50/50 is Possible! News Report 1 5 24
Economic and Political Review of NYTimes Column by David Brooks
This spirited, thoughtful column asks us to think of the USA and Earth in terms of ‘sides’ that are international and generally agreed on in scope. Those ‘sides’ are for Mr. Brooks, civilization and barbarism. This is an old comparison among humans in time by event (location and specific events by wave form with its attendant up and down swings as expressed in human writings—see ancient Greece and Roman as examples). You could use Google Generative AI to depict the two concepts ‘civilization’ and ‘barbarism’ in the ‘time window, 10,000 BC' (time on the x axis) to now by event effect (Event Text on the y-axis). This is why we have computers and their relevant number crunching methods. You will find that cultures often define each other in terms of being civilized or barbaric by custom in event time and location. In this column, the West is civilized, but those lead by China and Russia tend to the barbaric. You may or may not agree. Me. Too.
Pull out your information contents (mind and AI) for biology, philosophy, government, industry, society, and political history. Throw in a few numbers to contribute positive rationality to Mr. Brooks’ discussion. These things are helpful to have open in your mind and in AI when reading the column itself.
To summarize, Mr. Brooks regards the economy as effulgent: good hiring, lowering inflation, increasing efficiency, and successful at supporting more people than ever before. The current Demo crowd is to blame or to credit, depending on your point of view. Is he correct from your point of view? For most white people who can pay their bills (or more, or way more), things are going okay, but prices are going up all across the board too fast and too many given incomes that are more or less stationary by yearly time-frame. This seems to undercut increasing employment and any wage gains from worker-friendly employment practices. For other people being eaten alive by bills and the cost of living who cannot get ahead in this society, things don’t seem to be going well at all, and in fact, they are not.
I do agree with Mr. Brooks that aspects of our economy fit his approving appellations: our government and society (on both right and left sides) are moving to increase their input to society as a whole, industry, economics, and society’s general direction. Both sides are each clear with respect to what they believe and where they are moving. These are preceived as good things for both sides, and in general, they are. We at least are clear on what each side ‘is’. This will help us as consumers and voters.
With respect to life as a human and enabling that life, we know we always move forward, but we can resist forward movement by adhering to an agreed-upon past we find wise to create as we move forward. We define each side based in understood history, and staunchly list the proper ways of doing things. This division has given rise to expected behaviors that must be adhered to by social practitioners for each side. Thus, we often define history differently by side by relevant current and past events. Right now, we have two different definitions of our history and current events lists by accuracy (%) and interpretation (text). For instance, 1) the 2020 election was false and stolen by clever means or 2) it was true and represents how things have been done election-wise in the USA in the past. Those are two very different outcomes to support and describe legally, political, economically, and socially. You are either good by side, or you are bad by side, and that looks like this in text: good=GOP, bad=Democrate or good=Democrat or bad=GOP.
That is sideism for you, its strengths and limitations.
In the case of this column, you either believe goodness exists in general, or only specifically for certain groups. It seems to me that Mr. Brooks sees goodness as a natural human condition perturbed by the behaviors around one, behaviors that could arise from social, political, economic, health, and educational metrics many people associate with general demographics. In other words, he takes a metrically complex view of our current situation, as understood by a mostly conservative, white, Jewish-extraction male of long-considered religious and philosophical leanings who is fiscally well-off, well-educated and employed, and over 50 years of age. Now, we expect certain things of his point of view. We certainly are not disappointed by his contents or arguments. In other words, this column seems a good way to think about him when considering his words.
I take away tht the context we come from affects all aspects of our mind and emotion formations for humans alive on Earth at this time. This is consistant with much that I have read, seen, and thought over my 67 years as a white, well-educated, spiritually-diverse, interestingly past employed, retired, fiscally interesting woman. I live among the various societies that exist right now on planet Earth, Blue Among the Stars. Don’t we all.
Mr. Brooks especially emphasizes the good state of the USA economy in the present time. Human societies depend on their economic definitions, structure, and processes over time. These have been worked out in great detail, and they have gotten unwieldy enough that we are simplifying and rethinking them as they are. Mr. Brooks is doing some of this, as we must. Others are holding to forms and processes we used as long as 450 years ago (e.g., Samuel Alito). It matters not. We have existed for at least 2 million years as species Homo. We have adapted as needed throughout time as we have evolved. We can do it again now even if there are those who prefer a past that is gone, even in form.
As we move forward, I submit that we must expand our economy to rebalance the product equation that accurately describes the relationship between workers (90% of all humans alive) and the heads of those who provide those products (10% of all humans: industry, government, academia) by time and event. We need to go from All<10% to All=100% (amount in billions if very granular). Sure, fight about those ratios. You’re a primate. You know you want to. In that context, though, we have mental symbols at play (numbers are also mathematical and rational symbols) that have been in play on Earth for as long as we have written records.
So, what does Mr. Brooks seem to think about the form and structure of society?
Civilization—fight the inclination to fight. Complex Competition is Fair. Rules, Taboos, and Processes support this.
Barbarism—fight whenever you feel like it. Competition is Zero-Sum. Rules, Taboos, and Processes support his.
So, is this where we really start. Given our history, maybe so.
For the relationship described above, how do you express All (text) = 100 (% ) of all humans alive, in practical form? We have done this many ways. Right now we use what we call capitalism and the ownership of property that includes Earth, but also all objects made by humans. The income generated by All could instead be divided thus: 1) 50% to Industry (the design, blueprinting, testing, and selling of things of all kinds including ideas); 2) 50% to workers (all living expenses by contribution over time, and the making, tweaking, and distribution of things of all kinds including ideas).
Who will support a government and academia? It is clear that government (coordination of all enterprises by All) and academia (training of all individuals in All) benefit both Industry and Workers. This is an area where these two main groups must work together to sustain the two-part structure supported by a two-part structure. We would have to want to take care of all people, have productive work for them to do, and a life that is worth living. We will still need industry to work within this type of society. Industry and Workers will evolve as a species and must live with not against each other as time progresses, we can see that).
A key is to reward any contribution to the forward progress of society at any given time by event. Sure we need AI to help us keep track of what we contribute over time. Gosh, we will fight about how to value each contribution over time and event.
Yet,
when it comes to talking about all People, 50/50 could apply in the manner discussed here in this Substack review of the NYTimes Column by David Brooks. You know we love balance as the bipedal primate-based hominid species that we are! It makes a felt sense it is hard for us to argue with.