The other city...

I am a Philly boy. I have left the city now. I inhabit a single home on Main Street in a little town. Whether the town is a suburb or not is pretty immaterial. It had an industry of its own at one time. It no longer does. Let us just call it annexed. The definition of suburb is not my post to write.

I say "the city" and mean a metropolis of roughly 2,000,000 people covering 140 square miles founded at the point where the Delaware River and Schuylkill River are closest to one another. The city was named after a far more ancient city which in turn got its name from the ancient Greeks.

Directly to the east of this city is the state of New Jersey. Here, the phrase "the city" morphs. Roughly 80 miles northeast (as the crow files) of my city in another. A city of 300 square miles and over 8,000,000. Most of this distance lies within the state of New Jersey and 100's of thousands of people commute from New Jersey to both these cities. As a result of this proximity and our shared neighbor, numerous comparisons have been made between the 2 municipalities. As both also trace their founding back to the 17th century (Philadelphia: 1682, New York was originally New Amsterdam and was founded in 1624) the comparisons continue. Both were capitals of the United States, New York in 1785 - 1790, Philadelphia from 1790 - 1800.

But you will notice a pattern. Whether we like to admit it or not the City of Brotherly Love has a bigger, older brother. Outside of the United States, Philadelphia is considerably less well known than the city of 5 boroughs. This has led to some unfortunately named editorials.

The phrase "the City" is generally only used by those outside of it regardless of which metropolis it refers to. It is by-and-large a suburban revision of the phrase "in town". Natives tend to refer to it by name or refer to certain areas within it. In my little world, Philadelphia is often crossed, entered, passed through, etc. and so "going" there seems like an odd turn of phrase and so I would say rather that I went up to New York. We parked at 30th Street Station.

Let me first state that these 2 cities are only 80 miles apart. This increases to approximately 100 miles on usable roads. As a result, the trip is well traveled and various modes of transportation can be used. I, however, have chosen to travel by rail nearly every time I have made the trip. I recommend this to everyone for a number of reasons. 1) Driving in New York can be challenging. I will not dwell on this, but I think many would consider that an understatement. 2) The trip can be made in 70 minutes via rail. If anyone has ever accomplished this while driving, it qualifies as reckless endangerment. 3) There is a train leaving every hour if not more frequently. 4) Have you ever ridden on any train Amtrak runs through the Northeast corridor? Just do it, at least once.

Once there, I attempted to act appropriately. Walking and cabs are the modes of transportation. We, of course, spent the night. New York, in my limited experience, has adapted to the night unlike its younger brother. I am certain that a "day trip" to New York is possible. I will never make one. Although I usually do not have a hotel room, I never leave before dawn.

And so, once again, I breezed in and out of New York. I was merely one of thousands to do it this weekend and 1 of millions to do it this year.

Like all of my trips to the Big Apple it was memorable. This time I actually slept in the city that doesn't.

"First world problems"

A phrase that popped into our culture in recent years. It refers to our whining regarding problems the rest of the world wished they had. Of course, any socioeconomic stratification can cause similar phenomena.

For instance, complaining about "3G" or "4G" speeds on your mobile device qualifies as a "problem" 90% of the world's population cannot fathom. Complaining about the limitations on FDIC protection... Discussion regarding capital gains taxes... These are extremes. However, we are at the center of the empire. Phrases like "Voter apathy", "Minimum wage", "Social Security", and "The Glass Ceiling" still have no meaning to most of the world.

It's perhaps indicative of the human condition that we seem to find things to complain about. We speak of our country being divided. Our country has not been divided in 150 years. However, we are humans. We have taken ourselves out of the natural order. We are willing to die over abstracts. We have always killed one another over imaginary friends. It is frightening that such creatures universally lack perspective.

The time has come for self-possession. The time has come for a reality check. The time has come for "problems" to be classified correctly as whining. It is time to stop pretending that the people pirouetting on top of Maslow's hierarchy have any idea what it feels like to be at the bottom.

But what about governments...

