Once I Was A Liberal

No Good Choices
I wish I could convince myself that choices open to us in international affairs, and most other social/political issues, were good ones as well as bad ones, rather than just bad ones and worst ones. Faith in the optimistic liberalism that defined much of my life would be a pleasant respite from the reality I see in our future.

How I Became A Liberal
In 1960 I was in the Army stationed in Okinawa. That year I voted for the first time by absentee ballot for John Kennedy. I was inspired by Kennedy's "New Frontier" as were most young persons at that time. The “New Frontier” ideal, that social science could do for human societies what physical science did for technology, led me (after military service) to the Peace Corps in Peru and later to graduate work in geography and a position as professor at Ohio University. My area of specialization was Latin America and because I viewed poverty as the prime problem in that region my research interests were directed toward economic development. I firmly believed the New Frontier dream, that social science, and especially we geographers, would solve the problems of underdevelopment in Latin America and lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and into the good life. Those were heady days!

I soon became aware of the fact that most social scientists in Latin America subscribed to the communist/socialist model of development, and that that view was apparently shared by a significant share of social scientists in the U.S. My Peace Corps experience in Peru and research in other Latin America countries had convinced me that Latinos are extremely individualistic and undisciplined (to a much greater extent than people in the U.S), and that they never trust government to do anything, let alone everything. It was very hard to believe the communist/ socialist model could work in Latin America. Nonetheless, we had the example of the USSR that had "pulled itself up by it bootstraps" to achieve considerable development over a short period. If that model could be made to work in L.A., and given that there was little democracy and individual freedom to lose, I reasoned that the "forced-march" to economic development would be worth trying.

The Awakening
By 1980 it was clear to me (and I believe anyone willing to face reality) that Communism was an economic, social, political, and environmental disaster even in the relatively disciplined countries of Europe and Asia, and that there could be no hope for success in Latin America. Nevertheless, Latino and American social scientists did not change their opinions—indeed, they seemed to become more strident and militant in the face of evidence that their ideas were completely wrong. I found that baffling.

At a Latin Americanist geography meeting the prime-time session was on "The Alternative View of Development in L.A." Interestingly, no one spoke against the "alternative" (communist/socialist) view, nor did anyone point out that the “alternative” view was apparently the near universal view among Latin American social scientists and a large share of social scientists in the U.S. Comments from the floor by two of the most influential people in the field brought cheers from the panel and audience: One said "we say we oppose exploitation and here we are drinking coffee produced in Latin America;" (implying that importing coffee from L.A. constituted exploitation), and the other said: "The people of L.A. are poorer now than they were in 1950 when I first began to study that region." I was flabbergasted to hear those things from persons I respected. I went to the second individual (who had served on my dissertation committee) and told him that based on my short experience in Mexico in the late 1950's, it was my impression that most Mexicans were illiterate and dirt poor, and that is certainly not the case today. He said: "You don't know the half of it; when I first started working in L.A. most people were landless peasants just avoiding starvation…" "But, in the meeting you said …" I reminded him. "Oh hell, don't pay any attention to what people say at these silly meetings!"

Imagine my shock and indignation; I thought we were about the important business of economic development, and was told by one of the most prominent persons in the field that it is just a silly game. Could we be more concerned with spouting politically correct views than the important business of economic development? We all knew that suppression of communism had produced many conflicts in Latin America, including several wars in which many tens of thousands of people lost their lives. And, we knew that communist ideology was so disruptive in Latin American universities that graduation of most students were much delayed, sometimes by years by closures and protests, and that economic development in many countries had been set back a generation! Could we ignore that? Is it possible that we place our concerns for politically correct speech above the welfare of the people we purport to serve?

I attempted to begin a dialogue with a number of "liberals" who were espousing the communist/ socialist model. I felt that if we could write views on paper and give the other person time to think through the response, the shouting match could be replaced by rational thought. Not ONE of those persons ever responded to my attempts at dialogue. I cornered one guy at a meeting and asked him about a response: "Yeah, I'm going to get around to that," he said, and hurried away. I believe they were actually embarrassed by how silly their views were. For example: At one meeting one of them stated (to the cheers of fellow socialists) that "US investor's take more money out of L.A. than they take in!" No shit Sherlock; would businessmen put more money into their business than they take out? Some business! When a US businessman invests 10 million in L.A. he intends to take 100 million out over the coming couple of decades; after all, he could double his money in a bank over that period and with no work or risk at all! He will also have generated a billion dollars or so, most of which goes into the local economy in the form of rent, wages, and payment for raw materials, and none of which would have existed had the investment not been made. How can someone argue that Latin Americans would be better off without the 900 million in rent, wages, and payment for raw materials? What do you suppose the guy who made the silly statement (that they take more out than they take in) had to say to my response? He said nothing at all.

So, What The Hell Are We Doing?
I soon began to realize that we (social scientists) are not about the serious business of economic development, or anything else related to social problems. Most of the successful social scientists who did not espouse the "proper line" did not engage social issues at all. A bright colleague of mine spent most of his time studying barn types (and other cultural features in rural areas in Ohio) and made a hell-of-a career out of it, with many publications and even a documentary on PBS. He always advised me to stop "butting my head against the wall." Those people in the field who thought through the issues were just standing by, smiling down their noses like grammar teachers watching the antics of the children on the playground. But, I couldn't do that. The idea that my life's work had been trivialized by a political correctness so silly it could not be defended by the most convinced believers was too much to take.

During the 80's and 90's I witnessed the takeover of another branch of my field—study of the environment by “environmentalists”. We have now reached the point that most rational persons will stop listening after hearing the word "environmentalist." One colleague of mine told his students for 30 years that we would run out of oil (copper, iron ore, and other minerals) in 10 - 15 years. His evidence consisted of a table showing the amount of “known reserves” of various minerals and the number of years that reserve would last at the current rate of usage (in most cases 10 to 15 years). The definition of “known reserves” is clearly stated at the bottom of the table: Amount known to exist that can be extracted with current technology at the current price. Is there anyone who does not know that mining companies would have to be morons to develop reserves that cannot be sold over the next ten to fifteen years? Is there anyone who does not know that if there were a shortage, pressure for more efficient technology would promote a change in the method of extraction, or a substitute for that mineral would be developed, or the price would go up, bringing into production supplies that could not be produced at the lower price? Is there anyone who does not know that the real price of virtually all raw materials and other necessities has been declining since stone age times and (with a few exceptions, including petroleum) has declined to so small a percentage of total income that a doubling of the price would hardly be noticed? But never mind; we will run out of this or that in 10 to 15 years. My environmentalist colleague has had one hell-of-a following; his students almost worship him. Of course, for these kids 10 years is half a lifetime, and a few years from now they will dismiss their environmental "education" as a college fling, and my colleague will have a new group of kids to turn on. No harm done? The hell you say: The extremely important work of maintaining our environment and correcting problems requires serious science and lots of the taxpayer's money, both of which are made difficult or impossible by making "environmentalism" a silly game to turn on college students. Are we to ignore the real impact of their silliness? There is a terrible price to pay—not the least of which is trivialization of the field of study that has been at the center of my life's work.

Young Persons Need To Be Liberals
But, don’t get me wrong, I can certainly understand how and why college students are liberals. I can even understand the “angry young man” syndrome; that is, how a young person could assume that a Creator who allowed the evil to exist on this earth must be an evil God. I went through all that myself. I always encouraged my students to be liberals (idealistic); what could be more distasteful than a cynical young man or woman? I just suggested to them that they should not vote; most don’t get around to voting anyway, fortunately because they would almost certainly vote against their own self interests. Virtually every one of them would vote (if they did vote) to give the old folks (and anyone else with their hand out) even more health care, social security, and anything else anyone can come up with, to be charged to young workers and future taxpayers. Do you suppose the old folks would vote to reduce the social security taxes imposed on young workers, or vote to include young workers in their government paid health care program? How many old folks, who have thought about it, do not know those young workers who are paying their bills will not have those benefits when they reach age 65? Do you suppose they would favor allowing young workers to invest their social security taxes (or some portion of those taxes) in their own IRA’s (so that they would be able to collect some benefits from all the money they are paying into the system)?

I understand the selfless attitudes of young persons and the selfish attitudes of the old folks. What I find baffling is mature adults who continue to espouse the liberal view or continue to suffer the “angry young man” syndrome. Young persons believe the human condition is perfectible, or if not perfectible, at least greatly improvable. Haven’t mature persons been around long enough to know for sure that cannot happen? Haven’t they examined a colony of ants or bees and asked themselves if they would also enjoy marching around lock-step in perfect harmony doing their duty to the colony without the slightest notion of what it would be like to break ranks and be an individual (and screw things up)? Haven’t they been around long enough to know that free will guarantees that we will do evil as well as good—indeed, that good could not even exist in this world in the absence of evil? How could an older person believe there could be right without wrong, pleasure without heartache, fun without boredom, happiness without sadness, or for that matter up without down? In short I can understand young liberals—I was one! But I cannot understand how mature individuals could be liberals. How can they believe what they say they believe? Are they completely unaware of reality, or are they just putting us on? No, they are not unaware, and they are not just putting us on. They are intelligent, thoughtful, concerned individuals. So what does explain it? I’m baffled!

Liberals and the Economy
The Baby Boom generation around the world (born 1946-65), and most especially in the U.S. and other Western countries, has been the richest generation of people to have ever lived on this earth. Incredibly, they have not paid their own bills for health care, pensions, and other social programs, but have charged much of that to future tax payers. How does it come to pass that now as “senior” citizens, who (on average) have many times more wealth than workers paying the bills, they deserve to have taxpayer funded health care and pensions? Well, you say, those young workers will some day benefit from the government paid health care and pensions; after all, we have several trillion dollars in the Social Security Trust fund. Oh really? The Trust Fund balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other Trust Fund expenditures – but only in a bookkeeping sense. They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large Trust Fund balances, therefore, does not have any impact on the Government’s ability to pay benefits.

