The U.S. is known as a country where if you are willing to work hard, and especially if you are willing to study hard and work hard, then you will have a good future:\u00a0 A good education, a good job, and a good life.\u00a0 The U.S. is a country full of opportunities, and they are there for your taking if you are willing to work toward it.\u00a0 This reputation is what attracted so many millions of people from all over the world to come to this country during the last 200 years, especially during the last 60 years when the U.S. became the most powerful and richest country in the world.\u00a0 People come in the form of legal immigration and sometimes in the form of illegal immigration.\u00a0 The ability to have a good future if you are willing to work for it, definitely for your children if not also for yourselves, is known as the American Dream.
\n<\/p>\n
Year after year thousands and thousands of immigrants have gone after and then realized this American Dream.\u00a0 The question is can this American Dream be continued unchanged in the future?\u00a0 To try to answer this question, we first discuss a unique characteristic of the U.S. environment, and then examine several phenomena that have been occurring in the U.S<\/p>\n
The U.S. is really unique in terms of geographic or natural opportunities during most of its existence.\u00a0 It offered a vast country with a very small native population.\u00a0 It offered good natural resources with a large percentage of the land ideal for agriculture and cattle ranging.\u00a0 Thus, there was always room to expand and enough resources to share, instead of being a zero-sum situation where one could gain only at the expense of someone else.\u00a0 The country actually welcomed more new comers to help develop the vast land.\u00a0 As a matter of fact, it was partially due to immigration to the U.S. of so many of the best and brightest from other countries that propelled the U.S. economic engine to become the richest and most powerful country in the world.<\/p>\n
The U.S. is bordered by the Atlantic Ocean on the East and the Pacific Ocean on the West, providing natural barriers from foreign aggressors.\u00a0 It is bordered on the north and the south by two relatively new countries also with a vast land of their own and a small native population.\u00a0 The U.S. was able to live relatively peacefully without worrying too much about the threat of foreign invasion until World War II.\u00a0 Thus, it could focus its resources and energy internally to develop the country.<\/p>\n
With all the above advantages, it was able to develop into a rich and powerful country.\u00a0 Furthermore, compared with most other countries, it suffered relatively minor damages from WWII.\u00a0 This enabled it to develop into the richest and most powerful country in the world after WWII.\u00a0 Then for another 25-50 years before many other countries (e.g., first Germany and Japan, and then Korea, India and China) developed into credible economic competitors, the U.S. was able to reap great economic advantages all over the world.<\/p>\n
This is not to deny that other factors (e.g., its democratic system of government, the American entrepreneur spirit) were also contributors to the success of the U.S. during the first two hundred years of its existence.\u00a0 The point we want to make is that there was almost an ideal geographical or natural environment for the U.S. during most of its existence that greatly helped it to develop into the richest and most powerful country in the world and created the base for the American Dream.<\/p>\n
We now turn our attention to some of the phenomena that have been occurring in the U.S.\u00a0\u00a0 The event that has captured the public and media\u2019s attention in the last year and a half is the near-collapse of the financial market (occurring first in the U.S. around the second half of 2008 and then rapidly spreading to the whole world), followed by the astronomical [1] government financial bailout, and more recently by the huge bonuses distributed in the very companies that triggered the financial collapse.<\/p>\n
I think that several questions need to be raised.\u00a0 The financial collapse was due to many banks and mortgage companies investing in high risk mortgage loans followed by many insurance and investment companies creating and investing in various insurance investments derived from these risky mortgage loans (e.g., credit default swaps).\u00a0 This became so fashionable for most of the last decade until 2008.\u00a0 During the several previous years of booming housing market when house prices kept going up and people kept buying houses with loans they really couldn\u2019t afford, these companies made billions and billions of profits.<\/p>\n
The first question we need to ask is didn\u2019t the people who were reaping these huge profits realize that these loans and derivative investments were intrinsically risky and the boom was built on a house of cards, that sooner or later the housing and investment bubble would burst, especially when the adjustable mortgage loan rates changed to the higher rates which the borrowers could no longer afford.\u00a0 I think that there is no way that many of the people who created these investment vehicles didn\u2019t know.\u00a0 It is more likely that they didn\u2019t care.\u00a0 Their motive, as well as the motive of their companies, was to make as much money as possible for themselves and their companies.\u00a0 The fact that what they were doing could lead to financial disasters for the country and the world is a problem to be worried about later and more importantly is someone else\u2019s problem.\u00a0\u00a0 Although the adverse fallouts of such purely self-centric motive may not be as severe in a continuing expanding economy like the U.S.\u2019s several decades earlier, it is disastrously serious in a zero-sum economy like the current U.S. economy.<\/p>\n
