SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Club Soccer & ODP Completely Tangential - Oil

There is an increasing buzz that oil supplies are not finite. . .in opposition to the scientific claims in the 1970s. The news piece about 3-cent oil is interesting. It raises an issue about relativity and about the hand of government.

When government is by the people and for the people (an ideal we call "democracy") and that hand is guided by BOTH a sacred trust in individual freedom and in social welfare (social justice, etc), that is much different than when the hand of government is the sole reach of a dictator (regardless of what that leader is called). President Hugo Chavez can be seen as much more transparently manipulative TO US in the U. S. of A., but we are far less likely to see that same manipulation of us by our own leaders.

CORRUPTION of capitalism, democracy, socialism, and the oil industry are our enemies—not the concepts themselves, right?

And our own corruption of the "American Dream"—we want our cake and eat it to. . .and we want to win the cake on "American Idol"—not work for it. . .or even "deserve" it. . .we are in the "lottery" mindset of the American culture. I make this statement NOT as some commentary on the decline of the culture (there is not decline) but as the most current form of corruption (corruption has always existed in our systems).

I DO think it interesting that in the U. S. our views of "lifestyle" and our approaches to gas prices and all that entails (car choices, traveling, NOT carpooling, driving across campus to class instead of walking. . .) along with our slow and hesitant embracing of soccer are in distinct contrast to those same aspects of European life.

The worst mythology of America is a pursuit of rugged individual AT THE EXPENSE of others. . .and this is all too often how Americans are seen by the rest of the world, currently with the face of W. on that persona. I think this is a flaw in the system; look at any politician who succeeds—we will tolerate NO human flaws. . .thus they must all wear masks and lie. We love lies.

Recall the presidential race where one candidate admitted he WOULD raise our taxes and the other candidate pledged "No new taxes!" We voted for the latter. . .who raised our taxes.

Adding a tangent to a tangential discussion; read some excellent books by Chris Hedges: I DON'T BELIEVE IN ATHEISTS and AMERICAN FASCISTS. Also I recommend Susan Jacoby's FREETHINKERS. Both give wonderful insight into the American mind. . .

Just for my sake; a couple of definitions so that I can make sure that we're all talking apples-to-apples:

• Socialism refers to the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.
  
• Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of inalienable rights in which people are free to produce and trade and thus precondition an economic system in which all property is privately owned.
  

There's no doubt that the United States is a primarily capitalistic system with some elements of socialism. Much of what I find interesting in politics today has in its basis a core argument about what the relative degree of capitalism and socialism should and will be.

My inherent problem with socialism (and its previously best-known branch of implementation, communism) is much the same as my inherent problem with libetarianism or anarchy -- all are fine theories, and all seek to provide "moralistic" answers to the creation of a socio-economic system -- but all have been shown to have enormous problems in implementation. The apologists for these systems tend to lay the blame at the feet of those implementing them; my own belief is that after repeated failures you have to start wondering if the system itself is the issue. At their core, they require a change in the fundamental nature of human beings -- while capitalism at its core attempts to create a system which has as its foundation the fundamental nature of human beings.

I understand where "cat" is coming from; it's precisely the same type of argument that Obama used when he basically stated in the ABC debates that he would take the capital gains tax dramatically up for the sake of "fairness" even though it would cause overall tax-related to capital gains to decrease. I think it was the clearest and most concise statement to date of his philosophy -- and the philosophy of much of the "far-left" of this country (note: I really hate this "far-left" stuff -- but I notice how much "far-right" is used -- and I notice how Limbaugh and Coulter are always used as examples of those using superficial and misleading arguments while how less often Krugman and Dowd (for example) are -- so I thought I'd give it my shot.) This is where a socialistic socio-economic system tends to end up -- in grand gestures toward "fairness" that end up hurting the very people that they are intended to help.

