In an editorial in this morning's Dallas Morning News, columnist Jennie Sawyer took up the common lament among women about the pressure put upon them to look beautiful and young. Feeling the stress from advertisements, commercials, and magazine covers, many women respond to the taunts of beautiful, fit young women in skimpy clothing with emotions ranging from embarrassment to to anger. Sawyer is no different. But, while women may suffer more acutely from swimwear advertisements and beauty layouts, they do not suffer alone. People everywhere suffer from the taunts of ads.
Many Americans, myself included, are hounded mercilessly by images and advertisements for luxury cars, fine wines, and expensive watches: all carefully crafted to make those without such items feel inferior. But one needn't limit oneself to luxury ads. Living in Texas, one measure of a man's virility is the size of the truck he drives. Throughout the day I am harassed with advertisements depicting handsome, muscular, rugged men with full heads of hair doing all sorts of rugged, manly things and driving rugged, manly trucks. (In an act of machismo, one such man almost ran over my dog yesterday.) Nor are men free from the pressures of physical beauty. I do not recall ever seeing a short, pudgy, balding man in an ad for cologne or BMWs. Even the pest control guy and the auto mechanic are handsome and muscular in ads. I have seen Michael Jordan's ad for men's briefs. I have not seen Charles Barkley in any such ad. Neither have I ever seen a fat man with a hairy back shaving in a razor commercial. Hair care, grooming, and physical fitness know no gender.
Yes, women suffer from advertisements that hold out improbable goals for physical beauty. Men do as well. But men also suffer from advertisements that depict physical prowess and financial success. Men do not have to worry about simply being old and fat. They also have to worry about being poor, impotent, of low status, not having a big enough truck and, of course, going bald. As for thin, beautiful women, while women may be pressured to be one, successful men are expected to have one.
The real issue is not why men and women are subjected to images promoting unrealistic ideas of beauty or status. The question is why do we feel pressured by them? You can be assured Mother Teresa never lost a moment of sleep due to her wrinkles and that Ghandi never rued not having a Dodge Ram pick up.
Many, if not most of the burdens of living in a society such as ours are chosen. Once we move beyond the realm of what is needed, we enter into an infinite realm of desire and vanity. If one finds the burdens of trying to be young, fit, rich and appealing too heavy to bear, one can put them down. That so few are able or willing to do so is testimony to the fact that is has always been more difficult to give up one's ego than to satisfy it. I suspect that is one reason why Mother Teresa is a saint and the rest of us are not.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Is there a Correlation?
In a report issued Tuesday, the National Association of Realtors stated that July home sales in the U.S. have fallen over 25% to their lowest level in over ten years. Coincidentally, tax credits for new home buyers ended in July.
When the tax credits were in affect, home buyers benefited. Home builders benefited. Realtors benefited. Neighborhoods benefited. The economy benefited. Arguably, only the government did not benefit. I say arguably because it is not certain that government lost. They may have lost some tax revenue, but new homes and residents are not quite the burden many might think. Those new residents will have to buy things. The people who built and sold those homes made money doing so. They will pay taxes on the money they made. They will also buy things with the money they made. The people who sell things will make money. The government makes money when people buy and sell things: local government anyway.
Now that the tax credits have expired, national home sales have declined 27.2% since June and now stand at their lowest point since 1999. Mark Dozier, chief economist with the Real Estate Center, said matter of factly that the decline in sales "just means that the tax credit induced a higher than normal sales volume and we should expect sales to be lower without the credit." In other words, lower taxes boosted the market. Now that taxes are higher, the market has cooled.
Tax breaks and credits have served to stimulate a variety markets and activities across the U.S. Tax increases have retarded them. With the expiration of the tax credits, the government is hoping to recoup some of its losses. It is almost as if the government believes that money it surrendered in tax breaks belongs to them and was more like a loan than a gift: if allowing people to keep their own money can be construed as a gift. Gifts once given belong to those who receive them. Tax breaks are not gifts. They do not belong to the tax payers. The government expects to get its money back.
There is a correlation between lower taxes and economic activity. If the government wants to encourage a particular activity, it lowers taxes. When the government wants to discourage something, it raises taxes. This correlation, unfortunately, is often only recognized in proportion to its convenience.
It is true that lower taxes curtail the government's ability to do its job. There is a down side to that since some of what the government needs to do is important. Roads, and national defense for example are things best left to the government. But there is also an upside in increased economic activity. The trick is finding the balance. Key to finding that balance is determining just what it is that people want and expect from government and how much they are willing to pay. The best way to find that out is to ask them.
Left to its own, in a choice between a vibrant economy or big government, Washington will take big government every time.
When the tax credits were in affect, home buyers benefited. Home builders benefited. Realtors benefited. Neighborhoods benefited. The economy benefited. Arguably, only the government did not benefit. I say arguably because it is not certain that government lost. They may have lost some tax revenue, but new homes and residents are not quite the burden many might think. Those new residents will have to buy things. The people who built and sold those homes made money doing so. They will pay taxes on the money they made. They will also buy things with the money they made. The people who sell things will make money. The government makes money when people buy and sell things: local government anyway.
Now that the tax credits have expired, national home sales have declined 27.2% since June and now stand at their lowest point since 1999. Mark Dozier, chief economist with the Real Estate Center, said matter of factly that the decline in sales "just means that the tax credit induced a higher than normal sales volume and we should expect sales to be lower without the credit." In other words, lower taxes boosted the market. Now that taxes are higher, the market has cooled.
Tax breaks and credits have served to stimulate a variety markets and activities across the U.S. Tax increases have retarded them. With the expiration of the tax credits, the government is hoping to recoup some of its losses. It is almost as if the government believes that money it surrendered in tax breaks belongs to them and was more like a loan than a gift: if allowing people to keep their own money can be construed as a gift. Gifts once given belong to those who receive them. Tax breaks are not gifts. They do not belong to the tax payers. The government expects to get its money back.
There is a correlation between lower taxes and economic activity. If the government wants to encourage a particular activity, it lowers taxes. When the government wants to discourage something, it raises taxes. This correlation, unfortunately, is often only recognized in proportion to its convenience.
It is true that lower taxes curtail the government's ability to do its job. There is a down side to that since some of what the government needs to do is important. Roads, and national defense for example are things best left to the government. But there is also an upside in increased economic activity. The trick is finding the balance. Key to finding that balance is determining just what it is that people want and expect from government and how much they are willing to pay. The best way to find that out is to ask them.
Left to its own, in a choice between a vibrant economy or big government, Washington will take big government every time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)