The new golden rules

[jtabeb]

Okay, not strictly news, unless my ideas count as news. But I would appreciate all of you collective thoughts on the construct below.

The New Golden Rules:

1. Seek to Understand others.

2. Help them to help themselves with as much as you are able and with as much as they are willing to accept.

3. Provide every human being the means necessary to meet their own needs but give them the freedom and responsibility to choose how to live.

[Dave Stratman]

Re: The new golden rules

Okay, not strictly news, unless my ideas count as news. But I would appreciate all of you collective thoughts on the construct below.

The New Golden Rules:

1. Seek to Understand others.

2. Help them to help themselves with as much as you are able and with as much as they are willing to accept.

3. Provide every human being the means necessary to meet their own needs but give them the freedom and responsibility to choose how to live.

Regarding the New Golden Rules: I agree very much with #1.

#2 lacks a sense of context--a society which is immersed in a class war that affects every aspect of our lives. The point of understanding others is to organize our forces to fight more effectively in this war: we understand our shared problems and common goals to gain the confidence in each other to fight the common enemy with more success. In this struggle, each of us has things to learn from each other, since we all have different lives and have learned different things in the course of them. We need to get effectively organized to better understand the class enemy and to effectively mobilize our own class power.

#3 focuses too much on the individual and seems to suggest that it is in our power to "provide...the means necessary...." I think this is something--"meet their own needs"--that people will have to do collectively. And we can't "give them the freedom and responsibility"--freedom and responsibility are something that people have to take for themselves--but I certainly agree that they should have it.

Thought-provoking points.

[Rajiv]

Re: The new golden rules

#3 focuses too much on the individual and seems to suggest that it is in our power to "provide...the means necessary...." I think this is something--"meet their own needs"--that people will have to do collectively. And we can't "give them the freedom and responsibility"--freedom and responsibility are something that people have to take for themselves--but I certainly agree that they should have it.

Thought-provoking points.

Dave, isn't that what you say in your book? - We Can Change the World: The Real Meaning of Everyday Life

Stratman shows that revolution is possible because most people in their everyday lives are already engaged in a struggle to create a better world. The logic of the competitive culture of capitalism is that this world should be a loveless and savage place. But most people, in the little piece of the world that they think they can control--with their wife or husband or children or students or co-workers--struggle against this culture to create relationships based on love and trust and mutual respect and commitment. This is the real force driving history which makes a new world possible.

[flintlock]

Re: The new golden rules

I like the original golden rule better. Could be construed to cover everything you mention but gives the INDIVIDUAL the FREEDOM to decide what they think is appropriate. "Provide means necessary.."? Who provides this? How much is my share? Now if you are talking about economic freedom, then I'm all for that. What you are describing in your "Golden rule" sounds more political than the original golden rule which is a philosophy.

[Dave Stratman]

Re: The new golden rules

Dave, isn't that what you say in your book? - We Can Change the World: The Real Meaning of Everyday Life

In stating that "most people...struggle against this [competitive] culture to create relationships based on love and trust and mutual respect and commitment," I was describing the force for change that already exists in society and--if this force becomes more conscious of itself, more self-confident and more organized--is capable of changing the world.

New Golden Rule #3. ("Provide every human being the means necessary to meet their own needs but give them the freedom and responsibility to choose how to live.") makes a different point and, it seems to me, has a different purpose. It's not describing the force for change but the kind of social arrangement that ideally should exist after some change has occurred. It's not clear in the statement who will "Provide" the means necessary for humans to meet their own needs, but it sounds like a force standing above people, like a government.

I'm not sure if I'm interpreting this correctly. Am I, Jtabeb?

[jtabeb]

Re: The new golden rules

Regarding the New Golden Rules: I agree very much with #1.

#2 lacks a sense of context--a society which is immersed in a class war that affects every aspect of our lives. The point of understanding others is to organize our forces to fight more effectively in this war: we understand our shared problems and common goals to gain the confidence in each other to fight the common enemy with more success. In this struggle, each of us has things to learn from each other, since we all have different lives and have learned different things in the course of them. We need to get effectively organized to better understand the class enemy and to effectively mobilize our own class power.

#3 focuses too much on the individual and seems to suggest that it is in our power to "provide...the means necessary...." I think this is something--"meet their own needs"--that people will have to do collectively. And we can't "give them the freedom and responsibility"--freedom and responsibility are something that people have to take for themselves--but I certainly agree that they should have it.

