Capitalism / Consumerism ?
-
wolfbinary wrote:
altruistic like bettering ones self for the sake of that fulfillment?
Would you be referencing the beneficial aspects of Human Rights in terms of well being of all?
I'm referring to doing something for the enjoyment of it, much like hobbies and other things are.
-
Oakman wrote:
But isn't it fair to define profit as the excess of earned income over expenses? A worker - say an economist or a game programmer - who usually spends less than he takes in is accumulating capital, while a congressman or a banker who has amassed a great deal of easily obtainable credit and is using it to supplement his earnings in order to support a lifestyle the cost of which exceeds his earned income is a consumer, nothing else.
You seem to want to define profit as savings. I think we already have a perfectly good word for savings and that word is savings. By convention, profit only refers to the income of firms. If, however, you wanted to generalise it to cover all incomes (a bad idea in my opinion --- we use different words for different things so we can tell them apart), then you would need to treat those incomes consistently. With firms, we generally only treat as "expenses" those expenditures necessary for the earning of income. Consumption out of profits is a way of spending profits; it does not reduce the figure for profits. Therefore we should do the same for workers. Accordingly, we would not deduct all expenses from a worker's wage in order to arrive at a figure for the worker's "profit", only some of them. By virtue of the smaller deduction, the figure for "profit" would thus be greater than the figure for savings.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
By convention, profit only refers to the income of firms.
I believe you meant to say the difference from the income and expense of firms, didn't you? We have a very good word for income and that word is income. ;)
John Carson wrote:
then you would need to treat those incomes consistently.
An excellent point. And one you are right to bring up. Be that as it may, I was actually trying to define savings as a method of accumulating capital - which, it seemed to me was the definition of profit that was being offered. I have no trouble accepting someone else's definitions of terms, as long as those definitions don't change as the discussion progresses.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
I'm referring to doing something for the enjoyment of it, much like hobbies and other things are.
-
I'd probably draw the line at the limit where savings exceeds investment. That's wealth hoarding and is usually associated with economic downturns. You are right - consumerism is a lifestyle choice, but that lifestyle is facilitated by things like easy credit. Easy credit is not what I would call a fundamental good; it's a frivolous good.
73Zeppelin wrote:
I'd probably draw the line at the limit where savings exceeds investment
That is pretty broad. How would you define investment? Does it have to be in the market at large? Would you consider purchasing fixed income assets as investing? How about acquiring capitol and sitting on it to build equity outside of stocks and bonds?
73Zeppelin wrote:
That's wealth hoarding and is usually associated with economic downturns.
Are you saying that Joe Worker who budgets 45% of his income for expenses and investments and places the remainder in a "safe place" is part of the problem?
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --?
-
Hobbies no doubt has the "feel good factor", but the psychology of shopping should never be underestimated, especially if you are of the gentler sex. It has enormous therapeutic value albeit at the potential cost of overextending the family budget.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
but the psychology of shopping should never be underestimated, especially if you are of the gentler sex. It has enormous therapeutic value albeit at the potential cost of overextending the family budget.
I've never understood this. Maybe I am just not wired the like a lot of other people. Luckily, my wife is a saver as well.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --?
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
but the psychology of shopping should never be underestimated, especially if you are of the gentler sex. It has enormous therapeutic value albeit at the potential cost of overextending the family budget.
I've never understood this. Maybe I am just not wired the like a lot of other people. Luckily, my wife is a saver as well.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --?
-
Yep, I much rather get tarred and feathered than to shop like my mother in law; that lady is a pro.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --?
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
I'd probably draw the line at the limit where savings exceeds investment
That is pretty broad. How would you define investment? Does it have to be in the market at large? Would you consider purchasing fixed income assets as investing? How about acquiring capitol and sitting on it to build equity outside of stocks and bonds?
73Zeppelin wrote:
That's wealth hoarding and is usually associated with economic downturns.
Are you saying that Joe Worker who budgets 45% of his income for expenses and investments and places the remainder in a "safe place" is part of the problem?
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --?
Chris Austin wrote:
That is pretty broad. How would you define investment? Does it have to be in the market at large? Would you consider purchasing fixed income assets as investing? How about acquiring capitol and sitting on it to build equity outside of stocks and bonds?
