…is straining to keep up with recent technological and cultural changes. Much like the printing press revolutionized the world half a millennia ago, so now the internet and mobile technologies are transforming the landscape of modern life. I read somewhere that the American Revolution would not have been possible without newspapers and printed material. The United States and its institutions are an outgrowth of the change made possible by the printing press. Separation of Church and State made possible by a Reformation directly coinciding with the developments of the printing press. Now the internet makes possible a new revolutionary change in how we organize ourselves as a society. We are collectively envisioning a world with new rules and institutions in a progression which is just a part of the dawn of this age of information. However, we have yet to coalesce around any real vision of what changes need to be made to our old institutions for this new world to exist. Our current institutions are wonderful and still needed, but they have matured in an age of industrialization and reflect the values of this age. More than this, they reflect the possibilities of this age. Today we live in a new age with evolving values and new possibilities. When the United States was founded, most people were farmers, not artists. Possibilities were severely limited by the fact that a majority of people were needed to simply maintain our food supply. Today 1% of the population can grow the food that feeds the other 99% thanks to developments in farming technology. This is such a drastic fundamental difference in society, and yet the institution of a competitive market to keep prices low is still how we regulate this industry. Why can’t food just be free? Today we value artists a whole lot more, but we haven’t made the changes necessary to support a larger class of artisans as is possible with the technology we currently have. Art is free, and yet many artists cannot support themselves through their work. Most people used to farm. Then, the industrial revolution happened. Today, with more automation of labor, what are most people to do? We cannot all be sales people selling each other goods and changing money between people this way. Such a system will just not work as it is currently not working. Why can’t we create a new institution to exist alongside the competitive market. An institution where people create, write, produce music, paint, and so forth. This is kind of what the internet allows us to see. The value of such an institution. That we are already creating this institution. But it is not yet an established part of the economy as most people cannot make their living in these endeavors. In fact, our current economy is not sustainable because society is not reorganizing fast enough with regards to its new possibilities. Much of the content of the internet is made by people who are working for free because it is what they love to do. Wouldn’t it be nice if the people producing this content at least had free shelter? Free food? Maybe we can achieve this societal support of a larger class of artisans through a shift in how we structure our society. Planned collective bargaining communities can purchase staple foods in bulk and organize in rural areas with free public transit into the city. Essentially building new cities just for artists. This initiative can be sponsored by the government, but the cities themselves can be designed by the people who will be living there. This could be an economic driver similar to the space program to launch us from the industrial age to the information age. Thank you for reading this short essay by Hello and Lullaby http://helloandlullaby.blogspot.com/
"Why can’t food just be free?" Food IS free, any cost is for the human labour and other expenses related to making it available to you. The option is to grow your own fruits and vegetables, and raise the animals you wish to eat. "Art is free..." Is it? Only if you give it away. There, the option is to put it on the market for sales and find someone willing to pay what YOU feel it's worth. Collectivism sounds nice and can work as long as all the members are contributing more or less equally in the acquisition of their individual needs.
Ref. art...it's a supply and demand issue...too much supply and low or very selective demand...simply means in many cases art products/services are not the most viable business ventures. Art is not essential to life, or essential for any purpose, other than personal enjoyment. Is it nice to publicly fund art...I think yes but I know I'm in the minority. Artists are a bit like what we used to call craftsmen, people with great skills to make artistic products, like stained glass or wood carving or wrought-iron work, but today most people cannot afford to hire or buy from a true craftsman...or artist. Ref. food...it is very satisfying to grow our own vegetables/fruit. It's simple and cheap and the results are great. Growing can be done on large plots of land, or in containers, including raised beds sitting on top of asphalt, or even in public pea patches...all you need is good soil, water and sunlight. I suppose the critical ingredient is the human can't do this from their Barcalounger in front of the TV. Interesting that just about any human can farm and create art to enjoy for themselves...
There is no entitlement to anything which does not exist free for the taking in nature. That which is produced from what exists in nature by others bears a cost to be paid by the consumer. To avoid paying others for ones needs/wants the solution is to create ones needs by ones self. No one should feel 'entitled' to the production of the labour of another/others regardless of how imperative the need or want.
It's too bad more Americans don't move towards a sustainable life. Maybe lots of people cannot attain 100% sustainability but why not 50%? When most people are living pay check to pay check even 10% is a huge win. Are we too lazy? Too stupid to consider the options? Too entitled?
Excellent point, and unlike government assistance, private charities/individuals exercise a more rational approach to providing assistance. Private charities/individuals are more prone to providing help to eliminate the need of help, while government/politicians are more likely to feel it more beneficial for them to retain a degree of need, or a permanent dependency.
I have no problem admitting that I have close and distant relatives who don't work, don't like to work, never invested in themselves, move from job to job, never earn middle-class paying jobs, live in places that have no jobs, and somehow they 'get by' living in the lowest rungs of our economy. I'm guessing there are millions of able-bodied Americans just like some of my relatives! As population continues to increase their number will increase. We can guess most people in these categories receive assistance from government, from private groups, etc. I can guess most all of them would love to have more, have great jobs, have higher incomes, etc. but no matter what they desire reality keeps them in their status quo because they are not qualified for more than they have currently achieved in life. If they ever want to achieve more, the person must put forth some form of personal effort to make changes in their life. A big question I don't understand is why so many Americans refuse to put forth some effort to achieve more? Are they lazy and entitled? Do they have learning disabilities? Are they simply incapable of knowing what steps to take? Do they understand the importance of a high school education, of a college degree, of learning marketable trades, of avoiding crime, of having good self-esteem? IMO government cannot solve these people's work and income problems so what can possibly be the impetus for people to take steps to increase their worth in the economy....
Unlike government who presents us with massive amounts of statistical data, you've presented us with a few instances of what results in the statistical number of persons living in poverty. IMO government doesn't put much/any effort into eliminating the many problems culminated as the number living in poverty, but only attempts to reduce the consequences which at most only reduces the statistical growth rate of the unsolved underlying problems.
I don't think government has a conspiracy for this stuff but more about this topic being extremely complex, effecting millions, and requires huge hunks of taxpayer funds. If it was easy it would have been solved. We've got a culture of Americans who have severe limitations regarding income and creating wealth. Some limitations are inherent while others are lifestyle choices but no matter the root issue is the American who desires more than they currently have. What is keeping them from doing more? Why are they so paralyzed? If what they have accomplished is the best they can do then government has no choice but to be a Bandaid...
