Read other letters about this article

• Tuesday, April 1, 2008 11:15 PM

  @mlee

  Thanks for asking for a clarification (and a few other things) instead of just knocking out a knee-jerk response. That was refreshing. I'd be happy to answer to the best of my ability and hopefully you'll find it when you get up. Also, I apologize for seeming to condescend. That wasn't my intention.

  What I meant by my "Fire!"-in-a-crowded-theater comments was precisely that Leonard had not presented his observations that way, but it did strike me that the first bunch of respondents seemed to be reacting as though someone had done just that. The guy (Leonard,I mean) wrote a thoughtful, intelligent piece on his cogitations regarding what has become ever more possible over the past 25 years and the immediate responses, up til mine posted, seemed to be an almost universal wailing, moaning and gnashing of teeth, as though someone had already struck The Gong. I was trying to point out that while Mr. Leonard had been pretty clear that his article was speculation, it is only that, and that there is certainly opportunity to avoid the Upright Spike of 2009 (just as we did "The Upright Spike of 1979", a book written by a pre-Reagan economic panic-monger, which will no longer even bring up a single Google result). I agree that Leonard's article is well-thought out and his conclusions are pretty sound. It was the almost universal death rattle it seemed to elicit which set me off.

  Now then. As for my fiscal conservatism, please bear in mind I am not a neoconservative -- in fact, while I consider myself a conservative socially also, I recognize that it won't fit a contemporary reading of that definition. I identify more with social conservatives such as Jack Kerouac and William S. Burroughs. I am very much my father's son, so fiscally I take "conservation" very literally. I believe in paying as one goes as much as is practical, of saving -- money as well as natural resources -- and basically my attitude toward government spending would be analogous to the difference between the discovery of a termite infestation in one's house vs. waking up to discover the house is on fire. In the former situation one would curse quietly, then place calls to two or more reputable exterminators, get their estimates (as well as repair estimates), weigh all the pros and cons (the house won't collapse over night), then make a considered choice of contractors and give the green light. Hopefully one would have set aside something for a disaster fund that would help cover the cost.

  If the place is on fire, one hopes the fire department, once called, will respond promptly and will have trained well and often and will be able to minimize the damage, save any lives and as much property as possible. Needless to say, even with an all-volunteer force, such a response would also depend upon having set aside some funds to keep the force in good shape, but when imminent loss is likely, one is less likely to weigh all the costs before dialing 9-1-1.

  I have no sympathy for the print-more-money faction which would bail out the poker players who got us into the current crisis, no more than I have for those who took us into this trillion dollar war of attrition in which we're mired. Both contribute to the financial crisis. I'm quite prepared for an intelligent and fact-based new government to revalue the dollar, print new currency, re-establish a precious metal standard so that money is actually worth something, and to encourage people to save, not spend; I don't feel it is our responsibility to save the big corporations from themselves. Charity begins at home. We need to learn to live within our means, pay for what we can afford, get past our "He who dies with the most toys wins" outlook, and in general apply the wisdom of those who lived through the Great Depression. That's what makes me fiscally conservative. I've learned over time to require less, rely on the best quality goods I can afford, and to remember always that I can never "save" any money by spending money. When it's spent it's not saved, so it ought to be invested in durable, quality goods.

  I believe in cooperative, self-sufficient communities of work. Fromm called it "Communitarian socialism." You can't use terms with the "S-word" in them around most Republicans, so I've tried coming up with alternative names for it. I believe the "Pineys" of the south New Jersey pine barrens are probably better at this than most urbanites across the swamp (and no, I don't live in south Jersey, but just outside Washington, DC).

  I don't live in a plywood shack like the greybeard loon I'm making myself sound like, either. But by keeping things simple I manage to make ends meet even though at present I am (hopefully temporarily) unable to work due to a mysterious neurological problem. I am virtually debt free yet live comfortably on a little more than $30,000 per year. If the bottom falls out from under that I'll be in good company, but it won't be because I felt I really needed a McMansion to validate my self worth. OK, that may have sounded condescending. Sorry.

  I'm that kind of fiscal conservative. I really do believe a lot of the old bromides our parents (or grandparents -- my god, I grow old!) have repeated to us, and they have served me remarkably well. As I said in my initial post, my parents had nothing to lose when the Depression rolled around. They'd already learned to make a silk purse from a sow's ear. They did fine. We can all learn to simplify and, at the same time, break the back of the corporate robber barons. They need us. We don't need them.

  I hope that clarifies my earlier, rambling screed. Thanks for asking!

  —AJCalhoun Read AJCalhoun's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel