Letter to the People of the Next Great Decline

Take a deep breath – what you are experiencing now is nothing new.

There is nothing new under the sun – this isn’t the first collapse of civilization, and it won’t be the last. What makes you think you are so important?

Human civilization has had many golden ages and many dark ages, in various geographies at various times. The pyramid builders of ancient Egypt were more advanced than most people living before the Bronze Age, and the Bronze Age peoples more advanced than anyone until the Golden Age of Greece, and they in turn more advanced than any until Rome. In China, which entered the Bronze Age independently and did not experience a total collapse, each dynasty still had its own rise and fall, where in each fall a large fraction of the population died. South America has evidence of several civilizations completely lost to history but for their archeological remains. Thus we see throughout the history of the world there have been many instances of civilizations that have ended.

Aside: what is meant by “advanced”, or “decline”, and how do we judge whether a civilization is “better” than another? Whole books have been written on this subject, but for our purposes, let us define an “advanced civilization” as one having inter-connectivity and coordination resulting in a society with rules – e.g. institutions, law, religion, art, science, philosophy, and concepts of human worth, dignity, and rights – that result in lasting outward physical signs of these rules (cities, monuments, technology systems like irrigation or train tracks or power lines, books, art) that are not seen in civilizations in decline, whereas in a “dark age”, the people of a particular region do not continue to have these rules, and evidences by the lack of physical displays they had in the past. This is still a problematic definition admittedly, but the point of this essay isn’t to define decline, as to address what to do about it, or more importantly, how to rightly live in the midst of it.

By studying history we can see the cycles of history – the power vacuum left after an advanced civilization collapses, the death and destruction that follow (or caused it), and the rise of the next power that fills that vacuum. Why do some civilizations last longer than others? It may be the strength of their institutions, or control of a technology, but it may also be the absence of external disasters like earthquakes, meteors, famine, drought, climate change, or “barbaric invasions” from outside cultures experiencing these stressors. Ok, so what?

It is also important to note that one civilization’s decline may be another’s golden age. Ancient Israel arguably had their first golden age immediately following the Bronze Age Collapse, as they were free from the pressures of Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, the Hittites, and other surrounding empires.

Why study the collapse of civilizations and the fall of empires? Several reasons. It is important to study history to have a sense of perspective – nothing that is happening now is new. Wars, plagues, civil unrest, natural disasters – all have happened before, in fact, many times. But some study history in hopes of preventing the decline of their culture. Is this possible? If we know of the moral failings of culture, or understand the weakness of their institutions, can we adjust our own in time to save it, or are we simply delaying the inevitable?

And I say “we”, because for the most part we address these problems collectively – we are all part of civilization after-all, and whatever solution is needed must be adopted by as many people as possible. However, at the collective level, there are only so many levers of action: laws and government policy, the appointment or removal of leaders (now generally through elections, but historically through coups, assassinations, marriage-alliances, etc.), or collective religious movements to convince a population to change their ways. But what can one individual do? What ought I to do?

It is worth observing that many of the greatest works in religion, applied-philosophy, and wisdom literature were created (discovered?) during these periods of chaos and decline. Confucius developed his philosophy by observing the chaos of the Warring States period and sought a way to bring order to society through right living. The foundations of Taoism developed around the same time. Perhaps even Christianity could be said to have formed during a dark age, for while that time period was the golden age of Rome, it arguably was a dark time for everyone else in that region under their rule. And so forth – many of the great works of thought in the 20th century came from attempts to explain the horrors of WWII and the Holocaust, or the millions of people who died under oppressive communist regimes.

Humans want to make sense of the world, to understand their suffering, either to avoid it or accept it.

In my own time, I sense the eventual collapse of my civilization, although perhaps not in the imminent, apocalyptic way many frame it politically. It could take generations for the decline to fully happen – maybe several world wars, or series of flu plagues, or a disaster like solar flares knocking out our satellites or series of earthquakes or volcanic eruptions. However, there are signs that correspond to past historic civilization ends – interconnectivity to the extent that systems become fragile houses-of-cards, reliance of systems upon systems, and yes, the declining morals of the people, not only in terms of immoral activities (which ones are debatable of course), but the declining resilience of citizens to threats and change. When a civilization is rising, they are willing to fight (physically and ideologically), but now there is so much chaos rising that many have lost their ideology, beliefs, and faith, having nothing for which they would fight, and therefore have no will or appetite to combat chaos.

What do I do about this, as an individual?

