Kessler and Liberty
Listened to an interesting interview today on NPR, (so, of course, I'd already heard him on a few other sources; NPR don't air nothing until they are sure it is a safe topic within the corporate media.) Formor FDA director David Kessler has a new book out on how the food industry has evolved in the modern era alongside the tobacco industry and modern advertising to create a product that; has almost zero nutritional value, in fact, is almost pre-digested, and that can over-load our neural pathways with pleasurable stimuli. I'm a devotee of the Michael Pollen, and the notion that if your grandparents didn't eat it, you shouldn't eat it. Mr. Kessler's book delves a little deeper into how highly processed modern foods generate an addiction response, into the neuroscience of it.
At first it reminded me of the classic B.F. Skinner quote: The important question is not wheather machines think, but wheather men do.
That fired off some thoughts about Liberty.
See, at its very roots, Liberty is the opposite of Slavery. I know most modern humans don't waste a lot of time contemplating what it would be like to be a slave, but you should. Born in almost any other era in history, almost any other location on this planet, chances are I would have been born a slave. Sure you can make the arguements of exception, whatever. At any point in Human development, between Hunter/Gatherer and the Industrial Revolution, the engine of economic growth was Slavery.
A slave not only has zero rights, and is subject to awful violence at any moment, but their purpose - in the eyes of their 'masters' - is to provide work. There is no retirement for a slave, a 'good' master works them to death. The productive output of their life belongs to someone else.
When this Great Country was founded, Liberty meant a great deal more than it does today. The direct statement, that we would not be subjects to a 'king' of England who claimed his god gave him power over us, was subtley accented by the hundreds of thousands of slaves slowly dying on plantations. To give any authority to some imbred 'king', was to have something in common with a slave. Liberty is the shining sword that severs that bond.
The Founding Fathers who started that war with England believed that every White Man who owned Property had certain Inalienable Rights that they defined as Liberty. Against all odds, with the sacrifice of thousands of men (and women) of several colors, who may or may not have owned property, they won that War of Independance. They secured the first Victory of Liberalism.
But Liberalism could not stop there.
France beheaded their imbred 'monarchs', and I still say, more power to 'em. Most of the rest of Europe created some sort of 'power sharing' arrangement. In the United States, White Men without Property, African Americans, and then even Women, fought for inclusion under Liberty's umbrella. Let's pause my history of Liberalism at the 19th Amendment.
Consider Kessler's arguement regarding the modern food industry and how it affects Liberty. If a particular food industry producer can use the iconography of youth (Nickelodean and Chuck-e-Cheese) to habituate a youngster to a cocktail of fat, salt, and sugar that triggers an enourmous dopamine release (we're talking near orgasm dopamine levels. . . your Hunter/Gatherer ancestors never saw fat/sugar/salt concentrations anywhere near this, ever) that developes a circut of stimulus reponse that may never go away. Not if the food industry plays their cards right. When a sign for a KFC can rival the level of arousal of a joggin co-ed; Housten, we have a problem.
I'm a bad former smoker, in that I don't hold myself up as some sort of morally superior example. 'Oh, it was so hard to quite, but I girded my loins and did it, thankyou jeesyus.' I wasn't that hard. I actually think it is a good growing experience for someone to learn about the stimulus response nature of the human brain.
As a bad former smoker, I say here is you preeminent example of loss of Liberty. I see bars where they sell t-shirts about how some smoking ban is an attack on your Rights. Pull your head out.
Tobacco is just another means of enslavement. The exact opposite of Liberty. If you can be addicted to a substance, one that you will exchange your money for based on you need for it, not its market value; you will exchange the a portion of fruits of your labors (money) to someone who has no legitimate right to it (your massah.)
If you don't grow your own food or purchase it at a Farmer's Market , you need to realize that for the last few decades food production has been the front-line in the war for profit. Are you exchanging money for a substance based on what it is worth, as a rational, economic actor, or are you responding to stimuli?
Give me Liberty; why didn't my broccoli come up this year?
Gotz to go. Let's call that a blog.
Labels: Economics, Liberalism
Credit Card Legislation
I consider myself a Liberal. I'm aggressively fond of our Liberties (freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, right to bear arms, right to a fair trial . . .) and I generally think that the better educated our society is, the better it will all work out. While I don't really understand why so many people associate Liberalism with an economic theory; since government must take up a share of the economy to provide stability, I believe that participation should be intended to maximize the number of winners and minimize the losers in our society. Anything else wouldn't be democracy.
