I believe the responsibility for our economic welfare is ours.  Not our neighbours. Not our employers. Not our communities. No; not our families. Especially not the Government’s! As the second decade of the new millennium begins, many seem blind to this law of life.

Shifting the burden of responsibility for our financial welfare, in full or in part, to someone else, increasingly to the state, has become so prevalent that there are few if any in Australia who are not receiving some form of government assistance, handout, pension, subsidy, tax break, grant, benefit or concession. We are all part of the problem as we are of the solution. There are those amongst us who are sick and disabled and unable to care for themselves and should and must be provided with food, clothing, shelter, transportation and community if we are to be a compassionate society. But that said, way too many who do not fall into this unfortunate category, and who can care for themselves, are being suckled by the state to varying levels.

Governments, because they want to be re-elected, are terrified that we will not accept and/or handle well the drop in our respective standards of living which will inevitably occur when the economic corrections fully manifest. Whether as a result of the positive intentions of a sound government to assist rectifying the imbalances in our economy (there are zero indications of this being likely in Australia), or if there remains no stomach for taking those decisions then the correction will occur when a critical mass of bubbles burst. This process cannot be stopped and it is time for us to stop kidding ourselves it can be manipulated forever by Governments and Central Bankers.

Unfortunately in Australia, as seems to be the case the world over, whoever wins government is the party that has convinced the majority that they will best take responsibility for our individual, collective and corporate welfare. They have reassured the voter that their specific benefits will continue with the promise, or at least the hint, of more to come but implicit; “with our party, you are in safer, wiser, more prudent hands.” Time and again we are complicit in electing the laws of life illiterate but media appealing to govern, and thus moved with each election ever closer to the day of financial reckoning when we will wake up in the middle of a financial pickle of unprecedented proportions.

There is no political party in Australia that I know of with sound money credentials. None!

Without common sense money understanding, having enlightened social, environmental, health and educational policies are all ultimately in vain. We must have them to sustain ourselves in a total sense but the big bucks they cost are being squandered in wasteful welfare.

All parties demonstrate a commitment to ever increasing taxpayer funded financial liabilities and through those policies to increasing deficits and eventual economic collapse. You see; expenditure cannot exceed income. It is not possible no matter how much we wish it were otherwise. Even countries finish up broke when the country’s costs exceeds its income. And the end result: people destitute, desperate and determined to do anything to feed and care for their family. That is the societal climate for the emergence of powerful leaders promising the world but providing totalitarian regimes in exchange. History shows us this is what happens. These autocrats emerge from either the left or right of politics in such bleak times.

So there we have it: worldwide; expenditure is exceeding income at individual, family, business and government levels. Australia is galloping in that direction having squandered the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity of the Chinese driven commodities boom (bubble) to set aside and save hundreds of billions of dollars or more for the rainy days ahead when real needs for welfare are likely to be enormous–widespread needs of the like most of us have never experienced. But the coffers will be empty. The societal consequences, as touched on earlier, will be dire.

WHAT CAN EACH OF US DO TO CLIMB OUT OF DEBT OR AVOID THAT TRAP?

• Pay off borrowings as our number one priority; sell non-income producing assets to achieve that outcome. Except, if you knew enough to purchase gold, keep it even if it halves or more in value, as your sound money insurance policy. It will recover and become the most valuable means of exchange.
• Consider selling your home and renting. Unpalatable as that option is to most Australians; it might be the most economically wise decision you ever make. Housing prices in Australia are still in a bubble and will drop much further.
• Seriously slash your expenditure (cost of living). Examine all outgoings and cut all but the essentials.
• Save and invest in companies providing essential goods or services such as food and energy for dividends or interest – not capital appreciation – it’s likely there won’t be increases in asset values (housing, stocks and shares) for years or possibly decades to come as has been the case in Japan, once an economic powerhouse but today an economic invalid. Successive Japanese Governments have employed all the poor practices I have outlined earlier and it has only been the historic saving ethos of private citizens that has kept Japan afloat. The government has now squandered all of those savings and I am left to wonder what will happen now.
• Be ultra-prudent and conservative. Live well within your means to ensure that your income easily exceeds your outgoings. Cut waste to the minimum. Change from consumption thinking to conservation thinking.
• Go further and reduce your so called ‘standard of living’ until you can easily live within what are likely to be your much restricted means. Do this irrespective of your present economic state. Shift from an expensive suburb to a cheap one. If retired sell up and move to a ‘dying’ country town were housing is good and dirt cheap and you will be welcome. Extreme? Maybe! But it may save your economic bacon by eliminating your mortgage or if you don’t have one creating money to invest in sound income producing assets.
• Save like there is a tomorrow and that tomorrow maybe bleak. The art and discipline of saving for a rainy day has been lost on more recent generations. There is plenty of information around to explain how to go about it but get started today.
• There are web sites that expand on the ideas in this piece that are easily found if you are interested. Start doing your own research.

