Predictions

• Feb 22, 2008

Predictions

Couple years ago I posted about trends in the US government spending (it popped back up to the top because I updated the first graph)
Since then of course the trend I described has only increased and intensified.


Today I look forward instead of backward, and suggest something crazy!



Our government debt is growing faster than GDP.  Now they say that the housing "crises" is likely to spur another rescission.  The war is still going on, the eminent running out of social security funds hasn't been addressed, and tax cuts on capital gains, stock dividends, and inheritance have been reduced or eliminated and those that haven't been already made permanent are still in the works.

The finance problems in housing loans was primarily due to people deliberately purchasing houses out of their price range with the assumption that the market would not only go up forever, but would continue to go up at the same rate is was at the time.
It didn't, since much of what sent it up was the very speculation based on that assumption, sort of like the dot.com non-sense a decade ago.
And they ran out of money, couldn't make the payments.


The country is being run the same way, on extended credit, on the assumption that GDP will always grow fast enough to encourage outside investors.

But as a recession dawns, spending increases and revenue decreases, the dollar continues to fall against the Yen and the Euro.

Part of the draw in buying US currency, (both in the form of federal bonds, which pays for nearly 9% of all federal spending) and by buying into the American economy (real estate, stock in US companies etc.) is our large overall economy and its fairly consistent growth, but a large part is just that the US dollar has been recognized as the dominate international currency for a long time now.

(note that data from the treasury website don't seem to add up, nor do they perfectly match the wiki data - but they are all fairly close.  Also, I rounded the numbers off)

In 2007:
Total US government debt  $59,100 billion

(44% of total held by foreigners)
(25% by foreign governments specifically)

$1,697 billion total federal receipts (revenue)

48.8% income tax
36.4% SS/medi-care
10.4% corporate

$2,887 total outlay (government spending)

Real deficit=$1,190 billion 

The entire $869 of SS taxes paid in '07 is included in the official receipts, however the time when there are more retirees than workers is fast approaching, and any money spent from the fund will have to be repaid - and will not have gained any interest in the meantime.  In fact, they do spend SS funds, but this is borrowing, not real income

Revenue only pays for 59% of the budget of the government.

Over the year we gained around $549 billion additional debt

$235 billion held by public (bonds, treasury notes, etc)
$314 billion borrowed from funds (social security and other trust funds which aren't supposed to be spent, but are anyway)
$250 billion additional US treasuries held by foreign countries

This still doesn't add up to the total, the difference of which presumably was made up by simply printing more money.  Yes, they actually do that.  There was a time when money represented a limited resource, gold, but since we went 'fiat', governments can and do print money essentially at will.  I can't find data on exactly how much that accounted for in '07.

All of which may help explain why China and other foreign countries are already reducing the rate at which the buy US bonds and/or selling them off, and why the dollar is falling against other major international currencies.

So what happens when the Euro is more attractive as a foreign treasury holding?  Especially if this occurs during the same time period that the boomers retire and the SS surplus is exhausted, combined with economic recession and inflation caused by increased printing of meaningless money, and a growing trade deficit on top of everything else?
The rescission spurs cut interest rates to stimulate GDP growth, but also makes US treasuries less attractive.  Some of these factors feedback and increase each other, and the net effect is the same as an individual who abuses credit.
The government doesn't have the money to repay the interest on its loans and goes into default.
Of course with a military budget equaling the rest of the world combined, we won't have to worry about collections, but...
Investors (individuals both US and foreign and foreign governments) are no longer interested in purchasing bonds, and the SS fund as well as additional SS taxes are going to pay SS benefits.

In other words, the government simply runs out of money.

The people who hold the 59 trillion in debt all want to cash in, Great Depression style, before the dollar becomes worthless.
This is far more than can be brought in in a year from taxes, even if 100% of government services are cut and taxes are raised by a factor of 10.

So instead the government simply refuses to honor any of its debt on the grounds that it simply doesn't have the money.

Which makes the US protectionist and the economy increasingly closed.  The one spending which is retained is military, which becomes increasingly justified.
Whether this causes WWIII or revolution from the inside as the middle class finds itself actually struggling to survive for the first time in US history, or both, I don't know.  My guess is both.  The rest of the world, no longer beholden to US financial interests is no longer willing to put up with our gluttonous consumption, reckless pollution and unilateral actions - though there may not need to be any military action as the world sees our eminent economic collapse coming from the inside much as Russia's economy ended the cold war with no action on our part. 
The revolution would be interesting, as libertarians, religious fundamentalists, liberals and greens, and patriots and loyalists would each be in conflict with each other faction even if any degree of unity within any one of them developed.

