All of the money stuff I sometimes talk about, condensed

A lot of my personal friends and family have heard me mention something regarding saving money and investing, probably remember hearing me referencing "Mr Money Mustache" or "Jacob of Early Retirement Extreme".

Chances are, though, you chalk it up to one of those random Bakari nutty things, or maybe you even glance briefly at one of the links I send you, but it's long and there's like 300 other articles, and you don't have time for all that.

I'm going to try to explain all that stuff in a condensed and untechnical manner.

Of course, the majority of my readers who I don't know in real life found me through MMM, and all of y'all feel free to skip this post, as you won't learn anything new - it might be perfect for forwarding on to your own friends and family though who haven't come around yet.

Very early on into adulthood I discovered that I don't particularly care for employment.

Its not just about the work itself - it doesn't matter how much fun, how creative or rewarding or self-directed the job is - its just the fact of being forced to be some specific place doing some specific thing for almost exactly 1/2 of your discretionary time (factoring in mandatory lunch hours and commute time), for the majority of your life.

Luckily, I grew up poor (there were 73 of us, living in a cardboard box), plus I self-identified as an environmentalist since about age 9, plus being non-conformist, all combined to make rejection of all forms of materialism come naturally.

I never felt much need for "stuff".  Living in my RV felt plenty luxurious enough.

Psychologists say that money spent on experiences produces more happiness than money spent on stuff - but I've found there is a practically infinite supply of entertaining and educational and downright amazing and wonderful experiences to be found for free almost everywhere I look.  No, not even that - I frequently don't even have to look; often times they come to me!  Sometimes when I was looking for something else, other times they just literally come seek me out.

I've never even had the desire for the stuff most American's spend money on: cable TV, a new car, fashionable clothes, or a "phone" that is really a tiny computer.  So, after food and rent, I never had all that much to spend money on.

And here is the point of all that backstory:
 
 

I discovered early on that if I don't spend a lot of money, then I don't need a lot of money, and if I don't need a lot of money, I don't have to spend so much time working.

So that is what I did for the next 10 years.

I might work full time somewhere, but I'd get bored after a few months, and quit, with no backup plan. Other times I'd work part time, maybe two or three very part time jobs, or maybe just show up sporadically to my supposedly full-time job. I built up a ridiculous resume of jobs - experiences (that I got paid for). I traveled across the country, I went to school purely to learn interesting stuff with no intention of leveraging a "career" out of it.

I made a couple of less than ideal financial decisions here and there, but managed to pay very little in interest, never miss a payment, and keep my credit score high.

And I had lots of free time, whether I was working or not, to play, to spend with my partner, to read and learn, to go on bike rides and camping trips.

Not that I ever thought debt was no big deal, but between moving cross country, college, buying a bigger RV, and getting divorced, I hit a peak of debt (around 10k), and decided to focus seriously on getting rid of it.

Older and more mature, the day I made my last payment, I also opened an IRA - 18 February 2010

Along the way, one of my blog posts caught the attention of Kirsten Dirksen of Faircompanies.com, who asked me to write for her, and then later did a video interview of me when she was in the country.

Which got moderately popular (a good quarter million views in a couple months), which resulted in a number of internet fans who found me on facebook - one of whom suggested I look up Jacob Lund Fisker of ERE, who also lived in an RV at the time.  Well, it turned out he also lived in the Bay Area, and was planning a get together soon, we met, I started reading his blog posts... it couldn't have come at a better time.

Having recently paid off the last of my debt and opened an IRA, it was perfect timing for the message.

It turns out I was on the right track, but I missed an important detail.

Allow me to summarize how many, if not most, young people look at money:

Retirement is something that happens when you are old.  If we are lucky, it will still be at age 67 by the time we get there.  By that time most of your life has gone by and if you don't have major health problems, at the least you are too weak and tired to do all the sort of things you want to do now.  Hell, you don't even know for sure you'll live that long, so it doesn't make any sense to put off living life to the fullest now.

Of course you aren't stupid either, you aren't going to spend money frivolously, and its good to have some savings in case of emergency, maybe even a retirement plan, but that all has to be balanced with enjoying life today.
 

That's more or less how most people I talk to look at it.

It's how I looked at it.

The philosophy is good.

It's the underlying assumption that is mistaken.

Its a totally understandable mistake, because every one else around us takes it for granted.

Here is the enormous underlying mistake from the paragraph above:

67 is when social security starts paying out.  That has nothing to do with when you retire.  Retiring can happen much sooner, or much later.  Its simply a function of when (if!) you have enough to live on without having to work.

And let me cut off objections preemptively here, by emphasizing a word from my last paragraph:

"...have enough to live on without having to work."

Maybe you really enjoy your job.

It may be fun, and/or meaningful.

As of now, lets stop using the word "retire".  Lets substitute "financial independence" instead.

Not having to work means that if you get bored, you can do something else, with no stress during the transition.  It means if your boss is a jerk, you quit.  It means you can start your own small business, doing what you love.

If you already love what you do, but your company is small and on the brink, you can take a voluntary pay cut.

If you love what you do, and your employer is a soulless corporation, you can use your salary to buy expensive toys, vacations, or donate to charity, or whatever you want, because if you are already financially independent you don't need to worry about rent or food or transportation or health care.

In a word, it means "Freedom".

Would you rather have more freedom in your life, or less?

"Yeah, all that sounds great, Bakari, but it is totally unrealistic"

Ah, you'd think so, wouldn't you?

Now we get to the fun part.

I'm going to leave out all the math, and all the stock market/investing stuff.  I'll point you to some MMM posts that go into detail if you want to learn a little more and go a little deeper, but for now just trust me on the numbers.

If you invest wisely (and that doesn't mean "picking the right stocks", it means taking the safe, easy, average, middle of the road route) then once you have saved up 25 times your annual spending, you are set for life.

That's actually a really really important summary, that deserves an inset section

Once you have saved 25 times your annual spending, you are set for life.

( http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/05/29/how-much-do-i-need-for-retirement/ )

That's secret ("secret") number one.

Here's another:

Under capitalism, money that is invested creates its own money.  Then that new money also creates new money.  Then that new money creates even more new money.  This cycle repeats indefinitely.

An early MMM analogy is to think of each and every dollar bill you have as a potential employee.  If you spend it, you have essentially fired a reliable worker.  If you invest it, it will produce a small percentage of its own value for you, 24/7, forever.  Give it enough time, and that dollar will make you a new dollar, just by sitting there not being spent.  Then, if you only spend the new dollar, and leave the original alone, you just got something for nothing.

It gets better.

If you put away five bucks a week, starting at age 18, you will have more money at (official) retirement age than you would if you put away 30 times as much - $150 a week - but didn't start until 10 years before you retire.

In the former, you only put away $260 a year, for a grand total of 13k of your own money (spread out over 50 years)

In the latter, you spent $7,800 a year, for a grand total of  78k.

