[Texit], Brexit, The Donald, Bernie, Cruz, Occupy Wall Street, Tea Party – A Tsunami Is Coming & It May Be Ugly.

    Dissatisfaction with big banks & big corporations co-opting & literally buying the political establishment is much deeper than the ruling moneyed aristocracy realizes or admits.

The issue really is top down.  Working from the bottom up is “misdirection”.  For example, a perceived big issue is immigration but if times were good economically, there wouldn’t be resentment of cheap immigrants serving us. The problem is that the “us” [the masses] are truly economically challenged and perceive as causes immigrants and international trade that permits cheap labor from the outside [de facto immigrants]. Combine those grievances with centralized distant politicians [Washington, Brussels] who are perceived as corrupt, you end up with hyper-nationalism and isolationism. Put another way, People just don’t trust their elected leaders.

The “ills” are also defined as irresponsible behavior of countries like Greece, Portugal and Italy. Actually, the irresponsible behavior deriving from their leaders [back to corrupt politicians] who made unrealistic promises upon which the populace relied [see retirement and pensions] while the politicians were actually living the good life and lining their pockets. Think Berlusconi, Cameron, Putin, Clinton and the Panama Papers to name but a few.

Bottom line, the masses are disgusted with the political and economic status quo. They want to throw the bums out, lock, stock & barrel. Hillary is one of them. Her (husband’s) foundation seems to be helping those in Africa. So, too, is the Gates Foundation.  Those are wonderful projects but what about working on Detroit,   inner city schools and slums in Philadelphia or even Buffalo?  See the problem? Real or perceived, the impression is that the locals are ignored.

It’s not about Trump or Cruz. It’s their “message” that those who have been in power forever are corrupt and those alternative individuals, flawed as they are, are closer to the solution than the present power structure. That’s Bernie’s message. It’s the Brexit message of disenchantment.  It is not about substance or merit. It is a rejection of the status quo.

Interestingly, we hear arguments about the strength of the economy and “if one just put forth the effort” from those with solid, guaranteed fixed income situations: The bankers at the local private [and exclusive] golf club, “trust fund babies”, government workers who earn solid incomes, have no overhead, no expenses, medical coverage that does not deny at every opportunity and retirement at 75% of largest salary years. Those are the ones complain the loudest that there are others who seem to require assistance.  They want to cut them all off!

What about the “assistant manager” who was forced to work 60 hours plus per week for $27,000 with no overtime. He was made a manager so the business wouldn’t have to pay him overtime. He’s pissed! That’s just one example. That individual knows that Trump is a bum. He doesn’t care. He knows that none of Hillary’s domestic economic policies will ever trickle down to him. His is a vote against, not for…

“Families” and even “religion” are essentially “red herrings”. Neither of those put food on the table, pays the electric bill, keep the heat on in the winter. People don’t ask for help because they want religion, they ask because they need medical treatments. Often they have 2-3 insurance policies that technically provide medical coverage but none will pay because they fight among themselves as to who has priority. If an individual is so injured in an incident that they can’t work, if they are lucky, they are eligible for disability workers compensation that may pay them $187 per week. That goes a long way toward covering rent! Predatory lenders give contingent loans at 70% compound interest. It’s about keeping the heat on in winter, avoiding eviction or simply being hungry. Those are their real choices and constitute but the tip of the iceberg. “Family & Religion” have very little to do with those practical realities. However, it’s easier to “blame” those unwashed masses for their plight than to address the control by the multi-national corporations, banks, politicians, special tax breaks and those special interests that really regulate trade, commerce, services, laws and every aspect of our daily lives.

We conclude as we started.  It’s not about Trump.  It is not about substance or merit. It is a rejection of the status quo. 

