There has to be some valuing: ie, there’s always some construction of life that is shared reality. (Which is why culture shock can be so strong.) So there’s some underlying cohesive social philosophy – even no philosophy is philosophical, because it means a certain amount of tolerance for the crazy person next door. (Why “they hate our freedom” has any meaning in our context.)

I imagine that you’re right: setting out to influence the populace isn’t necessarily going to go off the way you choose it to, and that the culture has to have momentum in the direction you’re pointing it.

It’d be really hard to change our concept of property to the Vietnamese concept (which would look to us like utilitarian squatters rights), because we’re so far away, for example. (On the other hand, given enough discontent massive, massive social change can happen pretty quickly.)

Napoleon may very well have been less powerful than the Russian populace, especially to Tolstoy, and quite possibly was just a reaction to the French populace: I doubt very much George Bush is influencing hearts and minds the way he intends, although he’s certainly changed things pretty extremely in the dialogue about what we value. I think very often politicians have very little cultural effect: they’re uncool. They’re symptoms, not the disease. We vote for who appears least crazy given a particular cultural understanding: the Yogic Flyers didn’t have the majority. Even in totalitarian systems, the only thing generally preventing mass uprising is fear of the populace balance with just enough propaganda to keep things going.

But the fringes introduce ideas that make their way into the mainstream, especially with effective marketing. If you couldn’t direct public attention, then advertising would be a lost cause. Granted, there are better and worse marketers and less and more effective ad campaigns. Sometimes your “ad” might be Repent Sinner stickers all over Vancouver, and sometimes they’re lifestyle ads – hippies, Goths, and punks, for example, all had underlying philosophies of being, and advertised through their members. A brand, I suppose.

Some of it stuns me that it’s effective given how outside the dialogue it looks (Scientology I find quite remarkable and goes much farther than anything I can construct), but there’s a critical mass of acceptance that makes something no longer “crazy talk”. The very presence of Scientology changes the dialogue about faith to everyone else on the block – bringing a new religion to the party that is based on concepts of self-realization or -actualization suddenly makes those things spiritual concepts, not just secular, psychological ones. That will eventually affect the dialogue of Baptists and Catholics, even if they just get more communitarian and old-school

Interestingly, both Scientology and the Austrian school, philosophies of the individual, got really influential through the 80s. I wonder if the panic of the cold war constructed distrust of heroes and ideology. There’s a neat thesis. Although the 60s were obviously already moving us that direction, on the fringe.

In capitalist terms, the best anyone can do is decide and work and speak, and let the “intellectual marketplace” decide. But everyone is buying something, and I think it’s worthwhile to examine what’s being bought. It helps us be clearer on what why we have a given… “brand loyalty”.

I was reading that George Bush believes that great men influence the course of history, and he takes strength from that as he surveys the cluster*&%! that is Iraq. There’s something to be said for that idea. Change Bush and Iraq to Churchill and Great Britain in 1940 and you can spin the great man idea more positively.

The same article pointed out that Leo Tolstoy dismissed the influence of the great man Napoleon as inconsequential when faced with the herd that was the Russian populace.

I’m not sure which is the right interpretation.

I’m sure that groups of people try to improve our systems, be they economic, legal or whatever. and I’m sure that they have a positive effect, overall (even with the road to Hell paved with good intentions effect taken into account). But I think they’re starting with a living, seething mass of everything from soup to nuts, and encompassing both good and evil. I think that they are small, disparate groups with different motives and agendas, and I don’t think there are blueprints.

Is there always a philosophy behind the curtain to interrogate? That’s an interesting question.

I’m not discounting herd mentality. You don’t need to tell me its science. I get that. You don’t need to prove to me that demand can be manufactured. I get that too. I understand that flocking is considered to be a powerful force in decision making. We both know and accept that.

And I understand that you can’t get to all the people that a big advertiser does, and you can’t influence them all.

But you can influence somebody. And I’d recommend that you do what you can instead of worry about what you can’t. (Yeah, I could be wrong and lacking in faith). That’s what draws me to real estate.

What I don’t buy is the idea that we’re going to change the rules of the big game, or that we’re going to adjust the game so that the flaws don’t cause us pain.

I think you can imagine that I don’t apportion responsibility to anyone for the abuse of credit. I really don’t even spend much time thinking of it as abuse. People have money they want to lend, and people want to borrow it. They’re going to do it. That’s freedom. It can be dangerous. What’s the point of blaming anyone?