You spend 6 times as much, and have less to show for it!

All that extra free cash in the former is coming from interest and dividends, compounding and snowballing on themselves.  The new money creates new money which creates new money which creates...

But what if you put away $150 a week, starting at age 18?

Well, then you would be a millionaire just a little after your 50th birthday.

Literally.

That's just math.

But lets go back to the first secret again; once you save 25 times your annual spending, you are set for life.

If you can spend less than 40k in one year, then you don't need to be a millionaire in order to be financially independent.

Given that 40k is substantially more than median individual income (and only slightly less than median household income, which on average has more than one earner), I'm going to say it is not a particularly bold claim to suggest that it is possible - nay, downright easy - to live on less than 40k per year.

(Remember, we're talking spending, not income, and you can subtract any spending on savings, as well as any spending directly related to employment, such as commuting or work clothes, from what you need once you are financially independent).
If, for example, you can live comfortably on under 20k a year, then you don't even need one half of a million in order to be financially independent for the rest of your life.

Here's the other big mistake that people tend to make:

We think in terms of what we can afford.  When we have some extra cash, we think about what we can spend it on.  Money burns holes in our pockets.

I don't hold it against you.  Its human nature, and I'm just as guilty of it as anyone else.  Most of my working life I made only enough to cover my expenses, however much that was, and if I happened across a nice large lump sum I thought "what fun and cool thing or experience can I buy with this?"

That reasoning means we tend to spend however much we have.

In other words, maybe you were actually fairly comfortable when you were only making 23k per year, but you just switched to a better job, and you moved in with your partner so your rent is half as much, and so all these opportunities open up of stuff to buy and trips to take, maybe you get your internet speed one tier higher, since you can easily afford it, maybe you eat out a little more, get a latte at Starbucks twice a week, and before you know it, you're breaking even again.
   

There's a term for that: "lifestyle inflation".
  

Hedonic adaptation dictates that it soon becomes the new normal, and provides exactly zero happiness above baseline.

Suppose when life changes allow you to have higher income and lower expenses, you threw all the excess into investments?

Suppose you make a point of lowering expenses, cutting out anything that doesn't truly make your life better in a tangible, ongoing way.

Could you save 10% of your income?
25%?
50%?
75%?
90?

90%??!? Lets not get ridiculous here.  We aren't all stock brokers and corporate lawyers and software engineers.  Sure, if you make 6 digits each year, it would be totally possible to live a comfortable life with all the modern amenities (like cars and internet) on 10% of your salary.

Here in the real world, 1/2 of all American who work make less than 30k per year, and even bike-riding, 30-year-old-truck-owning, RV-trailer-living Bakari can't see living comfortably on three grand a year.

Ok, ok, so lets step back a couple lines.

How about 50%?

This still probably sounds a bit extreme - at first...
 
 

For reasons I don't entirely understand, people seem to think money numbers are supposed to be private.  But then, I have never been much of one for secrets, so how about I use me for an example:

Remember, I started saving at the beginning of 2010.  I made $22k that year, after subtracting business expenses.

In 2011 I made $22k again. In 2012, $21k.  This past year was my worst since I began working for myself, (8 years ago), and I only made $13k.

In 2010 my net worth was $0.

Today it is $52,000

("Wait a minute now..." you say, "those numbers mean you have to be living on less than 10 Gs on average each year!" Yup.)

It's not hard.

It is, more than anything, a change in mindset.

Remember that whole thing with my old RV trailer being stolen?

The entire settlement check went straight into one of my IRA accounts.

Remember that giant chicken coop and run I built?

The 2 large I made on that, all invested.

I don't live a deprived life.

I still buy toys now and then, (like my boombox and its battery pack). I have high speed internet, a cell phone, pets, I buy organic food, I eat out and go to the movie theater now and then.

I just try to ration spending, and avoid spending money on crap I know I really don't need, that won't improve my life in any significant way in the long run.

As a result, I am 1/5th of the way to financial independence, in just over 3 years.

At this rate, about 15 years from when I started, I should be there.

I'll be 45 - still young enough to take full advantage of freedom from mandatory employment. 

Just imagine though - if I had started back at 18; I'd be financially independent already!

You aren't me, you don't live how I live, so enough anecdote - lets segue back into some real life numbers.

We were talking about saving 50% of your income, and I was just using myself as an example to prove that even if your income is much lower than average, it is still possible.

In my example of me, spending only about 1/2 of income led to a working career of 15 years.

And there's that sweet math magic again: that number isn't just true for my particular circumstances.

It is universal.

If you only spend 50% of your income, you will have approximately 25 times your annual spending saved up in approximately 15-20 years.

Simple mathematics proves that.

Even without the power of compound interest, if you spend 50% of your income, then for every year you work you buy a year of freedom (think about it for a second).
But add in the money generating money infinite feedback loop, and at 50% every year you work earns you more than a year of freedom, and the earlier you start, the more free bonus time you get.

And here is the really beautiful part of all that, which may be easy to miss:

It doesn't matter how much your income is.  The ONLY variable in that equation is what percentage of your income you spend, VS what percentage you save.

 
( http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly-simple-math-behind-early-retirement/ )

Going back to the philosophical point from near the beginning, but with this new knowledge, we have two potential life paths, especially while we are still young:

• Path 1: Live simple, so you don't need too much money to live, and take advantage of that by not working too much.
  Spend the occasional windfall on toys and/or experiences.
  Low income, low cost of living, moderate amount of free time and freedom - but you will never retire.
  The same is true if you have a higher income, but lifestyle inflation keeps you spending however much you make.  If your savings rate is zero, you will need to continue working until you die.

• Path 2: Live simple, so you don't need too much money to live - and work full time anyway, so that you have plenty of surplus to invest.
  Put most, if not all, of your occasional windfalls into your savings too.
  Moderate income, low cost of living - and low free time and freedom, at first, for a few years.  But then, before you know it, TOTAL freedom, and as much free time as you want.  For the rest of your life.

Path 1 is pretty good, beats working a 9-5 for 50 years.  Path 2 is a whole heck of a lot better.

Especially considering we aren't talking about some hypothetical future 50 years from now.  We are talking a short decade and a half.  We are talking "retiring" with the majority of your life still ahead of you.

Don't believe the math?  There are hundreds of people who have actually done exactly what I'm talking about.  A lot of them are on the Mr Money Mustache forums.  Mr MM himself is one, one who uses some of his free time to share all this information with others.  If you want to learn more, his blog is the place to start:

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/04/06/meet-mr-money-mustache/
 
(if you start here at the beginning, when you finish this post, scroll down a little to the link that says "Meet the Realist")

and

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/02/22/getting-rich-from-zero-to-hero-in-one-blog-post/

 

If you don't feel like reading too much, try maybe just this last link.