FINALLY

My prediction for the near, medium to longer term (2 to 5 to 20 years) is that at the very best we are in for a long, protracted economic winter. At worst, a deep depression of the 1930’s variety that will take much longer to pass as a result of the massive accumulation of debt and lack of savings.

For many it may be too late. I trust it is not too late for you and that these words make sense. Take action today. Tomorrow may be too late.

John A. Wood is a noted entrepreneur and consultant, the founder, former CEO and chairman  of Fleetwood Corporation. In 1993, after retiring from Fleetwood, John founded the Philosophy of Living Centre, Australia. This Centre coached and mentored business leaders and later evolved into Dimension 4 Consulting of Perth.

My parents did find a 600 square-foot flat in the Bronx for $51 a month rent. Due to rent controls, this was lower than the market clearing price; and there were many applicants to rent the apartment. How did the landlord select among the many applicants for the apartment? He placed cheap furniture in the apartment and, before awarding the lease, required the renter to purchase the furniture. The price of the furniture was $2100 which is just under $20,000 in today’s dollars. As you can imagine, raising that money in 1948 was a huge undertaking. My parents raise that sum, rented the apartment, and then promptly threw out most of the furniture that they had purchased. The purchase of the furniture was essentially a bribe to the landlord.

Over 60 years later rent controls still exists in New York City. Approximately 70% of the New York City’s rental apartments are either rent controlled or rent stabilized. And as you might expect, with rent controls in place for over 60 years, many New Yorkers see below market rents as an entitlement.

Tenants treat with disdain landlords who, in their eyes, have become less than human beings—they are “others” who deserve to be exploited. A popular sport for tenants is finding loopholes in the law to further exploit their position. The result has been that the property of landlords is appropriated for use by the tenants who are being “protected.”

For politicians and tenants to justify rent control, they must pit one group against another; and pitting landlord against tenant tears at the social fabric in New York City. Such an attitude of mind does not remain limited to housing; it spills over into all areas of commerce. As looking to exploit your position becomes common behavior, trust withers in each of us as we become skeptical of the motives of others. In the absence of trust, more and more regulations are demanded to “protect” consumers, and transaction costs rise. New York City has become a very expensive place to do business.

Last week President Obama decleared war on oil speculators saying that “We can’t afford a situation where some speculators can reap millions while millions of American families get the short end of the stick. That’s not the way the market should work.”

This is as much the politics of hate as is New York City’s multi-generational attack on landlords. The only way that oil speculators can make money is by buying up energy supplies at times of relatively bountiful supplies and selling them when supply is scarcer. If a speculator is purchasing energy today they must expect that prices will be higher in the future. By shifting supplies to the future, they provide an important service for the consumer: they help to smooth out fluctuations in the price of oil.

Is it possible that oil speculators could “reap millions” while giving consumers the “short end of the stick”? To think that a speculator or group of speculators can successfully manipulate the energy market is absurd. The energy market is so huge that the influence of any subgroup must be necessarily small in relationship to the whole market. If the speculator moves against market trends, the speculator must lose money. Why? Suppose energy prices will fall next year. If so, any speculator that buys now to sell next year will lose money. They will be buying high and selling low. Again, the speculator can only make money by transferring supplies of energy, from the present to the future, for the benefit of the consumer.

Of course the economics of speculation is completely misunderstood by most Americans. Whether any individual politician understands the economics of speculation is of course unknown; but demonizing oil speculators, like demonizing landlords, is “good” politics. It is a favored strategy of politicians in times of economic crisis when consumers are frightened, want instant solutions, and are eager to find “others” to be the scapegoats. For a politician to exploit this fear is unworthy.

If President Obama really wanted to bring down energy prices he would cut government spending and thus influence Fed chair Ben Bernanke to stop his extreme expansionary monetary policy. He would ask Congress to stop subsidizing solar, ethanol, nuclear, and other favored forms of energy. These actions would free up billions of dollars of new capital for entrepreneurs to discover new and viable forms of energy. With each discovery, the price of energy will come down.

Of course, President Obama has no intentions of reducing the role of government; and thus, he turns to the politics of hate that pits one group of Americans against another. He seeks to disunite rather than to unite. Yet, oil speculators and oil consumers both have the same interests in the energy market. Oil consumers are relieved when fluctuations in energy prices are not extreme; oil speculators provide this service.  Those who preach the politics of hate want you to forget this—they want you to believe that they are your savior.

This is distressingly similar to New York City’s disastrous decades of rent control. The results will be the same: The politics of hate begets distrust; distrust begets more regulations, which beget less trust. Loss of trust in the market depresses the economy. And who will step into the breach? You guessed it—those who preach the politics of hate.

Last week, after the primary night victory for his council seat, Barry said “We’ve got to do something about these Asians coming in, opening up businesses, those dirty shops. They ought to go. I’ll just say that right now, you know.” This is typical Barry—play to the hatred, fear, and ignorance in people. Divide and conquer with an opiate for the masses message of blaming others.

After public uproar, last Friday Barry sought to explain that his comments didn’t apply to Asians who give back and contribute to the community. Apparently there is a scorecard to be kept and some kind of reciprocity is demanded.