But, if you don’t want to suffer the consequences, as an individual, you better take control of your situation, because if you let someone else make your decision for you (or let flocking control your decision), they may as well stick a fork in you and turn you over.

That is, perhaps where you and I aren’t seeing quite eye to eye. I can’t see much point in talking about fundamental flaws in the game, because I don’t think it was ever designed or constructed. Our rules of engagement change (some would say “continually evolve”) all the time, which is why I said that the goalposts are always getting moved. But they do so almost organically (which might be my way of saying I can’t decipher a larger hand guiding the operation).

In other words, you seem to be criticising the brains behind the operation.

I’m not certain its a brains operation, period.

I agree that the economy is in large measure an agreed upon fiction, and not gauranteed. I don’t believe there is a wizard behind the curtain. But I like your thinking.

“You can’t pay your Mastercard off with your Visa. It doesn’t work.”
Indeed, it doesn’t. It’s a stalling tactic used by some; and the HELOC makes the stalling window go longer.

“At the root of things, I think you and I probably have different ideas about free will.”

Well, I can prove social psychology, mob mentality, game theory, and the fact that demand can be manufactured. I also believe that if you want to, you can examine what direction you’re flocking in and wander a different path, which I think is what all our great people have done, and is the very essence of greatness and freedom, usually at personal social cost but well worth it.

But I can show “flocking” as a powerful force in decision making. That’s not belief but science.

For an easy example, 100 years ago it was an accepted truth in some places that certain people were morally justified in owning other people; those who stepped outside the flock could exercise free and independent will, but many who were going along with it simply accepted it/didn’t think about it because it just was.

I don’t believe this: “Oh, well. People choose to value things differently, and we’re individually choosing that slavery is bad now in the main (because we’re nicer or smarter or more educated than our great-grandparents?), and we’re probably not making similarly large mistakes as they were.”

Is that what you mean by my different “opinion” on free will?
——————————————

However, I understand and accept that you don’t think the cliff is coming, that this isn’t a particular culture of ownership over savings, that money being a psychological flash point for things (how we value) is something we needn’t think about in culture because hey! the flock is going there! (water more expensive gas is) – although I assume you make some sort of nod to the fact that advertising works – and that credit isn’t being abused.

I can accept that you don’t think that cliff is coming.

Your second argument is subtextual, and I may be getting it wrong. Otherwise I would ask you to think on your true commitment to it. I am hearing this: “If credit is being widely abused, even if it is systemic, the problem still lies primarily with the individual.”
I would question your commitment to blame the individual and not our rules of engagement. Because economic depression would effect us all; and total destabilization leads to a very different way of constructing society. One which is very much more Darwinian. Desperate times, desperate measures.
This economy is just the way we’re currently agreeing to live together, and it is not guaranteed. If there were an issue with credit, where the majority or a substantial minority of individuals in a game were unable to follow the rules of the game in a way that meant the game descends to chaos, then the game was not constructed with the humans in mind and is fundamentally flawed.

Thanks for the response. I’m not trying to be a psychologist. Maybe we’re both not hearing each other.

I’ll try to be clearer. If you’re doing what you want to do because you want it, I’m supportive of you. If you’re doing what some salesman or corporation wants you to do, then I think you’re doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons. We both know that each of us defines our own win. Its not a case of he who dies with the most toys wins. Great bumper sticker. Bad life plan.

But when you give credence to the excuse that “you’re supposed to do this or that”, and that’s why someone is in debt that they can’t support, I see a white flag going up. Whether you act that way yourself, or simply watch people you know do it, doesn’t matter to me. At the root of things, I think you and I probably have different ideas about free will

Anyway, I’m not implying that you’re not a winner. Tell me you’re doing what you want because you want it after looking at the big picture and bingo, you’re a winner in my books.

It is about you to the the extent that I understood that you actually spoke to people who are paying day to day expenses on credit. If that’s the case I maintain that you should advise those people to stop. That’s the extent of my criticism of you. If you’re just making up an example, then forget the criticism. Its not valid.

As a hypothesis, the idea that people are funding day to day consumerism on credit concerns me, but not overly. I don’t think we’re seeing any long term culture change. Debts have to be paid. You can’t pay your Mastercard off with your Visa. It doesn’t work.