I meant the traditional economist idea of investment measured as a function of interest rate and income. By savings I mean savings as measured by disposable income less expenditure. I admit it's a loose definition. When savings exceeds investment (in the above sense), then this is associated with economic downturns. There are multiple definitions of investment - economic, financial, real-estate, corporate, etc... I am referring to the economic definition that can be calculated using macroeconomic quantities. Since you raised the point, then under the current economic crisis, Joe the Worker who is ferretting away his savings is contributing to the immediate problem at the moment. Savings in an economy undergoing deflation worsens the problem.
-
Chris Austin wrote:
That is pretty broad. How would you define investment? Does it have to be in the market at large? Would you consider purchasing fixed income assets as investing? How about acquiring capitol and sitting on it to build equity outside of stocks and bonds?
I meant the traditional economist idea of investment measured as a function of interest rate and income. By savings I mean savings as measured by disposable income less expenditure. I admit it's a loose definition. When savings exceeds investment (in the above sense), then this is associated with economic downturns. There are multiple definitions of investment - economic, financial, real-estate, corporate, etc... I am referring to the economic definition that can be calculated using macroeconomic quantities. Since you raised the point, then under the current economic crisis, Joe the Worker who is ferretting away his savings is contributing to the immediate problem at the moment. Savings in an economy undergoing deflation worsens the problem.
So this bloke, Joe the Worker, may be one of those people who believes in saving for a "rainy day". His "rainy day" might not yet have arrived but you are suggesting that as these savings are part of the problem. He could should spend at the high street but he may not be in need of anything. He could should invest in the usual places, but he might be putting that money, or at least some of it, at what he might consider, as an unacceptable risk. How should he behave at this moment in time? And why should he? when you consider that his money right now might be more safe stuffed into his mattress.
-
So this bloke, Joe the Worker, may be one of those people who believes in saving for a "rainy day". His "rainy day" might not yet have arrived but you are suggesting that as these savings are part of the problem. He could should spend at the high street but he may not be in need of anything. He could should invest in the usual places, but he might be putting that money, or at least some of it, at what he might consider, as an unacceptable risk. How should he behave at this moment in time? And why should he? when you consider that his money right now might be more safe stuffed into his mattress.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
So this bloke, Joe the Worker, may be one of those people who believes in saving for a "rainy day". His "rainy day" might not yet have arrived but you are suggesting that as these savings are part of the problem. He could should spend at the high street but he may not be in need of anything. He could should invest in the usual places, but he might be putting that money, or at least some of it, at what he might consider, as an unacceptable risk. How should he behave at this moment in time? And why should he? when you consider that his money right now might be more safe stuffed into his mattress.
It's true that his money might be more safe in the short-term under his mattress, but in the long term it won't. Right now, the economy is experiencing a devaluation of assets - stocks AND houses. are all losing value. Unemployment is rising which means that there are less consumers. Less consumers mean that companies build up inventories and reduce sales. This leads to decreased profitability and more unemployment along with increased inventories. What happens is that the deflationary spiral continues unless there is demand for goods. Since banks are not lending and people are increasing savings demand for goods drops further. It is a continuing spiral. The only way to stop it is for banks to lend and people to stop saving. So while the money under his mattress may be good in the short-term, his assets like stock and real-estate continue to devalue at a rate that more than likely exceeds his savings. The long-term picture is therefore grim. He should therefore spend an amount that is within his budget and, along with government stimulus, the recovery should begin which will lead to an eventual increase in his assets and therefore to economic growth.
-
Hobbies no doubt has the "feel good factor", but the psychology of shopping should never be underestimated, especially if you are of the gentler sex. It has enormous therapeutic value albeit at the potential cost of overextending the family budget.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
but the psychology of shopping should never be underestimated, especially if you are of the gentler sex
Men play games; women shop.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
So this bloke, Joe the Worker, may be one of those people who believes in saving for a "rainy day". His "rainy day" might not yet have arrived but you are suggesting that as these savings are part of the problem. He could should spend at the high street but he may not be in need of anything. He could should invest in the usual places, but he might be putting that money, or at least some of it, at what he might consider, as an unacceptable risk. How should he behave at this moment in time? And why should he? when you consider that his money right now might be more safe stuffed into his mattress.
