The Super-Rich Aren't as Rich as They Used to Be

I realize that is a contentious claim, and many would argue it runs directly contrary to the facts. After all, according to The New York Times, the top tenth of one percent income bracket in the United States saw their wealth increase by 21.5 percent, while the bottom 99 percent saw their incomes rise by just $80. However, just because you have a lot of money doesn't mean you're very rich.

Consider the phenomenon of people winning the lottery and ending up poorer than they were before they won. These people have a lot of money, but they don't have a lot of capital. Capital is defined as holdings which produce income. But when you win the lottery, you don't have any holdings which produce any income, despite a sudden spike in income. The income, then, becomes quite worthless. I would argue something similar is happening to the super-rich.

The economy has been growing at an average of about five percent since 1984. But the structure of the U.S. economy is vastly different than in the latter half of the 20th century. The United States between 1945 and 1991 was a country defined by its mass-mobilization against an easily defined external enemy: the Soviet Union. The consciousness of the people of the United States was unified by the threat of nuclear war, and there were ways to speak to that consciousness. People wanted to define themselves with the "us" rather than with the "them," so they did particularly American things. But people aren't doing these things anymore. That is what, I believe, is suggested by the fact of the decentralization of our economy, a fact which is supported by evidence.

It has been becoming increasingly easy to buy small, local products rather than large, mass-marketed products in our economy. And according to marketers, it is no longer relevant to try to mass-market products. What this points to is a decentralization of the economy, and we do not know whether it is reversible. It certainly doesn't feel reversible. Unfortunately for the super-rich, the most obvious effect of a decentralized economy is that massive centralization of wealth becomes less financially relevant, and suddenly, the super-rich feel more like the person who suddenly won the lottery rather than leaders of the economy.

Think about it. Our economy could grow at 20 percent a year, but if the super-rich can't find places to invest their money, it won't benefit them. And as markets become increasingly segmented rather than unified, it becomes harder and harder for a guy sitting in a penthouse in New York City to find the real money-makers in the economy. Granted, our economy is hardly so massively decentralized now that it is impossible to make money simply by having money. But in the future, it may be more and more difficult to do so. That, certainly, is the trend. And when you look at it this way, the tax cuts for the super-rich and economic policies favoring greater income inequality suddenly make a lot of sense. Certain members of the super-rich, I think, are probably sensing that they are becoming a dying breed, because their massive financial holdings are going to quickly lose relevance as the 21st century progresses and the economy further destabilizes.

The solution, I think, is for the super-rich to stop frantically grasping at more and more money, and rather, embrace their roles as leaders of the economy. They should restructure their holdings to favor local enterprises in localities they care about. This would help them maintain financial relevance in our economy. The fact of the matter is, the mere fact of being super-rich is becoming less and less a guarantee of income. This is because major corporations are becoming less and less relevant as economies become more and more localized. Americans no longer crave the unity they used to feel in the fifties knowing they were all watching the same television screen, so that feeling no longer is going to capitalize your assets.

Practical Religion: Use the Teachings of Christ to Increase Food Supply

In the West, we're all familiar with Christ's miracles — feeding thousands of people with just five loaves of bread and two fish, and so forth. Now we may not be able to perform miracles like that, but using the teachings of Christ and the early Christians, we can increase our food supply and decrease costs if we live in groups. Here's how it works.

Normally, when we live in groups, we use Sharpies to mark up which food is ours, and everybody gets to eat their own food only. However, this is an inefficient way of managing food supply. Instead, use this rule: all the food in the house is community food, provided everyone contributes. This is pretty much the only way to ensure that everyone eats properly. Why? Because when everyone contributes food, people will naturally specialize in what kinds of food they buy. Joe might buy all the vegetables, while Karen buys the grains, and Jeffery may specialize in microwavable instant foods. Because everyone is contributing something, we can rely on other people in the household having the other food we need when we buy only our specialized food. And because we're buying specialized food, we can take advantage of deals and decrease prices by buying in bulk.

Note that people naturally specialize. It isn't necessary to plan out who will buy what food. The system actually works better when people organically decide what food to buy based on a number of factors, including need, price, knowledge, taste, and so forth. But people will end up specializing, and part of the point is to welcome this.

