SITUATION, PREDICTION, PRESCRIPTION

by

Stephen Chilton

DRAFT: Not for quotation or citation without author's permission

To be presented at the panel, "xx", at the annual meeting of the xx Association, xx place, xx date. I am indebted to xx for encouragement and intelligent commentary.

SITUATION, PREDICTION, PRESCRIPTION

ABSTRACT

xx

I have been wanting for some time to write about the current situation of the United States (and perhaps the Western world or even the world as a whole), with a view to explaining what is going wrong now, what will happen, and the direction we need to pursue.

1. WHAT IS GOING WRONG NOW

Despite the current triumphalism of the proponents of capitalism (posing as the "free market" and "democracy"), we are witnessing its breakdown. It will occur within fifty years, in my opinion. In the thirties, the crisis of the depression was overcome by war and the system of capitalism itself was stabilized by a series of new Deal reforms. Here I'm thinking in particular of FDIC bank insurance, to enhance consumer confidence and thus to protect against the widespread runs on banks, of banking regulation, to prevent bank failures, of the social security system, to keep the working class from rebelling, etc.

We have an enormous debt now, in many areas.

• $xx in consumer debt, which xx [social class] owes to xx.
• A national debt of $xx, which our government owes to xx.
• We have let our infrastructure slide. We spent $xx in the fifties, sixties, and seventies on highways, bridges, [other things?], and these are now nearing the end of their life cycle. If we estimate that the total investment is $xx, and we amortize these over (generously) fifty years, then we need to be spending $xx/year on repair & replacement. We are only spending $xx/year, so our "debt" to our infrastructure is growing at xx/year. In addition, we haven't paid this debt for a long time now, so its current total is about $xx.
• The savings and loan failures of the late eighties have given us another debt, not recorded on government balance sheets, of $xx.
• The social security system has been used for some time to make the national budget look balanced, but if we look at it long-term, our actuarial indebtedness exceeds our expected contributions by $xx. This represents a transfer of wealth from the baby boom generation, which will likely have its social security terminated, to the generation of their parents, who got the benefit of social security payments that exceeded their contributions.
• We have accumulated an environmental indebtedness by polluting our environment in the race for immediate wealth. I don't know how to calculate this cost.
• We have a social debt in that we have allowed our mutual regard for one another to decline. We have oppressed minorities in the interest of maintaining a reserve labor force and a source of low-wage labor. They will demand (and are demanding) a reckoning.

We are in a struggle between two groups, and neither is forwarding an ethical vision. On the one side we have people who, using Adam Smith's arguments about increasing the total wealth being produced, argue for a "free market" system that produces two opposing classes and, even within a single class, alienates people from each other. And in reality, the arguments here are basically on behalf of the wealthy. When inequality of wealth obtains at the start, support for a free market system is not a neutral position. The power of government, supposedly enlisted to provide a level playing field, is in fact used to enforce rules of the game that advantage the people who are already advantaged. Government does offer some protection for these people by regulation, but not as much as is common in the liberal project, so that the conservative project (accurately) bashes the liberal project for its paperwork burden.

On the other side we have people who support various aspects of the liberal project, but who in fact wind up using the power of government to support certain specific interest groups--those of groups who are organized. Here I'm thinking of the New Deal coalition groups (organized labor, minorities, urban residents), recently joined by others (women's liberation groups, gays). I'm NOT advocating that their concerns be dismissed. What I'm saying is that the liberal project winds up advocating only the interests of people who are organized. The protections offered are specific, enforced by government regulation, targeted at one problem after another, so that we do ultimately get a bureaucratic gridlock.

We will never have another depression like that of the thirties. Whatever we have may be worse, but it won't have the same character.

Our debts are real. Our environmental resources are limited. In addition, our recognition of environmental damage means that we must be reluctant to use damaging technology. So I think we must become used to a lower standard of living. The thing is, we really can get along with much simpler life than we have now. If we don't watch out, we can slide into a sense that we are living in the fall of the Roman Empire. I look at my worn carpet and marked-up walls and think, "My life is falling apart. I'm living a shabby existence." This is not the only way to look at our situation, however. We can also attend to other, interesting things in our environment--such as people, friends, nature, the creation of social networks. The fact is that I don't need all my dinnerware; I could get by on a few dishes and glasses, perhaps earthenware made simply by someone who knows and loves me. What meaning such tableware would have for me! And if friends came over, we could choose to place our attention on our friendship instead of whether my walls were lily-white or my carpet was worn or my dishes were in mint condition.

My sense is that people live well at many levels of income.

So: change the culture.

Also: change so that we have an overall just system and recognize our mutual commitment to that justice.

Pull together, and let each other know that we are watching out for each other.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• xx (19xx). xx book. xx: xx.
• xx (19xx). xx article. xx xx:xx-xx.
• xx (19xx). xx paper. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the xx, xx.
• xx (19xx). xx book chapter. Pp. xx - xx of xx, ed. xx. xx: xx.

The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer.
Copyright © 2004 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.