Capitalism: Fiction v. Reality

Ok, so I overheard a conversation the other day in which one individual asserted that "capitalism is the only economic system that has ever lifted people out of poverty." Since it was neither the time nor place to get into a major argument, I kept my mouth shut, ignored the one-sided conversation (monologue?), and got out of the area fairly quickly.

But, I've been thinking about the assertion for a couple days now.

As usual, the assertion has a point, but leaves out extremely important information, as follows:

1) The last "pure capitalist" society in history was the U.S. of the pre-Great Depression era (roughly 1800-1920). During that era, the lion's share of the country's money and resources were under the control of a handful of families (the Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, Fords, etc.). The rest of the population was not exactly well off or even really middle-class by modern standards (for good fictional accounts in the U.S. and Britain, see Theodore Dreiser and Charles Dickens respectively). Likewise, because of "pure capitalism" the country (and the rest of the western world) was exceptionally vulnerable to economic collapse, e.g. the Great Depression.

2) Capitalism began truly bringing people out of poverty and making life better for the majority of people when it was coupled with socialism during the New Deal era. These socialist-capitalist programs brought us free fire departments (versus the companies that previously existed), free public libraries, free public education (grades one through twelve), laid the foundation for state universities, and created Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. WPA projects during this socialist-capitalist era also created jobs as well as the interstate highway system. Most conservatives in the U.S. take a lot of these things for granted and forget that they were a) created by liberals and b) are the product of socialism.

3) Today, like the entirety of the western world, the U.S. has a hybridized socialist-capitalist economic system. This hybridization is simultaneously what helps bring people out of poverty and kept the recent economic problems in the recession level rather than becoming a full blown depression. In fact, no country operates under a "pure" economic system of any sort, all are hybridized. And this is a good thing. As with animal and plant breeding, we've found that hybridization creates hardier and stronger livestock and harvests. Likewise, hybridized economic systems create more hardy and robust economies.

Just some thoughts. Seeing as I have only a minimal background in economics (and even that focuses on the medieval period), I could be way off in some respects, but the theory seems to hold up pretty well.

Mini-Rant: Pre-College "Knowledge"

The question of what I will call "pre-college knowledge" has been on my mind a lot the last couple days. I suppose it started when, during a "discussion," someone was firmly convinced of the truth of his/her historical "knowledge" based on what (s)he learned in middle school, despite numerous cited references to the contrary.

Over the course of my musings on this, I decided there are four things we need to remember about everything we learned, especially in history and literature, before college:

1) Everything we learn then is simplified.
2) Everything we learn then is sanitized.
3) Pre-college teachers are generalists (whether within their own fields or across the curriculum).
4) Due to school boards and other requirements, most pre-college information is out of date and most teachers don't have time to keep up to date.

[Insert disclaimer that I have several relatives who teach or recently taught at various pre-college levels and am not disparaging any pre-school through high school teachers.]

What this comes down to is that, once we graduate from high school, nothing from our K-12 education outside the physical sciences should be brought into debates, discussions, or arguments. A few examples:

1) Even in high school (early-1990s) we were told that Chris Columbus was the first European to set foot in the Americas and that he had no clue what was out there in the Atlantic . . . later we learn that he had access to Viking maps that pre-date his voyage by 400-500 years and that this information has been accepted for quite some time.

2) In HS we were told that in Columbus' day, everyone believed the world was flat . . . later we learn that for nearly a century scholars have known that ancient Greeks mathematically determined the planet's circumference and weight.

3) We are told that before the 1900s, all women in all cultures around the world were oppressed . . . later, historians tell us that in fact, Athenian women were equal to men with different spheres of authority, Spartan women were equal to men, many African tribes were matriarchal, medieval English women owed property and often took over the education of their deceased husbands' apprentices, and many Celtic tribes were matriarchal, among other things.

4) We were told that women never worked outside the house before the Industrial Revolution, except as prostitutes . . . later, historians tell us that this is complete b.s. (not in those words, obviously) and point to massive numbers of businesses in London, Paris, and elsewhere that were owned by women before the 17th century. And this has been known since at least the 1980s.

