About Truth and Reality

ABOUT TRUTH

and

Was a legal economic unreality in 2008 apparent when the US economy was at the brink of crashing? : G P Brockway wrote this: 1

It is not possible to say absolutely how much money disappears in a crash. Estimates of the losses in 1987 seem now to have settled at around a trillion dollars. Whatever it was, a vast sum simply vanished.

[How can something that is real simply vanish?]

Stock Markets are indexes of average expected value on which brokeragebased trading occurs, which while symptomatic of an economic crash, are not usually the causal source: producer or consumer sectors of economy are the usual causal culprits. Stock investors, the owners of capital-based claims on productions, however, are primary bearers of capital losses in a crash.

And, wage-earning consumers are consequential paradoxical bearers of the crash-based losses. General economy wanes in economic recessions and waxes when relative consistency and balance is maintained between investment-production and product-services consumption (The “golden rule of accumulation” is the economic goal). US politics, however, is unsettled as to the constitutional basis of economic success: B. Russell observed a basic difference involving belief-based truth, and reason-based truth:2 Whatever we are acquainted with must be something: we may draw wrong inference from our acquaintance, but the acquaintance itself cannot be deceptive. Thus, there is ‘no dualism’ as regards acquaintance. But as regards ‘knowledge’ of truths, there is ‘dualism.’ We may ‘believe’ what is false as well as what is true.

Temporally, only when all falsehood is eliminated, does ‘no dualism’-based pure truth exist: Then Parrington noted that commonly believed cultural fallacy had conflated natural essence-based rights. Parrington mentioned Ralph Waldo Emerson, as providing ‘no dualism’-based context to the

2 orthodox cultural conflation of naturally essential principles by Federalists:3 As one would expect of a Connecticut Federalist, Theodore Woolsey was renewing the fight against an infidel [i.e., reasoned no dualism-based] philosophy that with its doctrine of natural rights denied the authority of the godly [i.e., a Federalist dogmatic belief] to police society. In harmony with Lieber and Calhoun he rejected the [‘no dualism’-based] romance doctrine of natural rights, and substituted a [‘dualism’-based] composite [hedonist or sensualist] socialistic conception, that from John Winthrop and Roger Williams to Channing and Emerson had colored the Puritan thought of New England. [Federalists concocted the composite socialistic conception.]

The political contest is not new, however, as ‘antinomy’ (anti nomos) was attested in this centuries-old passage about the Socratic debate:4 Like Western philosophy in general, philosophy of law in particular first emerged in ancient Greece. In the 5th century BC the Sophists and Socrates, along with his followers, took up the question of the nature of law.

Both recognized a distinction between things that exist by nature (physis, with no dualism) and those that exist by human-made convention (nomos, with inherent paradoxical dualism). Sophists . . . tended to place law in the latter category, whereas Socrates put it in the former, as did Plato.

Sophists’ legal opinions of old, as Federalists’, were acquaintance-based beliefs, as asserted, that failed to distinguish dualism-based ‘consequents,’ from dualism-free natural ‘antecedent principles’(Whigs did the same when expediently they asserted, as dualism-free economic principle, mechanismbased (determinism-based) causality (i.e., the material World acts as a big machine): Then when in political administrative control of US government, Whigs officially codified the mechanism-based American System of Political Economy: since then, a dogmatic materialist political economic practicing of nihilism and positivism, in the name of “unearned profit,” ignores or says no to dualism-free naturally ‘true’ essential principles.

Mechanists’ politically affirmed ideologies blatantly ignore the paradoxical endemic economic determinism, i.e., dualism-based causality, called mechanism, on which the US economy’s deontology is based: inflation endemism, for instance, is a source of a paradoxical economic myriad. 5 Capitalist conservatives are dogmatic believers in unregulated (i.e., self correcting) Supply Side economics, While liberals are convinced by Keynes

3 “major thesis”: that positive government action [is] necessary to extricate the economy” 6 , as was needed following the “Great Depression.” Keynes thesis was proved, as practical, because it worked. About this, L. Beman provided this political contrast (the emphasis is mine):7 Supply-side economics constitutes a counterrevolution against both the theory and the related policy prescriptions of John Maynard Keynes. It is, in a broad sense, a return to the classical tradition of Adam Smith and Jean Baptiste Say, whose famous law of markets states that supply always creates it own demand. That was the proposition that Keynes was supposed to have laid to rest in demonstrating that capitalist economics had an inherent tendency toward underemployment [i.e., failed in the sense of the Constitution’s purpose to serve “all” members of society (So, which underemployed member is served by Say’s famous law of markets )], but supply-siders say that [Keynes] argument was logically flawed. They charge that government attempts to offset temporary weakness in private demand by deficit spending have become a major source of economic instability. [Social Security, Medicare, and now Healthcare are targeted examples of this deficit spending-based conservative charge.]