I’m standing firm: the money of deals aren’t subjective. I think you’re confusing other issues there, and I base that on you saying “…many condo owners seem to think $3000 for a 700 sq. foot two bedroom is fair. They’re making $1800 for the same look like a deal. It’s not”. If the numbers work, they work. Period. But they have to work for each side. Its like the Nikoley article where he says there are two sides to every purchase. People do confuse the money aspect with the subjective aspect, but its worth learning to separate the two. The renter can say “Sorry, neither $3,000 nor $1,800 work for me. You eat your paper equity gain, slumlord specuvestor, because I’m taking my dollars and leaving Yaletown. Fair enough?”

SO, I’d argue that whether you think $1,800 is a deal because other people are paying $3,000 for the same thing is just opinion. Do you think coffee or bottled water should cost more than gas? It does, because people think its fair.

I don’t evict people nowadays because the economy is strong. I don’t think its because of a culture shift. Unsupportable credit doesn’t last that long. Which came first, strong economy, or credit? Or, more to the point, does credit mask a weakness in the economy? Judging from the amount of actual work being done, I don;t think so.

Its late

I have used examples people may relate to both personal and media related, but I’m making a larger observation than “my personal situation”. It’s interesting, though, because you sort of proved my pudding: by making it about me, you contributed to the dialogue of me making it. Sort of meta, that.

Here’s me for real: when I started reading housing blogs, it was because I watched the market take off and wondered what that meant about me. Now, I’m reading because we’re living in “interesting times”. I think recession is a storm a looming, and I’m watching it to see if I should bring the chickens in.

I thought this was a rather more interesting conversation, and was suggesting that looking at the current cultural dialogue about money and credit can give a rather larger scale picture about how people are valuing purchase decisions. Market forces as, in part, an aggregate of individual consumer psychologies.

Unfortunately, money deals are often subjective to the players. Different cultures play games for money differently. There are numerous behavioral studies on game theory, asymmetrical and otherwise, which show different strategies based on different logical paradigms and different constructions of win.

In other words, whether or not you or I agree on what “winning” is, there are a myriad of definitions. The economy is rocked by popular movements and fads. I’m suggesting that “no one’s being evicted” means very little in a culture where groceries on line of credit is increasingly accepted, because there is fundamentally a different understanding going on from anything I or you or our grandparents would have accepted.

Let’s pretend, for a second, that there’s a possibility that I’m right; that the middle and lower classes are using credit more extravagantly (because people keep offering it). To buy groceries, say. Regardless of whether or not you or I think they should, or that’s the right idea: it’s accessible, there’s more than they can afford and people keep telling them it’s “cheap”, they’re being okayed up the wazoo, and they’re believing a certain amount of consumerism is expected.

Is this a problem to the greater economy or no?

Is this a problem in the dialogue around money and credit or no?

Very well to say it’s an individual’s choice, but the house is laying down the rules in legislation and taxation and talk. I’m not someone who believes in hand wringing while the economy goes into the toilet.

If people are maximize to win on stuff (house tv and christmas) rather than on value, and if it’s happening on a massive, massive scale, I’m suggesting that could be a Really. Big. Issue. to the economy.

Sorry! You gotta phone me first and explain the joke next time…I’m slow that way

Aetakeao:

I can see where you’re coming from, and I sympathize, but you’re not making an argument. You’re expressing frustration.

I hesitate to give parenting advice (there’s a lotta downside there ) Be a good parent, absolutely. Teach your kids how to win this game called life with the tools that they have. You’ll do that better by improving your own toolbox, obviously. It will help if you get a workable definition of “win”. But life has always been a struggle, and it always will be. Its all based on moving goalposts. Consumerism and advertising and the struggle for the almighty buck aren’t going anywhere. Its always going to cost a lot to buy a house in Vancouver. Those challenges are going to exist regardless of your opinion of them.

Money deals aren’t subjective. If I bump rent $300 and get takers, its because the investment has to pay, and the market (renters and owners) recognize it. Call the $3,000/month and the $1,800 per month bad deals, but where do you plan to put your kids’ Christmas tree? We’re all in this together, and none of us is likley to settle for less (Have CUPE and CoV settled yet? But it’s not about money, right?)

I could go on and on. The point is, if you wanna fight the Man you gotta drop the gloves and it starts with you. Spend less, earn more, and buy your freedom instead of a flat screen TV. If renting makes sense to you now, after evaluating the big picture, keep doing it. Personally, I’d recommend renting as a step to owning, and I’d argue that owning always beats renting, but that you have to pick your spot. I would (and did) sacrifice to own. Paying rent so that you can live on the Westside, have nice clothes, a nice car and nice presents under the tree sounds like a bad plan for me, but hey, its just one man’s opinion and I could be completely wrong.