I was sitting in the central Plaza de la Merced in the heart of historical Malaga around noon yesterday for about 30 minutes , and in that time I watched five different men spending time with their children in the plaza. They ranged from 25 - 30 years old I would guess and the children ranged from a few months in a tummy pack to toddlers of 2 or 3 with tricycles or a ball. They were not toting the kids with them from point A to point B in strollers, rather they were taking them for a morning stroll and playtime in the plaza.
There were no women with kids in the plaza at this time, and only a couple of the fathers (I assume they were the fathers) seemed to be communicating with each other. Mostly they were just letting their child walk and toddle around, or observe the goings on of the plaza from a perch on their daddy's tummy. All seemed quite content to be doing so.
I was surprised, curious and impressed, and convinced that we are on the right path: Children need to be raised by their parents, not in a nursery school, but it doesn't always have to be the mother that stays home to do so, it depends on each couple's abilities, desires and circumstances. Dad's on the plaza enjoying their kids and vice versa is a lovely option.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Returning to the old or fundamental change?
I enjoy spending weekend mornings listening to all the current affairs debate and discussion shows on the international news channels we get: CNN Int’l (a far better cry from the American CNN), BBC Int’l., Al Jazeera, TV5 - France’s English version, Spain’s CNN or 24 hours news station. Subjects range from Int’l. politics, to green initiatives in many cultures, healthcare, education, social justice subjects or the economy. Recently there have been panels made up of financial experts of every kind talking about this “economic crisis”. This morning I listened to 
another one on BBC Int’l. focusing on whether we’ve hit the bottom and are now coming out of it. Every time I hear these debates it strikes me that there is always a tone of “returning”, “recuperating”, “getting back to stability”, perhaps with a few more regulations, but there is no discussion of a FUNDAMENTAL change in what drives the economy – personal consumption.
The economy has been driven by the developed world’s consumption of disposable goods for decades; it is a policy direction that was voiced after WWll (see the History of Stuff for a quick overview of the policy and system http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLBE5QAYXp8). But now that so many of us have greatly reduced our consumption – of luxury items, an abundance of trendy fashion, bigger houses, all the furniture and decorative paraphernalia that goes with them, new cars every three years, and a lot of other non-essential “stuff”, do we the consumers really want to go back to the previous levels of consumption, and will we be capable of it, both financially and morally?
I perceive a collective sigh of relief at now having a legitimate reason to slow down the consumption that goes against so many of our grains – against what we learned from and admired in our grandmothers, against the false and short lived joy we got from buying things that we or someone else thought we had to have, against the time we spend shopping – taking it away from friends, family, ourselves or even projects that help others. I think we are ready to move towards other things that fulfill us more and that perhaps we “need” more as well.
By buying less we feel better: we stay within our budget, our environmental footprint is reduced, we have more time with our family and friends, we do things we haven’t had time for, perhaps we take a course and learn new things, all things that fill our soul not our home or closet – that are already overflowing. But this continues to have a negative effect on the employment numbers on a global level, we buy less, there are less revenues, companies cut jobs, those employees consume less so others loose their jobs, now not only in manufacturing and sales outlets, but in the periphery industries like packaging, advertising, graphic design, support services, etc.. It is a downward spiral that hasn’t seen its bottom yet. So now many unemployed have hard time just keeping up with what they really "need".
So in the debates when they talk about consumer trends, the economy, the financial sector, they do so in a mutually exclusive manner from the debates on sustainability, environment, education, healthcare, food supply, water availability, all issues that our global future depends on. Instead they continue to talk about when are we going to be back to where we were, rather than how to we create a new economic order based not on people going back to the consumption model but rather on people going into things that improve so many of the areas that have been ignored or damaged by these decades of consumer based economy.
Maybe this is why Obama is focusing on many of these issues, because the private sector has been too busy with earning, earning, consuming, consuming and not enough on these low profit, non-tangibles that benefit everyone. So now as the government looks to healthcare, the environment and improved education for all levels of the population, you would think a discussion of a FUNDAMENTAL change in what drives the economy would be included on these Int’l. programs and at these big G20 summits, but sadly they are not.
That is the discussion I want to hear, I want to be a part of. How can we all make a living that supports our needs – not our over the top whims – and whose results will help others achieve the same ability, not only in the USA but around the world? How do we go forward economically to a new order that benefits most rather than back to the same old one that only worked for some? When will BBC or CNN or FOX or CNBC have those discussions?
another one on BBC Int’l. focusing on whether we’ve hit the bottom and are now coming out of it. Every time I hear these debates it strikes me that there is always a tone of “returning”, “recuperating”, “getting back to stability”, perhaps with a few more regulations, but there is no discussion of a FUNDAMENTAL change in what drives the economy – personal consumption.The economy has been driven by the developed world’s consumption of disposable goods for decades; it is a policy direction that was voiced after WWll (see the History of Stuff for a quick overview of the policy and system http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLBE5QAYXp8). But now that so many of us have greatly reduced our consumption – of luxury items, an abundance of trendy fashion, bigger houses, all the furniture and decorative paraphernalia that goes with them, new cars every three years, and a lot of other non-essential “stuff”, do we the consumers really want to go back to the previous levels of consumption, and will we be capable of it, both financially and morally?
I perceive a collective sigh of relief at now having a legitimate reason to slow down the consumption that goes against so many of our grains – against what we learned from and admired in our grandmothers, against the false and short lived joy we got from buying things that we or someone else thought we had to have, against the time we spend shopping – taking it away from friends, family, ourselves or even projects that help others. I think we are ready to move towards other things that fulfill us more and that perhaps we “need” more as well.
By buying less we feel better: we stay within our budget, our environmental footprint is reduced, we have more time with our family and friends, we do things we haven’t had time for, perhaps we take a course and learn new things, all things that fill our soul not our home or closet – that are already overflowing. But this continues to have a negative effect on the employment numbers on a global level, we buy less, there are less revenues, companies cut jobs, those employees consume less so others loose their jobs, now not only in manufacturing and sales outlets, but in the periphery industries like packaging, advertising, graphic design, support services, etc.. It is a downward spiral that hasn’t seen its bottom yet. So now many unemployed have hard time just keeping up with what they really "need".
So in the debates when they talk about consumer trends, the economy, the financial sector, they do so in a mutually exclusive manner from the debates on sustainability, environment, education, healthcare, food supply, water availability, all issues that our global future depends on. Instead they continue to talk about when are we going to be back to where we were, rather than how to we create a new economic order based not on people going back to the consumption model but rather on people going into things that improve so many of the areas that have been ignored or damaged by these decades of consumer based economy.
Maybe this is why Obama is focusing on many of these issues, because the private sector has been too busy with earning, earning, consuming, consuming and not enough on these low profit, non-tangibles that benefit everyone. So now as the government looks to healthcare, the environment and improved education for all levels of the population, you would think a discussion of a FUNDAMENTAL change in what drives the economy would be included on these Int’l. programs and at these big G20 summits, but sadly they are not.
That is the discussion I want to hear, I want to be a part of. How can we all make a living that supports our needs – not our over the top whims – and whose results will help others achieve the same ability, not only in the USA but around the world? How do we go forward economically to a new order that benefits most rather than back to the same old one that only worked for some? When will BBC or CNN or FOX or CNBC have those discussions?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