However, the ‘supply-side’ argument suffers, as facts clearly show that deficits during conservative administrations are causally related to economic crashes (which since 1984 implicates SS surplus contribution taxes spent by government as its general revenue) were coincident with creative investment schemes that resulted in concupiscent capital privatization: government now owes the SS Trust Fund $ trillions.

And also, the “unreality” of “unearned income” which legal geometrically compounded enuring of debt-based loans is addressed.

Annotated excerpts are from DeYoung’s document, Our Federal Savings Plan: They provide context to the economic crashes that are apparent economic “unreality,” for which mechanist supply-side conservative politics is most blameworthy.

M. H. DeYoung All rights reserved

4 TOPICAL GUIDE Excerpt from 251: Background of the supply-side problem Excerpt from 255: teflon-coated mechanist lie Excerpt from 256: Preserving Economic Baby Excerpts from 207 and 208 Should our political economy be improved?

Excerpt from 251 (more): paradox: supply v.s. demand Roger Sherman’s constitutional purpose (teleology) more from 207 belief-based truth, as contrasted with reason-based truth Excerpt from 253 Is justice of nomos or physis?

Excerpt from 212 There is no reality except in action the present has no equal We must always act in the present Dr. Read’s lesson The “golden ratio” The golden rule of accumulation G. P. Brockway challenges mercantilism-based rights Professor Schumperter’s analysis Which part of capitalism justified paternalism Thomas Jorling’s concern Evidence

4 17 29 45 52 61 63 74 77 79 91 99 102 102 102 103 105 105 106 106 110 110 122

Endnotes

124

5 This excerpt from 251 provides politics and facts about ‘Supply Side’ economics, as first practiced in Reagan’s administration Capitalist orthodoxy is a recidivist in that it sponsors economic dutybased deontology that relapses when politically empowered! This belief-based deontology, when fallaciously affirmed as no dualism-based principle, dogmatically blames the SS system on the basis of its isolated budgetary necessity, in which compounding inflation is covertly mechanized: a tax that grows geometrically, and thereby determines to not only overpower the SS system of insurance, but also threatens to become the nation’s main pseudo economic purpose. Does this legal deontological fallacy, politically affirmed as principle, represent a political conspiracy or paradox: even as Parrington had cited the following, Federalist-Whig proclivity to fallaciously ‘deny antecedents’ or ‘affirm consequents’: 8

The tariff bill of 1824 got only one vote from Massachusetts; but in the four years between the passage of that act and the “Tariff of Abominations” of 1828, Massachusetts went over definitely to industrialism. Thens forth she was to be the leader in the movement looking to government paternalism, substituting the expansive Federalism of Hamilton for the restrictive Federalism of Fisher Ames, and becoming in consequence whole-hartedly nationalistic. . . .

Massachusetts . . . property interests were as secure as any old Federalist could have wished. Gentlemen of principle and property were still in control of the state; and if less emphasis was laid on principle [physis] and more on property [nomos] -- if less regard seemed to be paid to gentlemen of breeding and manners, and more to assertive self-seeking -- business was no less secure than in the good old days, and its profits were greater. . . . Provided of course that the Constitution should follow population and safeguard business interests against . . .the menace of particularism. In the hour of peril, principles go by the board. The Whig party was the lineal heir of the old Federalism, but it denied its philosophical patrimony. It substituted expediency for the old economic realism, and began and ended intellectually bankrupt.. . . aside from petty

6 antagonism to [democratic principles] of Jackson -- was the vague assumption that the well-being of the American people was dependent on governmental patronage; the belief that each economic group and section must receive its special favor, and that through tariffs and bonuses and internal improvements the country as a whole must prosper. Of this principle of special favors -- a return to the seventeenth century from which eighteenth century liberalism was a reaction -- the American System of Henry Clay was the chief expression, and it remains the most significant bequest of the Whig party to our political history.

Expecting politics of capitalist mechanists to be rational is akin to expecting belief that eggs are the natural antecedents of chickens (where each temporal reality paradoxically is the antecedent of the other: that the logically ‘true’ antecedent to both natural consequents, which only has principle necessity, is dogmatically illogically denied by the mechanist orthodox unitary materialist belief?) Mechanist orthodoxy is dogmatic and hedonistic, particularly as regards ‘true’ necessary antecedences: And when in administrative control of government, is an irrational cause of cultural havoc and devastation due to induced paradoxes! All cultural change from orthodoxy is reactive and therefore deemed as ‘radical,’ despite the irrationally affirmed consequents that are paradoxical, in replacement of natural dualism-free principle antecedences.