I feel compelled to “do something”, to fight in some way, or educate, or write. But let’s face it, I’m also lazy, and cowardly, and afraid. Or worse, I’m overwhelmed by the problems around me and feel impotent and depressed about them. I do not believe much in the power of protest – there are really no beliefs for which I’d “march”, even though there are beliefs I would die for (in theory). In times of chaos, participating in these activities seems to add to the chaos, not quench it.

The United States in 2020 feels much closer in spirit to times such as the Chinese Cultural Revolution, the Spanish Civil War, or the French Revolution than it does 1930s Germany (which is a favorite analogy for all political parties). WWII is typically portrayed as a very black-and-white, clear good-vs-evil conflict, with Hitler essentially being Satan. In these other examples, however, it is not as clear who the good side or bad side was, in fact sometimes there were many sides, and as one group would perish another would take its place. Or I may look at the sides and think I would have probably been more aligned with one side ideologically, but unfortunately that side had the most atrocities, or didn’t win.

Is the alternative then to leave? If one recognizes the decline of their civilization but can escape to at least a peaceful place, should one do so? While sounding a bit cowardly, I have to admit this makes the most sense for some situations. I doubt I would have hung around in France, Spain, or China in those time periods if I had the resources and ability to exit. Unfortunately not all have these resources. Or refugees are not welcome in other countries. And some feel compelled to stay – to defend their homes, their way of life, and to help their side in the struggle.

But maybe the point isn’t to help one’s civilization or to preserve one’s own family and wealth. Maybe there IS no point. I don’t mean that in a nihilistic way, but in the sense of the Book of Ecclesiastes – there is no purpose to most things in life, but God is in control, and as Shakespeare eloquently noted, we are actors on a stage. The metaphor I found for my own life a few years ago was that I was riding on a roller-coaster, or maybe more accurately the “driver” on a car in Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride at Disneyland. The thrill ride has no steering wheel, or even when it does it isn’t attached to anything! We have 2 choices: we can live in fear and trepidation of the next big drop, or we can live in joy and accept the twists and turns as the come, reveling in the journey.

Perhaps we have more than those choices though: occasionally we do have the option of getting off the ride (I don’t mean suicide, I mean not taking risks). That is, there are 2 aspects to living rightly: our attitude (how we accept things) and our ability to willing choose to risk (faith).

And THAT is where our culture is failing, on both points. We are a faithless people, having nothing we desire or believe in driving us to make taking risks worth the negative consequences, and our attitudes (about anything) frankly suck. We are a generation seeking safety, assurance, and positive self-esteem at all costs, yet are depressed, joyless, and alone.

How did the Bronze Age fall? Or the Persians, Greeks, Romans, or Monarchal Europe, or the British Empire, or Confucian China? Other than the stressors that affected the whole, how did individuals handle faith/risk-taking and their attitudes towards outcomes? What consequences did the fall of these great empires have on the survivors?

吳安仁

Respect

I’m surprised, sad, struck by the fact that so few groups of people actually respect each other’s ideas. Yes, these ideas may be incompatible on the surface, but often the issue is one of communication, listening, openness, and understanding.

Some of my favorite essayists and authors attempt to explain the issues below the surface. For example, David Brooks writes respectfully about ideas from all sides of the American political spectrum. He attempts (usually successfully) to identify the fundamental underlying differences in views and perspectives that motivate ideas from different groups.

The key to understanding arguments and avoid fighting is to understand what the other side wants. You may find you have the same objectives. For example, most of us want to end poverty and racism, but we differ on how that will be accomplished and what we’re willing to pay for these solutions financially or power-wise.

On the other hand, there are times when what the other side wants is destruction, revenge, payback, power, or death. If someone’s objective is to wipe you and your people off the planet, you can’t meet them half-way. So not all conflicts can find a win-win solution. In these situations, the main hope is to change hearts and minds to convince the other side that they don’t really want their objective.

But these are rare cases. However, many public arguments end up pretty nasty, almost as if both sides feel their issues is one of these cases. What causes political, religious, and/or philosophical thinkers to be disdainful of people with different views?

Disdain may be quite subtle, too. When small, passive-aggressive (micro-aggressive?) comments are made about “how lost”, “how deluded”, or “how evil” another group is, these comments are negatively judgmental, disrespectful, and do not contribute to meaningful dialogue.

There are many forms of this: outright anger, intellectual debate and argument, and even “sadness”. (One popular Christian thinker is known for statements about “I don’t want to believe X, but I am compelled… it makes me so SAD that people don’t get this…”).