Now consider the better dressed, better spoken, more “respectable” candidate for president Mitt Romney. No doubt, if asked, Romney would condemn Barry’s hate-filled message. But consider Romney’s own words in the Wall Street Journal this past February:

In the economic arena, we must directly counter abusive Chinese practices in the areas of trade, intellectual property, and currency valuation. While I am prepared to work with Chinese leaders to ensure that our countries both benefit from trade, I will not continue an economic relationship that rewards China’s cheating and penalizes American companies and workers.

Unless China changes its ways, on day one of my presidency I will designate it a currency manipulator and take appropriate counteraction. A trade war with China is the last thing I want, but I cannot tolerate our current trade surrender.

Scratch the surface and Romney’s message is the same as Barry’s.  Barry was explaining a local problem: For the lack of adequate businesses and thus the lack of a vibrant economy in his council district he blamed and bashed those who are solving the problem—Asians who work long hours for meager pay and often put their lives at risk.

Similarly, Romney was explaining a national problem: For an economy that is in deep trouble he blamed and bashed those who are helping to solve the problem. Without China as a trading partner—and holder of our burgeoning national debt—our economy would’ve collapsed already. China’s purchase or our surplus dollars helps to allow the reckless spending schemes of politicians like Romney to continue. China’s U.S. debt holdings are currently $1.132 trillion, and they are the largest foreign holder of U.S. Treasury securities. As for China being a “currency manipulator”—look in the mirror. Our own central bank has been doing its best to debase our currency for many years.

Are Romney and Barry really this ignorant of economic realities? Or are they doing the same thing— stirring their constituencies by bashing those who won’t vote for them or can’t vote for them anyway.

How contemptible this behavior is. In Romney’s case, he is hoping to shore up votes from the Donald Trump wing of the Republican Party while hoping that those who are repelled by his China bashing will have nowhere else to go. In Barry’s case, we see a career politician who has continually demonstrated a lack of personal responsibility. Many in Barry’s council district live below the poverty level. Empty storefronts are available to start businesses throughout his district, and yet Barry has the temerity to attack those who take an entrepreneurial chance.

There is no zero-sum game in Barry’s district. The more businesses that open up—whether they are owned by Asian-Americans or African-Americans—the more attractive Barry’s district is to additional businesses. This makes his district a more attractive place to live which attracts even more businesses. This is a positive cycle that feeds on itself. In contrast, drive out Asian businesses and economic decay and hardship multiply.

The result of a trade war with China would be disastrous economically. Prices would rise in the United States, and already squeezed households would be forced to cut back spending. But even more importantly, Romney’s belligerent words are not likely to intimidate China. Instead, any trade war that results would threaten world peace. Why? Fighting rarely breaks out between trading partners because their economic interests are too intertwined.

Barry threatens racial harmony in his district as well as the economic well-being of his district. Romney threatens world peace and the economic well-being of the United States. No, Romney and Barry will never be political allies; but it is important to see that they share a common message of economic ignorance and destructive bullying.

At their core Barry’s story and Romney’s story (I call them stories because they are made-up) have the same theme: Someone else or something else is responsible for our problems. This story is an unworthy one because it keeps us rooted in our problems and prevents us from finding real solutions. We would expect as much from Marion Barry, but shame on Mitt Romney for joining the ranks of politicians who peddle the politics of blame.

Many of you already know that what they actually decided to stop selling is commonly referred to as pink slime. Pink slime is a low-cost ingredient made from fatty bits of meat left over from other cuts; these are the last traces of beef that cannot be removed by the butcher’s knife. Most commonly these bits are used in dog food. “The bits are heated to about 100 degrees Fahrenheit and spun to remove most of the fat. The lean mix then is compressed into blocks for use in ground meat. The product is exposed to ammonium hydroxide gas to kill bacteria, such as E. coli and salmonella.”

Pink slime is a potentially dangerous product. If not processed correctly it may contain material from the cow’s central nervous system and thus expose the consumer to potentially dangerous diseases.

You may still be confused. Does the decision to stop selling pink slime reflect a sudden change in consumer demand? Not at all. Until recently consumers simply did not know what they were eating.

Supermarkets have been selling these products for years with healthy sounding names such as Edible Finely Textured Beef (FTB), Lean Finely Textured Beef (LFTB), Premium Black Angus Finely Textured Beef (PBAFTB), Angus Finely Textured Beef (AFTB), Beef Trimmings, Finely Textured (BTFT) and Partially Defatted Chopped Beef (PDCB).

These are legally defined terms concocted by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) working in cooperation with beef producers. They understood that with properly labeled products, there would be no demand for human dog food. The terms they adopted obfuscate what is really being sold.

Of course on a free market producers would be and should be free to sell properly labeled food. On a free market, consumers exercise their choices and consumer preferences are revealed. Using food labels such as Lean Finely Textured Beef is fraud. Why is this fraud? The term does not convey what the product really is.

