Of Good Banking and the New Year

 

Photo by bamagai at Unsplash

A year in retirement can give you perspective, particularly a year fraught with ample opportunity to do some good amidst challenge, risk, and danger of various flavors.  Such was the year behind us.  Does the year ahead offer any less?

Many such thoughts were brought to mind in a recent conversation with the chief financial officer of a community bank.  As you would guess, we discussed the outlook for banking.  I observed that the condition of the industry reminded me of the dot-com bust of 2000.  While the economy was in decline, hit a second time by the terrorist attacks of September 2001, the banking industry was thankfully in strong financial condition.  The dot-com bust had a securities market and Silicon Valley locus.

As in 2001, so also today, the banking industry is strongly capitalized, liquid with financial resources, well positioned to fund economic recovery.  Fortuitously, that position is matched by a host of potential customers, especially entrepreneurs eager to start up new businesses or expand ones that survived the government-led shutdowns.  Among those entrepreneurs are many people whose businesses closed not from bad business plans, but due to the Great Cessation of 2020.  That is to say, there are people who want to start new businesses who know how to run businesses, if government strictures will let them. 

Their problem is one of resources exhausted by trying to keep their businesses floating as the tide went out.  As the tide is coming back in, there is a ready supply of people who would like to have a go with a new boat.  Good bankers have always been in the business of finding and funding good risks. 

Banks grow as their customers and communities grow.  Good banking fosters and facilitates the generation, management, preservation, and application of wealth. 

Bad banking bleeds wealth, which is why failed banks should be allowed to fail, to end the drain on the economy and to make room for the productive work of good banks, new and old.  Good bankers do their work by insightful weighing of opportunities and risks, tailoring terms and conditions to such opportunities and risks.  Bad banking either mistakes opportunities, or it miscalculates or ignores risk, or both.  Which, by the way, is why governments should stay out of the business of banking (other than as prudential supervisors), as the history of government shows an atrocious record of missing opportunities and miscalculating risk, sometimes for the short-term benefit of government’s associates.

The other day I saw a happy video from the chief executive officer of a southwestern bank.  Her timely message was of gratitude to the bank’s customers for constant communication and support.  In return, she offered a reaffirmed invitation apropos to serving in a way tailored to customers’ financial needs.  Reach out to the bank, including its CEO, 24-7 for financial service.  In conclusion, she pledged the bank to “connect you with others in our community who can serve you best.”  Now, that is good banking.

Of Vanity and Christmas Gifts

The prophets, ancient and modern, are clear that this life is a very artificial thing.  The earth and this mortality did not just happen.  They were carefully planned in the sphere of the eternities, for very specific—and lasting—purposes.

Abraham reported this, from a vision wherein he saw God speaking of us, His spirit children, before He created the earth:

We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell; and we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them; and they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; . . . and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever. (Abraham 3:24-26)

Some centuries later Moses had a related vision, in which the Lord told him,

For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. (Moses 1:39)

Our glory appears to be the Lord’s glory.  It is the Lord’s work and glory that we grow and progress forever.  The mortal mission and sacrifice of Jesus Christ were all part of His work for our immortality and eternal life.  I am not sure that the Lord cares anything at all about anything we do other than what we do that affects His work and His glory.  I do not find any evidence in the scriptures that anything else that we do matters to Him.  Of course, in an eternal context, nothing else we do really matters to us, either.   All of that other stuff is what the author of Ecclesiastes refers to as “vanity of vanities” (Ecclesiastes 1:2).

That vanity, the key theme of the Book of Ecclesiastes, is what many people seem to think that this life is all about.  Many people live this life as if this life really mattered much, when in truth, all that matters about this life is how it affects the true reality, which resides in the eternal worlds, beyond this world and life.  Lasting value and meaning are found in what we take with us when we leave this world. 

That is a good filter, if we wish to discern what in this life is imperishable and real and what is temporary and vain.  If you take it with you past the grave, it matters.  If it does not, fuhgeddaboudit.  Or, at least, do not set your heart on it or waste much time with it.

That might be a good guide for Christmas gifts.  By that I mean, consider the purpose behind the giving of the gift.  Is its purpose to transfer possession of vanity, that has no reach beyond the grave?  Or is it instead intended to communicate and strengthen ties of love, friendship, to show kindness, to build relationships, to facilitate personal growth and progress, to memorialize pleasant shared experiences, to express and transmit value?  Consider how it may be tied to this list of eternal verities that stay with us?

Remember faith, virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, brotherly kindness, godliness, charity, humility, diligence. (Doctrine and Covenants 4:6)

There is a lot of Christmas Spirit in that list.  Such solemnized gifts are not likely to break and never grow old.  They are very real.  To the extent they embrace such virtues, I think we remember them.

Of Unbanked and “Underbanked”

Speaking of banks, as I did on this page a short time ago, there are those who are concerned that too many people in the United States are “unbanked” or “underbanked.”  By the former they seem to mean those who do not use any banking services, particularly who do not have any bank accounts.  By the latter, they mean those who obtain some banking services from businesses that are not banks.  The very existence of the terms, and the way that they are used by those who use them, implies that being “unbanked” or “underbanked” is a bad thing.

I will here disclose that I have worked for banks for nearly 10 years and for all I know may continue to do so for some time into the future.  Whatever bias or color to my views that this condition provides I will nevertheless try to comment from a fair and factual point of view.

My first point, therefore, is that I am not prepared to assert that absolutely everyone should have a bank account.  I can easily envision the value of a bank account for most if not all people, but I concede that they should be allowed to choose for themselves and that it would be terribly wrong to force people into banks.  I acknowledge that there are some alternative providers of financial services who seem to please their customers, and I do not deny that banks can benefit from good competition.  Banks have a long history of drawing upon the ideas and innovations of non-banks, just as non-banks have been eager to try their hand at successful new products and services that banks have pioneered.  Bank customers have benefited the most from that process, as the variety and value of financial products have expanded, and the United States has led the world in the discovery of new and useful financial services.

Having said that, the nation cannot do well without a strong, vibrant, and prosperous banking industry.  Our nation and people grow as we save financial resources and invest them in improvements for the future, whether new homes, new factories, or new ideas of how to do and make things better, faster, and cheaper.  That is a major part of what banks do and are all about. 

Moreover, there are a lot of things we do and a lot of places we go because we know that our ability to pay and get paid—to exchange things we value less for things that we value more (the reason we buy and sell things and use money to do it)—is secure, reliable, accurate, and relatively quick.  That is our payments system, and banks created it and are at the center of it.