When the Social Security system was established the life expectancy in the U.S. was 67 years. That meant people would pay into the system for an average of 45 years or so and collect for an average of two years. Also there were fifteen persons paying into the system for each person receiving benefits. So we could have “social security” for a very small a price to individual workers. The government put all of that money into the general fund and spent it, and issued IOU’s (government bonds) to the Social Security Thrust Fund. If life expectancy and remained at 67 years (and at the time demographers believed that it would be impossible to substantially increase life expectancy), and the age structure had remained pyramidal. with a huge number of young workers and a tiny older population (but birth rates has already fallen drastically prior to implementation of Social Security), the Social Security “Pyramid Scheme” could have continued to provide a modest retirement to a small number of older persons with a very large number of young persons paying a small bill. But, life expectance in the U.S. is now approaching 80 so the average citizen will expect to receive benefits for 15 years. The Baby Boom from 1946 to 1965 postponed the collapse of Social Security for a generation. But now the number of workers paying into the system relative to the number collecting benefits has declined and will soon be three to one. Does someone believe that workers in the near future will (on average) be willing to pay a third of the (average) pension of each senior citizen? If not, payments could only be made by increasing the national debt. How long could that continue? Would young workers continue to believe they would collect their Social Security and Medicare in their old age? Do we suppose everyone is insane?

The socialist economies of Europe are currently in crisis because the amount of debt greatly exceeds the ability of taxpayers to pay those bills. Why? Will guess what; politicians, and most especially socialist politicians, are more than willing to give money to their constituents and charge that to future taxpayers. Are you surprised? Did they suppose the bill would never come due? Is there anyone who actually believes future tax payers in Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, and Italy, will be able to repay their national debt—or for that matter, continue to pay the interest on a debt that already exceeds the annual GDP of those countries and continues to grow rapidly? Is there any rational person on this earth who cannot understand that socialist politicians will provide benefits to their constituents in order to get them selves reelected and charge those benefits to future taxpayers? Don’t we know that politicians will continue to charge benefits to their constituents to future taxpayers even after it is clear that future taxpayers could not possibly pay that bill? Does someone believe socialist politicians will actually enact the austerity measures required to begin to address their debt problems—or believe people who have been pampered by socialism will be willing to accept those measures? Does someone think those bills will not have to be paid? Is there anything about the collapse of Western European socialism that surprises anyone? Are we deaf and blind; completely ignorant; unable to think for ourselves? I’m baffled!

As European countries face bankruptcy, liberals in the U.S. insist upon following their example. George W’s “compassionate conservatism” led him to add the prescription drug plan to Medicare at a time when it was clear that Medicare was already unsustainable. How is it that persons over 65 who have (on average) many times the wealth of young tax payers deserve to receive even more benefits from tax payers (or more correctly future tax payers)? George W responded to the 9/11 event with war; I applauded that. But, he decided he would charge the bill to future, rather than current, taxpayers. Why? Will guess what, your constituents won’t mind going to war if they don’t have to pay the bill. After winning the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in a couple of weeks with very little lose on our side, George W. decided to “rebuild” those countries and introduce democracy by winning the “hearts and minds” of people who hate our guts. After a decade of catastrophe we are finally pulling out of those countries as LOSERS! Johnson and Nixon did the same thing during the war in Viet Nam. We just charged the cost of the war to future tax payers—“Guns and Butter”, Johnson called it, and then went on to win the “hearts and minds” of those people who hate us. When the bill for the Viet Nam War came due our government knew there was no way tax payers would pay it; so they allowed inflation to reduce that debt to a fraction of what it had been. Remember the 12 percent interest rates on homes in the 70’s and 80’s (most of which went to cover the inflation rate)? Please don’t anyone think that was an easy way to pay our bills! For those of us who already owned a home and had a job that allowed income to keep up with inflation, the problem was minor. What about those people who needed to purchase a home? How about the workers in the housing industry who depended upon new homes being sold? How about the folks on fixed incomes? How about college students who saw their cost of education double? What share of the total population benefited (or were not hurt by) inflation during that period? How many of those were young persons who were (or will be) called upon to pay the bills?

We are told that the Social Security system is very efficient, costing only 1% of total receipts to administer the program and manage the trillions of dollars in the Social Security Thrust Fund. Hummm; how much should it cost to manage a pile of government IOU’s? Yes, we know there are some older persons who lack resources sufficient to pay for their own health care. So why do we not have means testing to determine which older persons actually need such help? Why not require recipients of Social Security to go to the Post Office and show a picture ID to collect their SS check next month? Notice that the dead people would not be able to do that and the millionaires wouldn’t bother. Oh, but what about those who elderly persons who are unable to drive or walk. Have them turn in a notarized statement by a doctor or caregiver stating that (with the assurance that any person who lies on that form will face a very large fine and possible prison time). The result would be many hundreds of millions of dollars in savings in one month; but of course people working for Social Security are not concerned with saving money—hell, it’s not their money!

Now we want to extend Medicare to the entire population. Okay, the thousand page document doesn’t spell that out, but we know that when the private insurance systems collapse the only alternative will be a single-payer government system. Do we suppose the government system will be more efficient? Will it be less costly? Will it be more accommodating to the user? Will it provide improved medical care? Is there any other government program that has ever been more efficient, less costly, more accommodating, or provided improved services? So, will this one be the first? Can any rational person buy into that? The Obama-care bill would force young persons to purchase health insurance (which most don’t need) in order to reduce the price of health care for elderly persons (who do need ample health care). Why? Will guess what; the old people vote and the young people mostly don’t vote, and when they do they vote in favor of passing out more goodies to the old folks (and anyone else with their hand out) because they are mostly liberals and idealistic.

We in the US are fortunate in that we can control our own currency (unlike Europeans who have a single currency). So, we can use inflation to reduce our national debt. However, the U.S. Treasury is now selling inflation protected bonds (called TIPS) that will pay a small rate plus inflation. I bought some of those because I expect inflation to hit 8 or 10 percent within a few years. But, if the government continues to issue TIPS they will not be able to use inflation to pay our national debt. Do you suppose politicians do not know that? So, why are they doing it? Do you suppose they just trying to kick the can down the road far enough to allow them to finish their own political career? Without the ability to use inflation to pay the bill, are we not in the same position that Greece is in right now? What do we hope to do? Do any politicians, and most especially socialist politicians, concern themselves about that?

Liberals And Current International Affairs
Military people always want to fight the last war; Consider the French in 1939 and their silly Maginot Line, and Civil War soldiers being mowed down by the thousands as the walked across fields toward enemy lines (after new rifles made defensive strategy superior to the strategy of attack). Similarly, we (liberals) are doing the same thing now, pretending the Islamic Fundamentalism movement is somehow akin to the Cold War we grew up with—a struggle of poor against rich, haves against have-nots, or socialism versus capitalism. It just takes a lucid moment to realize the enemy of Islamic Fundamentalism is not Capitalism or Christianity. If we were all Christian Fundamentalist they would have no problem with us. Their enemy is liberalism, individual liberty, freedom of speech, consumerism—in short, western material culture and secularism. They must lose because western culture moves at the speed of light on the airwaves and they cannot prevent their children from being exposed. It's like French bread: Everyone who has ever tasted it likes it and you just can't improve on it. There is nothing they can do to stop western material culture. And, there is nothing, short of mass suicide in the west, that we could do to stop it. (Although mass suicide in the west—a fertility rate well below replacement level—is already happening in Europe and may soon develop in the U.S.) Before this war against Islamic Fundamentalism is over we will be looking back with nostalgia at communism as a worthy adversary. The Communists didn't want to kill us; they didn't hate our culture and way of life, they wanted to share it! And, notwithstanding Regan's "Evil Empire" rhetoric, most of us respected their hopes and dreams of building a more just society. We just didn't think it would work and were not willing to give up our individual liberty to make the attempt.

Communism gave the world a century of respite from the age-old ethnic struggles humans have always faced. (Actually it began in 1800 with the French Revolution.) They gave us a powerful myth of commonness-of-kind among the world's poor and disenfranchised that temporarily suppressed ethnic warfare. (Standardized wages and unionism helped do that too, at a time when the majority of workers earned a standard hourly wage for a standard hour of work.) The demise of communism has returned the world to pre-Communism, when ethnic cleansing was a norm rather than an aberration. In ethnic war you don’t have a “Geneva Convention.” You must kill the children, or those children will grow up and kill you. There is no peace treaty until one side is totally without means to ever fight again. Could anyone be unaware of the fact that ethnic war is sweeping the world? Don’t we all know about Yugoslavia and Rwanda? Don’t we all know that “The Shinning Path” in Peru, and “Zapatistas” in Mexico were ethnically (rather than social class) oriented revolutionary movements? The multinational states build by capitalism versus communism are now disintegrating. Our celebration of "multiculturalism" is a wistful longing for peace and harmony in our country—and an attempt by "liberalism" to sustain the hope of a world where the primary battle is between rich and poor, rather than between people of different cultures.

But, most unfortunately, multiculturalism is not in God's plan. I don't say this because I want ethnic war or because I do not want people of differing cultures to live in peace. I say this because the evidence tells me it is true. If I could find some evidence that it is not true I would be happy to discard this belief; and, if not believing it would help to make it untrue, I would happily stop believing. Unfortunately, the truth will remain true whether we choose to believe it or not. Politically correct thinking does not change anything! In those countries where ethnic groups are mostly spatially separated (as in Canada) ethnic war can be avoided by territorial division. Unhappily that cannot be done in our country (nor European countries where there is a substantial Islamic population that is severely discriminated against with no attempt at integration). Unfortunately for native Europeans, the Islamic people are having children and the natives are not, so the percent Islamic will increase dramatically over the next couple of decades. If the natives think that when the Islamic population becomes the majority of youth and working age persons they will continue to receive their government pensions and medical care, they just haven’t thought about it very much.