Thought-provoking points.

I disagree with #2. It not us vs them, we win, they loose, that is a false construct. Win-Win is the construct that is needed.

Imagine how South Africa would have turned out after Nelson Mandella won the election if he would have gone to war against the white south africans that were responsible for his imprisionment and the repression of black south africans. There is a great movie you should see on the subject,

it's called Invictus

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1057500/

here is the text of the poem.

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

We are going to need everyone's collective buy in to meet the challenges that we face.

[jtabeb]

Re: The new golden rules

No you have my idea exactly correct. This is a new social covenent. The only thing you have wrong is "a force standing above the people" it's more like the people and the force standing co-equal, side by side, with neither superior or inferior to the one another. The way you make them co-equal is through structure of the monetary system, not through re-distribution or excessive taxation. That just punishes producers. It is not right to steal from the rich and give to the poor, just as it is wrong to steal from the poor and give to the rich. It IS RIGHT to provide the means neccessary for each human being to acheive self-actualization. All people on the planet should be entitled to food, water, air, shelter, health care, and education. They are given the means, it is up to them to choose wisely and spend to meet these needs. The reward for doing so, is futher advancement up Maslow's heirarchy of needs, it is it's own reward. But, should they run astray, and waste these means, they should understand that there is no free lunch, you have to hold yourself accountable for your own actions and have the integrity to admit that you have squandered your resources.


I want peace, not a war, and am offering this proposal as a way to make this all happen

You can call this construct, "Trickle-UP" economics. You provide the consumer with the means, which drives producers to compete to sell their goods and services on value provided to the consumer. Kind of Marx meets Adam Smith.

Go see the matrix trilogy, it like the ending of the third movie. We need a balance, a mutually agreeable solution that alows for peaceful co-existence.

In the movie the machines represent "The powers that be" and Humans represent the "Workers". We have the capacity to provide for all of humanities basic needs, but it will take both the mass of individuals and the the powers that be to accomplish this. A grand bargain, if you will.

The whole purpose of this construct was to try to establish what the fabric of this new agreement would look like.

And here is the socioe-conomic process to do it. (it's rough, but it works)

This is HOW we do it.

Okay got it.


Gotta have an alt e bubble first, it is a pre req.

This only works after we have a stable energy price and secure alternative supply with excess energy!

Commodity prices have to be allowed to rise at true market rates during this period before the transition, no downward manipulation or supply will give out. We have to let them run to get the supply that we need to do this. Helps third world economic development of course. Hurts us initially, but otherwise we just end up up shit creek without a paddle.

Other countries have to agree to this proposal. One more bubble then we all transition to the same economic model.

PM's are the reserve currency of the world after the transition, the standard by which all currencies are judged. Big inflation followed by permanently high pm prices. Chinese model of no tax on currency to pm to currency transactions.

Legal tender laws stay in place. You have to convert pm's to currency to use the purchasing power that they provide. Collect taxes in legal tender only, but no round trip tax burden on pm's( currency to pm and back to currency).

Every one has to agree, no cheating( cheaters will be put out of business in any case, so no need to worry, capital in the form of hard currency will flee any local that does not adhere to this construct to a destination that does.) Pm's are the store of value if the investment climate is poor and if national currencies are behaving poorly too. Currencies for spending and investing and paying taxes, pm's as store of value function and a check on misbehaving governments.


For the transition, it has to be quick and prearranged.


Too early to do it today, need energy infrastructure built up first, hence the need for a last bubble.



It has to be a market solution. Social credit has got to be the mechanism to transform the monetary system to the Friedman model of 100% reserves. This liquidates the debt and capitalizes banks. Banks have to offer competitive interest rates to attract deposits. They have demand checking deposit accounts and they also have shared equity savings accounts that are subject to market risk.

These are two different types of accounts and have different risks, rewards and protections. Checking accounts become the utility function of banking and have FDIC insurance. Savings accounts are the equity finance arm of banking, subject to market risk and institutional failure no fdic insurance. The real bills doctrine in electronic form. Self clearing (covered debt only, no protection
For debt that is not marketable for what the issuer says it is, you buy it, you are responsible for the gains or losses, if any) Covered housing bonds.


