What ought?
I'm done with the price of inequality by Joseph Siglitz.
Oh boy. He offers a critique of american inequality. One that I think I agree with mostly. Of course I am not a subject expert on this and I don't know what I don't know.
I think his main thesis is that american society is plagued by inequality (both in terms of opportunity and results). The following are what he argues: He argues that inequality in america has been increasing, to a point where it is highly undesirable. He also argues that most inequality is not a result of meritocracy, but rather, a systemic transfer of wealth from the poorer to the richer. This transfer of wealth is facilitated by the government through many policies. The government has been acting on the behalf of the rich (the rich influences the government powerfully). He also argues that this is not just bad for the poor, this is bad for society as a whole (not that ground breaking). He further argues that in the longer run, this is bad for the rich. He also argues that the government can do something about it.
In short, he argues that the current system in America just helps the rich (1%) to be far richer than everyone else (ratio wise) and this is terrible for everyone involved.
Theres so much in the book that you should read it for yourself and then discuss it with me. Really, you should read it lol. Especially if you are interested in social justice and things like that.
Briefly speaking, there is quite alot of things about tax (and how they have loopholes and special provisions that favor special interest groups who spend alot of money on lobbying), bailouts, anti-trust/competition laws, legal costs to discourage the less wealthy from getting justice, and a shrinking government that fails to provides basic public goods like education and healthcare, allowing the powerful and rich to profit off these things. Oh they also talk alot about rents. And the Fed.
Let me add that I think one way that the govt contributes to the wealth transfer (underlying all the points he makes) is that it provides security and protection free of charge to everyone and so ensures that law and order is kept. Having a monopoly as a drug tycoon in a lawless country is less profitable if you have to hire a shit load of body guards and kill fellow upstarts and the people within your own cartel trying to out you and get the money from broke people who want your drugs. Having a monopoly as a pharmaceutical country though, dang, let the money roll in for the police will protect you and bust upstarts who try to make drugs at home and you can sue other companies who supposedly infringe on your patent and sue patients who are unable to pay. Such a good life. Security and protection is, of course, a public good and everyone gains from it. However, the rich and powerful and those doing exploitative stuff have much more to lose and it benefits them alot more. Think about it, a poor marginalised person probably doesn't gain much from law and order, he has to count on himself, learn how to fight and protect himself (sometimes have to even fight/protect himself from the law) .etc. This law and order provides the bedrock for the rich to become richer. It is quite hard to be rich in a lawless place for the cost of security skyrockets. Of course I am not suggesting one should not provide law and order (else there will be little of society and we can revert to hobbe's world. But perhaps it can stand as one of the justifications for a progressive tax since the marginal utility gained by the rich far exceeds those gained by the poor).
On a broader scale, when I read the book, I feel angry, kinda. Kinda angry, not really fuming but like frustrated kinda angry. Like man, these rich people are defrauding the poor people and the middle class people and the slightly richer than middle class people. And also, they seem so entitled to their riches as if they earned it. And everyone wants to be like them (if you see my post a generation dreams of renting, I have a very low impression of rent collectors).
Yet I see it as part of the cycle of history. A problem of human greed and selfishness. When an empire/country becomes rich and affluent and is able to support excesses, the rich and powerful start to use their power to steal a larger piece of the pie, and the people who have their pie stolen are first less powerful and hence less able to defend their share of the pie, and secondly, might still be able to survive because the pie is quite large. And so the powerful get away with it and they become more brazen so on and so forth. It seems to me that this is the powerful internal implosion of empires that has been happening in (almost) all empires across all ages. Like seriously. It is part of the bad situations lead to tough people. Tough people lead to good situations. Good situations lead to bad people and bad people lead to difficult situations. Lol. I guess most empires do realise that they have to guard against the sins of the previous empire they came out of, where the top people start trying to enrich themselves and screw up the entire country for everyone including themselves (and then make plans to bail from the country rofl).
But what is there to do? What am I to do? (ok cos I'm not in America, let's assume an American though I'm sure there are parallels to Singapore)
Join politics and try to enact some sort of policy change? One could campaign, wholeheartedly on helping the poor (and society at large including the rich). Run a sincere campaign. Maybe get elected after several tough fights against big money and a better educated person. Maybe fight in congress with other people, over money. Run the risk of getting scandalised and/or attacked. Maybe enact some sort of change that gets overturned by human greed within the century. Sounds futile and tough but if you are willing to devote your life to such a cause, go for it.
