History is a set of stories people tell each other about their past, usually dealing with their own culture and society, and its victories over others. It describes society's past, as reflected in the interplay of politics and economics, as well as the interaction of various groups.
In that context, history is written by the winners. The losing society's story is included, but only to help justify the actions of the winners. And if the defeated group's story is deemed unimportant or irrelevant, that story is omitted from the standard history compiled by the winners.
It becomes the responsibility, then, of the defeated group to keep their stories alive, by maintaining the culture and values of the group, retelling them to each new generation. And it falls to the winners to acknowledge that the minority group's culture retains its own validity, regardless of its social status. This way, the culture, its language and values remain vibrant even as the minority group survives within the dominant society.
This principle applies to all, regardless of race, religion, culture, language or gender. Unfortunately, some activists forget this principle, and attach new meanings to old words in their zeal to change attitudes. One example was the effort by a few extremists in the feminist movement to change "history" to "herstory." The word "history" has no gender; it comes from the French "histoire," which means simply "story."
I know, the French word "histoire" has a masculine gender, but that's grammatical gender, and has nothing to do with sex.
Monday, December 16, 2013
Friday, December 13, 2013
Whorf Speed, Mr. Chomsky!
Correlation is not causation
An academic study claims that 10 percent of people in English-speaking countries are functionally illiterate, which is to say that they can read (some degree of literacy), but not enough to adequately perform at a job. Moreover, the researchers maintain that part of the problem is because of the spelling system used in English. In addition, that same spelling system contributes to dyslexia, or difficulty in reading.
Unlike some other languages, there is often a disparity between a letter and the sound it represents. That is, a given letter in the English spelling system can represent three or more sounds. And this disparity, researchers claim, causes dyslexia.
Some hundred years ago, Benjamin Lee Whorf postulated that the language you speak dictates how you perceive the world. Taken to an extreme, the Whorfian Hypothesis says that those in a culture who do not measure activities in terms of hours and minutes, or have no words equivalent to "hour" or "minute," therefore have no concept of time.
Whorf picked up this idea during his travels among the Native Tribes of the American Southwest as an insurance salesman or adjuster with a side interest in linguistics.
The flaw in the Whorfian Hypothesis, however, is that when speakers of a language with few or no time words revert to English, they can and do measure activities in terms of hours and minutes.
So it's not that they have no concept of time, but that European notions of the importance of time had less value in their native culture.
They also had no writing system, but that is no obstacle to expressing valuable thoughts. Unfortunately, in Western culture the ability to read is considered so important that being "illiterate" is too often equated with a lack of intelligence.
In any case, literacy is crucial to success in society today. And anything that interferes with learning to read is an issue that needs to be studied and resolved.
But how to correlate literacy with dyslexia, if in fact there is a correlation? And the Psychology Department at the University of Dundee in Scotland is leading an effort to extend literacy research based on the English language and to establish a relationship, if any, to other European writing systems.
It seems the academics have compared the difficulty in learning to read with the relationship of sound to letter. In some written languages, such as Finnish or Spanish, a given letter almost always has the same sound. In English, however, a given letter may represent several sounds, for example, the "a" in "hat" is different from the "a" in "hate," and the word "can" as a verb is pronounced differently from the same word representing a container. Dialect, too, affects pronunciation.
Another issue is the number of letters available. The English language uses 26 letters, but the number of phonemes, or meaningful sounds, is larger -- and this can be 35 or 40, varying with dialect and individuals.
Italian, on the other hand, uses 22 letters, and has a closer relationship of sound to letter. And in Finnish, there is a 1:1 relationship. One letter represents one sound only.
English is an amalgam of several languages, and its spelling system more accurately represents Shakespearean era pronunciation than today's. However, we're stuck with it.
All of this has little to do with dyslexia, which is a neurological disorder in the brain. If in fact dyslexia is more widespread in English speaking countries than in others, I wonder if it is coincidence or some other cause. At the moment, it's a hypothesis, with a causal link yet to be proven.
Moreover, English is easier to learn (as a second language) than others, because there are fewer internal word changes in reference to gender or number, and the case system --- common in German and Russian, where a word changes form according to its function in a sentence -- no longer exists in English, except for one small set of words (pronouns).