Considerations Upon the Future of Mankind With Insights From Pope Francis, Encyclical Letter LAUDATO SI’ and Thomas Piketty, Capitalism in the Twenty-First Century

The goal here is to make a positive, solution oriented analysis of the basically “doom and gloom” presentations by Francis and Piketty.  The Pope’s critique is beyond the general presumption that it is solely about “climate change”. Actually, he observes that” we are faced with a complex crisis which is both social and environmental.” [F. 50] Obviously, much discussion and consideration has been given to the environmental focus of the Letter.

He speaks to the fact that “everything is interrelated.”[1] [F. 43] This paper will discuss that aspect of his Letter and his observations regarding the “need to respect the rights of peoples and cultures.” [F. 52]. He defines this aspect the problem as corruption and inadequate legal standards and enforcement. [F. 63]. He sees that control over the peoples of the Earth is vested absolutely in the financial system.” [F. 69]

The maximumization of profits is to him the singular overwhelming goal to the exclusion of everything else [F. 38].  Francis observes that “profit cannot be the sole criteria.” [F. 66]  Yet, it is.  It has resulted in social exclusion, inequitable distribution, violence and drugs where the gravest effects are suffered by the poorest. [F. 16] “There are billions of people who are literally excluded, who suffer ill health and premature deaths” while “the professional, the opinion makers, the affluent enjoy a higher quality of life.” [F. 17]

EDUCATION

What are we to do? The US Declaration of Independence asserts that everyone has an equal right to the pursuit of happiness.  Fundamental rights would seem to include “education and health.[2] [P 479]  Speaking of the United States, a parents income has become an almost perfect predictor of university access. [P. 485]  Contrary to intuition and preconceptions, social mobility is lower in the U.S. than in Europe. [P. 484]  Pope Francis feels that ours is a “shared responsibility” [F 80]. Priority needs to include a good education. [F. 75]  He points out that “humanity is one people living in a common home [the Earth]” F. 58]  He observes that “there is a need to respect the rights of peoples and cultures.” [F. 52]  “There needs to be an improvement in the quality of human life.” [F. 53]  Honesty and truth are needed.”

We know that “the present system is unsustainable.” [F. 22] Finance overwhelms the real economy.  There are too many special interests and economic interests that trump the common good. [F. 19] “We have an omnipresent technocratic paradigm and a cult with unlimited human power.” [F. 44] “There needs to be an improvement in the quality of human life.” [F. 54]

SOLUTIONS

“Global Regulation Needs to be Imposed” [F. 61]

To accomplish Global Regulation, Citizens must take control or redemption is not possible [F. 64]. In other words, there must be pressure from the public and civic institutions. [F. 64]  Piketty has an interesting observation: “Taxation is neither good nor bad in itself. Everything depends on how taxes are collected and what they are used for.” [P. 481]  This would seem to be a significant crux of the issue and a solution. Everyone who is rational will agree that we need a national income (from taxation) to pay for police and the judicial system.  The remainder should go toward education and health. [P. 491] Without taxes, society has no common destiny and collective action is impossible [P. 493]

Doing this is complex and conflicted by personal interests and gain (or loss). “If democracy [people, countries] is to regain control over global financial capitalism, it must use new tools which could include a global tax on capital.” [P. 515] “The primary purpose of a capital tax is not finance the social state but to regulate capitalism.” [P. 518]  The tax rate on capital would be from.1% to 5% on the largest fortunes [P. 530].  When it is excessive, “capital becomes stagnant. [3]” [P. 533] The unequal distribution of wealth is as great as it has ever been.  “Private wealth rests on public poverty.” [P. 567]

This is not as simple (lol) as merely installing an efficient tax on world capital.  No, “if democracy is someday to regain control of capitalism, it must start by recognizing that the concrete institutions in which democracy and capitalism are embodied [corporations] need to be reinvented again and again.” [P. 570]

Again, contrary to the obstructionists and negativists, these suggestions are not just so the masses can sit around watching television and candy.   Pope Francis observes that ”work is a necessary part of the meaning of life on this earth.  A path to growth, human development and personal development [F. 46]    Basically, he observes, “we are created with the vocation to work. P [F. 45]

WHAT DO/SHOULD WE DO?