Intolerance Works
In the past, the dominant English culture forced integration of immigrants from other cultural groups by intolerance and discrimination. All those groups who could join the dominant culture, including Germans, Italians, and Eastern Europeans, who would have otherwise outnumbered the English, did join, and mostly disregarded their native language and cultural values. My grandmother was a first generation American of German decent who had learned to speak German as a child, but my father and his brothers refused to learn German and completely disregarded their German heritage. Being German in the twenties as not a popular position. I remember one of my Dad’s brothers who served with Patton in Africa and Europe coming home from the war and telling his war stories. My grandmother would sometimes protest: “Those are my cousins you are talking about” she would say. I shall never forget his response: “I wouldn’t give a nickel for a damn German!”

Blacks were excluded from integration by racism, and indeed they are a racial rather than ethnic group. Segregated life in the ghetto has produced a culture of poverty and crime; that is something the vast majority of Blacks want to shed, notwithstanding the Black "leaders" use of it to maintain solidarity. Similarly, for any Mexican-American with a nickel's worth of brains the Tex-Mex culture of Mexican labor camps is something to get rid of rather than celebrate. (Incredibly, some politically correct people in universities want to teach Tex-Mex language! To whom? For what purpose? ) The U.S. will also face a serious ethnic problem inasmuch as our immigrant population has much higher fertility than do natives and will continue to increase as a percentage of the total population . Our “si queres hablar español oprima el dos” multiculturalism has produced a population of Hispanics who have lived in this country for decades and cannot say more than a couple of words in English. Inability to speak English virtually guarantees that they will be unable to escape poverty and discrimination. They can thank the politically correct for that (that is the absence of intolerance). Of course, the children of Hispanic immigrants will learn the language of their peers in school and speak it as native Americans—unless the politically correct liberals are able to impose multi-lingual programs in schools. Teach them in Spanish as children and they will never learn standard English and will be condemned to poverty and discrimination for the rest of their life. Is that a small price to pay for politically correctness?

Several years ago I taught an off-campus evening course for K-12 principals funded by the Department of Education. The Department of Education paid me a handsome salary and paid all the participants for their time as well. The purpose of the course was to convince those school administrators that they should promote multi-lingual education. The first day one school principal stood and said: “I immigrated to this country from Greece and went to grammar school without knowing any English, but I learned English in a few months and I believe the struggle caused me to be a stronger person and a much better student. Furthermore the fact that I had two cultures and languages gave me a feeling of superiority and caused me to excel among my peers.” Of course, I responded, kids can learn a second language easily and perfectly in a few months, unless you try to teach it to them, and speaking two languages is like living two lives. “Then,” he said, “why are we doing this?” Because the Department of Education is paying us to do it! That got a big laugh from almost all participants. Actually there was one person who took exception. She stated that “it is not fair” that Hispanic students had to begin grammar school without knowing how to speak English. So, what do you recommend? “We should teach them is Spanish”. If we do that they will never learn to speak English without an accent, and that would condemn them to a life of poverty in this country. “It’s just not fair,” she replied. No; it really isn’t fair; indeed life is not fair! She must have been a liberal! Notwithstanding that individual, we didn’t deal with multi-lingual education again in that course; I just taught my standard course on Latin America. Fortunately (for me), the Department of Education really doesn’t bother to check or even care about what is taught in those “multicultural” courses; after all, it’s not their money!

The Coming Ethnic War
I fear we have not seen the worse of Islamic Fundamentalism. They won't be able to sustain it over the long term. They can't continue the subjection of women to the status of domestic animals and the poverty that is the only thing their system can only produce (absent oil wealth). But, they will probably "tear off an arm or a leg" before they go down. A dirty nuc in a shipping container in New York or LA … harbor, should be expected. And, I firmly believe they react to weakness—not strength. Can anyone seriously believe that they will "like" us or "feel sorry for us" if we show weakness; Good Lord! We are currently paying the price for Carter's whining and pleading over the "hostages" in Iran. That gave the Islamic Fundamentalists the notion that we could be defeated; that is, Carter gave them the notion that we were pitiful cowards who would not use our weapons against them. Is there anyone in Iran that doesn’t know the U.S. could destroy their country and kill most of the people in one day? The Iranian students also proposed to take the Russian Embassy; the Russians told Iran that if they took the Russian Embassy they would bomb Teheran. What do you suppose the Iranians did? They called out the police to prevent the students from taking the Russian Embassy. Was anyone surprised?

The Iranians were better off with the Russian ultimatum. It is most unfortunate, both for us and mostly for them, that they were not given that ultimatum by Carter. The result is that we are locked into a contest that they will eventually lose, but will probably cost us many tens of thousands of lives and billions of dollars. Is there someone who does not understand this? Did Carter actually believe his whining could have produced peace, or did he just want to postpone the war until he was out of office?

They can't win—forced Islamic (Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, etc.) fundamentalism is incompatible with individual liberty and consumerism which people everywhere now hold dear. If we allow them to get a good hit on us, we will get pissed off, and that will be very bad for them. Liberalism means nothing when someone is killing your children! If we allow that day to come they will be in for a serious war. Let's state it very clearly: If they ever pose a serious threat to our families and way of life we will use nuclear weapons to destroy them—the whole 1.5 billion Islamic people if that's what it takes. They had better hope their war ends sooner rather than later.

The U.S. is just a couple of decades behind Europe in the lowered birth rate and increased immigration issues. Fertility among native Americans is now approaching replacement level, and will soon drop below replacement level. Hispanics are having children. They are already approaching majority status in some southwestern States. Thank God they are mostly Christian rather than Muslims; perhaps our ethnic war will not be as terrible as the one facing Europe. But it will be an ethnic war!

If Not A Liberal I Must Be A Conservative
We live in a time when social and political issues are presented in black and white. One must either be “pro-choice”, that is, in favor of abortion on demand, even in the case of a full-term baby, and even paid for by taxpayer’s who oppose abortion; or “pro-life”, that is, opposed abortion even during the first few weeks of pregnancy, even in the case of rape or incest, even if the child will be mentally or physically impaired, and sometimes even if the health of the mother is at risk. One must favor all tax cuts, even those benefiting only multi-millionaires and their heirs, or be opposed to all tax cuts, even if those cuts stimulate the economy sufficiently to increase total government revenue. In fact, the vast majority of Americans do not agree with either extreme position on these and most other issues (or wouldn’t if they ever noticed a choice other than one of the extremes). In the university community we often have “both sides” of an issue presented by extremists in order to achieve a “balanced view;” as if two piles of shit sums to something other than shit!

Consider the following questions: Do concealed weapons permit laws reduce or increase the crime rate or the number of gun related deaths? Are persons under the age of 18 best served by laws requiring parental consent for abortion? Should school children have full access to the internet at school or in the library? Are minority persons best served by affirmative action quotas for college enrollment and jobs? Will “thinning” the old growth forests in our National Forests and other public lands increase the probability that they will survive the next fire season? Is the apparent increase in temperatures the result of burning fossil fuels and can it be reversed by reducing the use of those fuels? And, so on. How could I possible know the correct answers to all these questions? I have not conducted primary research on these issues. I have read some of the literature, but I know much or most of that research is biased by predetermined political positions of the researchers. I don’t know the correct answers, but it would be absolutely incredible to me if someone could divine the correct answers to those and all other social questions on the basis of which way their knee jerks.

Rejecting liberalism does not make me a conservative! Conservatives are as out of touch with reality as liberals. Take just one recent example: Republicans are blocking attempts to reduce the budget deficit by rejecting any form of tax increase, including tax increases on millionaires and billionaires. “If we raise their taxes they won’t create jobs,” we are told. Economics 101: Businessmen hire an additional worker when the return on that worker will exceed the cost (wages, benefits, and administrative costs). Businessmen hire more workers in order to make MORE MONEY, NOT LESS MONEY! They do not hire additional workers because they have extra money (because they pay less taxes). In my opinion, excessive amounts of wealth is more likely to cause such persons to be less efficient and less thoughtful about their business. I have known a few millionaires in my life but all but one had inherited their wealth rather than earned it. Those persons were among the most pitiful and worthless individuals I have ever met. Such persons, absent their wealth, would almost certainly commit suicide or just collapse and cry. Obviously, those who had earned their wealth, if suddenly broke, would go out and earn another million or so. But, God help their children!

Yes, I favor increasing the tax rate on wealthy persons. And a very large tax on inherited wealth—too bad there are not more like Carnegie who told his kids to get off their asses and get to work because they would not inherit anything! And yes, I object to the fact that fully half of wage earners in our country pay no taxes at all. Why? Because they are not in the game; they have no incentive to vote for political leaders who will use our tax money wisely! No, I’m not a liberal, and No, I am not a conservative! I have a brain and I intend to use it!

Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion”;
Being A Poison Pen Letter To A Friend Regarding That Book.

As I told you I read Dawkins’ “Climbing Mount Improbable” in which he explains why arguments against evolution are invalid. He uses the analogy of standing before a vertical cliff and wondering how some lifeform managed to “jump” to the top (for example, evolution of the eye appears to have been an impossible evolutionary task when one thinks of a lifeform without vision that suddenly manages the mutation that allows for vision). He notes that many organisms that lack vision can nonetheless sense light (leaves of plants turn toward sunlight), so vision does not “start from scratch”. Also, he examines two methods of vision that evolved separately (I don’t remember the details on that but it had to do with the arrangement of the light collection node and the projection surface). Anyway, he notes that organisms did not have to jump to the top of the cliff; rather they took the “easy way around” and climbed the slope over periods of millions of years. Actually Christie gave me that book; she is very much into evolution science. That was the best book on evolution I have ever read.

Christie continues to be disturbed by the fact that fundamentalist Christians don’t want evolution taught in public schools (K through 12), and have usually been able to prevent that. I point out that few school teachers know enough about evolution to teach it, and even if they did their students would not have the slightest notion of what they were talking about (whether or not Santa Claus exists or not might be a more appropriate topic for both the teachers and students). Indeed, if teachers just concentrated on teaching their students how to read and write, and how to calculate a 15% tip on a $12.50 lunch, the issue of evolution (and teaching religion or anti-religion) would evolve away very quickly.