When the financial bubble burst, the U.S. government decided that the only way to keep this financial meltdown from spreading to the whole economy is to bail out these companies with billions and billions of dollars, totaling approximately $11 trillions. [1]\u00a0 Probably no one really knows whether such a huge bailout is necessary to keep the whole economy, not just a number of companies, from collapsing.\u00a0 Nevertheless, a natural question to ask is whether it is really necessary to bail out all these companies.\u00a0 Many companies repaid the government in less than a year.\u00a0 For example, Goldman Sachs in April 2009 repaid the $10 billion TARP bailout money received from the government just six months earlier in October 2008; JP Morgan Chase repaid their $25 billion TARP bailout money in early June 2009.\u00a0 If they can repay the money so quickly, did they really need the government bailout to survive?\u00a0\u00a0 It seems that the answer to this question is most likely no, especially taking into consideration that both Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase had record earnings or revenues for 2009.\u00a0 Perhaps that the real reason they accepted the bailout was again greed.\u00a0 They are concerned only about themselves and not the whole country, thinking that if the government is willing to give them a bailout, why should they reject it even if they don\u2019t need it?\u00a0 One may then ask if it were greed, why would they repay the bailout money so quickly?\u00a0 If they don\u2019t repay the bailout, they would be under more scrutiny from the government, e.g., with respect to bonuses.\u00a0 They definitely did not want to lose or significantly reduce their traditional huge bonuses.\u00a0 Keep in mind that the bonuses for each of the executives of these companies who make these decisions are in the millions.\u00a0 Therefore, the reason for repaying the bailout money so quickly was also greed.<\/p>\n
In spite of the continued gloomy economy for the whole country and an unemployment rate of about 10%, these companies still decided to dole out huge bonuses to their employees.\u00a0 For example, for 2009 Goldman Sachs doled out $16 billion in bonuses, so that on the average, each employee received approximately $500,000 in bonus and compensation for 2009.\u00a0 For 2009 JP Morgan Chase paid $27 billion in bonuses, so that on the average, each employee received approximately $135,000 in bonus and compensation for 2009.\u00a0 There is really no moral justification for awarding such huge bonuses when you take into consideration that it is mostly the doings of these companies that caused the financial meltdown resulting in the depressed economy for everyone else in the country.\u00a0 The justification from these companies is that in order to keep their employees, such huge bonuses are necessary.\u00a0 But if the whole financial industry were ethical and morally responsible, then there would be no company to jump to due to significantly higher bonuses in other companies.\u00a0 Again, it seems that the only explanation is unabashed greed.<\/p>\n
But are such unabashed greed and purely self-centric motive restricted to only those people working in the financial industry?\u00a0 The answer is no, and this behavior is manifested in government, labor unions, corporations in other industries, professional sports, etc.<\/p>\n
One of the well known characteristics in government is pork barrel politics.\u00a0 This refers to the spending of government money on projects that benefit only the constituents of a particular politician in exchange for that politician\u2019s political support, usually in voting for a particular bill.\u00a0 The pork barrel money that is spent is taxpayers\u2019 money, and the projects usually do not benefit anyone else and sometimes may even have adverse impacts on others.\u00a0 There are numerous examples of such pork barrel spending; we illustrate with only two.\u00a0 One is the $300+ million bill pushed by Republicans that was passed by Congress in 2005 to build a \u201cBridge to Nowhere\u201d in Alaska [2] that would connect the town of Ketchikan (population 8,900) with its airport on the Island of Gravina (population 50).\u00a0 This bridge is supposed to replace the current ferry service that runs every 15-30 minutes and charges $6 per car.\u00a0 After this bill became well known and the public backlash was so severe, Congress later that year removed the spending specifically earmarked for this as well as another similar bridge in Alaska.\u00a0 However, this new action did not save the taxpayers any money, because the $400+ million originally allocated for the two bridges remain in Alaska and left to Alaska to decide how to spend that money, including using the money to build those two bridges if they so desire!<\/p>\n
