"What Is Going On In The World" by H. L. Mencken
Printable View
"What Is Going On In The World" by H. L. Mencken
...and then the post-war boom of the 50's came, and the rat race picked up right were it left off.
Question for all the board regulars - do you agree or disagree with this line:
Quote:
It has blown up the old delusion that the amount of money in the world is unlimited
michael jackson died, all news must stop till we get to the bottom of this
i dont know how i feel about that line when you consider that money is linen and cotton and not nearly as valuable as other core resourcesQuote:
Originally Posted by PixelPusher
much of these problems are psychological; resources aren't being depleted any faster than they always have, in fact the depletion may even be going on at a slower rate since economic conditions have caused conservation in many households
Erm... I wouldn't say there's a limit to money, but to value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PixelPusher
Yes, I disagree.
...and I will substitute "wealth" for "money".
There is no limit to the wealth that can be created in this world.
(that is not to say, however, that I disagree with much of what the author has written)
Resources are limited therefore wealth is limited.Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
I take a tree (a renewable resource - of which there is no limit), and out of it I fashion a home/table/work of art - and I add to its value; thus creating wealth for me out of my own ingenuity/hard work (which taken in aggregate from the population of humans) is also unlimited.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
In the context of the truly withering deflation of the early 1930's, it's pitch perfect IMO. (Though in a strict technical sense, the choice of the word money was probably infelicitous. Think Weimar.)Quote:
Originally Posted by PixelPusher
Admittedly PP, the quote does sound a little bizarre in 2009. As does Mencken's *ole fashion* emphasis on thrift as the cradle of wealth. For the last 35 years or so, US growth has been largely debt-driven, so the case seems somewhat the reverse to us. In order to obtain great wealth, a crushing load of debt must be carried. Right?
In fairness, it ought to be pointed out that Mencken could well afford to disdain vulgar moneygrubbing, undignified midcult striving and climbing, and all other merely *quantitative* preoccupations. His quasi-aristocratic privilege did have (IMO, right?) the virtue of making him independent of the phony self-love of his own social class, and he wielded this independence (like TR and FDR:wow)with prophetic fury.
I take a Northwest Atlantic Cod (a renewable resource), cut it into strips, put breading on it, package the fish sticks and sell them. I create wealth.Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
A whole bunch of other people copy me and take a few thousand metric tons of cod every year until the entire "unlimited" fishery collapses.
Everything is limited if enough people try to get a piece of it. In about 40 years there will be an extra 3 billion people wanting your wooden home/table/work of art. Your unlimited supply of trees might just go the way of the North Atlantic cod by then.
Ask the Haitians if trees are unlimited.
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000..._slate_web.png
Essentially. He had ample disdain for the tastes, predilections, ignorance, and general existence of middle class, the "booboosie." His individualism was missed or dismissed by the view of him as simply a jovial, withering satirist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Mencken was regarded as a man of the left in the Roaring 20's, as he took on the powers that be, but then came to be regarded as a reactionary during the 1930s, even though his political viewpoint did not change.
He was indeed, a "Tory anarchist," with highbrow tastes, disdain for the political and cultural choices of the masses, and above all, an abiding allegiance to human liberty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
But shameless materialism is the only thing that works... right?Quote:
Life in America had become an almost unanimous effort to keep up with the Joneses, and what the Joneses had to offer by way of example was chiefly no more than a puerile ostentation. So many luxuries became necessities that the line separating the one from the other almost vanished. People forgot altogether how to live well, and devoted themselves frantically to living gaudily.
“It seems to me that the depression will be well worth its cost if it brings Americans back to their senses. Once they rediscover the massive fact that hard thrift and not gambler’s luck is the only true basis of national wealth, they will discover simultaneously that a perfectly civilized and contented life is possible without the old fuss and display.”
*The finitude of the celestial substrate of life as we know it suggests future scarcity*, if demographic baselines hold. Is this a Malthusian turn, SnakeBoy?
I thought LNGR's substitution of *value* for money was apt.
101A points out that there is no logical or rational limit to ingenuity plus skilled work, wherever it satisfies real or imaginary needs. True. But this does not disprove the finitude of physical resources for the present technical base.
Resources are not limited.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
Energy is limited.
If energy were free and unlimited, I could get all the resources I wanted.
It is possible to get tons of gold from seawater, but prohibitively energy consuming.
If energy were free and unlimited, I could desalinize trillions of gallons of water, pump it inland to plant all the forests I wanted in all the deserts and unused places on the earth, along with all the crops I could grow using that water.
If energy were free and unlimited, I could build massive greenhouses to grow all the food humans could care to eat.
It is possible to get hundreds of tons of platinium group metals, if one had enough energy to lift the required refining facilities into orbit and build them. The solar system has a LOT of mass and, quite frankly, industrial metals are actually easier to find in the asteroid field than on the surface of the earth.
Energy and human activity are the ultimate limiting factors to any economy.
You must have missed the allusion to philosophical qualia at the end, RG. Mencken was hoping the great unwashed would derive moral benefits from their penury and suffering, and a greater appreciation for life's free qualities.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
But yes RG, Mencken set great store by the animating power of viciousness. Don't you?
