the Scott Stein http://scottstein.powerblogs.com/ en-us 2008-02-06T00:02+00:00 Must Read: Milton Friedman http://scottstein.powerblogs.com/posts/1164200368.shtml If you haven't read anything by Milton Friedman, you must. I recommend both Capitalism and Freedom and Free to Choose. It is unfortunate that many highly educated people who disdain the... Scott Stein 2006-11-22T14:11+00:00 Capitalism and Freedom and Free to Choose. It is unfortunate that many highly educated people who disdain the free market, or have strong opinions on issues like the minimum wage, have never even tried to understand the actual arguments for the positions they oppose. Friedman's are not the only arguments out there worth engaging, but they're a good place to start.

Since Friedman's death last week, much has been written about him. Below are two new pieces from Reason that are worthwhile:

It's Milton Friedman's World: We're Just Living Freely in It
The economist who advocated "Power to the People"

Milton Friedman, Archliberal
Why the great free market economist was no conservative
]]> In Praise of Consumer Culture http://scottstein.powerblogs.com/posts/1156447311.shtml “I’m thinking of becoming an expatriate. I swear the other day I almost got on a plane to France.” My friend was only half-serious. She wasn’t going anywhere. But the disgust... Scott Stein 2006-08-24T19:08+00:00
“Why?” I asked.

“Smothered-covered.”

Apparently, she had recently seen a television commercial advertising a “smothered-covered” burger at a chain restaurant.

I wondered what topping could be offensive enough to send a person fleeing from the land of her birth. “Smothered-covered with what?”

It didn’t matter what. Cheese. Sauce. Whatever the case, the sad truth was that we lived in a society that wanted its food smothered-covered. It was enough to drive some people to live in France. Almost.

I was then treated to the familiar litany of objections to American consumer culture: Americans were materialistic, greedy, cruel, crass, tasteless, gluttonous pigs who lived only for the next chance to stuff themselves with burgers dripping with cheese. (Or was it sauce? I never did learn what exactly was doing the smothering-covering.)

My friend was sickened at the “excesses of a nation” where so many people were “living in poverty.” She was tired of seeing bad movies at the top of the box office and bad books in windows of bookstores. She’d had it with grotesque daytime talk shows and the popularity of professional wrestling.

Why couldn’t Americans be more sophisticated? Why couldn’t they watch smart television shows and read good books and ignore Britney Spears? In other words, why couldn’t they be more like my friend?

I suppose she figured I would commiserate and add my own snappy remarks about the horrible sensibilities of the American middle class and the debased state of our consumer culture. It would have been easy enough to rip into reality television and the latest self-help book flying off the shelves, and I reserve the right to critique these and more in the future. Today, however, I write not to bury consumer culture, but to praise it.

My recent experience with a chain steak restaurant was different from my friend’s. Sitting at the next table was a family of three: a man in a mechanic’s jumpsuit with his name stitched on the pocket, his wife, and their son. I am sure there was something on the menu that was smothered, or at least covered, but that isn’t the point. This mechanic was a “working man,” as my friend would say, yet there he was enjoying a moderately priced steak with his family on a Friday night. And he and his family were not the exception but the rule.

Look around the local mall or discount store. People, who only a generation or two earlier would have been poor and unable to enjoy a meal out, are now consumers, purchasing services and products that they need or want. Fewer and fewer Americans live in anything like real poverty, judged by any reasonable standard. In our consumer society, the majority of people “living in poverty” are also living with a car, a microwave, a VCR, a color television, a washing machine, and air conditioning. Not only are poor people living better than ever before, but we are fortunate to live in an exceptionally mobile society. Although some politicians like to talk about the “top one percent” and Americans “trapped in poverty,” many of the people categorized as rich were in fact poor at one time, and, overwhelmingly, most of the people considered to be poor today will not be poor in the not-too-distant future.