Then again, it may not be as dramatic as either of those, but just that we slowly regress and crumble our way to second world conditions and become dependent on international aid - though if a majority of citizens lose the wealth and comfort we have grown accustom to revolution only then begins to be a realistic possibility.

Ok, ok, so I don't really know what will happen.  Realistically whoever is in charge will see this coming (though, thanks to term limits, no one will deal with it any sooner than 8 years from when we run out of money) and make the tax increases, spending cuts, and monetary policy changes necessary to minimize the damage.  Our levels are so unsustainable that any measures may just serve to delay the inevitable horror.

Perhaps at the point we go "Red Tide" (Tom Clancy) and say "we don't have it, we can't afford it, and its absolutely vital - so the only option is we take it"
Or as the guy on "Dr. Katz" said "hey, Canada, I don't know how to say this.   We're out of trees.  Get out."
In other words, we start WWIII ourselves, attempting to take resources using the one thing we have plenty of: force.
This in turn precipitates unprecedented internal resistance....
wait, this is turning back into my first prediction, just for slightly different reasons.

So, I guess as crazy as it sounds, that will be my prediction.  Our government fiscal policy will ultimately threaten, if not end, our country as we know it.

As I way to prevent ever being proved wrong: I am not claiming this will happen on any particular year.  I don't know when this will happen.  It may not be for decades.

Come to think of it, if it were to take that long, all sorts of things could change, and it may not ever happen.
So, IF current trends continue, something like this may happen - eventually.

http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/mspd.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2007

Education -> Now, with references!!!!

• Feb 18, 2008

Education -> Now, with references!!!!

NOTE:  let me say upfront that I think this entire entry is a gross oversimplification.



We (Americans) aren't very smart.

Oh sure, there are plenty of individuals to prove me wrong; but as a whole, as a nation, I think it would be hard to argue.

But we are like the school bully or the rich kid (whose parents think it's good for him to go to public school).  We get our way all the time, and no one dares to point out to us how dumb we are.

We alone still use the English system of measurement, being afraid to learn something new, even if it's far easier in the long run.  50% of us believe in literal creationism (dinosaurs are either a hoax perpetrated by scientists and/or the devil, or they died in Noah's flood), and another 40% believe in intelligent design(1). Contrast this England, where 97% of Priests and Ministers don't believe in literal creationism(2)! 20% of us think the sun revolves around the earth,  and 11% can not find the US on an unmarked world map.(3,4)

Clearly we have the resources.  We have by far the largest total GDP, as well as one of the highest per capita in the world.(5,6)

So why is it this way?

Well...



I don't know.

For once, I can not even pretend to have any answers.

I don't like how this blog is turning out.
I think I will erase the whole thing and start over.


We'll see.


-----

For once it seems that the conservatives and libertarians have at least part of it right.

As it turns out, the US spends more per student than a great many other industrialized countries, the majority of which have students at all levels that can out perform ours.(7,8)
Private schools in the US also spend less money per student, yet have better test scores and higher graduation rates.
There is of course a number of more complex issues than money - kids in private schools have parents involved enough to not only pay the tuition, but to choose a specific school for their kid, put in the time to find it and enroll them, and a more involved parent willing to pay extra for education is more likely to have been well educated themselves, to have begun teaching stuff like counting and the alphabet early, and to have sent the child to preschool and kindergarten. 

However in at least one US school district that was studied, it was also true that for the equivalent size, the public schools had twice the administrative staff compared to the private schools, and half the teachers.(9)
While spending overall divided by number of students is higher, a great proportion of that is wasted on administration, management, and bureaucracies.


Unfortunately it looks like if anything, the efforts meant to improve public schools are aimed largely at management and bureaucracy.  Poorly preforming schools have control handed over to larger and more distant entities, the district becomes more involved, and eventually the state takes over entire districts.  Increasingly complex and demanding rules govern funding, with policy set at the state and federal level, and teachers are taken out of the classroom (and replaced with subs) for mandatory training and professional development regardless of how well their doing or what they may have been working on in the classroom that day otherwise.

---
There seems to be something disturbingly self-defeating about much of our education policy, some things which seem so obvious that its hard to not wonder if people could really believe that some of our policies are really optimal.

