All around are the signs of a new Gilded Age, as people are starting to call our present. VH1 has a show called "The Fabulous Life of...", which dives weekly into the extravagance of one celebrity after another. Internet start-ups continue to make more and more money for their founders, some serving the purpose of only rating strangers' attractiveness. Of the 30 riches Americans, most made their fortunes either during the last Gilded Age or before, with the three exceptions being the contemporary billionaires Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Sam Walton.
But what has this newly re-found extravagance brought the United States? All of our money is not making us happier, we rank 150 out of 178 in the Happy Planet Index. Its income inequality is comparable to Ghana and Turkmenistan. Our popular culture may depict the United States as a glamorous, wonderful place to be, yet it seems that our large, ever increasing incomes leave us wanting more.
And many people are asking themselves why they aren't happy with their large quantities of cash. (To learn more about the lack of contentment among the wealthy, see the NYTimes series "Age of Riches".) And why is this? The easiest answer is something everyone knows: money can't buy you love. But that is too simple. Money cannot buy love, or happiness, but it can buy just about everything else. One of the first things I learned about Economics is that currency is just a proxy for happiness, something to use as a model of utility and not actually utility itself. And although money cannot actual buy the feeling of being happy, I think they should be at least positively correlated.
So why are we not content in this new Gilded Age of glamor and extravagance? Does the income inequality force most of the population out of the celebrations gained by the wealthy? Yet, not even the wealthy are content, and are driven to work to fill up their lives.
And I don't know the answers to those questions. I have not seen enough of America, or talked with diverse enough amounts of people to determine what is plaguing our nation, if anything is at all. Are we morally bankrupt? Has our culture been hijacked by a small group of corporate executives? Is it really the end of history, and have we forgotten we once had one?
I do think that many people in this country have forgotten the common sense maxim of money cannot buy love. Accumulation of currency does not equate to instant satisfaction, though that is what I expect most people assume, even if they won't admit it. What does actually create happiness is something much more complicated and something people cannot leave up to their bank accounts to determine.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Making History
I often like to think of what events in my life will be remembered in years to come. When 9/11 happened, I think I began to grasp what kind of time I was growing into, what things the world would face as I started to face the world.
I have always been optimistic, trying to find good even though this country continues to disappoint me. Lately it has been hard. Instead of coming together to try to fix a broken health care system, Republicans and Democrats are fighting amongst themselves, each one not trying to be seen as Socialist. The problems in Iraq are surmounting, beyond repair, yet we continue to stay in it. The Democrats are allowing the wiretapping of Americans, trying not to be seen as "soft on terror."
Last year, when the Democrats took control of Congress, America, to the best of its abilities, was trying to send a message. We do not like the way things are going. And we still don't. Recent Gallup polls show a 32% approval rating for Bush, and a even lower 23% approval rating for Congress. For some reason, Democrats and Republicans are still fighting amongst themselves, trying to gain our approval, and obviously failing.
The case of the recent veto of an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), and the Democratic response is a perfect example of how politicians only care about their personal perception. One Democratic ad attacks incumbent Representative H. James Saxton of New Jersey: “Did you know Congressman Saxton gets health care at taxpayers’ expense, but Saxton and Bush are blocking health care for 10 million children? Tell Jim Saxton to put families first.” The Democrats used Graeme Frost, a 12-year old suffering from brain injury, to issue their rebuttal to Bush's veto of the program. Republicans responded by undercutting Frost and his family, and accusing them of exploiting a young boy for political gains. (To see a pretty awful, but informative, run-down of the tearing apart of the Frost family, read conservative Michelle Malkin's blog.)
Instead of working together, our two-party system is fighting against themselves, not realizing they're destroying each other and bringing their country down with them. I no longer have faith in this political system, because those in charge of it only care about their own credibility and not about making this country a better place. If our leaders do not worry about those they govern, what makes them leaders? They may say that they are concerned about what the average American citizen thinks, but, as shown by their approval rating, they do not have the courage to try and make a difference. Attempts at change will always bring failure with it, but our leaders refuse to subject themselves to the potential for failure, and therefore, the potential for change.
I cannot have faith in a system that not only refuses to learn from failure, but actively denies it. We are no longer the greatest country in the world, if we ever truly were. I am still optimistic about what history will say about my generation, but I no longer care what it will have to say about the American political system. If our political leaders do not care about my generation, then I do not care about them.
I have always been optimistic, trying to find good even though this country continues to disappoint me. Lately it has been hard. Instead of coming together to try to fix a broken health care system, Republicans and Democrats are fighting amongst themselves, each one not trying to be seen as Socialist. The problems in Iraq are surmounting, beyond repair, yet we continue to stay in it. The Democrats are allowing the wiretapping of Americans, trying not to be seen as "soft on terror."
Last year, when the Democrats took control of Congress, America, to the best of its abilities, was trying to send a message. We do not like the way things are going. And we still don't. Recent Gallup polls show a 32% approval rating for Bush, and a even lower 23% approval rating for Congress. For some reason, Democrats and Republicans are still fighting amongst themselves, trying to gain our approval, and obviously failing.