Or maybe if you can't beat them join them. Buy stocks for the companies that look like they are exploiting the system really well. Buy the big pharma stock that milks monopolies, buy lockheed martin that gets free monies from the US government, buy microsoft and google that is currently resisting legislation. Or buy the banks that are too big to fail (though actually the stock price might drop, it is the bank executives that game the system the most). Sure go up one what (if the government doesn't start to clamp down on the companies). Who pays for your stock earnings? The american taxpayer. Sounds like a plan. But then YOU will be part of the problem right. Yes you aren't in the 1% but you are gaming the system and hence want the system to remain. And so, with your above middle class privilege you will enable to system to go on. Yay, congrats, enjoy your money and comfortable life.
The above two are just broad outlines of fight it or join it. And if you have a decent uni education and are not poor, you have the unique position of choosing which to devote your life to. Most lives that are not fighting it are joining it, it is quite simple to see, even from my friend's lives. And everyone is on a spectrum. There are degrees to which you can fight/join the system.
Most people will just try to do the best in the system, get the best job available to them, provide for families (by going all means to secure a good job for your family), voting for not too much change to the system cos it might cost you your cushy jobs .etc. Eh presto! The system still works! Thanks to you!
Well, what else is there to do? Alleviate the suffering for the poor like robin hood without solving the systemic issues that are causing it in the first place! Why not! Just because you cannot save all the starfish doesn't mean you shouldn't save one. And the tidal forces that you cannot control (will not attempt to control?) will give you more than enough starfish to help all the days of your life. Of course, again, you can combine this with a bit of the above, say a bit of fighting the system. I actually quite like this approach but then it is very suboptimal on the big picture utilitarian sense in that you don't actually change anything for the vast majority of people.
But who cares about the big picture utilitarian sense? You can trust God that the big picture utilitarian sense is controlled by him. And you don't know enough about the big picture utilitarian sense. And human greed will always exist. And so what if the rich are hoarding all the money and the poor need to work 12 hours a day to survive at the cost of their families and such? God understands and will enact his justice someday.
And who cares about fighting the system? The early americans fought the system in Europe and hence founded America (BROAAAADLY speaking) and they tried to put in place things which will not make it become the unequal societies in europe but look where we are. You COULD found another america, that might last for another 2 generations... But yknow, in the long run, perhaps that too, is like saving starfish.
Or you could be like some sort of benevolent billionaires, play the system to earn money then use the wealth to supposedly fix the issues that allow you to profit. I don't really like this method because I think a person changes when he becomes wealthy and comfortable. And secondly, if money can solve problems, there are no shortage of "philanthropists" that should TECHNICALLY be able to solve lots of problems (not disparaging them, but you can't kill the golden goose y'know, it just doesn't happen). I don't happen to see a Bill and Melinda gates foundation supporting free access to patents or a Warren Buffet foundation supporting less monopolies. As a side note: rule 1 investing by phil town, which I have watched quite abit, is to find a company which has a moat, which basically means they are some sort of a monopoly. Rofl. Makes me question my decisions to buy some shares). Lastly, I think you cannot be in the system to destroy the system (unless unwittingly like Grobachev did).
Perhaps some of the thoughts here can inform you about how I live my life. Sorta. I mean I'm not convinced that I wanna spend my life fighting the system but I am rather convinced that systems such as these are bad. I still can't really figure out how to optimally live in this. It seems to me that perhaps a paradigm shift OUT of the entire system (and refurbishing systems) is required. To a system not just where the Fed cares less about inflation and more about unemployment (like what the book suggests), but a system where people care about other people that they are not related to instead of just themselves. And not just where GNP is used rather than GDP since it is a more accurate economic metric AND NOT EVEN where you have GNH (say gross national happiness), but perhaps we can go into the unmeasurable, ooh brings to mind a fantastic conversation with Prof Loy. But then again, maybe that is just heaven. Though we can be heaven on earth. Maybe we can happily be exploited and subvert the entire system. It is what we are called (?) arguably towards.
I have a post on inequality in society in the works (actually I have a lot of posts in the works). But I feel it is very... worldly.
I've read much on how those with power continually use their power to gain more power. And nowadays in many places, wealth is equated to power. And this usage of power to gain more power is done by shaping the (artificial) systems surrounding us, e.g laws, societal values, culture.
And I've also seen the very understandable response of most people when they come to realise that being at the top allows you to stay at the top. In essence, they strive to be at the top, or near enough to the top such that they own position is "secure" by the (artificial) power-maintaining systems created by people in power. And so the middle class tries to play in the system that the upper class has created where they have low chances of breaking into the upper class (but do-able, especially if you sell your soul). While the dis-empowered lower class is just ignored and left to suffer.
