…….I am writing to you (and to any other American who wishes to share in this) because I, like many Americans, want to help our country get back on track.  Call it a cry for help or a public plea of a distressed citizen, but I digress.

…….My personal situation is hardly the worst it could be: I’m a graduate student living with my parents and partially self-funding my education with my own personal savings (I’m taking out loans for the rest).  On the other hand, I graduated in May of 2010 and have worked a total of only five months since then at a variety of jobs, always for $12 an hour or less.  Compared to other people my age, I consider myself to be incredibly lucky.  Think about that – lucky to have a supportive, loving family that has the means to keep me afloat while I struggle to get out on my own, barely holding down a poverty-wage job.  It’s heartbreaking and discouraging to know that so many others my age aren’t so fortunate, and I wonder how their futures will unfold.

…….Mr. President, I donated to your campaign, voted for you, and have defended your actions to the people that I encounter who disagree with or disapprove of them.  I, and many others like me, were swept up by your lofty rhetoric and cool demeanor.  I genuinely believed that your election would spell slow but steady improvement in our lives.  You campaigned on hope, but since your election Americans have only grown more hopeless.  Our situations are worse off now than when you took office, and as of now, I will be neither voting for you nor donating to your campaign in the next election because honestly, I and many others in my position – the very same people who put you in the oval office – feel betrayed by you.

…….I am very much aware that you did not create the enormous problems that our country currently faces.  You didn’t enact the policies over the past 30 years that triggered an economic collapse that some Cassandras knew was coming.  You aren’t responsible for the way wages have stagnated for 30 years while corporate profits have skyrocketed.  And of course I cannot blame you for the disgusting gridlock in Congress.  But your failure to make any credible attempt to rectify any of our problems has now made you complicit in them.

…….You are now two and a half years into your term and have been nothing but a disappointment.  The way you refused to fight for a public option in the health care debate.  The way you refused to expend any political capital to punish the people whose recklessness and greed caused the collapse (and how your administration, bafflingly so, is resistant to any attempt at holding those people accountable)! The way you cave to John Boehner and the Tea Party every single time a confrontation arises, be it the debt ceiling or the date of your supposed major address on jobs.  The way you allow blatant falsehoods about the economy and policy to circulate like the bubonic plague while refusing to provide your own narrative of what has happened in America.  The way you try to negotiate with those who have made clear their only goal is to bring you down.

…….You do not lead, you preside.  By the same token, you do not compromise, you capitulate.

…….In fact, your governing style (or lack thereof) is mind-boggling.  Mr. President, you refuse to stand up for your supporters while you try to reason with the unreasonable.  The opposition party has made it clear that they have absolutely no interest in working with you.  Don’t you remember when Mitch McConnell said on the Senate floor that his primary political objective was to deny you a second term and to not solve our country’s problems?  I understand that good politics is about compromise, but when have any of your priorities not been sacrificed on the altar of bi-partisianship with nothing in return?  You just recently gave away the ability to regulate smog and got what in return?  That’s not a negotiated compromise, that is a giveaway – a sign not of strength, but of spinelessness.  You are actively abdicating your responsibility as President to be a leader.

…….Maybe I should have paid attention to the fact that you voted “present” more times than not in the Illinois legislature – a sign that you were afraid to do anything that might present an ounce of risk.  Maybe I should have thought twice when you tossed to the curb the man who married you and your wife, who was your “spiritual mentor” after a smear campaign comparable to John Kerry’s swift-boating.

…….Now, I have noticed how you stubbornly refuse to take positions beyond vague ovations of improving health care and appeals to a supposed American Exceptionalism.  At a time when the American people needed someone who would stand up for them, who would lead them and be unafraid to take a controversial position that he truly believes in, they mistakenly voted for someone who flees at the first sign of confrontation.  Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the man who said of the Wall Street banks (your campaign contributors) “I welcome their hatred” is rolling over in his grave.  Not only have you been an ineffective President, but also a failed Democrat – a party I was forced to abandon after years of active support when I felt that they turned on me.

…….I say with complete, unshakable honestly that I take absolutely no pleasure in doing this.  But with my firsthand experience and things I know about the current state of our economy, the trend is dismal, and reasons to be optimistic are harder and harder to find.  Your inability to successfully govern the country coupled with the undeclared war against the average American people by her own elites are causing America to crumble right beneath your feet.  I don’t even know for sure who’s side you’re really on anymore, the side of the people or the enemies of the people? Please be the president that I voted for in 2008. Otherwise, get out of the way.

………………………………………………………Sincerely in Frustration,

………………………………………………………Dave Imbriaco

______________________________

Photo courtesy of projectcensored.org

(http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/22-obamas-trilateral-commission-team/)

I did not know what to expect when I decided to go to New York on Saturday to check out Occupy Wall Street. In fact, I had only opted to go after seeing the now famous footage of police brutality, courtesy of inspector Anthony Bologna aka “Tony Baloney”(video). I had originally planned to go with a couple of friends, but that did not pan out. For a moment I was hesitant to go by myself because I rarely travel to New York City, let alone get involved in a protest in which people have been beaten, pepper sprayed, and arrested. But I decided to go anyway. After walking out of the PATH Station at the World Trade Center I was immediately taken aback by the number of police officers stationed in the area. Apparently the police have occupied their own portions of Lower Manhattan where they are keeping vans, buses, equipment and personnel at the ready just in case the word comes in to start making mass arrests.

I wandered a bit until finally making it to Liberty Plaza Park (formerly known as Zucotti Park), where I continued to wander aimlessly, snapping a few pictures until I happened upon fellow Rutgers University students, Kristin Clark, Matt Cordeiro, and Joel Salvino, who were looking for a bathroom. Joel pointed out a ninety-five year old Marxist-Leninist who had been yelling at a few Ron Paul supporters. I wanted to know why this man was so insistent on being a Leninist as well as a Marxist, so I decided to have a chat with him while I waited for them to come back. Here I learned a valuable lesson: ninety-five year old men do not take shit from anyone. He formed his political beliefs in the 1930s and they seem to have not changed since.What made him a Marxist-Leninist was the idea that radical social change was only possible through a tightly structured organization with ideological cohesion,  a specific set of goals, a powerful leadership and the willingness to achieve their ends by any means necessary. Occupy Wall Street does not follow this model at all.

It is usually difficult to categorize or try to make sense of mass movements and protests that emerge seemingly out of nowhere. Occupy Wall Street is marked partially by a strange alliance of both Ron Paul supporters on the far right (Anarcho-Capitalists) and socialists, Marxists, and Anarcho-Syndicalists on the far left. Barring their consensus on the full expansion of civil liberties, the only agreement among the two sides is that greed and, to borrow a quip from the historian Thomas Bailey, the “international gangsterism” of the global finance industry and powerful states has crippled the global economy and propped up the power of a handful of elites at the expense of the majority.

Liberty Park is not only Occupy Wall Street’s staging ground, but has also become a temporary, indefinite home for the movement’s core group of organizers, including Zu, a former Rutgers student and resident of New Brunswick, who after getting laid off decided to sublet her apartment and move into the park. Most of the youth living in the park seem to be in a similar situation.  In order to accommodate themselves they have set up sleeping spaces, a kitchen of sorts, a medical station, and even a library.

As we began preparing for the 3:00pm march, there were whispers that we would be marching over the Brooklyn Bridge. At the time—and even now—I did not know whether this meant that we would be marching over the walkway or one of the traffic lanes. In any case, the march got underway without incident. We were positioned in the back because Zu had taken up the task of setting the pace from the back of the march. The senior citizens were to take up the vanguard. Ironically enough, there is a much higher chance of getting arrested in the rear of any given protest march, because from there it is much easier for the police to use the “kettling technique” to trap demonstrators. However, being positioned there actually prevented us from joining those on the traffic lanes and subsequent arrest.

The group of marchers was increasing in size as we moved north along Broadway towards the Brooklyn Bridge. This was easy to notice because in order to continue setting the pace from the back we had to keep moving behind all of the new people joining the march. People were getting really excited. There was a very energetic young woman (one of the organizers), who was running around starting up chants and trying to get everyone to close off the gaps between marchers. She accidentally stepped on the back of my shoe, causing my foot to fall out. She quickly said “Sorry, baby!” with real sincerity, and ran ahead to energize the rest of the group.