Later, if you like, you can read more for all sort of details on how to actually start spending less (with zero sacrifice to quality of life), what specifically to do with your savings to make it start working for you, and answers to all the other questions and concerns and objections you either have already, or will come up with soon.

The really important part is just the concept.  You have it now.  Very minor delayed gratification now, for totally life changing payoff in a few years.  You - you, reading this right now - can be one of those "financially independent" people.  No inheritance, no lottery, no lucky breaks.  Just being moderately frugal, and the math of compound interest.

Start looking at your money differently.

And make sure to come thank me when employment becomes optional for you.

Skating

Today was an absolutely beautiful warm and sunny, (but not hot), day.

I got off of work at noon, biked to Coast Guard Island to drop off a couple uniforms to get new patches sewn on to reflect my status as a certified search and rescue boat crew member and the promotion I should be getting some time soon.

This past weekend I caught up on all the little tasks I had to do around the apartment building (where I am superintendent in exchange for almost free rent), so I had most of a day free.

I had $1500 sitting in my safe in cash, failing to earn any interest, so I decided to make the most of the weather and deposit the cash as an excuse for a nice long skate.  See, I live in Oakland, and my Credit Union is in Richmond (about 14 miles away)

While I was at it, I used the opportunity to finally test out the replacement 18650 LiIon cells for the battery pack I made for my boombox (2 five-cell packs in parallel, attached directly to the outside of the stereo, plugged into the regular 120v port so it keeps the ipod charged at the same time)

By the time I got to Lake Merrit I started getting terrible shin splints.  This happened last time I was skating, but I thought (rationalized?) it was because of a detour over an unpaved road.  Guess I just get weak really fast in any muscle group I'm not using more or less constantly, and running, hiking, jump rope, just don't hit the tibialis anterior the way skating does.  I'm hoping the pain will fade into the background, like every time I run long distance, but it doesn't get any better, and I bail at MacArthur BART.

In the mean time though - man, you know, I always get the occasional stares, smiles, points, laughs, thumbs-up, and honks when I'm skating (often shirtless, often singing) with headphones on.  Typically at least one of those on any one long trip, sometimes a couple.
But when its a boombox, and not just headphones, and every one else can hear what I'm rockin, well, then the stares, smiles, points, laughs, thumbs-up, and honks are more like one every couple of blocks!
Plus, people start spontaneously dancing along as I pass.  I tried to move over to let a car pass, until I realized they weren't going slow trying to get around me, they were going slow because the passenger was taking a picture!

;-P



 So anyway, dressed, flat feet again, music silenced, on the train. 
Fast asleep, until the person next to me had to get off.  Hadn't even realized I was drifting off until I woke from a dream.  Well, I did start work this morning at 5:50am.  Two more stops, need to stay awake.  Uh oh, I'm waking up again.  I must have fallen asleep again.  Wonder how far we got - ah... that was the stop I wanted to get off at.  Oh well.  The next stop is probably closer anyway.  The train conductor repeats a speech about how the next stop is the last, and he's going to the yard next, so wake up, get off, don't leave anything behind, about 3 times.  I get up, go to wake someone who slept through the speech, the conductor comes out of his driving compartment, says to everyone that someone left something, I look and its my blinky light, fell off of my stereo.  Nice, would have lost it forever.

Richmond station is only 1/2 mile from my bank.
The security guard is amused. "So, that orange truck isn't the only way you get around"
"Its a nice day, I figured I'd get some exercise."
"Don't you not live around here?"
"Oakland"
"You never fail to amaze me"

The teller can tell my bundle is $1500 just from looking at it.  She splits it into 3 equal piles to count, and is off by only one bill.  75 Jacksons leave my pocket, and fatten the number on my balance statement.

After my nap my shins feel totally normal, so I decide to see how far I can get heading back under my own power. 

The people on this end are just as amused as the people in Oakland.

But there is a loose wire somewhere in my battery pack, and the stereo keeps randomly shutting off.  Can't stand it anymore. 
Stop at a bus stop in Albany to see if I can find and fix it.  This is why I almost always have a swiss army knife on me.  You can't predict all the times you're gonna need it.

The break and/or short is alluding me.  Every connection seems fine.  But the stupid box won't turn on at all now.  I am getting increasingly frustrated.  I feel like physically I could go the whole way home, but I'll never make it without tunes for motivation.

Just then...
(and this is what inspired me to write this adventure in the first place)
...
Some random guy is walking by, pushing a shopping cart.  I wasn't really paying attention, but if I had, I'd probably have assumed he was homeless.  On closer inspection, it looked like maybe some  of what was in the cart was groceries, but it definitely looked like there was a blanket in there too.  Hard to say, it all happened so fast...
I'm looking at the wires
I'm aware that he is slowing down as he passes me, out of my peripheral vision that something is moving toward me
I'm glancing up, he is extending an arm, there is something in his hand

He hands me a juice box and a snack size bag of chips.
He never fully stops walking, he just slows down.
Doesn't say a word.
After I take them he goes back to his regular walking pace.

At first my expression was (I'm sure) pure confusion.  In a half second or two I realize its a gift, and I nod and smile.  My brain is too slow to speak, it takes another full second before I begin to say "Thank you", but he is already walking away, with no real sign of acknowledgement, and I don't know if I actually said the words out loud or not, and if I did, I have no idea if he heard me.

I was actually pretty thirsty, from all the skating on a nice sunny day.  The box juice was delicious.  The chips were sunchips, (which just happen to be my favorite kind of chips).  I should have eaten them first, because they were salty, but it was a treat none the less.

And then I discovered, accidentally, that the problem wasn't in the battery pack or the wires at all, it was in the end plug.  All I had to do was fold it at just the right angle, and it didn't turn off again for the entire rest of my trip.  I'll replace it soon.

When I got back to Lake Merrit, and around it, I felt so good I did an extra full loop around.  Coming the other way was a woman on quad skates, dancing to whatever was in her headphones.  I give her the two finger point, and she returns the gesture.  A special moment shared as we roll by in opposite directions, about 2 seconds and we are off on our own paths.
About halfway around a bicyclist started following me so he could hear the music more - 2 man bike party. 
And then I came to my street and turned off, couple more miles home.

23 and a half miles total, a little less than 4 hours all together.

I used to do stuff like this when I was 14.
20 years ago. 
In some ways I'm a lot more mature.  I drive safely, I am self-aware in emotional matters and am patient with other people's, I invest extra money, and I haven't quit a job in 8 years.
But at core I have never changed much. 
I most sincerely hope I'm still doing this in another 20 years.
If there is still such a thing as the internet then, I'll try to check in then and tell yall

pre-history matriarchies

https://www.nytimes.com/books/first/e/eller-myth.html

[The claim is frequently made that matriarchies were] "... a worldwide phenomenon that stretched back through prehistory to the very origins of the human race. These "matriarchies"... were not crude reversals of patriarchal power, but models of peace, plenty, harmony with nature, and, significantly, sex egalitarianism."