5) We were told that Nordic culture was epitomized by guys in horned helmets raiding monasteries . . . later, historians tell us that in fact the "viking" was only a small part of an extremely complex culture built around trade, fishing, and herding; that the "vikings" were most often landless young men essentially "blowing off steam." Oh, and that they never wore horned helmets. And we've known both of these things for many decades.

I guess the moral of this mini-semi-rant is that claims of "that's what I was taught in middle school" have no place in "adult" discussion/debate and that, contrary to many conservatives, history is a constantly evolving field as we rediscover more records and archaeology makes new discoveries.

New? Perhaps

So, the quarter's over, grades are posted.

The yells and screams about grades from people who haven't turned in half the course work have yet to appear. I'm sure the e-mail box will be flooded by the middle of next week.

In the meantime, a week and a few days off is nice. Especially since the weather's become downright decent lately, even if we are supposed to get a bit of a downturn for a few days.

Lots to look forward to then: biking, jodo, aikido, time to write (more SF/F novellas), time to edit the diss, time to play around with magic systems and convert them into GURPS (3rd ed for now), time to worry about the job applications I've sent out, time to keep updating my other blog (the shape-shifting bibliography). And most importantly time to catch up on some reading (Mitsugi Saotome and Jonathan Stroud right now) while serving as a lap for the cat.

Sadly, nothing profound to say at the moment. Not that I ever say anything profound.

Long Hiatus

Well, a bit of an unplanned hiatus of . . . a month and a half. Not too bad, I suppose. Still, nothing too major to add at the moment. Or so the illness recovering brain says. We'll see in a couple days. Really really need to update my other blog (Metamorphic Bibliography), that probably takes precedence.

Profundity

Occasionally I come across something I find interestingly profound or semi-profound. Lately I've been reading a fair amount of philosophy and/or theology, starting with the Bhagavad Gita and currently the Tao Te Ching, soon adding some of Morihei Ueshiba and Mitsugi Saotome's thought on aikido and Musashi Miyamoto's thought on kenjutsu.

So, reading Lao Tzu, this set recently stood out:

Sometimes you lead
Sometimes you follow
Sometimes you are stifled
Sometimes you breathe easy
Soemtimes you are strong
Sometimes you are weak
Sometimes you destroy
And sometimes you are destroyed.

Hence, the sage shuns excess
Shuns grandiosity
Shuns arrogance. (Tao te Ching, 29)

You're Not Helping

Here's another one for the "you're not helping your cause" award:

Apparently a FL state senator wants to prove just how ignorant she is by attacking Dewey and "little old librarians". As a former library page, ex-library supervisor, and spouse to a young librarian, this was just laughable. It seems to do more harm than good, when viewed by anyone who actually uses a library.

Sure, Dewey decimal has its issues, primarily in the 200s range (a little anachronistic, but not in the way that I think Storms means it, since Dewey gave the vast majority of the 200s over to Christianity [210-280s], with little to nothing left for other religions [290s]) and for large collections. But to organize libraries like Barnes & Noble? Nothing would ever be found, especially in larger collections. The ignorance here, I think, comes in part from a lack of understanding, which leads to a false analogy. The purpose of B&N is to sell things, thus flashy displays and piling stuff together in general groups in order to entice people to buy more than they'd initially planned. Libraries exist to provide access to information. Thus, libraries need a codified system by which all the information, and this in no exaggeration, in the world can be organized.

Next, she'll probably go after the Library of Congress system used in her state's university libraries (even more convoluted than Dewey). Probably postal area codes after that (after all, they are a system that requires "training for staff and users" and are "just plain frustrating" as anyone who has accidentally transposed numbers knows).

Xmas Resistance/Return

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/12/05/atheists.christmas/index.html

More power to them.

Afterwords, let's get back to the original Christmas (Solstice) to exchange gold rings, reaffirm oaths of fealty, and eat/drink like crazy. :)