Dyslexia, of course, refers to reading, not speaking. And some who have it compensate and become successful. Tom Kean, former governor of New Jersey, is dyslexic, as is Richard Branson, founder of Virgin Airlines. Also, those who have it compensate by becoming better listeners, with much better memories, since they cannot rely on written notes.
People with dyslexia have difficulty differentiating letters, such as misinterpreting the letters b and d, or p and q. Again, this is a neurological issue, not orthographic.
Language and culture are certainly inter-related, but now comes a theory that the spelling system a language uses may contribute to dyslexia, or difficulty in reading. Reading, of course, is a skill to be learned, and the spelling system is certainly confusing,
A study by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) notes that "the United States has the highest number of functionally illiterate persons in the world." Worldwide, ASHA said, "there are 875 million people without access to literacy." But unlike spoken language, the ability to read requires instruction, and this means being able to "associate script symbols with speech sounds," the group said.
This association, of symbol, sound and meaning, differs widely. Most European writing systems use a type of alphabet, with each letter representing one or more sounds, including consonants and vowels. Others, however, such as Chinese, use symbols to represent a concept, which can be "read" by speakers of various languages and dialects that are mutually incomprehensible. An example for users of the European group of languages is a number, such as "46." Users of English, French, Spanish or German, for instance, would verbalize that "46" in four different ways.
So the question remains: Does the spelling system of a language contribute to dyslexia, and if so, how?
There may be many who come to America with limited ability to read in English, but that does not mean they are illiterate. They may be quite fluent in their native language using a phonic alphabet similar to that used in English, or in a phonic alphabet such as Russian or Greek that is not similar to English, or they may be fluent in a syllabic alphabet, or in a symbol writing system that is not an alphabet at all.
Bottom line: Dyslexia is a neurological learning disorder that may interfere with literacy, but it's not likely that a writing system causes dyslexia.
An academic study claims that 10 percent of people in English-speaking countries are functionally illiterate, which is to say that they can read (some degree of literacy), but not enough to adequately perform at a job. Moreover, the researchers maintain that part of the problem is because of the spelling system used in English. In addition, that same spelling system contributes to dyslexia, or difficulty in reading.
Unlike some other languages, there is often a disparity between a letter and the sound it represents. That is, a given letter in the English spelling system can represent three or more sounds. And this disparity, researchers claim, causes dyslexia.
Some hundred years ago, Benjamin Lee Whorf postulated that the language you speak dictates how you perceive the world. Taken to an extreme, the Whorfian Hypothesis says that those in a culture who do not measure activities in terms of hours and minutes, or have no words equivalent to "hour" or "minute," therefore have no concept of time.
Whorf picked up this idea during his travels among the Native Tribes of the American Southwest as an insurance salesman or adjuster with a side interest in linguistics.
The flaw in the Whorfian Hypothesis, however, is that when speakers of a language with few or no time words revert to English, they can and do measure activities in terms of hours and minutes.
So it's not that they have no concept of time, but that European notions of the importance of time had less value in their native culture.
They also had no writing system, but that is no obstacle to expressing valuable thoughts. Unfortunately, in Western culture the ability to read is considered so important that being "illiterate" is too often equated with a lack of intelligence.
In any case, literacy is crucial to success in society today. And anything that interferes with learning to read is an issue that needs to be studied and resolved.
But how to correlate literacy with dyslexia, if in fact there is a correlation? And the Psychology Department at the University of Dundee in Scotland is leading an effort to extend literacy research based on the English language and to establish a relationship, if any, to other European writing systems.
It seems the academics have compared the difficulty in learning to read with the relationship of sound to letter. In some written languages, such as Finnish or Spanish, a given letter almost always has the same sound. In English, however, a given letter may represent several sounds, for example, the "a" in "hat" is different from the "a" in "hate," and the word "can" as a verb is pronounced differently from the same word representing a container. Dialect, too, affects pronunciation.
Another issue is the number of letters available. The English language uses 26 letters, but the number of phonemes, or meaningful sounds, is larger -- and this can be 35 or 40, varying with dialect and individuals.