First and foremost, while our spending is high on average, the distribution is anything but equitable.
In the majority of states school district funding comes primarily not from federal funds, but from equal parts state and local property taxes.(10)
So, cities or counties with high property values - and therefor well off residents, have much better funded schools than areas with low property values.
What better way to preserve the status quo from one generation to the next?

This system is nothing new.

The emphasis on "accountability" is.

Of course to today's society, focused on growth and material goods over sustainability, health, or happiness, gross GDP over equitable distribution, the purpose of education is not a wise, knowledgeable, or well rounded populous, but a new generation employable in high-tech sectors.  However, even then, if we want people to succeed in college it makes sense to attempt to have students who genuinely understand the material, rather than merely being able to pass a multiple choice scan-tron type test.  In the work place there won't be a list of 4 choices a-e to fill in the correct bubble next to.  But demanding that all students everywhere use the same standardized test in order to advance a grade helps to ensure that teachers must teach to the test, teach test-taking strategies (eliminate the obviously wrong answers) instead of taking the time to explain concepts, and how they tie in with each other.


Worse yet, funding has been made proportionate to performance.  In other words, the schools which need the least help get the most money, and those which need the most get the least.  They call this "accountability". If a school, (perhaps due to being in an area with poor property values) has out-dated textbooks, a once-a-week librarian and counselor, few computers, and an un-reliable source of supplies, chances are they have lower test scores than one which has a computer for every 4 students, brand new books, and a well stocked supply room.  And in turn, due to the low test scores, the already strapped school will be the one to get funding cut even further.  Funding buys things like after-school tutors, or more teachers (which means smaller class sizes, more individual attention, and more time for teachers to develop interesting and effective lesson plans).  I went to help my wife prepare for the next weeks class one weekend, and ended up having to borrow paper from another teacher that was there that day, because there was no more in the copy room.

I think perhaps the people who came up with the idea, and those who promote it, are generally business leaders, politicians, and capitalists.  They are all people who are motivated first and foremost by money, who take the Ayn Rand view on altruism (that it is unnatural, and harmful to both giver and receiver).  To them the idea of penalizing under-performance makes since; to them it would be the best (or only) motivator to a teacher with tenure and paid on salary.
What they don't realize is: if you are a person with a Master's Degree looking to start a career, and your primary motivator isn't to help kids, you don't go into education.  Teachers - while paid more than blue-collar workers - have one of the lowest incomes among salaried professionals, among those who had to go to an extra 6 years of school to get the job, especially considering the extra hours required and that it is one of few professions which is specificallyexempted from the overtime laws the ordinarily apply to salaried workers.
If you wanted to get rich you would have become a stock broker, a real estate developer, worked your way up to upper management in some company, or perhaps software development.  People become teachers because they care about children.

Threatening to withhold funding or close under performing schools pre-supposes that the teachers weren't already trying their hardest, weren't already motivated, didn't really care if their students learned or not.  If a school is already filled with dedicated caring teachers, threatening them will not produce any results, other than extra stress, and an emphasis on teaching to the tests so that the school looks good on paper, even if the students are equally ignorant.






I strongly doubt that anyone would or could have planned something so elaborate out over such a long period of time, and so this idea is really not serious.  Although I do question from time to time whether there may not be a least a little truth to it.

I wonder if it is really to the advantage of the upper class to have universal high quality education.
If you have an unreasonable amount of undeserved wealth and power, would you rather the masses be college educated and aware of the world around them?

But the "law" says everyone is entitled to education up to high school.
Even minorities!

After slavery was legally abolished the "Jim Crow" laws, legal segregation and discrimination, helped to insure the non-whites remained in a separate and lower class for generations.  With the success of the civil rights movement, it became necessary to find more subtle and indirect ways to preserve the status quo. 

Crack and cocaine are chemically identical.  They come from the same source and produce the same effects.  The primary differences between them are cost, method of delivery, and: the demographics of the majority of users of each drug.  The mandatory sentencing guidelines make the sale of 5 grams of crack punished by the same sentence as it would take 100 times greater an amount of cocaine sales to equal.(11)

There has been an increase in focus on crime (even when rates nationwide are dropping) in both politics and media, with nearly half of states instituting some sort of 3-strikes law; in CA none of the crimes need be violent, and only the first 2 even need to be "serious", with petty theft being enough of a trigger for a 25 to life sentence.(11)  This is not directly racism. Over half of 3-strikes offenders are non-violent. Embezzling millions from shareholders will not lead you to life in prison, while shoplifting can.(12,13)  No white collar crime - although it may cost the victims far more - is considered "serious".  While it is true that the average crime rate among African American communities is higher than the overall, the arrest and conviction rates are disproportionately high even considering differing crime rates.  In other words, on average, if a black and white person are both caught for the exact same crime, on average, the black person is more likely to be convicted and/or receive a longer sentence. In particular with drug use, while blacks make up 15% of drug users, they make up almost 60% of drug convictions (80-90% in a number of states) - even among convictions, 33% of whites convicted of drug charges are given prison sentences compared to over half of blacks convicted of drug charges, with drug charges making up around 20% of the overall prison population.(14,15)
If, for whatever reasons, the justice system as a whole is biased, then any increase in punitive responses to crime inherently increases the effect.