Americans also like the idea of becoming wealthier and expect to do so.  If that seems a commonplace to you, recognize that it is not so in all parts of the world, where getting by from day to day is about the most to which people can aspire, for whom poverty is a way of life that they expect to bequeath to their children.  To the extent that this miserable condition is becoming less the case in much of the world, that more people are beginning to believe that they can build and improve their wellbeing for themselves and their posterity, this new-found hope for accumulating wealth is attributable to the dispersion of principles of freedom and prosperity that Americans take for granted but which are new to much of the world.  The global adoption of many American principles of prosperity has been a major contribution of the New World to the Old World and to all mankind.

Now get ready for the bold but true statement:  you cannot get there and stay there without banks and the services that banks provide.  Banks gather wealth, safeguard wealth, allow it to be used efficiently, and apply it to building the future.  That is why governments pay so much attention to banks, and also why it is so harmful when governments try to capture banks and channel their services to the personal gain of themselves and their cronies.  That is also why misguided bank regulations are harmful—even if in subtle but powerful ways—to the nation and its people.

Which brings us back to the agenda of the “unbanked” and the “underbanked.”  In the United States, chief causes for people remaining “unbanked” are regulations that make banking more difficult and services more expensive; cultural barriers for people who come from societies where personal banking is either unknown or where the experience has been one of banks used by local governments to harvest wealth from people to enrich the governing elites and their cronies (much of Latin America, for example); and people who for whatever reason just do not prefer to use banks.  The first cause regulators can solve but have largely been resistant to solving; the second can be overcome by time and experience and is showing signs of that; and the third cause is no more of a problem than people who prefer to rent rather than own their home, to eat eggs without grits, or who do not like the New York Yankees.  I do not have to understand the personal preference to acknowledge it.

The concept of “underbanked” (that government needs to help banks figure out how to serve people who may get some banking services outside of banks) I fear may be a political device to harness American banks to serve the cronies of the “underbanked” advocates.  We have already seen this game with the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) regulations, adopted ostensibly to ensure that banks lend to their local communities (as if bankers, unlike other businessmen, need government regulation to notice business opportunities right under their own nose).  In practice, CRA has been used to coerce banks into providing loans and even grants to and through poverty advocacy agencies that tend to prosper more than the people whom they claim to be helping.  The folks who fret about the “underbanked” have marvelous formulas and plans for other people’s money to solve problems about which the people to be helped seem little concerned.  I have never heard of any truly “underbanked” people themselves calling for the firm hand of government to get them into the banking system; if they want banking services, they just go and get them. 

I have the haunting suspicion that the “underbanked” advocates would if they could use banks the same way found in the abandoned societies of the “unbanked,” where banking services came through the hands of people who knew better than others and always made sure to get their cut for their benevolence.  That is not really banking, and that is symptomatic of why people flee those lands.  The wealth creation of such captive banks seems to be for someone else.  If it happens in America, where will the people go?

Of Banks and Over Taxed Regulators

Banks, who needs them?  A quick question and a quick answer:  a thriving, prospering banking system is essential for a thriving, prospering modern economy.  Banks bring together the resources of savers and the needs of borrowers, particularly borrowers who seek funds to establish or expand businesses or families and individuals who use occasional borrowing to smooth out their income (good banking principles penalize people who would borrow in order to live beyond their means, but more on that at another time). 

Banks also created and maintain the payments system, the means by which money is transferred quickly and accurately throughout the nation and even internationally.  Bank services include as well a variety of wealth management tools by which individuals, families, businesses, and governments can store, grow, and make best use of their financial wealth. 

Without banks, almost none of these services would be available.  Many non-banks provide bank-like services, but they all come to find the need to rest their own services at some point on a bank.

Banking in the United States has grown with the nation, from very simple institutions in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, to a wide variety of bank types, charters, and business models, as diverse as the financial demands of the customers of the largest and most diverse economy in the world.  I once presented at a meeting in Chicago a list of about two-dozen different types of banks in the United States.  We have national banks, state chartered banks, small community banks, larger regional banks, and very large banks with extensive national and international business products and services.  All of these operate and compete together, with a body of customers behind each one who think that their bank offers the best available choice of services that they want.  No other nation in the world has a banking industry like ours.

The recent recession and financial panic—and the inevitable politicizing of finance that came in its wake—have thrown much into confusion and imposed upon sound and prudent bank supervision harmful ideas born of reckless sloganeering and hubristic financial engineering.  The complexity of banking—no more complex than information technology, communications systems, or modern manufacturing—has been superseded by even more complex bank regulation. 

The rules governing banking are too much and too many to function reasonably.  They have become more than the very human people in the multitude of bank regulatory agencies can manage.  The disciplining role of markets and the valuable service of banker judgment have in large measure been replaced by bureaucratic procedures and the judgments of government officials.  These officials have had little if any practical experience making loans, taking deposits and putting them to work, building financial wealth, or otherwise providing products to customers.  Government officials cannot run businesses.  Now, their government jobs have become so demanding and complex, that they will not be able to do their own jobs, either.  Too much has been placed upon them.

Those most harmed by all of this are bank customers.  For the moment, bank profits are up, but that is because their losses are down as they recover from the recession, not because services to customers are expanding.  As a result of government interest rate policies, depositors earn almost nothing on the money that they place in banks.  The expanding oversight involvement of bank regulators makes it dangerous for banks to offer new services to customers; the risk of breaking any of thousands of pages of regulations has become too great.  It takes almost half an hour to open a new bank account, something that used to take minutes.  Fewer credit-worthy borrowers today qualify for mortgages than just a year ago, before new regulations went into effect.  The number of banks has been declining in recent years, dropping at the rate of nearly one for every business day, week in and week out.  Only one new bank has been opened since 2010.  We have fewer banks today than the nation had in 1893.  A stagnant industry is less able to evolve to meet changing customer needs and preferences.

For the good of all of us who rely upon banking services, and for the sanity of financial regulators, we need to return to the principles of good banking.  We need to restore a system of supervision that is measured, not by how much banker judgment it takes over, but by how it adds value to the ability of banks to serve customers.  Government agencies—and the laws that they administer—that are derived from a founding document that begins with the words, “We the People,” should do nothing less, and nothing more.

On another day I would like to share some thoughts about how banks are being goaded to become their own enemies.

Of Men and Women

I hope and have every confidence that at some future day my posterity and yours will look upon the popular efforts of our popular culture, working mightily to smooth out the differences between men and women, and conclude, “Huh?”  The differences are real, profound, and obvious. 

You have to work very hard to convince young children that men and women, boys and girls, are pretty much the same.  The differences are to them an unremarkable truth.  And so they remain, despite efforts to pretend they are otherwise.  And so, I believe, the differences between man and woman will persist, with unhappiness and poverty the rewards for efforts to obliterate them.

Not that it has not been tried before.  It has always come to grief.  One story comes from the French Revolution.  A leader of the National Assembly proclaimed that the new government had almost completely eliminated all differences between the sexes, when a voice from the back softly retorted, “Vive la différence!”