Government provides initial influx of excess currency emission to each person equally which they use to purchase assets and then transitions to regular public credit payments to each adult person who is 18 or older or is independent of their parents. You can't pay people to have kids, you'll have a population boom.

Once this influx is established and debt is liquidated through currency emission government receipts from taxes and tariffs provide operating revenue. Same thing for our foreign debt, it gets paid in cash to wipe it out. Currency emission is then fixed to the number of people in the population. Gov is the alpha and omega in the process. It creates the currency which people then spend.

It recirculates currency by paying out social credit and by spending on government purchases of goods and services. That part is really important or you will have a run away money supply.

The social credit is payed out ( after the initial disbursement) as a dividend to citizens. It is collected and then distributed, NOT printed!!! The government has to run like a corporation. That last part Is key, to keep the system from constantly inflating social credit must be paid out of inflows back to the government.

We bill others for the global stability we provide (a global trade tax, that goes to all nations that provide for global trade security). We get paid for the service we offer to other countries around the world, as do others nations that help with this service. This encourages other countries to want to help provide for global security.

People have to pay for government goods and services that they want, I think the end version of the health care provisions plus the public option give enough choice on health care. It the gov does it better and cheaper than the private sector then for that role, the gov should rule the market. ( as decided by the consumer, a market remember). If the private sector rules a sector ( again, as decided by the consumer) then it should rule and gov should get out of the way. Consumer choice is the
decider, if you will.

The currency system forms a loop. There has to be initial excess money in the system when the process starts. Otherwise government would take in all the money available. The government can only add to the social credit available when a new citizen turns 18.

The government must run a surplus, this surplus is the basis for the social credit. If the surplus is reduced either the budget must be cut or the surplus must be reduced or both. The converse is also true. It is imparative that this is GAAP compatible.Fixing government costs becomes imparitive and all costs have to brought onto the books. No off budget items.


I think that is it. That should be the stable model after the alt-e bubble.


I think my tax policy is already pretty clear.


Need carbon tax before transition but can't change other tax structures before, VAT must come AFTER transition.


After transition,


Carbon tax

No income tax or flat income tax only

Vat tax with pre refund for 60-75% of total amount, everyone must pay some taxes.

Vat taxes must be shared with states based on how much revenue each state generates.

(Cali gets more than Oregon for example) it is proportional to revenue.

No more state sales taxes.


No state income taxes, gone. Never disincentivize hard work!!


States keep property tax ability, but I would prefer a national property tax rate, that only goes to fund state and local government. I think it won't fly though, even though I think it Is the best solution.

[jtabeb]

Re: The new golden rules

The old golden rule is very narcissistic if you think about it. I mean, you are saying that you know best how others want to be treated. Don't they really know best how they want to be treated?

Monetary policy provides the means, see post below.

Everyone gets enough to meet the basic Maslow Heirarch of needs, the rest is up to them. (If you work this would be in addition to what you get, your share of societies excess value). Everyone get's the same amount of excess value, but people are free to earn more than this through work.

Yeah, this is all about economic freedom, and all about dismanteling the tyranny that divides us.

It is about making sure that each human being is offered the means and the opportunity (not the guarantee) of meeting all their
basic needs as defined by maslow (air, water, food, shelter, healthcare, education), but this also places the responsibility for the effective use of these resources on the individual.

It levels the playing field and everyone at least gets to start on the 20 yard line, but everyone still has to make their own plays and score their own touchdowns.

This is a socio-economic philosophy, not politics.

It is the "critical path" Buckminster Fuller spoke of. It is what is necessary for our continued evolution and advancment as a species and a society.

[Dave Stratman]

Re: The new golden rules

I disagree with #2. It not us vs them, we win, they loose, that is a false construct. Win-Win is the construct that is needed.

Imagine how South Africa would have turned out after Nelson Mandella won the election if he would have gone to war against the white south africans that were responsible for his imprisionment and the repression of black south africans. There is a great movie you should see on the subject,

it's called Invictus

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1057500/

here is the text of the poem.

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

We are going to need everyone's collective buy in to meet the challenges that we face.

Post-apartheid South Africa proves my case that there can be no win-win solution: the ruling powers must be defeated and turned out of power; otherwise whatever changes occur in society are mere playacting, a sham.