G. P. Brockway points to the mechanist orthodox affirmed antecedent notion of rights, as illogically mechanistically applying unequally to wage-earned labor. And to this, Brockway declares: there is no right that capitalists claim, that cannot equally be claimed by labor.

Labor’s unequal rights, is the economic result of capitalist orthodoxy, which officially and legally affirmed mechanist economic advantage to capitalists’ as their exclusive right, for to serve the orthodox ‘cultural good’: one example is wage-earned pay delayed until each wage-earned work period is completed (capitalists thereby are officially granted a perpetual capital free loan from wage-earners that allow a continual business advantage to capitalists [This perpetual ‘free capital,’ can be put into product advertizing and lobbying (i.e., legal free-speech-based awards), that prospers business

7

8

while workers, denied their earned pay, are disadvantaged economically and right wise also]: mechanist orthodoxy asserts that capital accumulation’s, as legally enured, is the exclusively owned ‘business equity’ of capitalists.

overextended at a time when unemployment is rising, experts say. It also means that just when the cooling U.S. economy needs spending by consumers to sustain growth, they’re hard-pressed to do so. . . .

Orthodoxy, like Hesiod’s nomos are deontological ‘duty’ related rather than teleological ‘purpose’ related. Teleology’s purposes are distinctly necessary and beneficial. Economic and right-based crises caused by duty-based deontology, can and eventually will energize an overwhelming politics of beneficial purpose (teleology), and a myriad of huge duty-based paradoxical economic crises have been building for years: the crisis embroiling consumers’ debt, for instance. Another, involving SS surplus contribution taxes, have given the illusion of budget surpluses that orthodox mechanists’ politically, by rhetorical fallacies, have affirmed that the accumulating government surplus was their property since they had paid the highest revenue taxes ($2 Trillion in reduced taxes over a ten-year period was assured in 2001 by law). The 2001 tax Bill effectively returned $1.3 billion (while SS surplus taxes that government had routinely spent as general revenue were not considered for redress: SS contributions had been legally allowed under revenue taxation authorities of government, and mechanist government administration had determined to return the projected surplus, (which accounted surplus was only because the routinely spent SS contribution’s taxes had determined the projection) to those that paid the highest revenue taxes. Nothing was returned to wage-earners who mostly had paid the surplus contribution taxes. The converging politics eventually will erupt in a political reversal.9

Conservative mechanist orthodoxy legally has persuaded that interest-based profits from debt-based-consumer-spending during the 90s were exclusively capital ‘owned’ by business while the debt was exclusively accountable to individual consumers. Legal orthodoxy holds that capitalist owners are not culpable: which denial has no granted overlap when consumer-wage-earners are laid off and have no means of repaying the debt (the legal onus of personal bankruptcies always lingers for years and, as in this instance above, the mechanist legal orthodoxy privatizes the compounded interest-based profit while individuals must survive economically in a turbulent sea of debt? (George Will often quipped: We privatize profit and socialize debt.)

New York -- The bills are coming due for the shopping spree of the 1990s, and Americans are having trouble paying. [Federal Chairman Greenspan’s lower interest rates have allowed homeowners to increase mortgaged debt to 125 percent of value, to pay off personal debt.]

Personal debt is at an all-time high, and the amount of income Americans are dedicating to making payment is at levels unseen in 15 years. Mortgage delinquencies and write-offs by credit card companies are rising, and personal bankruptcy filings could hit a record.

That translates to serious financial pain for families that are

Mechanist determinist deontology (legal ‘duty’) propels society into dire conditions from which the SS social usage-based insurance system was born. Such rational teleological solutions, as SS, occur, at times, to mitigate the deontological caused tyranny: so when will we redress economic problems as personal debt, health care, inflation?

During the mid 1980s, the SS surplus accumulation and the national deficit each was projected to reach $12 trillion. Accounts fail to track with this projection, still both the SS surplus accumulation and the federal deficit is huge. Leonard’s advice is timely: 10 Because of [Social Security’s] extraordinary growth and scale [which

includes compounding inflation’s effects on paid benefits], few debates about the federal budget can ignore it.

The World Almanac reported these Trust account balances, at end of 1998: Disability Insurance Trust Fund, $77,087 million, Supplementary Medical Insurance, $40,889 million, and Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, $117,113 million, Total Trust Fund balance, $888,197 million.

This table of SS Contributions taxes and interest paid in, less Benefits paid from the OldAge and Survivors Trust Fund, yielded these periodic Fund balances: 1940-98 (in millions)

9 year

SS taxes

Net Int.