I, too, embrace the differences and am glad of them.  Having been married more than three decades I can testify from long experiment that the many differences between husband and wife, man and woman, have played a central role in our happiness.  Even as a youth I often mused upon how my life had been enriched by the influence of women.  That was not a new discovery for mankind even if it was for me.  Benjamin Disraeli said as much in the 1800s:  “There is no mortification however keen, no misery however desperate, which the spirit of woman cannot in some degree lighten or alleviate.” (Benjamin Disraeli, Coningsby, p.311)  I am not aware of any exception to that maxim.

This variety is eternal, built into human nature from the very beginning:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (Genesis 1:27)

This was no accident of nature.  Together man and woman, male and female, are the image of God.

My children have always noticed the difference and profited from it.  When they phone, they rarely ask for “Dad.”  If Dad answers, they will sweetly and briefly chat and then ask, “Is Mom there?”  With Mom they will then talk for a long while, hours sometimes. 

On the other hand, while growing up, when they wanted permission to do this or that, more often than not, they went to Dad.  To guard against this clever maneuver, my wife and I early made a pact that we would not openly disagree regarding the denial or approval of a child’s request and would seek to consult to get a parental consensus if a matter of consequence were involved.  That worked well, but the children still knew where to go first to make their pitch.

The paradigm was similar when it came to bugs, vermin, and fixing broken things, unclogging drains, moving the rubbish—all jobs usually given to Dad and faced with trepidation when Dad was not available.  As the boys got older, these jobs increasingly found their way to them, too.  The flip side was that all illnesses and injuries were brought to the attention of Doctor Mom. They still are, no matter how far away the child may be.

These patterns have been successful for peace and harmony in the home.  Life would be harder if my wife and I struggled against the differences that gave us distinct skills, insights, and abilities, related to being a woman and being a man.  One of the greatest blessings of marriage has been to enlist an undying union with the owner of a wealthy supply of talents not easily possessed by the other.

My conversation with friends and colleagues have shown this pattern to be too common to be attributable merely to differences of personality.  The differences between man and woman are real and enriching.  I thank my God for making man and woman in His image, together.

Vive la différence!

Of Hard Things and the Holy Spirit

Life is rife with hard things.  They are what make life worth living.  The easier matters are intended for rest and relief and perhaps enjoyment, but they offer little growth.  The hard things do, and life is all about growth.  When living things stop growing they decay.

God understood from the beginning the hard things that we would face.  Many of them He put here for us, “for our sake” (though we arrange plenty of hardships for ourselves).  When man and woman were expelled from the Garden of Eden God explained to them, “cursed is the ground for thy sake. . . Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee. . . In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread. . .” (Genesis 3:17-19, emphasis added)

Our Heavenly Father knew that by facing and overcoming the hard things of life we would advance and progress and become worthy to be called His children, His heirs.  As a loving Father He has also promised that we need not face the hardships of life alone, that His help would be ready at hand to take our best efforts and amplify them to be equal to the challenges, by which we are “glorified”.

. . . we are the children of God:  And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.  For I reckon that the sufferings of the present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.  (Romans 8:16-18)

It is common to believe that some people, such as the wealthy, have it easier, that perhaps they face fewer of the hard things of life.  The Savior took on this assumption directly.   He taught His disciples that such views have it backwards:

. . . It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.  When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?  But Jesus beheld their thoughts, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but . . . with God whatsoever things I speak are possible.  (Matthew 19:24-26, JST)

No one escapes hard things.  Like opportunities for growth, they are for everyone, including the rich.  We can, however, overcome life’s troubles, God working with us, making all good things possible.

How is it done?  Sometimes, surely more often than we know, God intervenes directly and removes obstacles, provides tools, brings friends and allies, and otherwise lowers barriers or lifts us over them.  Perhaps even more frequently He increases our power and ability.

The Holy Spirit in particular can give us the power to do hard things as we qualify for that help.  Consider some of the gifts of the Spirit.  The ancient American prophet, Moroni, reminded us that these spiritual powers “are many”, given “unto men, to profit them.”  As examples he cited wisdom, knowledge, faith, healing, prophecy, interpretation of languages, and others, explaining that these gifts of the Spirit are available to “every man” (see Moroni 10:8-17).  The Apostle Paul provided a similar list in his letter to the saints at Corinth (see 1 Corinthians 12:8-11).  A modern Apostle, Parley P. Pratt, offered us this description of the power and influence of the Holy Spirit, speaking as the others did from personal experience, not theory or hypothesis:

It quickens all the intellectual faculties, increases, enlarges, expands and purifies all the natural passions and affections. . . It inspires, develops, cultivates and matures all the fine-toned sympathies, joys, tastes, kindred feelings and affections of our nature.  It inspires virtue, kindness, goodness, tenderness, gentleness and charity. . . . It invigorates all the faculties of the physical and intellectual man. . . . In short, it is, as it were, marrow to the bone, joy to the heart, light to the eyes, music to the ears, and life to the whole being.  (Parley P. Pratt, Key to the Science of Theology, p.101) 

With such godly influence we can surmount every challenge that we need to rise above and withstand the sorrows of life we are called upon to endure.  That is the secret, at least in part, to the counsel and promise from God,

Therefore, let your hearts be comforted; for all things shall work together for good to them that walk uprightly. . . (Doctrine and Covenants 100:15)

Of Demagogues and Big Problems

One of the common tricks of demagogues, as cheap as it is common, is to denounce in high dander something for being “Big,”—“bad” because it is “Big.” Some of the recent targets have been Big Banks, Big Pharma (the drug companies), Big Oil, Big Insurance, and Big Business in general.  The target is apparently chosen for its relation to the prescription that the demagogue already has in mind.  Invariably the prescription involves granting more power to the demagogue, sometimes ceded from the freedoms of the targeted Big, but not infrequently taken from the liberty of the people who are somehow harmed by the Big, who are to be somehow made better by being less free.

Obamacare is one example, Big Insurance, Big Pharma, and Big Medicine all denounced to some degree in the effort to generate popular support to pass the legislation.  In the end, as more and more people are recognizing, it is individual choice that has been lost, personal freedoms to choose doctors, medical plans, and available treatments (along with substantial sums of money) that have been taken, passed on to big bureaucracies identified by the demagogues.

Demagogues on left and right and even in the middle resort to this device of denouncing Big Bad, because it resonates with many people who do not consider themselves “Big” anything.  We all can feel intimidated by something in our lives and experiences bigger than ourselves, making us all potentially susceptible to the demagogue’s pandering.  It is also a favorite device of demagogues, because it does not require much thought or creativity to make the anti-Big speech.  It seems almost required that the demagogue at some point refer to the Big Target as “Goliath” and modestly identify himself or herself with “David.”  That tired jape is now getting to be about 3,000 years old, but demagogues think that their audiences just cannot get enough of it.