I recall a university colleague who did not understand the concept of evolution—oh, he would say he “believes in” evolution, but he had no idea of what that meant. Once in Belize with a group of students, one student was eating papaya and eating the seeds as well. I told the student he should not eat the seeds [I have heard that papaya seeds are used in India to induce abortion, so they are probably toxic, and anyway seeds of all fruits need to be either bitter or toxic so that the consumer will spit them out, or so small and indigestible to pass through the body of the consumer and come out viable and fertilized—such as tomato seeds]. My colleague John heard my comments to the student and attempted to correct me. “Why would papaya seeds tend to be toxic?” he asked. Because they are not bitter or extremely small, I told him. “So?” he asked. John, why do you think plants make fruit that animals find good to eat? “They come that way!” he responded. Come from where? You see he actually believes in continual creationism (as do fundamentalist Christians, and anyone else who rejects evolution, if they took the time to understand what they believe); he does not know that plants produced fruit to get animals to spread their seeds—that is, evolutionary processes assured that surviving plants either produce winged seeds that fly on the wind, or lucked on some method to get animals to spread their seeds. In either case a tasty seed is usually an evolutionary dead-end. [I know there are exceptions: Nut trees produce seeds that are delicious and attract squirrels to eat them; however squirrels store their food and often have life spans so short they don’t return for the nuts they “planted”. Note however that most nuts are encased in shells that are too hard for larger animals (that would not plant them) to break open, or have a poison spot (such as the buckeye) which would kill the larger animal but which the squirrel can avoid by nibbling around the poison spot.]

On another occasion I was in a Maya farmer’s corn field with an historian from OU. I noticed that the farmer would chop weeds with his machete as he walked through, but there was one “weed” that he did not cut. So, I asked him about that plant. I think he called it “calalu” (but can’t remember for sure); he said they did not plant it but always allowed it to grow as a volunteer because it produced “a very nice leaf” (used as a condiment and in concentration for children with diarrhea). Then he added something very important: He said “we (Maya) have always known about this plant; it produces seeds on the top in April and when we pass by in the forest we always grab a handful and scatter them about—that way, he said, there will be more of them next year.” Later I told my historian colleague: My God, we have just witnessed the evolution of agriculture! He responded “what are you talking about?” Don’t you understand what just happened? “People discovered agriculture 10,000 years ago, he said!” Imagine some hunter 10,000 years ago discovering a corn field! [Never mind that corn is symbiotic with humans—so much so that almost all the seeds would rot inside the husk if the hand of man did not pull it open. And note that the seeds of wheat and other domestic grains have “wings” that fall off when they are rubbed in your hands because humans preferred to have grains with easily removable “chaff”, and those grains now depend upon humans to plant them rather than the wind. If humans ceased to exist almost all our domestic plants and animals would die with us. The exceptions such as horses and pigs that survived as wild animals in the New World were exotic species and those brought by the Spaniards were half-wild already.]

This may come as a shock to you but many university professors (outside the biological sciences) have little notion of what evolution means. K – 12 teachers are more likely to buy into the silliness that evolution is somehow an alternative to belief in a Creator, and either (most likely) reject it, or “believe in it” and teach atheism. Who could subscribe to the notion that the Creator of the universe could not have devised evolution (so He would not have to step in to rework his creation every time environmental factors changed)? I don’t want those sorts teaching evolution (or religion or atheism) to our children.

The greatest minds that have ever existed on this earth have examined the issue, with virtually no exceptions they claim to have found no evidence to support or preclude a Creator, and then someone comes along and tells us the whole thing has just been a delusion! Dawkins is very intelligent and he is one of our best teachers on evolution. He (and many other thinkers) notes correctly that “there is no need to resort to a Creator” when explaining life on earth or any other natural factors. IF IT WERE OTHERWISE the subject of whether there is or is not a Creator would never have come up! [Doesn’t the fact that some of the most intelligent people who have lived on this earth have asked the question already prove definitive evidence is absent? Is this a very simple idea or am I missing something?] Evidence of a Creator would make humans akin to surfs owned by a feudal Lord, with no question about who holds the power and who is the slave, and quite obviously “free will” would be impossible.

To subscribe to the notion that lack of evidence for the existence of a Creator proves that there cannot be a creator is silly. Assume that you are God and you want some lifeforms to have free will. Could you conceivable provide some evidence of the fact that you created them? How could free will exist if there were definitive evidence of a Creator (who might slap you down every time you deny him)? Is salvation available only for those who are intelligent enough to figure it out? Have you ever heard of a religion (that makes any sense at all) that subscribes to the notion that belief in God is other than by FAITH AND FAITH ALONE? Here we have a “cultural universal” (faith based belief in God); indeed, archeologists identify burial with tools as evidence that the primate is a humanoid (because they must have believed in life after death). And then someone comes along and tells us it has all been a delusion. Are you kidding me? I don’t need to read Richard Dawkins’ book to know with absolute certainty that there is no evidence or proof for the existence of a Creator. I already know that! I also know absence of evidence for a Creator does not prove or even suggest there is no Creator (our inability to even approach that issue suggests, to me, the opposite). [And I do recognize the fact that it is impossible to provide evidence for the non-existence of a Creator, or for that matter for the non-existence of those fierce (but beautiful) women in Amazonia that kill their male children and capture unfortunate Spaniards to be cruelly used as sex slaves for decades—my heart goes out to them.] But, surely a person who claims to be an atheist could come up with a single bit of evidence that his beliefs are based on something other than “if I can’t see Him, He must not be there”!

A couple of years ago I read “Universes” by Leslie; he pointed out that “according to our current understanding of physics” the universe at the time of the “big bang” could have produced any values for the four fundamental forces, and that if those values were varied by even one millionth of a part that “life as we know it“could not exist anywhere in the universe. Therefore, he stated, we must believe either this universe was “fine tined” for life (a Creator), or there must be many billions of universes so that one could have the precise values needed for “life as we know it”. [Some fundamentalists attempt to make the same argument on the basis of the “Rare Earth” theory producing “life as we know it”; however, we know there probably are billions of planets in our universe so it is highly probable that at least one would have the conditions that occur on earth, and the anthropic principle demands that we “life as we know it” observers are located on the “life as we know it” giving planet.] I knew when I read Leslie’s book that he was wrong because it suggests we may be approaching some evidence for the existence of a Creator. I proposed several scenarios that would disprove his theory (such as the possibility that life or awareness could have evolved in any universe—would not necessarily even have a physical form—perhaps the stars arrange themselves into organisms that have awareness, etc.). But I did not anticipate what physicists have now discovered—that the fundamental forces vary through our universe (the “alpha factor”) so that “life as we know it” occurs precisely in that portion of our universe where “life as we know it conditions exist”. Are we surprised?

I also read “god is not Great” by Christopher Hitchens, anxious to hear evidence, based on facts, logic, and reason, of the nonexistence of a Creator, knowing full well that such evidence is as absent as is evidence for the existence of a Creator. Alas, the book did not deal with that subject, and indeed does not even raise the issue of whether there might be a God (creator, intelligent design, fine tuning, etc.). Rather, the book deals with religion! The list of horrors perpetrated in the name of religion or by persons claiming religious faith is not novel or disturbing to me, and I do not doubt the validity of those stories. Obviously, one could write another book (and I suggest that Hitchens could write that book) in which the great and wondrous deeds of adherents to religious faith could be laid out, and would be equally true. And, he could write another book outlining the horrors perpetrated by persons who do not claim any religious beliefs. [Actually his brother did write such a book which I have not and will not bother to read—I wouldn’t have bothered with the Christopher book either if I had not been challenged to respond to it by a friend]. Hitchens tells us that nastiness is possible (though presumably unlikely) among persons who claim to be free of religion (communists, Nazis, etc.), but concludes that they were (must have been?) religious movements after all. Apparently he thinks all religious persons are evil and perhaps atheists are not. He notes that Martin Luther King was a good guy, and therefore must not have been religious. Hummm; King who claimed to be a Christian preacher was actually an atheist and communists who claim to be atheists are actually religious!

If you and I were honest with ourselves we would both have to admit that we are agnostics. Absent evidence of the existence or non-existence of a Creator, all religious persons and all atheists can only base their beliefs on faith and faith alone. The difference is that most religious persons admit that. [The exceptions are those like our nephew who studies apologetics and maintains he has found some evidence for a Creator—but when questioned on that will resort to Biblical quotations which he accepts as the “Word of God” on the basis of faith; and our sister who has conversations with the Lord all the time—but I cannot figure out who is the God and who is the servant since she always seems to be telling God what to do.] Most atheists, on the other hand, pretend they have some information that precludes the existence of a Creator. Their “evidence” consists of: 1) proof that religious persons have done evil things—DAAAAH; 2) proof that some religious belief could not be true (Noah really could not have swallowed the whale—DAAAAH); and 3) demonstration that there is no need to resort to a Creator to explain life on earth and other natural phenomena. [If you are aware of some other “proof”, please pass that on to me.] The first two are so obvious they do not deserve our attention, and the third proves nothing and is absolutely essential for existence of free will, which we know we do exercise.

Likewise, we must all be agnostic regarding the existence of intelligent life on other planets. We simply have no information or logic that would demand, or preclude, intelligent life elsewhere. Some of us prefer to believe intelligent life (beings with free will, and capable of wondering whether there is a Creator) does exist elsewhere (or in many places) in our universe. It seems to me that our universe is too extravagant to have been created (even by an omnipotent Creator) for just one form of intelligent life located on this grain of sand in our obscure corner of the universe. From the point of view of a mechanical universe, there must be many thousands of planets with earth-like conditions and life seemed to have no problem evolving on this earth (probably several times in various forms) and we continue to discover living organisms in environments previously thought to preclude “life as we know it.” And of course I see no reason to believe intelligent life could not have evolved in any sort of environment—there may be intelligent life on the moon that we cannot observe or otherwise detect. Someone else might prefer to believe humans are the only intelligent life in the universe, but I see no advantage in preferring to believe that. If they are right they will never be able to prove it; if I am right it is not inconceivable that they will one day be forced to admit that they were wrong, and will be like those Spaniards in the New World wondering how those folks made it through the “great flood.”

