The Great Economic Dilemma

Sensationalizing American capitalism as the one best economic system for such a diverse socio-economic habitancy of people, as is the United States, is, in and of itself, a multi-million dollar company which well-paid pundits are using quite effectively to improve their own financial standings. This is in direct correlation with the unrestrained pragmatism of acquiring wealth, the capitalist ideology, which is the chief concern of the affluent 3 percent of the nation who operate 98 percent of American wealth. For in such a nation as the United States, the only way rampant laissez-fare capitalism can flourish without a violent socio-economic upheaval, by a revolt of the struggling 97 percent of the population, is straight through such a propaganda ministry devoted to sophistically persuading the lower-middle class, and the abject poor, that the rich are not getting systematically richer and that the poor are not getting inexorably poorer. These cajoling sophists are manufacture it seem, to the wage-bound 97 percent of population, that the prevailing system is working effectively according to the esoteric constitutional mandate of promoting the general welfare.

Retained Profits

Lean economic times, often called recessions and depressions, are times of unrestrained misery for the poor and simple idle production for the rich. Contrary to beloved belief, these dispensations of meager capital venture are hardly accidental cyclic periods in the efficient life of corporate capitalism. Though capitalists want the bulk of the American habitancy to believe that these artificial austerities are mere benign hiccups in the lowly progression of general company activities, they are, rather, the end supervene of a system predicated upon the pragmatic acquisition of profit and upon the amount one adversary of communal equality, human greed. The absurd understanding that capitalism is useful to the poor is as much a delusionary principle, taught by well-compensated exponents of the economic ideology, as was totalitarian communist ideology, taught by vehement Marxists. As such, the constraints of being continually poor, without the basic necessities of life, as being life-long members of a meager economic caste, aren't recognized and decried in a system extolling profit over utilitarian justice. To the rich, the poor and unemployed habitancy is a natural, and essential, by-product of a viable capitalist system. In the midst of poverty and deprivation you have scads of pacifying euphemisms poured out by the haves onto the have-nots, persuasively encouraging them to be commonly satisfied with the meager status quo of their lives.

For instance, during the recent months throughout the U.S., when the price of gasoline rose above .50 per gallon, countless billions of dollars of profit were generated for the already wealthy fossil-fuel fat cats. Conversely, there was a pathetic loss of money for poor families who had to pay the exorbitant prices to fill-up their gas tanks. Then suddenly the price of a gallon of gas suddenly plummets to below .50 per gallon. For the sake of the deluded individuals earning less than ,000 per year, who were forced to spend .00-or-more to ordinarily fill-up their automobile gas tanks, in order to get to work every day and take care of family business, the propagandizing pundits, the television's talking heads, glibly generated esoteric numbers, convoluted statistics, and corporate company analyses to make it seem that the economy was essentially working for the benefit of the have-nots. These deluded hardworking consumers, who are, in most cases, family-bound wage earners, watched Cnn, and the other network news presentations, and religiously assured themselves that those educated knowledgeable commentators must be correct, or they wouldn't be allowed to say what they do. Most of these consumers effortlessly accept what they see and hear from these, supposedly, knowledgeable habitancy as gospel truth. They are told to be happy with a system that is inherently flawed and only advantageous for the wealthy 2-to-3 percent of the nation.

Consequently, you will never hear from those pundits the basic fundamental causes for the economic woes of the republic, whose government cares minute for the basic human ownership and dignities of the much greater amount of citizens who work to their detriment to finance such a government. They will never hear from these propagandists that the prices of a gallon of gas, and all other basic indispensable necessities, never surely have to rise in cost in a properly structured and managed economy.