"Except for one small problem... Poking holes in the "evidence" for this myth was, to rely on cliché, like shooting fish in a barrel. After a long day of research in the library, I could go out with friends and entertain them with the latest argument I'd read for matriarchal prehistory, made up entirely—I pointed out—of a highly ideological reading of a couple of prehistoric artifacts accompanied by some dubious anthropology, perhaps a little astrology, and a fatuous premise ... or two or three."

"My irritation with the historical claims made by the myth's partisans masks a deeper discontent with the myth's assumptions. There is a theory of sex and gender embedded in the myth of matriarchal prehistory, and it is neither original nor revolutionary. Women are defined quite narrowly as those who give birth and nurture, who identify themselves in terms of their relationships, and who are closely allied with the body, nature, and sex—usually for unavoidable reasons of their biological makeup. This image of women is drastically revalued in feminist matriarchal myth, such that it is not a mark of shame or subordination, but of pride and power. But this image is nevertheless quite conventional..."

"Whatever positive effects this myth has on individual women, they must be balanced against the historical and archaeological evidence the myth ignores or misinterprets and the sexist assumptions it leaves Undisturbed. The myth of matriarchal prehistory postures as "documented fact," as "to date the most scientifically plausible account of the available information." These claims can be—and will be here—shown to be false. Relying on matriarchal myth in the face of the evidence that challenges its veracity leaves feminists open to charges of vacuousness and irrelevance that we cannot afford to court. And the gendered stereotypes upon which matriarchal myth rests persistently work to flatten out differences among women; to exaggerate differences between women and men; and to hand women an identity that is symbolic, timeless, and archetypal, instead of giving them the freedom to craft identities that suit their individual temperaments, skills, preferences, and moral and political commitments."

" The enemies of feminism have long posed issues of patriarchy and sexism in pseudoscientific and historical terms. It is not in feminist interests to join them at this game, especially when it is so (relatively) easy to undermine the ground rules...Discovering—or more to the point, inventing—prehistoric ages in which women and men lived in harmony and equality is a burden that feminists need not, and should not bear. Clinging to shopworn notions of gender and promoting a demonstrably fictional past can only hurt us over the long run as we work to create a future that helps all women, children, and men flourish."

-Cynthia Eller

https://www.nytimes.com/books/first/e/eller-myth.html

Something is wrong here

Is it just me, or is this circular reasoning?

-Corporations should be allowed to outsource jobs so that they can stay competitive.

-It is important that American corporations stay competitive in order to support the economy.

-It is important to support the economy because it provides American jobs.

Privilege - its not the problem

Response to:
http://andrea366.wordpress.com/2013/08/14/the-problem-with-privilege-by-andrea-smith/



I absolutely love its general premise, and could not agree more - though perhaps for slightly different reasons.

I have long questioned the entire idea of "privilege", and especially the focus on it.  If you are lucky enough to be middle class, its fairly easy to see inequality in terms of having some privileges or not.  One of those privileges is being able to (pretend that you) live in an insular world where an individual being culturally insensitive to another individual is one of the worst aspects of racism.

As a African American, who has lived most (but not all) of his life in poor, high crime, high minority urban areas, the entire sub-culture of race activists has always looked very shallow and meaningless to me.  It has always seemed much more about being able to say "I, in contrast to all those other (white) people, am enlightened."

What, exactly, does white people or men or straight people or whoever, acknowledging their privilege actually accomplish?

Lets say every single European American was fully aware, fully acknowledged, and fully internalized that they have privilege relative to other people.

Would that somehow instantly, magically, cause wealth and income inequality to disappear, so that whites were proportionately represented among the extremely poor (and I'm not talking "can't make car payments" or "home foreclosure" poor - I'm talking "can't afford a halfway decent bicycle" or "choose between rent and food" poor) - or better yet, make it so that everyone who has the ability and desire to work could live (what we currently consider) a middle class lifestyle?

Would it end the dramatically different levels of violent crime victimization?  For all the talk about police brutality, young black men are murdered by young black men somewhere on the order of 100 to 1000 times more often than they are shot by cops.  If enough white people acknowledged their privilege, would that stop?

Even from within this essay - its a great suggestion to make a point of having a non-college educated person speak for every college educated person.  Of course, given the context of the essay, doesn't that take it as a given that college graduates will be disproportionately white?  Of course that is true - why not work on changing it?  How would inviting non-college educated people to speak help to equalize the education gap?  That's a much bigger problem, one that effects many more people, much more profoundly, than who gets a chance to give a talk to a room full of people.

The entire concept of privilege, of race awareness, of cultural sensitivity, it is all the masturbation of activism: it feels good for the people doing it, but it doesn't accomplish anything.

So, overall, I'm glad this was written, glad it is saying what it is saying.  I fully agree with and support the basic premise.

That said, there are some particular things that stand out to me that I disagree with.

It is repeating / reinforcing the nearly universal assumption (among activists) that inequality today is caused by "structural forms of oppression" and "systems that enable these privileges".

My response to that is much the same as my response to the idea of privilege - how would dismantling any current system actually make anyone's life better?  More over, exactly what "systems" and "structures" would those be?  This is not 1900.  This is 2014.  Racist and colonial systems have ALREADY been dismantled.  And yet race disparity still exists.
That racism is explicitly illegal does not end the problem.  But it does change the problem - yet so many people are stuck thinking in terms that are no longer relevant.
Thinking that disabling oppressive structures will solve problems is like ending slavery (with not even the meager restitution which was initially promised) and expecting former slaves and their children will simply catch up via hard work.  It would take specific pro-active steps.  If every single boss and teacher became color blind, if every prison were closed, if every nation-state were dissolved, there would still be a culture of drugs and violence in the poor black community.  There would still be massive wealth and education inequality, and it would continue to go from one generation to the next. 

There was a time when activists realized this, which is why the Panthers created preschools, economics classes for adults, free medical clinics, and drug rehab programs; its also why, more recently, the program to try to at least begin to address education inequality was called "affirmative action".  Unfortunately, now that name has been taken, but its what we need - not reactionary and destructive dismantling of existing structure, but affirmative action

Much of the specifics are concerning not racism, but colonialism.  I find the portrayal of young American's returning from foreign lands with their "insights" as absolutely spot on.  But I find the suggestion that there is no clear way to deal with it rather odd - it's simple: leave other cultures alone.  Give them access to the knowledge of technology IF they want it, and otherwise leave them the hell alone.  You don't need to go and have your personal profound experience, any more than they need you to come in and save them from their lifestyle and choices.

The portion on nation-states strikes me as having an anarchist ideology at root which makes assumptions about what a nation-state is, which are not necessarily true.