As we were approaching the bridge, I was still not sure if we were going to cross into the traffic lanes. The police had blocked traffic from travelling eastbound into Brooklyn, but had also formed a line to prevent protesters from entering. We were still at the very back of the march. The police were patrolling up and down the lane parallel to the walkway. It was not until we had travelled a few hundred yards up the bridge that we realized protesters had somehow made it down into the street. I had assumed that the police formed that line blocking protesters from entering the entire time; apparently that was not the case. A large number of protesters had stopped on the walkway to look, take pictures, and express solidarity with those who were fenced in on the street below. The police had already started making arrests, singling out specific individuals and grabbing them as the opportunity presented itself. After making our way a bit further up the bridge, past the penned in group, I heard a familiar shout. I squeezed over to the side to get a look and saw that energetic young woman, struggling and yelling as two police officers were dragging her away.

Those who were not trapped on the street or standing on the walkway to provide moral support made their way across the bridge into Brooklyn, where we rallied at Cadman Plaza Park, surrounding the William Jay Gaynor monument. Here the organizers passed along information regarding our fellow protesters on the bridge as well as advice on what to do next: who to call if a friend has been arrested, etc. Because Occupy Wall Street demonstrators are not permitted to use loudspeakers or megaphones, communication is done through a massive game of telephone. One person shouts the original message, and the surrounding crowd shouts it along to those standing out of earshot of the speaker.  I noticed that the same person never spoke twice. A different person conveyed each message.

While all this was happening, the police were slowly surrounding the park and making their way inside. According to them, we would not be arrested so long as we “did not break park regulations.” They conveniently failed to enumerate these regulations.

I would have loved to stay at Cadman Park, but I had a few obligations that night in New Brunswick. Joel and I decided to walk back across the bridge to get to the PATH station. As we started up the walkway, two police officers warned us that “protesters were blocking the path up ahead and not letting people through.” We snickered to ourselves, musing at how we could assume different identities by not walking with a large group of people.

The police were stationed throughout walkway, telling people that they had to keep moving to the other side of the bridge. Now there were buses (some of which were from MTA) lined up in the street below, outside of which arrested protesters were waiting to be loaded up and taken down to the station. Joel and I shouted down to one of the protesters asking, “how did you get down there!?” The response was “I don’t know, I was just following the group!” We then came upon the group of alledgedly obstructive protesters who, roughly twenty strong, were standing on one side of walkway in solidarity with those below. A few police officers were standing around them, telling them that they had to get off of the bridge. One man questioned the legality of forcing people off of a public walkway, to which an officer in a white shirt responded by grabbing the protester and threatening arrest. They said that we were allowed to be on the bridge, but that we “had to keep moving.” One of the officers began approaching me as I was trying to take a picture, so I quickly put down my camera and walked away.

As Joel and I walked to the train station, I could not help but mull over the greater significance of what happened and what my role was within these events. It was a shared role, of course. I am grateful to have had support from Matt, Kristen, Zu, and Joel. I feel like we are a part of what could become the largest social movement of our generation, but I do not yet know how to classify it.

Part II

History certainly verifies the power of protest, but despite this common technique, Occupy Wall Street is decidedly different from its predecessors in its organization and goals.

Solidarity, which with roughly ten million members would become the largest trade union in history, emerged  from a strike at the Lenin Shipyards in Gdansk, Poland, in 1980.  Solidarity used civil disobedience and nationwide strikes to demand workers’ rights and social change from a government whose legitimacy was founded upon notions of workers’ rights and social change. Though this movement was violently suppressed by the Communist government in 1981, they would remain underground throughout 1980s until finally reemerging in 1988-89 to successfully negotiate for democratic elections. This set into motion a chain of events leading to the Revolutions of 1989 in the Eastern Bloc and arguably the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Similarly, the Civil Rights movement demonstrates the efficacy of non-violent protest and civil disobedience in an American context. This movement exposed the inherent contradictions in a supposedly liberal, democratic state, which emphasized human equality in theory while in practice systematically marginalized the political power of a select group. In this case, the legal basis of the state itself had provided the means for its own criticism. The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution could be used as effective tools to compel the U.S. government to concretely meet its theoretical obligation to guarantee political freedom for all citizens of the United States.

When compared to Solidarity and the Civil Rights movement, Occupy Wall Street lacks the means to make very specific demands because the enemy is not so clearly defined. For those living in the Eastern Bloc, information came from the Politburo and one could either accept it as fact or, as most did, reject it entirely. The goals of the Civil Rights movement were legitimized by the state itself.

Today’s issue is far more nuanced: the enemy is amorphous, and mainstream sources of information provide no basis from which this systematic oppression can be criticized.

Wall Street has become an institution fundamentally embedded within the political and economic structure in not only the US, but the entire world. So much so that its sudden failure carries with it the threat of global collapse through a process that practically nobody–let alone Wall Street bankers– truly understands. By creating specific demands that fit into the typical logic of American politics, the Occupy Wall Street movement would compromise its essence and surrender its claim to representing “the 99%.”

For example, demanding a specific tax increase on large corporations or a clearly defined fiscal policy on Wall Street–within the framework of mainstream economics–would do little curb their power over society.Wall Street and other corporate interests have gained such influence over the political and economic sphere that any such maneuver would require the support of these institutions to succeed. Having the power to convert and move its capital anywhere in the world in an instant, Wall Street could easily adapt to new economic circumstances. Large corporations, using the money they have already accumulated, could likewise send their productive potential outside of the country. In short, operating within the mainstream political, economic, and social paradigm would be self-defeating.

The failure of this paradigm  is apparent in its inability to predict the economic crisis of 2008, while Libertarians like Ron Paul and Marxists such as David Harvey had a sense that the system was untenable.

More importantly, creating narrow demands would undoubtedly alienate individuals who, although they support the revolutionary spirit of Occupy Wall Street, may see certain demands as being counterproductive to the overall intent of this movement. If the group’s demands do not receive something like unanimous consent, leaders would have to take the charge and set the agenda. Such an organization has certainly worked for movements in the past, but conditions in the present seem to belie this kind of structure.

Solidarity was lead by the personality of Lech Walesa and individuals such as Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks were specific figures of inspiration within the Civil Rights Movement. These were all charismatic figures around whom personality cults formed and served as a source of inspiration and ideological cohesion.

Despite their effectiveness, Solidarity and the Civil Rights movement often did not represent “the 99%.” They represented certain classes of people who were clearly being oppressed within the legal framework of society. So they applied pragmatic political means, within the structure of their society, to achieve their ends. After taking power, Solidarity itself, as a political organization, succumbed to infighting among the leadership, causing its decline (Paradox of Change). Even Dr. King had to refrain from openly opposing the Vietnam War until after 1965, as doing so would have undermined support for the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts.

Occupy Wall Street has no definitive leaders, just familiar faces.

This movement is not about playing politics with actors in a broken system. It has emerged as a result of the inability of so-called “leaders” to deliver on their promises and fix these errors. The masses of unemployed, underpaid, or indebted are sick of these political games and are seeking to build a new system in which they are free to use their vast creative potential and are not subject to all of the crap being shoveled by our political institutions. The only option is to try to create a movement that stands outside of this paradigm.

Occupy Wall Street should be seen as continuation of the Arab Spring, like the protests in Wisconsin, the demonstrations against austerity measures in London, and the protests in Greece and Spain in May. This is a global protest against the current organization of power: one that is suppressing the power of most individuals through exceedingly complicated mechanisms which are run by only a few. But this movement may be even more than just a reaction to thirty years of lying by global elites that is to be considered only within the context of recent history. Perhaps it is the enduring idea that those in power, whether they are political, bureaucratic, financial, or industrial elites, must be held accountable for their actions. An expansion of democracy beyond polls and voting booths, following through with principles established during the Enlightenment. In this regard, it may be more appropriate to consider this movement as a part of a tradition that dates back to the revolutions of 1688, 1776 and 1789.

_____________________________

Photos by Mr. Matthew D’Elia. All rights reserved by the artist.

I avoided the enigma that is #OccupyWallStreet for nearly two weeks, despite it essentially taking place in my backyard. However, this past Friday I made my way down to Zuccotti Park around 2pm, to experience it for myself. Well, that is not completely true. I originally left work early on Friday, with a Canon 5D Mark II (with a 70-200mm 2.8 L lens) and Nikon D3s (with a 35mm f/1.4 lens) in hand (how’s that for democracy?!), at my boss’ suggestion, due to circulating  rumors that Radiohead would be performing in the park around 4pm. I was to shoot the show, if it happened, for Sound and Vision Magazine. Those rumors proved false—and that is probably for the best.

I ended up spending about 6 hours with “the movement,” on Friday, mingling about, talking to protesters, police officers, local shop owners, and bystanders alike. The day went a little something like this:

At 2pm I arrived in Zuccotti Park and found between 300-500 individuals present—most stood around one of two drum circles either dancing, playing instruments, or simply observing, while others were mulling around the makeshift sleeping areas, library, and media center.  Admittedly, the music coming from the circles was intoxicating.