Similarly, I prefer to believe there is a Creator. You told me the joke about the Arizona cowboy who had never seen the Grand Canyon, and while driving a herd north reached the canyon edge and said “Whoa boy, there’s something going on here!” Well, at least he noticed! How can someone look at this world and not be struck by the same thought? One tiny example: the sun and moon are almost exactly the same size as viewed from earth—such that you can extend your hand at arms length and find that your little fingernail just covers either one—and notice that an almost perfect solar eclipse is possible. Another example: Project each continent to the opposite side of the world and note that virtually all fit neatly into oceans [a couple million sq miles of overlap occurs for South America and Southeast Asia (the most geologically active places on earth, moving away from each other as fast as possible)—given that 30% is land area why don’t we have a 30% overlap—area of N. and S. America combined?] Note that the area of Antarctica and the Arctic Ocean are both 5,400,000 sq. miles, and (rotated a few degrees) the former fits the latter almost perfectly! Do these seem to be random occurrences in a mechanical universe, right here in our neck of the woods? Or does it seem (as it does to me) that the Creator is playing games with us, and having a big laugh every time the cowboy rides up to the rim of the Grand Canyon and fails to notice it! Another good reason to believe in a Creator: No one will ever be able to prove I’m wrong—even after I am dead. By contrast, the non-believer could be in some deep shit, to hear some believers tell about it. [I don’t buy into the heaven and hell scenarios because it seems to me that a mind capable of creating this universe could not possibly be bothered by what some pitiful human believes or says he believes, but then again, I don’t know anything about it.]

Of course I am also a Catholic. When I became a Catholic, I told the priest that, although I do not disbelieve, I didn’t know anything about God and Creation. He shrugged and said “neither do I.” I told him I wanted to be a Catholic because my family is Catholic: “That is the same reason that I am a Catholic,” he responded, “at least you are making the decision; most of us were born in a Catholic family and accepted it without question.” He was quite a guy (almost certainly an exception to the rule); he had no problem with my lack of information (and not wanting to say I believe something that I do not believe). He arranged a special private ceremony for me with only Pin & Christie, and two of our friends (my God Parents) present, so I would not have to go through the whole rigmarole. But I am still a Catholic and plan to spend eternity with my fellow Catholics in heaven!

I don’t recall if I ever loaned you “The Book” by Alan Watts. That is the only book I have read dealing with God and religion that I found worth reading. So close it is to my own way of thinking that it seemed to me that he was reading my mind (not that I could have written that book). Watts imagines God sitting before a console with many buttons He can push (I don’t remember if he put it this way but this is the way it came to me); you want 50 beautiful women? Push that button and Walla! You want two billion zillion dollars worth of Gold? Just push the button. God got bored—obviously! But there was one button on the console that was labeled “surprise”; He pushed that button and HERE I AM. And I can tell you it has been one hell of a surprise and adventure. It hasn’t always been pleasant or pleasurable, but it has always been interesting! Watts says God enjoys being a Southern Baptist—walking that tightrope between heaven and hell. He & I (and you) got to do that when we were growing up. He & I loved rock climbing, jumping out of perfectly good airplanes, traveling to exotic places, we loved springtime at OU when all the boobies popped out, and lots of other stuff that best be left unstated. I bet He also found it interesting and exciting when He was hung as a horse thief, and when He flew those planes into the Twin Towers, and as He lives your life with your dog in that damn book depository you call your library. I bet He also enjoyed writing the book titled “The God Delusion”.

I expect you to agree with (most of) the content of this letter. If you can find some flaw in my logic please let me know. I will attempt to forward this to Richard Dawkins and expect him to agree as well if he takes the time to think about it, but I don’t expect him to respond. Lyn

Evolution versus Intelligent Design?

Evolution has been an essential concept in my academic work, especially in understanding the impact in the spread of plants and animals, including humans, around the world over the past 40,000 years. How could geographers account for ferocious aggressiveness of kudzu in the U.S. South, the Zebra mussel in the great lakes, and several hundred other exotic species? How could we explain the similarities of tree species in the forests of North America and Europe and the startling differences between North America and Australia? What are (and were) all these huge flightless birds doing in those regions of the world where large grazing animals were absent? And, if it would be tough for geographers to explain the distributions of plants and animals, how much more difficult would it be for biologists to account for the characteristics of plants and animals? Isn’t it fortunate that buffalo grass occurs in those areas where buffalo were? How wonderful for the squirrels that they live in places where there are nut producing trees! Sure lucky those animals that live in the arctic have heavy fur coats, and have short stocky frames to conserve heat; and how about their white coats? How did the snowshoe rabbits manage those snowshoe paws and white coats. How long would snowshoe rabbits survive and reproduce if they did not have those features? And, how many kills would a polar bear make if it did not have the proper camouflage? How long could an animal such as a spider monkey live in a cold climate with that huge ratio of surface area to weight that is designed to radiate heat from the body?

Consider the piebald deer. Piebald deer are not albinos; rather they have their colors reversed—white with brown spots rather than the other way about. They supposedly occur (I have read) only one in ten thousand, but I have seen two in southern Ohio, so I think they are somewhat more common (at least in that region). For hundreds of thousands of years the predators that maintained the deer population in check were wolves and big cats, and more recently American Indian hunters. Given that those predators hunt year round the best camouflage for a deer in all but the coldest parts of North America is brown with perhaps some spotting in white. The “one in ten thousand” that got the colors reversed wouldn’t last long with those predators, and wouldn’t be likely to reproduce—keeping that piebald deer very rare. But quite suddenly, the wolves and big cats are gone, and instead of Indian hunters, who hunt all year long and know what they are doing, we have city folk going out once a year with a shotgun or rifle during the late fall hunting season. The hunter tromps over dry leaves going into the woods, and the deer run out the other side. Most hunters could no more track a deer over dry ground than they could track their wives around the supermarket. Unless, of course, it snows on the first day of hunting season; even I can track a deer in the snow! So quite suddenly the brown camouflage isn’t worth squat, but white is magic. Give us another several hundred years and then check to see how many piebald deer there are in the woods. Now if that is not evolution big time, what shall we call it?

Of course we don’t have to look at piebald deer to see evolution working quick-time. I’ve never met a farmer that didn’t know he can change the characteristics of animals with selective breeding. In fact Darwin devoted the first chapter of his book to human control over the evolution of domestic plants and animals. We have bred dogs to the point of producing Chihuahuas and Great Danes from the same species—so different from each other that they are physically incapable of interbreeding; in time they will become separate species.

It bothers me a great deal when someone asks me if I “believe in” evolution. No; all the evidence tells me evolution is a fact, so I don’t need to “believe in” it; that is, I do not need to accept or reject the idea of evolution as a principle of faith. Those things that I accept on the basis of faith—that is, those things I “believe in”—are those for which evidence and facts are absent. I believe in God without the slightest bit of evidence, because that belief makes my life more meaningful. I “believe in” a purposeful universe not because I have evidence, but because it just makes more sense to think that way. And, I believe in intelligent design because the alternative—a mechanical universe—seems to me to be an absurd notion. But, I don’t pretend to be able to prove any of those things.

Since I accept the concept of evolution as fact, and I “believe in” intelligent design, it bugs the hell out of me when someone presents these two ideas as alternatives, or somehow contradictory. As if God were not able to use the process of evolution to assure plants and animals would be suited to the environments where they occur, and to provide a possibility to adopt new characteristics when their environments change! And, as if God put all this evidence supporting the evolutionary process out here to trick us! It seems to me that if God didn’t want people to use their brains he wouldn’t have given them one.

And, who is it that keeps telling us that the concepts of evolution and intelligent design are contradictory? Well, it turns out that there are two sorts. There is one sort that I have no problem with. These are the people who oppose the concept of evolution because they believe it does not conform to their religious values. I’ve known many such persons, including some in my own family, and I don’t see how their views have made their lives any less happy or productive. Such persons could not be biologists or geographers; but then it isn’t necessary for everyone to be biologists or geographers. I have an older brother who was a damned good pilot, and I don’t see how acceptance of the concept of evolution could have improved his flying skills. On the other hand, he has never made it his business to try to convince people in the life sciences that his view on the creation is correct and theirs is incorrect, so I have no problem with whatever he prefers to believe on this issue. And, there are people who reject the notion of intelligent design on the basis of faith. That is, they have no information at all to support their mechanical universe theory, but prefer to believe it anyway. I have no problem with that. [Although, why someone would reject the concept of God on the basis of faith is a mystery that I have never understood: Imagine telling your dying spouse or child “No need to worry honey; the lights will go out soon and it will be as if you never existed.” Some comfort!]

On the other hand, there are other sorts of persons who reject the concept of evolution or accept the notion of a mechanical universe that I do have a problem with. These include the television preachers and their followers who purport to have evidence to prove their theory of creation, and people who suggest that they have scientific evidence to support the non-existence of God. It is hard for me to understand how a person who claims to have devoted his or her life to spiritual matters can have time to argue issues related to science—which they know absolutely nothing about. Perhaps they have already exhausted all spiritual issues, and have nothing better to do. And, it is just as hard to understand how someone can argue that the mechanical universe theory is supported by scientific evidence. What evidence? Could this be something other than a desire to share their misery with other people?

I read recently of a philosopher from Cambridge who, having spent his entire life teaching atheism and the mechanical universe theory, has at age 84 determined that there must be some intelligent design behind this universe we live in. I don’t recall his name (and don’t care to), but his conversion came when he examined the complexity of DNA and decided it could not have evolved without some purposeful design. Good Lord, did he never observe a flower or a butterfly? Did he never look up at the stars and wonder about our Milky Way? Did he never see the smile on a little girl’s face? Did he find DNA to be complex? Did he ever notice that of the 6 billion people on this earth he can recognize the face of the single one he loves?