To be sure, there are some cases where being big is a good thing and some things that can be too big to be good.  It all has to do with why they are big and perhaps how they got that way.  Big savings are usually good.  The Grand Canyon is big and magnificent, and I would say that the Empire State Building is, too, at least as I behold it.  On the other hand, big debts are to be avoided, big pits can be dangerous, and the L Tower in Toronto is an eyesore in my estimation (though I will acknowledge that others could be fond of it). 

Government can be too big or too small, depending on what it does with our rights and freedoms.  There are governments too small to promote and protect freedom, while there are many—most—that are too big, and ever increasing at the expense of individual rights, freedoms, and opportunities.  That includes governments that are big enough to help their cronies become bigger by robbing the competition and the public.  Businesses that are big because of government favor would be better for everyone if they lost the government favor and let competition, efficiency, and customer choices determine how big they should be. 

Some are just big because they grew that way.  Is Microsoft or Apple too big?  I do not know, and neither do you.  Exposed to the full discipline of the free market they will be the right size, and so will their competitors.  What is the right size for banks in the United States?  I do not know, and again neither do you nor does anyone else.  The more that they are exposed to market forces, the sooner we will get the best answer, which I expect will be along the lines of “many sizes and shapes” in order to match the many sizes and shapes and needs of businesses, families, and individuals who rely on banks for financial services.  Free competition in open markets has the power to right size commercial enterprises.    

A word of caution.  Part of the success of the war on Big consists in making the listeners feel small and helpless—unless rescued and led by the fearless demagogue.  Besides belittling most people, the demagogue’s device diverts attention from the fact that just about everyone is part of something Big, a Big that may eventually be the demagogue’s next target.  Maybe your church will one day be considered too “Big.”  Or maybe the industry in which you happen to work will become a “Big” target, the town or region where you live, your race or your ethnic group, your savings and investments, the cars or trucks that you drive, your appetite, your use of water, the size of the lot of your house, the wealth of your nation.  All of these, and many others, have already been used by demagogues in their Big harangues.  The demagogue’s insatiable appetite for power never has enough targets.  He or she is always looking for more.

Sometimes there is a kernel of something genuinely amiss in the demagogue’s Big complaint.  Often, when you boil down the genuine substance of any of the complaints to the hard facts, it is hard to discover what is the Big Deal—at least in the problem.  The Big Deal is to be found in the solution, which is what the demagogue is really after.  Were the Popes in Rome really controlling the lives and governments of England in the time of Henry VIII?  No, but the solution of confiscating Catholic Church properties and awarding them to the King’s cronies was a very Big Deal.  The Nazi demagogues in Germany played the same game with their own people, the German Jews, and with their property and possessions. 

The demagogue’s solutions, resting upon emotion and panic, seldom solve anything and often lead to more problems.  The Climate Wars—one year the coming ice age, the next year global warming, today just climate “change”—is an example we have all seen unfold, inflicting untold billions of dollars of costs while enriching favored cronies, but which in even the most enthusiastic promises of the demagogues will do little to affect the climate in reality in our lifetimes.

The next time you hear a public figure fume about something being Big, carefully inquire into and focus upon what he or she is after.  You may be a target just Big enough.

Of Minorities and Society

The saddest chapters of history chronicle the breakdown of human society.  Rights are abused, the innocent—if innocence is allowed to exist—are trampled.  Poverty, hatred, violence, and uncontrolled human passion prevail.  Destruction and degradation, physical and moral, replace human progress.

All society, except that of master to slave, relies upon an element of free association.  Societies may have more or less elements of coercion as well, but it is the element of free association that allows the society to continue, that motivates its members to acquiesce in or even encourage the society’s continuation.  Free, voluntary association is what gives a society its legitimacy.  Without it, there is no society, just a group of people ruled by one coterie of thugs or another. 

Cooperation in society cannot be taken for granted.  When it is, when free cooperation, instead of being nurtured and encouraged, is replaced by coercive rules and compulsion, particularly rules and compulsion designed to benefit some at the expense of others, society declines, people interact more by will of others than by their own volition.  With time either the situation is redressed or the society disintegrates, often to be conquered from the outside when its internal strength has turned to weakness.

In its latter years imperial China was prey to numerous foreign incursions because its society was a mighty empty shell, old traditions surrounding an empire of competing warlords.  Ancient Greece, which twice when united proved too much for the Persian empire, became relatively easy prey to the Romans after the ties of Greek society had become tired and weak.  Rome, in its turn, after a thousand years, was enormously wealthy but mightily weak in the internal strength to repel the roaming barbarians, vibrant societies powerful in their own internal cohesion.  Much of Africa, Asia, and Latin America today remains mired in poverty from the inability of relatively young countries to develop cooperative societies that encourage the generation of wealth and its application to promote prosperity for the present and for the future.

With cooperation at the core of successful society, one would think that democracies must be the most successful.  History records otherwise.  There are no historical examples of a successful democracy, at least not one that lasted for long enough to matter.  Like a match set to paper, democracies flare up brightly into power and glory but all too soon die away to ashes. 

The problem with democracies has been that all too quickly the majority in the democracy learns that it can become wealthy by robbing the minority, under camouflage of statutes and government.  That only lasts until either the minority successfully rebels, becomes a majority in its turn, or the wealth of the minority is exhausted.  In reaction, the majority may seek to preserve its advantages by yielding to a dictator—a “mouth” for the majority—to govern in the name of the majority to discern and express its will.  Few of these dictators have resisted the temptation to wear the mask of the majority to govern for the benefit of themselves and their cronies.  That has been the case for every communist government, without exception.   

 

But, is it not right and just for the majority to prevail?  Perhaps, but to prevail over what?  Everything?  Consider:  if majority rule is applied to deprive the minority of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, why should the minority cooperate?  All that such society offers them is slavery, unrequited labor and service to fill another’s belly and pockets.  In a pure democracy, there is no check on majority avarice, no refuge for the minority.  The majority must always have its way.

Republics, however, are built upon a foundation of minority rights.  Republican governments are granted only limited powers, exercised by representatives of the people, within boundaries beyond which the government may not go.  A written constitution serves to enshrine and strengthen those rights against violation by the majority.  The system gives a stake to all—not just the current rulers—in the continuation and strengthening of the society.  No democracy, hereditary monarchy, or dictatorship can provide that.

In a nation as great and diverse as the United States everyone is part of a minority.  Whether we consider age, ethnic background, religion, geography, culture, profession, or a multitude of other distinctions, we are a host of minorities.  We can only come together and remain as a nation, strong and vibrant, if we are confident of protection in our minority rights, for protecting minority rights in America means protecting everyone’s rights.  That is why the Founders proposed and the nation embraced a Republic formed on a federal structure of divided and limited government.