Assuming that without them there would be less violence, less fighting over land, less oppression of one group by another, shows a profound lack of knowledge of history.  The nation-state has only existed for a few hundred years, but those problems have been far worse for most of history than they are today.  This is not to say that the specific methods of action discussed are not absolutely wonderful, positive developments.  Its more that, if the community movements talked about were to expand, and eventually make the state irrelevant - that means they have become the state.  And that's ok.  In fact, it is amazingly positive, because it would have meant a peaceful revolution, which brought (real!) democracy in from the ground up.  That is what needs to happen, all over the world (including America) - actual democracy.  Not what the US calls "democracy", which really means "open markets", but the kind where the people make the decisions of how the state will run and how economic structures will be organized.  That can happen just as easily within the model of a nation as it can without discrete borders.

As far as "safe spaces", my suggestion is this: get over yourself.  These issues are way way bigger than whether your feelings get hurt.  This is stuff that actually impacts millions of peoples lives in very tangible ways, and in order to address problems, sometimes people need to be real and direct and to the point.  Sometimes that means not being "politically correct" and sometimes it means not being "culturally sensitive".  Its not about you.  Deal with it. 

The essay is right to point out that being in an oppressed group does not automatically make you incapable of doing wrong, and a structure designed by an oppressed group is not automatically "oppression free".  People are people, and if you want to form something free from inequality or harm, you have to start out admitting you are not perfect, and then make a conscious effort to recognize and correct for your own biases and assumptions.  No one is immune to them, regardless of race or sex or personal experience.

Again; "as the rituals of confessing privilege have evolved, they have shifted our focus from building social movements for global transformation to individual self-improvement."

Yes.  This is true. And it is a problem, because it distracts people who are aware from doing anything useful.

Overall, my criticisms are relatively minor compared to how much I support the overall point.

Privilege - its not the problem

Response to:
http://andrea366.wordpress.com/2013/08/14/the-problem-with-privilege-by-andrea-smith/



I absolutely love its general premise, and could not agree more - though perhaps for slightly different reasons.

I have long questioned the entire idea of "privilege", and especially the focus on it.  If you are lucky enough to be middle class, its fairly easy to see inequality in terms of having some privileges or not.  One of those privileges is being able to (pretend that you) live in an insular world where an individual being culturally insensitive to another individual is one of the worst aspects of racism.

As a African American, who has lived most (but not all) of his life in poor, high crime, high minority urban areas, the entire sub-culture of race activists has always looked very shallow and meaningless to me.  It has always seemed much more about being able to say "I, in contrast to all those other (white) people, am enlightened."

What, exactly, does white people or men or straight people or whoever, acknowledging their privilege actually accomplish?

Lets say every single European American was fully aware, fully acknowledged, and fully internalized that they have privilege relative to other people.

Would that somehow instantly, magically, cause wealth and income inequality to disapear, so that whites were proportionately represented among the extremely poor (and I'm not talking "can't make car payments" or "home foreclosure" poor - I'm talking "can't afford a halfway decent bicycle" or "choose between rent and food" poor) - or better yet, make it so that everyone who has the ability and desire to work could live (what we currently consider) a middle class lifestyle?

Would it end the dramatically different levels of violent crime victimization?  For all the talk about police brutality, young black men are murdered by young black men somewhere on the order of 100 to 1000 times more often than they are shot by cops.  If enough white people acknowledged their privileged, would that stop?

Even from within this essay - its a great suggestion to make a point of having a non-college educated person speak for every college educated person.  Of course, given the context of the essay, doesn't that take it as a given that college graduates will be disproportionately white?  Of course that is true - why not work on changing it?  How would inviting non-college educated people to speak help to equalize the education gap?  That's a much bigger problem, one that effects many more people, much more profoundly, than who gets a chance to give a talk to a room full of people.

The entire concept of privilege, of race awareness, of cultural sensitivity, it is all the masturbation of activism: it feels good for the people doing it, but it doesn't accomplish anything.

So, overall, I'm glad this was written, glad it is saying what it is saying.  I fully agree with and support the basic premise.

That said, there are some particular things that stand out to me that I disagree with.

It is repeating / reinforcing the nearly universal assumption (among activists) that inequality today is caused by "structural forms of oppression" and "systems that enable these privileges".

My response to that is much the same as my response to the idea of privilege - how would dismantling any current system actually make anyone's life better?  More over, exactly what "systems" and "structures" would those be?  This is not 1900.  This is 2014.  Racist and colonial systems have ALREADY been dismantled.  And yet race disparity still exists.
That racism is explicitly illegal does not end the problem.  But it does change the problem - yet so many people are stuck thinking in terms that are no longer relevant.
Thinking that disabling oppressive structures will solve problems is like ending slavery (with not even the meager restitution which was initially promised) and expecting former slaves and their children will simply catch up via hard work.  It would take specific pro-active steps.  If every single boss and teacher became color blind, if every prison were closed, if every nation-state were dissolved, there would still be a culture of drugs and violence in the poor black community.  There would still be massive wealth and education inequality, and it would continue to go from one generation to the next. 

There was a time when activists realized this, which is why the Panthers created preschools, economics classes for adults, free medical clinics, and drug rehab programs; its also why, more recently, the program to try to at least begin to address education inequality was called "affirmative action".  Unfortunately, now that name has been taken, but its what we need - not reactionary and destructive dismantling of existing structure, but affirmative action

Much of the specifics are concerning not racism, but colonialism.  I find the portrayal of young American's returning from foreign lands with their "insights" as absolutely spot on.  But I find the suggestion that there is no clear way to deal with it rather odd - its simple: leave other cultures alone.  Give them access to the knowledge of technology IF they want it, and otherwise leave them the hell alone.  You don't need to go and have your personal profound experience, any more than they need you to come in and save them from their lifestyle and choices.

The portion on nation-states strikes me as having an anarchist ideology at root which makes assumptions about what a nation-state is, which are not necessarily true.

Assuming that without them there would be less violence, less fighting over land, less oppression of one group by another, shows a profound lack of knowledge of history.  The nation-state has only existed for a few hundred years, but those problems have been far worse for most of history than they are today.  This is not to say that the specific methods of action discussed are not absolutely wonderful, positive developments.  Its more that, if the community movements talked about were to expand, and eventually make the state irrelevant - that means they have become the state.  And that's ok.  In fact, it is amazingly positive, because it would have meant a peaceful revolution, which brought (real!) democracy in from the ground up.  That is what needs to happen, all over the world (including America) - actual democracy.  Not what the US calls "democracy", which really means "open markets", but the kind where the people make the decisions of how the state will run and how economic structures will be organized.  That can happen just as easily within the model of a nation as it can without discrete borders.