Benefits paid

Fund balance

1940

$550

$42

$16

$1745

1950

2106

257

727

12893

1960

9843

517

10270

20829

1970

29955

1350

26268

32616

1980

97608

1886

100626

24566

1990

261506

14143

218948

203445

1995

289529

31417

288607

447946

1996

317157

34026

299968

499479

1997

342312

37689

312862

567395

1998

364871

42198

324256

653108

Facts and reason-based knowledge is an effective armament against orthodox political deontology that will, because of dogmatic mechanist orthodoxy, if politically allowed, misuse the SS’s Funds. Reason is the only teleological foundation for knowledge-based understanding of beneficent purposes intended officially to be applied, which improve, i.e., offset specific mechanist orthodox deficiencies in the legal and deontological political economy, which delivers the SS System. This physis-based reality must become commonly understood in order for knowledge to politically coexist within the mechanist ideological political intent, which dogmatically considers SS surplus contributions as the government’s revenue, to be used as government wills. Capitalist orthodoxy employs demagoguery to skew statistical projections of consequential realities, then affirmed as principle: yielding ideal projections then affirmed as the ‘intended reality,’ in which paradoxical mechanist ‘duty’ rather than teleological ‘purpose’ prevails: 11

post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Strictly, the fallacy of inferring that one event is caused by another merely because it comes after it. More loosely, the fallacy (characteristic of superstitious beliefs) of

10 assuming too readily that an event that follows another is caused by it without considering factors such as counter-evidence or the possibility of a common cause. (Causality.) The name appears to derive from Aristotle’s Rhetoric (1401 29-34). Dr. Penelope Mackie ‘Necessary’ realities of SS cannot logically be concluded from demagoged projections and trends. For instance, mechanist officials constantly assert fallacies, as the following, as fact: ‘When the BabyBoom retires, there will not be enough workers to support them in retirement.’ [mechanist opposition to SS, sing as a chorus, this ‘false’ conclusion, which only has opinion as its proof ] SS’s political opposition asserted this fallacy when SS was first adopted, reasserted it during the 1980s, and now, often reasserts it despite factual evidences that categorically, it is false. And, in 1983-84, this fallacious assertion embroiled the official retirement discussion, which involved a mini demographic birth boom: i.e., the “notch babies.” This aberrant evidence certifies this political fallacy. * * SS had reached maturity coincidently with the problem of retiring a higher than usual population (the notch babies born between 1918-1926), which fact had put a heavier than ususal cost burden on the pay-as-you-go SS system. (But it was the notch babies that drew the mechanist political short straw of this scenario: their SS benefits were lower than usual and corrective economic action never occurred.) The mechanist persuaded Congress had changed the fiscal year, adding months of SS expenses, without corresponding contribution tax revenues to the fiscal 1984 accounting: while the federal government’s Supply Side economics was running huge deficits, this mechanist politics shifted blame onto the SS system’s Bankruptcy.

Then, upon this Supply Side mechanist scenario, the SS contribution taxes were revised to also collect SS surpluses (with covert intent to convert SS to a pay-for-yourself system). However, none of this collected SS surplus (first collected in 1984) was made available to pay equal SS benefits to the ‘notch babies’. And, on this mechanist conservative result, the above mentioned infamous assertion was made: in 2030, only two workers per beneficiary will support the retiring BabyBoom. 12 However, the mollifying facts and circumstances are these:

11 — First, about this Census Bureau’s infamous 1983 projection:13

The ratio of the working age population . . . to the retirement age population will begin an unprecedented decline. The nation had 5.3 people of working age in 1982 for every person 65 or older. The ratio is projected to drop to 4.7 in 2000 and to 2.4 in 2080.

The only fact of this hypothesized scenario is this: ‘The nation had 5.3 people of working age in 1982 for every person 65 or older.’ All else is believed and asserted fiction based demagoguery of a trend that had just ended with the SS system’s maturity: in fact, however, the SS system’s worker to retiree ratio had settled due to the fact that the SS system was now mature. With the mature SS system, statistics show clearly that the ratio did not drop in 2000. Instead, it improved! And by shifting retirement eligibility to age sixty-seven, keeps the ratio at or above 4.39:1, close to (5.3:1), the factual ratio recorded in 1982.