I think the beauty of the system is that, for the self-interested individual, the system gives more power to people who benefit more from the system and hence have a greater incentive to retain the system. This system tends to be quite stable until the greed at the top makes them want such a large portion of the pie that they tweak the system to benefit themselves too much without realising that people by being people do have some power (especially in the form of violence) and this is how revolutions happen.
I reckon the other post will cover a lot more on what I think can be done. E.g violence. But these are collective actions and not easy to execute or even want to execute (I mean, there's a reason why the systems are still standing right). What do I do as an individual, or something like that would presumably be also covered there. Or maybe in another post.
But let me transcend even these important questions here. What is God doing about these problems (with focus on inequality)?
I think in the OT there is significant evidence that God designed Israel to be a society that has limited inequality (e.g jubilee, everyone being under the law, laws limiting debt and slavery).
I think the idea that the church, in the NT should be a society/family of limited inequality also holds, though perhaps it is not that explicit. There is the whole selling what they have and giving to each other such that no one was in need and also passages on esteem not a person by his status or wealth.
One question is how much is Israel/the church intended by God to correct injustices and/or of the larger world. Well, we have the history of the Israel nation and... I think they hardly did anything on that front. Presumably at least in part due to their failures to live with limited inequality within themselves. It seems to me that the indictments by God are on them for failing to be an example rather than the example failing to influence others. It seems to me that this idea carrying over to NT would make sense, where the church should set the example and let the example do natural influence rather than, say, attempt to conquer another country to "hard" set rules to reduce inequality.
Another point to note is that Jesus was born in a highly unequal society. I THINK, the roman empire was hardly egalitarian and power was wielded for the powerful. Jesus did many subversive things to show that he thought nothing of their power and that they ultimately had no power over him even though they did sentence him to death. It seems to me that Jesus was quietly confident in his rule and had no intention of overthrowing Cesar on any unjust grounds or things like that. Neither was the early church interested in tackling inequality through the rewriting of laws or something like that. But rather, through the self-sacrificial giving of themselves to be with and to help the poor. The system can be exploitative, and the answer is to be exploited with the exploited and count it as joy, knowing that this system is temporary with confidence that Jesus will rule a better system in the future.
Oh nooooo. why is this post sounding like what I have written before.
Methinks one of the biggest lies ever believed as fact is that pursuit of self interest will lead to overall increase of satisfaction. Methinks it takes too high a view of human nature, and undercalculates the raw amount of interactions between humans and. perhaps, most importantly, power.
1. Turn the other cheek.
Very famous. Very often said. But the examples used are usually quite lame. What is turning the other cheek? It is that when someone wrongs you, you go beyond just not retaliating, but instead you let them wrong you even more.
Goes against: Fight for yourself. Stand up for what you have. Might makes right. An eye for an eye.
It subverts "might makes right" so hard.
2. Warnings against riches and the like e.g it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven (of course there is still some stuff after that about with God all things are possible).
Quick: all things being equal would you be rich or average. I would choose to be rich. 99.9999% of the people would choose to be rich. Heh, but it is a trick question. Because in being rich, all things are not equal and one is possessed by riches as much as one possess's riches (by human nature).
Goes against: Money makes the world go round (actually it doesn't really go against it per se, it just suggests that the world is not that important. Goes against certain hidden assumptions though). More is better. Better to cry in a BMW than on the streets? (rofl)
3. God will provide what you need (if you work and live for God, that is. Not if you lie on your bed and sleep all day)
Goes against: Self-sufficiency, Self-made narratives.
4. Prayer
LOL. Yknow, there are scientific studies that have concluded that prayer does no better than placebo and essentially nothing (e.g for healing sickness). Well there's also the issue of pray for what and who is the person doing the praying.
Who spends time talking to a make belief person. Or talking to yourself. What good does it do if the results can't be measured? Yet we are called to pray and the heroes of the faith all spend copious amounts of time in this activity, willingly and gladly.
Goes against: Less talking more doing. You can't change fate. You can only depend on yourself.
5. Live for the glory of God
This is the best and completely mind boggling. What???
Goes against: Live for yourself. Do what you want. Do whatever makes you happy (qualified cos you can become a state where. Live for your family. Live for the country. Live for honour. Live to achieve some good in the world.
6. Love your enemies
Goes against: Love only those who love you. What is the point of unreciprocated love.
This was supposed to follow the post called foolishness of Christianity I believe, unfortunately it was much delayed and abridged cos... I have the attention span of a 7 year old.
