Thinking about Mutual Benefit

As an Economist and as an Observant Jew I would like to believe in the idea of acting and thinking for mutual benefit. As an Economist I would like the principle of efficient markets to be proven to be the reality in all circumstances. People negotiate and come to agreements that are good for everyone involved. As a Jewish person I like the idea that "All Jews are friends", and that doing a good deed for someone makes me better off for having done the deed and him better off for having been the recipient. The problem is that I am too much of a pessimist/realist to accept the principle of mutual benefit throughout all of my human interactions.

Ever since the dawn of time, and just after Adam was thrown out of the Garden of Eden, there has existed the concept of scarcity. People's wants exceed the world's ability to fulfill them. The tree of knowledge ironically took away certainty, leaving in its place a hunger and desire for something man will never place his hands on. Humanity will forever want more and will never be satisfied.

In the forth chapter of the book of Avos it says, "Q.Who is considered wealthy? A. One who is satisfied with his lot." In a world of scarcity, where no one is satisfied with their lot in life, how can anyone be considered wealthy? Wealth in modern terms is not defined as internal happiness, it is defined in comparative terms. How much do I have in relation to the people in which I consider my peer group?

With a definition of wealth determined in comparative terms, how is it ever possible to think in terms of mutual benefit? By thinking of making someone else better off, a person is already lowering their own standings in terms of that person. One man's garbage is another man's gold. But by taking that person's garbage, I am now a recipient of another man's garbage, a person of lower social standing.

Yes, this conceptualization is very childish.As with most childish rejections of tried and true principles there is an easy answer, a hard answer, and a real answer. But all three answers question underling assumptions

The easy answer: Human nature is not such that people's happiness is dependent on other people's property.
Rejection: Where do you think the idea of keeping up with the Joneses came from?

The hard answer: There is no such thing as mutual benefit.
Rejection: The theory of comparative advantage makes it abundantly clear that when it comes to material production and consumption certain people have there own unique strengths within themselves. When people do what they are strong at, and trade with people who are strong at doing something else, more gets created and everyone is made better off.

The Real Answer: It really depends on who you are dealing with, what kind of relationship you have with the other person, and your own personal motivations. There is no guaranteed pill for happiness. So long as God gives us eyes to see, ears to hear, and the rest of the senses to do what they do, we will continue to gather new information about the real world and continue to want new things. If our want for those things has no social aspect attached in terms of status symbols, mutual benefit is possible. However, once social relationships enter into the game, it all depends on the little status games we all play.

Rejection: Learn Mussar, read Covey, and get out of the rat race. Why would you want to be a rat anyway? There is plenty of kosher cheese on sale at Costco in nice bulk 2lb bags.

Speaking of cheese. Stay tuned for my next post where I discuss the battle of the bulge and the bulge's secret weapon against me. (Hint: It's Cheese.)

The Folly of Universal Literacy- Bookcases!

I can't say when it was that I first began enjoying reading. Perhaps I grabbed Dr. Spock when I was a baby to tell my parents what they were doing wrong. It could be when I picked up my first Star Wars book, unsatisfied with the way the movie ended. However, the thing I think that really got me into reading, and books in general, was my mother bringing me to the library at a young age for "Story Time", my father ordering hooked on phonics for me when I was 1st or 2nd Grade, and the fact that there were actual bookcases in the house growing up filled with books.


Can you guess how many actual bookcases are sold in furniture store in this day and age? If you are lucky you might find a "Media Center/TV cabinet" that can double as a bookcase. If you know where to look you will find particle board bookcases that will fall apart and chip in a few years in the back of the office furniture stores. Perhaps it has to do with the tree-huggers protecting the trees; they hug the trees and  suppress the supply of quality wood going to bookcase production. I don't think this is the case. I think the reason is that where once the showcase of a living-room might have been a bookcase, today the showcase of everyday living-room is everything else besides books.

Why should the government spend so much money trying to make sure everyone knows how to read when they won't use the skills they gain by actually reading, treasuring each word as something worthy of placing on a true honest to goodness quality bookshelf?

Before people learn to read we must give them the vessels to hold that knowledge. My promise to you, if I am elected to any public office with an expense account, I will spend every penny in purchasing every one of my constituents quality hardwood bookcases.

Questions for further study: What should my policy be when someone fills their bookcases and wants to continue buying more books? Do I burn the old books to refill the bookcase with new books? How many books can a person own before the knowledge police arrest the person for overcrowding? Who do we thank for the gift of literacy when all it leads to is absurd self referential blog posts, middle management gratifying office memos, and properly spelled Chinese Food menus.

3:30 AM is nighttime, but it's morning too. How do you do, it's 3:32

You want a job in this economy?

To whom it may concern,

I saw your ad in the newspaper the other day and I have decided to apply for the position. I understand I may not be the most qualified. I understand that there may be many other qualified applicants who may do the job better than me. However, in my own head, I feel that I am the best person for the job.

