Steinbeck Era Redux
 

All these posts I see here re: homelessness in San Fran et al, shoplifters, "lazy people" outrage from the comfortably situated.

All the bitterness, anger here and everywhere by everyone.

I can't help but recall some of Steinbeck's stuff "Grapes of Wrath", "In Dubious Battle".

Also, can't help but thinking where my sympathies inevitably lie when I read those novels.

John Dos Passos did an even more comprehensive job of capturing that era indelibly, for me in his un-novels, the USA trilogy.

John Maynard Keynes - basically the father of capitalist economic thinking.

Less understood (check out the excellent discussion of Keynes by Robert Skidelsky), Keynes could see that capitalism was akin to a Faustian deal to advance human society.

He recognized that capitalism rewarded the worst of human motivations but he wrongly assumed that when people became sufficiently wealthy they would become sated with assets and thereafter wealth would become equally shared.

He foresaw a world where everyone would work 8 hour work weeks due to the technological advances capitalism would produce by way of rewarding human ingenuity and greed.

Keynes was mostly right about the advancement and greed part - he was just magnificently wrong about the "sated" part.

So, today we live in a world of immense inequality. And we are surprised about anger and scofflaw behavior?

Toss away your virtue laden Ayn Rand, pick up some Dos Passos or some Steinbeck to gain a better understanding of our world.

This is entirely Atlas Shrugged.

Correct - the virtuous like to believe that they can somehow force Rand's virtuous, utopian view, good luck with that - that's about as likely to happen as Karl Marx's communist utopian view.

Remember - Karl Marx was amongst the most respected economists of his era. Rand was just a dreamer detached from reality of her era.

You might try reading one of her books. The fact that you think libertarian ideas can be forced on others show you never have.

Well, I have read Atlas Shrugged.

I recall that she envisions a world where "virtuous" hard working people feel themselves trapped in a dystopian world of lazy ****heads.

The characters and themes are basically as complex as good guys and bad guys on the Batman TV series.

Anyway, the "good guys" become so frustrated that they chose, surreptitiously, to live in a (ironically - did you notice?) communistic society of elites who, collectively live like plebes gardening and so on, swapping meagre elements of production.

They all live happily ever after swapping tomatoes and leather gloves.

Ayn Rand makes a model of libertarian life? Be a hermit and happy with a great garden knowing that no lazy dip**** is taking advantage of your hard work?

And somehow no element of competition exists amongst these libertarian elites?

They are quite content to exchange their intellectual gifts and production with each other with no interest in competitive advantage?

Dream on Ayn Rand. Dream on a bit less Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes.

Anyway, my point was more tangible, not idealist or philosophic.

I'm just saying - it seems like we're possibly living in an age literally described so well by guys like Steinbeck and Dos Passos.

These are literary works of art based on socialogic realities - not some idealogy.

Steinbeck is one of my favorite authors. The way he develops characters, it’s like you know the people personally.
Rand tries to wrap story and characters around an ideology. Her characters are wooden and plots are simplistic.

You are a yeR late to the party..a 30 yr usmc vet wt 8 tours who is now a counselor told me that exodus from lv to back home was like the Grapes of Wrath. Where families were banding together and pooling resoures to get by.

Orwell and Huxley, not Steinbeck and Dos Passos.

We will have to agree to disagree on your assessment of Rand and Marx

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1626269073.jpg

Above is 2019 distribution of US household income. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44705.pdf Does not include in-kind assistance (food stamps, etc) or capital gains.

About 17% of US households have HH income < $25K/yr ($2K/mo).

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1626269338.jpg

Above is how income distribution has changed over the past 50+ years. Numbers are in 2019 dollars (i.e. inflation adjusted).

Bottom two-fifths of households have seen almost no income growth in 50 years, top one-fifth has seen almost all of the household income growth.

I’m with you Purry, I get so tired of overpriveleged ding-dongs deriding the less fortunate.

Does owning a Porsche get one defined as an overprivileged ding dong?

Are you sensitive?

I am.

Me too.

