Social Conventions & Profit

How many of us would actually buy a house for $250K that was twice as big as the one we grew up in if it weren't for social convention?  Then subsequently fill that house with bedroom sets and china cabinets that we don't really care about?  How many of us would by a $4K wedding ring and throw a wedding that cost $25K or $30K, going into debt to finance a celebration that people have been doing for thousands of years without anything approaching that kind of cost (except for nobility)?  Really what is a diamond ring?  It's a sparkly rock.  I have no problem with it.  But do I really care enough about it to spend $4K?  Why are we doing this to ourselves?

It's no conspiracy.  It just happens that there are varied interests that benefit from these decisions that often put consumers into debt.  Those interests seem to converge into these kind of actions that in my view look a little strange when you try and step outside of our bubble.  Admittedly that's not easy and maybe I'm deluding myself.  But are these actions rational?

It's like what was said in the Tedx Talk in my prior link.  Animals often build shelter in about a day.  Sometimes it takes a bit longer.  For humans it takes 30 years.  Is this necessary?

I'm trying to extract myself from these conventions.  I'm proud to say that I think the car I drive is the crappiest car in the whole parking lot where I work.  I've bought too many things in my lifetime, but years back I had a realization about cars.  A friend of mine spent big money on a big cool truck and he took me for a ride.  As we approached it it looked very impressive.  All shiny and new.  But when I got inside it I looked around inside and realized it didn't do anything for me.  Nothing more than the beater car I was driving at the time.  Ever since that point I realized I didn't care about the fancy car.

But I'm now learning there's a lot more I own that I don't care about, primarily my house.  It's nice.  I like it OK.  But do I like it enough to send the bank that big chunk of money in interest every month and all the property taxes?  Wouldn't I rather be free of that burden and free to travel.  Maybe make the cost of my children's college tuition a lot easier?  Or other things.

I kind of wonder what our world would look like if people didn't adopt these social conventions, trying vainly to keep up with the Jones's.  Maybe people would work 10 years, then stop working altogether.  Stay close to home, ride a bike most of the time.  Spend 15 minutes a day working on a garden.  Tend a few chickens.  Play with the kids.  Instead we run from here to there fulfilling job requirements.  All to pay for things we don't really need and don't care about.

Life Is Easy-Why Do We Make It Hard

A Tedx Talk that resonates for me.

Obama the Right Wing Extremist

Only the most extreme right wingers defended Israel when they invaded Gaza in 2008, dumping chemical weapons on two hospitals among many other egregious crimes.  Only the extremists are ready to defend the execution of people on the aid flotillas.  One American was shot in the back of the head execution style.  Normally you expect America to defend it's own citizens from these type of things, but extremist right wingers cheer on the foreign government in this case.  Watch Obama below espouse the litany of extremist right wing positions on these issues, and also watch Finkelstein's commentary, which is very interesting in exposing Obama's cynicism.

As Finkelstein points out, at least conservatives believe what they say.  With Obama it seems he's a right wing extremist when that's where the money is, and who knows what he might say tomorrow if the money shifts.

Follow Up Email to Dutko on Global Warming

I sent Bob this email just now regarding the phone call I made into his program earlier:

I want to document one more of your errors in our discussion on global warming. I said NOBODY in the scientific community denies that we are in the midst of a warming trend. You said they do and asked me to look up "global cooling". I've done so. You're wrong again. Here's a fairly comprehensive list of scientists that disagree with the main IPCC findings. NONE OF THEM deny that the earth is warming. They deny that man is the cause, think the consequences aren't large, etc. None deny the obvious fact that we are in the midst of a serious warming trend. If you are going to claim that your views are based on science, logic, and intellectual reasoning and yet you are going to reject the UNANIMOUS conclusions of the scientific community I think you have to admit you have to drop the "science" part in your "science, logic, and intellectual reasoning." You do not follow science. Feel free to ignore science. Just don't pretend your views are based on science.

Obama Care and Freedom

On a personal level I'm quite pleased with the ruling from the Supreme Court recently upholding the Constitutionality of Obama Care. The reason is because I think it provides a path for doing some of the things I've dreamed of doing, but was concerned I'd never be able to do.

Here's one. I've thought about how fun it would be to hike the Appalachian Trail. But I kind of feel like I can't do it. Why? I'd probably have to be willing to quit my job, and that would mean I wouldn't have subsidized health care from my employer. In the US you have to always have health care. If you don't and you develop a pre-existing condition you're screwed. I suppose you could get a cheaper policy, but those have their own risks, like high, unaffordable deductibles.

Basically I think walking away from your job before you hit Medicare age is tough. You can do it if you have a ton of money and can either afford your own policy or afford to pay out of pocket for medical expenses should they arise. It's obviously possible to do it, but it's risky for those that don't have a lot of money.

But now it seems to me that it will be possible. I have young kids and I won't be retiring any time soon. They need to finish college first and I really want to see them do it without graduating with a mountain of crushing debt. Also I have a house, and along with that I have a house payment. But I'm estimating that both of those expenses will be behind me when I'm 51 years old.

I think at that point I won't need a lot of income. I've talked before about consumerism and how I try and resist it. In fact I'm trying to reduce the amount of stuff I own. I'd rather own fewer things. My house is filled with too much stuff. Tote bags, shoes that are never worn, books that I'll never read or won't read again. If I got rid of all the stuff I don't really care about, how much space would I need? A lot less.

Less space means less utility cost, less maintenance cost. It means I can live on a smaller income.

Suppose I could live on an income of $25K/yr. I think that's doable when you aren't consuming unnecessary things. When I'm 51 I'll have saved enough to draw that kind of income from my 401k savings. How much would health care cost me? If I'm reading this right it's $291/yr (since I'm married). Not the $14K/yr or so that I pay now (along with my employer).

It seems kind of exciting. 51 is not that old, and I can conceivably retire by then if I'm willing to live modestly. Maybe I can ride my bike from New York to Los Angeles. Maybe I can do a lot of charitable work. Maybe I could live in a foreign country for an extended length of time. It opens up a lot of possibilities, allowing me to do what I want, not necessarily what I would otherwise have to do. Work. It's kind of freedom enhancing.

Prioritizing Global Warming

Watch the video below and ask yourself if global warming shouldn't be regarded as the most important issue facing us today.  More than civil liberties.  More than war.  Are we on an environmental path that will induce more suffering than all of our future wars combined?



Links to sources from the talk are available here.

Bob Dutko and I Talk Global Warming

Download here or listen below. Another fun one.



We had some disagreement over sources. I sent the following email after the discussion to Bob.

Sources as promised. Your claim from Science Digest is apparently from George Will. I was thinking Science Digest was a peer reviewed source but apparently not. It looks like Science Digest quoted the Christian Science Monitor, who was quoting someone else, and ultimately we end up with this claim. So OK, glaciation was claimed in a magazine. I will grant your point. The challenge though is to find the claim in the scientific literature, which can't be done. This link addresses the Science Digest quote and gives an overview of what was contained in the scientific literature at the time.

Will in another article based a glaciation claim on another source and failed to point out that the ice age wasn't expected for 20K years. See this link. I was conflating you quote with the one addressed below.

My claim regarding 98% of climate scientists comes from here.

Regarding my claim that the hockey stick has been repeatedly confirmed, see here. The full article is worth the time if you are interested in understanding the issues.

I do appreciate how you gave me a good amount of time and enjoyed the discussion, so thanks for that.

Jon

Update: Interestingly regarding glaciation Bob initially referred to a 1976 document.  Check the link from Real Climate.  That's the very article that said an ice age was coming in 20K years, which is exactly what I said.