I've been semi-AWOL from Livejournal since the start of the year--reading, but not writing and not commenting much. There's been a lot on my mind, but I haven't felt like I've had a lot to say. I've also been getting settled in to a new apartment (still in Portland, just a different area) and adjusting to a new job. As far as the job goes, I feel like I'm getting some valuable experience working in a larger organization and learning a lot about the needs of larger businesses, which should help me in the future in whatever my next entrepreneurial endeavors turn out to be.
I have been either running my own business or freelancing for so long that there are aspects of life in larger organizations that I haven't been up to date on. Also, it's an adjustment having to report to a chain of command again after being used to making so many of my own decisions. It's not entirely a bad thing, but it is an adjustment. I think the main advantage is that I'm at a point in my life where having some time to think and regroup without having to have my mind on work 24/7 is something I need for the moment. It's actually a nice change to get off work and actually be off work. In any case, the 9 to 5 job thing won't be forever; I know myself too well for that. I know that it's only a matter of time before I develop another entrepreneurial itch that needs scratching.
I've been kind of quiet on the political activism front. For the past few months, I've been more of an observer than an active participant. Which is not to say that I haven't had any reactions to recent events; it's just that I've needed some time to take a break and focus on some things that need to be addressed in my own life. It's a good time for that, since as the year gets further along, the presidential election will be heating up and there's also a good chance that the Occupy movement could explode again as the weather warms up. I'm working on putting myself in a position to be ready for both of those things.
I've been more annoyed with economic events than political matters lately. In particular, I've been closely following the events in Greece and the Euro zone, along with the rather horrible economic decision that has been going on in Washington. As usual, the biggest problem in this country has been the boneheaded ideologues in the Republican Party who, first of all, do not seem to actually understand economics, and secondly, seem quite willing to wreck the economy and derail any recovery from the recession just to make political points with their ultra-right wing base. But this is just one symptom of a larger, worldwide problem: the continued persistence of foolish and discredited economic theories that should have long since been tossed into history's garbage bin.
"Austerity" has been the buzzword of choice in Greece, across the Euro zone, and among Republican ideologues in Washington. Austerity is a sort of holy grail among disciples of the (discredited) economic theories of people like Reagan, Thatcher and the rest of that whole crowd of right-wing zealots. What austerity really means to the rest of us is balancing budgets on the backs of the poor and completely disregarding the needs of the 99%.
Aside from that, austerity doesn't work during economic downturns, which is something that the application of a little common sense should enable to anyone to figure out. See, it goes something like this. When economic times are bad, both companies and individuals become more conservative and risk-averse. They start to focus more on protecting what they already have. Consumers don't spend and companies don't hire workers because they can't afford bloated payrolls for workers to make things that might not be bought. This reaction is, of course, a rational response. That is, it is rational if you're an average everyday Joe or a business owner.
But the proponents of austerity commit a glaring error in logic called the fallacy of composition, where they assume that because something is rational for an individual, it must be rational for the whole of society as well. And here, they get it completely wrong. For an economy to grow, you don't need risk-aversion and cutbacks. You need spending. It's as simple as that. Individuals and businesses are not in a position to spend or even hire for that matter. The only entity that really is in a position to spend or hire is the government.
For just one example of the harm to the economy caused by the misguided austerity approach, look no further than the deep cutbacks we've seen in recent years to state and local government employment. What the zealots who shout loudly for smaller government always fail to take into account is that because government doesn't have to be driven by a profit motive, government workers act as a cushion for the broader economy.
And in a last bit of news, I am not pleased to have learned that one of my friends from my hometown has recently been the victim of a hate crime. We hear a lot about hate crimes in a broader sense, but people often do not relate to the subtle and insidious impact that hate crimes have on the victims themselves. If you fall into this category--or even if you don't--I would encourage you to read over
moominmuppet's recent entries on her experiences.