As soon as consumers understood what they were really being sold, demand shrunk to zero. The only potential demand for pink slime is from institutions such as prisons, schools, hospitals, and nursing homes—where consumers are captives and thus have little or no choice.

But this is only the tip of the iceberg. On almost every supermarket trip, almost every consumer buys products that contain foreign and adulterated ingredients. The food manufacturers preferred that you do not know.

In 2010 at my blog I asked these questions. Please take a few moments to answer whether the following statements are “true” or “false.”

1. Your favorite breakfast cereal, cookie or processed food may be manufactured with Chinese ingredients, but the package need not disclose the country of origin.
2. Your favorite breakfast cereal, cookie or processed food may contain genetically modified ingredients, but the package need not disclose that fact.
3. If your favorite breakfast cereal, cookie or processed food contains irradiated ingredients, the package must disclose this information.
4. Dairy products that contain rBGH (recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone), which is a genetically engineered variant of the natural growth hormone produced by cows, must be labeled as such.

The answer to number 1 is true.  In general, food products from foreign countries have to be labeled with their country of origin. Thus, olive oil from Italy is marked as a product of Italy. There is a BIG exception to the labeling requirement for imported foods when those ingredients undergo “substantial transformation.” Makers of processed foods manufactured in the United States with ingredients imported from China do not have to disclose on the label the country of origin of those ingredients.

I used China as an example not to bash China, but because many consumers are concerned about the quality and safety of Chinese ingredients.

The answer to number 2 is true. Not only is the listing of genetically modified ingredients not required, but the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) has been taking steps to prohibit food manufacturers from disclosing that their products contain genetically modified ingredients. In 2010 the FDA “told the maker of Spectrum Canola Oil that it could not use a label that included a red circle with a line through it and the words “GMO,” saying the symbol suggested that there was something wrong with genetically engineered food.”

The point is not whether genetically modified ingredients are safe or not safe. Each individual consumer should be free to determine what their food preferences are. Europe and Japan require labeling of genetically modified ingredients. As a consequence, very few products containing genetically modified ingredients are sold in these countries.

The answer to number three is false. Individual foods that have been irradiated must be labeled as having been irradiated. However, if such foods are used to manufacture another product, the end product will not be labeled to inform the consumer. So, the spices in a cookie may be irradiated; but that information does not have to be disclosed on the cookie package. Several times in the past, the FDA has proposed removing the labeling requirements for irradiated individual foods; it has backed away from that position after consumer protests.

The answer to number four is false. For now, manufacturers that label their products as rBGH free must also disclaim “no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rBGH supplemented and non-rBGH supplemented cows.” I write “for now” because promoters of rBGH have been trying to ban the labeling of dairy products as rBGH free.

In 2003, Monsanto the maker of rBGH actually sued a small dairy in Maine for labeling their products:  “Our Farmers’ Pledge: No Artificial Growth Hormones.”

“No significant differences” in products from rBGH treated cows is hardly accurate. Many believe that “rBGH milk is contaminated by pus, due to the mastitis commonly induced by rBGH, and antibiotics used to treat the mastitis. rBGH milk is supercharged with high levels of a natural growth factor (IGF-1), which is readily absorbed through the gut. Excess levels of IGF-1 have been incriminated as a cause of breast, colon, and prostate cancers.”

Whether those beliefs, my beliefs, or your beliefs about rBGH are true or false is not the point. Labeling information allows individual consumers to make their own determination based on their values and their tastes.

Spokespeople such as David Edwards, director of animal biotechnology at the Biotechnology Industry Organization, argue consumers are better off without information. Recently Edwards proclaimed, “Extra labeling only confuses the consumer. It differentiates products that are not different. As we stick more labels on products that don’t really tell us anything more, it makes it harder for consumers to make their choices.”

Using Edwards’s twisted logic, one could argue that the ingredients in food should not be labeled at all; they could argue that only aggregate information such as calories be provided. A future industry spokesperson may argue that one calorie is the same as any other calorie; it doesn’t matter whether your lunch burger calories came from a vegetable or a cow.

Of course Edwards’s twisted logic would mean nothing without the government siding with industry against consumers. Unlabeled food or misleading food labels is really fraud against the consumer. Pink slime, processed food with tainted Chinese ingredients, GMO ingredients, rBGH milk—let the consumer decide. Only with full disclosure is the consumer sovereign.

Curious, isn’t it? Interest rates are a linchpin price in any economy. If markets are the best determiner of prices, why would markets not be the best determiner of interest rates?

In the interview below, the always elegant and brilliant observer of the Fed, Jim Grant points out that the Fed has been “highly manipulative” and has suppressed the price mechanism:

The Fed seems bent on suppressing this most elegant thing we have called a price mechanism, the movement of price that determines all manner of things in a market economy. Yet the Fed seems bound and determined to superimpose its will in place of the price mechanism. Take the bond market for example, the Fed has hammered down yields directly and indirectly and in response people are throwing money at things like high-yield or junk bonds. These are the prices the Fed wants, but are they the right prices? No not necessarily.