Do I object to teaching intelligent design in public schools? Not if the subject is philosophy (although, I would object to the waste of attempting to teach philosophy to children who are incapable of understanding those issues). If, on the other hand, the teacher is pretending to teach science and presenting issues related to God and Creation as if we had some facts to support that issue, I do have a problem with it. Likewise, if a teacher uses the concept of evolution to slander religion by suggesting that it somehow suggests the non-existence of a Creator, I also have a problem with it. Our young students are not capable of understanding and absorbing philosophical concepts, and are not prepared to deal with the prejudicial views of teachers on religious issues. I also have a problem with the fact that our teachers are not doing an adequate job teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic, which we all agree we want our children to learn. For precisely the same reason I oppose teaching evolution in the public schools. Will the teacher actually know something about the concept of evolution? Are public school students capable of learning something meaningful about evolution? If we simply postpone teaching evolution until all students can calculate a 15 percent tip on a six-dollar breakfast, that issue will quietly evolve out of sight by natural selection.

The issue of whether we should teach evolution and/or creationism in the public schools is nothing more than political correctness on the part of both sides. It has nothing whatever to do with education.

The concept of evolution is complex; it cannot be taught to kids and certainly not be taught by the typical teacher in the public schools. I have known many “scholars” at the university level who have little notion of what evolution means. Of course, they would all say they “believe in” evolution—which is to say they accept the concept of evolution as an article of faith. But, we do not accept science by faith! We accept scientific facts and theories because the weight of evidence suggests that they are true! People who have no notion of what evolution means have no business purporting to accept or reject it.

Consider the more easily understood case of prayer in school—which will enlist the same groups on each side of the fence. When I was in the fourth grade President Eisenhower mandated a two minute period of silent prayer in all public schools. Our teacher was a guy I admired very much—he had been a soldier in the war and he seemed to me to be the strongest, bravest, and finest man I had ever known. But, he obviously didn’t agree with prayer in school, and he wanted all of us to know that. He told us he was required to have us observe two minutes of silent prayer, and then held his arm up to count off the seconds on his watch. That was the first time I had ever known that there was a person who did not believe in prayer or realize that it would be possible to be other than a Christian! People who really do subscribe to a religious faith oppose prayer and any other effort to teach religion by teachers in public schools. I challenge you to find a REAL Southern Baptist that would be willing to allow a public school teacher to have some influence on their child’s religious training! And what if the teacher happened to be a Catholic who crossed himself after the prayer? And much worse, what if the teacher is an atheist or agnostic who uses the occasion to belittle prayer and belief in God (as my teacher did)? The prayer-in-school argument is between television preachers and confirmed atheists! Why do we allow them to define our views on that subject?

Why don’t we tell the public school teachers that after they have taught our kids reading, writing, and arithmetic, they can start praying and teaching evolution, intelligent design, religion, and sex. I don’t think we will need to concern ourselves about that any further.

The Theory of Limited Good

Prior to about 1650 in England, the concept of economic development (increasing per capita incomes) did not exist. People over the past several hundred thousand years hoped to survive and reproduce, but there could have been no thought that they or their progeny would somehow achieve or inherit a more productive lifestyle. The change from hunter-gatherer to slash & burn and later intensive farming took place over dozens of generations so that people were totally unaware of the changes taking place. Furthermore, it can be argued that those changes led to an initial deterioration in the human condition, such that people made those changes reluctantly when forced to do so when populations expanded beyond the support capacity of the previous system (see the Boserup Model to be posted later). In hunter-gatherer societies men do not work; they hunt and fish, which they enjoy as much as I do. In early slash & burn farming societies men will cut the trees but they will not plant or harvest. Gathering fruits and plants, as well as planting and harvesting, was women’s work. Intensive farming requires men to plow and cultivate their farms. Farming promotes the evolution of weeds—mostly annuals that evolve to take advantage of human-made clearings, so that intensive farming requires both men and women to spend much of their time working in their fields. Sedentary lifestyles promotes the animal equivalent of weeds—rats and mice, lice, flees, cockroaches, etc., that evolve to take advantage of permanent human dwellings—that promote the spread of disease. Domestication of animals leads to new diseases that flash from animals to humans. When the natural ecoloby is replaced with pure stands of cultivated crops, pests and diseases will periodically destroy those crops, leaving farmers to starve. The natural ecology almost never fails so that hunter-gatherer peoples rarely face starvation. Those hunter-gatherer societies that still exist know about farming but they are not about to give up the good life and spent their time working unless forced to do so by absence of the hunting/fishing alternative.

The amount of goods on this earth appeared to be strictly limited. One tribe could garner a larger amount of goods only by taking it away from some other tribe; one group or family in a community could improve their position only by appropriating resources from, or enslaving, other groups or families. Feudal societies existed in Europe and Asia for centuries with no perceptible long-term change in the per capita level of living from generation to generation. The share of the population that was relatively well-off—mostly the nobility, military, priesthood, and a small cadre of artisans and tradesmen—was always limited to about ten percent of the total because it was not possible to extract a larger share of the food supply from the majority peasant farmer population through tribute or taxation. Peasant farmers in feudal societies, and people in hunter-gatherer societies, had little incentive to produce more food than they could consume when there was very little of value that could be obtained for that food through trade. In feudal and tribal societies, the vast majority of people had no reason to even consider increasing production above that required to maintain life. The amount of goods on this earth appeared to be strictly limited. One tribe could garner a larger amount of goods only by taking it away from some other tribe; one group or family in a community could improve their position only by appropriating resources from, or enslaving, other groups or families.

The absence of the possibility of increasing per capita production leads to the conclusion that one can consume more only when others consume less. To have more, you must take from people who will necessarily have less. This view, or rather this reality, gave rise to the theory of limited good, that was the prevailing paradigm in feudal and primitive societies. If there is a limited amount of goods in this world it must follow that either all people will be poor, or a small share of the population can have relative wealth by further impoverishing the others.

Shared poverty was typical in tribal societies where resources were generally held in communal tenure and all members of the group were more or less economic equals (although, murder, rape, plunder and enslavement of persons outside the group was the norm in tribal societies). People in tribal societies held most of their productive resources in communal tenure because those resources were not scarce, and there was no motive for personal ownership.

Feudalism evolved when higher population densities gave rise to sedentary farm communities, and productive resources became scarce. The fact that feudalism of Europe and Asia was so similar, in spite of having evolved independently, should tell us that the evolution of that system was mostly independent of culture. Under feudalism a small elite garnered a significant share of total resources for themselves by claiming ownership of all land resources and extracting a tribute or tax, in the form of food or labor, from the majority peasant population that was allowed to procure subsistence using that land. The nobility was able to consume more and higher quality food, clothing, and shelter, but the relative absence of goods, other than the necessities of life, meant that the prime luxury consumed by the nobility was leisure and power over the majority population.

The rural economy in some areas of Andean South America was largely feudal through the mid-20th Century. Landless peasants were forced to engancharse (become hitched or attached) to a hacienda in order to obtain a small plot of land for subsistence production. In exchange, the peasant was required to provide a mandated levy of labor on the owner’s land, and the peasant’s children were often required to work as maids or servants in the big house (personal observation as a Peace Corps Volunteer in the Indian village of Zurite, Peru in 1963 & 1964). Only a small share of the land on most haciendas was used for other than rudimentary grazing, but hacienda owners were eager to obtain control of communal and peasant lands. Litigation by hacienda owners aimed at securing rights to land held by peasant farmers was an expected norm. Hacienda owners rarely wished to make use of the land they were so desperate to control; indeed, they usually made use of only a small share of the land they already owned. When haciendas won control over peasant lands they would generally allow the peasants to continue using the land as before, but on the condition that each family provide two days of labor each week for the hacienda. Indeed, the hacienda labor supply was primarily determined by the number of landless peasants who could be forced to engancharse on the hacienda. Hacienda owners referred to their task of increasing production as hacer los indios trabajar (make the Indians work). Even though haciendas controlled the vast majority of land resources, the total production and monetary incomes of most hacienda owners were very low. Those hacienda owners able to have a vehicle, electricity, indoor plumbing, and modern consumer goods, usually owned a business in the city or were employed as a doctor or engineer. For most hacienda owners, wealth was measured in leisure and power over the Indian population.

Why was it impossible to increase per capita production in feudal societies? The very simple answer is there were very few goods known to exist other than the necessities of life—food, shelter, clothing, horses and other livestock, and a few household items. These items could mostly be obtained by subsistence and household production, but once the family needs were satisfied there would be no reason to continue to work to produce more, unless forced to do so by the requirement to pay tribute or tax to a noble lord. The population in towns or castles produced very little of value to peasant farmers. Peasants would not willingly produce a surplus that would be confiscated by the nobility.

To be sure, some town people did provide goods and services that were of value to peasants and other people. Towns and villages have always been trade centers; even peasant farmers need salt, and a few other items, that could usually be obtained only by trade or barter. Towns also have a blacksmith who makes metal tools and weapons, a wheelwright who made wheels and axels for wagons, and a few other specialists. It is an exaggeration to say the non-peasant population produced nothing of value—but, only a rather small exaggeration. The nobility consumed most of the products and services produced in towns. For the most part, the surplus food and fiber needed by the non-farm population was extracted from the peasants by force. The size of the non-farm population—rarely more than ten percent of the total—was therefore set by the limits of the small legitimate trade and mostly on the ability of the nobility to extract tribute or tax from peasant farmers. In the case of Andean countries in the mid-20th Century, towns produced (or imported and sold) a wide range of goods and services that were of value to peasant farmers—notably beer, rum, cigarettes, soft drinks, bread, a few canned foods, etc., and for better off peasants, clothing, radios, some other factory-made articles. Many peasant farmers were able, and eager, to obtain those things by selling agricultural products in towns; thus, the percentage of the population that could life in towns, or be engaged in other than subsistence production, greatly exceeded ten percent norm in early feudal societies (personal observation).

