Drummond’s formula for fixing Ontario’s economic woes: A predictable but incomplete strategy

Economist Don Drummond after a comprehensive review proffered 362 recommendations for the Ontario Liberal government to bring its financial affairs under control.  He did what economists do, perhaps even not enough, to restoreOntario’s budget to what it was before it was mismanaged in a myriad of ways.  Eliminate the deficit the Province must and it should be done sooner than later.  However, does eliminating a deficit necessarily mean that economic growth in the province will be restored?  Moreover, is economic growth the only desirable goal to pursue for the people ofOntario?  If you are an economist the answer clearly is a resounding yes.

If you are a humanist, concerned with quality of life and conditions that support it, quantity of anything, including economic growth, is not likely your primary focus.

As much attention that was focused onOntario’s budgetary deficit should be directed to delineating what defines a desired quality of life for its people.  The functional majority is unlikely to crave excesses or mention economic growth as a priority for the province.  There probably is a growing number who recognize that more is not always better and cooperatively sharing ultimately is better for everyone.

Perhaps the most important service the functional majority, when surveyed, would say they want are conditions that are conducive to the optimal realization of all children’s potential.  I for one do not want to see my children co-opted by the status quo obsessed with consumerism and the banal lives of a privileged few whose sordid affairs we are constantly bombarded with in the media.  I wish for them and everyone of us a new social order in which quality of life is the focus and in which responsible productivity, social cooperation and harmonious co-existence with the environment and all other people are equally valued.

So by all means let us all support balancing the budget of all governments.  But also factor into formulas, such as that proposed by Mr. Drummond, attending to the human element so that there is not only agreement with the need but support for fiscal financial responsibility because of a realization that quality not quantity is what really matters.

Talk about, maybe even make a list of what defines your qualify of life.

It is not our noble nature that makes us different from all other living things: It is our appreciation of the aesthetic

The impetus for writing this frankly emanates from my guilt about what at face value appears to be materialism that is inconsistent with the principles by which I strive to live.  Simply, I feel guilty about restoring and driving an antique sport car, about preferring a more than utilitarian everyday automobile to get from point A to B, and about liking and even wanting material things I consider pleasing.  To various degrees I believe, at least hope, that we all struggle with our materialistic propensities that include a far wider list than the above examples.  I trust therefore, that analyzing this aspect of ourselves will be of benefit.

 

Notwithstanding the fact that genetically we are very close to many creatures, I believe chimpanzees being the closest, our brain is a key distinguishing factor.  Specifically, every brain structure above our reptilian module, on top of our spinal cord, is the essence of what affords us the potential of becoming human.  To quote the late Carl Rogers we are not human beings we are human becomings, a reality none of us should ever ignore.

 

Because of our cerebral cortex therefore, we have an appreciation, indeed a desire for the aesthetic.  Sure other creatures use aesthetics to attract a mate but we human becomings go beyond this function.  Indeed we exert great effort and assign much resources in the pursuit of aesthetics.  For us too the aesthetic serves a function albeit of a different order than securing a mate by the show of brightly coloured feathers.  Yes I know we human becomings also resort to this aesthetic function but it is the other functions to which I am referring.

 

I believe the other functions to be two fold.  I believe the one function to be a key element in the process of becoming human.

 

As our cognitive developmental perspective evolves and our primary needs are more than not satisfied, so also our aesthetic sensibilities develop and discernibly change over time.  In contract when our development is obstructed by adverse environmental conditions and the pursuit of our primary needs are paramount the development of our aesthetic sensibilities also is constrained.  As a result universal interest in the aesthetic is not uniform.  It takes many forms such as various mutilations of the body or the creation of David by Michaelangelo.  Regardless of what form the created aesthetic takes it is assuredly a human pursuit.

 

The aesthetic can and does serve another purpose than being a key factor in our becoming human as evidenced by our changing views of what is beautiful.  It is significant in establishing status and thereby power.  This explains the grandeur of European palaces, parliaments and the private homes of the nobility.  This function also explains the grandeur of the American industrialists’ homes and the Nuevo Riche expenditures on art and all things masterfully crafted.  When aesthetics are used for this function, to convey status and power, certain primary needs are unresolved for the user and cognitive development perspectives are obstructed.  Their appreciation, understanding and derived benefits of and from the aesthetic is preconventional and thereby is not only limited to the immediate but also is dispensable.  For a more detailed description of obstructed development and its impact on human functioning see Chapter Six in Because We Can,  http://atpolgar.com/pub_s.php.