The case of the recent veto of an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), and the Democratic response is a perfect example of how politicians only care about their personal perception. One Democratic ad attacks incumbent Representative H. James Saxton of New Jersey: “Did you know Congressman Saxton gets health care at taxpayers’ expense, but Saxton and Bush are blocking health care for 10 million children? Tell Jim Saxton to put families first.” The Democrats used Graeme Frost, a 12-year old suffering from brain injury, to issue their rebuttal to Bush's veto of the program. Republicans responded by undercutting Frost and his family, and accusing them of exploiting a young boy for political gains. (To see a pretty awful, but informative, run-down of the tearing apart of the Frost family, read conservative Michelle Malkin's blog.)
Instead of working together, our two-party system is fighting against themselves, not realizing they're destroying each other and bringing their country down with them. I no longer have faith in this political system, because those in charge of it only care about their own credibility and not about making this country a better place. If our leaders do not worry about those they govern, what makes them leaders? They may say that they are concerned about what the average American citizen thinks, but, as shown by their approval rating, they do not have the courage to try and make a difference. Attempts at change will always bring failure with it, but our leaders refuse to subject themselves to the potential for failure, and therefore, the potential for change.
I cannot have faith in a system that not only refuses to learn from failure, but actively denies it. We are no longer the greatest country in the world, if we ever truly were. I am still optimistic about what history will say about my generation, but I no longer care what it will have to say about the American political system. If our political leaders do not care about my generation, then I do not care about them.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
The Trade-off for Eritrea
Isolationism is a big buzz word when it comes to international relations, as is dependency. When talking about developing countries, it seems as if these two concepts work as mutually exclusive events. If a country does not want to be completely dependent on richer countries for aid and support, then they must close down their borders.
Eritrea is one such country. This year alone, it has rejected over $200 million in food aid and loans. This East African nation has had the same leader since independence in 1993, Isaias Afwerki, who spearheads their isolationist stance.
Afwerki's words are very inspiring, and he talks of making his country "stand on its own two feet." Afwerki, in a LA Times interview, explained his policies by saying:
The results of these policies are mixed. Eritrea provides free education and health care, and it has higher scores on health indicators than most countries. But Afwerki has jailed people opposing him and restricted religion. He has canceled elections twice and has called those he jailed "crooks" and Eritrea's liberal constitution only a "paper."
Eritrea is a perfect example of the trade-offs between isolationism and opened borders. Although Afwerki may be trying to decrease their dependency on foreign aid and hegemonic powers, he is cutting them off from the rest of the world. By leaving no room for opposition or outside influence, he is stifling the country, economically and socially. Eritrea's growth rate is 2% annually, ranked 179 out of 205.
The international community does not help to make a distinction from "self-reliance" and "isolationist" that Afwerki talks about. If a country refuses aid, or neglects to remove tariffs, it is branded "isolationist" or "totalitarian", and their rulers are seen as insane. There are obvious civil rights abuses in Eritrea and countries similar to it (like North Korea), but that does not mean isolationist policies are inherently bad. There also doesn't have to be such a wide discrepancy between the extremes of dependency and isolationist. There can be a middle ground, with some protection and some free trade.
With some amount of protection, countries can develop their own domestic markets and eventually "stand on their own two feet." After this, they can actively participate in the global economy. Third World countries will never break away from the cycle of aid unless they start to develop themselves. As Afwerki says: "You can't keep these people living on handouts because that doesn't change their lives."
Eritrea is one such country. This year alone, it has rejected over $200 million in food aid and loans. This East African nation has had the same leader since independence in 1993, Isaias Afwerki, who spearheads their isolationist stance.
Afwerki's words are very inspiring, and he talks of making his country "stand on its own two feet." Afwerki, in a LA Times interview, explained his policies by saying:
Self-reliance is perceived as isolationist. But self-reliance is a means, not an end. It's a means of taking you to the bigger market and the biggest markets. How can I do that with handouts?
The results of these policies are mixed. Eritrea provides free education and health care, and it has higher scores on health indicators than most countries. But Afwerki has jailed people opposing him and restricted religion. He has canceled elections twice and has called those he jailed "crooks" and Eritrea's liberal constitution only a "paper."
Eritrea is a perfect example of the trade-offs between isolationism and opened borders. Although Afwerki may be trying to decrease their dependency on foreign aid and hegemonic powers, he is cutting them off from the rest of the world. By leaving no room for opposition or outside influence, he is stifling the country, economically and socially. Eritrea's growth rate is 2% annually, ranked 179 out of 205.
The international community does not help to make a distinction from "self-reliance" and "isolationist" that Afwerki talks about. If a country refuses aid, or neglects to remove tariffs, it is branded "isolationist" or "totalitarian", and their rulers are seen as insane. There are obvious civil rights abuses in Eritrea and countries similar to it (like North Korea), but that does not mean isolationist policies are inherently bad. There also doesn't have to be such a wide discrepancy between the extremes of dependency and isolationist. There can be a middle ground, with some protection and some free trade.
With some amount of protection, countries can develop their own domestic markets and eventually "stand on their own two feet." After this, they can actively participate in the global economy. Third World countries will never break away from the cycle of aid unless they start to develop themselves. As Afwerki says: "You can't keep these people living on handouts because that doesn't change their lives."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)