross over to senior citizenship whether they see themselves that way or not. Sooner or later age and sickness catches up to you.
Recently a story came up re: the economy about people renting lawnmowers and other tools from eachother so they don't have to each go out and buy these things…When people get squeezed they come up with a new organization. There may go that bottom line…
The reason why many haven't retired is because they can't afford to and or they are still going strong and like what they do. I saw many of my father's friends who were well off refuse to retire because they had the stamina and they felt stimulated by their work. Not all can say that though.
As no fan of Peter Peterson, I'm afraid the privatizing or cutting off of these benefits we paid into will exact a huge price and it's something I wouldn't give up so fast. Especially in lieu of those wealthy well-placed indivduals who are receiveing all kinds of breaks from the government. In the face of human suffering how can magic words like, "They are talented and innovators" stand up?
Yes, I agree that we suffer from a financialized economy based on unlimited growth in a finite world. That will certainly butt up against reality, but I wouldn't give up my benefits so fast…not while some are living high on the hog of government while pretending they don't believe in government.
I say to the elite, practice what you preach. We won't talk until you do!
It remains to be seen how people will react to losing social security and medicare benefits as they get more squeezed and lose their health. Yes, at some point the boomers will cross over to senior citizenship whether they see themselves that way or not. Sooner or later age and sickness catches up to you.
Recently a story came up re: the economy about people renting lawnmowers and other tools from eachother so they don't have to each go out and buy these things…When people get squeezed they come up with a new organization. There may go that bottom line…
The reason why many haven't retired is because they can't afford to and or they are still going strong and like what they do. I saw many of my father's friends who were well off refuse to retire because they had the stamina and they felt stimulated by their work. Not all can say that though.
As no fan of Peter Peterson, I'm afraid the privatizing or cutting off of these benefits we paid into will exact a huge price and it's something I wouldn't give up so fast. Especially in lieu of those wealthy well-placed indivduals who are receiveing all kinds of breaks from the government. In the face of human suffering how can magic words like, "They are talented and innovators" stand up?
Yes, I agree that we suffer from a financialized economy based on unlimited growth in a finite world. That will certainly butt up against reality, but I wouldn't give up my benefits so fast…not while some are living high on the hog of government while pretending they don't believe in government.
I say to the elite, practice what you preach. We won't talk until you do!
There are a lot of people that feel the same way as you. The problem is you didn't "pay into" any benefits, you were lied to and basically just taxed more for government. Now any payout to those that "paid in" are really just theft from the current work force. It's a really really bad situation. You have the older citizens that have been robbed and don't realize it, and the younger citizens who are about to be fleeced to cover past promises. What do you do when you are part of a large ponzi scheme in which all the proceeds have already been spent by the thief?
The problem is there is no "solution" only figuring out who should bear the costs. Will we continue to steal from the current workers who are being squeezed by inflation and a poor economy to pay the costs of those who lived it up (relatively speaking) in the past?
In the end it probably doesn't matter, what can't be paid won't (at least not in any real value). So if you are relying on government entitlements, you better be figuring out how to live without them…
Just remember there is no trust funds, and many/most of the assets held by pension funds are liabiltiies of the same folks running this giant ponzi scheme. Do you trust them to make good on their promises?
Ponzi, right.That is the way the neoliberals want to describe ss. Some can't wait to get those $trillions privatized. Peter Peterson has made it his endeavor to privatize ss and of course not pay into it.
Here's what rankles me most. Those who pay taxes are to be disinherited and are paying for the sins of those who hate paying taxes. These characters and can afford armies of lobbyists and get the most from government while screaming about liberty and freedom.
Keep in mind that companies have been playing the game of leveraged buy-outs for decades now. Once we all went global things got even more out of balance and the national wealth is leaving the country. This puts many in the former middle class in the position of making less money than they would have without the fianancialization game. As people get older they get cut out of the workforce, not out of choice.
Even if you have a few hundred thousand, it's not going to cover you for decades into your golden years. As more services are privatized the more expensive they will be. Can't make interest on your money anymore and the stock market is like the "Dragon Coaster" at an amusement park. Gotta love those distorted mirrors.
Somebody asked McCain during his campaign what he considered rich and he said, at least $5 million. Ahh, Not many people have managed to save that.
I'm guessing based on your response this was sarcasm. Tell me, what do you call it when you ask people to invest, spend all the money, and require new participants to make the payouts to past participants to keep the illusion of investment alive?
There is no trust fund, there is no money. The trust fund is just IOUs by the government to itself. The money you put in is long spent. So yes, it is a ponzi scheme.
