# Pogonomics



## phatch (Mar 29, 2002)

Joe Dominguez wrote a book called _Your Money or Your Life_. This is one of the more influential books I have read. Later in life, he wrote an essay that summarized much of that book.

Pogonomics

"We have met the enemy and he [or she] is us."

by Joe Dominguez

While no one was paying much attention, economics replaced religion as
the touchstone of human life. Like religion, economics has priests and rituals.
The purpose of these priests and rituals is to interpret the meaning of
events while keeping the people in confusion. Any effort on the part of
the masses to connect directly with the realities behind the rituals is
considered a sacrilege.

There is supply-side economics, Keynesian economics, invisible-hand market
economics - but none of these deal with the real driving force _behind
_economics. The following simple explanations will put you in direct
contact with this essential driving force.

1 - LEXICON

ECOLOGY: The mutual relations between organisms and their_ environment_.

ECONOMICS: The mutual relations between human organisms and their
_environment_.
The Dismal Science that investigates the conditions and laws affecting the
production, distribution and _consumption_ of _resources_. The
material means of satisfying human desires. Since humans appear to be insatiable,
that last definition is obviously an oxymoron; therefore, antonym:
_enough._

EARTH: Our home planet, mother, source of all sustenance, _resource_
base, host, life support system, teat.

RESOURCE: Everything in, on, or above _Earth_ that we can _consume_,
use up, destroy, annihilate, violate or deprive others of. We accomplish
all this with the use of _money_ (see below).

CONSUME: Use up, devour, destroy, waste, squander.

CONSUMER: One who uses up, devours, destroys, wastes, squanders.

DEMAND: To claim as just or due. In economics, the desire to consume,
combined with the ability to ignore one's conscience.

ENVIRONMENT: That which results from the _consumption _of
_resources_.

EMPLOYMENT: Activity by which one exchanges one's human _resource_
(life-energy) for_ money._ A vital step in the conversion of a _resource
_into _environment_. Also, contemporary man's (and increasingly,
woman's) primary purpose for existence and primary means of identification
- e.g., "I am a _____" (lawyer, plumber... etc.).

MONEY: That which we spend one-third of our adult lifetimes acquiring,
one-third disposing of, one-third recovering from the acquisition and disposal
of, and the rest of the time bemoaning the lack of. _Money_ is a lien
on _Earth's resources. _

DEBT: In ancient theology, a sin or trespass. In modern sociology, a
euphemism for incarceration, as in "He paid his _debt_ to society."
In the social practices resulting from the contemporary theology of
_economics_,
a highly respected way to repay your children for the suffering they have
caused you. A device for keeping people trapped in _employment_, thus
creating more_ environment_.

SAVINGS: The result of a practice, now obsolete, whereby _money_
(or_ resources_) was set aside to provide for when _employment _was
not available or advisable, due to its deleterious effect on the _consumer_
or on the _Earth_. Antonym: _debt_.

ENOUGH: A condition apparently experienced only by lower animals, plants,
galaxies and primitive hominids of the Pre-Industrial Revolution era (the
latter were said to have _enough _after spending only a few hours per
day acquiring _resources_).

VALUE: (_n_) Monetary or material worth; cost, expense; (_v_)
to prize, esteem.

VALUES: What we profess to be truly important guiding principles in our
lives.

INTEGRITY: The state of being complete, undivided; unity, concord, harmony;
congruity; wholeness, completeness; alignment between _values _and
behavior.

POGONOMICS: "We have met the enemy and he is us."

ECO-ECONOMICS: The interactions of all of the above.

2 - ECONOMICS

Our _employment_ greatly depends upon converting some aspect of
_Earth _into _resources_. This is obvious in farming, logging,
mining, cocaine- and cigarette-making, and tract house and shopping center
developments. Since most of those _resources _are not really needed,
many other forms of _employment _exist whose sole purpose is to convince
people that _consuming resources _is a way toward greater happiness:
e.g., _employment _in advertising, sales, higher education, television.
Then there are the _employments _that deal with the results of the
previous two forms, among them being psychiatrists, hernia specialists,
divorce lawyers, day-care operators, police officers and morticians. Another
interesting observation: The term of conscription for killing each other
with permission is generally two to four years; for killing each other without
permission it is generally 20 years; for _employment _it is generally
45 years.