--Second, examining the projected trend’s failure revealed ‘true’ reasons and coherence of the now mature SS System: SS did not reach its relative maturity until the late ‘70s. It began in 1935, and gradually matured as an increasing count of beneficiaries reached age 65: until a full beneficiary complement became qualified for retirement benefits, the system was not mature. Workers qualifying for SS benefits in 1940 were born sixty five years earlier. With each passing year, a fresh complement of qualified beneficiaries came on line and the SS system approached maturity in the late1970s coincident with a mini-boom reality of ‘notch babies’ eligible to retire. Before 1980, statistics are not and cannot be made typical of the mature SS system, i.e., systemic coherence, fails as necessary systemic reality. For instance, back when the average age of mortality was 50, the number of workers, compared to those 65 and older, was large (And as our young nation began, the ratio probably could have exceeded 200:1), but this declining trend has no logical nexus to SS in the twenty first century. To assume or assert that requirements for SS now has to do with comparative demographics in 1945 (42 workers then existed for every qualified retiree) or any year since, also has no relative significance to the now mature SS system. And while the ratio in 1982 (5.3:1), might, for various reasons, be a little high, in reality, it is a benchmark (a standard) of the now mature SS system. . My model,

12 shows these ratios: Year Ages

1990

2000

2010

2015

2025

2050

18-64

5.15

5.88

6.06

5.29

4.22

5.43

18-66

5.23

6.13

6.29

5.49

4.39

5.59

(the shaded ratios apply and the applicable ratio for 2015 is between 5.29 and 5.49, which depends on the SS eligibility conversion to age 67) Recent demographic facts prove the ratio did not drop in 2000 as, in ‘82, was officially and fallaciously projected. Then, with the shift to age 67 (other circumstances of change were not considered), it remains above 4.39.

--Thirdly, to infer a standard of circumstantial mortality, the graph of mortality rates for 1992 (with the CSO table for ages beyond age 80) is as close to future reality as was then possible.

And on this basis, the retired population standard, of my model, is based on empirical 1990's census mortality demographics.

The U.S. Department of Commerce furnished the information about the 1990's population, ages 65 years and older:14

13 CSO distributed 31,078,895 individuals by age, as shown by the graph (the age range of these retires is more than twice the BabyBoom’s age range).

For those truly interested in the SS System’s viability, this empirical-factual information provides a critical benchmark: those, who in 1990 were sixty five years and older, were born before 1926. The graph’s retired birth complement in 1990, spans the birth years’ 1890 (100 years old) to 1925 (65years old): Thirty five birth years, compared to the BabyBoom’s 20 year age span, will only slightly increase the count of living over age sixty five population during the retirement years of the BabyBoom: maybe the reality of adding ten years to both the front and back end of the BabyBoom, represents comparability to inferring the BabyBoom’s special financial retirement needs: comparatively then, the BabyBoom is like 1990's retirements. From this empirical information, a theoretical standard for counting retirees in 2025, say, should be close to the modified ratio, Baby Boom: John-Mary’s twenty year population, i.e, (77:55) times 31.08 million (factual retirees in 1990), or, 43.5 million retirees in the peak year of the BabyBoom’s retirement (without considering the reduction due to shifting eligibility to age 67): peak retirement load is of short duration.

About mortality tables, which statistically are stable, we can say that in 1990, mortality claimed 21.8 % of the population born 65 years earlier. We can also say that as worker longevity increases, the natural pattern of mortality will shift but not change materially. And we can say that, in 1990, life’s mean duration following age 65 was a little more than ten years.

Also, if, the average duration of wage-earning years (paying SS contributions taxes) was 40 years, then by deduction, one worker’s contributions during those 40 years, apportions to nearly 4 SS beneficiaries [However, not all those over age 65 qualify to receive SS benefits (mid-1960's, about 62 million persons held jobs covered by Social Security on an average day. They worked for about 4.3 million employers.

More than 19 million persons were receiving monthly benefits. Retired workers totaled 10.3 million 15 ) Effectively, then, the ratio of workers to retirees in 1982 was not the one on one situation, which had yielded the ratio 5.3:1, as asserted, but, instead, the real ratio was closer to 20:1. And with the shift in retirement eligibility from age 65 to 67, this age shift will

14 offset some of the natural shift occurring in longevities. Probably, therefore, another age shift will not be needed during the BabyBooms’ retirement. The workers to retirement ratios are sure to improve due to the shift in age eligibility to age 67.

--Fourthly, the system’s maturity, regarding expanding benefits’ eligibility, must be evaluated. In 1990, retirees comprised those born between 1925 (age 65) and 1890 (100). Only one spouse, generally qualified for full SS benefits. More women now, are working, making them also eligible for retirement benefits?

SS continues to mature. The mid 1960's account described the thirty-yearold SS System. Often, and appropriately, we call SS a ‘revenue machine.’