Another example of pork barrel spending is the proposed Senate Healthcare bill that was formulated at the end of 2009.\u00a0 In order to get Senator Ben Nelson\u2019s vote, the 60th vote necessary to assure its passage in the Democratic-controlled Senate, the proposed bill was revised so that the federal government would pay forever Nebraska\u2019s expanded Medicaid population while all other states would get full federal assistance only for the first three years of the bill.\u00a0 This promise has been estimated to cost the taxpayers as much as $100 million during the next decade.\u00a0 It really doesn\u2019t matter that Senator Nelson has said that he didn\u2019t request this change.\u00a0 What matters is that it was even offered, and he accepted it.\u00a0 Related to the Senate Healthcare bill, if the senators were voting according to what they believe and what they think is best for the country, then I don\u2019t see how all the Democrats would vote one way and all the Republicans would vote the other way.\u00a0 Obviously, they voted according to party lines.<\/p>\n
Pork barrel spending is not just an isolated event that happens only once in a while, it is intimately immersed in the fabric of political spending in government, at both the federal and state levels.\u00a0 It reflects the greed and the self-centric motive of the political process.\u00a0 One may argue that that is the only way to make political progress.\u00a0 Perhaps that could be an acceptable way in a continuing expanding economy, but it is definitely not the best way in a zero-sum economy.\u00a0 One may also argue that it is human nature to be greedy and completely self-centered.\u00a0 I believe that each human being has both a positive side and a negative side, and in our educational and political process, we should not only encourage exhibiting positive behaviors, but our whole social and political process should reward positive behaviors, and reprimand or discourage negative behaviors.<\/p>\n
Another example of greed and self-centric motive in both government and corporations is the spending behavior at the end of the budget year.\u00a0 Often money has been allocated for a specific budget year for a particular project or organization within a government agency or a corporation.\u00a0\u00a0 Near the end of the budget year, the project or organization may find that they really didn\u2019t need all the money that was allocated.\u00a0 Instead of returning the money to the larger organization which may find better uses for the money, the common practice is to spend it for fear that their funding request(s) for the following year(s) will be reduced.<\/p>\n
Greed and self-centric motive apply equally well to labor unions.\u00a0 Labor unions definitely serve a useful purpose.\u00a0 Without labor unions, profits earned from the labor of the employees will not be nearly as well distributed, resulting in a small and very rich owner\/manager class and a large and very poor worker class.\u00a0 However, with the increasing power and influence of labor unions, labor unions often continue to demand higher salaries and better benefits which sometimes can no longer be sustained from a business point of view, especially when their government or corporation is getting closer and closer to insolvency.\u00a0 Examples are the airline and auto industries.\u00a0 State governments and local school districts are facing tremendous budgetary shortfalls and higher taxes, yet teachers unions continue to oppose strongly any significant sharing of the health insurance premium even though most workers today contribute a non-negligible share of their health insurance premiums. Again, a purely self-centric motive of any group will no longer work to the benefits of the larger society, and in the long run as well as that particular group, as we transform from a continuing expanding economy to a zero-sum economy.<\/p>\n
Another example of self-centric motive in the corporate or government world is manifested in the unwillingness to share information with colleagues.\u00a0 This is a seldom discussed phenomenon, but it is fairly pervasive and is a factor from keeping a company from being more efficient, more creative, and more competitive.\u00a0 We probably have all experienced this phenomenon.\u00a0 In my 35 years of professional life, I have experienced this in an obvious way on several occasions, and probably many more times in more subtle and non-obvious ways.\u00a0 On the one hand, a colleague would ask me for information on subjects that I either know more or have been working on, and I provided the information every time they asked.\u00a0 On the other hand, when I asked them for information on subjects that they either know more or have been working on, they took no action and basically ignored my request(s).\u00a0 My asking for that information was not purely for my own benefit, but it was because there could be synergy between what they were working on and what I was working on or what I had worked on.\u00a0 Such lack of cooperation could result in lost opportunities.<\/p>\n