It's true that his money might be more safe in the short-term under his mattress, but in the long term it won't. Right now, the economy is experiencing a devaluation of assets - stocks AND houses. are all losing value. Unemployment is rising which means that there are less consumers. Less consumers mean that companies build up inventories and reduce sales. This leads to decreased profitability and more unemployment along with increased inventories. What happens is that the deflationary spiral continues unless there is demand for goods. Since banks are not lending and people are increasing savings demand for goods drops further. It is a continuing spiral. The only way to stop it is for banks to lend and people to stop saving. So while the money under his mattress may be good in the short-term, his assets like stock and real-estate continue to devalue at a rate that more than likely exceeds his savings. The long-term picture is therefore grim. He should therefore spend an amount that is within his budget and, along with government stimulus, the recovery should begin which will lead to an eventual increase in his assets and therefore to economic growth.
73Zeppelin wrote:
stocks AND houses. are all losing value.
Gold isn't. And, FWIW, housing isn't losing value everywhere, at least not at the same rate. Here in the U.S. bubble-markets like California, Florida, Arizona and some others in the northeast are contributing a very large percentage of the average declines in housing prices. Both of these factoids suggest to me, that when we deal with real goods we are not seeing a decline in value - except where it was artificially inflated. I don't think that most folks who want to hoard their wealth bury it in the back yard or hide it in their mattress. They buy gold or other unlikely-to-depreciate assets. Or, of course, they stick it in a Swiss bank. But that's obviously becoming less and less attractive as they cave to the taxman. The point I'm getting around to is that putting your money in a savings account, isn't hoarding, though an awful lot of the unibrowed politicans are starting to talk as if it is. It's just an investment that most people understand. Indeed, a savings account is just like a Neaderthal: simple and ugly.
73Zeppelin wrote:
He should therefore spend an amount that is within his budget and, along with government stimulus, the recovery should begin which will lead to an eventual increase in his assets and therefore to economic growth
So if you had a couple of hundred thou in gold bullion (sounds like a lot, doesn't it? How about we say 200 golden eagles (or gold maples for you) - would you trade it in for stocks, or start buying all kinds of consumer goods?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
stocks AND houses. are all losing value.
Gold isn't. And, FWIW, housing isn't losing value everywhere, at least not at the same rate. Here in the U.S. bubble-markets like California, Florida, Arizona and some others in the northeast are contributing a very large percentage of the average declines in housing prices. Both of these factoids suggest to me, that when we deal with real goods we are not seeing a decline in value - except where it was artificially inflated. I don't think that most folks who want to hoard their wealth bury it in the back yard or hide it in their mattress. They buy gold or other unlikely-to-depreciate assets. Or, of course, they stick it in a Swiss bank. But that's obviously becoming less and less attractive as they cave to the taxman. The point I'm getting around to is that putting your money in a savings account, isn't hoarding, though an awful lot of the unibrowed politicans are starting to talk as if it is. It's just an investment that most people understand. Indeed, a savings account is just like a Neaderthal: simple and ugly.
73Zeppelin wrote:
He should therefore spend an amount that is within his budget and, along with government stimulus, the recovery should begin which will lead to an eventual increase in his assets and therefore to economic growth
So if you had a couple of hundred thou in gold bullion (sounds like a lot, doesn't it? How about we say 200 golden eagles (or gold maples for you) - would you trade it in for stocks, or start buying all kinds of consumer goods?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
putting your money in a savings account, isn't hoarding
If that is for a rainy day then I suppose if it is a modest amount then that presumably would be fine. Not that the amount you could earn from it is worth very much considering what base rates are. But are those political animals following their own advice or is it a case of "do as I say but not as I do". Anyhow, during the early 1990's there was a fall in the value of houses, although this was accompanied by very much higher interest rates, people found themselves in negative equity but the majority stayed put and rode out the storm. And with government help (e.g. The Real Estate Rescue Plan), there is no reason to believe this storm can't be ridden with the same or similar kind-of spirit. I fully appreciate that events on the ground are not at all similar, but sooner or later that light at the end of the tunnel will be spotted and it will get brighter.
-
I think one of the key differences between capitalism and pathologic consumerism is as follows. Under "healthy" capitalism, producers produce goods that are bought by consumers. Producers profit and consumers have the freedom to purchase goods. This is good for producers and for consumers, as long as all consumers have equal access to the good - producers generate wealth and consumers benefit by having access to important, let's call them fundamental, goods. Under pathologic consumerism, what we can observe is the emergence of two separate classes - a wealthy class who have too few needs (i.e. insufficiently needy) and a poorer class that are overly needy as a result of having too little wealth. It almost sounds like socialism, but it's not. Capitalism should provide for real human needs, not excessive needs or, put another way, frivolous goods. One possible way to differentiate consumerism from capitalism then, is when the market for frivolous goods exceeds the market for essential goods in the presence of a substantial demographic that has insufficient access to fundamental goods. Equvalently, a priveleged subclass of economic agents begin to dictate what the "free market" provides, resulting in an asymmetric goods market that favours frivolous over core goods. EDIT: As an example, mortgages would be a fundamental good, securitized mortgages would be a frivolous good.