So how do economists resolve the cognitive dissonance over the fact that they have two irreconcilable theories? Clearly the idea that the Fed should have the power to set interest rates cannot meet the idea that markets are the best judge of prices. So economists have built their own Berlin Wall where the two theories shall never meet: The idea that prices should be set by the market is studied in the field of microeconomics, and the idea that the Fed should manipulate interest rates is studied in the field of macroeconomics. And never the two fields of study shall meet.

The real Berlin Wall had two important functions: One was to keep East Germans from escaping to the West, and the other was to keep East Germans from experiencing the West. The latter was necessary to prevent cognitive dissonance. One day in the West and the delusion that East Germany was a socialist paradise would be shattered.

Splitting economics into micro and macroeconomics serves a similar function. Those who pronounce problematical macroeconomic theories do not want pesky micro economists reminding them of microeconomic principles. And they themselves do not have to experience the cognitive dissonance should two conflicting ideas meet.

Jim Grant is not an academic economist who relies on academic peers to publish his research. He has the freedom to tell the truth. The inherent conflict between micro- and macroeconomics has not been subject to mainstream academic debate. Of course Austrian economists (those who have studied the teachings of Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises) understand the inherent conflict. Despite having won a Nobel Prize, Hayek’s ideas are literally ignored in most PhD programs and are not covered in most economics classes.

When asked what the worst-case scenario is, Jim Grant foresees the possibility that the “collective actions of world’s central banks careen out of control.”

If that sorry day happens, not only the Fed but academic economists should be held accountable for the Berlin Wall that they constructed. They will generally agree that New York City officials should not be setting rents and that politicians should not be setting oil prices. But, they are guilty of malpractice if they don’t also agree that Ben Bernanke should not be manipulating interest rates.

Driving over the George Washington Bridge into New York City and then on to the Cross Bronx Expressway going toward Connecticut, you see first-hand the consequences of rent controls. After all these years of manipulating interest rates, we will soon “view” first-hand the consequences—the “view” will not be bucolic; it will be as ugly as the South Bronx.

They were left on newspaper boxes, park benches, elevators and other places that passers-by would quickly spot them. But these weren’t just any phones—they were loaded with tracking and logging software so Symantec employees could physically track them and keep track of everything the finders did with the gadgets.

And what were the shocking results?

Some 43 percent of finders clicked on an app labeled “online banking.” And 53 percent clicked on a filed named “HR salaries.” A file named “saved passwords” was opened by 57 percent of finders. Social networking tools and personal e-mail were checked by 60 percent. And a folder labeled “private photos” tempted 72 percent.

Collectively, 89 percent of finders clicked on something they probably shouldn’t have.

Meanwhile, only 50 percent of finders offered to return the gadgets, even though the owner’s name was listed clearly within the contacts file.

Now, does that mean that 50% of Americans are thieves? No doubt they don’t see themselves as thieves. Some probably kept the phone without conflict. Others may have justified their decision: “I have no time to reach the owner.” “I just found the phone, I have no obligation to return the phone.” “They wouldn’t return it to me.”

Often in response to such studies, academics recommend that schools teach more ethics. In teaching ethics at the college level, it is common to teach theories, then have students analyze a case in light of the theories they learned. The value of analyzing ethical cases is greatly overrated as it does little to imbue values. Many of those who did not return the phone, would probably tell you that honesty is one of their values. That may be true, but they were unable to act on their values.

Consider this example. In 1925 Bobby Jones hit a wayward shot in the U.S. Open. As he prepared to hit his next shot, he accidentally touched the ball and it moved imperceptibly. No one else noticed, but Jones called a two-shot penalty against himself. He then lost the tournament by one stroke.

When praised for his honesty, Jones replied, “You might as well praise me for not breaking into banks.”

Jones did not have to think about the appropriate response to his accidental touch. There was no time. Had he hesitated, the next player would’ve played his shot as Jones might have been lost in thoughts such as, “I should call a penalty.” “Maybe the ball really didn’t move.” “No one else would call a penalty on themselves, why should I?”  Instead, the values of sportsmanship and honesty were so imbued in Jones that right action was automatic and instantaneous.

There are few of us who rise to the level of integrity that Bobby Jones demonstrated in the U.S. Open. Yet, I would bet a fair sum of money that nobody reading this post gets up in the morning struggling with the impulse to rob a bank.  In fact, I would bet that the thought to steal never arises. As with Bobby Jones, thinking plays no part in the decision to not steal. Why? Long ago in our spiritual development we decided that stealing was not a part of our values.

So how do we rise to the level of consistent integrity that Bobby Jones and others demonstrate? By integrity I mean the ability to act on our highest professed values. When we do not live by our values, integrity can be restored as we simply become aware of our self-justifying stories for our lack of integrity and the tremendous cost that our lack of integrity has on ourselves and others.

Right now, I often find myself irritated by the behavior of my teenage children. Clearly, I still think there is some value in this irritation. How do I know I still value getting irritated? Because, I still do it.