As far as "safe spaces", my suggestion is this: get over yourself.  These issues are way way bigger than whether your feelings get hurt.  This is stuff that actually impacts millions of peoples lives in very tangible ways, and in order to address problems, sometimes people need to be real and direct and to the point.  Sometimes that means not being "politically correct" and sometimes it means not being "culturally sensitive".  Its not about you.  Deal with it. 

The essay is right to point out that being in an oppressed group does not automatically make you incapable of doing wrong, and a structure designed by an oppressed group is not automatically "oppression free".  People are people, and if you want to form something free from inequality or harm, you have to start out admitting you are not perfect, and then make a conscious effort to recognize and correct for your own biases and assumptions.  No one is immune to them, regardless of race or sex or personal experience.

Again; "as the rituals of confessing privilege have evolved, they have shifted our focus from building social movements for global transformation to individual self-improvement."

Yes.  This is true. And it is a problem, because it distracts people who are aware from doing anything useful.

Overall, my criticisms are relatively minor compared to how much I support the overall point.

Quote on Consumerism from the founder of Early Retirement Extreme

"The problem is that most of us have become utterly dependent on this industrial-technological  system  for  all  of  our  needs  and  wants.  Shopping is as important as oxygen to us. Close down the malls for a few days and people go crazy. We no longer think of ourselves as citizens but as ”consumers”, a descriptive term that I've always found kind of derogatory. This dependence  is  so  fundamental  that  it  goes unseen, much like fish don't see the water they swim in. Consequentially, the only solution we can think of whenever we struggle with unfulfilled needs or wants is to ”earn more” and start a side-business, negotiate a raise, and gamble on some more education – it's an investment in your future (ha!). The only perceived way to a better so-called standard-of-living is to work harder and smarter and earn more. However, what this often results in is more environmental damage or at best reshufling money from suckers to scammers." - Jacob Lund Fisker

Porn on Seasame Street

[this happened 3 years ago, and I wrote the post below back then.  But for reasons I don't remember, I saved it as a draft, where it has been ever since, until I happened to go through my drafts folder today]

Sesame Street's Youtube was hacked, and porn was uploaded.

It seems as though everyone's reaction to what happened is either: "ha ha, too bad I missed it" or "that was the worst possible thing imaginable, the hacker is sick and should be tortured".

I feel like the one kid who sees that the emperor's new clothes don't exist.

Hey, guess what?  People have sex!
Seeing sex does NOT scar or disturb or warp children!!!
You know what does give children a lifelong neurosis around sexuality?  Sheltering and hiding them from it, which teaches them that it is bad and shameful.
No child would think that was a big deal if all the adults around them didn't make such a big production out of it.

Sexuality is not bad for children.  If it weren't for sexuality, there wouldn't even BE any children!

It has been shown conclusively and consistently that there is a directly inverse relationship between sex education and teen pregnency and STDs
Knowledge, truth, and education = GOOD
Sheltering and hiding a significant part of life = BAD

Parents are such hypocrites:  the very fact that they are parents proves that they have done the very thing they pretend to be so shocked about themselves; at least once.

If you aren't mature enough to talk to your kids honestly about sex, then maybe you weren't mature enough to have kids in the first place.  For that matter, maybe you aren't mature enough to have sex yourself.
If parent's were straight forward about sex with their kids, seeing it on screen would be a non-issue. 

You know what does give children a lifelong neurosis around sexuality?  Sheltering and hiding them from it, which teaches them that it is bad and shameful, (regardless of what you say explicitly).
This is exactly why America is so screwed up when it comes to all things sexual.  Not that kids sometimes see people having sex.  The fact that so many of you react as though there were anything wrong with that.
Hey, guess what?  People have sex!  We are animals.  All animals have sex.  That's how we produce new people.  No child would think that was a big deal if all the adults around them didn't make such a big production out of it. 

If you want to tell your kids that its only for grown-ups who love each other, that's fine, but there is no reason for them not to see "hardcore" - that's actually how it works!  Its not like the hacked video was full of BDSM or fetishes.  It was just people having sex.  Get over it.

Why OWS and the 99% is THE fundamental issue, which lies behind all others:

[This is another of those things I wrote years ago, and has been lost in draft form.  I think I originally planned to add more list items, and elaborate further on all of them, but of course I don't remember what exactly I had in mind]


-War: Some of the largest corporations, (Boeing, Lockheed Martin), profit enormously from war

-Civil Rights: Corporations are not citizens, and therefor should have no civil rights - they are granted right anyway.  They violate the rights of individuals without consequence.  Income and wealth inequality are the single largest factor for the different life experiences of American whites and blacks, and wealth inequality is a direct result of our economic policies.

-Gay rights, abortion, etc etc: Directly mutual relationship between corporate political power and the religious right, as they are both "conservative".  The only reason the religious right is taken seriously is because they support the politicians who are funded by corporate money.

-Environment: EPA doesn't work on shutting down your backyard BBQ.  It is corporations which cause massive pollution.  Corporations decide which power sources to tap into and what type of cars are manufactured.  It was corporations which deliberately destroyed public transit across America.

WTO / NAFTA / etc: this should go without saying

Quote from unknown poster on homophobia and its relation to sexual assult

"Oh and while being a straight man myself I've never understood the apparent belief that many straight men have that they are apparently irresistible to homosexuals and that given half a chance all gays would pounce on them and have their wicked way - I often suspect that this reflects their own attitudes towards women. I'm not sure that I find that a pleasant idea but it would go some way towards explaining the truly awful male on female sexual abuse statistics that US Forces seem to suffer from."

Quote from unknown poster on a military forum titled "The Gays won, There goes the military"

Invasive specie continues to cause massive ecological damage after nearly 500 years

By far the most destructive invasive species to North America has been the Western European Homo Sapiens.
Introduced between 1500 and 1600 by Spanish, German, and English settlers, this large hominid almost entirely eradicated the native breed of their own specie throughout the continent, and then went on to do absolutely massive destruction to nearly every aspect of the landscape with their natural instinct to modify their surroundings, ultimately affecting literally every ecological niche extending not only across the land but even well into the oceans on both coasts.

In order to restore the damage done by their introduction, a two part strategy may be most effective: a massive catch, spay/neuter and release program coupled with relaxed or even eliminated hunting restrictions.  This may take lots of time, but would surely be more cost effective and humane in the long run, compared with any attempt to directly euthanize the entire population.

Freedom VS democracy

[I wrote this some years ago, I don't remember exactly when. It was lost in the drafts folder.]

Some people condemn all government as authoritarian.  They take the government we have today as an example of "democracy" and condemn democracy as just another form of government control over people's lives.  But the word "government" doesn't mean "authoritarian control".  Democracy is a form of government.  And democracy isn't about legislatures interfering into private peoples lives.  Democracy is about private people acting as legislatures. 

The United States of America has corrupted the word democracy.
The USA is not, and never has been, a democracy.  It was never intended to be.