I want money. It is plain and simple. I need some cash right now to support an alcohol/drug addiction. In order for me to remain off the streets and away from begging I need some sort of employment to pay for my habits. You, as a hiring manager for a great company, need people to sit behind a desk from 9 in the morning to 5 in the afternoon. I think I fit the job description perfectly. I can sit behind a desk for a few hours out of the day. So long as I can keep my bottle in the bottom drawer I have no problems.

I understand you are a very busy man. So I will not waste your time by having you call me. I will be following up this wonderful letter with a stop at your company headquarters were I will interrupting the work of all the employees until you sign a contract for employment. However, if you wish to reach me before I get there, I can be reached at 212-555-1234.

Yours truly,

Your insane future employee

:-)

Instant gratification in "The oldern times" and in the newer times

How do you get entertained? Do you go to the arena and watch people fight to the death? Do you roam the halls of Dionysus looking for the next high on life? Perhaps you lounge around looking good just to make all your neighbors and friends jealous?

If you answered "Yes" to any of these questions you have been born in the wrong era. You are the product of a time long past, OR too much television.

In this day and age all people want is instant gratification. People are not happy working hard to get something in the far future. We want it now. The future will never come. In my mind I wonder, were things really that different in "the olden days"? Have people's natures been so shaped by the internet, or has the need for "now, now, now" been there all along?

Having no formal training, and doing no research at all, I would like to propose a theory. People's natures have not changed. There has always been a need for instant gratification. The only difference between today and yesterday is that today people can actually make instant gratification a reality instead of some sort of fantasy to be had in the far future.

2000 years ago the Roman's enjoyed their fights. Today we enjoy our football games. Then there was blood sport, today there is horror on TV. There is almost an endless parallel between today and yesterday when it comes to people serving their baser natures. The only real change is that we have become cowards. Instead of embracing the reality of life, that the actions that we do, see, and influence have meaning, we have hidden behind the mask of the actor. Our instant gratification came at the expense of our authenticity.

Have you ever watched a baby whining for food? Does it ask polity and wait to be served? I think not. The baby demands to be served, it screams out until there is some food within it's grasp. It is only after being conditioned by society that the child learns that things don't happen instantly. People's feelings are involved, in order to get something done faster someone has to actually work faster.

In the times when human rights were not something that people took seriously people's feelings were neglidgable next to the outcome of getting what you wanted. So long as you could pay, you could do whatever it is you want to do. Things changed when we began to be sensitive to the idea that "all are created equal" an not just land owning men. No longer could we take advantage of people just because we had power. With the change in values came a change in expectations, people no longer expected things instantly because they recognized the people behind each instant.

With the rise of mechanization everything changed. Machines don't have feelings, and the people it takes to make them are a step away from our sensibilities. So we return to the land of instant gratification of our youth; thanks to technology we are all children once again.

The Librarian Union- The evils of the ALA

How hard is it to find a book?

In today's day and age the internet is the answer to almost any question. With wonderful databases of information and catalogs that are search-able by anyone who knows how to use a search-engine, what need is there for someone to go to library school?

The answer lies with the ALA, the American Library Association. As with any monopolistic endeavor the ALA has created standards that must be adhered to if anyone should want to help patrons find something they could find on there own with Google. They have concocted all sorts of Master's Degrees to prohibit any person with a brain from organizing books and then helping people find them without paying lots of money to them for schooling. 

If anyone has ever taken a look at the job description for a librarian they would see that there is nothing in the description that demands any form of higher education. In order to help someone find what they are looking for one does not have to know anything about the subject the person is interested in researching. Computers are experts in finding related keywords to assist people in their research. In order to organize books one doesn't have to be a genius to know that Science Fiction doesn't belong in the same section as Western. (Unless you are dealing with "Firefly.") And in order to tell people to be quiet in the library one doesn't have to go to school, one just has to be old, female, a scowl, and a mole.

The real problem is that librarians have the best jobs in the world, and it is for this reason that they are overpaid. Who wouldn't want to spend all there time playing solitaire and reading while telling all your customers to look it up themselves. Who wouldn't want to be in the business to tell people that what they want isn't available in the system 99% of the time? Who wouldn't want the chance to sit around in an air conditioned room all summer while the customers have to wait for you to open your doors to let them in? I don't imagine anyone turning down such a wonderfully cushy job.

In an effort to protect themselves from the unwashed masses taking there jobs and noising up the silence of the libraries, the librarians instituted an Association whereby the only people who can tell people to be quite in the library must get training to do so. This wonderful plan made the salaries more competitive for all the librarians and cut the budget for what people really come to the library for, Americanized versions of the Kama Sutra.

In closing, I want a job as a librarian where I can look at people strangely for their choice of reading material, sit around all day while people consult me for books that were stolen by the last patron, and where I can point to the computer and tell everyone to become computer literate and find things themselves. Why should I have to go to school to any of those things?