I haven't seen Invictus, but I do know a little about South Africa post-apartheid. The changeover in SA society changed the color of the politicians but left the IMF, the bankers, and the multinational corporations in charge. In the years since Mandela was swept into office in 1994, living standards for most South Africans plunged dramatically, and South Africa has become the most unequal society in the world. Rather than getting land reform, nationalization of the great natural resources of the South African diamond and gold mines, and other revolutionary changes sought by the millions who had fought against apartheid and for a more equal society, the working people of South Africa instead were subjected to sweeping and destructive changes. Under pressure from international capital, water, electricity, and phone lines were privatized. Millions of South Africans are now without these things, which have been priced out of reach for 40% of the population. The result of these and other changes is that, "Since 1990, the year that Mandela left prison, the average life expectancy for South Africans has dropped by thirteen years." (Naomi Klein, The Shock Doctrine, p. 260)

The class war is a zero-sum game. When society is controlled by an oligarchy that will stop at nothing to hold onto its power--as is the case in South Africa and the U.S. and everywhere else you might care to name--no meaningful change can occur without destroying the power of the powers that be. History and logic make that perfectly clear. The people who controlled South Africa during apartheid weren't whites in general, though that's who the government claimed to represent, but the same powerful banks and corporations which control it now.

What possible reason is there to think that the sociopaths who ran South African society or who run the U.S. would willingly give up their power? How many people have they killed or tortured or impoverished, how many wars have they begun, how many billions have they spent on armaments, how many trillions have they given to their banker friends, how many lies have they told to get where they are today?

And if one of them or some of them should have a sudden change of heart and decide to live like a decent human being and give up their power to dominate others, what would it matter? The problem is not just the individuals at the top of the heap but the system of elite domination itself. That system cannot be wished away. It can only be destroyed and replaced with a democracy rooted in the best values shared by ordinary people, rather than the brutal values of our rulers.

[jtabeb]

Re: The new golden rules

see my economic model and tell me if the outcome would have been different.

V/R

JT

[DSpencer]

Re: The new golden rules

All people on the planet should be entitled to food, water, air, shelter, health care, and education.

The question is what does "entitled" mean? Does it mean that the property (food, water etc) of others and the skills and labor (doctors, teachers) of others are the rightful property of whoever wants them for free? How is that not theft and slavery? Or are these entitlements such a worthy goal that freedom and property rights are secondary concerns? If all you are saying is that people should have the right to obtain these things through their own efforts, then I agree. That's not typically what is meant when people these days discuss the "entitlement" of health care and other such things.

The old golden rule is very narcissistic if you think about it. I mean, you are saying that you know best how others want to be treated. Don't they really know best how they want to be treated?

So if people should be treated how they themselves want to be treated, because other people aren't in a position to know best what they want, then how can people treat others in the way they want if it's unknowable to anyone else?

This is the problem with the popular "new" golden rule: Do unto others as they would have you do unto them.

I think the point of the original golden rule was to provide a general guideline that other people should be treated the same way you expect to be treated. In other words, the golden rule tells you to treat others as your equals. I see nothing narcissistic about that. In my opinion the old golden rule encompasses the new one where possible if you don't think about it superficially.

If you want others to make an attempt to understand you as an individual and treat you accordingly then you should do the same to others. It doesn't mean a steak lover tries to force a vegan to eat meat just because they like it. It means they are respectful to their individual habits because that's what they would want for themselves.

If everyone actually tried to live according to the old golden rule, it would solve about 90% of problems.

[Dave Stratman]

Re: The new golden rules

No you have my idea exactly correct. This is a new social covenent. The only thing you have wrong is "a force standing above the people" it's more like the people and the force standing co-equal, side by side, with neither superior or inferior to the one another. The way you make them co-equal is through structure of the monetary system, not through re-distribution or excessive taxation. That just punishes producers. It is not right to steal from the rich and give to the poor, just as it is wrong to steal from the poor and give to the rich. It IS RIGHT to provide the means neccessary for each human being to acheive self-actualization. All people on the planet should be entitled to food, water, air, shelter, health care, and education. They are given the means, it is up to them to choose wisely and spend to meet these needs. The reward for doing so, is futher advancement up Maslow's heirarchy of needs, it is it's own reward. But, should they run astray, and waste these means, they should understand that there is no free lunch, you have to hold yourself accountable for your own actions and have the integrity to admit that you have squandered your resources.