In that context, what are we to make of the current direction of American society?  Are we preserving the Republic?  Does our society feel like it is coming together?  Recent public opinion polls find that more than 60% of Americans believe the nation to be going in the wrong direction.  In another poll, a mere 22% believe that the current government rules with the consent of the governed. 

What is the national political leadership doing about this?  We have a President who aggressively pursues a variety of programs that have in common the taking of wealth from one minority segment of the nation to reward others.  These wealth transfers are lionized for the undenied purpose of political and electoral advantage for the President and his supporters. 

You will recognize the pattern.  A crisis is discovered by the President, and an industry or group is demonized in public speeches and echoed in the establishment media as causing the problem and/or standing in the way of its solution.  A plan is announced that involves confiscations from the demonized industry or group to fund benefices bestowed on Administration favorites.

Consider a few examples of many.  Global warming is hailed as an imminent crisis with disastrous consequences; the coal, oil, and gas industries are identified as the foes of progress; and a variety of taxes and other restrictive policies are proposed, together with planned subsidies for businesses and companies favored by the White House.  Banks are declared to be the nefarious forces behind the recent recession, new laws and regulations are applied that confiscate billions of dollars from the industry, much of which is then channeled to hedge funds and other political allies of the administration.  Some millions of people are discovered to be without health insurance, doctors and the health insurance industry—among others—are fingered as being at the root of the problem, so a major overhaul of the entire structure of the health system is enacted that favors some at the expense of others.  Administration cronies receive lucrative contracts to develop and administer the new system.  There are many other examples, large and small, in education, welfare, housing, transportation, law enforcement, and many other government programs.

Is there any wonder that there is gridlock in the national government, when policy after policy is aimed at transferring wealth from some to reward others?  Where is the room for cooperation and compromise, when the issue is how much of your family’s wealth is to be taken and given to someone else?  The Roman Republic fell into gridlock after decades of appeals to mass acclaim for schemes of popular distribution of public plunder.  It ended in the triumph of the Caesars, and later their eventual fall to the barbarians.  It is perilous to abuse social comity. 

President Obama has announced the transfer of wealth to be the chief focus for the remaining three years of his administration.  Can our society weather that?

Of Christmas and Celebrating Hope

The story of Pandora and her box (or jar) has been retold for thousands of years, with minor variations.  The key elements of the tale from Greek mythology are consistent.  Pandora was endowed with many wonderful gifts and talents, among them beauty, music, persuasion, and others.  She was also given a box, which she was told never to open.  Try that out on anybody:  “Here is an interesting box.  It is yours.  DO NOT EVER OPEN IT!”  I expect that the result would ever be the same, the box will eventually be opened.  As the story goes, it was, introducing into the world evil in all of its forms.  Last of all, however, from the bottom of the box, came hope.

I believe hope to be an underappreciated and little understood gift from God.  Hope is essential to happiness, salvation, and life.  I know of no happiness without it, I cannot imagine any achievement not preceded by hope.  In all salvation, temporal or eternal, hope draws us forward.  It is foundational to life and living. Hope is ever at war with despair (for example, the Spanish word for “despair” is desesperanza, or the absence of esperanza, “hope”):  despair is life-draining, while hope feeds life.

In this understanding of hope, I do not refer to the weak sentiment most common in everyday parlance, the wistful wishing for something better, a wish that seldom acts as a motivator for effective action.  I have in mind the hope spoken of by God and His prophets, against which the forlorn reach from despair—as valuable and comforting as that may be—pales in comparison.

Consider how the power of hope is described in this account of the preaching of the ancient American prophet, Ether:

Wherefore, whoso  believeth in God might with surety hope for a better world, yea, even a place at the right hand of God, which hope cometh of faith, maketh an anchor to the souls of men, which would make them sure and steadfast, always abounding in good works, being led to glorify God. (Ether 12:4)

Notice the power of this hope, an anchor to the soul, making those who possess it sure and steadfast, the person who has gained it always abounding in good works.  Nothing weak or wistful here.  Such hope is a mighty, heavenly gift, with mighty results.  Also notice the connection between hope and faith, the former being a powerful fruit of faith. 

I have thought that a fair definition of “hope” is the personal recognition that something desirable is attainable.  By faith we learn of the desirable object as well as gain the recognition that it is within our reach.  When that happens, hope is born in our hearts, and we are stirred to action to attain it.  That is life itself.  Dead things, inanimate objects, reach for nothing, always acted upon, never doing the acting.

There are many things that each of us values and would very much desire to attain, to gain, to build:  love, knowledge, wealth, improvement, new abilities, bridges (real and figurative), but we do not act to realize our desires until we first gain the idea that we can be successful.  Without hope of success we may go through the motions in a lame sort of way, guided by routine that can become drudgery.  We are energized—even beyond what we thought were our limitations—as soon as we gain a vision, as soon as we believe the prized fruit to be within our reach, when we have hope.  Then there is little stopping us.  Obstacles are overcome, means are found, tools are made, skills developed.  

In my reflections I have named my three daughters Faith, Hope, and Charity, as each one seems especially to personify one of these three great gifts of God.  My oldest daughter would be named Hope.  Throughout her life, once she has gotten it into her head that something worthwhile is within her reach she has done whatever it takes to realize it.  Because of that, through great and consistent effort, overcoming many obstacles, she has become rich in all of the eternal things, in everything that matters.  Her mother and I admire her for it.  Her achievement need not be unique.  It is within reach of all of us.  Each may have such hope and become so rich.

There are many reasons for the perennial popularity of Christmas.  Surely one of these is that it is a celebration of hope offered to everyone.  Salvation did not come to earth with Christmas.  The sacrifice and atonement that Jesus Christ would work out to bring about all salvation would await another three decades after His miraculous birth.  With Christmas, the birth of the Savior, there arrived in Person the assured hope that salvation would come.  The angel who appeared to the shepherds at Bethlehem the night of the nativity was filled with that hope, with that assurance, that caused him to rejoice and share with the shepherds his message “of great joy” so that they, too, might have this great and assured hope:  “For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.” (Luke 2:10, 11) 

The hope of Christ, in all of its power to action and motivation for every good thought and deed, is worthy of general celebration, every year.  The salvation of Christ has been placed within reach of everyone.  Having that hope can become a personal anchor as we realize its promise, becoming sure and steadfast, always abounding in good works, that each of us personally, here on earth, can be filled with “peace, good will toward men.”  At least in part, that is what Christmas is all about.

Of Liberty and Breaking the Rules

Sometime in the 1990s, before the days of YouTube, I received a homemade video from a man who owned and operated a small business near Dallas, Texas.  He ran a landscaping company, had a handful of employees, and, according to the video, was in violation of some rule or regulation of the federal government every day.  He did not intend to be in violation.  He did not want to be in violation.  As he explained, it was just impossible to comply with all of the requirements. 

The video began with the owner sitting behind his desk, explaining the problem.  He stood up and took the camera with him as he walked through different parts of his operations, pointing out what was required of him, his business, and his colleagues. 