Italian, on the other hand, uses 22 letters, and has a closer relationship of sound to letter. And in Finnish, there is a 1:1 relationship. One letter represents one sound only.
English is an amalgam of several languages, and its spelling system more accurately represents Shakespearean era pronunciation than today's. However, we're stuck with it.
All of this has little to do with dyslexia, which is a neurological disorder in the brain. If in fact dyslexia is more widespread in English speaking countries than in others, I wonder if it is coincidence or some other cause. At the moment, it's a hypothesis, with a causal link yet to be proven.
Moreover, English is easier to learn (as a second language) than others, because there are fewer internal word changes in reference to gender or number, and the case system --- common in German and Russian, where a word changes form according to its function in a sentence -- no longer exists in English, except for one small set of words (pronouns).
Dyslexia, of course, refers to reading, not speaking. And some who have it compensate and become successful. Tom Kean, former governor of New Jersey, is dyslexic, as is Richard Branson, founder of Virgin Airlines. Also, those who have it compensate by becoming better listeners, with much better memories, since they cannot rely on written notes.
People with dyslexia have difficulty differentiating letters, such as misinterpreting the letters b and d, or p and q. Again, this is a neurological issue, not orthographic.
Language and culture are certainly inter-related, but now comes a theory that the spelling system a language uses may contribute to dyslexia, or difficulty in reading. Reading, of course, is a skill to be learned, and the spelling system is certainly confusing,
A study by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) notes that "the United States has the highest number of functionally illiterate persons in the world." Worldwide, ASHA said, "there are 875 million people without access to literacy." But unlike spoken language, the ability to read requires instruction, and this means being able to "associate script symbols with speech sounds," the group said.
This association, of symbol, sound and meaning, differs widely. Most European writing systems use a type of alphabet, with each letter representing one or more sounds, including consonants and vowels. Others, however, such as Chinese, use symbols to represent a concept, which can be "read" by speakers of various languages and dialects that are mutually incomprehensible. An example for users of the European group of languages is a number, such as "46." Users of English, French, Spanish or German, for instance, would verbalize that "46" in four different ways.
So the question remains: Does the spelling system of a language contribute to dyslexia, and if so, how?
There may be many who come to America with limited ability to read in English, but that does not mean they are illiterate. They may be quite fluent in their native language using a phonic alphabet similar to that used in English, or in a phonic alphabet such as Russian or Greek that is not similar to English, or they may be fluent in a syllabic alphabet, or in a symbol writing system that is not an alphabet at all.
Bottom line: Dyslexia is a neurological learning disorder that may interfere with literacy, but it's not likely that a writing system causes dyslexia.
Monday, December 9, 2013
Believability Quotient
It must be true; I saw it on the Internet.
"The entire contents of this section supplied by the Advertising Department." -- Newspaper disclaimer.
"Native advertising" has nothing to do with the Cherokee.
Credibility is the only weapon journalism has.
Print information is more believable than back-fence gossip. Television is more believable than print, partly because it adds video to the mix. Every new information medium starts with a higher believability quotient than its predecessors because its very newness adds to its acceptance.
But is it reliable? That is an issue that journalists have been struggling with for many years. All things considered, that's all they have -- the willingness of the readers and views to trust the information as reliable, believable, and accurate. And with newspapers and TV news broadcasts, neutrality can be even more important.
All this, however, is being eroded by the trend to coordinate advertising with editorial efforts in providing information. Independent editors are being replaced by "content managers," who develop "sponsored content" -- advertising masquerading as news.
In truth, such practices have been going on for years, notably in Real Estate and Automobile section of daily newspapers. Rarely is any negative information found in such sections, which often are nothing more than press releases supplied by the advertisers to fill the space between ads. The more conscientious publishers specify at the top of each page that the entire contents of the section is supplied by the advertising department.
Television, too, identifies a program as paid for by the advertiser.
But when the lines blur, when readers and viewers are lulled into thinking that the information presented is a news item and not a commercial message, then there is a problem.
Journalists have fought for many decades to defend their reliability, their ability to pursue truth and pass it on to the public, knowing that their reputation endorses their credibility.
