In discussing utopias, a number of people have brought up various groups, such as the Hutterites, the Catholic lay ministry group and others.
An interesting feature of the ones that were brought up was that they are all patriarchies. The key to their success is not patriarchy (if you look at the small Bessemer forge steel plants, another utopian labor movement, they are not patriarchies), but social stability. These groups also flourish in areas where technological change is slow (and thus control of intellectual capital does not create dividing lines), where economies of scale do not force growth over the social control limit (of about two hundred adults) and where it is easy to measure individual contribution (a key to successful labor managed firms).
The economic side-note I’m about to go into has to do with “stimulus” spending. While I will leave it to others to debate whether the stimulus was too large or too small, I would like to point out that on all sides of the debate, everyone acknowledged that in the long run the drag caused by the debt will outstrip the benefit from the stimulus. Most neutral economists put the “go negative” date at about ten years.
Setting aside that debt is an important part of the American fiat money supply (inflation does not create more monetary units, in America we do that with government debt), government debt tends to compete with private debt and create some interesting problems. Greece is facing those now. Lets say your budget is ten dollars a week and you are spending twelve. To cease to go into the hole, you need to cut spending back to ten, a twenty percent change (relative to the baseline of ten). To start paying back the debt, you may need to cut back to eight dollars a week. That is a swing of four dollars against a base of ten, which is huge.
In people’s lives I often see it when someone is having an affair. They spend savings and credit and don’t pay existing debts. Then the divorce happens, child support kicks in and the money runs out. Suddenly they have a lot less to spend. It is interesting to see the “friend” (now the new spouse) blame all of that on the ex-spouse’s greed. No, it is just an example of an end to deficit spending.
But most failed Utopias start with a version of deficit spending, where the community starts with a great deal of outside money or a sponsor, and is not self-sustaining. When the money runs out, so does the community. The crash is often catastrophic, because instead of building reserves, the community is well in the hole.
So, how do you build economic stability, avoid deficits and have strong social structures that are not stifling or modeled on social norms from the 1800s that many would find unacceptable?
That is the next post. But it helps if the community is renegotiating its identity. Which is why many modern utopias are not recognized as utopias by the societies they are in.
Wheat & Tares 
In the law of Moses all debts must be totally forgiven every 7 years. This prevents credit bubbles and debt slavery (like they have in India), etc. from taking control of the economy, so it would keep things grounded. It also prevents one generation from dumping its debts on a future generation, and forces essentially balanced budgets all around.
Paul, you have hit a point of how to make a stable society in many ways, that of only allowing leases, so to speak. I’ve been thinking on that in the context of property ownership and First Nations law.
Good point.
It has its drawbacks too, i.e. if you can’t pay in cash, you can’t do it.
You can have short term loans. They had a lot of that going on. And there are times when loans are really amortizing cash flow, a way to pay for things as you use them (think of buying a car before they had car leases).
But slower, resilient economies lend themselves to things that faster, more brittle ones do not.
The next step is to discuss places where people live and where, when exposed to modern urban society, they don’t stay, but return to their “home” or originating life style.
I would feel a whole lot better if certain politicians didn’t believe you can cut taxes, increase spending, fight two wars and somehow — magically — it will all balance out in the end. When has this ever worked?
In ancient Israel, the charging of interest to fellow Israelites was barred as usury. So, loans were like what is done in the Islamic world today — one borrowed an amount but deducted up front fees.
Steve,
I enjoyed your post. I think you have accurately described some very troubling economic trends.
Solution: The short answer is humility. In practical terms, wealth is obtained by spending less than you make and wisely investing the difference; while, financial disaster stems from spending more than you make and financing the difference.
All of the financial woes stem from pride. The pride in Greece is the entitlement mentality. The cradle to grave benefits that people think they are owed. They have this perverted notion that it is someone else’s responsibility to take care of them. As Margret Thatcher said, the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money. This is exactly what happened in Greece.
As for the US, our focus has gone from people to things. These graven images and greed have become our focus. We too have developed an entitlement mentality, not as bad as Greece but were working on it. Put simply, things have become too important. Some people would have major consternation over lending someone their new boat, vacation home or brand new Mercedes; but, would have no problem handing their children over for the day to total strangers making minimum wage. We need to simplify. We need to shift the focus back to people, not things.
Further evidence of the focus on “things” is the huge expansion of the storage unit industry over the last 20-30 years.
But what does any of this (including the OP) have to do with patriarchy?
The Other Clark — that is my point, that it doesn’t have as much to do with it as one might think from the first blush analysis. Hutterites don’t even let women vote, for example. They are stable, communal utopias.
The question, though, is whether that element (which shows up in a number of utopian communities) is necessary or even reflective of any human need or if it is something else.
My thought is that it is something else.
Thanks for the clarification. Re-reading the original post, I must have completely missed the second paragraph, which now makes sense…
Perhaps the connection with patriarchy is that old-school lifestyles and small-scale communities tend to create a fertile environment for patriarchy.