Along with the war on drugs and a focus on crime, we've seen a strong and successful push to reduce or eliminate taxes and restrictions on the upper classes, eliminating taxes on un-earned income (inheritance, stock dividends) which applied only to the upper class (net worth of over a million and/or incomes over 350,000 a year and/or enough investment returns to eliminate the need to work) while reducing the progressivity of the income tax on productive work - a top bracket of 91% in the 50s lowered to a top bracket of 35% today, as well as on estate taxes, with a 2 million dollar inheritance just (2007) dropping from 55% to 45% with the entire tax repealed in 2 years.(16,17,18)

We also saw great calls to welfare "reform" in decades past, with much media and politician attention to those few examples of people who stayed on welfare indefinitely, and little attention drawn to the fact that before the calls to reform started the average welfare recipient received aid for under 2 years, and never returned to it.  It was put forth as a major tax drain despite being far down the list of federal expenditures (the military, privatized health care, and interest on the debt being the top 3 for many years).  On budget pie charts food stamps and AFDC checks are lumped together with Social Security (which the recipient paid into) and education, even student loans, in a broad "social welfare" category which skews perception, but in reality direct assistance to the poor only made up around 1-2% of government budgets.  Including medi-care, school lunches, veterans benefits, and other welfare which the middle class receives as well as the poor, it goes up to 12%.(19,20)  As a result of the falsely hyped up expenditure  of tax dollars on AFDC, WIC, and section 8 payments, welfare reform was put into place to force recipients, most frequently single mothers, to get a job, any job, immediately. 
This included dropping out of college to get a minimum wage job as well as leaving children with inadequate or no supervision during the work day to avoid severe or total cuts in benefits, with a mandatory cut off after 2 years regardless of circumstance.
With overt discrimination (against not just a race, but the entire lower class) becoming more difficult due to universal education anti-discrimination laws, increased freedom of information, and just being a democracy, more complex ways of keeping the lower class low and the elite excessively wealthy must be set up to appear on the surface to be equitable just and fair, while affecting some people more than others.

Might it be possible that the undermining of the public education system through local funding, standardized testing, "accountability", (and then promotion of the voucher system so that those in the middle class can afford to escape it) was another piece of other subtle social elements - the war on drugs, welfare reform, the elimination or reduction of taxes on unearned income - designed to preserve the status quo help prevent the "anyone who works hard can make it" concept that they promote as being a possibility in order to maintain social stability.

No.  I don't really think that is what is happening.  Yet sometimes its hard not to wonder if people really think some of the ideas they come up with are a good idea.


(1)http://www.gallup.com/poll/21811/American-Beliefs-Evolution-vs-Bibles-Explanation-Human-Origins.aspx
(2)http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
(3)http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/science/30profile.html
(4)http://archives.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/index.html
(5)https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html
(6)https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html
(7)http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/economic_surveys/006685.html
(8)http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/09/16/sprj.sch.education.compared.ap/
(9)http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/AboutUs/ArticleView.aspx?id=1213
(10)http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/pubs/npefs03/tables.asp
(11)http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/sentencing/10662leg20020521.html
(12)http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/21/BAGRNFBV211.DTL
(13)http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/02/08/MN218794.DTL
(14)http://www.drugwarfacts.org/racepris.htm
(15)http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/2354/Drugs-Justice-System-CONVICTION-SENTENCING-TRENDS.html
(16)http://www.cbpp.org/1-30-06tax2.htm
(17)http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/17/AR2006051701277.html
(18)http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50961-2005Apr13.html
(19)http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-runawaywelfare.htm
(20)http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/72/How-Much-Does-Nation-Spend-on-Welfare.html 

[UPDATE]

Bakari Kafele

From the reading I did in the process of writing, I do have some concrete ideas for improvements after all.

Although I am in general strongly in favor of regulation, unions, and other liberal protections, and have very little faith in the free market as a cure-all, in the case of education specifically, there does seem to be an unreasonable degree of government waste and bureaucracy.