Many incorrectly blame consumer culture for poverty. The reverse is true--consumer culture is responsible for prosperity. People, after all, have to make, sell, and deliver all those products that others want to consume, which increases employment and material wealth for all (including people in other countries). And it is that very prosperity that leads to a more assertive consumer culture. The lack of a permanent underclass, the continual escape from poverty, is actually the cause of what some would call “our debased consumer culture.”

In The Revolt of the Masses, Ortega y Gasset saw the coming reality of culture being determined by the mass man. Empowering the masses economically and politically would naturally have cultural implications. No longer would there be an elite with the proper breeding and education to direct the culture. Because of the ever-improving standard of living our capitalist system creates, even laborers now have disposable income and time to spend it. Many whose parents had been laborers find themselves able to acquire an education and a white-collar career. Many have become wealthy. A college degree has been transformed from a rare achievement to a common stepping stone. Everything my friend would want for the “poor uneducated masses” is becoming reality. They earn more money, live longer and better, and refuse to have their tastes dictated from above.

But that empowerment also means that Americans enjoy their Danielle Steele novels and soap operas and don’t care who knows it. They’re loud and sure of themselves, and the power of their dollars affects us all. The people want smothered-covered burgers, and the people, in a consumer culture, always get what they want. It is not my purpose to sing the praises of the smothered-covered burger. There is plenty to be critical of in our society. Consumer culture has allowed public opinion to be determined by sound bites and catch phrases (because, of course, countries with other kinds of economic cultures never elect bumbling bureaucrats or enact stupid policies). It has led to millions of conversations over the details of Tom Cruise’s love life (though as long as I’m not forced to participate in such conversations, it isn’t really my problem). It has given birth to television shows and books and songs that--in some people’s opinions, which means, the absolute truth that everyone should agree with--cater to the lowest common denominator, because in entertainment that is often where the money is (fortunately, televisions, books, and radios do not yet have the power to demand my attention. I have figured out how to use the off switch).

However, aside from the material benefits it provides, recent consumer culture has also produced brilliant movies, inventive pop songs, and satire in the form of television shows like The Simpsons and South Park, which are hardly less sophisticated in their humor than The Canterbury Tales or a Shakespearean comedy, based on the number of bathroom and sex jokes alone. It is true that popular consumer culture often elevates the simplistic and the crude, but it can produce the clever and even the profound as well. And our consumer culture has also made room for a thriving high-art community, with some of the world’s finest orchestras, writers, and museums finding their own audiences.

Those who want to denounce consumer culture wholesale must be confronted with its benefits and its cause. Improved material living standards for millions of people, self-confidence, political freedom, more leisure time, greater health, and longer lives are the direct results of a society that is built on a consumer economy. They are, in turn, the direct cause of the popularity of James Patterson novels, People magazine, smothered-covered burgers, fad fashions, and primetime game shows that are painful to watch. The two cannot be separated. If the snobs among us would wish away our consumer culture, they would also have to do away with its genesis--a greater improvement in living standards than any of our grandparents could have conceived.

The popularity of trashy books was inevitable with the invention of the printing press. We would not condemn the printing press and ignore all of the good it has fostered, would we? Of course not. And for the same reason, we shouldn’t condemn consumer culture. It would be nice if Americans, many only a generation or two removed from poverty, would throw aside trite entertainment, at least once in a while. It would be a true joy if movie stars weren’t fawned over by journalists. But that’s wishful thinking. What exactly should the people be doing with their time and money? Millions have been economically empowered in the last few generations; could anyone really expect that they would all be reading sonnets and studying Latin and attending symphonies? Is this the standard they are failing to meet when we look down on their tastes? We need to evaluate consumer culture honestly and in a more historical context.