By 4pm, the number of individuals in the park grew to somewhere around 3000, as a “General Assembly,” began to take place. The second and third image in this series are from that general assembly, which is a free-form open forum, in which anyone can address the crowd by shouting “Mic Check,” to which everyone in the park repeats back “Mic Check.” Messages are passed around the enormous crowd in a “telephone” like way—those standing nearest to you repeat the message back to you even louder, those who hear it then repeat it even louder to those even further away. It is by no means an ideal way to get information around, but worked surprisingly well.

By 5:00pm, the number of individuals in the park was probably somewhere between 4000 and 5000, excluding police officers. It was at this point I learned that the group was set to march down Broadway, 15 blocks, to One Police Plaza, in solidarity for those individuals who were allegedly beaten by police during a march the previous week.

By around 6pm, all 4000 to 5000 protestors had peacefully made it to One Police Plaza without any incident—their cheers upon entering the plaza were deafening. I stuck around there for another hour and a half before going back to my office.

You will notice several things in the images and audio slideshow that follow. First and foremost you will notice the immense diversity of those participating in this movement. That was by far what most impressed me. This is not a movement to support any cause in particular, in fact, I am not even sure you can call this a movement (however I will continue to as I don’t know any other name to call it).

The second thing you will notice is how dismayed, embarrassed and simply exhausted the NYPD looks in all of these images. All in all, I think the NYPD drew the short straw in all of this. Sure, a handful of police officers a week and a half ago may have abused their power and perhaps acted criminally, but in comparison to the number of times a day these protesters are marching, and the insane amount of man power it takes to keep everyone safe and traffic moving, the NYPD has beyond earned my respect. Every officer I encountered Friday was polite and courteous. In fact, I heard a protester use some pretty nasty language to a police officer who asked him to please stay off the street. The officer’s response? “Hey man, we are human too; we are just trying to keep you safe.”

I know 700 protestors were arrested Saturday for blocking traffic on the Brooklyn Bridge. There are conflicting reports from several individuals, that police tricked the protestors, saying at first it was OK for them to march on the bridge, and then arrested them all. I find this very hard to believe. Every officer I encountered Friday made it very, very clear that IF you were to block traffic in anyway, you WOULD be arrested, no questions asked. To those protestors who now have to deal with NYC municipal court, many of which I probably spoke with the day before, you have my condolences, however you have no one to blame but yourselves.

Speaking of the NYPD, other things you will notice from the audio slideshow are that a large number of police officers were equipped with video cameras and documenting the protest. I can only assume that this is the NYPD’s response to backlash from the protestors’ and journalists’ videos showing uncalled-for and illegal brutality some day’s prior. Either way, it is very interesting.

All in all, a lot has been said about #OccupyWallStreet in the past two weeks, some of it true, some if it not. If you are curious what this movement is all about, I would highly recommend taking an afternoon and experiencing it for yourself. Overall, I must say, I am impressed with the courage and passion of those core individuals who are so dedicated to this. What they aim to change, when it will happen, how it will happen, they don’t even know. But they aren’t going away anytime soon, and I think that is a very good thing.

Watch Dan’s Audio Slideshow here:

#OccupyWallStreet Day 13 from Dan Bracaglia on Vimeo.

Original Photography by Dan Bracaglia:

Dan Bracaglia is a NYC-based photographer and a former Rutgers student. His favorite instrument is the tuba. You can see some of his other images at TheLondonBroil.com. All rights reserved by the artist.

Part I: The Struggle

I have often heard people joke that the only jobs for college graduates these days are barista positions at Starbucks. Though this remark is often made in jest, it rings true to my ears as I have met many of my fellow young people who complain about their crappy low wage jobs. They should complain. They—we—have every right to be upset. The MAY Generation has incurred debts from either college or credit cards, or both, that near the cost of a car or even a small mortgage. Many have taken on this debt for the sake of higher education—an education that supposedly ensures better job opportunities upon its completion. There are several articles available to read on research that states that those who have a college degree will make more money in their lifetime because the work offered at that level pays significantly more than not having a degree would earn.[i] Under more stable economic circumstances, this assertion would be true. With growing debt and few prospects for a reliable income, many among the MAY Generation are questioning whether the college degree was worth it in the first place. Many of us are angry or may feel betrayed because of the lack of employment and the ever-rising cost of college. ‘What am I supposed to do now?’ is a question I often hear. So what are we doing? How is our generation coping with the unfulfilled promise of higher education?

The truth is that instead of competing with other college graduates for entry level jobs, today’s college graduates are competing not only with each other, but with others among our generation who have not completed a college degree, for minimum or middle wage jobs. This competition in turn only adds to the unemployment issue.

However, beyond the competition for barista positions, the MAY Generation is seeking out ways to defer or pay down debt or to gain job experience through unpaid internships or community service oriented opportunities. One such path is Teach for America. In 2009 around 35,000 applications were received for 4,100 possible positions. Last year the number of applicants increased by 11,000 to a total of 46,000 applications for only 4,400 openings. Back in 2006 there were only 19,000 applicants for 2,400 positions. The number of applicants has more than doubled whereas the number of available positions has yet to do so, even though there has been a noticeable increase in Teach For America opportunities.[ii] Others among the MAY Generation are joining the Peace Corps or partaking in other long-term commitment community service programs like Americorps or City Year in order to stave off debt or to wait for the job market to bounce back.

More and more I hear of recent graduates who are leaving the U.S. to teach English in another country (many to East Asian countries like Korea where the demand for native English speakers is high). The ‘Teach English Overseas’ gig is growing very popular from what I’ve gathered. It’s an exciting prospect for many because of the traveling and the ability to renew terms in case one chooses to stay longer. A large number of recent graduates among the MAY Generation are also going back to school almost immediately in order to not only continue to defer debt, but also to wait out the job market and try again to find a job when yet another degree has been earned and even more debt incurred.

Still—many among the MAY Generation are stuck in dead end jobs, continuously exploring the barren wasteland of entry level job opportunities. Discouragement spreads quickly when so many have so little hope. But this is no time for despair. This is a time for self-betterment—a time to get creative. With spare time building up between applying for jobs, or the lingering hours after a day at some in between job, or the time spent traveling—all this left over time breeds uncertainty.

I say, embrace the uncertainty. Harness it. Channel it towards something positive, something creative, something that exemplifies those parts of yourself that lay in wait while you do the things you must. Unleash those parts of yourself that a world built of hopelessness would aim to crush. Our generation has an opportunity to reach out to one another, to forge a connection because of our shared struggles. We have an unprecedented opportunity to come together and make our place in society and in this world—to show everyone what we’re really made of. The MAY Generation is smart, resourceful, creative, spirited, and adventurous. It’s time to harness those traits and put them to use in order to realize our collective social power and cultural influence. It’s time to start the MAY Movement.

Part II: The Movement

When I say ‘movement’ I do not mean marching in the streets with signs chanting “Employment Now! Employment Now!” We are not a labor union. But we cannot sit idly by. Inaction is not an option. Our movement is not a political one, but rather a social and cultural one. Consider what the MAY Generation is already doing to occupy their time: community service projects and teaching stateside and overseas. These pursuits are altruistic in nature and have a positive social and cultural impact. We have already started the movement; what we need now is to make our efforts widespread. One of our greatest assets is the fact that there are so many of us. Power in numbers, right? But like any movement that aims to be successful, we must first have goals and a sense of direction. What are those goals? In what direction are we, or should we aim to head?

The greatest obstacle that we face in pursuing this movement is not imposed upon us like the forces of nature or of the economy. Our greatest obstacle is overcoming the uncertainty within ourselves that has built up as a result of our uncertain place in the world. The first goal of the MAY Movement is to embrace uncertainty. What do I mean by that? How does one embrace uncertainty? The answer is remarkably simple: to embrace uncertainty is to accept it. The only way to accept it is to understand that our uncertain place in this world is actually a tremendous freedom. The author Andre Gide said “to know how to free oneself is nothing; the arduous thing is to know what to do with one’s freedom.” For us this means that to realize our freedom is the easy part; it’s what we should do with it that poses the real challenge.