Web sites, however, erode that credibility when those with access to a computer can publish and disseminate their own propaganda without it being filtered by neutral reporters and editors.
Is this mass freedom to publish a good thing? Perhaps. It's true that many reporters and editors, as well as their publications and TV shows, are not neutral, much less objective. It falls to the public, therefore, to know the difference.
The bigger problem remains, however, that some media outlets blur the lines, coordinate the news and advertising with commercial material masquerading as editorial news information.
Public relations professionals know the difference between news and advertising, and operate separately from advertising agencies. Others, however, do not, and combine their marketing efforts with a client's PR needs, presenting a message for their clients as "hard news" when it is really little more than a marketing ploy. And in extreme case, the message goes beyond misleading and becomes flat out wrong.
That's where government regulation comes in, with Truth in Advertising laws.
Meanwhile, as new technology -- the Internet and promotional Web sites -- becomes more widespread and traditional media coordinate their news and advertising divisions to maintain readership and ad income, the government as protector of Constitutional First Amendment rights, is stepping in to monitor and regulate the activities of those who would abuse such rights.
"These days, it’s not always clear where news or entertainment ends and advertisements begin," said Bridget Small, consumer education specialist at the FTC. That's why the FTC sponsored a day-long workshop Dec. 4 dealing with the issue. The goal: To develop ways to help the public differentiate the two, whether the infomercials, sponsored content, infotainment, or any other blurred message appears on any of the new digital media devices.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
"The entire contents of this section supplied by the Advertising Department." -- Newspaper disclaimer.
"Native advertising" has nothing to do with the Cherokee.
Credibility is the only weapon journalism has.
Print information is more believable than back-fence gossip. Television is more believable than print, partly because it adds video to the mix. Every new information medium starts with a higher believability quotient than its predecessors because its very newness adds to its acceptance.
But is it reliable? That is an issue that journalists have been struggling with for many years. All things considered, that's all they have -- the willingness of the readers and views to trust the information as reliable, believable, and accurate. And with newspapers and TV news broadcasts, neutrality can be even more important.
All this, however, is being eroded by the trend to coordinate advertising with editorial efforts in providing information. Independent editors are being replaced by "content managers," who develop "sponsored content" -- advertising masquerading as news.
In truth, such practices have been going on for years, notably in Real Estate and Automobile section of daily newspapers. Rarely is any negative information found in such sections, which often are nothing more than press releases supplied by the advertisers to fill the space between ads. The more conscientious publishers specify at the top of each page that the entire contents of the section is supplied by the advertising department.
Television, too, identifies a program as paid for by the advertiser.
But when the lines blur, when readers and viewers are lulled into thinking that the information presented is a news item and not a commercial message, then there is a problem.
Journalists have fought for many decades to defend their reliability, their ability to pursue truth and pass it on to the public, knowing that their reputation endorses their credibility.
Web sites, however, erode that credibility when those with access to a computer can publish and disseminate their own propaganda without it being filtered by neutral reporters and editors.
Is this mass freedom to publish a good thing? Perhaps. It's true that many reporters and editors, as well as their publications and TV shows, are not neutral, much less objective. It falls to the public, therefore, to know the difference.
The bigger problem remains, however, that some media outlets blur the lines, coordinate the news and advertising with commercial material masquerading as editorial news information.
Public relations professionals know the difference between news and advertising, and operate separately from advertising agencies. Others, however, do not, and combine their marketing efforts with a client's PR needs, presenting a message for their clients as "hard news" when it is really little more than a marketing ploy. And in extreme case, the message goes beyond misleading and becomes flat out wrong.
That's where government regulation comes in, with Truth in Advertising laws.
Meanwhile, as new technology -- the Internet and promotional Web sites -- becomes more widespread and traditional media coordinate their news and advertising divisions to maintain readership and ad income, the government as protector of Constitutional First Amendment rights, is stepping in to monitor and regulate the activities of those who would abuse such rights.