People, who in earlier times would be illiterate, now choose to read romance novels and self-help books. Should we blame consumer culture for their bad taste, or recognize how lucky they and we are to be living in a society where so many can and do read? People, who in earlier times would be blocked by poverty from attending the opera, now relax by watching the latest action movie or television hospital melodrama. Should we blame consumer culture for their lowly interests, or recognize how lucky they and we are to be living in a society that has given them the time and technology for such entertainment? People, who in earlier times would be unable to afford a steak dinner, now drive around the corner, still in their work clothes, and get filet mignon for an hour’s wages. Should we blame consumer culture for their lack of formality, or be thankful that in this society a working-class family can have a meal brought to them with dignity, cooked to order?

Those claiming to care about the working class should be consumer culture’s loudest cheerleaders. Of course, it is only natural for artists and writers to challenge the status quo and be critical of what they think is the worst in their society (though in some "artistic" circles, loathing American capitalism is the status quo). My comments above do not mean I don’t have critiques of my own. But any honest critique of American consumer culture should be tempered by the reality that it has resulted in more improved lives than any other kind of economic culture in the history of the world.

It might indeed be a case of either-or. Either people are poor and not free, or they have money and freedom and as a consequence the rest of us can’t avoid the new Britney Spears song on the radio. As one who, a generation or two earlier, might not have attended college or been in a position to look down on the literary tastes of the masses, I gladly praise the consumer culture that creates freedom and prosperity and opportunity. And if Britney Spears truly cannot be avoided, I will be happy to turn off my radio and television and read a good book. After I’ve had my smothered-covered burger, of course.


-----



This essay was first published on the Drexel Online Journal in 2002. A few cultural references have since been updated and other minor changes have been made.]]> The Happiest Place on Earth (No, It Isn't Disney World) http://scottstein.powerblogs.com/posts/1154053851.shtml As reported on CNN.com, Denmark is the happiest place on Earth.... Scott Stein 2006-07-28T02:07+00:00 CNN.com, Denmark is the happiest place on Earth.
At the bottom came the Democratic Republic of Congo, Zimbabwe and Burundi. The United States came in at 23rd, Britain was in 41st place, Germany 35th and France 62nd.
Readers might not like the claim that "[s]maller countries tend to be a little happier because there is a stronger sense of collectivism." Some collectivism, like a strong community or tradition, probably does give people a sense of belonging that translates to their happiness. Perhaps when that collectivism prevents the expression of individualism, or when the larger collectivism of the society or government interferes with the sense of belonging to a family or voluntary group, then happiness declines, at least for some people. The study doesn't say that collectivism equals happiness. Researcher Adrian White was
"surprised to see countries in Asia scoring so low, with China 82nd, Japan 90th, and India 125th. These are countries that are thought as having a strong sense of collective identity which other researchers have associated with well-being."
The study's definition of happiness has explanatory power:
"We're looking much more at whether you are satisfied with your life in general," White told Reuters. "Whether you are satisfied with your situation and environment."
Even in the best of times, I don't think the U.S. would place very high in a study with happiness so defined. In dynamic societies (i.e., capitalist societies, or somewhat capitalist societies), people are often not "satisfied with [their] situation and environment." They want to make more money, buy bigger homes, get better educations, and in general move up the economic ladder. Unfulfilled desires abound in a society where the fulfilling of those desires is at least possible.

In societies where such economic improvement is not possible, there might be more satisfaction--less envy of neighbors, less sense of having failed to be successful and rich, and so on. Happiness is tied up with our expectations. That's why at our ages, our grandparents weren't necessarily less happy than we are now, even though they generally had far fewer material comforts and opportunities. Our grandparents had no expectation of having a big house, so they weren't disappointed when they couldn't afford one.

I wonder how powerful this expectation factor is. Our ancestors (maybe going back a couple of generations before our grandparents) didn't expect all of their children to survive into adulthood. Does that mean that the loss of a child didn't reduce their happiness as much as it would reduce ours?

The expectation explanation certainly falls apart when the society is so poor that misery is the only option. Zimbabwe is a miserable place to be. Even though people have no possibility of improving their situations and therefore can't blame themselves, and even though there aren't rich neighbors to envy, and even though they can expect no better, they're still miserable.