The "mythology of individualism at the expense of others" -- what you'd call a mythology, I'd call a basic law of human nature and economic systems. The best socio-economic systems transcend the "economic" and move toward "socio" in the sense that they help individuals understand that they can achieve a win/win rather than a win/loss -- the worst socio-economic systems try to ignore the inherent selfishness of human beings and somehow coerce them into doing "what's right" for others without regard for self.

It's kind of like saying as a coach -- "if those girls would listen to me, I'd have the best team in the state." That might be true -- or not -- but that's not the issue. The issue is what type of system the coach puts in place that will motivate the players to do what the coach wants. Everyone wants everyone else to do things the way that they think they should -- and if this could be arranged, I have no doubt that capitalism would soon be abandoned (as soon as we found that one tyrant who we all agreed would have the final say on just what it is we should all want and do.) However, in the "real world" of "selfish" human beings (where "selfishness", like everything else, is a matter of degree rather than an absolute) the question isn't what system works best if we changed human nature -- it's what system works best given human nature.

Taking this back to oil -- the very best argument I ever heard regarding the tax holiday wasn't that it would save anyone money (I believe that at worse it's the opposite of a windfall-profits tax -- and I don't like those either and agree with "Big Daddy" regarding oil industry profitability over a given period of time -- and at its best its a redistribution attempt) but rather it would remove money from the place where typically the stupidest decisions appear to be made (government) and add more money to either private enterprise or private individuals.

In terms of reading lists, I strongly recommend the person that David Mamet called our "greatest contemporary philosopher" -- Thomas Sowell.

Shibumi:

Excellent and clear points. Great refocusing.

I hate being compared to Obama. . .but. . .

I never mention any "liberal" commentators because they are not "known" names. Currently, the so-called "new media" is all Right-wing commentators, the worst of which are Coulter and Limbaugh. When I mention them, I intend in no way to suggest that I endorse anyone of any ideology using distortions and such in their discourse. Just as any commentary on Bush is not an implicit endorsement of Clinton. I deplore the actions of both.

Now, it is absolutely clear from the record of history than any "theory" based in idealistic or Utopian thought is a failure in practice, as you noted. Socialism, Communism, et al, have no hope of success in action. To me, it is also a fact supported by history that the best possible human system is a foundation in free market ideology (because I believe in the "free," but am less enamored with the "market") with a minimum of socialism (and I mean a MINIMUM) as a moral barometer for the inherent dangers with a truly free market (anything from child pornography and snuff films to crack and heroine have "markets," thus would flourish, even more than they do, without some moral component such as social law to manage the abuse of such a system).

Blind ideological adherence to ANYTHING leads to corruption. Healthy and reasoned skepticism is our only hope for success—or at least a limiting of failure.

I happen to think we are ALL over-taxed; I happen to think government is far too large and intrusive (thus I find the Libertarian perspective seductive, but as you noted, it fails in practice because it is essentially idealistic).

However, I cannot accept as fact part of this premise: "capitalism at its core attempts to create a system which has as its foundation the fundamental nature of human beings." The fundamental nature of human beings is not provable from any perspective. It is like other issues of ontology—great to debate, but impossible to prove.

I would argue that Capitalism feeds INTO the very worst parts of human nature. The accumulation of wealth, capital, and material things is seductive and corrupting. The Free Market beast needs for each of us to be "gi'me gi'me" creatures with little regard for our fellow humans. It takes the best parts of our human nature to pull back from the seduction of wealth and to value all that is not arbitrarily valued in our society.

In fact, part of the American psychosis is that we fail to address the inherent contradiction between our professed belief in Capitalism and our claimed faith in Christian principles. Takes some mighty intense metal gymnastics to make those things mesh.

Contemporary Americans are DEEPLY imprinted by behavioristic assumptions about human nature (that DO match the Christian claim of Original Sin), but I am little convinced that these assumptions are human nature. I lean toward Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau in my trust that human nature is far better than we often claim. . .