What we have is a republic.
Under a republic people or localities designate representatives, and those representatives make rules and jointly form the government.  People vote for congress members by county or city (more or less), states elect senators, and party electors vote for presidents. A citizens participation consists of about 20 minutes every four years or so.  Congress makes all the laws.  The president designates people to run government agencies.

Democracy is government of and by the citizens themselves.  In a true democracy, instead of passing legislative and executive responsibilities to someone else, the responsible citizen participates in the process.
 In the state of California we have a partial democracy.  Any citizen can propose a new law.  They can go out and try to collect signatures, and the people they stop take a moment to read the proposal, and then sign it (or not).  If the citizen gets enough support it appears on the ballot, and everyone has one vote.  If it passes it is as legally binding as a law written by the legislature.  That's an example of democracy. 
In a large scale democracy the function of government officials is just to file paperwork, run elections, implement what the people decide.  In a true democracy the people who work in government have no power.  They are bureaucrats, not decision makers.  The decision makers are the citizens themselves.  In a democracy people have both a right and a responsibility to participate in the process of deciding how society and the economy will be.


Many people are very concerned about government abuses or authoritarianism.  People hate being told what to do - even when it really is what's best for them.  People want the freedom to not wear a seatbelt and become disfigured or die in a car crash.  Personally, I find this more than a little immature.  It reminds me of the rebellious teenager who goes against what their parents say just because they said it - ignoring that the parents probably learned the hard way the lesson by doing the same thing themselves.  Maybe that is something most people have to go through; but one would hope we all grow out of it...  But I digress.
Some say democracy is a "tyranny of the majority" and that no one should ever be coerced to do anything.  They suggest that all group projects (i.e. everything which is "society") be done on a unanimous consensus basis.
But remembering that democracy does not have to have an authoritarian ruler or hierarchy, there is no reason to assume people are being "forced" to do anything.

Consider this example:
Four students are assigned to be in a group together, and complete a joint project which will be a significant portion of their grade.  The teacher allows them to decide on the topic themselves, but they must all contribute to one narrowly focused paper.  Chances are not all 4 will agree on what to do it on.
Maybe two people agree, but two others have different ideas.  Each person argues their case, and in the end, if no one has changed their minds, it goes to a vote and the idea with 2 supporters gets done.  The other 2 go along with it - not because they were forced to (nor any threat of force) but simply because they need to work with other people to accomplish their own goals. Sometimes working with other people means not getting your way. 
That is democracy.

In this example their is no hierarchy.  No one has any more power than anyone else.  There is no tyranny, no authority, no coercion. If one person was absolutely not ok with the chosen project, no one is stopping them from dropping the class.
Having 100% consensus 100% of the time, even in a group of 4 like-minded people is perhaps a noble goal, but is totally unrealistic.  Having 100% consensus on a national (or even neighborhood) level is simply a joke.  But the fact that a rule is made that not everyone agrees with does not imply some outside authority or threat of force.
In any free country, citizens are allowed to leave anytime they like.  Although it isn't an explicit "right", anyone can immigrate to another country if they prefer the rules somewhere else.. 
In a commune, where a number of adults all live in one shared space, if one person refuses to do any chores, doesn't contribute to rent or food costs, makes noise while everyone is sleeping, and generally ignores the rules everyone else collectively agreed to, I doubt anyone would argue the group is overstepping its bounds in asking that individual to leave the shared space.
Following the rules that the people collectively decide on is a reasonable condition of living in a country and enjoying its benefits just as surely as it would be in any commune. 
Because of this, simply staying is giving implicit consent.


Freedom is an extremely popular idea.
Conservatives argue for economic freedom.  Liberals argue for social freedom.  Libertarians argue for freedom of both, so long as one person's  doesn't infringe upon another, and private property and national boundaries are respected.  The constitution guarantees freedom of speech, religion, the press, and to assemble.  Anarchists argue for complete freedom for everyone, all the time.

Freedom is contrasted with a monarchy handing down proclamations, fascism (and the implicit connection with nazi's),  brutal and oppressive dictatorships, government abusing power and taking advantage of people.

Whenever an idea becomes so obvious to a people that it is taken for granted by all sides, when a philosophy or theory becomes an axiom, its a good idea to take a step back and question it.  The idea of freedom, of self-determination, of autonomy, has not always been seen as the most valuable or basic of human rights.  We have gotten to a point where the only thing debated is how best to achieve it, instead of asking why it is even the goal.

Why is freedom inherently valuable? - even beyond extent of improving human condition or increasing individual happiness.  If it "just is" then it is no more than dogma, an axiom based on faith.

In context of a repressive dictatorship, relative freedom has value - because it can improve the state of human happiness and equality. 
But beyond that, it becomes a religious conviction, which is repeated until it is accepted.

The insistence on freedom, whether it comes from an anarchist, a libertarian, or a conservative, is for the most part a straw man, a red herring - it is a retort to an argument which nobody was making in the first place.
Even within the most repressive dictatorship, (outside of war, prison and slavery), people are - and have always been - free to live their lives as they choose.
Citizens are allowed to choose where they live, who they associate with, what they do for a living, when to eat dinner, what to eat for dinner, who to marry (family may have a say, but that's a whole separate issue).  For the most part - outside of religion's influence on government - governments make no attempt to control those actions which affect no one but the actor himself, or other consenting adults who choose to associate with them.
What governments do regulate is all the actions which affect other people involuntarily.
If someone wants to go out into the wilderness and be totally self-sufficient, no one is stopping them.
The reality is humans are a fragile and social specie, and almost no one would be capable of doing that if they wanted to, and almost no one wants to.
The reality is that, since we live in society, the vast majority of our choices DO affect others around us.

Consider the statement: "I think its great that there are many choices of high mileage cars for sale.  Personally I drive the most efficient car I could get, and it saves me a lot of money.  But what's even greater is that everyone has the choice to drive whatever they want, even if its a big SUV".
Obviously there is the environmental impact.  There is also the fact that the SUV will do much more damage to a victim should the driver accidentally crash.  And since gasoline is a supply and demand commodity, the fact that one person wastes gas by driving a bigger car than they need means that the price is driven up just a little more.  Whether its breathing clean air, being able to afford gas, or being able to travel safely in the streets, one person's decision does not just affect themselves, it affects everyone.

In a global economy, each and every economic decision which any person makes ultimately affects everyone else.  And while that affect is very small when it is just one person out of 6 billion, an entire nation of people acting selfish together can really add up. 
Enter the tragedy of the commons.


To a large extent "freedom" is an illusion anyway.  Those who can afford access to distributing mass media have spent the past century refining ways to manipulate people.  Psychology is employed in advertising and in politics, and we are indoctrinated from the time we can talk in regards to what we should value and desire. 
The very ideal of freedom and self-determination itself is the best example of this: we are bombarded with it from all angles, the rugged self-made individualist American Dream on one side, and the rebellious non-conformist activist on the other - supposedly at odds with each other, but both playing into the ideal of 'individual freedom' which, ironically, was invented by and supports the one thing they both can agree to hate:  the government.


