Tennis and American Political Conversations 4

I see how you think that the Knight - Knave axis flows across all of these, that makes sense in a way. I don't understand your point about grunting in tennis, back a few articles ago. Not understanding the tennis culture much, I can see how grunting would be considred impolite just as eating wtih the wrong fork was once considered impolite. I think that what you were saying was that a famous, with-it tennis player started grunting. With the trend setter doing the grunting, grunting became OK.

If grunting doesn't help you win the match, it's culture, not techique, right?

I guess that's how culture moves - famous people do something and it becomes "in." Sometimes a nobody does something and it becomes in, but that is a lot rarer. Pet rocks, for example.

Was the space program culture? We stopped doing it even though the techniques improved after we got to the moon.

The internet was technique until it broke out of the geek community; now it's more or less culture, but a huge mix of cultures. It got too big to regulate before the governmetn caught on, so it's stayed much more free market. Regulation is trying to get control of it.

In health care, technique makes costs go up becuse the new stuff is expensive and because people live enough longer to need yet more medical procedures. Culture says we gotta give anyone all the health care they want at any time. Regulation says the government sets all the rules for health care. Do you see a cultural change coming to keep us from going broke?

Culture, technique, regulation and market are not equals as described in this article. It is a nice, though ivory tower fantasy that Scott has dreamed up but does anyone really think that any of it would matter without the free market? It is the market that drives the other three aspects of this article. Without the market regulation is not in the equation, technique would be in the cave and culture is well, simply put, a critique on someone else's achievements. The thing to write about is how the market is the dominant force and the other three are predators who can only criticize and not create.

Bassboat, The market does not "create" anything. People create things. The market is one system that may guide or motivate the creation, as does culture, technique or regulation.

Many of the greatest technical innovations, like space travel and computers were not created for any "market" purposes, but rather "because we can" Likewise many great things like the 'kayak' or the 'canoe' (I take it you are a boat lover) were not created within a market system. They were creations guided by cultural systems. I would guess that many of the things that we like best and respect most were created under the influence of culture or technique, rather than market. Market gives us the cheap Chinese made tools and fishing equipment that we throw away after one season. Culture gave us the invention of fishing, and the equipment that gets handed-down generation to generation.

@SF - I think kayaks were created because people needed to get from point A to point B to find food. The threat of starving concentrates the mind.

I think that fising was similarly driven by threat of starvation. ELEGANT fishing was culture - teh Compleat Angler, for example, was cultural.

The most amazing example I know of culture winning over technique is the Japanese tea ceremony - it oculd take all day to clean the pavilion and do a hundred and one things needed to share a perfect cup of tea in the evening.

UR right about poeple creating things; you might want to consider an ability - incentive axis as well. Ability seems to be pretty generally distributed in the population, but motivation matters, too. Welfare nukes motivation so nothing happens in the ghettos.

Keep writing. Is there a segment 5?

SF,
Thank you for pointing out the obvious. When I said the market created things of course they are created by people. I was simply trying to stay with the theme of market, regulation, technique and culture. Just so no one else is confused it takes a person to regulate, have technique or culture. I stand by my statement that it is the market that drives the other three aspects of this article. Without the market the other three would either not exist or at best be a mere shadow of what they are thanks to the market. As for my username "bassboat", nothing could be further from what I like than bassboat.

Bassboat and FredF,

Motivations are important. But we should never confuse motivations with market. The market provides one set of motivations, but culture, technique and regulations each provide other sets. They are all “motivational” in there own way. There was no market system in the Inuit culture that brought us the kayak (one of millions of examples) but there was competition, need for survival etc. But culture, market and regulation each channel these motovations and needs in different ways. They each provide different kinds of solutions. What we need to see how each works and then how we can interact with and shape each to deliver better social outcomes.

Bassboat, my whole article was an attempt to illustrate that Americans place too much faith in the market to “solve problems.” I guess it was not very effective. I believe very strongly that until we give up the idea that the market (or regulation on the liberal side) should be the primary system for problem-solving we are going to continue to spin our wheels.