What is the opposite of disdain? RESPECT.

Respect doesn’t mean agreement or recognizing the other side’s view as equally valid. It doesn’t mean “tolerance”, either, meaning that you think the other side is deluded but you tolerate them. My definition for respect in this essay is closer to “entertaining the possibility that someone might be right about something, so I should listen and think”. It is being more than open-minded… it is being ACTIVE-minded.

The past 2-1/2 years have been an exciting adventure as I have been learning about Asian thought, taking a crash-course from my now wife during our courtship and into our marriage, as we discuss ideas and I began reading books on cultural differences. It is respect that has opened up this avenue for both of us: respect of my wife – for if I didn’t respect her deeply, we wouldn’t have even started dating, let alone gotten married – and respect for her culture and views.

Before, as a Midwestern, American, Politically-Conservative, Protestant Christian, I was taught to view other religions as suspicious, dangerous, wrong, or just plain dumb. If the Bible is 100% true and contains 100% of all possible truth, why read Confucius, the Tao Te Ching, Upanishad, or Koran? Some Christians may have a “tolerant” view and accept that these religions and philosophies maybe contain 2-5% truth… but the rest could pull one away from the True Faith. Best not to think about that very much.

Respect requires faith. Faith that God won’t let you get too confused. Faith that Truth will win, even if it isn’t the Truth you originally thought was Truth. Faith gives you the grace to explore and even make mistakes. Faith is “running the race”, even when the risk of tripping up is increased. Better to run, trip, get up and continue running, than to walk with trepidation. “Without Faith, it is impossible to please God”.

So, I am endeavoring to learn as much as I can now from Buddhism, Taoism, Confucius, even lessons from Kissinger, Chang Kai Shek, Mao, and other historical figures. I am interested in how Western Christianity may have veered from True Christianity through cultural changes. Perhaps a fresh view of Christ through the eyes of a new culture can reveal a better path than that taught in American Christendom. That’s not to say I’m questioning Christianity nor considering converting to a new religion (don’t worry, Dad and Mom), but that I want to learn as much as I can about a new, bigger, larger world and see how my Faith fits into that world. It is the true world, and there is no reason to be afraid.

Back to respect – what does it mean to read, say, the Tao Te Ching, with respect? First, it means to actually read it! That’s the obvious first step – if you are too frightened of possible challenging ideas or have pre-judged an idea to be evil, wrong, or just plain dumb, then you won’t bother to learn about that idea. So get over these initial thoughts, put them aside, and dive in. Next, consider that these ideas are believed by millions, perhaps billions of people. Does that make it right and True and godly? No, not necessarily. Sometimes the crowd is wrong and you don’t want to follow them over the cliff. But when the “crowd” is an entire culture or subcontinent, respect leads one to carefully consider WHY is such-and-such an idea important to this culture? HOW has it shaped them? And if it is True, how ought it to shape ME?

Now, if I respectfully look into an Idea and determine that still I disagree with it, what to do next? A flip judgment may lead one to feel obliged to convert everyone who believes this to the true belief. In some historical cases, this frequently has led to violence and war. On the other hand, disregarding people who believe something you hold to be false, wrong, or evil is also a disservice to them – it’s not very loving.

Respect implies honor. The Bible commands us to “[h]onor your Father and Mother”. This can and should be extended to one’s neighbor. “Love your neighbor as yourself” surely includes “honoring your neighbor as yourself”.

If say, as a Christian, you traveled as a missionary to a far-off land and preached the Good News of the Gospel to those who’ve never heard of it, which would you prefer: the people to scoff, mock, and apathetically disregard your message? Or for the people to hear you out, listen carefully, and weigh your ideas? Perhaps in the end they still reject accepting your message, but their “rejection” was peaceful and they respect you as a person, they will keep your ideas in their library of thought for revisiting at a later time.

In the first example, there is dishonor, and in the second, great honor. Now, reverse the story: imagine that these 2 cultures each sent missionaries BACK to your country. Which of these groups are YOU more likely to carefully consider? The culture who respected YOU, of course.

As I read the Tao Te Ching, I am reading it to see how it reflects my own Faith. Where do I already agree? Where do I see possible differences? What is surprising? Are there any new ideas I’ve never before considered? What conclusions do I draw, and what actions do I plan to take to incorporate what I’ve learned and believed into my moral actions?

