Of the $, by the $, and for the $.

I think it is fair to say, if not obvious, that the United States is the most materialistic nation on earth. We are driven by a desire for money and for stuff. What does that get us?

We have a very high standard of living, when measured by stuff. Houses, cars, boats, electronics, whatever, we have a lot of it. We are by far the wealthiest nation in the world, but we rank only 14th in happiness according to a Gallup Poll taken between 2005 and 2009. As a society we are, at the moment, bitterly divided. As individuals we are stressed. We work hard for money, but money doesn't make anyone happy (though it is better to have some than not).

Two of the primary components of a country are the government and the economy. How are we doing there?

It truly is a joke to say that our government is responsive to the people. For all the fuss made over elections, it always goes back to money. In countries like India and Mexico bribery of government officials is an accepted way of life, which I've always thought is corrupt.

The U.S. has laws against bribery. If you walk up to one of your representatives who happens to be honest... yeah, I know... and say, "I'll give you $1000 if you vote in favor of my widget company," you could be in deep doody. But if you say, I'll give you a $1000 campaign contribution if you vote in favor of my widget company," well, happy widgets. Bribing government officials is legal in the U.S., if you use the right language. And our officials do follow the money.

Something should be done about that, but it probably won't happen until we revolt like the people of Egypt did... a non-violent revolution.

Our economy is consumption-based, and this blog would be too long if I started ranting about the evils of capitalism. Consider the primary differences between conservatives and liberals.

Conservatives believe in small government and every man (and woman) for himself. They say (I don't know what they really think) that people in trouble are people who don't or didn't work hard enough. They rail about our "nanny state," and would no doubt eliminate all forms of public assistance if they could (and, oh my, they are trying).

There is some good in the conservative philosophy when it isn't taken to extremes. Money does motivate people to work, and a smaller government could be a more efficient government. But there are people who need help for reasons beyond their control, such as the infirm and the elderly (ahem). And what about the arts, which tend to pay very little? You might be a great writer and want to do a book, but it's very difficult when you're working 40 or more hours a week. That's sad. Great artists are remembered forever, great business men for a generation or two.

Liberals... oops, naughty word!... progressives believe that a decent government provides a decent standard of living for all its citizens. A single-payer health care system, for example, means that we'd no longer have to worry about whether we'll be able to get health care when we need it, and that we wouldn't have to deal with insurance companies that care nothing about us as individuals - and what do they contribute to health care, anyway?

Also, a free, high-quality education available to anyone would improve our society, government, and economy in many ways.

I, a liberal, believe that the government should provide basic (at least) sustenance - food, shelter, health care - to anyone who wants it, whether they can't do it for themselves or just want to paint a masterpiece.

For all the loud complaining about "European-style nanny states," the people who live in them tend to be far happier than us.