Comparing today's situations to that of the people who suffered during the great depression or dustbowl is a bit too much, don't you think?
I toned that down ... a lot. Much less harsh.



Question: how many of you have done something to personally help the needy?
Besides posting about it I mean.
Deeds, not words.

We cannot escape human nature. It is here to stay, regardless of how much one might want to pretend.
Things like greed and selfishness are unavoidable, so the system of capitalism uses them to benefit ALL people. Yes, the rising tide raises all ships.
All people benefit from a higher standard of living. ​

Capitalism is flawed but not nearly as much as other economic ideologies, where the GUBMINT has the power and control takes care of the GUBMINT (ruling elite) to the detriment of the peons.


The majority of homeless are living on the streets for a reason. Their poor life choices and their self-destructive behavior have put them on the streets. They are victims of themselves and you can't take "them" out of the equation.
It's THEIR fault and all the good feelings and BS good intentions won't change a thing except to drag others down with them. If anything, the well-intentioned foolishness of bleeding hearts has contributed to the problem.
Hey, let's make it profitable to be a ****-up and see if we get more ****-ups or less!
Stop paying people to be ****-ups, make it downright unpleasant and hard to be a homeless druggy and we will have less people living on the streets.
Make it easier on them, make all sorts of accommodations for them, let them do whatever the heck they want without repercussions, let them take over the streets or parks, make drugs more legal, reduce or eliminate criminal punishments, and we'll have hundreds of thousands of people living on the streets. JUST LIKE WE HAVE NOW!!!!!!!!!

Hey, maybe if we keep doing what makes it worse, it'll somehow get better!

So to you who are are incensed by these truths, a challenge: prove me wrong.
Go help a homeless person.
Face to face, pick them up and help them. Give them a place to stay indoors, feed them, clothe them, teach them how to get their act together.
Then let us all know how that works out. Let us all know how much that costs you and how jaded and disillusioned you become after the experience.


I still remember a time when I thought I could "fix" things.
​I tried to help people get back on their feet, get off the drugs, get a job, a place to stay, to get them meaning in their lives. To teach them what it took to be successful, to tech them wat good looks like.
Big mistake.
My good intentions were repaid by theft, lies, deceit, and damage to my family and friendships.

Deep down, addicts don't really want help. They don't want to get off the streets, they don't want a home, they want DRUGS. That's all they care about.
And then they want more drugs.
Go ahead, try to change that.
Prove me wrong.

SmileWavy
So there is at least one.

Ayn Rand thought the Atlases (creators) were in a valley in Colorado.

She was wrong - they are in a valley but it is south of San Francisco.

True charity is anonymous.

In Portland, this describes about a third of the homeless, and many of those are criminals as well (street drug addiction and crime go together). Another third are mentally ill, in some cases their homelessness is due to the mental illness and in other cases their mental illness is caused by the homelessness. And another third are low-skill, low-functioning, and low-luck but basically "normal" people, some of them are actually working but still have to live out of their cars. These are, of course, very rough numbers.

The problem locally is that our politicians and the "homeless-industrial-complex" refuse to recognize that we have different types of homeless who need to be handled differently. Some need to be confined in drug treatment and/or prison, others need to be institutionalized in mental health facilities, and others need financial, housing and job help. Honestly, a lot of people are profiting from things being as bad as they are.

A depressing number of housed people are teetering on the edge of homelessness. I've mentioned our friend, the older widow whose greatest fear is becoming homeless at 76 y/o. The clerk at one of the convenience stores I go to was living in his car for years while working full time. Many of the guys who pick up trash in the business district where I work were homeless before they got the job. These folks, if they do end up on the street, won't be noticeable because they'll do their best to keep up appearances, move their car from place to place, find places to wash and do laundry, and try to find their way back among the housed.

In many way, the US is a competitive, demanding, unforgiving place to live. That's great for us on this forum - most of you are among the most successful, skilled, tenacious people in America and thrive in a Darwinian world. Shouldn't mean we can't recognize that some people - not most people, a modest percentage, but still a large absolute number - are slipping and falling.