I want peace, not a war, and am offering this proposal as a way to make this all happen

You can call this construct, "Trickle-UP" economics. You provide the consumer with the means, which drives producers to compete to sell their goods and services on value provided to the consumer. Kind of Marx meets Adam Smith.

Go see the matrix trilogy, it like the ending of the third movie. We need a balance, a mutually agreeable solution that alows for peaceful co-existence.

In the movie the machines represent "The powers that be" and Humans represent the "Workers". We have the capacity to provide for all of humanities basic needs, but it will take both the mass of individuals and the the powers that be to accomplish this. A grand bargain, if you will.

The whole purpose of this construct was to try to establish what the fabric of this new agreement would look like.

And here is the socioe-conomic process to do it. (it's rough, but it works)

This is HOW we do it.

Okay got it.


Gotta have an alt e bubble first, it is a pre req.

This only works after we have a stable energy price and secure alternative supply with excess energy!

Commodity prices have to be allowed to rise at true market rates during this period before the transition, no downward manipulation or supply will give out. We have to let them run to get the supply that we need to do this. Helps third world economic development of course. Hurts us initially, but otherwise we just end up up shit creek without a paddle.

Other countries have to agree to this proposal. One more bubble then we all transition to the same economic model.

PM's are the reserve currency of the world after the transition, the standard by which all currencies are judged. Big inflation followed by permanently high pm prices. Chinese model of no tax on currency to pm to currency transactions.

Legal tender laws stay in place. You have to convert pm's to currency to use the purchasing power that they provide. Collect taxes in legal tender only, but no round trip tax burden on pm's( currency to pm and back to currency).

Every one has to agree, no cheating( cheaters will be put out of business in any case, so no need to worry, capital in the form of hard currency will flee any local that does not adhere to this construct to a destination that does.) Pm's are the store of value if the investment climate is poor and if national currencies are behaving poorly too. Currencies for spending and investing and paying taxes, pm's as store of value function and a check on misbehaving governments.


For the transition, it has to be quick and prearranged.


Too early to do it today, need energy infrastructure built up first, hence the need for a last bubble.



It has to be a market solution. Social credit has got to be the mechanism to transform the monetary system to the Friedman model of 100% reserves. This liquidates the debt and capitalizes banks. Banks have to offer competitive interest rates to attract deposits. They have demand checking deposit accounts and they also have shared equity savings accounts that are subject to market risk.

These are two different types of accounts and have different risks, rewards and protections. Checking accounts become the utility function of banking and have FDIC insurance. Savings accounts are the equity finance arm of banking, subject to market risk and institutional failure no fdic insurance. The real bills doctrine in electronic form. Self clearing (covered debt only, no protection
For debt that is not marketable for what the issuer says it is, you buy it, you are responsible for the gains or losses, if any) Covered housing bonds.


Government provides initial influx of excess currency emission to each person equally which they use to purchase assets and then transitions to regular public credit payments to each adult person who is 18 or older or is independent of their parents. You can't pay people to have kids, you'll have a population boom.

Once this influx is established and debt is liquidated through currency emission government receipts from taxes and tariffs provide operating revenue. Same thing for our foreign debt, it gets paid in cash to wipe it out. Currency emission is then fixed to the number of people in the population. Gov is the alpha and omega in the process. It creates the currency which people then spend.

It recirculates currency by paying out social credit and by spending on government purchases of goods and services. That part is really important or you will have a run away money supply.

The social credit is payed out ( after the initial disbursement) as a dividend to citizens. It is collected and then distributed, NOT printed!!! The government has to run like a corporation. That last part Is key, to keep the system from constantly inflating social credit must be paid out of inflows back to the government.

We bill others for the global stability we provide (a global trade tax, that goes to all nations that provide for global trade security). We get paid for the service we offer to other countries around the world, as do others nations that help with this service. This encourages other countries to want to help provide for global security.

People have to pay for government goods and services that they want, I think the end version of the health care provisions plus the public option give enough choice on health care. It the gov does it better and cheaper than the private sector then for that role, the gov should rule the market. ( as decided by the consumer, a market remember). If the private sector rules a sector ( again, as decided by the consumer) then it should rule and gov should get out of the way. Consumer choice is the
decider, if you will.

The currency system forms a loop. There has to be initial excess money in the system when the process starts. Otherwise government would take in all the money available. The government can only add to the social credit available when a new citizen turns 18.

