America's Next Steps, Chapter 6

6 FLEXIBLE THINKING

When Dan Appleton and I (Glaucon and Socrates) are locked in our web-net cavern, constrained by the pandemic, the best outcomes may result from actually listening and digesting diverse arguments. The lesson for our respective world members is to believe in collaboration and consensus. Respect and value diverse beliefs. Stay focused on planting the flag and defining the way ahead.

I wrote "Bear in mind that we live as citizens of the world, and not just as citizens of a nation."

And Dan replied: “True, but meaningless except for the fact that it is our intra-national focus that makes us the "up" side of the global quality of life scale. 

‘Our global responsibility is to keep moving the quality of human life-bar up, to be the role model for the rest of the world. And, we are. Liberals like Barack and Michelle call that selfish. Progressives call that criminal. They want us to emulate failures like socialism so we can degrade ourselves and become good ‘equal’ global citizens. In truth, if we purposefully become ‘equal,’ the global community will suffer because the globally predatory Chinese Communists will absolutely assume the global leadership role.

The differences between us are patently obvious and not good for humanity. We are ‘freedom-of-the-individualists,’ they are ‘cruel slave-owners;’ we are ‘government-enabled,’ they are ‘government-controlled;’ we are capitalists, they are central planners and central controllers; every unequal person in our economy has AC, TV, a car, a cell phone, clean water and abundant energy, they -- not so much.” Appleton summarized.

Just as I must purge my Trump-bashing, I suggest that the Obamas are in the history books and no longer relevant. Unless, of course, Barack becomes a US Supreme Court Justice one day and Michelle runs for President.

My reply is that the contrasts are true. Capitalist America had a head start and America used it to advantage, not having to account for damage to the environment and callous treatment of workers. That too is history.

The As-Is advantage is still with Americans until or unless several things happen:

1.      We can no longer honor our obligations because we are going bankrupt.

2.      We slip behind in invention production.

3.      We can’t protect our inventions under the rule of law.

4.      We allow our industrial capacity to erode into oblivion.

Maybe, Dan, you can think of more.

Appleton asked, "In America today, what is the essential investment required to support a person who has completed high school?’

‘When my parents passed, they put me in charge of their estate, my brother and his inheritance. The lawyer told me that legally I was responsible to ensure three things:

1. A roof

2. Access to medical care, and

3. Income stream to cover his living expenses.

These three things are very individualized. They are all that is required for Sustainment -- high school or not.”

In my case, when my dad passed, he put our inheritance in the hands of my younger brother. It was a fifty-fifty deal. My brother had his wife manage the estate because Dad trusted her and she is technically competent. My brother had a stroke and my sister-in-law administered the accounts to an equal split. Dad’s inheritance was a “bonus-round’ that I never expected.

Had my wife not had a retirement income and had I not had Social Security, we might be in bad shape. The safety net saved us.

Dan explained, “The homeless population gives us a model for demonstrably ineffective Government-Sustainment.

The working population gives us a model for Self-Sustainment.

And, the retired population gives us a model for Old-age-Sustainment. Each is different at the group level and at the individual level in how these three things are best achieved. There is no one size fits all,” he concluded.

I would add to that that means-testing might apply where wealthy individuals do not need government support and should forfeit that until or if they do.

Dan addressed my comment that "Opportunity addressability is an important concept as it relates to equality. There must be sufficient opportunity to ensure upward mobile equality."

Appleton said, “This is a double non sequitur, Jim. It makes no sense. Opportunity is an upward concept; equality is a downward concept. The concept of "upward equality" is oxymoronic. You have to hold or take the up down hoping the down catches up, but that begs the question as to why up and down exist at all. Answer: Nature is in charge!! This reality is why Socialism and Communism were born to fail. They are unnatural. Capitalism, on the other hand, is natural. It is the source of wealth, the energy of life. VIVA LA DIFFERENCE!”

Responding to Dan and my comment that "Opportunity addressability is an important concept as it relates to equality. There must be sufficient opportunity to ensure upward-mobile equality."

Socrates listens to Glaucon and shakes his head. It is a give-and-take discussion whereby we don't always agree.

It all depends on where you stand on the continuum from poverty to wealth. If you are on the bottom of society's heap and look up and around, you may not feel equal. If you are on top and look down, you might see an ocean of equality. In the middle, you might hope it is so.

What people might hope is to be treated equally as that is their human right. They expect to have access to opportunities commensurate with their preparation and ability. They want the government and industry to collaborate to achieve mutual success expressed as ever-expanding opportunities. 

I agree with Dan that the opportunity is positive. I disagree that equality is negative. Equality is neutral. Saying that it is negative implies that equality is limited and that someone up the ladder must forfeit to allow others to benefit. That is false.

I asked, “Is the extreme concentration of wealth in America, and the shrinking opportunity for citizens’ access to quality jobs with upward mobile potential a problem?”

Appleton answered with a resounding, “NO!” He explained his view.

“First of all, the assertion that in the US there is a ‘shrinking opportunity for citizens’ access to quality jobs is ridiculous. It is a statement of political value, not fact. What is a quality job? One you like? One that pays well? One that give you access to the Up Side, makes you one of THEM?! Note, the vast majority of jobs in this economy are from small businesses, the bleeding edge of capitalism. Before this corona BS, job availability exceeded job demand leading to wages rising across the board.’

‘Second, the idea that an extreme concentration of wealth as a dampener to quality jobs and upward mobility is ridiculous. It is the extreme concentration of wealth that creates opportunity, possibility, hope, creativity, and desire. It is compelling, celebrity, success, life changing, fulfilling! Am I  wrong? Of course not. Wherever it has been forced on people, the ‘equality’ you extol has proven to bring economic and social status, collapse and death. 

‘We live in a time in which the government is fabricating and distributing artificial wealth, equally. The result is the potential cataclysmic destruction of the working class, the wealth generation engine of every economy. Why do we work? Are we just bored? No! It is in our DNA to want whatever wealth we can get. Are we satisfied with survival-wealth? No. We ALWAYS want more and MORE. (That's why we like lotteries.)

‘By definition, work is the product and the producer of differentiation. Work uses and consumes human energy and in doing so creates wealth.  Equality means no differentiation, no work, no wealth, societal demise,” he concluded.

I wrote, "Social Security and Medicare are effective today. However, looming is a population size and demographic that threaten sustainability of the As-Is system."

Appleton replied:

“Another non sequitur. True as a talking point but false in reality. Neither of these programs or policies has any relationship or applicability or relevance to the population at large. They are just for the old! If you want to "save" them for the old, non-workers, there are simple ways to do that -- raise the retirement age.

‘But, if you want to use them as the model for the To-Be national or global economic system, that system must increase its capacity for wealth generation. That can only be accomplished through more work, not more government control and artificial largess,” he concluded.

I will let this debate stand on its own, and invite readers and scholars to continue the debate.