One reason why this works out better for everyone is because the food we buy will be less likely to go bad. Often, we're forced to buy more portions than we need if we are buying just for ourselves. This is especially true with fresh produce. But yet, we must buy the food or we will go hungry. This is less of a problem when we are buying for more than one person.

One subsequent effect of this is that we can take advantage of foods we don't need too often, and increase the richness of the diversity of our food. For instance, we may have a craving for radishes one day. But we know that we won't really want to eat radishes every day. So we buy enough radishes for one person one or two days, which is possible in most supermarkets, while buying the staple foods we need for the rest of our diet. That way, we satisfy our cravings and no food goes to waste.

We can also take advantage of cropping of foods. For instance, if we buy local, there may be an influx of a great deal of specialized food, like say, fresh Kokanee Salmon. Since we know we will all be eating it, we can buy more than we normally would. There will be leftovers, and none will go to waste.

We may balk at this idea because we won't necessarily be catering to our own particular tastes in food. Since we will be forced to eat the food of others, we won't necessarily have any guarantee that we will get our own favorite foods. But if we take a larger view, and look past merely our own tastes, forgiving the trespasses of others onto our food diets, we will begin to understand that our diets will be diversified, which is healthy for us, and that we won't go hungry on a low budget. Because of this, we can free up our money for more interesting activities than just eating every day. We can be more generous and liberal with our overall budgets, because the food budget will be less. All in all, following this system will work out better for everyone.

Practical Religion: Binary Buddhism

I'm sure you've heard of applying Buddhism to improve your spiritual quality. But there are very practical applications as well. For instance, the practice of breathing meditation, in combination with binary counting, can be used to tell time. This can be useful for telling time at a bus stop when there isn't a clock, or for timing sesshins or meditation sessions without a clock or phone or timer.

Here's how it works. First, time how long it takes to breathe in and out twenty-one times. This means one in-breath, one out-breath, times twenty-one. For me, it takes about two minutes. Then, make a strong habit of counting up to twenty-one breaths then returning back to one while doing breathing meditation. Do it like this: "In-breath, out-breath, 1. In-breath, out-breath, 2. ... In-breath, out-breath, 21. In-breath, out-breath, 1."

It will take some attention at first to get used to counting up to twenty-one when you breathe. Here I find the motivation to religiously follow the practice comes in handy. If you are able to count up to twenty-one without skipping numbers and without losing count, it means you're paying attention. If the religious goal of your practice is to know how to pay attention, this can be a strong motivation for keeping track of numbers. Pretty soon, you'll be doing it automatically.

Next comes counting in binary using the fingers. You can count up to 2047 in binary using your fingers. To do this, you must understand the math. In binary, there are only two digits: zero and one. In base-ten, the system we're used to, there are ten digits, and when you get to the last digit (9), you reset back to one in the second column and zero in the first, and so forth. In binary, it's similar, except you reset once you get to one. So, for example, the first four integers in sequence from one to four in binary are, 1, 10, 11, 100.

When counting in binary using the fingers, for the right hand, use the thumb as the first digit, the pointer finger as the second, and so forth. Treat the thumb of the left hand as the sixth digit, and the pointer finger of the left hand as the seventh, and so forth. When the finger is held up, that indicates a one. When it is closed, it indicates a zero. Thus, for the number 1010, which is ten, in your right hand, your pinky will be closed, your ring finger will be open, your middle finger closed, your pointer finger open, and your thumb closed.

You'll want to practice counting with your fingers until you're very proficient at it. The whole idea for the purposes of telling time using the breath is that you are going to count in binary the number of times you reach 21 breaths. Remember, each cycle of 21 breaths (for me, anyway) is 2 minutes. So ten cycles of 21, or 1010 in binary, is equal to 20 minutes. Fifteen cycles, or 1111 in binary, will be 30 minutes. An hour will be 30 cycles, or 11110 in binary (pinky, ring, middle, and pointer fingers up, thumb down).