The government must run a surplus, this surplus is the basis for the social credit. If the surplus is reduced either the budget must be cut or the surplus must be reduced or both. The converse is also true. It is imparative that this is GAAP compatible.Fixing government costs becomes imparitive and all costs have to brought onto the books. No off budget items.


I think that is it. That should be the stable model after the alt-e bubble.


I think my tax policy is already pretty clear.


Need carbon tax before transition but can't change other tax structures before, VAT must come AFTER transition.


After transition,


Carbon tax

No income tax or flat income tax only

Vat tax with pre refund for 60-75% of total amount, everyone must pay some taxes.

Vat taxes must be shared with states based on how much revenue each state generates.

(Cali gets more than Oregon for example) it is proportional to revenue.

No more state sales taxes.


No state income taxes, gone. Never disincentivize hard work!!


States keep property tax ability, but I would prefer a national property tax rate, that only goes to fund state and local government. I think it won't fly though, even though I think it Is the best solution.

I don't pretend to understand all that you are proposing, but I will say that if it would in any way threaten the power of those presently in power, they would fight it tooth and nail. To the extent that there is anything good in it, it is pie in the sky.

The ruling elite need and want there to be massive inequality and insecurity in society; they need and want there to be desperately poor people; they need and want there to be constant warfare; they need and want there to be frictions and divisions among people based on color and nationality and gender and religion. These things are encouraged because they are so useful to those in power.

Labor is the source of all wealth. Working people have produced sufficient wealth that everyone could have decent food, shelter, clean water, health care, etc., if resources were distributed more equally. (The last stat I remember on this matter was that 384 billionaires hold more wealth than the bottom 40% of the world's people. Of course there needs to be massive redistribution of wealth. The governments of the world have been redistributing wealth upwards for the last three or four decades.)

But the ruling elites don't dare permit the masses of people to enjoy a secure and comfortable livelihood. Why? Because unless they are insecure, people are not controllable.

The ruling rich learned their lesson in the 1960s. Their strategy of social control after WWII was to spread prosperity to the working classes. They reasoned that, with food on their table, a car in their garage, and a chance for them or their children to go to college, workers would become docile and content. But look what happened. The more secure and prosperous people became, the more their expectations rose--of what their lives should be like, of their right to participate in society. In capitalist and communist societies around the world, people rose up against their rulers. In May 1968 ten million French workers occupied their factories and offices and universities (Charles DeGaulle fled France with his wife for the French military base at Baden-Baden, only being persuaded to return by the commanding general there). Students and workers fought Soviet tanks in Prague. Massive strikes swept Mexico and Italy and countless other countries. In the U.S. millions opposed the Vietnam War in the streets and soldiers in the field began to kill their officers and refuse to fight. Workers challenged the companies and their unions in a wave of wild-cat strikes. Black people rebelled in the streets and in the cities, while students struck against the war.

This world-wide revolution of rising expectations scared the hell out of the rulers and convinced them that people's expectations had to be severely ratcheted down. The rulers were convinced that to hold onto their rule, people had to be made to feel frightened for their livelihoods and their future. The driving force behind all the major federal legislation of the past decades--since 1972 to be exact--has been to heighten elite control over people by making them more insecure. This is the key reason for shipping millions of jobs to low wage areas overseas, shifting the tax burden from corporations to individuals, slashing social programs like welfare and unemployment insurance, attacking pensions, and now creating a federal deficit crisis by transferring $13 trillion in public money to private bankers. This is an artificial crisis, designed not just to enrich the bankers, but to legitimize attacking Social Security, Medicare, and imposing dramatically lower living standards on Americans, just as austerity is being imposed on Europeans. The crisis is not mainly about money but about social control. The rulers of the world are attempting to take back every social benefit and every bit of power that people have won in the last 120 years , to make them more controllable.

So again the lesson is, I think, that the class war is a zero-sum game, that the rulers give up nothing meaningful without a fight, and that the only way to create a better world is to break the stranglehold of the Masters of Great Wealth on our society and build society on a new basis.

[jtabeb]

Re: The new golden rules

What if you entire assement of the motivations of the elites is completely false (or even partially false)? Then is not your entire construct invalidated?

Have A LITTLE, faith. Okay? (just a little)

I do.