I can try to stop myself from reacting to my thoughts of irritation. Nothing’s wrong with that; but better yet is to work on prevention and not be irritated in the first place. For me prayer, meditation, exercise, and reading inspired works help imbue higher spiritual values. Observing my thinking without judging myself or others is especially helpful.

So, when will I stop being irritated by my teenagers? Not by analyzing the situation more, but by becoming more aware of the tremendous costs of my decision to not act on my values. As I become more aware, more and more I forgive myself for past choices and my stories of justification. As I do, higher spiritual values of love and compassion become more imbued in my decision-making process.

What do we want our lives to stand for? It is clear what Bobby Jones stood for. The smart phone study is alarming, not just because of the choice made by 50% of the individuals who found the “lost” phones. It is alarming because our individual choices determine the society we live in. If 50% of Americans failed to act on a value of returning property that does not belong to them, where does that leave us? Why should we be surprised then when the politicians we elect confiscate our property and subsidize their political cronies?

Clearly, for America to recover from its morass, more is required of us than electing the right politicians. Psychologist David K. Reynolds has written: “For all my dreams, I am what I do.” We must, as individuals, recover our own integrity and live the values we cherish. Whether we do so will determine how the generations alive today will be remembered.

Ah, love, let us be true
To one another! for the world, which seems
To lie before us like a land of dreams,
So various, so beautiful, so new,
Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,
Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.

from Dover Beach by Matthew Arnold

For many years, my family and I have been avid hikers in the White Mountains of New Hampshire. The social norm is to greet each hiker you pass on the trail. Very few violate this norm and there are good reasons for it. As we all are meeting the challenge of the mountain, feelings of connectedness to our fellow human beings and something bigger beyond us come naturally.

Not so in other situations. Recently I’ve been traveling and each week spending one night in the same small hotel. Each morning the hotel serves a continental breakfast in a small room. You have to go out of your way to not greet those who arrive for breakfast at the same time as you. To not smile or say hello is far more awkward, but more than a few guests do exactly that.

As Matthew Arnold writes, often there is not joy or love or light in the world. Few of us escape suffering in our life. Longfellow wrote, “If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each man’s life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility.”

All of this has very practical implications. Too often we treat with indifference those whose paths we cross. Too often we see those we disagree with as stupid or as evil. Firms that make profits are viewed as evil by whole segments of society. Supporters of political candidates are viewed by supporters of other candidates as stupid. Citizens of other countries are somehow different and not as worthy as we are.

No doubt, some individuals act with viciousness and others go through life not cultivating their mind. Nevertheless, is it likely that an entire group of people is evil or stupid?

Consider TSA (Transport Security Administration) agents. In general, they have little training, experience, or education. TSA policies, it can be argued, inconvenience all of us and do little if anything to increase security at airports.

Nevertheless, while challenging TSA policies, should scorn be heaped on frontline agents? Traveling each week as I do, I have decided to opt out of airport scanners. The results of that choice have been surprising—given the news reports of unpleasant experiences, I was more than apprehensive about opting out.

Each week as I approach the security lines, I harbor no ill will toward the TSA agents. As we all are, they are simply playing their hand in life the best they know. Given the economy, I don’t blame them for accepting relatively high paying jobs that require little training or education.

So far, each time I have opted out, my passage through security is delayed no more than a couple of minutes, the TSA agents have been courteous, and their pat downs, although not pleasant, have been far less aggressive than I had feared.

Is there a connection between my recognition of their humanity and their recognition (within the confines of their job) of mine? In my mind, I have no doubt there is a connection.

I occasionally get an email written in an accusatory tone: A student doesn’t like this or that and makes some demand. If an email provokes an internal reaction in me, I let it sit for a while before responding. If I were a TSA agent, I wouldn’t have the luxury of walking away from a belligerent passenger.

I remain opposed to TSA procedures. Yet my experience in life has taught me this—our experience of the humanity of others bubbles up like a cork to the surface if we allow it to. When we do not sense our connectedness it must be that in our thinking we are actively suppressing it. We must justify our decision to deny our connectedness by rehearsing our perceptions of flaws in others.

Such thinking that suppresses our sense of connectedness is destructive. On a personal level, we experience less than satisfactory encounters: a commute in heavy traffic, a call to a customer service representative, these ordinary interactions often bring frustration. Such frustration is aggravated by our perceptions of those who play a part in the story of our day. As the Arbinger Institute puts it, “The more I become consumed by how my own needs aren’t being met, the larger those needs seem, until I numb myself to the needs of others.”

But suppressing our sense of connectedness is far more destructive than the personal inconveniences it brings us. Through the political system, we demand that others subsidize and support us. We threaten trade wars with other countries because we see their economic well-being as less important than our own. We threaten war with other countries in part because they oppose our hegemony.

Arnold provides the beginnings of an antidote: “Let us be true to one another.” Being true to another begins with recognizing our connectedness: we all are part of something bigger beyond our differences.

“Candice Celestin, spokeswoman for USDA Rural Development, said the Value-Added Producer Grant Program is designed to help companies expand their businesses to a wider audience.” Such a program would be news to many businesses. In years gone, businesses expanded by producing products that consumers needed in a way that was superior to their competitors.