In the main office he described the employment rules, the tax laws, the related mandates and regulations that applied because he had hired other people.  He walked over to the equipment and described the numberless “safety hazard” regulations, from warning notices that had to be glued beneath the seats of garden tractors, to how he and his workers used, carried, and stored their tools, gear, and machines, and what they were supposed to wear while using them.  He discussed the multitude of formal requirements for managing and applying the fertilizers, pesticides, and other chemicals that are commonly used in his business, including their handling, storage, clean up, and their transportation.  Speaking of transportation, because his company used trucks and other vehicles, there was another long list of rules and regulations that applied to that part of the firm.

Added to all of this, there were numerous reports, applications, notices, and other papers to be filed with a variety of agencies on a regular basis.  When he was through, he sat down again behind his desk and said, “I break the law every day.  I don’t intend to, but I cannot avoid it.  I can’t keep up with it all as long as I stay in business.”

How did we get here?  Is this America?  Is this the land of the free and the home of the brave?  Is this a land of freedom sustained by law?  It is an unknown America, too unknown to most but too familiar to people who run a business, especially the people who own a small company.  The rest of us see little of it, though perhaps we suspect it is there.  Some of us catch glimpses. 

In a large business it takes longer for the regulatory burden to become overwhelming.  For a while the boss can hire more people to help carry the load.  In the large firms of America there is a host of employees who produce no goods or offer any services to any customers.  They spend their careers complying with their slices of these federal rules, laws, and mandates so that some of the other employees can be involved in what the business is all about, providing something to a customer for which the customer is willing to pay. 

The customer may not realize that a large share of what he pays for he never receives; it goes to pay those people who work to keep the business in compliance with the government rules.  More than businessmen would be wealthier without this heavy, dead hand clamped on firms, factories, and farms.  The necessities and luxuries of life would all be a lot cheaper.  Or, another way to say it, we would get more of the goods and services we pay for, less of our money sunk into these hidden costs for unproductive activity. 

America’s Founders sought to create a land of freedom, not dominated by government and the officiousness of government functionaries.  To them “unregulated” was a goal, not a criticism.  They also knew the danger of what could happen, even in America.  James Madison wrote, “It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood. . .”  (James Madison, Federalist no. 62)

And yet here we are.  What the Texas businessman faced in the 1990s has not become any lighter since.  When was the last time that you read the full text of a law?  Who has read the Obamacare statute, the Dodd-Frank Act, or any of the other voluminous, incoherent laws recently enacted, each written on more than a thousand pages?  For each page of law enacted by Congress today government bureaucrats write ten pages of rules and regulations, all of which are enforced as law though never voted on by anyone who himself has been voted into office by the people.

In the land of the free, whose founding document begins with “We the People”, why do we tolerate it?  One of the complaints against the king of England in the Declaration of Independence reads, “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.”  And yet we have done the same to ourselves.  The Dodd-Frank Act alone created several New Offices and has already stimulated the hiring of more than a thousand new officers.

“I wear the chain I forged in life,” replied the Ghost.  “I made it link by link, and yard by yard; I girded it on of my own free will, and of my own free will I wore it.  Is its pattern strange to you?”

Scrooge trembled more and more.

“Or would you know,” pursued the Ghost, “the weight and length of the strong coil you bear yourself?  It was full as heavy and as long as this, seven Christmas Eves ago.  You have laboured on it, since.  It is a ponderous chain!”

(Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol)

There was a time when the chains had to be broken to restore the rule of law.

Of Hope and Just Getting By

Working in Washington, D.C., and living in the D.C. suburbs as I do, I am fond of saying that I eagerly accept opportunities to get away from the Capital region and spend time in real America.  That has always been a bit of an overgeneralization, expressing a usually correct but not unerring description.  Washington is not real America, but there are parts of this nation that have already gotten ahead of where the smart people of Washington have been able to take the nation.  Those places are not what I mean when I refer to real America. 

Our large, industrial states are examples of misrule by those who assume that their ability and right to rule, and the inexhaustibility of the wealth of their cities and states, are given and immutable.  Wrong on all assumptions.  These states, once beacons of progress, growth, and development, are wastelands of decline:  economic, social, moral, and even demographic.  Millions of people—those who could—have been leaving these states for decades. 

The recent bankruptcy of Detroit is a prominent symbol of where this misrule leads.  At its prime a bustling metropolitan center approaching two million in population, Detroit has been steadily falling from its prime to a dilapidated city of barely 700,000 who remain to wonder where have the productive people gone, and what is to be the future?

I recently returned from spending several days in such a place, mixing with, talking with, associating in the daily lives of the ordinary people living there, people with whom I had lived as a wide-eyed teenager a generation before.  I am not referring to the urban center of the state.  The region I visited has been for 150 years a mixture of industrial and rural economies, and as I recalled, a happy mix.  Now the villages and towns are actually smaller than in my youth and shrinking.  The number of productive enterprises is fewer and those that remain, smaller.  The schools have remarkably fewer students and struggle with how to keep their programs going with declining enrollments.  The largest employers are the instruments of government welfare services—as well as a couple of new state prisons—and the local hospital network. 

The people were friendly and pleasant, yet something did not feel right.  I understand the wisdom that “you can never go home” if you expect to find all the same.  I expected change.  New technologies were present, hand-held electronic devices ubiquitous, a fair number of new cars, if not the foreign luxury models so common in Washington.  It was not, though, a happy place of happy people.  Why? 

It was only near the end of my stay that I recognized the ailment.  The region has become a land of small hope, particularly small hope of progress.  People there were not living their lives to get ahead, to advance, to build a better future (I cannot recall seeing a single new house in the several days of my visit, though the dump north of town is working on its third mound).  Most of the people in these formerly vibrant communities, with what I remember as bright expectations for the future, were now living their lives to get by, just to get by, to get on from day to day, holding on to what they have. 

Taxes are high, so it is not easy to keep what you earn.  Regulation makes it hard to do anything new.  For those reasons, businesses have been leaving, and so have the talented youth.  Talk with the people about their daily lives, and not long into the conversation the problems of wrestling with this or that regulation or working with some officious government apparatchik will come up.  And yet so many of the people expect the solution to their problems to come from some new government program or service rather than from their own effort.

I say “most” of the people are so ailing.  There are a few exceptions, and interesting ones.  Two religious groups seem to be growing—and not the establishment churches, whose places of worship, grand and beautiful buildings, eloquently testify to bygone days of prosperity but now show signs of neglect.  The two groups are the Latter-day Saints, whose Church was founded in the area nearly two hundred years ago and whose membership is growing steadily, and the Amish/Mennonites, who in recent years have moved in strong numbers to take advantage of neglected farm land.  There are also some very prosperous farm businessmen, also gathering up land and putting it into obvious productivity.  Finally, I would mention the growth of mini-wineries, although this latter movement seems after about 25 years to be approaching maturity.