First, we need to communicate.  As never before, we, the masses, can touch and communicate with each other intellectually across the globe.  Even language is no longer a barrier.  We share thoughts, ideas and perceptions. Second, we need to avoid playing into their game of divide and conquer.  There are many who have concluded that almost all of Washington is corrupt, regardless the party mantel they assume. That likely goes for most if not all the rest of the world.  Prove me wrong. Name an altruistic leader. Third, physical resistance is discouraged unless there is no choice as with the girls captured by Boko Haram. On the larger scale, they control the police and the armies, the judiciary, the press, television. Fourth, we should consider sharing thoughts with those who seem to possibly avoided co-option as in Glen Greenwald, Elizabeth Warren, possibly Bernie Saunders, even Alexis Tsipras. Fifth, we start by working together and trying to avoid the intentional distractions that are thrown our way every day. WE TRY!

[1] References to quotations by Pope Francis  are set forth by an “F” followed the page number out of the 99 pages of the Letter.

[2] References to quotations by Piketty are set forth by a “P” followed the page number.

[3] “A reduction of the top marginal income tax rates does not stimulate productivity (contrary to the prediction of supply siders)”. [P. 510]

THE MANAGEMENT OF HUMAN INTERACTION

THERE IS NO SHANGRI-LA

               Human mores differ radically in societies and cultures across the globe and throughout time.  Different societies and different cultures have enforced radically different standards, rules and values. The question, then, is whether mankind’s interactions with itself are simply random variables or whether there may be common values that are universal in the sense that they apply to all humans. The ultimate question is whether we, as a species, can begin to learn to cohabit together peacefully or are we destined to be conflictatory.

               While we are a single species, the dominant and most consistent theme of our humanity is personal self-interests.  This is the pattern of the Ruling classes, in every society throughout history.  It is contrasted with their treatment of the society’s workers, be they designated as slaves, serfs, servants, blue collar, lower class, women, children.  Also included are those who are “different”.  Different can be in religion or skin color.  It can reference place of “origin” as in the Irish, the Polish or Moslems.  It has been interpreted to mean “the wrong side of the tracks’ or the “wrong side of town”.  Regardless the designation or even costs in terms of human sacrifice, the effect is and has been that those in power, at all costs, seek to preserve their power, standing and entitlements.

This has consistently been accomplished through aggression toward others of the species.     The Egyptians, Alexander the Great, the Romans invaded other cultures and lands, stole their wealth and enslaved their populations.  The policy and practice of “conquer and enslavement” was a consistent standard through the European colonial period.  Slavery was an underpinning of the United States society and economy until a war made it illegal.  The change in title did little to change the slaves’ plight, place and status for a hundred years.

Unbridled killing and torture of our selves is a recurrent, common and continuing theme.  Across the globe, a majority of societies still spy on each other and kill and imprison those who in any way attempt to advocate and implement different values or views from the dominate policy.  This policy of repressing dissonance as among the masses is followed everywhere, regardless the “distinctions” between the dynasty, kingdom, political system, government, corporation or even individuals in authority.

Often “religion” has been used to excuse and justify those actions. Presently, many areas of the world still tolerate and literally are governed by tenants and values that became obsolete in the Middle Ages in other parts of the world.  Women are a particularly oppressed and abused group, especially in Moslem societies.  Beyond that, genocide, human trafficking and reigns of terror are still tolerated and common in all societies on the earth.  They are enforced by those in power for their personal power, profit or pleasure.

               This could be obviated but for one prevalent and seemingly never questioned position/assumption.  The rationalization is that all countries have “sovereign” rights. As this concept pertains to homo sapiens, our species, our lives and  individual rights are literally subject to the whims of our “sovereigns”.  That is, local governments choose how they will manage and exploit their societies.  Local governments/nation states are often free to abuse their wards indiscriminately.  The idea of national “sovereignty” is an obsolete concept when considered in conjunction with world “human rights”.  It should be discarded.