All these _employments _are for the purpose of acquiring _money_.
A common cultural taboo insists on using circumspect language to obscure
this simple fact. One does not say "I'm acquiring _money_"
but instead says, "I'm Making a Living" - though it is obvious
that the individual speaking returns home from _employment _much less
alive than when he or she left! Also, one would never ask "How much
_money _do you acquire?", but rather, "What do you do?"
(In certain sub-cultural groupings one might, however, ask "Are you
Following Your Bliss?" or, "Have you found your Right
Livelihood?")

The purpose of _money _is to _consume resources_. Any time
that you spend _money_, you are _consuming resources._ Since you
have traded a piece of your life to get that _money _(through your
_employment_), you are also _consuming _your own _resource _(your
life-energy) when you spend _money_. The new _resource _you bought
with the _money _now belongs to you - it is not available to others.
It is now your right to use it up, to prevent others from getting it, to
hide it from other people in your closet, to make other people feel bad
because they don't have it.

When you want to _consume _more _resources_ than you can get
with the _money_ you got by selling your own _resource _(your
life energy) through your _employment_, you can sell your future and
your children's future. This is called "trading futures," or _debt_.
You have to use up even more _resources _when you are _consuming
_via _debt _- the extra amount being called, interestingly enough,
"interest on _consumer debt._" This is a very efficient way
to "use up, devour, destroy, waste and squander."

While you are in _employment_, acquiring _money _and _debt_,
and _consuming_, you are creating the _environment_. All along
the way, from when that _resource _was taken from the _Earth _to
the time you have _consumed _as much of it as you want and then thrown
it "away," it has been creating _environment_. The mining
equipment that got to the _resource _had to create _environment _by
removing trees and topsoil that were in the way, had to burn (_consume_)
fuels that created a different recipe for the air _environment_, had
to run a lot of water to take the used-up chemicals into the river
_environment_.
Then the _resource _had to be transported to the refiner, creating
a lot of _environment _along the way, and the refiner created more
_environment_, and then the manufacturer created still more _environment_,
and then the shipper had to create lots more _environment _to package
the _resource _so that it would appeal to the _consumer_, who
would pay the _money _that it cost for all that _environment _(and
_employment _and _resource_). The _consumer _often uses the
new _resource _to create more _environment _as well, and then
throws it "away" - creating even more _environment._

3 - POGONOMICS

_"We have met the enemy and he is us."_

_- Pogo _

If the _environment _is not to our liking, it is because of our
_employment_, our _consumption_, our _debt_, our focus on
_money_. It is us - as individuals - who are the enemy.

It is not due to the "Military-Industrial Complex."

Or "The Federal Budget."

Or "Defense Spending."

Or EXXON.

Or the Logging Industry.

It is not even due to McDonald's!

It is due only to our individual _consumption_.

_OUR DEMAND._

Prostitution would be the world's loneliest profession without _demand_.

The Medellin Cartel would be a 4-H club without _demand. _

Loggers would be owlophiles without _demand_.

OPEC would be a Solar Energy and Desalinization Consortium without our
_demand._

Japan would be a leader in Third World sustainable development if not
for our _demand_ ... for sushi, Toshibas, Suzooks, CDs, VCRs, TVs,
HDs, RAM, CVCCs...

What sort of _demand_?

Bigger house. Remodelled kitchen. Full employment. Boat. Mountain Bike.
Second car. Vacation cabin. Job security. Motor home. Four wheeler. Satellite
dish. Microwave. Laptop. Riding mower. Silk blouse. Bigger paycheck. Second
income.