The funny thing is, I believe that most Americans do believe this deep down. They see how their recent ancestors lived and solved problems without deferring to numerical cost calculations and equations. And they also see how the market has destroyed so much that is valuable to them: quality, craftsmanship, skills, natural environments, hunting grounds, neighborhoods, family traditions, honor and trust; things that are valuable for their own sake, not because they are worth money, can be traded for other things, or make good ‘branding’ for a corporation.

Yes the market system has brought many great things to the world, and we should protect it. But I think it is time for conservatives to wake up and see that to protect the market requires a broader perspective on the other systems of motivation and value that are at least equally important. And I think this is within our grasp.

FredF, on fishing: Fishing that relies on skils, knowledge, respect for nature and tools that are refined as they are passed between generations is a cultural solution, regardless of hw elegant it appears. And this cultural approach may or may not iteract with market, regulation or technique - depending on geographic or historical context.

But while fishing does not 'need' to be elegant to be cultural, I certainly agree that culture is more 'likely' to produce elegant tools (think samurai sword or japanese knives) or skills such as the bow-hunting traditions of the American indians. I bet we could add thousands of examples to this list of elegant and skillful practices that have originated in a cultural context and where market had limited influence.

Alternatively we can see how the interaction of market and technique produce very efficient but 'in-elegant' fishing, like the ugly and unhealthy fish-farming of salmon in Chile, or the industrial over fishing of the Cod stocks on the east coast of Canada and the US. Yes we get cheaper fish, but is this all that matters?

If we rely on the market and technique alone we will get cheaper and cheaper genetically-modified farmed fish with mercury poisoning. If this is what we want, we should keep doing what we are doing. If we value other things its time to engage alternative systems.

FredF, on fishing: Fishing that relies on skils, knowledge, respect for nature and tools that are refined as they are passed between generations is a cultural solution, regardless of hw elegant it appears. And this cultural approach may or may not iteract with market, regulation or technique - depending on geographic or historical context.

But while fishing does not 'need' to be elegant to be cultural, I certainly agree that culture is more 'likely' to produce elegant tools (think samurai sword or japanese knives) or skills such as the bow-hunting traditions of the American indians. I bet we could add thousands of examples to this list of elegant and skillful practices that have originated in a cultural context and where market had limited influence.

Alternatively we can see how the interaction of market and technique produce very efficient but 'in-elegant' fishing, like the ugly and unhealthy fish-farming of salmon in Chile, or the industrial over fishing of the Cod stocks on the east coast of Canada and the US. Yes we get cheaper fish, but is this all that matters?

If we rely on the market and technique alone we will get cheaper and cheaper genetically-modified farmed fish with mercury poisoning. If this is what we want, we should keep doing what we are doing. If we value other things its time to engage alternative systems.

@SF - One of the major goals of any culture has to be procreation, preservation, and pedagogy of children - if children do not learn and value the culture of their parents the culture can die in one generation.

Just about all culture before the industrial revolution were kinda centered around making sure women could take care of their children. This was both instinct and culture. Techniques varied - hunger / gatherer culture, agricultural culture, but the cultural imperative of preserving children and teaching them "how we do things around here" dominated.

With the industrial revolution, it became a lot easier to take care of children. The welfare system was put in place as a means of making sure that all children were taken care of, at least that was how it was sold.

The result has been that women no longer worry about paying the bills. In some sub-cultures, having a welfare baby means that a girl has grown up; it has become a rite of passage. A woman can have children without cutting a long-term deal with a man who will help her raise the children according to "how we do things around here."

Although some single mothers raise law-abiding children, FBI statistics show that 70% of habitual criminals did not live with both parents while growing up.

Our culture used to suggest strongly to young ladies that they get a husband before getting pregnant. Our culture has changed in that in many places, just getting pregnant means you're grown up. The last of fatherhood is destroying our culture - fathers are an important element in passing on culture.

What will this do to our cultural axis?