All that being said, I still ain't cool with all the media fanfare over the Credit Card Bill on its way to Mr. Obama's desk.
Let's start by sketching an outline. Most banks are corporate entities - at least the big ones that are in the credit card game - and that means they are run by a board of directors who are legally bound to do everything in their power to make more money next quarter than they did this last quarter. Basically, this means that their leadership has the best educations our Ivy League schools can provide, and those minds are completely devoted to same growth/exploitation strategy of a cancer cell. If Bank of America made 18% profit last quarter, every effort will be made to earn 18.25% next quarter. If not, the market will punish them.
If a bank was pulling in x amount of their total profits from credit cards last quarter, and legislation cuts a hole in that, they will naturally raise other fees and rates to compensate for that loss. In our finacialized economy, a lot of businesses you didn't think were banks relied upon the credit card model to remain profitable. A large part of the reason General Motors is heading into bankruptcy right now, is because they made almost nothing off the sale of a GM car. The profit came off of the financing GMAC collected off of high intrest auto loans. Every department store wants you to get their brand's credit card. . .
It's a lot like the tobacco industries growth model. The more poor bastards you can get underwater on a credit card, barely making the minumum payment each month (which allows for penalty fees) , therin lies expanding profits.
My analogy would be a state that chooses to fill a deficiet in the budget by creating or expanding a lottory. Rather than raise taxes on all of us, or more likely, raise taxes only on a class of people who are not well represented in the dominate political party, they shift that expense to the gambling addict class. Lottories are often called 'the stupid tax' for this reason, as it is more or less mathamatically impossible that you are going to ever win, yet this lottory institution provides millions of dollars for the state's coffers. A whole lot of people willingly transfer their income to the state in return for the fantasy of 'winning it big.' Our taxes don't go up.
So we all have relationships with banks ( o.k., some of you might be so smart you're with a credit union, I'm still working on that myself ). That means that the local set of banking institutions could be seen as a local government. For the last three decades - the credit card industry was born in 1977 - these banking institutions have supported the growing profits that their corporate model demands by sticking the knife further and further into the internal organs of credit card debtors. Take a cut out of credit cards via legislation, the banks are not going to say, 'oh well, I guess we go from 18% profitability to 12. Oh, no. They are legally bound to try to hit that short term goal of 18.25%. You used to have free checking, expect them to introduce a fee. You used to pay three dollars for a box of new checks, now they are going to cost ten. You want an auto-loan . . .
One last thing about credit cards. They are completely, effing optional. This ain't like a mining corporation that is burying a local town in asbestos particulates, or a diet pill that tells you it will make you lose thirty pounds a month and instead causes kidney failure. In the most obvious of Faustian deals, all the credit card company wants is for you to sign on the dotted line. Thousands of dollars of unsecured credit for nothing but a signature. Since a pawn shop won't give you money at 15% until you hand over grandma's jewlery, you got to reckon the credit card company is expecting returns a lot higher than that. When you sign up for a credit card you are agreeing to changes in the intrest rate and the arbitrary fees without any right to even be notified. Umm, hello?!?
The credit card industry should die because American's are too smart to play the fool's game. If you can't afford something without unrestrainded credit, you can't afford it. If you need a credit card to get out from under some catasptrophe, you need to recalculate your monthly budget so that you collect a savings of twice your catastrophe as quickly . . .
I'm tired of writing. In conclusion: the fool and his/her money is soon parting. Am I suppose to feel guilty cuz a percentage of my socio-economic lifestyle is supported by fools and victims?
Labels: Economics
My New Hobby
A few months ago we went to the St. Paul Home Show and got to listen to a fascinating fellow talk about his lifelong relationship with succulents. I was sold on his displays. He had some plants that I'd never seen before, like something from a sci-fi movie. Guess I've always been a fan of the zig over the zag. Who wants to grow a plant like everyone has already seen before. Succulents are some groovy examples of plant life.
My first stolen Cactus. A bunch of succulents reproduce just swell from cuttings, so when visiting Lowes a few weeks back I 'rescued ' this little guy who had broken off his home plant with a little sleight of hand. It will be totally cool if he takes root and grows.
This is my Crassula ovata, commonly known as a Jade Plant. Here she is after my first pruning regime in an effort to train her using Bonsai techniques. I understand that with time, a pruned trunk will develop a brown color and she'll take on a fairly neat look. Behind her is a snip off my Sedum rupestre. We're just experiementing to see what takes off, who lives, and what I like.
As long as the cats don't decide that the garden as a convenient, second floor litter box, I'll be happy.
Labels: Succulent Garden