Getting directly to the point, when the American dollar (the silver certificate) was worth 90-to-100 percent of its value, prior to 1960, something basically worth 5 cents wasn't arbitrarily and destructively assigned the value of a dollar, or a hundred cents. Yet, when a system of private bankers (the Federal sustain Board) was allowed to politically control, over time, the value of American money, or communal tender, something basically worth 50 cents one day could be manipulated to be worth well over 0.00 on another. This was the sad supervene of the Federal sustain Act, which was signed into law in 1913 by Woodrow Wilson and changed, without constitutional amendment, the mandate placed into narrative 1, Section 8 by the Framers, which stipulated that the Congress, or the legislative branch, possess, and exercise, the sole exclusive power to coin money and to determine its value. Sadly, somewhere along the way the United States Government's character, integrity, and communal conscience, which should surely be brilliantly reflected in the care and regard it has for the security and welfare of the greater amount of American citizens, were tragically compromised and then lost. Somehow, along the way, the U.S. Consummate Court became politicized and was permitted by an apathetic American electorate to render precedent-setting interpretations of narrative 1, Section 8, Clause 17, commonly referred to as the indispensable and permissible Clause, in such cases as McCullough v. Maryland, 1819. This singular case was the original lynchpin that allowed Congress to pass laws, with impunity, to alter the rules of the U.S. Constitution in lieu of constitutional amendment. While some habitancy would, strangely, not think the Federal sustain Act unconstitutional, as some didn't regard the congressional act chartering the Second Bank of the United States unconstitutional, the fact remains that the U.S. Consummate Court confirmed a law as constitutional that, in 1913, altered the singular textual power of the legislative field to regulate the value of money.

I think it is much like what occurred in 1969, when the U.S. Consummate Court, under Consummate Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, handed down the landmark decision, Terry v. Ohio, which altered, without constitutional amendment, the text of the 4th Amendment. Essentially, Terry v. Ohio, 1969, changed the requirement imposed by the 4th Amendment that police officers (municipal, county, state, and federal) have probable cause in order to stop, detain, and quest a person. In an 8-to-1 majority vote, the Court ruled that a police officer must only have uncostly suspicion that a person has committed a crime, or is about to commit a crime, in order to seize and quest that person. The only dissenting vote was from Justice William O. Douglas, who wrote in his dissenting understanding that if the letter of the U.S. Constitution is to be changed, let it, rather, be done by, and through, the amendment process, by the will of the people, than by fiat. Douglas blatantly appealed to surmise in his writing when he also said that the stairway to totalitarianism begins with such rulings. Hence, if the U.S. Consummate Court can alter the letter of U.S. Constitution by the institution of precedent-setting judicial review, what can't it do to turn the Framers basic intent, set forth as the basic rulebook of the U.S. Government? If the U.S. Constitution still states, in the text of the 4th Amendment, that probable cause is ultimately indispensable for a police officer to seize and quest a person, why does a U.S. Consummate Court decision only requiring uncostly suspicion trump the Bill of Rights? Likewise, if the U.S. Constitution still states, in narrative 1, Section 8, Clause 17, that Congress possess the exclusive power and authority to coin money and regulate its value, how can Congress perhaps relinquish that duty to the administrative Branch, and to the profligate jurisdiction of a group of private bankers?

Getting back to the seminar of political economy, the surmise for the American Framers insistence in the U.S. Constitution that the value of money be determined, and regulated, by the elected representatives of the habitancy was that, perhaps, the welfare of the greater amount of citizens would be a greater original concern for those chosen by the voters to legislate the republic's laws, than for unelected individuals more implicated with their own financial welfare. I must believe that a few of the Founding Fathers were desirous to see the manifestation of law as a means of insuring equity, justice, and communal equality rather than merely establishing and maintaining communal order. Perhaps, in such a broad view, most of the Framers intended for the U.S. Congress to be infused with new representation every two years, for representatives, and every six years, for senators. I can see where such regular representational turn would proscribe cronyism and dynastic political influences, which continual re-election of the same senators, and representatives, would encourage and proliferate.

The American Constitution was intended to be, and should remain as, a basic rulebook for efficient central government. Yet, nothing about the creation and maintenance of a political economy is mentioned within its articles and sections. Consequently, the laws which have been created and enforced by the federal government, since its inception in 1789, have basically determined, and shaped, the type of economy that has prevailed upon the people. By the same token, such law has also determined whether, or not, the existing economy has been for the purpose of promoting the communal welfare, or for the detriment of the majority of the republic's citizens. As I have said before, in other essays, the wealthy organizers of a community have powers and influence which the poor, of that society, are continually without, and, by human nature, seek to sustain their wealth and power over time straight through the legislation of laws which are to their benefit. Nonetheless, if the rulebook for efficient legitimate government is meticulously followed by the individuals elected to recite the citizens of the republic, and the created laws reflect the legislative rules, the chance for eventual communal equity exists even if such equity and equality were not gift at the outset. If it is not determined followed, then the community ceases to be a nation of laws and becomes a nation of conspiring human beings, bent on deriving the greatest personal hedonistic benefit from the system in place.