While funding should remain public and access free and universal for students, contracting out upper management and administration (and possibly support services such as lunches, transportation, and janitorial services as well) is likely to provide a huge increase in efficiency both in funding and in procedures.

I would concede also that a degree of accountability is important, although I don't think the way it has been implemented is fair or helpful.
It would make sense to link teacher and principal raises to student performance rather than seniority on the individual level. If a particular teacher were to consistently have entire class average scores significantly below that of the district, and school average for that subject, it would be reasonable to conclude that it is the teacher him/her self which is ineffective, and penalize and/or fire that individual.
However, looking at an entire school out of context by comparing a school to a national average only serves to re-enforce any existing disparity.

Funding should be standardized nationwide, across all states, urban and rural communities, regardless of a state or counties level of prosperity. Funding should be based strictly on enrollment. If the private management company in a district did not allocate that budget effectively, they could be fired and replaced.

Kindergarten should be made mandatory.
HeadStart (preschool) should be universally free to all children.
That first year or two of schooling has been shown to be one of the better indicators of success later on in school and life(1). Otherwise you end up with some first graders who can read, write, and even add in the same class with peers who are still learning the alphabet. That disparity inevitably continues on throughout school as certain kids are always one step ahead.

If we really want an well educated populace, make grades 13 and 14 universally free as well.

And last, but certainly not least, do away with the entire "No Child Left Behind Act". I will refrain from any further comment on that...

(1)http://www.tyc.state.tx.us/prevention/hiscope.html

Evil will always win. But its OK

• Feb 4, 2008

Evil will always win. But its OK

Whether history teaches us to be optimistic or pessimistic is only a matter of when and where you choose to look.

There have been wars at least as long as there has been civilization - which of course continues to today.
Empires have risen, Persian, Chinese, Mongolian, Ottoman, Aztec, Inca, British, USSR.
Some lasted for centuries, some covered the majority of the world (that the culture knew of).
Every one of them fell, for one reason or another, eventually.

That could give hope that the US, which is extending influence both culturally, politically, and militarily throughout the world, will inevitably follow - but its seems obvious that it will be replaced by another - no matter the ideals in begins in, it will inevitably grow corrupt. They all do.

In the 3rd century BC the Egyptian library/museum at Alexandria contained the collected knowledge of the Egyptian and Greek civilizations, the largest in the world. While the circumstances of its destruction are debated, it was apparently due to some combination of war and religious fundamentalism.

The civilizations of the Mediterranean created, among other things, plumbing, calculus, and democracy (but only for white male property owners) - and at the hight of the Roman Empire, a popular spectator sport involved watching humans fight to the death, and eventually flooding the coliseum to create mock sea battles - but with real weapons - for the entertainment of government and the wealthy.
In the Dark Ages, as Rome fell, much of the infrastructure was allowed to fall to ruins, and everything from libraries to aqueducts was lost - along with the education and intellectual development that had accompanied it, and much already acquired knowledge and technology was lost.
Then came about the forced conversion of people in Europe, Asia, and Africa to Christianity and Islam, as well as wars between the two (the Crusades) - ultimately spreading throughout the world, and, of-course, lasting to the present.
Europe's renaissance consisted largely of no more than the re-discovery of things which had been previously known, but lost.

For every Ghandi there has been a Hitler and a Mussolini. For every Roosevelt and Carter we've had a Regan, A Bush, and a Bush Jr. Lenin's "people's revolution" turned quickly into Stalin's purges.
Che failed to start a revolution, and after all of Chavez's work, today immigrants still work in pesticide laden fields for far less than minimum wage while middle class Americans with far more comfortable lives advocate criminalizing them for it.


For all the noise the anti-war movement made, American troops pulled out because the North Vietnamese won.
In fact, the non-violent success Ghandi seemingly had happened to be at a time when the British Empire was already in decline with Canada, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Egypt, and Iraq becoming officially fully independent in (or around) 1931, and their military over extended worldwide - a guerrilla war with Ireland, the aftermath of WWII, and calls (and actions) for independence throughout the British Empire in Asia, Africa, and the Americas. For 40 years India had sought independence, but it was not until these - often violent - worldwide events came along that it was finally granted.
Then, almost immediately, (as British representatives had predicted) the country split, and the potentially violent stand-off between newly formed Pakistan and India (both of which have nukes) has lasted to this day. So much for non-violence.





