The American Nightmare

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090525/greider

I suggest holding one's nose, having a very stiff drink handy and being ready to get up and go for a walk a couple times during reading this -- if you have a brain. If you don't, then you are going to LOVE IT!!

Here is Greider's view of "the new American Dream".

Here is the grand vision I suggest Americans can pursue: the right of all citizens to larger lives. Not to get richer than the next guy or necessarily to accumulate more and more stuff but the right to live life more fully and engage more expansively the elemental possibilities of human existence. That is the essence of what so many now seem to yearn for in their lives. People--even successful and affluent people--are frustrated because the intangible dimensions of life have been held back or displaced in large and small ways, pushed aside by the economic system's relentless demands to maximize yields of profit and wealth. Our common moral verities have been trashed in the name of greater returns. The softer aspects of mortal experience are diminished because life itself is not tabulated in the economic system's accounting.

Let me try to parse that "big idea". There is some "right to live large lives"-- but competition and money aren't part of that. Can somebody explain to me why people today don't have a right to live whatever life they want that doesn't include "money and things"?

Current people's "common moral verities have been trashed" -- by I guess, someone looking for greater returns. Apparently, Greider and the people he normally talks to are "victims" -- this horrible current overzealous and overly productive wealth system just "pushes them around". Somehow the fact that others have "money and things" somehow "prevents" them from living the life they would like without the dreaded "money and things"? Is there potentially just a bit of plain old envy here trying to make sure that once the folks that Greider thinks have "too much" have been swatted down to size, then "somehow" the world will just be "better".

What's needed in American life is a redefinition of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Given the nation's great wealth, the ancient threats of scarcity and deprivation have been eliminated. Yet people remain yoked to economic demands despite wanting something more from life--freedom to explore the mysteries and bring forth all that is within them. Collectively, Americans need to take a deep breath and reconsider what it means to be rich.

So according to Greider, we are rich enough and there are no threats of scarcity or deprivation -- "plenty has been achieved", and apparently, it would be impossible to kill the goose that layed this golden egg. My thought on that is; Great, so now you can go forth and live the minimalist life you desire -- live long and avoid prospering. Nobody is stopping you. Oh, wait, that doesn't seem to be it:

Guaranteed public jobs paying more than the minimum wage would permanently and automatically stabilize the economy, swelling the ranks of public workers in recessions and shrinking them when private jobs become more abundant. Instead of punishing the working poor most severely in downturns, as the system does now, the government would redistribute the costs of recession so that all taxpayers would share the burden as a public obligation.

Ah, we need a "gaurenteed public job at more than minium wage" -- uh, so that will sort of make "minimum wage" meaningless won't it? Seems that I may as well take that guarenteed public job that I can't be fired from and just show up and drink coffee with the other guaranteed job public workers until I get my check. It will be fun to chat about the private fools working their butts off to pay the taxes so that I can be as indolent as my heart desires. Oh, wait, how likely is it that "all taxpayers will share the burden as a public obligation"? Think they might not like me sitting there doing zip getting "more than minium wage" while all their dining and retail establishments raise prices and close down because of the high cost of labor?

The article drones on ... "Social Corporations" ... where that nasty idea of "profit" is far down the list of priorities. Ah yes, how much better life could be if we didn't need to produce something that someone else was pay more than it cost to make if for!! It is true that wiping out competition might help there -- if there is no competition, products can be pretty bad and still purchased, but even then, there is a limit.

One might imagine that thinking like this in a major US magazine, and a guy in the White House that would nearly certainly agree with much of it would be a fantasy ... but alas, it is an actual "waking nightmare".