Ironically, this presumption is not controlling in economic or commercial arenas.  Cooperation, conformity and unity are universal in the areas of economics, trade, shipping, transportation, financial exchanges and monetary interaction.  Reliance, dependability and continuity are demanded in economic markets and endeavors.

                                                                                      HOPE

                 While aggression and self enhancement may be basic and integral to our nature, we as a species may not need to tolerate it from our governments or the ruling class.  The question comes down to whether, as a species, we have or should have certain  inalienable, aka basic, rights.  The US Declaration of Independence defined it broadly as the rights of  life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness.  Barak Obama has observed that a commonality of and among all religions is the Golden Rule. That would seem to be a reasonable starting point. If the fundamental precept of government and corporations was to do unto others as they would want done to themselves, civility would abound. All mankind would benefit.

                    Perhaps, the only way “Utopia” can ever be approached is for there to be an enlightened world government.  Assume an ideal society is established.  This would have to come from a clear set of values, as in the Code of Hammurabi, the Justinian Code or even the Ten Commandments. What is required is a singular set of rules that are enforced and apply to all of mankind. They would have to apply equally to every human being, including even women and children, regardless of their location on the globe, present religious affiliations or inherent wealth.

                 Woodrow Wilson tried this ideal following World War I with the League of Nations and his  Fourteen Points speech.  International rules of law need to be applied to all rulers, purported kings, dictators, prime ministers or presidents.  This would need to come from a purportedly independent tribunal as in the World Court as opposed from an opportunistic singular country.  In the United States, leaders are subject to basic legal standards (see: Spiro Agnew, Richard Nixon, Tom DeLay, Rod Blagojevich).

                Unfortunately, mankind’s wealthy and the privileged, from “trust fund” babies to dictators and despots seem to be neither enlightened nor ready to sacrifice anything that might affect them personally. Also, neither are the vast majority of the world’s nations ready to make a change.  That is, of course because they are controlled by the aforementioned dictators, despots, royalty and privileged. Change may come, nevertheless, as humanity is into a new phase of global awareness and interaction. 

                                                                                       NEXT?

                  The end result for Mankind, if we are to survive, requires order. The masses of humanity would not object. The indigent, the poor, the starving masses and the perpetual rape victims in Somalia and Darfur and political victims/opponents subject to early morning raids, prison and torture without trial would object? Wars between countries or even tribes are intolerable, assuming there is a consistently applied rule of law. The only real opponents of such laws will be those in power who are used to and plan to abuse their authority. What is necessary is for the United Nations and the World Court to be strengthened, reformed and given a clear authority and power over the entire globe, risky though this may be.  The risks would include sovereignty but only by that risk may we possible achieve order.  It would be interesting to see the reaction of the rest of the world nations to that suggestion.  Humanity has to start somewhere!

                                                                                             ZENITH

                  Have we as a species reached our intellectual zenith?  Is this chaos and carnage the best we can do.  Is this our destiny?  The next step is difficult to envision. The fatal paths of self-consumption that led to self-destruction in societies generally are investigated by Jared Diamond in Collapse.  There is substantial support for the thesis is that humanity is not capable of overcoming itself.  Greed and selfishness are obvious confounding factors especially by those who are unwilling to compromise even where it would be of substantial benefit to everyone alike.  Obviously, genetically driven selfishness, which, if Easter Island and the Mayan societies are any example, is more dominant.  For example, the arms manufacturers are willing to accept carnage throughout the world, including in the USA, so long as they continue to receive their revenue and dividends.  Selfishness is compounded by racial and religious intolerance in the perpetuation of armed chaos globally. 

                                                                            CONCLUSION

The ultimate question is whether we will destroy each

other and ourselves in the process or whether humanity’s

intellectual and creative limits will be broached.