There have been advances in the Western World in civil rights, and yet they are also under constant attack, and undermined in complex and creative new ways. Spirituality offers some personal growth, health and happiness, while the largest portion of the world knows it through organized religion, the most powerful (Christianity and its estranged twin Islam) are anti-science and reason, anti-democratic, anti-individual, anti-sex, and, basically, anti-happiness. The caste system, subjugation, and untold amounts of violence are attributed to "God(s)". In the past the strength of religion has risen and fallen, and we may well be in an up cycle once again, as Islam and Christianity move towards stronger fundamentalists bases - the latter being the larger threat, since it affects the worlds only super power.

Whether monarchy or republic ("democracy") a small group of wealthy elites rules, with privilege inherited instead of earned.


It should come as no surprise, for one very simple principal:

Evil (or those who are more than willing to bring harm upon others for personal gain), will always be willing to do anything it takes to get ahead, to secure power, to gain wealth. Whatever rules there may be, evil will break. What ever morals society may have, evil lacks. How can anything or anyone compete with that?
If someone with good intentions stays within the rules, they are not only at a severe disadvantage from the start, but if they become too successful, they are risking assassination. He who does not accept corporate campaign contributions is never heard of by the general public.
When one takes the tactic of evil to defeat it, one becomes that which is being fought.
If good, caring, progressive, giving people bend the rules a little for the greater good, the slippery slope snowballs oh so quickly, and they end up just a competing faction of evil.

Our "democracy" works perfectly, because we have the illusion of distributed power, so that no one feels, on principal, repressed, and citizens have an abundance of material goods, which they fear losing too much to ever risk revolution. It makes the system stable. Change will never come from within - not unless things get much much worse first.

Why, then after so much seeming historical negativity, did I begin with the claim that there is equal optimism to be found?
The answer is as simple and clear as the argument that evil will always win;
Life is not, and never has been, about the large scale political and social details which are the focus of so much attention.

Life is about the warm sunshine on an early fall afternoon.
Life is about cold ice cream or a juicy orange on a hot summer day.
Life is about sex and affection with one's partner under the covers at night while the rain or snow falls cold outside and makes little patter patter noises outside on the roof and windows.
Life is an engrossing book, or coming home tired but satisfied after a successful day of work.
Its the extra attention you get when you're sick, and the feeling of getting better again, the smell of dinner just before that first bite, unexpected good fortune, and games on the weekend. Life is friends, music, sport, relaxation, children, learning, conversations, all of these little tiny things that fill up each day that seem to pale in comparison to the significance of war and famine - but in truth those things are only important because they interrupt those little things for a while, those little things which are, in fact, everything.
Of course it would be nice were it possible to end all war forever. But there has always been war, (even before there were mammals) and there always will be, because it will be to some people's advantage to take from others, always. But after its over, and new lines are drawn on the maps, the sunshine will still be there. Love, which exists only inside of us, will exist so long as a human is still breathing on this planet.

Saving the world is futile. The world has been as it is (for all practical purposes) forever, and there seems to be no good reason to think it will not continue to be. This is not reason to despair. Just the opposite. For this entire time, everywhere, there exists happiness. Happiness is not merely a reflection of the political system one lives under, or income. Happiness is an emotion that we, as sentient beings, are capable of experiencing. And so we do.

If you can not save the world, if one person can almost never make a real and lasting difference, it gives good people a little more flexibility. One does not fault them self for not stopping the eruption of volcanoes or earthquakes. At most we may try to predict them, perhaps minimize the damage, but we recognize that its going to happen sooner or later, that no individual or group has the capacity or power to "fix" or eliminate the threat. So to with the nature of humanity. Violence and greed are a part of human nature, as they are a part of nature, as we are a part of nature.
Do good if you can. By all means; most certainly; why not?
Do no harm. If you know better, if you feel a morality based on living things capacity to feel (as opposed to the more common version based on what a book or the community dictates), live your own life in such a way that you do not make things worse.
If it works out well for you, since you must work anyway for you own sustenance, work in a field that in some way, makes things a little better for someone. If it is something you enjoy, volunteer. These things are noble, admirable, and only good can come from them.
Just don't expect miracles. Don't sacrifice your life to a cause. We have only this one life (probably) and a life not enjoyed is a life wasted. A life not enjoyed is the most tragic thing imaginable.
Have the courage to change the things you can, but also accept the things you can not change.

Do something good for yourself.
Go out and enjoy the sunshine.

Yes, evil must inevitably win in the long run, every time.
But that's ok.

It's sunny out today.