"BD,

For one thing, it's that same ostentatious consumerism you mention that fuels (no pun intended) our economy. Smaller, more conservative lifestyles means less buying and spending, which means less demand for consumer goods, which means...well, I imagine you do understand at this point where I'm going. Much of our commerce today involves goods and services that people buy simply because they CAN afford them. Decrease demand for these products in order to afford gas, and you decrease the need for jobs to produce them, revenue and taxes from selling them, etc. I'm not saying we couldn't get by without these things like the Europeans do; I'm saying the way we're currently structured, we've grown socially and economically dependent on them."
from coach chass....


I was in Japan a couple of years ago on a project that had three involved parties: Germans, Japanese, Americans. We had a technical review in Japan that I participated in and at one point one evening...the discussion shifted to a little bit of good natured tweaking of the Americans by the Germans with a little help by the Japanese. Focus of the tweaking was our outsized appetites and consumption for stuff.

I told them at the time that they should be thanking the gods of commerce.....becasue without all that consumerism run amok they would have no run to buy their stuff.

How things change.....

A critical mass has been achieved or is in the process of being achieved in places like India and China where sufficient wealth has been created where they are now the consumers of world resources and output.

Not that we will stop, obviously....but as consumers we will now have to compete for goods and that means prices will go up for everything.

I hate to sound pessimistic....I loved Ronald Reagan and there is a great interview in Newsweek with George Will and some liberal guy whose name escapes me.....and one of the great comments about Reagan was his sense of optimism helped define him and his core beliefs.

But to me the genie is out of the bottle in the countries I mentioned. Huge populations creating huge amounts of wealth. They may be buying $3000 cars and not $30000 cars, but they still need lots of steel and rubber and will still require gas. My general sense is that a lot of what we as Americans take for granted.....is going to start costing a lot more, with a result being a slow, gradual decline in the standard of living that most of us enjoy. Things will cost more and more and people will pay it for awhile and then gradually have to start making choices.

Probably not a bad thing.

I really liked a Cat's Cradle comment a while back that got me to thinking about paradigms.

Free, quality public education K-12 = American dream/birthright.

Free, quality public healthcare = "socialized" medicine = socialism.

Why is this?

Things the government provides: education, transportation infrastructure, utilities infrastructure, police/fire, military, legal infrastructure (laws, courts, prisons), postal service.

Just curious.....why healthcare doesn't fit in there?

Always found it interesting that for whatever reason people think business should bear this cost? Imagine if healthcare was publicly funded, corporate taxes left unchanged, and the cost of providing medical care taken off of the backs of business. Good lord.....thats a ton of money to reinvest in business or give back to shareholders.

BD—

Two things.

First, the worst aspect of Reagan (or the mythology we associate with Reagan) is the optimism. . .sorry. . .politicos feed into a warped Utopian mindset that plagues humanity. What we need from leaders and the common person is realism.

An example, No Child Left Behind actual calls for 100% success on testing and graduation by 2014. This is idiotic; a political and Utopian "dream" that can only be a failure. Only in politics would such inane goals be tolerated.

[Note: For those who want to suggest my comment about the Reagan myth is partisan; we also have a Kennedy myth and a Gandhi myth. That we mythologize is a fact; that the myth is a distortion of the biography is a fact.]

Second, I agree that the American mindset makes little sense. Part of the problem (if not the crux of the problem) is that we misrepresent ideologies and theories; we spend too much time creating a "team" view of everything. Thus, for our team to win and be right, we must also demonize the other team. Thus, we don't want to associate our police force or judicial system or military with "socialism" or as "government" because we have spent so much intellectual capital demonizing both! Ironically, we demonize government, which is US. . .

We lack a political party or movement that clearly defines the MINIMUM role government should play and then how we should invest in that, and that alone. Instead we have partisanship on two sides that are little different from each other. It is (and has always been) a very expensive sporting event among the elite; the rest of us pay heavily for the tickets to watch. . .