Respect means not being dismissive. The Tao Te Ching has many statements that sound incorrect to me at first. For example, “Failure is fear that one will not succeed, and success is fear of failure.” Because I typically define success as “accomplishment” or “achievement” and not “fear of failure”, I might be temped to just say this verse is “wrong” and dismiss it. But if I respect the text, I dig deeper into the concepts it is trying to say. In this example, the text is asking me to question my very definition of success, and ask myself whether I do have fear lurking. That’s rather profound. But I have to have respect to see this.

Jesus frequently taught through parables and stories, and maybe “having respect” is what he meant by saying “he who has ears, let him hear”. If one listens to Christ without respect, they only hear a story (and maybe a boring story at that, about farmers or shepherds or other non-relatable occupations to modern people). It is easy to dismiss these stories if one doesn’t “actively” listen. One must put in effort to interpret the meaning behind the story. Jesus knew that learning and transformation occurs only when someone desires wisdom, and his stories baited listeners into asking themselves questions. Reading and understanding Jesus requires respect.

吳安仁

People NOT of the Book – Part II – Individuals

Many people do not actually enjoy reading. I personally find this incomprehensible – since I was a child my parents fostered a deep love of reading in all of us, and everyone in my extended family loves books (so it might be partially genetic). However, over the years I’ve met several close friends who simply didn’t like to read – they prefer movies, TV, YouTube, and other video or audio, or conversations. It isn’t that they do not like thinking or ideas or discussing intellectual topics, but these friends do not like the medium of literature. Perhaps they do not like or have the additional concentration and discipline that reading requires, but they are not dumb or lazy.

Is this wrong?

Here’s another observation: even in rural Indiana where I grew up (which is not considered particularly “intellectual”, ha), people still give BOOKS as gifts. You’re graduating from high school? Here’s a book! You’re getting married? How about another book. Having your first child? You guessed it – you probably should read about it. And if you have a personal problem of some kind – a failing relationship, or an addiction, or you need inspiration – well, there are books for that, too.

Western Protestant Christianity has a long, proud, cherished culture of intellectualism. For this reason, what is prioritized in the weekly religious service? The Sermon. What is encouraged for spiritual development? The daily “quiet time”, aka “personal Bible study”. What do we do when we gather together as friends, but want to devote ourselves spiritually? We have a “small group Bible STUDY”, typically focused on the Bible or another religiously-themed text. Prayer, worship, acts of service – all of these are claimed to be important, but do not take up the main share of time spent.

Now, I love the intellectual side of Christianity – thinking and considering abstract ideas appeals to me. But what about those for whom it doesn’t? Can they be “good” Christians?

Catholics have sacraments, rituals, and “mystery” – they do not see the need to answer ALL questions that ever come up (although they answered quite a few in the Catechism!)

Similarly, some Christians (perhaps the “Liberal” ones) are now leaning more-and-more towards good deeds, service, and action as the hallmarks of Christian duty.

I have a few questions, but mostly

1) What do Asian religions do? What does it “mean” to be a “good” Buddhist, Taoist, Confucian, etc.? Is it belief in a creed or other set of basic doctrines? If not based in the intellect, are these religions defined by ritual? Moral action? What?

2) If not beliefs / the intellect, what DOES define a Christian, or more accurately, Christian “action” or life (as opposed to just belief)? Ritual? Deeds?

3) When attempting to share the Good News of Jesus with a non-believer, what is the best way to reach a person who isn’t interested in reading a book, much less the Bible, or who isn’t much interested in intellectual faith period? Is an intellectual curiosity needed for conversion?!

One possible quick answer to these questions: SPIRIT. If a Christian truly has the Holy Spirit living inside of herself, then it affects her beliefs, actions, and even intellect. There is no need to define each of these areas of life. Ritual may be helpful, but not necessary. Nor are disciplines (like prayer, fasting, giving charitable contributions). Not necessarily, but EVIDENT. There is no rule for “how much prayer MUST a Christian do to remain a (good) Christian”, but a Christian naturally wants to pray. The Spirit leads. And He may lead some individuals differently than others, in different ways, for different purposes, and at different speeds.

Along with Spirit, having actions is so important, not necessarily for the action itself, but how action confirms and solidifies belief. As the book of James points out, “faith without works is dead”, which is really another way of saying that talk is cheap, and anyone can claim to “believe” something, but only those who have actions backing up their beliefs can really be said to believe. Beliefs/Faith must be TESTED to be realized.

吳安仁

People NOT of the Book – Part 1

Adherents of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are occasionally referred to as “People of the Book”. These religions each have primary texts (some shared) that are constantly referred to, memorized, and used for arguments.