Why this _demand_?

Because we have come to believe, or _act as if _we believe, that:

More Is Better
We Must Raise Our Standard of Living
Quality of Life Is Measured by Income
Abundance and Prosperity Are Material Birthrights
Whoever Dies with The Most Toys Wins
We Should Shop Till We Drop
We Deserve It
It's The American Way
We Are Our Jobs
Success Is a Many-Spended Thing
We Can Serve Two Masters - God and Mammon

4 - ECO-ECONOMICS
_The Ecology of Values and Value _

What do we _value_? Do we _value _our lives? What _value
_do we put on our lives? Do we _value _life? Do we _value _the
host of life - _Earth_? (Organisms that survive "know" that
the health of their host eco-system is vital to their survival; apparently
this "knowledge" has escaped cancer cells, humans, and other parasites.)
Do we _value _breathable air? Drinkable water? Fertile topsoil? Healthy
children? Functioning families? Time to love?

What are your personal _values_?

When our actions are in alignment with our _values_, we experience
wholeness - _integrity_.

_Money _is not only a lien on a physical _resource_, it is
also a lien on our personal _resource_: we sold X number of hours of
our life to acquire Y dollars. Since _money _is unique to the human
species, we can even say that money = human life- energy!

How we spend our life-energy and how we spend _money _are direct
measurements of the degree of alignment between our actions and our
_values_.

When we spend _money _for a _resource _we must ask: "Is
this _money _spent in alignment with my _values_?"

Fulfillment, by its very definition, is a function of knowing when you
have_ enough. _

The questions to ask: "Am I likely to get fulfillment from this
_money _spent in proportion to the _resources _that it represents?
"

"Am I likely to get fulfillment from this _money _spent in
proportion to my expenditure of my _resource _(my life-energy)?"

"Am I likely to get fulfillment from this _money _spent in
proportion to the _environment _that it has created and will create
after I am finished _consuming _it?

What if asking those questions results in spending much less _money_,
and yet feeling much more fulfilled and whole?

_Savings _is _money _not spent, _resources _not _consumed
_and _environment _not created. It can instead be used to _consume
debt _and reduce dependence on _employment_.

By _saving money_, you maintain the _integrity_ of the _Earth_.
You do not maintain the _integrity_ of the _Earth _by spending
_money_, no matter how "green" the product. All _consumers
_are "green" _consumers _simply because the color of their
_money_ is green.

But what will we do if we do not _consume_? Who are we, if not_
consumers_?

Answering that question is life's greatest adventure. When we're not
_consuming_, we are creating, caring, communicating, communing, conserving,
cooperating, being concerned, being conscious. What we have, when we let
go of _consuming_, is _integrity_ - wholeness.


----------



## anneke (Jan 5, 2001)

Phatch,

I have a great deal of respect for you and your posts. However, I cannot contain myself here when I say that this guy is an Idiot. What he sounds like is some shmo who picked up a couple of economic terms during a pleasant little drug trip, and wrote his own idea of what the words mean. He offends me. Period. His premise is beyond misinformed, it's an outright lie. I've known people like him: jealous of the rich but too lazy to make an honest living. It's easy to bash successful people. He won't be happy until everybody becomes a hippie and a vegan, and if that means losing your personal freedoms, then so be it. 

Economics is not evil incarnate as he suggests. It is a framework that is mathematically built to encapsulate or portray the behaviour and interrerelations of humans with respect to their survival and personal fulfillement, under the premise of a free society. How people behave within that framework is based on a number of factors including morals, religion etc, but that's another discipline altogether. Definitely NOT economics, nor has the discipline ever claimed to have any dominion over this or over people's moral choices. If anything, economic models are more and more accomodating to them. For example, some economists are working towards viable models for the preservation of natural resources, based on the assumption that these resources have - an albeit difficult to quantify - value to society. Instead of bashing people over the head ill-concieved morality as Mr. Dominguez is doing, these models help in a more concrete way to find solutions that will not oppose humans' freedom and social behaviours.