Depending on the setting, you may not be able to use your hands to count the number of times you reach 21 breaths. For example, if you're leading a meditation session, you won't be able to use your hands. In this case, it's best to visualize counting in binary by holding up imaginary fingers in front of you. One thing which will help you remember which fingers to hold up is to remember that each zero digit represents a dedication to the buddhas, while each one digit represents the body of a new buddha to be dedicated. That way, when the digits switch, the meaning is significant and more easy to remember.

This method is accurate to the minute. If it is less accurate for you, you may breathe more slowly or more quickly. Instead of trying to change the rate of breathing, change the number of breaths in a cycle or the number of minutes each cycle is worth, or both. Work out a system that works for you.

In addition to being useful for telling time, this method also helps improve concentration in general. Concentration has a number of practical benefits, helping you to better do a variety of tasks including studying, listening to lectures, conversation, cooking, etc.

Belief in Karma Is Crippling for Modern Buddhists

As a muslim-buddhist, I must confess I'm a little tired of the rhetoric of oppression that's so commonplace in the buddhist community. Many prominent lamas often advise their students that others cannot make you suffer, that you must forgive your oppressors, that you shouldn't blame others for your problems. While I don't necessarily disagree, I think there is a story on the side of the oppressed, and also the oppressed who are fighting back, which is not being told.

I don't like how the emphasis tends to imply inaction in the face of adversity, and seems to subtly imply that we should always blame the victim for their own oppression, and never encourage or help them to fight back. On top of that, there's the added indignity of saying that it's the oppressor's good karma that allows them to be so negative. The indication seems to be that the universe rewards bad behavior and punishes good behavior.

Additionally, the oppressed is in a double-bind: if you do something bad, it's your fault and you get bad karma. If your oppressors do something bad, it's your fault, and you get bad karma. If you do something bad, it's your bad karma, if something bad happens to you it's karma for you to do bad things (because abuse is cyclical). According to this world-view, everything is always bad and it's your fault. I'm surprised more Buddhists don't commit suicide!

The biggest problem with this point of view is that it eternally binds people to suffering, with no hope for salvation. This directly contradicts the buddhist dharma which states that Nirvana is true, attainable peace. It also leads to an isolationist worldview that separates buddhists from those who could benefit from buddhism among the poor and dispossessed. In other words, it enables middle-, upper-middle, and upper-class Buddhists to say to the dispossessed, "I've got mine, screw you." And quite often, this is exactly what they say.

The Dalai Lama himself says that we Buddhists could learn a lesson from Christians in the area of charity. But the root of the problem is karma: the en-vogue definition of karma is one that Christians don't share, and is specifically refuted in many ways in the Bible, which is why they do more charity. What I would like to see more of is an emphasis on the correct way of viewing karma and its relationship to the external world, which is explained in H.H. The Dalai Lama's The Four Noble Truths, published in 1997 by Thorsons. In this book, karma is confined solely to mental activity by a moral agent which leads to emotional experience by the same moral agent. And the external world, by contrast, should not be viewed as "karma," but rather as the sport of Buddhas, which is an idea from a different scripture. Karma means that if you lash out in anger, you will be unhappy. Not, as in all the Internet memes, that something similar happens to someone who does something. Karma, in other words, is pretty much a mental phenomenon, and the physical aspects of it, though not entirely wrong, are vastly overplayed by the Buddhist community at large.

It's really sad that buddhists leave this sort of critical view to outsiders, and don't adopt it for themselves. Perhaps they view their constituency as primarily focused on internal mental development rather than external works of charity. Frankly, though, I see it as a problem which encourages a large and growing section of middle-class Americans and Westerners to view adversity and problems, where real people, perhaps even themselves, suffer, and do nothing. I guess as a muslim / Tibetan buddhist I'm not really an outsider, but I'm also not ordained as a teacher formally in any sect of buddhism. No buddhists have shared my point of view on karma, even though two specific emanations of Tara have come to me and told me flat-out, "I don't believe in karma." One of these women squashed a bug for emphasis, and that bug is now probably in a pure land. I think there is an important lesson in that for both Buddhists and New-Agers. The lesson is that our ideas about karma are totally wrong, and they hurt real people. And the karma for spreading these ideas is that we will end up feeling hurt and oppressed.