modified on Wednesday, March 4, 2009 3:54 AM
I just read a book that largely argued what you just said, that the problem today is that consumerism needs to create artificial wants to create markets, and the people with real needs, have no power to access that market.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Chris Austin wrote:
That is pretty broad. How would you define investment? Does it have to be in the market at large? Would you consider purchasing fixed income assets as investing? How about acquiring capitol and sitting on it to build equity outside of stocks and bonds?
I meant the traditional economist idea of investment measured as a function of interest rate and income. By savings I mean savings as measured by disposable income less expenditure. I admit it's a loose definition. When savings exceeds investment (in the above sense), then this is associated with economic downturns. There are multiple definitions of investment - economic, financial, real-estate, corporate, etc... I am referring to the economic definition that can be calculated using macroeconomic quantities. Since you raised the point, then under the current economic crisis, Joe the Worker who is ferretting away his savings is contributing to the immediate problem at the moment. Savings in an economy undergoing deflation worsens the problem.
Thanks for humoring me and my straw-man. I'd appreciate it if you indulged a few more elementary questions. Does contemporary macroeconomic theory place a measure of goodness on investing in liquid vs illiquid assets? Does it prefer equities over realized periodic returns?
73Zeppelin wrote:
Since you raised the point, then under the current economic crisis, Joe the Worker who is ferretting away his savings is contributing to the immediate problem at the moment. Savings in an economy undergoing deflation worsens the problem.
I guess to myself and other savers who are in a good position to ride out this recession because of our cash on hand this seems to be a bit of and Ivory Tower attitude toward the problem. And, it doesn't take much to see that companies that did save during the boom times are in a better long term position than those that failed to do so. Personally, I look at people who bought into the equities scheme and feel bad that it may set them back many years. What does classical macroeconomics have to say about considerable savings rates during good times? I suspose, I could use Intel as example to prove both points of view :). 1) They saved billions of dollars in the recent years and 2) have elected to use this time when they are running below capacity to upgrade and invest in their plants.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --?
-
I just read a book that largely argued what you just said, that the problem today is that consumerism needs to create artificial wants to create markets, and the people with real needs, have no power to access that market.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Oakman wrote:
putting your money in a savings account, isn't hoarding
If that is for a rainy day then I suppose if it is a modest amount then that presumably would be fine. Not that the amount you could earn from it is worth very much considering what base rates are. But are those political animals following their own advice or is it a case of "do as I say but not as I do". Anyhow, during the early 1990's there was a fall in the value of houses, although this was accompanied by very much higher interest rates, people found themselves in negative equity but the majority stayed put and rode out the storm. And with government help (e.g. The Real Estate Rescue Plan), there is no reason to believe this storm can't be ridden with the same or similar kind-of spirit. I fully appreciate that events on the ground are not at all similar, but sooner or later that light at the end of the tunnel will be spotted and it will get brighter.
OT: I find this whole discussion entirely fun. It's one of the few ernest conversations we've had recently on this board where people have asked sincere and thoughtful questions.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
If that is for a rainy day then I suppose if it is a modest amount then that presumably would be fine.
Does it have to be for a rainy day? I subscribe to the school of thought that one should save to make all purchases. As a real example, my wife and I want to build a new lani style patio on our home. Rather than borrow the money, we are saving a portion of our 'allowance' until we can pay cash for it. We did the same when we purchased the cars that we drive. In the end, to me anyway, it's not hoarding but living responsibly.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --?
-
OT: I find this whole discussion entirely fun. It's one of the few ernest conversations we've had recently on this board where people have asked sincere and thoughtful questions.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
If that is for a rainy day then I suppose if it is a modest amount then that presumably would be fine.
Does it have to be for a rainy day? I subscribe to the school of thought that one should save to make all purchases. As a real example, my wife and I want to build a new lani style patio on our home. Rather than borrow the money, we are saving a portion of our 'allowance' until we can pay cash for it. We did the same when we purchased the cars that we drive. In the end, to me anyway, it's not hoarding but living responsibly.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --?
Chris Austin wrote:
I find this whole discussion entirely fun
Likewise, and with Zep and Carson here, it is also informative. And not a bad word in sight. :-D
Chris Austin wrote:
Does it have to be for a rainy day?