Or maybe it’s just that somebody has to be the boss, and utopian-based societies favor males?
The Other Clark — good questions. I think that it is the function of strong social ties.
I’ll get into that when I discuss a utopian “movement” that was accidental.
If we all were middle aged for an extra two hundred years, if fertility rates were much lower, and if the “magic” habitable band were wider, it would be easier to have utopias.
But I’m still mulling some points over. My nephew Ben sent me a book to read and it has side tracked me somewhat. Smart kid. I admire him.
You can’t avoid debt. You just can’t. To create a “workable utopia”—if that isn’t a contradiction in terms—that utopia WILL require the use of debt. It’s just unavoidable.
There are a lot of bad assumptions in your piece Stephen, beginning with the comparison of the United States to Greece. We are not Greece, and we’re not anywhere close to Greece’s problems. To compare us to Greece is fearmongering.
Furthermore, I guess I should not be amazed that those on the right are talking so much about “deficits” right now. The deficit is rather high, and a Democrat is in office. I am totally amazed though that back in 2001, none of this talk was presented when we had a surplus. It’s as if that was some other world. Perhaps conservatives forgot Dick “Deficits Don’t Matter” Cheney, because they did vote for him again in 2004 and his boss to add more to the deficit. They certainly didn’t have a plan in 2004 to reduce the deficit. In fact, they made it vastly worse. Where was the concern then? Of course, I think I’ve just happened to come across this blog where everyone here was concerned back then…what a coinkidink.
Dan,
I find it fascinating that you want to distance yourself so much from Greece. As a Western European Socialist, why are you not standing behind them? They stand for everything you are advocating — two years paid unemployment benefits (for those that have actually worked), free health care for all citizens, heavily unionized, early retirement and the largest employer by a mile is the Government. Gee, I wonder why they have massive deficits.
Stephen’s message is a good one. I would add when we see a resounding failure of socialism, why in the hell would we try and copy it? It appears love beads are cutting of the circulation to the brains of those advocating this nonsense. With this said, I am actually FOR universal health care as long as liberalism is the first mental disorder that is treated.
Dan You can’t avoid debt. You just can’t. at present debt is an essential part of the money supply, I acknowledge that in passing. Setting aside that debt is an important part of the American fiat money supply (inflation does not create more monetary units, in America we do that with government debt)
The point I was making was not that you do with out debt, but you can’t run on permanent deficits. Hugely different issue.
Many utopias are set up with large capital and running cost investments. At some point they have to quit running at a deficit (not without debt, I vote for school bond elections, for example) or they exhaust their asset base and crash.
Huge difference there.
As for our last, close to balancing the budget president, yes, he was followed by an irresponsible administration that did more to jeopardize American security than any other in the history of the country. My daughter got my attitude towards Cheney when she was involved at the protest against him at BYU (which I did not agree with. If a representative of the anti-Christ wants to talk at BYU, why not let them).
Your knee is jerking so hard you are missing the point.
we see a resounding failure of socialism Too true, for interesting reasons.
As are the reasons people adopt it. All of which go into utopian ideals and efforts (and why some of them fail).
But, back to the original point. If you set up a Utopia, at some point it needs to break even or it will hit a critical collapse. If you fund it with debt, you need to plan your spending curve to cover repayment.
Capital debt payments generally do that. E.g. when you buy a house using debt, your budget includes the debt repayment.
Spending spree debt generally does not do that. e.g. if I use debt to finance a kegger this week end, then next week end I need to repay the payday loan guy and still meet expenses.
As an aside, politically on debt we get the situation where (by analogy) our crazy republican uncle spends the rent money on a bender, so our crazy democratic aunt spends the rest of the budget on food for the cats in the name of fairness.
Then we are left without money for rent or food for ourselves.
We are all looking for an adult.
The amazing thing is that in Europe the Tea Party equivalent is a neopopulist movement.
In the United States it started with a huge groundswell of distaste and unease at Republican spending and the war in Iraq (the same wing nuts who sent me quasi-spam about those two things now send me quasi-spam about the Tea Party).
Somehow it has been completely co-opted away from the natural progressives in America, partly because those progressives for the most part now disdain blue collar types.
When Audi added “eyeliner” to their masculine cars I thought I had seen it all (anyone for a transvestite model for automobiles sold to men as macho?). But the populist movement in the United States being co-opted by big business instead of the progressives is even stranger.
Dan, this is kind of like when I referred to Eugene Jacobs as the lone democrat (ranger) who saved Salt Lake (and much of Utah) and you seemed to take offense at that.
Seriously, individual democrats saved Utah from far worse things than have happened to it.
Believe it or not, there are more than a few good democrats out there. And many good republicans. Huntsman’s model of running as the lone moderate in a field of rabid conservatives is an attempt to duplicate the McCain primary win.