Democracy, of course, requires a certain degree of cohesiveness among citizens, and a willingness to make (small) individual sacrifices for the overall good, knowing that oneself is a part of everyone, and everyone does better when everyone does better.  It is a bit like a union - if you cross the picket line you may get your individual check, which is good for you - but if you sacrifice that extra pay for yourself now, everyone ends up with the health plan and vacation time (and "everyone" includes you).  The citizen cuts back on luxuries when their nation is attacked, and pays taxes willingly.  The individualist buys the SUV and crosses the picket line.
Problem is, once that one person crosses the line, the workers collective loses power.  That power is taken back by the company.
Citizens vote.  Consumers don't waste their time.  As citizens become more and more focused on themselves, they lose unity with other citizens, and in doing so give up their power.  Which leaves a vacuum which politicians and the wealthy move into without resistance.

Nothing undermines democracy more than a populace who feels morally entitled to self-determination and believes deeply in individualism, and nothing supports government abuse of power more than the undermining of democracy. 
The irony is that the ideas of freedom, self-determination, and lack of authority came largely from government itself, as a method of limiting democracy - thereby giving itself more power.  The irony is that the groups most antagonistic to government - anarchists and libertarians - are those most enamored with the very concepts which prevent government from being effectively run by the people, leaving a void which the elite class fills.

Regardless of what one believes in theory, this is the reality of what has happened in this country over the past century.
It was a deliberate push by both corporations and government to change the psychology of Americans from being citizens (which are a part of something larger than themselves) to consumers (who are beholden only to "I, me, mine") and it had the intended effect.
Today people have a rearrangement of priorities: lots and lots of material goods, comforts, and conveniences, and they are loath to give any up. 
They do not feel they should have to make any individual sacrifices to the greater good.  In fact, that concept (rightfully accused of being "socialism") is equated with communism (where the government owns literally everything, and makes all macroeconomic decisions), fascism (which promotes total devotion to a monoculture and essentially worship of one's own country) and even evil.


Another axiom is that production of wealth is inherently good. 
Consider an extreme example -a sort of monarchy in which the king gets benefit of 100% of wealth creation.  Every time any citizen goes to work, they get compensated enough to afford basic necessities, but the rest all goes to one man.  If GDP goes up, whether by the invention of new technology or by people working harder or longer hours or by a decrease in waste and increase in efficiency, all the additional wealth that is generated goes to the king, and the king alone. 
In this example while it might look good on paper to do something which "supports the economy", in reality this doesn't help anyone.  Hundreds of millions of citizens get literally no benefit at all.  But really neither does the king, since he already has more than enough wealth as it is.  In this extreme scenario there is nothing particularly good about increasing economic activity or wealth generation.

 Now consider a slightly less extreme example: a small aristocracy.  Instead of going to one man, all increases in wealth go to a small subset of the population, which stays almost entirely along family lines from one generation to the next.
This less extreme example is... exactly what has happened in reality over the last 3 decades or so in America.  There has been no real income increase for the working or middle classes after adjusting for inflation - while the highest fraction of a percent of the population's wealth has skyrocketed to absolutely unprecedented levels.
Increasing GDP is useless in terms of impact on average person.  What we all too easily seem to forget in that the purpose of the economy is to support people, not the other way around.

Consider the sort of sacrifices the average person is supposed to accept on the grounds that its good for business: outsourcing, mergers, union busting, tax cuts on investment income, tax payer funded corporate subsidies - things which directly support the upper class while hurting everyone else.  Notice that no business suggests cutting off stock holders or paying all executives a no more than what the average employee makes as a method of "remaining competitive in the global marketplace".
Giving all the money to the king does not create more jobs.  If that newly generated wealth were spread around evenly, people could work less hours for the same pay.  If people with jobs worked less hours, then to maintain productivity, companies would need to hire more people.  Instant job creation, nobody has to spend anything, everybody wins.  The super wealthy fail to get super-duper wealthy, but that's really ok, because once you have 10 million dollars, another billion or two does not appreciably increase quality of life anyway. 


The idea of the free market taking the place of government in terms of making the economic and production decisions of a society is that it naturally matches the desires of the people, and that a more accurate and fair valuation of the value of goods and services will be settled upon by the "invisible hand" of many peoples individual, independent, and self-interested negotiations.
In theory, this is better than democracy, with its potential to become a "tyranny of the masses"
This is summed up with the phrase "vote with your dollar".
Another way to say that would be "money is power".
And unlike the democratic principal of one person / one vote, the more money you have, the more influence you have over the direction the invisible hand takes.
And this takes us again back to the aristocracy - rule by a wealthy and powerful elite - the opposite of democracy, and the opposite of what any of us outside that elite actually wants.



Yet another common idea is that rational self-interest will tend to increase productivity, as people search for ways to be more efficient or ways to get investment returns, which ultimately make society work like a machine and benefits everyone.

Tax rates should be low (or non-existent) because people will work harder if they can keep what they earn, and it shouldn't be progressive because then the wealthy will stop working altogether.  People can be as selfish as they like - in fact, can be encouraged to be selfish - because in the long run the effect they have on the economy will improve it in general.  Wealth will be created, re-invested, and that will help to create jobs.

In the real world:

-people already work far harder than there is any real need to.  Productivity per worker has increased by the hundreds over the past century with the advent of assembly lines, gas and electric powered machines, robots and computers.  Yet we still work 40 or more hours per week.  Instead of using that efficiency to allow for more leisure time (which would actually increase human happiness) it has gone to generating ever more wealth (which, as has been established, has gone primarily not to the workers themselves, but to the upper class who don't actually work)

-The only people who high top tax brackets might encourage to work less are the very people who do the least work.  One of the primary definitions of rich is "anyone who makes enough income from investments that they do not need to work".  Collecting stock dividends, capital gains, interest, or rent, is not working, and it is not contributing to society.  It is leaching from it.

-Investors can not take credit for economic production.
It's as if one person hoards all the hammers in town, and rents them out to people, then wants credit for the houses other people built with them. If they weren't hoarding the hammers, the hammers would still exist. If they were distributed equitably, no one would need to rent them; therefor building would be cheaper, and more would get built.
In this way the fact that someone is hoarding and charging interest actually depresses economic activity, because those hoarding the cash skim a little off the top of every financial transaction thereby increasing its cost.

Just like we tend to assume freedom and democracy go hand in hand when in fact they are in some ways at odds, capitalism and the free market are generally assumed to be interchangeable as well.
It ain't necessarily so.

A free market - ideally - works much like, well, a market...

[I stopped writing here. I'm posting it as is, as where it was headed happens to be the focus of my next series of posts.]