Now comes the awful blow to an existing economic system, which is not predicated on purely constitutional law. Under laws legislated for the benefit of the wealthy few, those few of a very large heterogeneous habitancy have much to loose by a restructuring of the economy in spoton accordance with the rulebook. I'm talking about currently less than three million wealthy people, and their ancestors, who have benefited greatly, for the past 100 years, from an economic system based on laws not in deal with U.S. Constitution. Hence, by abolishing the illegal institutions which have helped the few and harmed the many, the few who have prospered thereby will obviously suffer from such a radical, but necessary, change. If the Federal sustain Act is repealed and the Federal sustain Board abolished, the money coined by Congress should be predicated again on a gold or silver standard. Fort Knox should be re-opened and the nation's supply of gold should underscore every dollar printed for communal tender. Then the dollar would be worth one-hundred cents, or 100 percent of its intrinsic value. Resultantly, money existing only on contract reputation paper would cease to exist and the habitancy bound in turmoil by reputation debts would lose the possessions that they have, which are in actuality owned by banks and reputation companies. If a gold accepted was again set in place, the multi-trillion dollar national debt would be considerably less based upon a 100 percent dollar value, and inflation would virtually cease to exist. Then a chocolate Hershey bar would again be no more than ten cents in price, a gallon of milk would be well under a dollar, and a loaf of bread no more than fifty cents.

Is this possible? Yes it surely is. In fact, if the 111th Congress would get behind the sage economic designate for turn proposed by Texas Representative Ron Paul, and, within the first 100 days of its legislative action repeal the Federal sustain Act and abolish the Fed, the return to a gold and silver accepted wouldn't take long at all to implement. But the U.S. Senate is, unfortunately, comprised of 100 of those very wealthy and financially suited habitancy who consist of the ruling 3 percent of the nation. The U.S. House of Representatives is also comprised of many super-wealthy politicians. That's why only the very wealthy and powerful, habitancy like Caroline Kennedy, are determined as worthy candidates for federal elected office.

If economic conditions persist in this country, wherein the poor and struggling habitancy of this republic are systematically disfranchised, the needed turn will unavoidably occur straight through violent revolution. The way it presently is, that the poor and struggling bulk of the nation's habitancy are heavily taxed by federal, state, county, and municipal governments, without that habitancy of habitancy seeing the bulk of their taxes used for their express benefit, there is minute realizable equity in such an economic system. A restructuring of the economy "could" feasibly be predicated on an old constitutional mandate that has never been realized in this nation. That is, the creation of a democratic socialist state where high taxes yield high communal services in order to promote the general welfare for "all" citizens who pay them. That wouldn't mean that private industry would suddenly disappear. It would mean, however, that the federal and state governments would work hand-in-hand to ensure that every citizen, who has paid, or is paying, federal, state, county, and municipal taxes is guaranteed a capability of life where free time from hunger, unemployment, a lack of medical care, and a lack of permissible security are human ownership and not merely money-based privileges. It would mean that private industry, and corporation ownership and use of private property, would continue under a mandated communal conscience, much like that found in the Federal Republic of Germany, or in Finland; that the private clubs which hire citizens will pay much higher taxes for the communal welfare and benefit of their employees. If you stop to think about it, communal security and the veteran's healthcare system were created by the federal government to fulfill a communal compulsion to the elderly and to those "who have borne the battle, and for their widows and orphans." Aren't all working citizens just as worthy?

The countless billions of dollars which are ordinarily sent out of this country to vocalize a rabid and meaningless federal foreign policy, which, under a re-structured economy would be millions instead of billions, should, instead, be used for the express benefit of the habitancy who work to supply the government with that money. Federally elected officers should be paid much, much less for their services, and term limits should be set for U.S. Representatives and senators in order to ensure that conniving political dynasties do not evolve over the decades, and that young, socially motivated habitancy of foresight are continually elected to communal office. Unless this occurs, a bloody violent revolution is utterly imminent, which will, by force, turn an inequitable economic system that would be best changed straight through a peaceful rehearsal of wisdom. Nonetheless, that's the way it's been throughout history, and sad regrettable history does continually repeat itself because human beings are not apt, and willing, to learn from their poignant mistakes.