You Might Prefer a Raisin in the Sun

All night last night and for most of the day "today" (meaning Tuesday, whereas technically it is now Wednesday) I had the writing jones. I felt like I had a lot of stuff to say, but all I could manage was a few minutes at the library to write a single email. The urgency to express myself withered as I bounced some of my ideas off of a completely unimpressed Russ. He didn't see the significance of my concerns so I began to doubt it too. Depression began to roll back on me like storm clouds or a Sisyphean stone, whichever you prefer, probably because I had forgotten to take my anti-depressant this morning.

Let me take this opportunity to say that I really welcome your letters. And I would have answered the phone, Dave (Hi, Dave! :)) except that I was running around doing errands and I could not have heard your voice over the phone. The din of traffic drowns out the sound of the phone even at maximum volume.

So, yeah, this time my ideas kind of expired before I wrote them down. On the other hand, the letter I wrote today managed to capture a remnant of my thoughts. Excerpts below are from said letter, addressed to my dining companion from the previous night, a disestablishmentarian economist from Iran whom I will call John. A naturalized US citizen, he's been over here for about ten years now and is working on his second book, which is at least partially funded by the proceeds from his first book.

-------------

... You gave me many things to disagree with all at once, and by the time I got my chance to talk you were past the point of conversing and responding.
... When I write about you on my blog I will be as respectful as I always am to [people] I disagree with... You will find that I am a very respectful person... If I have anything to say about you that you don't like I'll edit it or take it down.

You don't seem to give American traditions of economics much credence because the United States as an entity has made so many disastrous mistakes, and because we seem to be under the control of a certain manipulative element of what we traditionally refer to as "the Establishment." It is almost as though you feel that if you read this material your eyes will glaze over as your fingers release the book to the floor and you somnambulate out the door, zombified, indoctrinated. Let me tell you the truth I have discovered firsthand at two different colleges in Maryland which teach economics. Apparently they know enough about the subject to resist any urge to indoctrinate the students. If they did, the students would ask for their money back and go home. I'm not saying that students don't become indoctrinated on any level; if they didn't, you would probably see an anything-goes fashion show in every classroom across America. I'm just saying that, if instruction were to become as manipulative as you seem to fear it is, nobody would stand for it. It's just not happening.

So what do they teach? Smith, Keynes and Marx. Marx is pretty big in Maryland. Big Jesuit presence -- Loyola College, where my father studied. The emphasis is on the mechanics of the system, not on political or economic ideals. The one exception is Marx; Marxism is taught on the level of ideals that seek to be persuasive, not just scientific. This is the reality of taking up 9 credits of Economics in Maryland. And if they don't try to indoctrinate you in Econ 101, they're not gonna try it in 452. I never got that far, but you know it wouldn't make any sense. So give our schools a break. There are no zombies here. And John? Please read my words as being delivered in the gentlest, most respectful tone possible, because that is how they are intended

---------------------------------

I remember now from John's filibuster the other night, that he has a strange take on an old question. The question is how anyone who cares about the poor can spend money on lifestyle items while others lack the basic necessities (and worse, live in a desperate matrix in which they work frantically just to postpone the punishments that loom on the horizon, with little possibility of any actual reward.) John quickly concluded that wealthy people who keep their wealth and lifestyle rather than divesting and giving to the poor can't possibly be people who care.

Maybe John is right; maybe not. I'm not convinced. It just sounds premature. Many people have different takes on this ancient question, so I doubt that it merits an instant response. Schindler regretted his choice of an expensive automobile because the money could rather have been spent rescuing one more person from the Nazis. Young students hesitate to purchase a pizza while they contemplate how far their $7 could go in the third world. Middle class people in India (I'm told) develop the ability to ignore the poverty around them lest it drive them crazy. I don't always give my change away; sometimes I buy myself a treat, like at Starbucks.

If everyone gave all of their disposable income to the poor instead, could the economy survive that? (Take my survey! Send your answer to this question to kittylane167@gmail.com.) John or any other economist would have to do a lot of work to convince me that it is safe to do this. Like John, I used to think strictly in terms of allocation of resources with regard to this question -- Allocate all resources where they are needed and then see what is left over for other things. Keynes helped convince me otherwise.

So did Church. I seem to remember being told this by a priest; that Peter's Church was communist, but Paul's Churches were capitalist; and that Paul's people were ultimately called upon to help Peter's people financially because the latter were just about broke. The first Christian communist experiment apparently failed the test of time.

Again I heard about Rockefeller giving away dimes in the park, since his wealth represented a dime for everyone on earth. I seem to remember King Solomon grousing about this topic in a few different ways. Leonardo DiCaprio is rebuilding a town; I presume he's seeding the effort with his own money. And that Microsoft guy probably has a great big task force helping him give all his loot away (I wonder if he's hiring.) And St. Nicholas did it up. Who of these had the best modus operandi? Keeping some wealth allows the money to keep flowing in the door and back out in the direction one chooses (such as favorite charities,) but giving it all away is a one-time event, however prolonged. John gives stuff away all the time. He gave away some cars. But he still ate at a restaurant (he took the tab.) In my book that counts as a treat.

Until someone demonstrates otherwise, I opine that we need lifestyle elements in our economy. How much, I don't know. But I want to work at Starbucks; I want Starbucks in our economy. I want Chilean coffee farmers to have a partner like that. I want hairdressers to stay in business. My next-door neighbor in Pennsylvania is a hairdresser and a wonderful person. I'd hate to see her go out of business because everyone suddenly decided not to be selfish enough to have their hair done. (Again, please address this question for my survey. kittylane167@gmail.com)

Now I'm beginning to remember some of the things I had wanted to say yesterday. John asked if I had ever seen a homeless person. You know I'm not getting my share of floor time when somebody asks that and whizzes right past it. He didn't know, nor did he stop to find out, that I had been homeless twice for a composite total of perhaps four or five months.

I'm beginning to remember some more of my thoughts, but it's way past my bed time. What happens to a writing jones deferred? Does it shrivel up like a dream when the alarm clock rings? Am I fading into bad poetry? Then I should sign off.

Remember, folks, the survey question above can be answered and addressed to kittylane167@gmail.com. Cut, paste, or browser-point this entry to anybody you like. Let's see how many respondents I can get; how many diverse viewpoints we can collect here. Does anybody have a mathematical proof?

Other unofficial survey questions are: (1) Do you think of King David when you contemplate the permissibility of nudity or partial nudity in a parade or other spectacle (such as the Solstice Parade staged by hippies here in Seattle last weekend;) and (2) Are you stuck in the '70's musically? I told Russ I expected a margin of "yes" answers to both. Let's see what we get. Just send 'em on in.