Thoughts on "My Ishmael"

2002

I just read “My Ishmael”. It is quite a subversive, thought-provoking book. Some profound ideas in there:

Children are forced to go to school for 12 years not to learn, but to keep the competition off the job market. Children learn everything they need without school.
Because our culture has locked up the food and prevented children from learning how to survive, we must work to earn money to buy food. This keeps the economic products economy turning as long as most people participate. This destroys us.
A return to tribal living would free us from work and school and provide everything we need.
We should want to live like tribes because they provide cradle-to-grave social support systems, which we do not have now. People will give up products in exchange for social support.

I agree with most of these ideas. I’m not sure I agree that people will give up a consumerist lifestyle for the social support, since throughout history people have been moving in the opposite direction.

How we “spend” our lives

In 2001 about 20% of my earnings (through work) I did not take home. I spent about 75% of my spending on mortgage, home improvements, and utilities. Without this darn house, I could have lived out of a (uninsured, nonworking) car for $5,500. I spent 93% of what I made.

The entire economic system is designed to pass wealth from the lower and middle classes to the elite in the real estate, insurance, banking, and government industries. Think about it. Real estate is a huge scam. It is totally overvalued. It is ridiculous that rents and mortgages cost what they do today. It causes us to enslave ourselves in order to live in a “normal” home/apartment. Pre-European Americans didn’t have to worry about paying rent. They were truly free.

Without the costs of a dwelling, the $200,000 I’ve made in the last 12 years could have lasted me 40 years! Until I was 60! I could have lived out of a (nonworking) car for the last 12 years while working, and then spent the rest of my life until 60 backpacking and camping! Living on $5,000 per year! Then I’d have nothing, but who cares if I die at 60 with such a free life?

My Ishmael was wrong. Locking up the food is just a small part of the problem. Locking up the LAND by the real estate industry is the BIGGER PROBLEM.

So how do we solve this? How do we devalue land? Decrease population. It is the only way. That is why California MUST grow--to feed the real estate, insurance, banking, and government (tax) industries.

A stable population would stabilize property values. Land would no longer be an investment to get rich on (and getting rich on anything is antisocial behavior), but a place to live and work.

A declining population would cause property values to decrease. This would, of course, be unacceptable to most property owners. Buying land would NOT be an investment, it would be a disinvestment. Land would still be necessary to live and work on, but aside from this value there would be no value in holding it. This could have negative consequences, such as lack of stewardship since land is abundant--slash and burn and move on and don’t invest in anything.

It seems to me a stable population is the only reasonable solution that would best protect the land. New subdivisions, new sprawl, anything new would become unnecessary. Remaining wildlands would be protected. We could invest in improving our already built environments. We would have an improved infrastructure, a stable economy, and a healthy environment.

Lawyers are just a scapegoat--don’t blame them. Blame the bankers, real estate agents, insurance agents, and tax collectors. Okay, I guess you can blame lawyers and doctors too. Maybe mining and manufacturing tycoons... agribusiness giants...