A recent thread caused me to start thinking about taxes of all things. The particular topic of taxes is divisive obviously. The truth is that if we remove self-interest, the conversation should be more abstract.

Taxes are necessary in order for a government to operate. Governments are necessary for the continuation of human civilization and for a number of other reasons. Those other reasons are what we pay for.

The preamble of our constitution spells out many of these reasons. These reasons are the very reasons why anarchy is not a realistic goal. Governments are designed to provide services individuals cannot provide for themselves. They are designed to take care of our infirmed. They are designed to build infrastructure. Interstate commerce would be impossible without a federal government. Further international relations are facilitated by governments.

Governments vary. Their involvement varies. But their goal is to provide those things individuals cannot provide for themselves. I cannot build a bridge. I cannot gather a coalition of individuals to build a bridge. Without a government of some sort, no bridges would be built.

Many of the debates currently going on involve economic oversight by our government in particular. I hate to say it, but that's not the government's job. The government's job is to provide an environment that allows individuals the opportunity to rise and fall. The government's job is to setup the criteria under which commerce can take place. They are not a bank. They are not an entrepreneur. They are not a safety net.

That being said, they cannot be uninvolved. They must regulate. They must decide the laws. They must protect consumers. They must keep the game fair. The alternative is unbridled capitalism. This simply doesn't work. It is unsustainable. We see it's effects everywhere. An asbestos plant long since closed that still negatively effects the ground water. Thousands of acres of land which will never allow growth again due to the slag piles left there. Debts that have caused international incidents. Thousands dead in fires, explosions, and other accidents which could easily have been prevented.

Some may argue this, but I have met very few people who believe that some regulation of commerce isn't necessary. The robber barons had to be stopped. The Pinkertons needed to be disbanded. Children have no place on assembly lines. You may note that the tactics of the Pinkertons and use of child labor is illegal. Yes, it is.... now.

The truth is that energy companies are not going to stop burning coal of their own volition. Laws and regulations must be passed banning its use. There is no reason to aid companies in transitioning. There is no need for levying or tariffing. The simple approach is the most straightforward. No need to measure output levels etc.

But there are issues which are not as cut-and-dry. Let me take the simple example of high fructose corn syrup. I have attempted to avoid the product for years. Why? Simply because I don't need any more corn in my diet and I would prefer less chemicals in my food. It is clear however that there was some reason why companies making consumer products began using it en masse. I have heard it noted that it is cheaper and easier to process. By and large studies regarding high fructose corn syrup have revealed no health concerns. For this reason, it is not the government's job to limit its use. If it is found to have harmful effects, its use should be prohibited. But, I must wonder whether it is cheaper as a result of the ridiculously subsidized corn industry or simply because it is. We made an error in the past. We had our reasons for this error but in truth we confused aiding our fellow men with aiding an industry.

An industry has no rights. It can live and die. Humans banding together do not provide them with any different protections than their members. I realize that without subsidy, many companies would fail. They would simply be replaced by other companies. Humans need very little corn in their diet. It is not the job of our government to control what people do and do not grow. Does this mean that human stupidity can lead to widespread failures? Yes. I see no problem with this. Would I prefer that we use ethanol as a fuel? Yes. Do I therefore feel that ethanol production should be subsidized? No. A requirement on utilization will suffice.

I am not saying that regulation is simple. The production of ethanol is a perfect example. Does one first require car manufacturers to produce vehicles that can use it? Or simply require that only a certain amount of fossil fuels can be burned by vehicles? Do we require gas stations to pump a certain percentage of it? Do we require that they offer an alternative pump? We cannot require consumers to purchase it. What if they do not? Do we then subsidize its creation so that it is economical for the purveyors?

I do believe that the government should be less involved in the inner workings of industry. I feel that market correction does happen. I feel that a "free market" economy is a good approach. However, I have very little interest in reducing regulation. I am interested in reducing subsidy, tariff, and price control. It is the government's job to protect your person. It is the government's job to protect your freedom. It is the government's job to protect your rights. It has never been the government's job to protect your income or your share price. At least not the government of this country.