| Ever
since I was a young child, I always won at poker. It got to the point where I could
tell when someone was cheating simply because I wasn't winning.
Even so, on the few occasions I've been at a casino, I play the quarter slots, and I
usually do pretty well.
It's not that I won't take a risk or make a bet, I've taken my share of risks and had
my share of adventures. It's the fact that regardless of how educated the bet is, there's
always the chance you could lose, and so you have to be prepared to stay in the game for
the long run just in case you lose. Some might say that's playing it safe.
I don't understand why I always win at poker, it's just luck. Luck is fun when it
comes to games, but I try not to rely on luck when considering the realities of the
future.
In many ways, that's at the heart of how I view economics and capitalism. It's
like a huge poker game where you're playing for keeps, but it's important to stay in the
game. It's interesting to observe what values and strategies come into play... and what
people will do to survive.
I've read articles lately by conservative columnists suggesting that a President is not
really able to control or manage or affect the economy. I disagree. And, I
wanted to insert that into the discussion that follows, and for the next section of this
chapter.
The capitalist economy is very much like a poker game. The object is to win, and the
measure of winning is theorhetically when you've won all the money bet by everyone in the
duration of the game.
After a while, the big winners start their own game so they can place bigger bets.
We'll call it The Big Game.
Another game begins with people who don't have enough for The Big Game, but are working
overtime to get there. We'll call this the Upwardly Mobile game.
Most people end up in the Family Game. This is the one where
people have an average amount of money to bet, but use the bulk of their time and money
raising families and enjoying the simpler pleasures of life. I call it the Family
Game not to mock it, but to point out that most people in this class are happy to live a
more consistent lifestyle, apply true family values and place a great deal of trust in
leaders to make decisions regarding national and regional issues.
The Retiree Game is mainly made up of people from the Family
Game, and a number of people in theUpwardly Mobile game, who simply wish to live a
dignified, healthy life after a lifetime of service.
One of the most interesting games being played is the Next Generation
game. These are young people, seeking their identities and places in the world, attempting
to reconcile the differences between the rules they were raised to respect and the
apparent rules in the world they live in. These are the people who are asking questions
about the world that will exist and that they will live and lead in, in 40 to 100 years
from now.
I find this group interesting because they ask incredibly provocative questions that
are worthy of asking. Their appraisals are often perceived as angry, met with criticsm,
yet honestly raised with the best intent. It is their passion for standing up for
right and wrong, the justice their parents taught them versus their experience of the
world, that compels them to act with passion. That they are not entrenched into a system
called "That's the way we do it" introduce and embrace out of the box thinking
that becomes the norm ten to 40 years later as they, and people like them, become the new
leaders of our country.
Then, there's a game called the Survivor Game, followed by
the Disenfranchised Game. These are people who don't have the
money to be in the game, but somehow find ways to stay alive. People in the other games
don't really understand these two groups, so they generally try to ignore them.
In the beginning, there was one poker game. But, as the rich
became richer and the poor became poorer, it began to separate the players into smaller
and more discreet games. This is not conspiratorial, it's a simple case of probabilities
factored with human nature.
A side-effect of having smaller groups separated by economic and other key
political issues of that group, having lesser economic and political power, are easier to
affect and manage through economic and political means.
In poker, power is in the accumulation and assertion of wealth.
In Democracy, power is in the representation of the will of the people as expressed by
a fair election and in keeping with the intent of the Constitution.
Just thought I'd take another opportunity to point out that right and wrong, good and
bad, in the eyes of any one person, is based on what you value, and what your values are.
That is what will determine your conduct and goals.
Back to the poker games.
I've mentioned 7 distinct groups of people playing this great game of poker called
capitalism. There are certainly many factions that would be legitimately added to
the list.
The biggest problem is that there is not, despite the general perception, an endless
supply of money. There is actually a finite amount of money. When we print
more money, it's like diluting the value of a stock: if your stock was worth $10, and you
owned 1 of 100 shares, and they print another 100 shares, the real value of your stock is
now only $5. (I know in reality there's much more to it).
Instead of printing more money or selling more shares, , people, as well as the
government, borrow money from the people in the Big Game in loans that charge interest.
Slowly but surely, the profits earned even at the lowest levels of commerce,
rise to the players in the Big Game.
The idea of trickle down economics is based on the idea that people playing in The
big Game have accumulated so much wealth that they control a great deal of basic
services, utilities and the food supply. The theory is that once the players have made the
profits they decided they want to make, that they would use the excess to employ more
citizens.
|