I spent a significant chunk of today (thursday) watching Juuni Taisen on my cousin's recommendation.
The last time I wrote about this, in 2015, I listed immortality, time travel and more-intelligent-species as things that if achieved/discovered, would make Christianity almost impossible to believe in. I think the first two are hard defeaters while more-intelligent-species are soft defeaters (basically hard defeaters = water tight case against Christianity, soft defeaters = requires Christianity to be reworked substantially in order to account for it and such, may not be Christianity).
Of course these scenarios have to happen before Jesus comes again.
Let's list a few more defeaters that might seem more plausible
Soft
Colonisation of another planet
Adoption of universal language (or rather, loss of different languages)
Unified humanity (I reckon goes against the every people tribe and tongue idea)
Immunity from natural disasters
Amortality (as defined by sapiens: unable to die from old age or disease)
Eradication of poverty
No need for pregnancy
Hard
Colonisation of another galaxy (with interstellar travel)
Uploading of consciousness into cloud, reliably
Finding Jesus's body?
Utopia
No need for toil
I've been reading utopia is creepy. A book about technology (read:internet) and other related things. Apparently this guy is a thinker about the technological revolution and stuff.
One idea that he gives voice to is something that I have felt for quite a few years. Maybe because I couldn't put it into words. Maybe because I felt the impact of the changes downstream from where the changes were happening in America.
But yeah, I very much agree with what he is saying. That the internet has changed. From a place of wonder to something very yucky. He puts it something like where google once wanted to read the web, now google wants to read you. The idea being that in the past, you could go and see whatever was out there, whatever people put out there. But nowadays, the means through which we view the internet i.e facebook/google/whatever, is trying to give us what they think we want.
And it is most frustrating. Because, firstly they don't know what we want. And secondly, what they give is banal. Let me talk about youtube since I spend more time on youtube (though I increasingly dislike it). It seems that youtube is now trying to force-feed you anything remotely related to the things that you have watched before. And it is so irritating tbh. I think it is irritating in the sense that it excludes those videos that you might have stumbled across in the past. I recall a time when I watched lots of independent content creators doing stuff like self expression and shiz. Like the days when nigahig, kevjumba, freddiew and whatnot were at their peak, heck, even rwj. Nowadays the "popular" content on youtube is just banal and stale. And when I watch a chess video they recommend me lots of chess videos, when i watch a basketball video they spam me with basketball. And/or popular which is usually trashy pop songs from USA that i don't give a shit about.
I would go further and say this is due to commercialisation. They want you hooked. And the easiest way to hook people is by making people addicted. And you can't be addicted to high quality stuff, you must be addicted to brain numbing stupid shit. Watching other people play games and screaming. Oh joy. Such a wonderful industry. For the bored and the boarder (eh, my old blog headline). It's seriously entertainment at its worst. Maybe it is American led. When America became dumber and more polarised and started squabbling over trivial issues and scared and posturing they turn to such mind numbing stuff in order to allow themselves to be content with trivial issues, fear and posturing. And the corporations just earn the money from these? I'm pretty sure all these is tied together with fake news trends, instagram's navel gazing rise and such.
And the commodification of humans - the attention economy. Isn't it obviously something that we shouldn't participate in?? The treating of humans as products and means. Man. Maybe it is mammon explicitly taking over the world.
Even other websites like 9gag and cracked and facebook have become more banal. Anyone knows what I mean and have found good content on the internet?
I've been purging things that I think are a waste of my time from my life...
But somehow it still feels not brilliant.
In some sense I acknowledge it is that I could be more disciplined and "do" more things that I deem are not a waste of my time. I think youtube sucks donkeyballs. Especially now when the content on it is really crappy. I hope to spend even less time but fortunately the crappy content makes me spend less time on it. I don't play poker or dota anymore... But still it seems like I can only read/write so much every week. Think there isn't enough pressure and that is definitely a problem.
On the other hand, I feel it is partially a cultural thing. That the need to "do" more things, more productively, is a cultural thing. More specifically, a Singaporean-frenetic-kiasu-need to be number one thing. Maybe this is not unique to Singapore, but it is amplified like mad in Singapore. I wonder whether in other cultures there is this "shame" that is associated with not working (and by not working I mean not having a job). Again I would like to distinguish between idleness and not having a job.