The second goal of the MAY Movement aims to meet that challenge. As I said previously, this is a time to get creative, to exemplify what you’re good at; this is a time for self-betterment. How do you do that? You find ways to keep up with the things you want to do. Let me say that again, keep up with the things you want to do. So often I hear people our age say, “I work at blah place doing blah, but what I really want to do is this…” “What I really want to do is…” Don’t talk about wanting to do it. Do it. Make it a personal project. Maybe you’re an artist and you’d like to put your work out there: find a blog or an organization or a publication that needs some artistic know-how. Maybe you’ll write for a blog or for a free subjective publication like the Johnsonville Press—who knows! The point is to gain experience doing what you want to do. It may not be paid, but it’s a way to get better at what you want to do, to practice, to help out someone else who needs what you can offer. Let’s say for example that you speak a foreign language, but you can’t afford to travel: you could offer yourself as a private tutor at a local high school or middle school (perhaps even your old high school if you live at home). Many cities also have embassies and cultural centers that offer events, courses and various opportunities to meet and converse with people who also want to maintain their language. Whatever your trade, hobby or area of interest, you should seek out places where you can put them to use. Maybe you can make a little side money from these projects. You can even start something of your own creation and become an entrepreneur.

Just think for a second about the skills that our generation has that don’t even come from the education system. The MAY Generation is on the up when it comes to social media. That is a marketable skill. Just think about how many small businesses lack good social networking, like a Facebook page, or even a maintained website. You can help them with that while at the same time gaining valuable experience and building a network of people you’ve helped. The goal of these suggestions is to show you that there are many ways to keep up with the things you want to do.

By pursuing these personal projects you are opening the door to the third goal of the MAY Movement: networking. Networking is about mingling. It’s about conversing with people, giving them a sense of who you are and what you’re about. It’s about reading people and learning to understand the dynamics of professional and socially professional situations. If you want to be successful at networking you need to be a good observer. Good observations lead to good talking points in a conversation. You should also definitely get business cards that tell people who you are and what you do. Keep it simple; you can even design them yourself if that’s your trade. The exchange of business cards is always a good conversation starter. Networking helps you develop your conversational skills so that you become really good at telling people who you are. This is a particularly valuable asset in a job interview. Some people call it “knowing how to sell yourself,” but I’d say it’s more like “knowing how to confidently talk about yourself”. You are not for sale. Anyone who tells you that you are, you should avoid. If you can show someone that you know who you are, if you can assert yourself like that, then people are going to notice you. Confidence stands out.

Ultimately networking not only helps you develop your conversational skills and build a network of like-minded people, but it also leads to the fourth goal of the MAY Movement: Build a community. When pursuing these personal projects, I implore you to reach out to others in our generation. We can help each other and we can help other people. The most important thing to understand about this fourth goal is it’s meant to bring us together as a group—put us all on the same wave length so that we’re in tune enough to knowingly steer American culture. That is our power.

I say this to you: Don’t expect the world to give you what you’re looking for; a lot of the time you have to make it work for you. Don’t be afraid to put yourself out there. There will always be haters and appreciators. Put that aside. This is our moment. You can choose to commit to it or not. You can choose to do something creative for yourself or not. Embrace your freedom or let it pass? It’s your choice. I choose to embrace it. I will continue to do so here at the Johnsonville Press. And the Johnsonville Press will continue to be a space for the free exchange of ideas, a platform for anyone who chooses to pursue their personal projects in a public setting. We are already a part of the MAY Movement, and I invite you to join us.

More than anything, I implore you, the MAY Generation–my generation–to pursue your passions, to create opportunities for yourself, and to assert yourself in this world. Only then can we take our place in society as the social and cultural powerhouse that we truly are. Finally, you must remember that you are not alone in your pursuits. We all share these struggles. Lean on the people around you. The MAY Movement will be the most successful if we help each other out. For that reason, I am personally available to any of you who need guidance, advice, suggestions, or just someone to bounce ideas off of. Write to me and I will write back.[iii] I want to see this happen and I will do everything in my power to see that our generation finds success in the pursuit of our passions. Good luck my friends. I look forward to hearing from you.

[i] Benefits of College Education: 1.http://www.collegetocareers.com/10-benefits-college-education-2/; 2.http://education.yahoo.net/articles/college_degree_benefits.htm;
[ii] Teach for America:http://www.teachforamerica.org/newsroom/documents/PressKit_Overview.pdf;http://www.teachforamerica.org/admissions/;http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/28/national/main5046901.shtml
[iii] Please email me at: johnsonvillepress@gmail.com. I sincerely hope to hear from you.

Photo courtesy of davidmusingsthoughts.blogspot.com
(http://davidsmusingsthoughts.blogspot.com/2011/03/generation-y-characteristics.html)

Time was before planning for the automobile. With the automobile-based development, or sprawl, came the demise of the mom-and-pop stores upon which the entire structure of capitalism was based. Hardly anybody walks from their house to the store anymore and, if you tried to sell anything from your house today, you would be cited for a zoning violation. Your neighbors deserted the local stores when the national stores started opening up branches “convenient” to the highway. Some of the national chains moved into the vacated storefronts, got the town to knock down some other houses with storefronts, and to seize the backyards by eminent domain so they could put up a parking lot to “serve” Main Street. The local manufacturing companies got fewer orders, none from the national retail chains, of course. As those companies failed, the remaining local stores started stocking fewer local items, until you couldn’t tell the difference between the mom-and-pops and the chains. The only real difference was the mom-and-pops were less convenient to the automobile driver. The mom-and-pops become denigrated even as they try to conform to sprawl. People actually talk about a new chain store opening up as if that was something to be proud of. At that point, capitalism is dead in their town. To be certain, there are, here and there, some vestiges of capitalism left, though they may strike us as unremarkable. It was always misleading to characterize capitalism as a road to unfathomable riches. People confuse it with debt and global mercantilism, with the creditor sultans oppressing their people, which is very much in evidence.

The Localsville Canned Beans company was bought up by investors from out-of-town using borrowed money — it was purchased in a leveraged buyout by General Foods — and General Foods now grows and cans the Localsville Canned Beans in South America. The plant is closed and the people in Localsville, those who are left, now work and shop in the Walmart down Highway 666. They had to cancel the parade this year. They didn’t choose a Localsville Canned Beans Queen, either.

Copyright © 2011 by C. P. Klapper

What brought you to Rutgers? I attended Rutgers University because it was the only school that accepted me for undergraduate studies. I made a conscious decision to apply to four schools. I felt that I didn’t know enough about many schools and it would not be worth my time and effort to apply to approximately 10 or so schools like everyone else in my high school class. Rutgers was my safety school and ultimately the only school that let me in. Thus, it really wasn’t a difficult decision. I attribute this to sub-par scholastic behavior as a high school student.

What was your high school self like? My high school self was angry, quiet, and bitter. I consciously made the decision to do as little work as possible in high school (see: Rutgers, only school that accepted me) as I felt there were intrinsic problems with our educational system. In my juvenile mindset, rather than use a flawed tool to achieve my own ends, I had to fight it completely rather than compromise my principles. While it seemed nice and idealistic at the time, it seems completely idiotic to me now. I would also attempt to go unnoticed and listen much more than speak. There is an old Norse tale that always stuck with me for its simplicity and its message. Odin, who was traveling around Earth in disguise, was offered food and shelter by a friendly man and his family. Impressed by this man’s hospitality, he told stories with hidden advice. The punch line of one of those stories was, to paraphrase, that people have two ears and only one mouth so that they can only say half of what they hear. I think this is more of a proverb that that says that gossip is bad, but it made me determined to listen as often as I could.

What’d you see as the flaws of the system and how do you feel about those flaws now? My take on the educational system is that for the most part it doesn’t mold students into analytically minded individuals who are able to think about issues, analyze facts, and develop conclusions on their own. Most teachers I had would rather have you repeat their opinions rather than come up with and defend your own. Obviously not all teachers are like this, and the few that I have had who broke the mold are some of my favorites. I also feel that the educational system does a lousy job of making connections between what is done in the classroom and what occurs outside the classroom. I feel the major failing of our school system is in the fields of history, politics, and civics. For the most part science and math curricula are fine (although we tolerate an incredible ignorance of math in our kids). I am not quite sure how I feel about these flaws now. I still do not like them, but I don’t have any obvious solutions. Clearly, throwing money at the problem is not effective. The best fix that I have seen is for parents, students, and teachers to take an active role in the educational process. If all three parties demand excellence from the others, that generally tends to be a recipe for success.

How’d you decide on your major(s)? When I was a sophomore in high school, I distinctly remembered becoming fascinated by politics, global events, and history. It was amazing to see human dramas that had been unfolding for centuries and were constantly evolving before my eyes. It certainly didn’t hurt that this was 2001 and the world looked very different in October than it did in August. I began to follow current events very closely and would spend a significant portion of my time reading everything I could on the internet. It soon became clear to me that the single variable with the greatest explanatory power (in terms of explaining historical and current events) was economic interest. I knew from that point on that I was interested in economics and politics.