It relies on there being a critical mass of moderates who want sense rather than partisan passion. And a huge field of rabid single digit candidates.
But back to the point of the post I made. You have to have sustainable spending curves. If you don’t. If you finance your spending base (rather than your investment/capital improvement base) with debt, that will cause problems.
A huge number of management issues come up next, or why worker managed firms out compete those that are not in a number of areas.
But I can’t reach Utopia in a single post. 😉
Stephen,
Clearly you can’t run on permanent deficits. But look, Stephen, all you have to do is nothing, and our country’s budget is magically balanced. Let Bush’s tax cuts expire, let the ACA be implemented, and the Medicare doc fix is paid and everything is back to normal. Though I would add one more think to Klein’s piece: end the freaking wars already or raise taxes to pay for them. But that would be doing something. It’s clear all we need to do is nothing and we will not have a deficit to worry about.
Dan, I hit like on your post, for what it is worth.
Maybe I need to do a post on magical thinking and deus ex machinas that have not come to pass (e.g. fusion energy as a solution and some others).
or counterintuitive thinking, how doing nothing actually fixes our biggest problems. 🙂
“Seriously, individual democrats saved Utah from far worse things than have happened to it.”
Riiiighhht. Keep hoping on that one. Utah is one of the most financially stable and well run states in the Union because the Democrats have absolutely no say. None. All branches of government are a super-majority of Republicans/Conservatives.
so much for this being a kinder, gentler Will…
I do agree with Will that entitlement mentality is the core problem. In France, there is rioting among 20-something students despite double digit unemployment when it is suggested to raise retirement age from 60 to 62. That’s just nuts. In the US, people have been buying into the notion that everyone is entitled to own a home, entitled to own 2 cars, despite income and expenses. We have the wrong cultural hallmarks of success. The American dream has become inflated.
It’s simple math. Income must be greater than or equal to outgo, within a reasonable length of time (hence, debt). Debt makes a great slave, but a terrible master. As with alcohol, debt makes the good times better, but the bad times worse.
entitlement mentality? What the hell is that, hawkgrrrl?
Do you know why the citizens of France protest and riot against their government? Because they remind the government that the government is there to provide for the citizens. They remind the government that the government needs to fear its citizens. They remind the government who is boss. That’s why they protest.
That has nothing to do with government entitlement though, Hawkgrrrl, unless I missed out where the government provides 2 cars and a nice home…man, I gotta get THAT job…what you describe is at the core of capitalism: the drive for owning property and consumable products. THAT’S capitalism! And you tell me that you and Will are against that?
Dan,
Loosen the Love beads. Entitlement mentality can also mean a young married couple thinks they are entitled to a new home right out of college. Ann and I worked, sweated and saved for our little twin home several years after we both graduated from college.
Will,
Chillax on the insults. Hawkgrrrl used an example of French citizens rightfully protesting against their government as an example of “entitlement mentality.”
The core problem of entitlement is narcissism. Narcissists think they deserve things because they’re awesome, when their expectations are unrealistic.
There’s not enough awareness of the consequences of debt, how it is unsustainable, and how we are also entitled to the repercussions of it.
We’ve become a society that just accepts it as unavoidable to live the standard lifestyle, when the standard is set by narcissists without realistic expectations. I wish I could say I hadn’t ever fallen into this trap…but I cannot.
Well, back home from work. Been interesting to see what people have posted.
Question: what society on earth do you think comes closest to a utopia? Why?
I don’t know why we are seeking for some utopia. Utopias are not workable in actual reality. That said, I like France these days (except for how they are treating Muslims).
Dan, I was surprisingly pleased when I visited France. The French were very pleasant, at least in Paris. Smoking had really declined. I’d like to go back again (my wife and I went for our 20th, it was cheaper than going to San Francisco).
Part of seeking Utopia is defining it. In many ways, many people find Utopia where they are. Which is a point worth thinking about.
But sustainable, pleasant life, where basic needs are met and sociability is possible and likely are probably the key to Zion.
Utopia is just another facet of Zion.
France? Are you serious, France. You mean the Country that rolled over twice, the United States bailed them out twice and they still hate us. Ungrateful people.
As for the Muslims, they will be the downfall of both France and England.
France, like many other countries, is in the midst of a population collapse. So former colonies are sending people “home.”
Remember, they bailed us out in the Revolutionary war, and in more recent times, uber conservatives like the Diplomad, had excellent things to say about the French military.
The French do not hate us. Except on television, where people from Texas wear boots and hats, New Yorkers can’t drive cars and everyone from California is blond 😉
Stephen,
Actually the population of France is not collapsing. It’s not growing very fast, but it has not had a reduction in population in the last 50 years.
Ok, adjusted for population increase because of increased lifespan or immigration, but viewed in terms of fertility > or < replacement rates, it is declining. I need to better define my terms. Which I really should have done.