The Theory of Limited Good helps us understand the cultural, as well as economic, life of pre-industrial peoples of the world. If the supply of economic goods is limited, then the supply of pleasure, beauty, and happiness may also be limited. When one family has too much of those things, they must be taking them away from other people. Your home and possessions should not be too pleasant, nor your daughters too beautiful, nor should you be too happy. Even salvation and eternal life in heaven is made that much more precious by the fact that most people (those who have beliefs that differ from yours) will spend eternity in hell. On the one hand, some persons might see impoverishment of the community as the only way to increase their own level of well-being. On the other hand, other members of a community might want to avoid accumulation of wealth because the resulting impoverishment of other families places community solidarity at risk. The Potlatch ritual, in which a family that has accumulated a conspicuous amount of wealth must divest itself of that wealth by lavish gift giving, was common among many Indian tribes in North America and elsewhere. I witnessed a form of “potlatch” in Peru in the early 1960’s. In this case a family that had accumulated conspicuous wealth would feel obligated to throw a party for the village, providing chicha beer and rum, as well as food, to everyone in the village until the wealth was used up. Some of those parties would continue for two or three days, ending only when the drunken party thrower had spent all his money and all money he could borrow against future earnings.

Persistence of the Theory of Limited Good

Redistribution of accumulated wealth may be necessary to keep the peace in tribal and feudal villages. However, the social stigma against accumulation of wealth can be detrimental to economic development when a society is capable of increasing the level of per capita production. Unfortunately, the Theory of Limited Good continues to be a very powerful myth in modernizing societies, and is often the prevailing paradigm in countries just beginning the development process.

In poor countries around the world, commodities that are for sale in the marketplace generally do not have fixed prices. Buyers and sellers expect to haggle and bargain over the price—a time-consuming and inefficient process that greatly reduces productivity. Unwillingness to accept the concept of a fair and equitable price, in which both the seller and buyer are benefited, flows directly from the theory of limited good. That theory holds that in any transaction there must be a winner and a loser. The seller holds out for a price sufficiently high to assure the buyer will pay more than the item is really worth; at the same time, the buyer bargains hard for a price below the seller’s cost. Both feel the need to best the other in the bargaining contest, well beyond the desire of the seller for a reasonable profit and that of the buyer for a fair price. A seller may be willing to delay, or even forego, a sale to avoid accepting a smaller profit, if that means the buyer feels he got a good deal. Likewise, buyers may postpone purchase for weeks or months in order to obtain a price that will not provide a profit to the seller.

That situation contrasts sharply with countries where economic development has become an expected norm. For the most part, commodities have a set price that provides ample incentive to both producers and consumers to sell and buy—both parties expect to get a fair deal! In rich countries, price bargaining is relatively limited and usually suggests deviousness or dishonesty—would you trust a car salesman? In traditional societies almost all exchange, including buying and selling, wages and rent, and services, will often involve haggling until one or both parties can feel they are walking away a winner. The custom of haggling and bargaining for every potato and taxi ride is one of those cultural traits that is incompatible with economic development. The modern economy depends upon mutual cooperation and reciprocity—trust must be accorded to strangers to a degree that was formerly reserved to members of one’s family.

While living in Peru in the early 1960’s, I would cut the haggling short as follows: Determine in advance what the starting, and final price of the item is likely to be—say a poncho for which the seller will ask 120 soles and ultimately sell for 50 soles when the haggling is over. Initiate your offer at 100 soles (with no fear that the seller will take you up on it). No; the price is 120 soles! Drop your offer to 80 soles. Hey, you just offered 100 soles; I will sell you the poncho for 100 soles. I will give you 60 soles for the poncho. Wait, you just said 80 soles. I will pay 50 soles for the poncho; if you do not accept that price I will drop it to 40 soles. OK, OK, OK, 50 soles! (Some of these damn foreigners won’t play by the rules.) It must be noted that profit may not be the primary purpose of buying and selling on market day. On one occasion I attempted to purchase all the one-day old chickens a young woman had at the price she asked (being desperate for one-day old chickens). No; I will sell you only 3. Why not sell all of them? Because then I would have nothing left to sell! Hey folks, this not a market economy!

In poor countries (and among some groups in rich countries) there is often resentment against successful individuals and enterprises, and a prevailing belief that wealth is a direct result of exploitation of other people. This belief is so strong that many people would prefer to forego economic development if it must entail some persons benefiting more than others, or conspicuous wealth amid mass poverty. It is important to be clear on this point: Thus far in the history of economic development, some people have always benefited more than others, and in the early stages it has produced conspicuous wealth amid mass poverty. If there is another way to do it, someone should point that out (and provide some historical examples).

That view is often taught in universities in poor countries, and incredibly, sometimes taught in technologically advanced countries. In poor countries it is often a mainstream or establishment viewpoint that is widely shared among the population. In technologically advanced countries that viewpoint has been defined as non-establishment alternative or dependency theory view. I have often wondered whether those ‘social scientists’ who present this view do it simply as a liberal protest statement or to gain the good-will of a certain class of students, or whether they actually subscribe to the theory. I also find it ironic that some students from poor countries travel to the U.S. to study the theory of limited good view of development, when that view is often held to be common knowledge in their own countries, but rejected by most scholars in the U.S.

But, objection to accumulation of wealth is not just pandering to persons who oppose the social and economic establishment. Even among people who should know better, there is a nagging feeling that Bill Gates’ billions may be the reason hundreds of thousands of people live in poverty. Likewise, the large and successful businesses such as McDonalds and Wall Mart must be guilty of something—else they would not be so rich and successful. Economic development—an increase in the per capita production and consumption of goods and services—is, for most of us, a mysterious process. How does new wealth come into existence? Where does it come from? How can it be true that we will all be better off if we rush out and spend our money on the silliness that Madison Avenue is pushing in TV commercials? How can inadequate demand cause recession and poverty? Don’t recession and poverty prove that demand is already too high in comparison to the supply of goods and services? Doesn’t it make more sense to believe recession and poverty are caused by low productivity? And, doesn’t it make more sense to believe that if Bill Gates didn’t have so many billions of dollars, there would be more for the rest of us?

When John Maynard Keynes expounded his Demand Theory of economic growth, most people, including some economists, were puzzled. How could we cure the problem of low consumption in the private sector by having the government consume more? Wouldn’t that just reduce the amount left over for private consumption? How could government purchase and destruction (or permanent storage) of large amounts of food cause people to have more food?

Clearly, the Demand Theory of economic growth did work. The U.S. Government’s New Deal programs aimed at stimulating demand during the 1930’s were probably too modest to have pulled the country out of the World Depression. However, government stimulus of the economy did reduce unemployment and reverse the skid toward economic collapse. Later, the enormous demand created by WW II did cause the world depression to end and sparked a rapid increase in per capita incomes around the world. But, “What about the long run?” demanded many economists and others. Keynes answered: “In the long run we will all be dead.” Keynes’ response was not just sarcasm; indeed, economists, like the rest of us, continue having a tough time answering that question.

Several years ago I spoke at the Ministry of Agriculture in Quito, Ecuador, on the subject of agricultural development. During the question and answer period, one agricultural expert suggested: “We (Ecuadorians) would have plenty of bananas to eat if we didn’t export most of our crop to the United States.” I responded: “If Ecuador stopped the export of bananas there would just be more people in Ecuador who would be unable to afford to consume bananas;” (and that what Ecuador needed to do was find new export markets for their almost inexhaustible ability to produce bananas, and that the only new potential market not already saturated with bananas was Eastern Europe). They all knew their colleague was wrong and I was right; the problem of the banana economy in Ecuador was the constant tendency to overproduce for a market already saturated with bananas. Indeed, the people of the Guayas Basin, where most bananas are produced, were lobbying the Ministry of Agriculture to prohibit banana production for export in the Esmeraldas valley, where there was growing interest in that enterprise. Everyone knew the problem was insufficient demand. But, they keep asking themselves: How can this be possible?

It should also be obvious that Ecuador will never grow rich by selling bananas, regardless of the size of the market. It is a simple fact that as world incomes go up, the share spent on bananas will go down, and people selling bananas will earn an ever decreasing share of the aggregate world income [see my statement on Engel’s Law in “Why Doesn’t Great Wealth Produce Great Happiness].

How can it be true that exporting even more bananas will cause the amount of bananas consumed locally to increase? Exactly the same way exporting more cars from the U.S. will cause more people in the U.S. to be able to afford to purchase cars! Ecuadorians could easily double their production of bananas if they had a market; likewise, U.S. automakers would love to double the production of cars if someone would buy them. How can it be true that foreign investment will promote economic development in a poor country when the investors will take more money out of the country than they bring in? Exactly the same way investment in our community by a firm from Chicago will produce jobs and higher incomes for us, in spite of the fact that a Chicago investor will, unless the investment is a total failure, certainly take more money out of our community than was invested in that enterprise. The view that investment will have a negative effect on development, because the amount of money taken out of the business in interest and profit will exceed the amount of invested, flies in the face of logic and common sense. What sort of fool would invest 10 million dollars in Ecuador and wind up 20 years later with less than 10 million? Would you put 500 dollars in the bank and be satisfied with getting 400 dollars back 20 years later? If you received your $500 plus another $1,100 in interest payment (at 6% annually) would you be exploiting the bank? According to the theory of limited good, the answer is YES! Surely, no one could believe that theory holds in the modern economy. Oh, but they do (or at least say they do); and they teach that theory in university classrooms around the world, including a few classrooms here in the United States!

A ten million dollar investment in the U.S. would probably generate a return in interest and profit for an investor of at least $16 million dollars every 10 years (a return on investment of 10%). (After all, the investor could get $8 million from a bank at 6% interest with no risk at all!) That same investment made in the more risky economic environment of Ecuador would need to produce at least $50 million in interest and profit every 10 years (a 20% return) because the investor would assume the added risk only if higher returns were expected. That investment would also produce a gross income of $250 million dollars or more over that period, of which all but interest and profit would go for rent, raw materials, and labor. How can someone argue that the people of our community, or the people of Ecuador, would be better off without the $250 million dollars in economic activity, because the business owner removed $16 or $50 million in interest and profit on the investment? But, people do make those arguments—incredibly, you can hear those arguments in university classrooms here in the United States!