 

Unfortunately the appreciation for and the pursuit of the aesthetic also is embedded in consumerism.  This too can and does give it a negative connotation and for certain contributes to my emotion of guilt for indulging my self with things I want as opposed to need.

 

Alternatively, however, the aesthetic arguably can be a very human need for those who are not constantly under siege, have their primary needs for safety, food and shelter met and cognitive developmentally function at least at the conventional level of reasoning.  The aesthetic is a need because it is essential to becoming human in terms of learning to recognize beauty and the importance of preserving it for its own sake.  Tragically to contribute to the elevation of the human condition by pursuing the aesthetic one cannot be stuck in a survival mode.  When one is starving or is under siege little else occupies the mind other than survival.  Therefore, the extent to which we embrace the aesthetic for its own sake reveals much about our progress in becoming human.

 

I feel a little better now and hope that you feel likewise.  The pursuit of the aesthetic remains, however, to be a perplexing issue to be individually resolved.  Determining what function the desired object serves should go a long way in resolving this perplexing dilemma.

 

 

Poverty Reduction: Yes but How?

I have been trying to determine for myself whether the initiative to reduce poverty is a new big idea or a platitude that garners moral self-rightness for those who advocate for it.

 The answer is immediately at hand that it is not a new big idea.  A random time sample will reveal that poverty and all the negatives associated with it has always been a concern.  For example, the profession of social work emerged out of the investigations, social diagnosis, of economist’s intent on discovering the causes of poverty and associated difficulties and addressing the causes with relevant interventions.  Work of this nature was well underway in the early eighteen hundreds and there is much written about it and about the charity organizations that followed.

 Not by process of elimination in this simple dichotomy but based on analyses the notion of poverty reduction is indeed a platitude.

 The dictionary defines platitude as; a trite or commonplace remark delivered solemnly.  Poverty reduction also is a motherhood statement with which no reasonable person could or would disagree.  Those who advocate for it engage in much rhetoric often of a nature that admonishes those who do not support or agree with the initiative.

 While I firmly believe that all positive sustainable change comes from grand and lofty ideas I also believe that we are long overdue putting the idea of poverty reduction into coordinated well thought out actions.

 The impetus for writing this comes from an article in my local paper calling for government investment in poverty reduction.  To the best of my ability, the only tactic I could discern was a call “for real social assistance reform”.  Simply put a bigger cheque for those in need so that they will not have to rely on food banks to feed their families.

 I am certain that there are more tactics to reducing poverty than a bigger social assistance cheque.  The trouble with the article to which I am reacting is that they were not listed.  I need to know, we need to know, what tactics the poverty reduction advocates want to implement.  The sooner we know the details the sooner we can resolve the inevitable objections and then get on with what needs to be done.

 For certain we need to engage in both remedial and preventative tactics.  Moreover, in the spirit of the elephant in the room, we need to acknowledge and guard against the inevitable abuses that will occur if indeed social assistance cheques become sufficient to live on without relying on food banks.  Abuses already are occurring because when people are in survival mode their focus is on the here and now not the broad and long term implications of their actions.

 Most importantly the called upon investment that will produce the best and sustainable results will be initiatives that are preventive in nature.  The preventive investments do not put monies directly in the hands of the poor in terms of a living social assistance cheque or a living wage.  Instead, the investment is in the various social institutions, mostly our education system, that are mandated to facilitate, to their full potential, the development of all children who came in contact with them.  No talk of poverty reduction is complete without including preventative measures.

 Prevention of poverty is far more complex and costly undertaking than increasing the social assistance cheques of those in need or implementing a living wage requirement.  Preventing poverty initiatives also threatens the status quo and will most certainly mobilize all its inadvertent protectors.  Just because prevention is more difficult, however, is no reason to turn away from it and settle for remedial actions.  The degree of difficulty, of any task including preventing poverty, is directly proportional to the benefits and satisfaction that come from getting it done.

 For a comprehensive description of remedial and preventative measures to address not only poverty but all the human malaise that has plagued us since the beginning of our time on this earth see Part Three in Because We Can.

 

Because we can – we must:
Achieving the Human Developmental Potential          http://atpolgar.com/pub_s.php

In Five Generations