No it doesn't. But that is an expression. See Here[^]. For example, your washing machine is just out of warranty, there is nothing wrong with it at the moment. However, as God made little green apples (another unfortunate expression), some day it is going to go wrong, and always when you most need it. Saving money for a rainy day will enable that washing machine to be repaired (or replaced) sooner rather than later.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
stocks AND houses. are all losing value.
Gold isn't. And, FWIW, housing isn't losing value everywhere, at least not at the same rate. Here in the U.S. bubble-markets like California, Florida, Arizona and some others in the northeast are contributing a very large percentage of the average declines in housing prices. Both of these factoids suggest to me, that when we deal with real goods we are not seeing a decline in value - except where it was artificially inflated. I don't think that most folks who want to hoard their wealth bury it in the back yard or hide it in their mattress. They buy gold or other unlikely-to-depreciate assets. Or, of course, they stick it in a Swiss bank. But that's obviously becoming less and less attractive as they cave to the taxman. The point I'm getting around to is that putting your money in a savings account, isn't hoarding, though an awful lot of the unibrowed politicans are starting to talk as if it is. It's just an investment that most people understand. Indeed, a savings account is just like a Neaderthal: simple and ugly.
73Zeppelin wrote:
He should therefore spend an amount that is within his budget and, along with government stimulus, the recovery should begin which will lead to an eventual increase in his assets and therefore to economic growth
So if you had a couple of hundred thou in gold bullion (sounds like a lot, doesn't it? How about we say 200 golden eagles (or gold maples for you) - would you trade it in for stocks, or start buying all kinds of consumer goods?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
The point I'm getting around to is that putting your money in a savings account, isn't hoarding, though an awful lot of the unibrowed politicans are starting to talk as if it is.
Really? Who have you heard starting down that road? I've stopped reading the paper or watching the news lately so I am sure I've missed it. OT. I forgot to followup with you on Variable Star. It was the fist book written by Spider Robinson that I had read and I have to say, Spider is one hell of a story teller. I failed to resist the urge to run out and get more of his books and disturb my book queue. I ended up reading Very Bad Deaths just after finishing Variable Star and found it a very fun story. Fourtantly, I was able to regain control and get back to the reading list. Now I am reading Anathem by Stephenson and enjoying it.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --?
-
There's been plenty of comments lately that capitalism as an economic model is broken (naturally enough given the present state of the world's economy). However a recent comment by one economist set me thinking - as he stated, "capitalism is about the acquiring of capital". What this meant to me is that the present dominant economic model in the world is not actually capitalism, but consumerism. The two look very similar, but have fundamentally different objectives. If that's the case, then I'd actually agree that the present economic model (of consumerism) is broken. Following that the economic stimulus packages that promote spending (including those that advocate tax breaks) are nothing more than trying to reinflate a bubble that has already burst. Has anyone seen any good descriptions that distinguish between consumerism and capitalism, or that has seen sensible well-reasoned alternate arguments as to what the likely impacts of the "let's get them spending" ecomoronic stimulust packages will be, as opposed to current "just make things better" line. Please note I'm all for economic stimulus - studying the Great Depression makes you realise that doing nothing, doing too little or doing it too late are the most moronic ideas of all. And I realise I'm not going to change governmental policy on this one. Instead I just want to improve my understanding of what these attempts at economic stimilus will really result in.
I just love Koalas - they go great with Bacon.
Lee Humphries wrote:
studying the Great Depression makes you realise that doing nothing, doing too little or doing it too late are the most moronic ideas of all.
A study of the great depression would establish to a sane, unbiased mind that stimulus spending just does not work. Doing nothing at all in 1929, or later, would have completely prevented the great depression. The markets would have corrected themselves in their own way and things would have been fine within a year or two. Calvin Cooledge proved that during the '20s. As to consumerism, it is a natual product of capitalism. The only problem we have is that consumers believe themselves to be protected from harm by the government. If people who over consume were allowed to suffer the consequencies for their own ignorance, the problems of over-consumption would largely go away. All these problems point back at government, not at capitalism. Capitalism works just fine. It provides the greatest amount of wealth and security for the greatest number of people. And, in addition to that, works completely independently of the state. The state does not want you to believe that, and does everything it can to cripple capitalism and blame capitalism for it, but it is true.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
modified on Wednesday, March 4, 2009 5:29 PM