I take offense for example, at anyone who would write something as preposterous as this: 

CONSUMER: One who uses up, devours, destroys, wastes, squanders. 

Right; this guy wasn't "consuming" when he went to the store to buy his pound of tofu.

So with all due respect, I have to say that a little education goes a long way, and one who chooses to publish his views should get his facts straight before doing so.

PS: Phatch, do you have a link for this editorial? ....Just so as to not violate our guidlines re copyright requirements. Thanks.


----------



## phatch (Mar 29, 2002)

I'll see if I can find a link.

I agree, his discussion is not correct from an economist point of view. Joe Dominguez was a successful stock broker. He retired in the late sixties at age 30 on a small and fixed income because he wanted to. He had enough to live simply for as long as he wished and could do things he found more meaningful to him. Basically he was a successful hippie.

He is often viewed as one of the founders of the "Voluntary Simplicty" movement. Basically people who want to step back from the rat race that has consumed them and live what to them would be a more meaningful life. This is not every one's position in life. I would hazard that most professional food chefs already get much of what they love of life. I come from the rat race technology background and it spoke strongly to me.

He was part of and wrote to the Me Generation and the Yuppies. That's what he didn't get sucked up in and wrote about.

Having read his books, he's not jealous of the rich, if they are living according to their values. The main point of his books was to help people invest in reliable ways so they could retire on known and "safe" incomes early if they wished to. By reliable, he means bonds so you know exactly their rate of growth and pay out and can reliably predict your money's growth and income. That's not my investment phiilosophy, but his other monetary discussion did help me realize a lot about my spending and working that wasn't really making me happy.

His budget lessons are strict but they help people choose investment goals that mean something to them more than retirement so they are motivated to save on strict budgets.

That's the point of this essay.

It's been published a number of places. A search turns up over 100 hits, here's the first one:

http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC26/Domnguez.htm

Thanks for your critiques.

Phil


----------



## joshua tomczyk (Jul 12, 2001)

It seams like he is not retired but a writer which is or was his way of trading his life energy for your money. If he truly believed what he said he would never been heard of at all because there would not be a reason for him to work at all. And in turn he is doing nothing but helping the consumption cycle, his books were written on paper right, and this is on the web so if it wasn't for the consumption of silicon, metal, and oil there would be no forum for his opinions to be shared.

He doesn't seem to know much about history, in the pre-industrialized world people lived for much shorter lives and were required to work until they died or for a few were taken care of by others until the did. Since there lives were shorter they had to trade more of their life energy just to survive so the exchange rate for there trade was much lower than people of today. His use of the term "having enough" seems funny most of the people in the per-industrialized world were only trying to survive which required them to get their children involved in the cycle at a much earlier age. There was much less time to actually spend with family and the ones that you love. There was also very little time for education which made the cycle even worse because there was almost no way out of it.

It sounds to me like he was able to trade his life energy at a high exchange rate as a stock broker, taking full advantage of "the consumption cycle" and later felt guilty for it but instead of actually doing something to help others acheve sucess (wear the real value in life lies) he tried to make others feel his own guilt by bashing the system he took full advantage of. 

I could spend hours of my life energy on this subject but I have to take my kids to the park.


----------



## phatch (Mar 29, 2002)

Actually, he's dead.

And you ignore that he's writing philosophically, not scientifically.

Phil


----------



## ritafajita (Mar 2, 2002)

I read this link, and it was... okay. It didn't really get me either way. Made me think, as a lot of things do, that people could use some more common sense. It seemed like common sense to me. If you want your life to be a certain way, you plan, prepare, make it that way. Good, old fashioned "personal responsibility" comes to mind.

But I have to wonder at the same time, if all those economists were really doing their jobs effectively, would stuff like this even be marketable?

Catch 22 for that guy, I guess. That is, if he really wants to help people, which I have no reason to assume that he doesn't.

RF


----------