What sort of aspirations did you have growing up and which of these, if any, are you putting the most effort into making a reality? As a kid, I was exposed to a lot of literature from an early age. Both my parents and my brother are avid readers and I would always be picking up books or magazines around the house and reading them. Whether I was reading fiction or non-fiction, there would always be some sort of dynamic character who achieved greatness in some form or another. These characters were inspirational in some sense as they motivated me to want to do something great. As cliché as it sounds, I always remember the story of how Julius Caesar came upon a statue of Alexander the Great (my namesake) and exclaimed something along the lines of, “At this age you had conquered the world! What have I done?” To me, this was a clarion call that I wanted to do something for which I would be remembered.

In a nutshell, my aspiration is to be a leader on a global scale and help shape the world into a better place. I have attempted to learn more about this by interning for my U.S. Representative, Rush Holt, in Washington D.C. There I quickly learned that politics was much dirtier and frustrating than I had initially expected. I then turned to attempting to shape public opinion through writing for the Targum and the Johnsonville Press. Now, I am in graduate school in an effort to master my understanding of economics and use this knowledge to guide public policy in the future.

I’d like to further explore what turned you off about holding an elected office. What seemed so unappealing? Part of why I decided I would never want to hold an elected office is the spotlight that is constantly shone onto politicians and celebrities. I could never live having every word I say scrutinized to a ridiculous degree by the media. While I feel that I can be very diplomatic, I do not always wish to be so. I believe I would lose a key part of myself if I had to spend every day sucking up to people who most likely need to be criticized and get a swift kick in the ass. I also think that it is nice to be able to walk down the street and not be bothered by anybody. If I were an elected official on the national level, a simple act as going to the grocery store would be unimaginable.

How would you describe your relationship with writing? I used to dislike writing as a kid. Now, I realize that this was because I was never taught to write well. When that changed, in 6th grade, I found a new love for writing that complemented my love of reading. My current relationship with writing is that it is an amazing tool for expressing my ideas that often falls short of my expectations. Unfortunately, it seems that writing is perhaps not the optimal tool to reach a mass audience in present day America. Perhaps being a talking head on TV would be better than being a columnist in a national newspaper…

Why do you think writing is not the best tool to reach people?I feel that writing is not the best tool to reach people because, in general, they are not proficient at reading or writing. There is a significant downward trend in people’s ability to use and understand the written language. I often think that I could reach a much larger audience by just screaming at the top of my lungs at a busy intersection.

How did you change over the course of your time at Rutgers? During my time at Rutgers, I learned a few things about myself. The first one was that I needed to step up and take control of my life. Rutgers was the ideal location for this realization. The fact that you are just a number to the Rutgers administration forces you to become your own advocate. There was nobody at Rutgers who was there to hold my hand throughout the process. If I wanted something done, I had to step up and do it. I also realized that math and physics were amazing. As a child I had always been good at math but constantly hated it. This was, in no small part, some form of teenage rebellion against my parents who are both physicists. I finished my math requirements for Rutgers in high school and made the decision that I would never take math again. My sophomore year at Rutgers I took a general physics class and the next year I took Calc III and got back into math. I am very glad that I took them because I feel that they have given me even more tools to understand the universe around me. Similarly, I realized that I did not want to be a politician any more. When I entered Rutgers, I was determined to be the next President of the United States (or World, really). By the time I left Rutgers, I only wanted to be the man behind the curtain whispering into the ear of a prominent politician. Fame is something I wish to avoid like the plague. However, the most transformational experience I had at Rutgers was undertaking a senior honors thesis. My advisor was, to say the least, phenomenal. He constantly challenged me and forced me to refine my ideas and writing in a way that I had never really encountered. It was revelatory to see myself held up to a higher standard and learn that in certain aspects I was lacking.

What are some things you might whisper today? I am not sure what I would whisper. Probably something like, “they’re listening to us”.

What do you think of graduate school thus far? It’s a lot of work but I really enjoy it. The best part is the other students. I feel that I learn more from the other students than I actually am from the professors. I am constantly aware that all the other students in my program are very talented and bright individuals. It makes me want to work harder in order to not seem like a complete fool. This was a situation that I very rarely experienced at Rutgers. I also really like the fact that most of the students are from abroad. They offer very different perspectives on the world and current events than you would find in an American-only group.

How did you find out about the JVP? I found out about the JVP through Alex Giannattasio and Mike Stuzynski. I knew these guys from my sophomore year in Brett Hall and became good friends with them. Mike was also responsible for me writing a twice-a-month column for the Daily Targum, entitled “Draine on Society”. They told me that there were thinking about creating some sort of magazine or periodical which would compile works from various authors and individuals. Being someone with strong opinions, I jumped at the opportunity and told them that I would love to get involved. It also helped that I frequently disagree with the two of them (one more than the other) and felt that if I could express my thoughts as cogent argument on paper, then I could change their opinions.

Have you changed any opinions thus far? Well this is such a broad question that I am sure the answer is yes. I have a much more jaded view on the value of life than I did when I got out of high school. The idealistic part of me wanted to believe that every life was precious and that each person’s viewpoint was valuable. Now I have reached the conclusion that life is incredibly cheap and most people’s opinions are not worth responding to. I am also much more pessimistic and suspicious of people than I was before coming to Rutgers. This is probably from knowing several people who have been robbed or mugged and having chance encounters with people on the Rutgers bus system.

Do you try to reconcile the idealistic part of you with the part of you that thinks life is cheap and most people’s opinions are not worth responding to? Not really. I feel that expending such effort probably isn’t worth it. We all have limited time and energy and I would rather devote said time and energy to something that either makes me happy or is self-improving.

What makes life cheap? I’m not exactly sure what “makes” life cheap. It just seems to be a reality in which we live. I tend to view the world through a statistically-tinted lens. The fact that we, as individuals, are alive is just a statistical coincidence. There is nothing inherently special about us. In fact, I bet I could purchase a living human being for a relatively small sum in most parts of the world. The fact that the same might not be possible in the United States says nothing about the worth of a human life, only an American life. We are all just another link in a long, unbroken chain from our much more primate ancestors. To think that our particular link is something special represents some form of hubris.??Why do you think other people’s opinions aren’t worth responding to?I feel that most opinions are not worth responding to because most people don’t formulate them based on logic or facts. While some individuals do, and it is always a pleasure to debate with, the majority of people I have encountered based their opinions on dogma and ideology and refuse to let facts get in the way. There is simply no point in responding to such an opinion when the person will not be swayed no matter what you say. Only a fool will believe on Wednesday what they believed on Monday, independent of what occurs on Tuesday.

Have you been contemplating solutions to the problems that you identify and what do these problems make you feel/think about the present and future? I am always trying to think of solutions to problems I see. However, this is more easily said than done. The reason most of these issues are still problems is that there isn’t a particularly optimal solution. There are always trade-offs; most policies that make one group better off typically come at the expense of another group. It is not so much the problems that define how I think about the present or the future. History is filled with problems. I am more dismayed by our approach to these problems than the issues themselves. Our current political climate is one of pandering to extremes, denigrating knowledge, and appealing to emotions rather than reason. When you have significant camps within major political parties steadfastly refusing to acknowledge facts, then there is a major problem. I think much of this has to do with a general ignorance about science and quantitative analysis. The attempt to paint everything as black and white does a great disservice to our society as we effectively constrict our set of policy options.

We seem to be at a crossroads in the United States. Attending a prestigious university almost seems to be a liability rather than an asset in the public sphere. There is a deep distrust of experts. There is a general perception that the most basic answer is the correct one. In my mind, these are dangerous trends that act to undermine the security and prosperity of our society. If we are able to reverse this trend, and value learning, reward genius, and appreciate nuance then I think the future will be a brighter place.

Qat was first introduced in Yemen during the fifteenth century when it migrated from Eastern Africa, and slowly seized control of the domestic drug market, as its use carried Qat cultivation through the last five hundred turbulent years of Yemen’s history. Strangely, today Qat is not chewed in any nation but Yemen and the nations where it is grown, including Somalia.

The use of Qat in Yemen has grown so intense that special plane routes are now dedicated solely to shipping it (since after 24 hours the cathenone which provides its unique high degrades into the substantially less enjoyable cathenine). Local Qat production is also excessive; the amount of water used in the irrigation of Qat crops, the gasoline used in its transportation, and the pesticides used in its maintenance, all contribute immensely to Yemeni water shortages, pollution, and the prevalence of mouth cancer, respectively.

The obvious question is whether or not Qat is worth this much trouble. I resolved to explore the appeal by chewing it personally. After being advised to choose the smaller but juice-heavier leaves, I began chewing.