I haven't read the study, just the CNN article, but it seems that the definition of happiness is key here. If there were a way of measuring the joy of achieving a goal, making a business succeed, being able to choose one's own profession, charting one's own course, writing late at night to perfect that novel you've been working on for a couple of years, pursuing dreams, it wouldn't register in this study. Because always striving to improve yourself is the same as never being satisfied or content, and is nearly the opposite of the study's definition of happiness.]]> Surprising? http://scottstein.powerblogs.com/posts/1152475281.shtml Headline from the New York Times: "Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit"... Scott Stein 2006-07-09T20:07+00:00 New York Times: "Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit"

Surprising? It shouldn't be. A standard argument for tax cuts is that they stimulate economic growth. And economic growth will obviously increase tax revenues. Even with lower tax rates, the government gets more money, because businesses and the wealthy pay more when they make more. Why is this so hard to understand?

Source: NY Times via Drudge
]]> Somber Music and the Minimum Wage http://scottstein.powerblogs.com/posts/1151459147.shtml I was called today by a group named Working America and asked by a recording to participate in a one-question poll. The recording informed me that Congress had given itself many... Scott Stein 2006-06-28T01:06+00:00
After the call I googled Working America and learned that it is "A Community Affiliate of the AFL-CIO." So when you read in a newspaper that the AFL-CIO says x percent of people polled are in favor of increasing the minimum wage, see if the story mentions that the poll question set-up is designed to make the respondent feel like a greedy, uncaring lout if he answers "no."

The set-up to the question could point out that Congress raising its own salary at the taxpayers' expense has no relation to the minimum wage, since the workers in question are not getting a raise at the taxpayers' expense, but at the expense of businesses that employ them, which means at the expense of the businesses' investors and customers, which means at the workers' own expense, since some of them will be fired to keep investors and customers from having to shoulder the expense of giving them a wage that their productivity doesn't merit. Congress, on the other hand, doesn't get fired. Incumbents get re-elected almost as a matter of course. And even if a pay increase angers voters and they vote out an incumbent, someone new is voted in and the total number of Congress-people is unchanged. The same cannot be said for minimum-wage workers.

Yeah, that's probably too long. Maybe the set-up for the question could just mention that increasing the minimum wage causes unemployment. And keep the somber music.

Besides, is anyone really hoping for an increase in the minimum wage so they can get their first raise in ten years? Why the hell would someone making minimum wage ten years ago still be making minimum wage today? Most jobs that pay minimum wage are entry level. You're not supposed to stay in an entry-level job for ten years. Pick up a skill. Or two. Per decade.]]> Thank you, Jeeves! http://scottstein.powerblogs.com/posts/1151011938.shtml I just read my first "Jeeves" novel, The Code of the Woosters, by P.G. Wodehouse. I'll write about it separately as a Book Note.... Scott Stein 2006-06-22T21:06+00:00 The Code of the Woosters, by P.G. Wodehouse. I'll write about it separately as a Book Note.

Jeeves is the prototypical super-butler always saving the day, always calm, possessing the most level head in time of crisis. Bertram Wooster is the wealthy gentleman always finding trouble. Lucky for him that he has Jeeves by his side.

Of course, portraying the rich as buffoons and their servants as sophisticated or witty is a well-worn comic premise, and the Wodehouse model has many recent echoes--think of Benson in Soap and Benson, Florence in The Jeffersons, the movie Arthur, the TV show Mr. Belvedere. Can you name others? I'm sure there's a long history of this going back way before Jeeves.

Aside from comic strategy, though, is there anything else at work in this narrative model? Psychological comfort for the poor to see the rich portrayed as stupid or concerned only with the trivial? Wishful thinking, that the only reason the rich are rich is the good fortune of birth?

Not that anything in Wodehouse's funny novel ought to be taken seriously. Using the wealthy as comic foils is fine by me. I did a fair bit of this in my first novel Lost. I guess I was less ideological then. Still, whatever gets the laugh.]]>