I see a looming "problem" re the gulf oil spill that has already entered the mix -- the downplay. We're in this shared mess because BP downplayed the risks with disastrous results. In many ways, the federal government has colluded with BP to downplay the scope of the calamity, so as not to frighten and/or enrage the general populace.
But soon the people who make their homes in the Gulf States will join the downplaying game. The first obvious downplay concerns the safety of beaches. On the one hand, communities certainly don't wish to place residents and visitors in harm's way. On the other hand, however, pristine beaches drive tourism and tourism is part of the economic lifeblood of the area.
So gulf coastal communities are finding themselves between a rock and a hard place. If they complain too loudly about soiled beaches and toxic water, tourists will stay away in droves and this will mean economic hard times for all involved. Therefore, it's in their best economic interests to downplay or "soft peddle" the amount of oil befouling the coast in any specific area.
In a related issue, the federal government is working to strengthen seafood inspections in the region and this puts area workers between another rock and a hard place. While I'm very confident that most fisherman and shrimpers do NOT want to sicken people who purchase their products, they DO want people to continue to buy their products, lest they go out of business.
Owing to their livelihoods, it is in their best economic interest to want the new standards to provide as much leeway as possible. While many people will demand that ANY measurable amount of contamination be deemed as too much, gulf residents, on the other hand, will want to push the detected levels to a higher threshold which, undoubtedly, downplays community health concerns.
But we shouldn't fool ourselves. While this issue has and will continue to play out in the gulf, it's typical of how the capitalist system operates. Sellers desire laxer standards; buyers want tougher standards. Producers want a wide berth; consumers want a narrow channel.
Even further, this dynamic tends to play out in our own lives as well. We switch roles and allegiances, depending on which side of the relationship we're on in any given moment.
As a personal example, I used to be an avid baseball card collector (ultimately amassing over 15,000 cards). When Della and I were first married and facing some economic hardships, I decided to try to sell off some of my collection to raise needed funds.
In the sports cards biz, one generally can expect to command top dollar if the card is well-centered, has no printing errors (though certain errors sometimes increase the value) and it can be seen that the card suffers little from wear and tear. After getting my cards in order and selecting which ones we would try to sell, we set off on the baseball card convention circuit.
As my wife haggled with potential buyers -- I'm a very inept haggler, so this job fell to Della -- they scrutinized every conceivable imperfection, while it was her task to downplay as many as possible! "There's a slight crease in the upper right hand corner," the potential buyer would say with furrowed brow. "What are you talking about?" Della would reply. "It's hardly noticeable at all!"
As we sold more and more cards -- fetching over $1,000 for a Nolan Ryan rookie card -- I decided I wanted to use a small portion of the proceeds to purchase a few cards representing my sporting heroes that I had never owned. Of course, you've got to know that the above conversation flip-flopped!
"There's a slight crease in the upper right hand corner of this card," I'd remark to the seller. "What are you talking about?" the seller would respond. "It's hardly noticeable at all!"
And so goes the dance of life. When we feel that something may be of benefit TO us, we demand as much leeway as is humanly possible. When we feel that something may benefit others and/or NOT benefit us, then we demand almost no leeway at all.
In essence, when life best serves our egos, we play down the downplay.
But soon the people who make their homes in the Gulf States will join the downplaying game. The first obvious downplay concerns the safety of beaches. On the one hand, communities certainly don't wish to place residents and visitors in harm's way. On the other hand, however, pristine beaches drive tourism and tourism is part of the economic lifeblood of the area.
So gulf coastal communities are finding themselves between a rock and a hard place. If they complain too loudly about soiled beaches and toxic water, tourists will stay away in droves and this will mean economic hard times for all involved. Therefore, it's in their best economic interests to downplay or "soft peddle" the amount of oil befouling the coast in any specific area.
In a related issue, the federal government is working to strengthen seafood inspections in the region and this puts area workers between another rock and a hard place. While I'm very confident that most fisherman and shrimpers do NOT want to sicken people who purchase their products, they DO want people to continue to buy their products, lest they go out of business.
Owing to their livelihoods, it is in their best economic interest to want the new standards to provide as much leeway as possible. While many people will demand that ANY measurable amount of contamination be deemed as too much, gulf residents, on the other hand, will want to push the detected levels to a higher threshold which, undoubtedly, downplays community health concerns.
But we shouldn't fool ourselves. While this issue has and will continue to play out in the gulf, it's typical of how the capitalist system operates. Sellers desire laxer standards; buyers want tougher standards. Producers want a wide berth; consumers want a narrow channel.
Even further, this dynamic tends to play out in our own lives as well. We switch roles and allegiances, depending on which side of the relationship we're on in any given moment.
As a personal example, I used to be an avid baseball card collector (ultimately amassing over 15,000 cards). When Della and I were first married and facing some economic hardships, I decided to try to sell off some of my collection to raise needed funds.
In the sports cards biz, one generally can expect to command top dollar if the card is well-centered, has no printing errors (though certain errors sometimes increase the value) and it can be seen that the card suffers little from wear and tear. After getting my cards in order and selecting which ones we would try to sell, we set off on the baseball card convention circuit.
As my wife haggled with potential buyers -- I'm a very inept haggler, so this job fell to Della -- they scrutinized every conceivable imperfection, while it was her task to downplay as many as possible! "There's a slight crease in the upper right hand corner," the potential buyer would say with furrowed brow. "What are you talking about?" Della would reply. "It's hardly noticeable at all!"
As we sold more and more cards -- fetching over $1,000 for a Nolan Ryan rookie card -- I decided I wanted to use a small portion of the proceeds to purchase a few cards representing my sporting heroes that I had never owned. Of course, you've got to know that the above conversation flip-flopped!
"There's a slight crease in the upper right hand corner of this card," I'd remark to the seller. "What are you talking about?" the seller would respond. "It's hardly noticeable at all!"
And so goes the dance of life. When we feel that something may be of benefit TO us, we demand as much leeway as is humanly possible. When we feel that something may benefit others and/or NOT benefit us, then we demand almost no leeway at all.
In essence, when life best serves our egos, we play down the downplay.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are unmoderated, so you can write whatever you want.