1931 - Building the Dream

I saw that one of my friends posted this statement on Facebook. The statement offers what I would call a traditionalist philosophy towards economics and politics. I was inspired by this statement and formed some opinions onto how true it is to this day. Rather than getting involved in a debate over differing opinions or thoughts, I have instead posted it here. I am mostly considering this text for its value today. To me it opened up philosophical consideration rather than concern of an evidential nature. Even if this is fake news, it is nonetheless being shared amongst a certain network of those who stand by a particular belief system  Therefore neither the source  or author is of concern to me through the analysis.

I approached this using game theory and by considering a poker game where there are people with more than others, winners and losers. It should also be known that I read into this from the UK that is currently seeing much political discourse. The game theory idea may not have been the best way to approach this but the conclusions from using this choice of lens are interesting....

So here goes, although the mathematical argument is sound, the math only makes sense in a system where there are a limited number of chips at a table. In 1931 the financial system ran on credit (gold standard) and so if one person was winning, this meant that other persons were losing.

Due to the great recession of the 30s, a radical idea was proposed (by a nationalist, hung, government) and our monetary system began borrowing on an ideology, rather than a substance - that is debt. Debt is not limited concluding that the new version of international poker is now only limited by endurance (and possibly disparity).

Also it should be remembered if considering this statement socially that nobody chose to be a part of the game, rather they were born into it and some of them prefer to play by their own set of rules, after all it is as much their game than anyone else's. The flaw in this new game is that the rules took a massive change, the foundations were not even similar - this is a flaw of what is sometimes referred to as the American Dream.

Problem is, now you don't actually really win anything in the new game, or if you do, it is completely different to what you are told you are going to win. It has an unlimited supply of the primary commodity (debt) and the psychology of the players that enjoy this version of the game now turn to hoping to gain advantages of another nature. As they can no longer prosper from wealth to feel superior, they choose another commodity which is control. In my opinion, the only way that you can cease control of this situation is by actually being a producer of a concept or lifestyle that creates jealousy in others and makes them want to be like you; sad isn't it? That's where advertising comes in.

Only if you achieve this will you get others to still want to play your version of the game and keep it working, ie. your version has to be better (not just for you but also for them). This traditional version of the game is not your game, it was the version that was left behind by a previous generation and the more that you wish to play this version of the game suggests that you may be someone who believes in conservation and protection of ideologies of another time and who am I to judge on that.

The problem is that neither myself or anyone needs to play this version of the game, I don't have to have more money than you because that is no longer the commodity of the game. I always remember playing Sonic the Hedgehog when I was a child (and admittedly quite a long way into my adulthood). The imagination and concept behind this game are simple but incredibly addictive; you can try and get all the rings, you can try and complete it in the fastest time or maybe you want to complete it just to get all of the Chaos Emeralds; Sega lovers will understand.

My point is that as in most games, there are other ways of both survival and satisfaction outside of the version proposed; slavery and greed are also certain elements of this particular system; they don't have to be out of the system of the game nor do they need to antagonise the game, cheat, or break the rules of this version either. Your success at the game does not affect the continuous nature of the game and for this reason many people turn to try and destroy the game rather than harmonise with it. Also if you do well at your game, it does not mean I do not do well at mine.

So when I read this statement, I consider how greedy I am, how much power I wish for, and if I need to feel superior. By knowing the answers to these questions is all that will affect my gameplay. It has to be hypothesised that the system can only run on slavery. In conclusion my wealth has very little to do with it. I'm not going to tell you if I'm playing for rings, speed or chaos emeralds because it shouldn't matter, it doesn't effect you.

To conclude an opinion of Dr Adrian Rogers' 1931 argument (provided in Comic Sans), your gain really is not my loss at all (or vice versa). So what's the point in his statement... well in 2017, not much at all but observing the political arguments and actions of how this philosophy is felt today certainly will give a reflection of humanity and which version of fantasy that it most wishes to appease. In my personal opinion creating an 'Us' and 'Them' will rarely progress the game as a whole. We are a team that can act both together and or independently, to create subdivisions of the current team that is all of us, is not currently an idea that I feel is required for the spiritual evolution of mankind.

Be the dream that you imagine and play the version that you believe in.