"These days, it’s not always clear where news or entertainment ends and advertisements begin," said Bridget Small, consumer education specialist at the FTC. That's why the FTC sponsored a day-long workshop Dec. 4 dealing with the issue. The goal: To develop ways to help the public differentiate the two, whether the infomercials, sponsored content, infotainment, or any other blurred message appears on any of the new digital media devices.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Sunday, December 8, 2013
Minimum Wages
A rising tide lifts all boats.
Higher wages mean prosperity all around.
Opponents of a higher minimum wage warn of job losses as customers go elsewhere and companies relocate. In theory, this is partly true, but since most people at minimum pay levels work at places such as fast-food chains, it's not likely that customers will travel to an adjacent state just for a burger and fries. And companies will not relocate to areas where there are no customers. In addition, many other companies would not be affected, because they already pay their workers above the minimum. The federal minimum is currently $7.25 an hour, and some states mandate an even higher floor.
Meanwhile, there are firms that pay their workers so little -- at or slightly above the legal minimum -- that cashiers are unable to buy the stuff that they ring up for customers at the very company they work for. In addition, when these same workers apply for government assistance programs, such as food stamps, it means that government is subsidizing the employers.
Henry Ford had the right idea when he paid his assembly line workers well above the going rate. When criticized by other automakers for such a policy, Ford replied that as the workers got more money, they were able to buy his cars.
Higher wages mean prosperity all around.
Opponents of a higher minimum wage warn of job losses as customers go elsewhere and companies relocate. In theory, this is partly true, but since most people at minimum pay levels work at places such as fast-food chains, it's not likely that customers will travel to an adjacent state just for a burger and fries. And companies will not relocate to areas where there are no customers. In addition, many other companies would not be affected, because they already pay their workers above the minimum. The federal minimum is currently $7.25 an hour, and some states mandate an even higher floor.
Meanwhile, there are firms that pay their workers so little -- at or slightly above the legal minimum -- that cashiers are unable to buy the stuff that they ring up for customers at the very company they work for. In addition, when these same workers apply for government assistance programs, such as food stamps, it means that government is subsidizing the employers.
Henry Ford had the right idea when he paid his assembly line workers well above the going rate. When criticized by other automakers for such a policy, Ford replied that as the workers got more money, they were able to buy his cars.
Saturday, December 7, 2013
Boomlet, Part 2
Recovery may be here, but robust it ain't.
It may be.
Then again, it may not.
Skeptics are looking at last week's economy numbers with caution, even as a first glance shows promise. A second look, however, yields evidence that we're not yet on the high road to economic recovery.
The unemployment rate may be down, but the total number of jobs is relatively steady. GDP is up, but that could be due to an increase in inventories ahead of the holiday shopping rush.
True, the budget deficit is declining. For the first two months of fiscal year 2014, the U.S. federal government ran a deficit of $231 billion, said the Congressional Budget Office, $61 billion less than the shortfall a year ago.
And the Labor Department on Friday said the jobless rate in America was the lowest in five years, at 7 percent, down from its peak of 10 percent in October 2009, but not much different from the 7.3 percent in December 2008, just before President Obama took office.
Meanwhile, output of goods and services (GDP) during the July-September period rose at an annual rate of 3.6 percent, compared to 2.5 percent in the second quarter. In its first estimate, the Census Bureau said output rose at an annual rate of 2.8 percent.
The October 2013 international trade deficit decreased 5.4 percent from September, to $40.6 billion. Exports increased 1.8 percent, to $192.7 billion, and imports rose 0.4 percent, to $233.3 billion.
What do those numbers say? Not sure. But it could be that shallow changes mean less spending, and less spending means a slowdown.
And while sales of new single-family houses in October rose to an annualized rate of 444,000, according a government estimate, compared to 354,000 in September, the Census Bureau acknowledged that, given its degree of confidence in the survey, the agency "does not have sufficient statistical evidence to conclude that the actual change is different from zero."
In other words, sales were flat.
Separately, the Federal Reserve Board, in its Beige Book summary of economic conditions, described a "modest to moderate" expansion pace from early October through mid-November.
As for retail sales, the Fed survey used such terms as "moderate ... hopeful but uncertain ... cautiously optimistic" among executives scattered around the country.