I noticed nothing. A doctoral student from Harvard named James instructed me to chew for about an hour or two to get the prime effects, and I steadily added more leaves in the hopes of getting some semblance of the distinctive “Qat lump” in my cheek. After about two and a half hours, I finally began to feel something.

Qat is essentially a combination of drinking red bull and smoking opium- the user is left with an incredible amount of energy, but also with no desire to do anything other than chewing more Qat.

Simultaneously, the laziness that people typically associate with marijuana is not the same feeling of inactivity associated with Qat. Instead, the user literally has no desire to do anything but sit very still and talk- despite being completely alert and energetic. It is a bizarre mixture of immense tirelessness, overpowering apathy, and a constant feeling of relaxation.

And at the same time, doing nothing is absolutely satisfying. It is easy to understand why Yemen’s capital Sana’a is weirdly silent during afternoon hours and why men can be seen perched on the edge of sidewalks, or sitting in their cars for hours at a time. Qat incites nothingness with a sort of enslaving pleasure that provides ecstasy at the expense of psychological addiction: a void of perfection that placates a population otherwise disposed to discomfort and displeasure.

Qat chewers in Yemen thus have no use for other sources of satisfaction. It motivates the decline in Western entertainment, such as the cinema, but it also greatly mitigates the various revolutionary activities occurring in the country. Yemenis who chew Qat, and are therefore strung out on weirdly mellow cathenone-buzzes, are much less likely to form, join, or assist revolutionary organizations.

The main problem is that the level of Qat usage in Yemen is unsustainable as it consumes nearly half of already depleted fresh water supplies and further poisons an already toxic environment. Qat prices also have a nasty tendency to skyrocket in drought conditions, such as those which would be worsened by the oncoming water crisis already mishandled by incompetent officials.

Despite this, Yemen refuses to surrender its Qat. It is tempting for Western observers to criticize Yemenis due to the irrationality of maintaining Qat addiction. However Anglo-Americana offers an endless array of equally destructive habits which we often cling to as representative of our way of life as well.

Qat is ultimately much more than just the feeling it produces, just as fast food and alcohol are much more than their resulting ecstasies. If anything, Qat illuminates a disturbing human tendency to cling to indulgences despite all logical indications of their destructive qualities. There is an opportunity to study this tendency fully in Yemen, as the coming choice between continued Qat use and sustainability practices holds within it a greater parable between bliss and responsibility, between fantasy and reality.
_________________________

Photo courtesy of blogs.sun.com

(http://blogs.sun.com/christophersaul/entry/sana_a)

Our nation has experienced a series of devastating events, each evoking distant-seeming memories of times long ago. As the Project for A New American Century (PNAC) put it, “a new pearl harbor”, found in 9/11, both shocked and energized us. The country pulled together and a feeling of nostalgic familiarity of “the just war”, last seen during WWII, made us all sure that America could rise above this crisis as it had others in the past.

Nine years later, our eventual national triumph doesn’t seem guaranteed, and an easy moral position doesn’t seem that simple to determine. As the economy continues to falter with real unemployment closer to twenty percent than to ten (and kids moving back home with their parents in record numbers) our economy feels more like a depression than a recovery. As the stock market hovers around 66% of its former value, as the dollar hits all time lows, as 1 in 6 Americans is dependant on some sort of poverty assistance plan, as all of this happens we ask ourselves, “How did we get here?” Whenever an entity, be it person, town, or country finds itself at a crossroads that it can’t ignore, the question always comes up. “How did I get here?” You know what I’m talking about. You’ve felt it before, maybe recently.

So… How did we get here?

The Government will tell you that the problem was the result of corruption in the financial markets. Banks acting in the spirit of Bernie Madoff created loans which allowed people who would have never even qualified for a credit card to borrow huge sums of money. The banks then unloaded these loans, which were actually worthless, onto the market and laughed all the way to… well they laughed to themselves.

The American Consumer and Small Business Person will tell you that there was corruption in the government. Wall Street exerted an inordinate amount of influence over government and lax regulators allowed deals to take place that never should have been approved.

Wall Street will tell you that there is corruption in the American Consumer, having long ago resorted to deficit spending and debt to maintain their purchasing obligations.

Shocking though it is to me, I must agree with Wall Street. True, there most likely was and still is corruption on all three of these levels. However, there is only one level that any one individual has any control over, and thus only one level on which the responsibility for correcting this corruption can lie.  That level is that of the American Consumer. Why, you may ask? Because YOU are an American Consumer and you also know plenty of other American Consumers.

“But I’m not corrupt,” you may protest. “I don’t cheat on my significant other, I don’t steal, I work hard in school to succeed. ” 

That may be true, but therein lies the problem.  Humans have the ability to set goals, and through intention and self-regulation, to control forces and trends within the environment. Although we set up these boundaries to processes, and while they function more or less correctly most of the time, there is still the inevitability of error; human error they call it.

If we consistently set our boundaries (and thus expected outcomes) just beyond the range of  “very unacceptable”, in times of error the outcomes derived from these boundaries most certainly move into the “very unacceptable” range. Setting the bar higher, at a more refined level, takes more energy, but ensures that the errors we do make pertain to less catastrophic failures.  Although it may seem so, I am not referring to some sort of moral prescription, lost with the death of ‘Traditional America’ as Glenn Beck would have us believe, but to things much more practical.

To take an example relevant to most readers, everyone here at Rutgers University has taken at least a few classes that were taught by someone who just wasn’t qualified to teach that class, or had viewpoints completely at odds with their own. Ideally, at a University, students who are here (presumably) on their own accord take responsibility for their own education. Education is derived from the Latin ‘educare’ meaning ‘to lead out’ or ‘to draw out’.  

In these classes, students usually attempt to lie about the state of their relationship with their professors by being quiet, not wanting to jeopardize their grade by upsetting the teacher with discourse. Instead, they deprive the entire University of the information contained in their dissent. This behavior, repeated across multiple classrooms, means that for a percentage of the time, you WILL be silent in a group discussion, or you WILL receive academic penalty. Given classical conditioning, it’s easy to draw a connection between an individual’s decisions to trade honesty for comfort in an academic setting and academia being transformed into little more than a highly specialized job training center. Not surprisingly, academic corruption thus corrupts academia.

Likewise, everybody knows that kid who drinks too much. He’s not that bad; in fact he’s actually a really nice guy, but he’s always drunk. Most importantly, his drinking prevents him from being all that he can be. He’s not failing his classes, doesn’t get violent, he’s just… inhibited. 

Today, most people won’t say anything to him. Although they may all be decent seeming people, social corruption once again causes them to trade honesty for comfort. 23% of all Always Drunk Kids will become a dysfunctional alcoholic. [1][2][3] Once again, those trading honesty for comfort enable Always Drunk Kid’s social corruption to corrupt society.

It is not large shocks to the system, huge bits of corruption that destroy our ability to function effectively. It is the death by a thousand cuts model that really nails us.

So how do we fix the state of our state? Look to the state of ourselves. It’s easy to be a hero when everybody notices the problem. It’s much more difficult, and as such, much more important to press forward when you get no thanks, or even the opposite. I’ll leave you with one final tidbit:

If every American aged 15+[4] was to grow $5 worth of tomatoes during calendar year 2011-2012, we would collectively produce $1.24 Billion worth of tomatoes and save $0.43 per mile[5][6] driven to transport these tomatoes (1500 miles). This could be accomplished by each of us growing around 2-3 tomatoes. We can all claim that it sounds good in theory, but that we personally don’t want to do it. We’re busy and don’t have the 10 minutes a day to spare on that. These costs add up. More and more, it is commonly accepted knowledge that the high incidence of diabetes, autism, stroke, cancer, depression, etc., is directly linked to chemicals used in factory farms. Once again, trading the comfort and convenience of watching yet another reality re-run imposes huge costs that we don’t even account for, and as such our personal corruption corrupts our persons.

What we can see from all of these examples is that, in essence, corruption seems to mean dishonesty. Corruption is not necessarily outright lying, but is more subtle and dangerous. Corruption is not telling the WHOLE truth. Thus, not telling the whole truth about Always Drunk Kid, the whole truth about your closed minded teacher, the whole truth to your parents about how you feel, is the very nature of corruption. 

We are standing at a national crossroads, wondering how we got here and trying to figure out where to go. As the ones responsible for the mistakes that led us here, if we want to change things we are in no position to take half measures, or to not do the annoying stuff.

OK, so you’re sold. No more corruption! Making the change is easy:

Don’t let your friends do drugs, chemical, emotional, or otherwise, call your family and get honest, work hard in your classes not to get good grades, but to partake of and impart knowledge, and above all, stop lying to yourselves. When someone tells you something that doesn’t add up or is wrong, open a polite dialog. Passionately explain your viewpoint. Do not leave the conversation until you have reached a consensus, either because you now understand how your viewpoint is wrong, how the opposing one is, or if you are lucky, how they both are actually two different sides of the same coin.