Hope is an essential ingredient in happiness.  Hope comes from the belief that a desirable future is attainable, so much so that it draws out extra effort to realize its promise.  Genuine hope in your own effort can be contagious, and those who have it can help revive communities.  You cannot do much to give hope without that personal effort, but hope comes naturally with that effort and the opportunity to keep the fruits of one’s efforts.  Our nation’s founders were filled with hope and with it created the greatest nation on earth.

There is no hope, though, in just getting by.  In the end, you cannot get by if getting by is all there is to your hope.  No future there, only decline.  For hundreds of years people have been leaving their lands where they struggled to get by and have been coming to America, to them a land of hope and the freedom that feeds hope.  When I leave Washington to look for America, that is what I am looking for.  I hope to find it ever.

Of Washington and the Life of the Nation

Washington, D.C., is a strange place.  I speak from experience.  My whole working career has been in Washington.  In many meetings with people visiting Washington I have explained to them that Washington is not America.  Few have been surprised by the remark.  In many visits away from Washington (and in connection with my work I accept nearly every invitation to leave town and be among those whose lives too many in Washington try to run) I am ever and powerfully reminded how different the rest of America is from Washington.  I have not been surprised.  Kansas City is much closer to America than Washington ever was or will be. 

In support of the point I offer a few painful examples.  I see one each day that I drive into the city.  Looking at the cars around me I note that very few are more than a few years old.  At the same time I am impressed by how many of the cars are foreign luxury models.  It is typical, when paused at a stop light, to notice that many of the surrounding cars are BMWs, Mercedes, Lexus, Acuras, Audis, and not an insignificant number of Jaguars, high end Range Rovers, and Porsches.  I also see a lot more Prius cars and other hybrids.  This is not to say that there is anything inherently wrong with driving any of these or any other late model high-priced cars.  I merely note it as very different from what I see when paused at a typical traffic light in other cities and towns in America.

As an aside, I am grateful to the people who buy and drive a Prius or other model of hybrid, because they subsidize my purchase of gasoline.  Their cars do use less gasoline (though not enough less to compensate their owners for paying so much more for their cars), leaving more for people like me who drive regular gasoline-consuming vehicles.  That reduction in gasoline demand helps reduce the price. 

The Prius drivers might be offended were I to tell them, however, that I am entirely unimpressed by their conspicuous token of environmental sensitivity. Their purchase and operation of a Prius, after all, is very likely more harmful to the environment than is my more conventional automobile.  First of all, they pay $10,000 or more extra to buy their hybrid, and if the price system works at all efficiently that means that making a Prius or other hybrid consumes far more in resources than making a conventional car.  Second, the hybrid car fans and their coteries in the D.C. area have convinced the masters of the highway networks to create special less-traveled commuter lanes that the hybrid drivers are permitted to use, meaning that they reduce the efficiency of the highway infrastructure.  So, to the Prius drivers of the world I say, thanks for the subsidy, but save your enviro lectures for when you are looking in the mirror.

The automobiles of the nation’s capital region are a sign of an even more painful reality of how Washington is different from the rest of America.  It is also the wealthiest part of the nation, by far.  On April 25, 2013, Forbes magazine published an article about the richest counties in the United States in terms of average income (Tom Van Riper, “America’s Richest Counties”).  Six of the ten richest counties are in the Washington, D.C. region, including the top two and one more out of the top five.  While recession lingers in the rest of the nation, Washington and its suburbs are doing rather well, with unemployment down to 5.5%, well below the national average.

I will also say that I am not opposed to wealth and wealthy people.  I wish all of the world to be wealthier and rejoice that it is far wealthier today than people of just a few generations ago could have dreamed.  But we could all live so much better still.  I ache that the policies of governments around the world stifle economic growth and development and hold so many of their people down in poverty.  The poor nations of the world are not poor because their people are less talented and intelligent than others, but because their governments are so oppressive and have been for generations.

Therein lies my beef with the wealth of Washington and its environs and the key to its estrangement from America.  That wealth is hard to explain from the perspective of value added to the rest of the nation.  Washington is basically a one-company town.  Unlike other one-company towns, however, it produces little that adds enough value to the lives of others that would allow it to prosper in open competition in free markets.  The product of Washington instead is forced upon the rest of the nation, whose productive income is confiscated to keep the Washington wealth-eating machine going. 

Try to name an economic product or activity that is not somehow subject to special handling by or permission from someone in Washington or controlled from Washington.  After the Dodd-Frank Act, for example, all financial activities have become more subject to direction by Washington bureaucrats than ever before.  Today, a bank has to pay more attention to its regulators than it does to its customers.  Who gets the best attention out of that arrangement?  The same is true for energy producers, communications firms, health care providers, and you can continue the list.  All that special handling comes with a toll, payable in taxes, or borrowed from the financial markets, or layered upon private incentive and individual initiative.  Today in Washington the most convincing argument for new rules and laws is to announce that something is “unregulated.”  When you regulate liberty, how much liberty survives?  How much of America survives? 

Next year, 2014, will mark the 200^th anniversary of the burning of Washington by the British in the War of 1812.  The curious thing about the burning of Washington was that it did not make a lick of difference.  The rest of the nation went on about its business, little harmed or even affected.  The same was true during the Revolutionary War when the British occupied Philadelphia.  Rather than end the war it did nothing to bring the British victory.  In America the nation was not run by its government, and in fact government was mostly irrelevant to the daily life of the people.  That was very different from European experience, where nations were so dominated by their rulers that capturing the capital was tantamount to beheading the country.

Washington is strange to America.  That can be tolerable, but only if it is smaller and less significant.  Let the real nation draw its life from the people and live where they live their lives without direction from their rulers.  Let us have a Washington whose disappearance would not mean much to the rest of the nation.

Of Financial Crisis and Hopes for Better

Sitting by the hearth on a Sunday afternoon, comfortable and cozy, while the winter winds blow, it is easy to ponder how the changing of the year has come to be a time for leaving behind the failings of the past and embracing hopes for better in the future.  I reflect upon the general healthy recognition at this time that happiness in the new year is to some important degree connected with our own personal performance.  Success is not so much the luck of what happens to us as the result of what we do, hence our natural determinations to resolve to do better in some way or another.

Within a few weeks—or even a few days—many of us overcome such thoughts, abandon our resolutions to do better, and settle back into familiar patterns, including the narcotic belief that what happens to us is largely a matter of fate and fortune and little related to our efforts and actions.  Successful people are seen as more “fortunate” than others, who somehow owe something to the “less fortunate,” especially if we consider ourselves among the “less fortunate.”  How else could rational people conjure up the palpably false claim that it is fair to demand and take the property of more successful people and give it to those who have done little or nothing to earn it, who in fact have in many ways squandered their wealth and opportunities for success?