The last example of greed and self-centric motive is in the field of professional sports.\u00a0 The astronomical salaries of the top professional athletes or even the average salaries of professional athletes are mind boggling.\u00a0 In the article \u201cMisplaced Priorities and Its Social Impacts\u201d (http:\/\/www.dontow.com\/2009\/02\/misplaced-priority-and-its-social-impacts\/<\/a>), I mentioned that<\/p>\n Why should we care if they can make so much money?\u00a0 The reason is because we, ordinary citizens even if we don\u2019t go to any of their games, ultimately pay for their salaries.\u00a0 Their salaries are paid through higher charges for ads and commercials (reflected in everyday products that we buy), television and cable broadcast fees (reflected in our monthly television and cable subscription fees), and sometimes also through public subsidies for their multi-billion dollar stadiums and arenas (reflected in our various taxes).<\/p>\n Summary<\/u>:<\/strong> For over 200 hundred years, the U.S. offered the American Dream, i.e., if you are willing to study hard and work hard, then you will have a good future:\u00a0 A good education, a good job, and a good life.\u00a0 Millions of people from all over the world have immigrated to the U.S. to seek and then fulfilled the American Dream.<\/p>\n Can this American Dream be continued into the future?\u00a0 In this article, we argue that a major reason for the U.S. being able to offer the American Dream is because of its unique geographical or natural environment that isolated and protected the country while offering the country with plenty of land, natural resources, and a very small native population.\u00a0 This allowed the U.S. to continue to absorb more people and continue to expand.\u00a0 In other words, for the first 200 years of its existence, the U.S. was in a continuing expanding economy.\u00a0 However, in the last 20-30 years, the U.S. has essentially fully expanded, so its economy has transformed from a continuing expanding economy into a zero-sum economy.\u00a0 In a zero-sum economy, the benefit of the larger entity must be taken into account.\u00a0 Adopting a greed and self-centric approach may benefit one part in the short term, but not the whole and in the long term not even that part.\u00a0 Furthermore, other economic powers have come into existence to provide credible competition to the U.S.\u00a0 Thus, in order for the U.S. to compete successfully, it must operate very efficiently and creatively.\u00a0 This provides another reason that all its parts must work together and synergistically, but not against each other.<\/p>\n Can the American Dream be continued?\u00a0 Yes, it can, but it cannot be accomplished doing business as usual.\u00a0 In particular, our motive and mode of operation cannot be driven by greed and a self-centric approach.\u00a0 It must be driven by taking the whole entity into our heart.<\/p>\n As stated earlier, this is not to deny that other factors (e.g., the democratic system of government in the U.S., the American entrepreneur spirit) were also contributors to the success of the U.S. during the first two hundred years of its existence.\u00a0 Furthermore, we do not mean to imply that more greed and more self-centered motive are found in the U.S. than in other countries.\u00a0 As a matter of fact, we believe that there are more similarities than differences among people from various countries.\u00a0 Every human being has a positive side and a negative side.\u00a0 In a continuing expanding economy, the adverse consequences of exhibiting more of the negative side are no where as severe as in a zero-sum economy.\u00a0 The U.S. and most of the world are now in a zero-sum economy.\u00a0 Whoever can exhibit more of the positive side will come out first in the competition.\u00a0 If the U.S. comes out first, then the American Dream can be continued.<\/p>\n [1] Including various forms of financial aid, the total financial bailout is approximately $11 trillions.\u00a0 See, e.g., http:\/\/money.cnn.com\/news\/storysupplement\/economy\/bailouttracker\/index.html<\/a>.\u00a0 The $700 billion Trouble Asset Relief Program (TARP) established by Congress in October 2008 was only part of the total federal bailout money. The U.S. is known as a country where if you are willing to work hard, and especially if you are willing to study hard and work hard, then you will have a good future:\u00a0 A good education, a good job, and a good life.\u00a0 The U.S. is a country full of opportunities, and they are […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false}}},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.dontow.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/704"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.dontow.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.dontow.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.dontow.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.dontow.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=704"}],"version-history":[{"count":37,"href":"http:\/\/www.dontow.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/704\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":807,"href":"http:\/\/www.dontow.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/704\/revisions\/807"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.dontow.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=704"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.dontow.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=704"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.dontow.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=704"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\n
\n[2] This became well known during the 2008 presidential election.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"