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.

The mentally ill proves you wrong. ,Further many people are marginal where losing a paycheck means being on the streets..

As it stands now there are going to be millions more lhomeless when the mortoriums end.

What the fk dont u Boyz get...the dream is over..america aint rich no more.. it is back to the Robber Barons small MC and large working poor class.

And if you do not have a broad based MC to be consumers the GEOS is done..lights out..you need lots of consumption to keep the muzak playing..

The stupid fks dont even know that they are dead.

He didn’t ask about charity, he asked if anyone had helped the needy.

tell me more about the profiting part - who & how?

Are you familiar with what the word "charity" means?

Yes, and you can help the needy without giving them charity.

Graphs and charts are great, but most folks don't understand the data behind them, or do not want to.
For example, the specific HOUSEHOLDS that make up each quintile changes from year to year. its easy to assume that some body is in the top 20% but that is not the way it works. Over the course of a long and varied career I have been in and out of that bracket a number of times, and now, retired I certainly am not there. But please don't worry too much about me, I'm fine here.

char•i•ty chăr′ĭ-tē►
n. Provision of help or relief to the poor; almsgiving.
n. Something given to help the needy; alms.
n. An institution, organization, or fund established to help the needy.

Glad to help Patrick

A little help to broaden your thinking Tobra.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1626334189.jpg

Just this week I have a guy who is working for me who can't work a regular job due to medical issues. He needed an income and was able to work at inconsistent hours. I need help around here but have no need for a 9 to 5, 5 days a week employee, so we work it out. He can't find this situation anywhere else, but the job is a transaction, not charity.
This week his left front brake hose sprang a leak. He was caught in a typical downward spiral of poverty. He couldn't afford $25 for a brake hose so he bought brake fluid at $5 a quart and poured $10 worth of brake fluid through the truck in a day to keep it going while saving a few bucks a day for the new hose. Another instance of everything is more expensive when you're poor.
Tuesday I bought the new hose and another suspension part for him ($60) and we jacked the truck up and installed them. He owes me $60 bucks for the parts and is paying back $10 a day.
The guy was definitely in need. I helped him, but I don't look at it as charity because he's paying me back.
Bottom line I got to help someone who needed help and he got to get his truck fixed while maintaining his self esteem by not being a charity case. Win win.

wd,

what you did for this guy was better than charity. Unless they are a real deadbeat, nobody likes accepting charity.

^^^^ Yep. Sometimes the less fortunate just need a hand held out ... not a handout.

Income mobility (or social mobility)

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-decline-of-upward-mobility-in-one-chart/

Good story and well done. With that in mind then yes I have helped the needy. The point of my original statement was that whether it's true charity or a helping hand the deed is it's own reward. So let's leave it there. Cool? Don't make me pull this car over!

i call bull****. you've read a huffpo summary of atlas shrugged and are trying to bluff your way through. and i doubt keynes and marx as well.

Pretty much exactly the opposite.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/john-maynard-keynes-keynesian.asp

https://www.thebalance.com/keynesian-economics-theory-definition-4159776

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1626380925.jpg

I can recommend this website:

https://thebestschools.org/features/top-economists-1900-to-present/

Help or relief can't be a loan?

How close minded of you.

How do you maintain your level of anger? It is pretty impressive I must concede.

Mine as well. A lot of that is based on the side of my family that lived in the Central Valley.

I have read all of his major works and many of his lesser works.

However: https://reason.com/2011/04/04/sorry-charley-2/

The problem I have with using Steinbeck as an allegory to today's seeming dystopia, is that I never felt a sense of dread when reading any of his novels. Quite the opposite. Even when he paints a landscape as seemingly dreary as the ones in Tortilla Flats or The Pearl, there is hope in the narrative.
ALWAYS hope in the narrative.

I feel a more suitable narrator of today's world would be more of a Chuck Palahniuk, George Orwell or even Paul Theroux with his novel The O Zone...

Maybe Nevil Shute if you really think we are closing shop as a civilization.

Not Steinbeck. Not to me anyway.

Spot on Sammy. The people that want change change their lives. There are people but neither you nor I will change it. They need to want it. Mike Lindell (my pillow) and David Goggin's are two examples.

I dunno "grapes of wrath " or "in dubious battle" pretty much wind down to nothingness. Hopeless nothingness. I see no hope in either of those novels.

I find Steinbeck depressing as heck in some of his writing so I have to disagree on that aspect, but it is a personal interpretation.

But then, when I pick up something like Tortilla Flats (I disagree with you on this one too - this is an example of the humorous Steinbeck) or Cannery Row - I see the other side of this magnificent author.

East of Eden is his most elegant and complex work but The Winter of Our Discontent is my personal favourite.