SF,

We all see things through our own lenses with different colors. An example of your statement,

" And they also see how the market has destroyed so much that is valuable to them: quality, craftsmanship, skills, natural environments, hunting grounds, neighborhoods, family traditions, honor and trust; things that are valuable for their own sake, not because they are worth money, can be traded for other things, or make good ‘branding’ for a corporation." has to have a rebuttal.

You see quality craftsmanship being hurt by the market. I see products enhanced by the market in an attempt for a company to outdo its competitor. Examples: automobiles, airplanes, hair dryers.

You see skills diminished by the market. I see skills by our workers that the workers of even 100 years ago would be amazed at. Examples: Dentistry, carpenters, bricklayers, doctors.

Natural environment: Take a look at how mankind has replenished the timber industry by the replanting of trees. According to sources that I read we have more trees today in North America than when the Pilgrims came to our shores. Are they the original trees? No but what good does the tree do mankind except to harvest it? Dams? Constant flooding has been controlled for the benefit of mankind. We were not placed here on this planet to pay homage to the natural resources but to use them for our benefit.Should we be good caretakers of our resources? Absolutely.

Hunting grounds: We have more hunters today than ever.

Neighborhoods: How does the market affect neighborhoods? People make up neighborhoods which I think is your culture aspect. Have the neighborhoods gone down in their morality or their cleanliness or their safety or what? The market is the market. It has goods and services to sell to enhance people's lives. If these goods and services do not accomplish this then these companies go out of business. Neighborhoods have to accept the responsibility for what they are.

Family traditions? The market has hurt this?

Honor and trust? The market has hurt this?

As you can see, I have a different set of opinions than you. For me the liberal agenda that pushes abortion, the values of ACLU, the court orders that diminish religion in our schools, workplace, courts, and life in general hurt us to the core, Hollywood values in the movies, porn, and welfare are what I see that regulations and lawyers have done to our culture and our markets. The folks with less money than others have less because of regulations but that argument is never made. Health care costs are higher than they should be because of lawyers but who hears that argument? Not paying taxes by all people robs dignity and self worth from the folks with less money but who hears that argument?

SF, you wrote a very interesting article and it has a lot of excellent insight on how these 4 agendas interact but like all articles, including this rant of mine, there are weak spots. I still will say this again, "I stand by my statement that it is the market that drives the other three aspects of this article. Without the market the other three would either not exist or at best be a mere shadow of what they are thanks to the market."

Bassboat,

My point is that the market has negatively impacted "craftsmanship" NOT the goods themselves, like hairdriers or cars, which we can often get cheaper (and in some cases better) thanks to the market. Craftsmanship is the value of doing something well 'for its own sake' (not for money). There was a very good book written about this called The Craftsman, by Richard Sennett about this topic if you are interested to read further.

The purpose of this article was to get people thinking about these alternative systems and how they impact behaviors and outcomes. And I think by your statement about how regulations have negatively impacted culture (school prayer) shows me that you understand this. Interestingly, this is a perfect example of something that the market has almost nothing to do with.

If you can't see how the market can negatively impact family traditions, honor and trust, I might say you aren't looking very hard. As the market offers cheaper alternatives to say home-cooked meals, we see Americans changing their diets to eat more fast processed food. Not only does this lead to health problems, but also less time spent with family preparing and eating the food. This is the result of the market "working" to produce cheaper, faster food, that in turn competes with traditional (cultural) solutions to the same problem: "meals."

Don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that the market is 'bad' only that conservatives in particular have to release the one-track obsession with the market as the be-all end all solution in order to have a credible impact on America. But that's just my opinion.

SF,

It is interesting that you would use food as an example as to how the market is to blame for health problems, less time with the family preparing and eating food. The market offers expensive and cheap food and it is up to the individual to buy and eat what he/she chooses and not have some meddler like say, Bloomberg, stick his nose into my salt cravings.

