(from Fearless; A Cartoonist's Guide to Life by Robb Armstrong)
". . . Prosperity is often mistaken for success. The resemblance is so strong, the two of them are practically twins. But loo a little closer. Success is older and wiser. Success has wrinkles around the eyes that weep for the struggles of others. Success has a bloodline that runs through the greatest achievement of humankind. Success is a descendant of Abraham Lincoln and Benjamin Franklin, Martin Luther King Jr. and Frederick Douglass, Leonardo da Vinci . . . Success can easily trace its roots back to Moses and Jesus Christ. Success as you can see from this celebrated lineage, isn't always rich. Prosperity, on the other hand, is rolling in it. Success wants company. Prosperity is alone in a crowded room. It is difficult to meet with Success. You have to get past a bodyguard named Abject Failure. . . "
Other Ray Jozwiak Offerings
(To Access all Ray Jozwiak - Gonzo Piano music you can copy-and-paste this URL directly to
your browser: http://www.cdbaby.com/Artist/RayJozwiak)
Golden we were
All that we touched
Turned in a favorable tide
Life, but we know,
Brings what it may
Think of yourself
But don’t do it too much
Pressing your luck
Go too far
Prosperity
Honestly won
No one can say
They begrudge
What is the cost
Turns out to be
Too much for us
More than we want to spare
All that we care
About will fade
Money, guns, the planet may be
Money, guns, the planet we should think about
Money is just
Root of all bad
That hasn’t changed
Over time
Guns that we need
Certainly has
Now we must act
To preserve our own lives
(from http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-reich-free-market-20130924,0,4661170.story Robert Reich, former U.S. Secretary of Labor, is professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley and the author of "Beyond Outrage," now available in paperback. His new film, "Inequality for All," will be out September 27. He blogs at http://www.robertreich.org)
". . . One of the most deceptive ideas continuously sounded by the right (and its fathomless think tanks and media outlets) is that the "free market" is natural and inevitable, existing outside and beyond government.
So whatever inequality or insecurity it generates is beyond our control. And whatever ways we might seek to reduce inequality or insecurity — to make the economy work for us — are unwarranted constraints on the market's freedom and will inevitably go wrong.
By this view, if some people aren't paid enough to live on, the market has determined they aren't worth enough. If others rake in billions, they must be worth it. If millions of Americans remain unemployed or their paychecks are shrinking or they work two or three part-time jobs with no idea what they'll earn next month or next week, that's too bad; it's just the outcome of the market.
According to this logic, government shouldn't intrude through minimum wages, high taxes on top earners, public spending to get people back to work, regulations on business, or anything else, because the "free market" knows best.
In reality, the "free market" is a bunch of rules about (1) what can be owned and traded (the genome? slaves? nuclear materials? babies? votes?); (2) on what terms (equal access to the Internet? the right to organize unions? corporate monopolies? the length of patent protections?); (3) under what conditions (poisonous drugs? unsafe foods? deceptive Ponzi schemes? uninsured derivatives? dangerous workplaces?); (4) what's private and what's public (police? roads? clean air and water? health care? good schools? parks and playgrounds?); (5) how to pay for what (taxes? user fees? individual pricing?). And so on.
These rules don't exist in nature; they are human creations. Governments don't "intrude" on free markets; governments organize and maintain them. Markets aren't "free" of rules; the rules define them. Without such rules, we're back to social Darwinism, where only the toughest and biggest survive.
The interesting question is what the rules should aim to achieve. They can be designed to maximize efficiency (given the current distribution of resources), or growth (depending on what we're willing to sacrifice to obtain that growth), or fairness (depending on our ideas about a decent society). Or some combination of all three — which aren't necessarily in competition with one another. Evidence suggests, for example, that if prosperity were more widely shared, we'd have faster growth.
The rules might even be designed to entrench and enhance the wealth of a few at the top, and keep almost everyone else comparatively poor and economically insecure.
Which brings us to the central political question: Who should decide on the rules and their major purpose? If our democracy were working as it should, presumably our elected representatives, agency heads and courts would be making the rules roughly according to what most of us want the rules to be. The economy would be working for us.
Instead, the rules are now made mostly by those with the power and resources to buy the politicians, regulatory heads and even the courts (and the lawyers who appear before them). As income and wealth have concentrated at the top, so has political clout. And the most important clout is determining the rules of the game.
Not incidentally, these are the same people who want you and most others to believe in the fiction of an immutable "free market."
As I emphasize in "Inequality for All" — a new film out this week in which I explain the savage inequalities and insecurities now undermining our economy and democracy — we can make the economy work for us rather than for only a few at the top. But in order to change the rules, we must exert the power that is supposed to be ours. . . "
(from NPR http://www.npr.org/2012/04/27/151456319/is-moderate-growth-good-for-the-economy)
'The U.S. economy hit the recession exit ramp nearly three years ago,
but it's been lost on the back roads somewhere near Recoveryville ever
since. Growth rates have been modest at best
compared with the 4-plus percent growth in the years well before the
U.S. began slouching toward its worst post-World War II recession. On
Friday, the government reported that the economy grew at a 2.2 percent
pace in the first quarter, down from the 3 percent rate at the end of
2011. The Federal Reserve this week said it expects growth to "remain
moderate over coming quarters and then to pick up gradually. "Common
sense says high growth rates are good and slower, more modest ones are
not so good. But is that always the case? After all, the "irrational
exuberance" of the early 2000s helped bring on the recession as people
borrowed and spent their way to prosperity. Economists
say growth will remain low and consumers will be cautious as long as
unemployment stays high. Last month, the jobless rate stood at 8.2
percent. We asked four economists for their
take on the growth rate and whether it has triggered any permanent
change in consumer behavior. They are Chris Christopher, a senior
principal economist at IHS Global Insight; William Dickens, an economist
at the Brookings Institution; Gary Hufbauer, a senior researcher at the
Peterson Institute for International Economics; and Ken Matheny, senior
economist at Macroeconomic Advisers. . ."
It's time we re-examine our expectations and our standards. Let us redefine 'growth' and calibrate our expectations to a more realistic and natural level. Paraphrasing Dylan Ratigan in "Greedy Bastards", short term greed is practiced by greedy bastards; the largest payback as quickly as possible. Long-term greed is what capitalism is all about. Provide a good or service of value and reap a profit over a number of years . . . yes YEARS; a concept quite foreign to U.S. business.
What
do YOU think?
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html
Also download
your
very own copy of
AMBIENCE & WINE
by Ray
Jozwiak