[1] http://www.learn-about-alcoholism.com/binge-drinking-statistics.html (42% of college kids engage in binge drinking)

[2] http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa67/aa67.htm (Binge Drinkers 10 times more likely to become alcoholics)

[3] http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/a/alcoholism/stats-country.htm (ambient alcoholism rate is 5.55%)

5.55% x 10 =55.5%. 55.5% x .42 = 23.31; 23.31% of college binge drinkers become alcoholics

[4] ^ “CIA – The World Factbook — United States”. CIA. Retrieved 2010-02-16.

[5] ftp://ftp.dot.state.fl.us/LTS/CO/Estimates/CPM/summary.pdf (US DOT Generic Cost Per Mile Models)

[6] http://www.hhh.umn.edu/centers/slp/pdf/reports_papers/per_mile_costs.pdf (THE PER-MILE COSTS OF OPERATING AUTOMOBILES AND TRUCKS)

______________

Photo by Mr. Brendan Kaplan. All rights reserved by the artist.

Recently, several pieces of legislation crafted by Congress have come under fire from politicians for their effect on the national debt.  Typically these critics have been dubbed “deficit hawks” due to their conservative, or hawkish, viewpoints on the subject.  But this type of behavior is not limited to one side of the political aisle.  Indeed, all sound-minded and forward-looking individuals ought to agree that we must ultimately reduce the size of the national debt.  Thus, a closer look into the nature of debt and deficits is warranted.

When a household or firm is considering spending decisions, it must always do so within the confines of a budget.  The budget represents their net ability to spend; in economics jargon, we refer to this as the “budget constraint”.  This is the core of constrained optimization which is at the heart of modern Macroeconomics.

Yet strictly speaking, households and firms are not truly constrained by their current income; they can spend more than they earn by taking on and accumulating debt.  Debt is a financial obligation from the borrower to the lender.  There are several key features of debt that characterize any form of loan or bond.

The first characteristic is the principal.  This is the amount that is borrowed and the amount that is to be paid back upon maturity of the bond.  The maturity of the bond is the length of time until the principal is expected to be paid back in full.  Treasury bonds, loans from private individuals to the government, have maturities ranging from 3 months to 30 years.  The final characteristic of a bond is perhaps the one we are most familiar with – the interest rate.

The interest rate takes on many roles and can be considered in many ways.  One way to describe an interest rate is that it is the price of borrowing money.  In this sense, economists are looking at money not simply as a medium of exchange but as a good in and of itself.  Thus as there are markets for goods, labor, and capital, there is also a corresponding market for money.  Here the supply of and demand for money dictate the price of money – the interest rate.

A second way of looking at interest rates is as a form of risk compensation for the lender.  The borrower always knows more about their activities and motives than the lender does.  This is referred to as “information asymmetry”.  Since through the act of lending the lender is taking on some risk of not being repaid, he or she demands additional compensation in the form of interest rates.

Now that we understand what debt is, we can address the issue of households, firms, and even governments taking on debt.

All debt is not created equal.  When taking on debt, one must carefully consider what the money is going to be used for and what are the potential benefits of such an investment.  That is to say, some debt is beneficial while other debt is harmful.

Let’s take a look at two kinds of debt that are applicable to the household and thus should be familiar to most people.  Assume a household takes out a loan and has a choice of how to spend that money.  If the household spent that money on purchasing a brand new HDTV complete with sound system, then that is not a productive use of that money.  Unless you play video games for a living and feel that this will grant you a competitive edge, this is a form of bad debt.  On the other hand, taking out a loan to pay for a college education is a good form of debt.  The key difference between them is that the college education will increase your human capital and earning ability over the long run while purchasing a new TV will not.  Thus, when considering debt, one must always examine the potential for growth that this debt might allow.

The same is true for firms and governments.  A firm might take on debt through the sale of bonds in order to raise capital for a new manufacturing plant.  This capital expansion increases the total productivity of the firm allowing them to earn more profits and thus be in a better position to pay back their debt.

What are some good and bad examples of government debt?  Sticking to the metric outlined above, anything that will serve to promote economic growth can be considered good debt (if the return is high enough, of course), while deficit spending that does little to stimulate growth is bad debt.

Investment in education, infrastructure, and other forms of human and physical capital are always a good form of debt.  These forms of spending increase the economic potential of the nation and through increased economic output, the future revenues of the government itself.  Thus these forms of debt will often be able to pay themselves back over time.

Tangentially, some have suggested that tax cuts also represent a viable government economic policy option. To the contrary, it has been shown that tax cuts are wasteful forms of debt from an economic perspective.  The returns from tax cuts are significantly less than the returns from government spending in terms of stimulating economic activity.  Of course, one might make a political argument about the nature of liberty; this article focuses on economic arguments and will sidestep that issue completely.

So now that we understand what debt is and the merits of different uses of debt, we can now address the question of how much debt is the right amount?  The first condition to be laid down is very straightforward and should come as no surprise to anyone.  A household, firm, or government should not accumulate debt that exceeds its lifetime ability to pay back said debt.  This is commonly referred to as the “No Ponzi-Game Condition”, though perhaps we could relabel it the “No Madoff-Scheme Condition” in light of recent history.

We can also look at the volume of debt in two distinct ways that will have different implications.  The first is to look at the absolute level of debt.  Consider two hypothetical individuals, Fred and Molly, both of whom have accumulated debt over the years.  Ignoring where the debt came from, let us suppose that Fred owes creditors a sum of $100,000 while Molly owes her creditors a sum of $200,000.  In absolute terms Molly owes twice as much as Fred which makes her level of debt seem much worse.

Now let us consider these levels of debt in relative terms – not relative to each other but relative to the earning power of each individual.  Suppose Fred earns a salary of $100,00 per year while Molly has a much higher salary of $500,000 per year.  In absolute terms, Molly still owes twice as much as Fred.  But when considering their levels of debt relative to their earning power, Fred’s debt amounts to 100% of his annual salary while Molly’s debt amounts to only 40% of her annual salary.  When considering each individual’s debt in this light, it seems that Molly’s level of debt is much more manageable than Fred’s, even though she owes twice as much.

This relative level of debt is how we must consider government debt.  Any amount of government debt is likely to be on such a massive scale that it seems enormous in comparison to an individual salary and a household’s budget.  But when these values are calculated in terms of percentage of GDP, one is able to truly get a good picture of how much debt it really is.

Returning to the lead of this article, we are now able to evaluate government deficit spending, which is of course a form of debt accumulation.  When in an economic recession the government should pursue a policy of deficit spending.  This is especially true if monetary policy is made impotent, such as when interest rates are already at the zero lower bound (one cannot effectively push interest rates negative).  Deficit spending, while accumulating debt, is a very effective form of stimulus that will raise output and employment back up towards their full-employment levels.  The economic costs of not doing so can be quite tremendous.  As a quick back of the envelope calculation, consider the following scenario.  Suppose a full-employment economy (a misnomer) involves an unemployment rate of 4%.  Consider the case when the national unemployment rate is 10% (which also hides the true cost of under-employment).  Thus, the economy is losing (.06)/(.96) of its potential output – the so-called “output gap”.  Assuming a national GDP of $10 trillion (slightly low for the United States), this amounts to approximately $625 billion worth of lost output annually.  Note that this calculation is intended to be a low-ball estimate as it does not include the trust costs of under-employment, those who have stopped seeking work, and the self-perpetuating effects of mass unemployment.

The cost of massive unemployment is enshrined in the idea of the “Paradox of Thrift”.  The “Paradox of Thrift” is a phrase coined by Keynes and attempts to explain why recessions can spiral out of control.  The basic idea is that when a large number of people are laid off, they can no longer spend and consume at previous levels since they no longer have a steady income.  This lowers demand and firms will then lower output so as not to overproduce.  This will either directly lead to other workers being laid off or will do so indirectly through the Paradox of Thrift.  As workers speculate that they might be the next to lose their job, they make a rational calculation that they should spend less in order to have larger accumulated savings if they become unemployed. Yet when everyone does this, it leads to even less spending and demand, and thus more workers are fired as firms scale back to produce less.  This in turn becomes a self-reinforcing spiral of unemployment.  It takes a large boost in demand to combat the economic and psychological forces that are driving this collapse in demand and unemployment.  Typically only the government is large enough, or willing enough to take on debt, to deliver the sort of shock which is necessary to jump-start the economy.