Today, if you are a small business, it may be easier to get a government grant instead. If you are a large corporation, it may be easier to get huge government subsidies or, even better, get laws passed that block your competitors from doing business at all.

Government subsidized junk food? Government spending programs don’t shock us anymore. But how did this one come to be? The economics is quite simple. There are roughly 150 million Americans in the civilian labor force. That means the grant to North Folk costs each worker approximately 1/3 of a cent. Given that, how much time will the average worker spend opposing the grant? Of course we need to ask another question first: How much time will the average worker spend learning that such outrageous grants exist in the first place? No time at all is the answer. Those who choose to live off of others are counting on that answer to both questions.

Cleary there are perverse incentives at work here. The bureaucrats at USDA have a great incentive to lobby Congress for increases in their budgets and increases in their authority to subsidize anything they please. You and I have little incentive to opposing them. And once the budgetary authority is in place, North Fork Potato Chips has a greater incentive to apply for a grant than you have incentive to opposing it. The benefits of spending your money to subsidize junk food are concentrated in the hands of the USDA and those companies that receive your money.

Now, some may believe that such outrages will end when the “right” candidate is elected. History says that is a false hope. Elect Romney and perhaps no more potato chip grants are awarded; but wait a year and we will learn that a pretzel maker is subsidized. Reelect Obama and find that more subsidies to solar energy are granted; elect Gingrich and find that your money is subsidizing a nuclear power plant.

Two candidates, Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, promise to eliminate agencies that award these grants in the first place. This would represent a real savings to taxpayers. Instead of voting to eliminate a program that is costing them only pennies, taxpayers can choose a candidate that promises to save them thousands of dollars annually.

Clearly, given Paul’s and Johnson’s standings in the polls, a critical mass of taxpayers is not interested in such a deal. Americans say they are interested in cutting spending; but really, they aren’t. They are only interested in cutting spending on programs that don’t benefit them. If they were really interested in cutting spending across the boards, there would be a slew of Ron Paul-type candidates running.

A recent Heritage Foundation report found that nearly half (49.5%) of Americans pay no income taxes at all and that “Americans relying on the federal government received an average $32,748 worth of benefits in 2010.”

In other words, many Americans have a vested interest in living off the productivity of others. Carol Sidor, who owns North Folk Potato Chips with her husband Martin, said she’s “very pleased and excited” to receive the grant. If she has any qualms about taking taxpayer money, she doesn’t express them. The truth is, in contemporary America, over the course of a lifetime, very few of us can claim to be subsidy free.

To be fair to the Sidors, they are probably fine people who work hard. They would probably tell you that they competed fairly for a grant; and they didn’t create the grant program. They would probably add that they want to make a contribution to the economy and that the $50,000 they are receiving will be repaid many times in taxes. Wishful thinking! The government is a poor judge of which businesses will be successful; and in any case, taxpayers did not receive a share of Sidor’s business in exchange for the taxpayer’s involuntary largess.

Of course, Carol and Martin are small players in squandering taxpayer money. Aren’t there far bigger culprits to write about? Of course, but the Sidors help to teach us why government grows ever larger. When even fledgling potato chip manufacturers seek and receive government subsidies, the barn door has been opened wide for subsidies to banking institutions and automobile manufacturers.

The evidence is sad but true. Let’s dispense with the niceties—Americans fundamentally believe it is okay to live off of others. To be sure, I am not writing about those born with a bad hand in the game of life. Some, such as the severely handicapped, are simply unable to provide for themselves. I am writing about those who could earn a living without subsidization but choose to do otherwise.

Until that fundamental belief changes, the size and growth of government will continue to unsustainable levels. While it may seem that an economic disaster is the likely result, it is not inevitable. Human beings have the power of choice. Before it is too late, we can make a choice—we can reflect on and discard the faulty belief that it is morally and economically justifiable to live off of others.

Amanda Trujillo is a nurse who was fired by Banner Health Del E. Webb Medical Center in Arizona “for requesting multi-disciplinary hospice care case management consult for a pre-transplant patient with end-stage liver disease.”

For the Arizona Board of Nursing, Trujillo’s dismissal wasn’t enough. In a move that could result in the loss of her nursing license, the board ordered Trujillo to undergo a psychiatric evaluation. For the crime of helping a patient explore alternatives, Trujillo faces the loss of her career.

We all know what Trujillo’s real crimes are: (1) Challenging a doctor who thinks his decision making autonomy is more important than a patient’s right to own his or her body, and (2) Challenging a doctor who thinks that all important knowledge resides in him and that the knowledge of other individuals is not worthy of consideration.

There are signs of changing norms in the medical profession. In his book Why We Make Mistakes, Joseph Hallinan observes that over the past two decades, patient deaths due to anesthesia “have declined more than forty-fold.” Anesthesiologists, he explains, have taken steps to flattened the “authority gradient” and “encouraged nurses and others to speak up when they see someone—especially the anesthesiologist—do something wrong.”