This is very rarely the case, assuming they are truly privatized and have to compete for business and not some quasi-government entity or protected monopoly like GSEs, insurance companies, banks, utilities. When you have true competition for business things get cheaper. The main problem is everything is so distorted because your measuring stick (money) is the biggest manipulation of all, nothing is properly valued. As Chris says we know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
If SS is privatized, I have no doubt it will be even a bigger screw-up because it will be some government controlled amalgam of insurance companies and banks with little competition
My two cents.For the early participants, it was definitely a ponzi scheme. Ida Fuller (first retiree in the program) paid in for about three years, paid in $25 and received (over her retirement lifetime) approximately $22,000. Now that is nice work - if you can get it; a payout vastly in excess of what was paid in. 22 workers supported each retiree. Taxes were something like 2% of income. Of course people died around 65, so then again, perhaps it was a wash. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ida_May_Fuller
These days, on average, people get out a bit less than what they paid in, according to this analysis published by the Associated Press. http://www.theledger.com/article/20101231/NEWS/101239960
Note this is NOT the case with Medicare, where the benefit grossly exceeds what people paid in - likely because of the huge annual cost escalation in medical care in the US. "Thank you, Sickcare Cartel."
Of course the demographic time bomb in our population together with the fact that we allowed our politicians to spend the social security surplus on a whole host of random things starting in 1986 means we are in a predicament now that no whining about "fairness" will get rid of.
Solutions are simple: cut benefits for everyone, cut benefits for some, raise the retirement age, and/or raise taxes on the workers.
It would help if we viewed things as they really are. Social Security, as currently constituted, is nothing more than a fig leaf over an old-people's welfare program, where money is taxed from working people, and transferred to old people. Don't misinterpret, I'm all for supporting old people, I'll be old myself someday, I think its a reasonable use of money for our society, and I know I will appreciate the support. But let's not keep pretending its actually a retirement program with a fund and savings, because it's not.
Once we're free of the thought-chains of "its a retirement savings plan", a whole lot more options become open to us. Trimming or perhaps even eliminating payments made to people that have large source of other income, raising the retirement age a bit - it could all work out if we just viewed things a bit differently, and got away from the whole concept of "I paid in, dammit, and I want what's mine."
Competition? That's the problem. The privatized monopolies don't like it. They buy it out or crush it in other ways. Since they're on the stock exchange and need to keep making profits, they are, in fact more expensive to run. In t he meantime we are told they are the "Job Creators" and talented innovators.Please check out the saleries of soldiers who work for private contractors in comparisson to the US military. Please check out the salery of Edward Snowden at Booz Allen. Who's paying for that? You and I. They live on government contracts.
I agree that true competion does lower prices, but we really aren't in that environment. Everything would be working better if there were true anything. There is no free market when everything from Libor rates etc are manipulated.
With no regulations can there be a free market? We all know that doesn't comport with human nature. Manipulation and cheating with the philosphy that greed is good will always land us in the same place.
I find the real problem is just attacking government is turning a blind eye to all the graft taking place and money being syphoned out of the economies of nation states globally. That's the world I find myself in. If government was functional, there would be just enough oversight to make sure that the people weren't paying for their mess, but alas, Clinton's administration "restructured government" to say that the banks were the govt. clients. Look what it brought us.
I agree that the trust has a big IOU in it, that's because it's been dipped into for other purposes.
As you point out humans will seek advantages in their environment - call that manipulation or cheating or just being smart. Greed is just the term applied by the less successful at it to those that are more successful. But it will always exist since it is a natural law of all humans.
Once you accept this, and it sounds like you do, the question becomes, what keeps it in check? I believe you need very simple rules that protect basic property rights (no killing, no stealing, …) ie. a basic legal system, and they you let the the free competition between us "greedy" humans keep each other in check.
The problem with the other choice, have regulation by government, is that you end up with where we are today. You have those same basic people being handed the power of control over others. You give them the right to commit violence or theft (abuse of property rights) over others. This is also known as criminal prosecution and taxes. So, why would you ever expect humans not to take advantage of this new found power?
I find it quite amazing that people who complain about the salaries and corruption of government workers but then call for more government workers in the name of regulation. What is going to make these additional workers any less likely to succumb to corruption?
I prefer the freedom to choose and guide my own life. To only have to compete against other humans and not against those that have a super powers provided by government. It's a much less fair fight.
Also, look back at history and what you will find is nearly everytime a monopoly is formed, you have government being the one that puts it in place. Normal market forces (competition) will keep monopolies from forming, because if something is profitable (beneficial to those running it), others will enter the market.
This is not true. It would be true if the money that was paid it was not spent by the government on other programs and had actually been invested in something that could be recovered. However, people who paid in got more government programs than would otherwise have existed or would have required much higher taxes. Ponzi schemes can not be treated (or reported on) like a true investment in the future.