I DO THAT

I don’t know if I should say “I belong to a group” or “I hang out with,” or just what but I usually spend a few hours on Wednesday with a long, table full of folks who refer to the gathering as, ‘Gnawing For Knowledge’ originally a philosophy study group, inevitably straying from formal philosophers to any number of heady subjects. That’s almost a run-on sentence. I do that. I seldom have opinions. My niche is the one to ask oblique questions. After I have my say, the discussion will veer off in a new direction or they will ignore me and go on as if I weren’t there. 

Yesterday we listened to a taped lecture about the evolution of economics in Western Europe and the USA, after WW2. Some of it seems like a no-brainer but if nobody paints the picture, you’ll likely never do it for yourself. In the fall of 1945, the USA was the only world power whose infrastructure and economy was not in shambles. Just the opposite; our manufacturing/banking community was running smoothly. Four years of a war economy had pulled us out of hard times. Our biggest problem was putting millions of returning soldiers back to work but we had the means to do it, just a bump in the road.

In Europe, unemployment was massive. They had to make a new road before they could experience a bump. In order to generate some action, England, France, etc. printed a lot of money and funded public works. Economic risk was taken on by the government. Socialized programs were necessary to get people back into the system. Health care, education, support for unions were the best cards in their deck. The unemployment rate was so high, the government funded long term unemployment benefits and time off. Pay was low, the economy was slow. One way or another, everybody shared the burden, everybody shared the reward. In the USA, things went just the opposite direction. A burgeoning economy motivated everyone. Europeans were struggling to keep heads above water and Americans were speed-scaling the economic ladder. High pay, high productivity allowed the risk be on individuals to fund their own health care and education while unions were viewed as inhibitors, few safety nets. This trend continued to play out over the next half century. What you get is what we got; in Europe, lower pay, lower productivity, social safety net. At home, we work longer, harder and reward success at the expense of the underclass. 

The advantages and drawbacks are obvious; sort of like, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. In our discussion, after only a few comments I realized I was on a different page. My cohorts lose me easily. My question was more of an observation that I hoped would guide the discussion. My nature is to question why we do as we do, more so than what it is that we do. I suggested that nations as entities don’t do much long range planning or even think about long term consequences; "The best laid plans of mice and men . . ." Even from the left, there is a presumption that our economy is the result of a clear-eyed understanding of what each step would lead to. Public perception is that we got here by choice. I think that’s like a rock taking credit for rolling down hill. During the Great Depression, before the war, we cast a big safety net with federally funded projects. Republicans still hate FDR for his treatment of banks and corporations. When they say, ‘Nobody is too big to fail.” they actually mean that failure is an integral part of the free market and should trickle up from the bottom. Stock holders should be the last to feel the pinch. 

I think my comments went over their heads like high flying birds, on their way south for the winter. We can lean forward but we are stuck in the moment. I drew an analogy about driving a car in reverse, seeing only where you have been; steering according to how yesterday’s road meandered rather than looking ahead. It seemed to resonate but the urge to humanize the math and put spin on economic fallout was too much to resist. The conversation fell back into a ‘Blame Game.’ 

Our group leader is a retired economics professor who lets us bumble along without too much intervention. I like to remind him of my story about economists. They study markets and money the same way fishermen troll their boats around the lake. When they ease up to the dock with a fish on their stringer they say with great confidence,”We sure churned up the lake today!” Oh, there’s another one. This one he likes. An economist was hired to assess a company’s business model. The economist collected tons of data and spent weeks preparing a report. When he presented the report to the board of directors it was too complicated for them to understand. “What does this mean,” asked the CEO. The economist answered, “What do you want it to mean?” He hasn’t slapped me yet.