Of course, we all know compassionate, dedicated physicians who respect their staff and value their input. Dr. Peter Pronovost, a professor at John Hopkins School of Medicine, has worked tirelessly to improve patient safety by changing the culture at Johns Hopkins Hospital. The chain of command has been flattened, and anyone on the staff can intervene on behalf of the patient’s well-being without fear of retribution. At Johns Hopkins, nurses such as Trujillo who circumvents the hierarchy will not find themselves publicly reprimanded and humiliated.

I highly recommend Dr. Pronovost’s book Safe Patients, Smart Hospitals. Pronovost, an anesthesiologist himself, tells the story of his confrontation with a surgeon in an operating room. The patient was having what Pronovost believed was a potentially fatal allergic reaction to the surgeon’s latex gloves. The surgeon repeatedly refused to change his gloves until Pronovost instructed a nurse to page the hospital’s president.

Why would a surgeon put his patient at risk? Pronovost writes candidly that we doctors are “trained to believe that we don’t have to follow the rules or ask for anyone’s help. We are the smartest people in the room and can figure out any problem on our own.”

It is not just doctors who are to blame, cautions Pronovost. Poor communication and lousy teamwork are problems at every level of healthcare, from administrative assistants to top executives.

Pronovost’s diagnose is that a “toxic culture … is at the core of most hospital errors.” The false belief behind this culture—that doctors should not be questioned—discourages doctors from either questioning themselves or seeking advice from others.

Sadly, as the Trujillo case indicates, despite the work of Pronovost and others, many hospitals are still stuck in the dark ages: The comfort of the stereotypical arrogant doctor comes before patient safety.

Human arrogance is not limited to doctors. Arrogance can be found in any occupation and in all positions of leadership. It compromises our health, it compromises the health of our organizations, and it compromises the economic health of our nation.

Later that day, Hartford appeared in the offices of Hometown Energy and offered the title to his sixteen-year-old Lincoln Town Car in exchange for oil.

I’ll tell you the outcome of the story later in the post, but first I want to relate a seemingly unrelated story. Recently, I was on the light rail traveling into Baltimore from the Baltimore-Washington airport.  As the train pulled into one of the suburban stations, I noticed one worker with a leaf blower clearing away an inconsequential amount of fall leaves that had not yet blown away on their own.

The leaves were so few that had I not seen the leaf blower I would not have noticed the leaves. What was even more curious about the scene was the other two workers standing around watching as the one leaf blower cleared the trivial amount of leaves.

When we read a story of suffering, such as the Hartford’s struggle to survive the cold Maine winter, we wonder what is the cause of the suffering and how can we help alleviate the suffering? Often, how we phrase our questions leads us to solutions that are rooted in the same level of understanding that helped to create the problem.

We may, for example, believe the problem is poverty and that government can provide an easy solution by expanding energy assistance programs so that individuals such as the Hartfords do not go cold. I offer the leaf blower example to explain why government assistance for individuals like the Hartfords is not a very good way to use our money. Government programs will be administered by an ever-growing bureaucracy that will eventually take away the majority of dollars involuntarily contributed by the taxpayer. Government bureaucracies simply are incapable of running efficiently, and taxpayers understand this.

Perhaps you believe the answer is to fund government research programs dedicated to reducing the cost of energy or to finding alternative sources of energy. On the surface, this may sound promising. Yet, for hundreds of years the cost of energy has been falling in real terms. Matt Ridley, in his brilliant book The Rational Optimist, reminds us of just how far energy prices have fallen. In the 1800s, the cost of one tallow candle burning for one hour was the average laborer’s income from six hours of work. As far back as Babylonia, artificial light came from sesame oil lamps; the cost of one hour of light was equal to the cost of 50 work hours of the average laborer. Today one hour of lighting costs the average worker about one-half second of work. It is easy to see why for centuries, until kerosene lamps became commonplace, most homes had no light in the evening other than what came from the hearth fire.

Often, people are incredulous when they hear these numbers. Some may lack a basic knowledge of history; seeing rising prices at the gas pump, they simply cannot believe that energy prices are a fraction of what they once were.

Through the market process, entrepreneurs have discovered new ways to lower energy prices; but many believe discoveries will come quicker if the government picks winners from among the competitors. Government subsidies have given us destructive, immoral, and costly programs such as ethanol and nuclear power. (Yes, nuclear power is a creation of government.  See my posts General Electric’s Immorality and Nuclear Politicians)

If the answer is not government assistance or government research to lower the price of energy, what can be done to help suffering individuals such as Hartford?

When Hartford showed up at Libby’s office with the title to his car, an office worker made a call. She called an individual in the community who had previously offered to pay for oil for those in need. The individual did not hesitate: “Deliver the oil, and I’ll pay for it” was the response.

Yes, community action is what is called for. There is no bureaucracy siphoning off your hard-earned dollars, and you can be sure that the money is going where it is needed.

When you give through your community, you feel viscerally your connection with your fellow man. And your actions help prove that those who claim that only government can save the hungry and the cold, understand neither human nature nor the nature of government.