And for the weekend after Thanksgiving, including Black Friday, when retailers expect to see their account books post black ink for the year rather than the red ink that indicates losses, the National Retail Federation said shoppers spent $1.7 billion less than they did a year ago.
Can you say gloomy?
As noted here a month ago, beware the boomlet. Sudden sharp increases often cannot be maintained, and can lead to another drop as an economy moves to recovery.
It may be.
Then again, it may not.
Skeptics are looking at last week's economy numbers with caution, even as a first glance shows promise. A second look, however, yields evidence that we're not yet on the high road to economic recovery.
The unemployment rate may be down, but the total number of jobs is relatively steady. GDP is up, but that could be due to an increase in inventories ahead of the holiday shopping rush.
True, the budget deficit is declining. For the first two months of fiscal year 2014, the U.S. federal government ran a deficit of $231 billion, said the Congressional Budget Office, $61 billion less than the shortfall a year ago.
And the Labor Department on Friday said the jobless rate in America was the lowest in five years, at 7 percent, down from its peak of 10 percent in October 2009, but not much different from the 7.3 percent in December 2008, just before President Obama took office.
Meanwhile, output of goods and services (GDP) during the July-September period rose at an annual rate of 3.6 percent, compared to 2.5 percent in the second quarter. In its first estimate, the Census Bureau said output rose at an annual rate of 2.8 percent.
The October 2013 international trade deficit decreased 5.4 percent from September, to $40.6 billion. Exports increased 1.8 percent, to $192.7 billion, and imports rose 0.4 percent, to $233.3 billion.
What do those numbers say? Not sure. But it could be that shallow changes mean less spending, and less spending means a slowdown.
And while sales of new single-family houses in October rose to an annualized rate of 444,000, according a government estimate, compared to 354,000 in September, the Census Bureau acknowledged that, given its degree of confidence in the survey, the agency "does not have sufficient statistical evidence to conclude that the actual change is different from zero."
In other words, sales were flat.
Separately, the Federal Reserve Board, in its Beige Book summary of economic conditions, described a "modest to moderate" expansion pace from early October through mid-November.
As for retail sales, the Fed survey used such terms as "moderate ... hopeful but uncertain ... cautiously optimistic" among executives scattered around the country.
And for the weekend after Thanksgiving, including Black Friday, when retailers expect to see their account books post black ink for the year rather than the red ink that indicates losses, the National Retail Federation said shoppers spent $1.7 billion less than they did a year ago.
Can you say gloomy?
As noted here a month ago, beware the boomlet. Sudden sharp increases often cannot be maintained, and can lead to another drop as an economy moves to recovery.
Sunday, December 1, 2013
Losing Interest
Give them money, and they will spend.
If you make it, they will buy.
If lower prices mean more sales,
then lower interest rates mean more borrowing.
Maybe. But fear prevents action. If consumers, investors and producers are pessimistic, then they are less likely to spend, and more likely to stash their cash for a rainy day.
More money (supply) means lower interest rates (cost of borrowing). So if supply increases and price goes down, demand should rise.
Since demand for money means more firms invest in production, that should result in a more active economy and recovery from an economic downturn. And as more product becomes available at lower prices, this results in increased sales.
Or so goes the theory, leaning heavily on supply side economics. In the case of money supply, that means quantitative easing, which is what the Federal Reserve now calls increasing the money supply in an effort to keep interest rates down and thus encourage more investment and in turn economic recovery.
It's one thing to make money more available, but it's quite another to actually spend it. And that's where consumers come in, since 80 percent of GDP is related to consumption.
So to reboot a faltering economy, consumers must be enticed to increase spending. If they don't, government can step up, and through fiscal policy (government spending) it can put people to work so they have income to spend and the economy recovers. Then, when it does, government and the Federal Reserve, in its role as the nation's central bank that controls the supply of money, can step back as the economy rolls along on its own.
However, there are those who insist that government has no role in a nation's economic health; that government should not intervene in any way, ever. And if government is involved, as is true in America today, then government should pull out entirely, reducing its involvement, cutting its deficit and paying off debt.
Clearly, however, this only worsens an already dire problem.