SS began in 1935 and old age security (OAS) payments began in 1940:16

By the mid-1960's, about 62 million persons held jobs covered by Social Security on an average day. They worked for about 4.3 million employers. More than 19 million persons were receiving monthly benefits. Retired workers totaled 10.3 million and had three million eligible dependents receiving benefits. Disability beneficiaries totaled 820,000 and had 620,000 eligible dependents. Survivor beneficiaries totaled 4.3 million including 2.0 million aged widows, 1.8 million orphaned children, and 460,000 mothers of such children. Benefit payments for 1963 totaled $15.4 billion and total contributions amounted to $15.6 billion. Assets of the trust fund amounted to $20.7 billion. [Retired workers (10.3 million) ÷ (total population over age 65), represents a measure of SS’s maturity] Note the ratio: 62 million potential worker-contributors to 19 million beneficiaries; one on one, 3.26 workers existed per beneficiary (and the lower SS contribution tax rates in ‘65 were adequate to pay SS benefits to the 19 million beneficiaries. The total population, 65 and over (which included some spouses, which had survived expired wage-earners), was in 1962 less than 18 million. The proliferation of nonworker SS beneficiaries is a great social problem that, equitably, should receive broader financial support than the SS contribution taxes. And for this

15 politics had made SS an integral part of welfare. However, when the welfare programs were changed, politics failed to redress the welfare portions of SS. ---With the welfare reforms of the ‘90s, was the welfare, as put onto SS redressed? (However, welfare put onto SS, is not related to the fallacy, which expects 80 million octogenarians to receive SS checks in 2025! ; this fallacious expectation simply resulted from a publisher’s error, maybe of slipping a digit!) 17 After operating thirty years and considering that the count of retired workerbeneficiaries was 10.3 million (while the total retired population was about 18 million), the system’s maturity had reached only .57. By 1978, SS had realized its reasonable maturity plateau. And while maturation of the SS system was expected, explaining to workers that contribution taxes had to be increased to pay the increasing benefits of system’s maturity was maybe impossible. Political opposition -- conservative political flux that had caused the system to be pay-as you-go (no accumulation of reserves) -- now rationalized to indict systemic failure. And this active orthodox flux can be suspected of complicities embroiling the SS Law of 1983.

While it is true that eligibility expansions (particularly the increase in working women) might push the count of SS eligible retirees upwards, 80 million simply is factually impossible. The BabyBoom’s birth counts are recorded. We know quite accurately what they are. And we have good reason to rely on mortality. Seventy seven-million births of the BabyBoom are spread over twenty years. And the peak ten birth years, aged to SS retirement benefits’ eligibility, represent a fertility aberration that the aftermath of war and depression had caused.

Between 2022 and 2025 the greatest benefits’ drain on SS funds will confront SS: workers per retiree ratios, however, remains comparable to the mature standard cited for 1982. So, mortality will have claimed one of each five births, at age 65 (The mortality effect on BabyBoom’s seventy-seven million birth count will at least be reduced to sixty million, as if all were born in the same year, which they were not). If at age 70, fifty-two million; age 80, twenty-two million and 85, less than three million. We can say, therefore, that the BirthBoom will essentially

16 pass from temporal reality within twenty years of retirement.

Say, the mean occurs within ten years of retirement. Therefore, the mortality mean, at age seventy five, reduces the BabyBoom’s SS retirement benefit effects, to a population of about forty million. In the five years’ following age sixty five, mortality claims more than 10 percent of remaining population. Research shows that shifting to age sixty-seven will reduce the retirement population by nearly six million. At most, therefore, the retirement population during the BabyBoom’s retirement years might not exceed thirty-five million. 1990's census count of thirty-one million is close.

--And ultimately, while my analysis anteceded the general revenue Tax Bill of 2001, my reaction to it is now added: The Tax Bill of 2001 was a general revenue tax reduction act that returned $1.3 trillion, as President Bush asserted, ‘to those that paid the revenue taxes’ [only upper income tax payers got tax repayment checks. These incomes effectively were either above the cap for SS contribution taxes or were from non earned income (much of which is from geometrically progressing accumulations that is unreal), and therefore, also did not contribute to the SS contribution taxes surpluses]. Nothing was done to

255

the teflon-coated mechanist lie

17

redress SS surplus contribution taxes. And, therefore, additional tax adjustments are required to provide equity to low income wage-earners that since 1984 contributed more than $3 trillion to fund government’s operations. As of 2000, $2 trillion is inflation’s cost that mechanist politics caused covertly to be assigned to SS contribution taxes (This politics infers that SS had caused inflation): besides the $1 trillion in SS surplus contributions that government spent as its general revenue (SS contribution tax is an “on budget” item), Congress has routinely, fallaciously adjusted the SS tax rates to include inflation’s anticipated benefits’ cost. Wage-earners contributed to SS surplus, which government routinely spends. And they got nothing from the 2001-10 tax rebates. This mechanist deontological political idealism first began with the presidential election of 1980: Supply Side politics (voodoo economics) achieved high end tax rate reductions, which government granted in 1981 The Clinton Administration reversed this action in 1993). Then, again in 2001 $1.3 trillion of anticipated surplus (there was no actual revenue surplus) was ‘returned’ to the high end taxpayers. Since 2001, reduced tax rates were applied to the select group (mechanist ideology, even in the face of high annual deficits continued to assert that reduced high end taxes are justified’). And, Congress continued to routinely spend, as government’s revenue, the SS contribution surplus. Tax law made these high end tax reductions apply through 2010.