This is a very powerful concept for unifying these religions. If believers agree to a common canon, then disagreements over specific doctrines can be resolved by appealing to the text. Of course, their are always disagreements about how to interpret the text, but for the most part, there is only so much “wiggle-room” in possible interpretations. It’s difficult to make a “yes” into a “no”.

But wait… why are there doctrinal arguments anyway? How far down must groups be divided in order to reach “pure” ideologies, and in the end, do all of these beliefs matter? This is a particular Catholic argument against Protestantism, although really it can be applied to much of Western Culture. The West is all about defining things — making narrow boxes to categorize everything, and then putting ideas and people and groups into these boxes. It is a powerful way of thinking for certain applications (The West invented “Science” because of this), but not for others.

The Apostles Creed and other creeds were formed so that Christians could agree on the essentials. Is Jesus both God and man? Evidently this is an important question, not trivial, so the leaders “agreed to agree”! Creeds can then be used for identity: to be a Christian simply means to believe that Jesus is God. If you do not believe this, then you would not be considered a Christian by the majority of Christians. (This is an important distinction, since there are groups that consider themselves Christians while the rest of Christendom does not recognize them, but these disagreements are primarily over the issues of interpretation of definitions of “God”, “human”, etc.)

NOW…

Many Asian religions, while having ancient religious texts, are not “People of the Book”. Taoism has two central writings (Tao Te Ching, and the writings of Chuang Tzu), but to be a Taoist includes many beliefs and practices not included in these texts. Taoists may worship different gods, and yet do not appeal to their central texts to argue “which practice is correct”. Similarly, Buddhists have books, but also many gods and practices, and there are many different “kinds” of Buddhism, but not many violent conflicts over “who’s right”.

Asians are open to many interpretations and views. Because of this, Buddhism and Taoism are quite fluid and diverse. It is difficult (from a Western view) to pin down what it means to be a Buddhist. Do Buddhists worship the Buddha as God (And what does “worship” even mean”? What does “God” mean?). Is Buddhism even a religion, or just a philosophy? Can you be an atheistic Buddhist? For that matter, can you be a Christian Buddhist? I’ve heard people claim to be both of these, but others would be skeptical of these identities.

I have a tongue-in-cheek answer to these questions, taking a page from what little I’ve read of Buddhist thought… (I mean no disrespect here, again, this is a partial joke…) “Buddhism? It is an illusion. There is no self. There is no Buddha. There is no Buddhism.” In other words, the real problem is not that Buddhism is ill-defined, the problem is the Western mindset of always attempting to categorize everything! Why does everything need a box?

The Western/Protestant tendency to over-define things and split groups over ideology has a natural consequence (cite the article, if I can find it): logically it leads everyone into fragmenting completely into individuals – one box each for everyone (perhaps even more if we count schizophrenics and those with personality disorders, ha).

This is becoming evident at ALL LEVELS OF THOUGHT and group-identity, even down to race, sexuality, and gender. To me (and I mean no disrespect or argument here), the very fact that this is happening is evidence of the end of Western thought (or limits, anyway). Is there only one sexuality, or two, or more? Two genders, surely. But then what about people born one gender who feel like the other? Maybe there are 20 genders? Or 31 1/2? Maybe there are literally billions of genders, several each for every individual to pick and choose as they desire. In this case, we have full individuality, but no longer have any descriptive power in the classification. This view is neither classically Western (a good classification has descriptive power), but nor is it the wholistic big-picture thinking attributed to Asian thought. It is more of a confusion of taking certain logic to an illogical conclusion.

To conclude this post, I see very high value in both the Western and Eastern approaches. There is value to defining concepts, agreeing on foundational starting points, and arguing points to a logical conclusion. And there is value in being less definitive, and allowing a field of flowers to just “be” a field of flowers without defining it as first a field, then a field having a particular variety of flowering species, etc. I want to understand the limits of these paradigms and see how each can teach the other. As a Christian I believe that Christianity is true and that the best thing for Asians is to accept Jesus as their Lord. But also as someone who loves Asian culture and Asians (and a particular Asian – my wife!) and who loves my own homeland but sees cracks in our culture, I believe that Western Christianity and Western politics and thought have something to learn from the East.

How might errors in Western thinking have caused (Protestant) Christianity to belief in false doctrines? How can the East teach and inform the West?

吳安仁

Stillness. Emptiness.

“How does one make muddy water clear?