At a minimum, it gets you up off the sofa. Right? :lol
At least we will never run out of oil.
I just want ya'll to know that love conquers all and will never run out.
If I were a trillionaire I could buy anything I wanted but I'm not so I can't. It is fun to dream sometimes though.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
It wasn't intended to be. It just came across that way because of the example 101 used. If he had used ingenuity as the unlimited resource then I would have said that it is limited also. If it weren't, we would have solved all the problems of the world. We would be using fusion and RG's dream would be reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Not we but someday they will.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Think about that carefully before you fall in my trap...Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
I do mean our progeny also when I say we.
Ah, but the real 'value' of it is only tangible if someone pays for it, thereby using up some of their 'resources', right? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
Unless your trap is that "we" will stop using oil as a major energy source before "we" run out then I'd still say "they" will run out. I think we will remain heavily dependent on oil for the rest of my lifetime (I'm 42). I wouldn't care to predict when/if oil becomes unnecessary. Progress is hard to predict, I just know it has limitations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Fair enough. Sorry for typing.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
Essentially, I agree with you SnakeBoy. Barring some epochal technological breakthrough, the scarcity of basic physical resources is commonsensical.
WC: The question of the elimination of the supply is a red herring IMO. Long before stores of oil are exhausted, the relative scarcity of the product vis a vis demand will make it relatively dear to those who rely upon it.
The rising price of oil will kill demand before elimination of supply is even a rumor.
Dammit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
You figured out my trap.
Turn the page, brah. That's in the past now.
Does anyone have any on-topic observations?
I haven't read the book... I figured the topic of wealth/value/money/resources was on-topic. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
The snippet posted is almost fortune cookie short...
It is. Your contribution received a hat tip from me upstream. :flag:Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
If you've read the book, feel free to throw something up. I'm always up for a discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
I like this quote by Mencken...
Quote:
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
I noticed! I doff my hat to you, good sir.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
The reason I used the term "value" instead of money or wealth, is relatively simple.
Money can be created, as is shown easily.
Wealth can be created, or destroyed, but there can obviously not be unlimited wealth, as that would destroy the meaning of the term. Wealth is just a comparison term. If everyone had a car, then that would not mean everyone were 'wealthy'. Wealthy would then come to mean two cars or more.
Value fits best. Given the above example, a man grows a tree, and then makes something out of the wood grown. The value of the furniture might be greater than the tree, but it is only as useful as the value I attach to it. Once I attach a high enough value to it, then I may purchase it, but only after lowering the perceived value of other items I could purchase with my cash.
Not long after the economic crisis began I said to you in a thread something along the lines of I thought (hoped) we were seeing a shift in the american psyche away from materialism and that it would ultimately be a good thing. I still think that. Although I think things need to become much worse before there is a permanent shift.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
I remember around that time I heard a guy call into a talk radio show and he had lost his job and had to sell alot of things (tv, kid's xbox, etc.). Then he added that in a way it was kind of nice because his family now has dinner at the table, plays board games with his kids, and was generally much closer to his family. Getting away from the pursuit of materail things really might be what americans need.
I only read and commented on the snippet. I'm pretty sure I don't have any additional thoughts worth mentioning.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
I'd be happy to respond to yours, though.
I hope you're right.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
I hope you're wrong, but fear you're right.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
I'm sure someone will give me shit for this but my wife taped an Oprah show for me to watch that was on this very topic (seriously, I don't watch Oprah LOL). A few families had to give up their toys, shopping, etc. for a whole 7 days. If it wasn't totally staged, we have a LONG way to go. It was pathetic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Here's a clip, I guess Oprah doesn't let old shows be posted anywhere.
http://www.oprah.com/media/20090506-...eriment-haynie
2012 is coming soon...........
Maybe a more interesting topic related to the OP is what happens if americans do shift away from the shop till you drop with a credit card mentality. Obviously it's not good for the economy in the short run but let's say the american personal savings rate goes to 10% for the next ten years. What does this mean for america's postion in the world? How does it effect the national debt? What does it do to China's position in the world?
Thrift is making a comeback for sure.
I see that as a net good in spite of what it means in the short run for demand. People will start to deleverage their lives, and start to carry their own weight without exposing themselves so imprudently to risk or indebtedness, all the while laying up a bank against future contingencies. It used to be normal behavior. It will be again.
Honestly, I don't know how increased saving effects the national debt or our relationship with China. I don't really do macro. I'd just be making it up.
I don't know the answers to those questions either. I did see a show (I.O.U.S.A perhaps) where they said China's average salary was $2k but their saving rate was 50%, which is why they have so much money to loan. So I would think there are some implications for our relationship with China if we start saving and building up our own cash reserves.
On the national debt, I just remember the argument from the 80's that the debt wasn't a huge issue since it was money we owed to ourselves. Unlike todays debt.
Maybe if they let interest rates creep up enough, there would be a real incentive for savers again; and enough fear to inspire borrowers -- and lenders -- to proceed with all due diligence.
Oh, fuck it...I do it all the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
:lol