Money fuels the economic engine. By not sustaining the fuel flow, the engine stalls. And if people -- consumers, investors and producers -- fear a stalled engine, they are less likely to buy tickets or get on the train.
If you make it, they will buy.
If lower prices mean more sales,
then lower interest rates mean more borrowing.
Maybe. But fear prevents action. If consumers, investors and producers are pessimistic, then they are less likely to spend, and more likely to stash their cash for a rainy day.
More money (supply) means lower interest rates (cost of borrowing). So if supply increases and price goes down, demand should rise.
Since demand for money means more firms invest in production, that should result in a more active economy and recovery from an economic downturn. And as more product becomes available at lower prices, this results in increased sales.
Or so goes the theory, leaning heavily on supply side economics. In the case of money supply, that means quantitative easing, which is what the Federal Reserve now calls increasing the money supply in an effort to keep interest rates down and thus encourage more investment and in turn economic recovery.
It's one thing to make money more available, but it's quite another to actually spend it. And that's where consumers come in, since 80 percent of GDP is related to consumption.
So to reboot a faltering economy, consumers must be enticed to increase spending. If they don't, government can step up, and through fiscal policy (government spending) it can put people to work so they have income to spend and the economy recovers. Then, when it does, government and the Federal Reserve, in its role as the nation's central bank that controls the supply of money, can step back as the economy rolls along on its own.
However, there are those who insist that government has no role in a nation's economic health; that government should not intervene in any way, ever. And if government is involved, as is true in America today, then government should pull out entirely, reducing its involvement, cutting its deficit and paying off debt.
Clearly, however, this only worsens an already dire problem.
Money fuels the economic engine. By not sustaining the fuel flow, the engine stalls. And if people -- consumers, investors and producers -- fear a stalled engine, they are less likely to buy tickets or get on the train.
Time
"In Search of Lost Time" -- Book title
"Til the end of time" -- Song title
The future differs from what we expect.
Looking forward is longer than looking backward.
When time arrives, will I be here?
Many folks think of time as a commodity, to be saved, squandered or invested, or as a measure of payment -- that is, their time is worth X amount and they expect to be paid that much for their time.
But it's not always time that is saved, squandered or invested; rather, it is skill. Skills can be acquired. Talents are gifts that must be developed and polished, and are useful only when given away. And those with skill and talent should be compensated, if not in cash, then in psychic compensation. However, psychic compensation is not always exchangeable for groceries.
Time is not a commodity, to be bought and sold. Workers do not sell their time; rather, they rent their skills. Professionals charge by the hour, but they are renting out their expertise.
Poets write of the beginning of time, and of the end of time, as if time were linear. But what if time is not linear, but circular?
Einstein showed that light does not travel in a straight line, but curves. And given enough time, the light will return to its source. In this context, time travel is theoretically possible.
Freedom, like time, is not an achievement; it is a process. We never really get there. We're always on the way.
There was a young woman named Bright
Whose speed was much faster than light.
She went out one day,
In a relative way,
And returned on the previous night.
"Til the end of time" -- Song title
The future differs from what we expect.
Looking forward is longer than looking backward.
When time arrives, will I be here?
Many folks think of time as a commodity, to be saved, squandered or invested, or as a measure of payment -- that is, their time is worth X amount and they expect to be paid that much for their time.
But it's not always time that is saved, squandered or invested; rather, it is skill. Skills can be acquired. Talents are gifts that must be developed and polished, and are useful only when given away. And those with skill and talent should be compensated, if not in cash, then in psychic compensation. However, psychic compensation is not always exchangeable for groceries.
Time is not a commodity, to be bought and sold. Workers do not sell their time; rather, they rent their skills. Professionals charge by the hour, but they are renting out their expertise.
Poets write of the beginning of time, and of the end of time, as if time were linear. But what if time is not linear, but circular?
Einstein showed that light does not travel in a straight line, but curves. And given enough time, the light will return to its source. In this context, time travel is theoretically possible.
Freedom, like time, is not an achievement; it is a process. We never really get there. We're always on the way.
There was a young woman named Bright
Whose speed was much faster than light.
She went out one day,
In a relative way,
And returned on the previous night.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)