Had we as a nation embraced the principle that what a man or woman earns is his or hers to use or keep or share as he or she wishes, we would have avoided the weeks-long political soap opera called “the fiscal cliff.”  The misleading story proffered by the institutional media is that our nation is on the edge of economic calamity because Congress—meaning by implication the Republicans in the Congress—is unwilling to do its job.  In fact, there are important fundamental principles at the heart of the disagreement between congressional Republicans and President Obama, namely whether cutting government spending—mostly government give away programs—should be postponed by raising taxes on the “wealthy” and independent businesses, and moreover whether raising any taxes on a weak economy makes economic sense.  There is a growing gap in views over these principles.  But for the national cult of coveting there would not be one, but there is, and sooner or later it will be too wide to bridge.

Without this disagreement, we would address excessive government spending the same way that families do.  Families that spend more than they earn will either borrow (within their means to support debt), reduce spending, or earn more, or some combination of these.  Our government has almost exclusively relied upon borrowing (beyond our ability to support it without foreign help), has increased its spending, and has “earned” less. 

On this last point, keep in mind that governments do not earn anything; people do.  Governments take what people earn.  Government policies over the years have reduced economic growth below the growth of government, inhibiting the ability of people to earn, which in turn undermines what our government can afford.  This trend has not been getting any better and has brought us to economic crisis.  A refocus on economic growth, not government growth, is what is needed, but there lies the disagreement in Washington.

In that context, I take advantage of the year-end season of better rationality—however brief—to propose that the bells we sound for the new year ring out the old and destructive coveting for the fruits of others’ labors and ring in the determination to improve our own condition by our own labors.  I propose that for you and for me and for our society as a whole we commit to rely more upon ourselves and to unleash our creative powers for growth and prosperity.  In the same way we will increase our ability and willingness to help others, but we will do so as a healthy exercise of our free will.  Government cannot be generous, for there is no generosity in distributing other people’s money.  But the individual people who make up society can and will open their hands to those around them, as Americans have more than any other people for more than two centuries.  More productive ourselves, we will have more means to share and better judgment about how to share it—ennobling to ourselves and to those we choose to aid.

Of American Prosperity and Failing Villages

The Internet has been a boon for small businesses.  No longer is the market of the small business limited to the local community.  The Internet—together with an efficient system for making payments— allows customers to find the business and do business from near and far.
 
I am thinking at the moment of the used and rare book trade, although I have frequented other lines of small businesses via the Internet, including finding hard-to-get plumbing parts.  I love to walk into a book store, especially a used book store, and more often than not I leave with a new acquisition or two in hand.  I recall not very long ago buying a set of the debates surrounding the ratification of the Constitution.  As the bookseller rang up my purchase he asked whether I had found what I was looking for.  I told him no, that I had found what I was not looking for.  That is the way it usually is for me and a book store, the surprise and wonder of it, the discovery of things of which I had not before been aware or did not know were available to me.

It is a problem that there are not that many small bookshops around, maybe at most one in a town, two or three in a city.  I understand that it is a tough business.  You have to be willing to let musty old volumes sit around on your shelves for a long time, and those books are costing money while they sit there.

The Internet helps solve that.  You can search for a title or an author and find perhaps several sources of the book, long out of print, in bookshops scattered around the country, in towns and villages where you may have never been and would be unlikely to visit.

I have remarked how much I loved a couple of readers we used in grade school.  I could not even remember the names of the books or their authors, but I cherished them for the enthusiasm that they taught me for economic growth and development in America.  I learned a lot more than reading from those books.  I learned that America was a growing and developing country, always becoming more, richer, grander, harnessing the optimism of its people who came from many places but found in America a place where there was joy in the hard work of the present because you owned the results of what you did and what you did was build a more prosperous future that you passed on to your children and their children, who built on it in their turn.

Through the Internet I discovered that the books were written by Mabel O’Donnell, entitled Singing Wheels and Engine Whistles.  They told of the fictitious town of Hastings Mills built in the early nineteenth century on an Illinois prairie, a town that grew to become the prosperous city of Hastings by the early twentieth century.

The town and characters were a literary fiction, but they captured the real spirit and efforts of what happened all over America at that time.  Elsewhere I have quoted a passage from the first book, Singing Wheels, in which the founder of the town, then numbering but a few dozen cabins occupied by hardworking people with dreams, shared with his son the dream of how the town would grow, transforming the surrounding prairie into prosperous farms and the town into the prosperous center that would serve them all.

In the second book, Engine Whistles, the grandson of that founder is chatting with a train engineer about what made the town into a thriving city of 12,000 inhabitants, and growing.  The engineer proudly tells the boy, Tom, that it was the railroad that put Hastings on the map, and the vision of the men—including his grandfather— who brought the railroad to Hastings.  At first Tom agrees, but on second thought Tom argues that there was more to it than that.

“A railroad doesn’t make a town,” he said with a thoughtful look in his blue eyes.  “The railroad didn’t make Hastings.  My grandfather did.”

“Come, now, lad,” boomed engineer Bill, a note of amused disagreement in his voice.

“Yes, he did, too!” insisted Tom, hurrying on and allowing no time for argument.  “He came west in a covered wagon when there wasn’t even one cabin in the valley of the Big Turtle.  He knew it was a good place for a town, and so he built a lumber mill.  Then he cut down trees and sawed lumber so that other people could build homes, too.  He’s the one who made the town!” (Mabel O’Donnell, Engine Whistles, p.37, 38)

As a child growing up in south Florida, I saw that story playing out around me, as each year new homes, businesses, churches, highways and much else were built.  Economic development was the way of life.  When I was a teenager my family moved to western New York, to a much older village, much like Hastings, built in the early nineteenth century by men of vision, a village that thrived into a bustling business, industrial and even cultural center of some 10,000 people. 

But I arrived in the village’s twilight.  It still numbered 10,000 people and still retained something of its old spirit, with several manufacturing and business establishments and even a college.  By the time I and my schoolmates left—and it seemed that most of us did leave—the college had folded up, as had all but one of the manufacturing firms and many of the businesses.  I understand that the biggest employer now is the local hospital system, a close second being the ugly sum of the various state and local government agencies.  People were very happy to get a new state prison built nearby.  The heavy taxation and regulations emanating from Albany made business too expensive and leached away the village’s future.  Just recently, driven by tax burden, the remaining inhabitants of the village voted to give up their village charter.

A different story, that one, but one that has its echoes in too many places.  I wonder whether that was the America that the Dutch, Germans, Italians, Irish and others who built the village had in mind for their descendants. 

I am very glad that I found Mabel O’Donnell’s books through the Internet and was able to buy them and read them again.  You will have to get your own copies, though, as I am passing mine on down to my grandchildren.