However, this policy of deficit spending in bad times must be accompanied by a policy of fiscal and financial responsibility during the good times.  While it is acceptable, and even desirable to increase the deficit during times of recession, we must be willing to rein in this spending and increase taxes to pay for our spending when prosperity returns.  Much of our current financial situation comes not from unsound economics but rather from a collective willingness to forget the pain as soon as the pleasure returns.  There is no rational economic argument against deficit spending that seeks to reduce unemployment or ameliorate the pain of unemployment during times of recession.

Ultimately, we cannot be afraid of debt.  Debt is simply a financial tool that can be used properly and improperly.  In order to use debt in beneficial methods, we must first understand what it is, and how it can be used for gain.  We must be critical of deficit spending, but only in the same sense that we must be critical of everything.  Debt must be used to pick up the slack during the bad times, and funds put aside to pay for that debt in the good times in order to promote economic stability.

The Popular Capitalist View

A key part of the Popular Capitalist program is to reduce the cost of living.  A lower cost of providing the necessities puts the rudimentary task of paying the cost of sovereignty more easily within the reach of the political economies of regions with modest resources.  This allows those political economies and thus most political economies to offer its citizens opportunities to reach beyond mere survival and build capital that will benefit their communities for years to come.  Also, a lower cost of the living beyond survival makes those efforts at building capital more attainable.

Many authors throughout the ages have touted the solitary life and its cheapness as a model for sustainability and meaning, yet much purpose is lost in spending so much of the day in mundane tasks.  The economies of the hermit’s survival mode are not as great as the efficient production of goods in factories.  Nor can that life be as fulfilling as one where knowledge, wisdom and art are shared among members of a community.  For that, people and material must get together in one place on a fairly regular basis and finished goods distributed as frequently.  This is accomplished by some system of transportation, which should be made as affordable as possible to accommodate survival and a simple but civilized life while keeping it inexpensive for more ambitious tasks.  But what is needed to make sure that people use the transportation system enough to accomplish these goals?

It is often said in real estate that there are three important things: location, location and location.  The reason why we often quote it and accept it is that it expresses a fundamental truth about that business: all of the other important things in real estate are either dependent upon location or part of achieving goodness in that area.  This does not mean, however, that hopes, expectations or even a plan for good location are important.  Just because a location should be a good location does not mean that it is.  There can be some factor that is missed by the seller that is picked up by a prospective buyer and which causes him to either not bid on a property or to realize a great bargain.  Conversely there can be something that the seller does not reveal to the buyer that dupes a buyer.  Eventually, the fools with money become harder to find.  Eventually, the truth will out and a market that knows the true goodness of a location will be based on location.

We can go through the other factors.  Is price important? Yes, but the price will be driven by demand and demand is driven by location.  Is the quality of building important?  Yes, but only if it is useful and usefulness is driven by location.  Is the presence of good jobs or stores important?  Yes, but that is part of what makes a location.  Is the absence of natural hazards, such as floods or earthquakes, important?  Yes, but again that is part of what makes a good location.  A property can be had for practically nothing and have a gorgeous building solidly built, but if it is located far from anywhere people would want to be, it will languish on the market with no buyers.

A similar dictum applies in transportation: the three most important things in transportation are frequency, frequency and frequency.  Whatever else is important in transportation is either driven by it or is part of achieving goodness in that area.  As with real estate and location, hopes, expectations or schedules showing good frequency are not important.  It is the actuality of good frequency that is important, not the opinion of officials that frequency should be good or, even worse, is good enough.  The public, or some portion of it, can be duped for a time by promises of frequent service.  Eventually, though, the truth will out and the personal horror stories will travel quickly through the offices and school functions.  Then the public will make their next decision of where to work or where to live or just how to get from one to the other based on the true goodness of frequency of a transportation service.

What then is good frequency?  We need to be clear about this so that we know exactly what we should be achieving.  Here we part company with real estate.  The goodness of location can be changed and whatever is good now is most important; the sins of the past are forgiven.  This not so with transportation.  Because transportation is most memorable when it is needed most urgently, the sins of the past present a danger for the future.  It is the worst frequency that is remembered, while the best is forgotten.  Similarly, it is the most unusual need and circumstance that is used to judge transportation.  The early-morning rush to deliver an important project is a more important transportation need than the daily commute.  What this comes down to is this: the frequency of a transportation system is the longest time between a person’s intended departure time and the next departure time of the transportation system for a trip in which the user reaches his destination.

Is speed important? Yes, but the rider is only concerned about the total time from when he needs to leave to when he arrives.  The total time is driven by frequency. The fastest train in the world that runs once a day is of no use to him.  Conversely, very slow train makes frequency difficult by tying up too many engines and cars.  A stopped train makes frequency impossible since it can not be said to be providing service at all.  Is location important? Yes, but frequent transportation creates its own demand.  Once business owners feel assured that their workers, or their prospective replacements, can get to a new location in time, they will see that location as viable for their workforce.  Similarly, if they are convinced that the location has frequent service for freight, they will find the location viable for acquiring raw materials and shipping the finished product.

Note that frequency of service is important for both passenger and freight transportation.  A promise to ship a package by 10 am if it is presented by 5pm or even 9pm the previous day is of no use to a contractor with a deliverable ready by 4am for a government client expecting it by 8 am.  Alternatives are used, such as a weary contractor driving their car in the wee hours of the morning and hand-delivering the computer tape.  I know because I have been that contractor and I use overnight shippers sparingly as a result.  But if there was a shipper who I could bring a package to at any time of the day and be assured that within a half hour my package would be on its way, reach its destination a little faster than with me driving the distance and be delivered to the client no more than a half hour after reaching the depot, well then I would use that shipper over not only the once-a-night shipper but also over making an early morning trek in an automobile.  The reason is frequency.

We should not forget, however, that there are other types of transportation besides the powered kind.  Most of us are blessed with the ability to move our bodies from one place to another without the assistance of a motor and without the trappings of a conveyance.  The pedestrian mode of transportation we have in walking is the least expensive and most frequent form of transportation available.  It is also the most convenient for short distances, requiring only a walkway.  Other forms of transportation require more space for their conveyances to move from point to point, roads for vehicles and waterways for ferries, barges, boats and ships.  This additional space and its use by these conveyances can and often does interfere with pedestrian traffic, making it less efficient than it would be without the roads and canals in the walkers’ path.  Therefore our goal above to not let the transportation for more ambitious travels make our simple, civilized and necessary transportation more costly implies that all vehicular traffic be kept to the borders of our pedestrian communities and that those communities have no roads but only walkways.  Any space should be used to enhance the quality of life in that community, namely with parks, squares and open air markets.  Further, every opportunity should be given to allow pedestrians to access other communities without burdening them with a vehicle for which there is neither space nor purpose at home.  Thus, rail and other forms of public transportation with easy access at the borders of the pedestrian neighborhood is preferred, as long as the railroad or roadway does not present a hazard to the people in that community.  So subways, contained elevated rails or monorails would be acceptable whereas rails at pedestrian grade, especially those crossing pedestrian paths, would not.

Extending this scheme outwards does not require personal automobiles for transportation; such would be relegated to amusements or within the confines of communities which enjoy the smell of petroleum in the morning.  There would also be communities which prefer horses for local travel, probably combined with their use in agriculture, and these would be more sustainable than the motor towns.  Beyond the local environs, each level of government can and should own and operate public transportation which connects the municipalities, counties or states at the next level down.  This is one point on which the United States has failed to properly implement its federal ideal.

A more immediate issue, though, is how we get to there from here.  How do we transform our expensive, wasteful, dangerous and uncivilized transportation system into one which is affordable, efficient, safe and cosmopolitan?  The answer, again, lies in frequency.  By passing development laws favorable to pedestrian communities, such as those favoring mixed-use, infill and vehicle-free development, as well as abolishing all requirements for roads and parking, especially near existing train stations, we can start the process of transforming sprawl into walkable villages.  Next, by using smaller vehicles, such as vans and cars, and running them every fifteen minutes throughout the day and night, we can better establish new lines until the ridership increases enough to move gradually to buses and, eventually, to trains.  Once a solid, federally structured (as in municipality-county-state) transportation system is in place, then we can place more stringent requirements on those who wish to drive automobiles.  Raising the driving age to 21 would no longer be a burden on teenagers needing to get to school or work if they can get there more conveniently and safely by public transportation or walking.  Requiring retesting of all drivers every five years also becomes less onerous for the same reason. It is one of the great absurdities of the United States, and of New Jersey in particular, that we have made it a necessity to drive in most of both.  We can change that in New Jersey.

We can change that in New Jersey and be surprised as our air becomes cleaner, asthma is reduced, obesity declines and prosperity increases.  Or perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised.

Image courtesy of www.freephotosbank.com