Be still, and the water will clear in time.

How does one become still?

Let everything happen, and stillness appears”

– Tao Te Ching, 15


“Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.”

– The Christ, Jesus of Nazareth, quoted in Matthew 6:34


“Embrace emptiness to the uttermost. Guard stillness steadfastly”

– Tao Te Ching, 16


It seems that both Christianity and Taoism recognize that worry and anxiety are not good things, not the “natural” state, but the “common” state for humans. Rest, stillness, and emptiness take EFFORT and purpose, and do not happen on their own.

One thought I had about this, though: so many movies portray holy, spiritual men and women as being kill-joys. Think of the stereotypical Scottish Protestant, or an old Buddhist monk, who disciplines a pupil for loving to laugh and joke and be loud. Does being holy or having “stillness” require being serious?

I do not think so. It is possible to be free from worry and be a naturally happy, humorous person. This state of being DOES require attention and effort, but focusing on not worrying can itself be worrying. If one finds that he is becoming too serious, perhaps he is not truly still or empty.

As I’ve recently read a few popular Buddhist English writings or translations (the Dali Lami, Thich Nhat Hanh), I’ve found these authors to be surprisingly humorous, funny, and in some ways “light”! Not light as in dumb, but light as in “not heavy”. Not burdensome. Not judgmental. Not overly “serious”. Carefree.

I wish American Christian leaders would be simultaneously more still AND more light-hearted. There seems to be a lot of worry and anxiety on all sides of the “culture wars”… people say “so much is at stake”, or “If we don’t do something, everything will fall apart and fail”. “Leader X is going to be the downfall of us all”. There is so much worry. So much hate. Everyone is so serious!


“Be still, and know that I am God”

– Psalm 46:10


One last thought on stillness and “emptiness”… Andrew Murray once described humility as not so much thinking little or less of oneself, but not thinking of oneself at all. Sounds a lot like emptiness! How is this accomplished? Not so much by willing oneself to be empty, but by focusing intently on something. One could focus on breath and breathing. Or one could focus on God and higher, transcendent things. This may be one difference in actual “religious” practice, when comparing Christianity to Buddhism or Taoism.

What is your focus?

吳安仁

The Desperation Explanation for Inequality

I’ve been thinking a lot about economic inequality lately, and was particularly intrigued by my friend David Woo’s recent post that shared this video:

It occurs to me the real reason why rents are so high is supply-and-demand — people are willing to pay high prices for small spaces, so the market naturally adapts. And people are desperate — the poor need jobs, and these jobs are in crowded cities. These people can’t afford to be picky, but must take whatever job comes their way, and whatever housing and food they can afford.

To a lesser but more local extent, this desperation can account for much of the decline of the American lower-middle class, including the decline of unions and other support institutions. There are many reasons for these changes (domestic politics, geopolitics, the “rise of the robots”, declining education, changing societal confidence in institutions and government, etc.), but I am proposing that the underlying issue is basic supply-and-demand. People are too desperate to have the luxury of choice.

Perhaps unions in 20th century USA worked not because of their direct threat of striking or their political power, but in their ability to convince the majority of workers to demand a certain level of wages and prices. If many high-paying jobs are available in the local economy, no employer can afford to lowball employees, or they will leave. This effect is happening right now in Milford, Indiana, the small town where I grew up. The RV industry is booming again, and factories are paying higher wages such that businesses too slow to increase their wages are seeing their best employees leave. And local prices have not yet adjusted to this windfall. As local workers demand these higher wages and low (or non-increasing) prices, the overall standard of living rises. Who “pays the price”? The owners of the non-competitive businesses. Now, in my hometown, these are typically not rich people, but small business owners like shops and construction companies, not the “1%”. In a small farming or blue-collar town, things are pretty equal already. But if these interactions are happening at a national or global level, they clearly affect the balance between equality and inequality.

So back to Hong Kong — what are people to do? It would be very difficult to convince everyone to demand larger apartments. This would require all of the poor people to unite politically, communicate, and organize to achieve common political ends — something only a socialist revolution would accomplish. In this sense, it really is up to the government and policy-makers to find ways to incentivize equality.

The video above made me reconsider taxation… the social power of taxes is not in the direct redistribution of wealth, but the indirect change of incentives for the powerful. Maybe Hong Kong (and China, Singapore, Dubai, etc.) has the tallest skyscrapers because of inequality. Well, because of low taxes… which leads to inequality. No impressive skyscrapers in the Nordic countries.

吳安仁