End of excerpt 251 255 ’Teflon-coated mechanist lies’ (i.e., ‘Duty sans Purpose’) [Ideology (mechanist duties), sans teleology (principle-based purposes), i.e., myriad ideological organic paradoxes] Ideology-based explanations, i.e., pernicious untruths about unprecedented federal deficits, Social Security’s causal culpability, and Supply Side economics, were endemic to political exploits conducted from the President’s office. I wondered, was a ‘smoking gun’ of deception lurking in the obtrusive political rhetoric? My research asked this: “what economic causal problems lie ahead?” : this answer became factually confirmed when in 1987 David Stockman, President Reagan’s budget director, wrote this of

18 a time shortly following the huge high end Reagan tax cut of 1981:18

So there we sat looking at a fiscal shambles, heading for a monstrous deficit in excess of $300 billion by the middle of the decade. And in marched Donald T. Regan, Paul Craig Roberts, Jack Kemp, Jude Wanniski, Art Laffer, and Irving Kristol [of Supply-side Economics], saying, “We're still not wrong. Stand pat. It will go away.”

Mechanists’ supply-side Economics and the Laffer Curve were extolled with promises to improve the nation’s economy, as had happened because of tax reductions in the early ‘60s under President Kennedy.

Conservatives, notably George Bush (Senior), Reagan’s vice president, had called the unproved supply-side theory ‘Voodoo Economics.’ But, then pressing economic concerns, as burdened by unprecedented inflation, pressed for political expedience? Hyping the new economic theory became sophistry of the expedience required to sustain public support for 1981's grand general-revenue-tax-cut (and dismal failure did not daunt this mechanist dogmatic theoretical sophistry, as repeated in 2001 and on, until it is repealed, maybe sometime during the Obama administration). Time was then needed to allow the 1981 tax-cut to work its ‘Laffer Curve’ magic.

Instead of magic, however, mounting federal deficits began to accumulate (tripling Reagan’s inherited deficit, to $3 trillion in 1988).

Politically, an offsetting grand revenue tax increase became law in 1984: the SS Contributions Tax Law that political rhetoric had emphatically denied was a revenue tax increase, became tax law. Reagan’s administration suppressed appurtenant information about this SS surplus revenue tax. By this deliberate ‘act of omission,’ had Reagan lied? : the wage-earning public was never informed that the surplus SS Contribution Taxes were designed to fill a federal revenues budgetary deficiency. And, nothing in President Reagan’s campaigning for president aligned him as SS’s friend. His interest was political, which also led to the unenlightened public strategy. That SS surplus tax contributions, used as general revenue, were crucially needed to replace general revenues lost by the income tax cut of 1981, was never officially acknowledged.

But instead, public disclosures focused on fateful forecasts of the SS system’s financial crises. (Shortfalls in SS were more directly related to Congress’ administrative shift in the government’s fiscal accounting year, which affected Social Security’s

255

the teflon-coated mechanist lie

19

operations.) And this sophistry diverted public attention, from the federal deficits, to the frivolous concern of SS’s eminent failure, even bankruptcy.

This asserted authoritative pseudo fact, has persisted as detrimental paradoxical politics, from the early '80s, now reaching beyond 2006.

Ironically, neo con. political assertions also distorted factual truth: i.e., sans concern for individual constitutional rights, as evident in the indicting and impeachment of President Clinton over a personal consensual affair: The Bill of Rights clearly had amended the Constitution to protect individuals from such abusive prosecution by government (as if John Adams hadn’t reasoned, human rights as coeval of laws and government): only human rights (sovereignty), properly consented, are the antecedent principle of Constitutions and governments. Despite the plethora of pseudo laws, edicts, and authorities (particularly legal), acting contrarily, without administrative compliance to the constitutionally antecedent principle of public consent, all organic coercion is unjust. As contemporary neo cons’ did, Whigs had also ignored Jefferson and Lincoln’s principle-based admonitions, however, now logical tautology is available to reasonable persons’ truth testing of paradoxical matters. No longer is there a logical excuse for dogmatically denying the only constitutionally antecedent principle of our nation’s democracy, or to affirm expedient consequents, however legal the ideological authoritative assertion may be: only, political adherents of Jeffersonian philosophy-based democracy (as Lincoln, as a free soil democrat who joined the Wigg party*) have preserved this constitutional antecedent principle of government which clearly respects the human faculties of reason, as the logical antecedent axiom to human materialities.