If you want to blame someone or something for cheaper food being offered as alternatives to home cooked meals I say look no further than the day when it became fashionable for the wife to leave the home and the two income family to be the norm. Did the market cause this or was it the culture? In my eyes there is no doubt but I'll let you decide for yourself the answer that best suits your agenda. The market offering this cheaper alternative is simply doing what the market does best, filling a need. I don't know if you have noticed or not but the market has gone too far in that regard and is swinging back the other way. The Food Channel and the Cooking Channel are two places that people are discovering, albeit old ways, how to cook and eat at home and have superior meals than can be found at most restaurants. The markets fill needs caused by culture, it doesn't cause culture to change. And while we are on culture the example of the Inuits should be explained as they are and not as a parallel to our society. Theirs is primarily an existence society.

The market is the answer for most all problems, especially for the ones caused by regulations. See energy policy or lack thereof for a real disaster wholly caused by regulations and culture. As you said, these are, of course, just my opinions.

Interesting piece. I'm not sure I follow everything, but I'm glad to see some new political concepts.

Bassboat,

You said it perfectly: "...If you want to blame someone or something for cheaper food being offered as alternatives to home cooked meals I say look no further than the day when it became fashionable for the wife to leave the home and the two income family to be the norm. Did the market cause this or was it the culture?..."

This is the whole point of the article. You have identified a cultural problem. The market cannot fix it. And most of our biggest problems in America are cultural problems like this one. No amount of government regulation OR free market economics can fix them. When we realize this we are ready to work towards solutions that requires collective responsibility i.e. culture change (not just individual responsibility, or the state, or technology).

SF,

So you are saying that because the free market offered low cost meals and processed food the wife decided to leave the home in order to go to work? The free market offered up these items when she left the home, not before she left. Surely you agree to that.

Why did she leave? Was it for more money? Freedom from her husband? Independence? Or could it have been regulations trying to make everyone equal? I really don't think you can say with total assurance that she left for culture. But then again that is my opinion.

I would say again that I will stand by my statement of the market blah, blah, blah but even I am getting tired of hearing that. Good points SF.

@bassboat - you asked, why did she leave? Marriages break up because as a culture, as a society, we have switched the foundation of marriage from duty to delight. When it was based on duty, you did your duty to your spouse and to your children no matter what. This was a cultural thing; no amount of law can make people take care of children as our failing foster care system shows.

With the cultural change to the expectation of delight, people quit being married when they are no longer delighted. Not the same thing at all. This is a change in attitude, both on individual part and society at large. It is now OK to leave your spouse, so people do. It is now OK to collect welfare so people do.

This is cultural breakdown. Market can't fix it. The markets role was to supply divorce lawyers to fulfill people desire to end marriages. No market demand for faithfulness - that is attitude.

Jamie,

I never said that the market can fix the divorce situation, it merely reacted to the need of lower cost food.

I do not think that the divorce situation was initiated by culture per se. I think that it was a regulatory issue when congress passed the equal opportunity laws so that women could demand equal pay and have equal opportunity in marketplace. Was this good or bad? You can judge for yourself. Typically when the government sticks its nose into our society things get worse. Should everything be judged on economics alone? Are there values that the women brought to the family when they were at home instead of the workplace? I understand that there is a big contingency that thinks entirely opposite to my values, and that is their right, but as for me I would choose family over an extra paycheck any day.

@bassboat - If a society, or culture, or civilization, or even family does not raise its children so as to value whatever the parents value, the kids do something else when they grow up and are out on theit own.

Parents have 18-20 years to persuade their kids that their ways are right. If they do, the tribe remains stable. If they do not, customs and memes change. This is not always terrible, it is not necessarily good, it just is.

The bottom line is that unless kids walk in their parents' ways, their parents' ways can die in a generation.

Historically, it took a HUGE amount of effort to civilize children. raising kids to follow in your ways is IMMENSE labor. Women used to do that partly because it is somewhat in a mother's nature to look out for her kids and partly because they had no alternatives - they couldn't have jobs. Also, they needed children to take care of them when they got old.

Now that they have choices, welfare, jobs, social security, instead of getting married and raising children, many women are choosing other alternatives:

Stay single. this is becoming more and more common.
Get married but have no children. DINK - dual income, no kids
Have kids but work. Day care generation. Doesn't work as well.

So the overall societal cost of making it possible for women to either skip motehrhood entirely or delegate it to others is very, very high.