When I tell people I'm unemployed they look at me with concern. As if I were losing out. It is implicit. Sometimes they tell me it is good to take a break, don't have to rush to get a job, but i see it, I see it that they think a job is still most important, of prime importance in one's life. For if they really think a job is not that important they wouldn't be in a job that they hate. It is like they feel pained that I am not working for me. But I feel pained that they are working and wasting away their lives for them. But I can't get it through. They think I'm mad. Especially non-Christian friends tho quite alot of Christian (ugh i'm so tempted to put the inverted commas) friends too.
What on earth are you doing if you are not getting a job and saving money to buy a house and get married and raise kids and progress in your career and save for retirement? What do you mean just living life? Oh you read books, how is that different from bumming around (LOL, my fave seriously)? How long do you intend to depend on your family? One hidden assumption is that I am lazy or something. LOL. Or afraid of working. Or something. Hilarious seriously.
Oh you spend your time in office? Hows that different from being dead? Oh you have money? Let me clap for you. Why does nobody say, condolences when hearing that you got a promotion? I would totally do that. Or condolences when you get a job.
Perhaps it is the mammon worldview that has society all tied into a knot such that more money = better immediately. The societal worldview is so ingrained, so strong. Such that the poor want to be rich. The not so poor want to be rich. And the rich want to be richer. What if the poor were happy to be poor and the not so poor happy to be not so poor and the rich happy to be rich? What economic growth would we get then?
My standard line of reasoning is that we shall see. The results shall speak for themselves. As to which way of living life is better. Tho the cultural things really help their case, lots of positive affirmation and man's praise for succeeding in the way culture deems good.
Come now, I'll allow that this post sounds abit extreme and that the objectively right stance surely includes some degree of work. (Actually I think one should work for his own keep, and have written about this before, I think). But still, valid and important points tho.
I think that the fall cursed us to toil. And toil we must for survival. But we are way over-toiling, if that even makes sense. Way over-toiling in a way that glorifies toiling. And not work. I have work here to do. Important work.
I wish I could do stuff like pray 3 hours a day or read my bible for hours. That would be a good way to spend time. A non-waste of time.
[[Book wishlist (lend me pls)]]
[[The Story Thus]]
|January 2008|February 2008|March 2008|April 2008|May 2008|June 2008|July 2008|August 2008|September 2008|October 2008|November 2008|December 2008|January 2009|February 2009|March 2009|April 2009|May 2009|June 2009|July 2009|August 2009|September 2009|October 2009|November 2009|December 2009|January 2010|February 2010|March 2010|April 2010|May 2010|June 2010|July 2010|August 2010|September 2010|October 2010|November 2010|December 2010|January 2011|February 2011|March 2011|April 2011|May 2011|June 2011|July 2011|August 2011|September 2011|October 2011|November 2011|December 2011|January 2012|February 2012|March 2012|April 2012|May 2012|June 2012|July 2012|August 2012|September 2012|October 2012|November 2012|December 2012|January 2013|February 2013|March 2013|April 2013|May 2013|June 2013|July 2013|August 2013|September 2013|October 2013|November 2013|December 2013|January 2014|February 2014|March 2014|April 2014|May 2014|June 2014|July 2014|August 2014|September 2014|October 2014|November 2014|December 2014|January 2015|February 2015|March 2015|April 2015|May 2015|June 2015|July 2015|August 2015|September 2015|October 2015|November 2015|December 2015|January 2016|February 2016|March 2016|April 2016|May 2016|June 2016|July 2016|August 2016|September 2016|October 2016|November 2016|December 2016|January 2017|February 2017|March 2017|April 2017|May 2017|June 2017|July 2017|August 2017|September 2017|October 2017|November 2017|December 2017|January 2018|February 2018|March 2018|April 2018|May 2018|June 2018|July 2018|August 2018|September 2018|October 2018|November 2018|December 2018|January 2019|February 2019|March 2019|April 2019|May 2019|June 2019|July 2019|August 2019|September 2019|October 2019|November 2019|December 2019|January 2020|February 2020|March 2020|April 2020|May 2020|June 2020|July 2020|August 2020|September 2020|October 2020|November 2020|December 2020|January 2021|February 2021|March 2021|April 2021|May 2021|June 2021|July 2021|August 2021|September 2021|October 2021|November 2021|December 2021|January 2022|February 2022|March 2022|April 2022|May 2022|June 2022|July 2022|August 2022|September 2022|October 2022|November 2022|December 2022|January 2023|February 2023|March 2023|April 2023|May 2023|June 2023|July 2023|August 2023|September 2023|October 2023|November 2023|December 2023|January 2024|February 2024|March 2024|April 2024
[[The Talk (also silent)]]
[[The Ancients]]