The Demand Theory of Productivity

In technologically advanced countries we know (or think we know) recession is caused by faltering demand. When demand falters we attempt to stimulate it by reducing taxes and increasing the money supply (reducing interest rates), and by increasing government spending. Likewise, when the economy is overheated it would be appropriate to increase taxes and the interest rate, and reduce government spending.

Tax increases and reductions in government spending are politically unpopular, so politicians are hesitant to use these tools. Politicians probably would not raise interest rates to prevent inflation either, for the same reasons. Fortunately, in the U.S. interest rates are set by Federal Reserve (the FED), which is mostly independent of the White House and Congress. In many less developed countries political leaders do control the interest rate so that it is virtually impossible to stop inflationary pressure, given that politicians will usually prefer to destroy the economy rather than their own political career!

When Ronald Reagan brought in very unorthodox supply side economists, his own Vice President (Bush Senior) referred to it as voodoo economics. In practice, the Reagan administration did reduce taxes and did increase government spending (mostly on military hardware), and the economy did recover.

Is low productivity in poor countries also caused by problems on the demand side? Or, is low productivity in Kenya, Peru, and Pakistan caused by the inability of farms and factories to increase production? Most development projects appear to accept the second position; that is, they focus on increasing production. It is assumed, that farms, factories, and other businesses in poor countries are unable to produce enough food, manufactured goods, and services to meet the demand. It is assumed, apparently, that low levels of consumption prove demand exceeds the supply of goods and services. Is that true? Or, are low levels of consumption the result of low demand in the marketplace—that is, a result of the fact that a large share of the population does not have money to spend on those goods and services they would like to purchase?

Over the past 40 years that I have interviewed a very large number of farmers in various countries of Latin America. One question at the top of my list is why the farmer does not increase production: Why not clear a bit more land and plant an additional quarter-hectare of corn? Why not apply a bit more fertilizer to that field so you can use it every year, instead of leaving it fallow every other year? Why not plant alfalfa in that field rather than making use of it for natural pasture? I have never met one farmer who responded that he did not know how, or was not able, to increase production. Rather, they have all responded: There is no market for the additional production; or, there is no way to get the additional production to the market; or, the owner of the truck going to the market town will charge me more than I will get for the product; or, most commonly, the government has set the market price below my production cost. Most factories in poor countries operate far below capacity, and would be more than happy to increase production. The capital goods used in factories are mostly produced in technologically advanced countries where the size of the market is very large. Because most poor countries have much smaller markets (lower incomes and often smaller populations) many machines in factories operate well below capacity. Even in those cases in which a factory is operating at capacity, owners would love to expand their operations with new buildings, capital goods, and workers, if they had a market for the products. They do not increase production because there is no market demand for the products they are willing and able to produce.

I have never met a shoe-shine boy who was unable or unwilling to shine more shoes; never met a street vendor who was unable or unwilling to sell more goods; never met a taxi driver who was unable or unwilling to haul more passengers; and so on for every sector in the economies of Latin American countries. The problem is not inability to produce; rather, the problem is the absence of someone to buy the product. How can development be promoted by policies that aim at doing what people are already willing and able to do—increase production—rather than doing what people cannot do—increase real demand?

Hungry people with no money do not create demand for food. Likewise, people with no money do not stimulate demand for the goods and services produced in the non-farm sector. Hungry people with no money is NOT a food problem; that is a money problem. Likewise, when people with no money lack housing, clothing, and most other goods and services, the problem is NOT scarcity of housing, clothing, etc. Increasing the supply of food and other goods and services will not cause people with no money to purchase those commodities. Lack of money is caused by low salaries and wages, unemployment and under-employment, or by disability resulting from age or physical/mental conditions. Those problems can only be solved by increasing salaries and wages, providing employment for able-bodied persons and providing charity for those who cannot work because they are destitute children, elderly, or physically or mentally disabled.

Over the longer term, and especially in the later stages of development, increasing salaries and wages will depend upon increasing productivity with improved technology and labor-saving capital. In addition, improved technology may result in lower cost production and thus lower prices that can have a stimulating effect on demand. But, the first step toward increasing demand is being sure all able-bodied persons have access to employment. Modern technology is mostly labor-saving, and will tend to reduce the number of jobs in traditional sectors. Often the capital goods available to poor countries are already overly focused on labor-saving technology. Until poor countries are able to fully employ those people who want jobs, labor-saving technology is not likely to be appropriate technology.

We must also remember that there is no demand for a commodity until the existence of that commodity becomes known to potential consumers. In rich countries, advertising is an essential ingredient in stimulating demand; advertising causes people to want things that they would otherwise have been content to live without. In poor countries, the demonstration effect (becoming aware of a desirable item by seeing it used by another person) as well as advertising plays that role. It does not matter (for economic growth) whether the things people are convinced to want are actually worthwhile (in the judgment of outside observers). It only matters that people want them enough to increase their production sufficiently to get money to pay for them.

It is often suggested that sale of goods and services that are judged to be of trivial value should be curtailed, so that consumers would spend their money on goods and services that are ‘worthwhile.’ This view is very questionable. Unless the consumer who spends money on things judged to be of trivial value can be induced to start “wanting” those goods judged to be ‘useful’ (even though their actions suggest otherwise) total market demand will tend to decrease in direct proportion to curtailed demand for “trivial” items, causing the economy to shrink. (Restrictions on the consumption of harmful and addictive substances and services are justifiable for health and safety, rather than economic reasons.)

The Origin of Economic Development

Beginning about 1650 something very strange began to happen in England. People in towns began to manufacture goods that peasant farmers found desirable, and cheap enough to purchase. These goods, mostly textiles, were cheap because more efficient spinning and weaving machines were invented and water power and later steam power (by burning coal) was substituted for labor. It turned out that when urban people produced things peasant farmers wanted, the farmers were more than willing to increase production of food and transport that surplus to the market for sale.

The limits on urban growth were broken. Indeed, there seemed no limit on the number of people who could make a better living producing manufactured goods. And, there seemed to no limit on the amount of surplus food the farm population could produce, in spite of the fact that urbanization was reducing the share (and sometimes the absolute number) of the population in the farm sector. As the share of the population in the farm sector declined, the primary market for goods and services produced by urban people became the urban people themselves. People cannot grow rich by producing and exchanging agricultural products. Engel’s Law tells us that if incomes increase the share of total income spent on farm products will decline. But, people can grow rich by producing and exchanging manufactured goods because the demand for those products appears to be inexhaustible. As development continues, the production of services—that is, goods that are intangible—became the major component of increased demand and production.

It is even more difficult for us to understand how it is possible for people to grow rich by producing and exchanging services—or as some would say, doing each other’s laundry. We continue to believe there must be some outside source of new wealth coming into the system. Accordingly, economic geographers classify production as ‘basic’ versus ‘non-basic’ goods and services, where basic goods are those sold outside the community (or city, or state, or country). It is presumed that economic growth is dependent upon production of basic goods—you must bring new wealth into the community if it is to develop economically. However, studies have shown that the share of all goods that are basic (sold outside the community) is mostly a function of the size of that community. A single farm or factory exports almost all of the goods produced; a town exports most of the goods and services produced; a very large city exports an smaller fraction of production; the State of Ohio exports proportionally less; large countries only a few percent of total GDP to other countries; and the world as a whole exports nothing at all. If it were true that development is dependent upon bringing wealth in from somewhere else, how could it be possible for the entire world to experience economic development?

Even though we know the basic/non-basic concept of development is flawed, we continue to cling to the notion that wealth must be generated from outside the system. The city fathers are willing to encourage and subsidize industries that produce products (especially tangible goods), that will be sold outside the city, because that brings money into the city. They are much less enthusiastic in their support of a bowling alley or a restaurant—and other industries that just move money around inside the city—because it is presumed that those industries do not promote economic growth. Oh, but they do! Indeed we have no evidence that production of intangible services to be consumed within the city contributes less to economic growth, dollar for dollar, than production of tangible goods, or goods to be sold elsewhere.

Obviously, some industries have greater spread effect by producing backward and forward linkages to other sectors of the economy. A car factory may encourage lateral developments in other related industries that produce raw materials, and stimulate transport and wholesale activities that are needed to move the finished product to customers. In this sense, the car factory does promote more economic development per dollar of production than does a bowling alley.

The theory of limited good is a logical and rational viewpoint that seems to hold in much of human experience. If there is one teaching position available in the Geography Department and Jane gets that job, then John and Martha will not get the job. If the salary increase pool for the department is a fixed amount of dollars (as it often is), then every dollar Tom gets is a dollar less for Bob and Charles (which explains why they fight like cats and dogs over the salary increase pool). If Joe gets the prettiest girl in the class, then Don and Mike certainly won’t. If Paul purchases the lot with the best view in the development, then Dorothy and Jim will have to make do with something less. And, in a society where economic development is absent—where the per capita income remains constant—one family can have a higher income only when one or more other families have a lower income. It is not easy to explain how and why the theory of limited good does not hold in societies that are experiencing economic development (experiencing income growth on a per capita basis). But, it is easy to explain why economic development is not possible as long as people behave as if the theory of limited good is at work in their community.

Winter Lake Circles

I noticed these circles in the snow on a small lake (Canvasback Lake) in our community in Idaho in December of 2005. Since that time I seem to find these circles on lakes and ponds just about everywhere I look (after freezing and snowfall). What caused them, and why did I not see them previously? My theory is in 2005 the space aliens that make crop circles in England decided to confound Americans during the winter when there were no crops to circle in England. Not finding crops in the U.S. during that time of year, they decided to do their thing on lakes. Recently I spotted “crop circles” on a pond on the Ohio University campus and asked a physicist friend to explain that phenomenon. He had a look at the circles and responded that physics does not deal with the paranormal. Have an alternative theory? I sure would like to hear it!