This axiomatic principle must be respected for organizations to administer ‘true’ distributive justice sans paradox. * In a letter to H. L. Prince, Lincoln cited Jefferson’s logical fidelity, i.e., his dedication to naturally antecedent first principles.19 “Remembering . . . that the Jefferson party was formed upon its

supposed superior devotion to the personal rights of men, holding the rights of property to be secondary only, and greatly inferior . . . it will be . . . interesting to note how completely the two [parties] have

20 changed hands as to the principles upon which they were originally supposed to be divided. The Democracy of today hold the liberty of one man to be absolutely nothing, when in conflict with another’s right to property [as Democrats’ politics of slavery had done]; Republicans on the contrary, are for both the man and the dollar, but in case of conflict the man before the dollar [is Lincoln’s ‘true’ appraisal of Jeffersonian democracy, which contemporary Republicans that espouse supply-side economics now have no regard for]. . . . But, soberly, it is

now no child’s play to save the principles of Jefferson from total overthrow in this nation. . . . The principles of Jefferson are the principles and axioms of free society and yet they are denied and evaded, with no small show of success. One dashingly calls them ‘glittering generalities.’ Another bluntly calls them ‘self-evident lies!’

And others insidiously argue that they apply to ‘superior races.’

These expressions, differing in form, are identical in object and effect -- the supplanting the principles of free government, and restoring those of classification, caste, and legitimacy. . . . They are the vanguard, the miners and sappers of returning despotism. We must repulse them or they will subjugate us.” [By dogmatically restraining our nation to the Sixteenth century dogmatism] ---- ‘What the King says, or does, is just!’ This dogmatic fallacy represents what Historian Will Durant wrote this about:

Ultimately, our troubles are due to dogma and deduction; we find no new truth because we take some venerable but questionable proposition as the indubitable starting point (the affirmed principle), and never think about putting this assumption itself to a test of observation or experiment.

Will Durant Critically reasoned principles of liberty and justice were fallaciously supplanted by dogma as, for instance, “the divine right of justice -- ‘vox justiciae vox dei’”-- that Tory-Federalist-Whigs sponsored for importation to America. Neither is this dogmatic belief-based justice, based on truth

255

the teflon-coated mechanist lie

21

fitted for knowledge and morality, nor for democracy. Pure beneficent justice rests as a Desiderius of those tyrannized by the Tory-Federalist-Whig dogmatic retributive justice practiced in the U.S. (This does not mean that U.S. justice is bad when compared to all others, but it can and must become better, with implementations of distributive justice.’)

However, when justice comports to dogma-based ‘positive’ laws, the tenets of dogmas are made the master of reasoned principles. With justice not reasonable, the stress of great frustration and paradoxical mechanist tyrannies are authoritatively spread onto humanity.

When rationalization is the basis of laws, belief-based forms of ‘divine right,’ which conflates reason to forms of unitary materialism, quiets (conflates) the natural principles of reason. Injustice describes the result! And, in cultures of dogma-based mind conditioning, for instance, culture restrains the inculcation of reason-based understanding of truth, and morality. Wasn’t Christ martyred because of this cultural condition?

Pseudo truths sans systemic coherent ‘trueness’ are endemic of politically asserted dogmatic ideological prescriptions: particularly, this criticism applies to the political prescriptions that deliberately misled public perceptions to believe that SS’s failure was eminent, for instance. What was ‘true,’ however, was that the Humphrey-Hawkins law had failed under Carter and was summarily ignored under Reagan: inflation unjustly pillages SS similarly, but doubly, as it pillages all economic consumption under the paternalistic mechanisms of political economy as licensed by the states of the federal government. And, those paternally legally granted unequal political economy privileges, are the pillagers that inflation covertly rewards unreally. Government’s greatest fault under President Carter was having failed to resolve the covert systemic mechanist inflation problem. President Reagan’s deontological supply-side-neo con theory-based Administration fallaciously affirmed inflation’s endemism as a rightful propertied advantage of affluence, while doubly rewarding high end taxpayers with revenue tax relief. Anyway, truthfully, SS cannot be blamed for causing inflation!

General revenues, as collected from those that gain financially from inflation’s endemism that accumulated exponentially, as licensed by government, should be made to repay the inflation costs that

22 irrationally were put onto the SS contribution taxes. The following statement, as quoted farther on, quantifies inflations devastating effect: The CPI shows that the cost of goods and services rose from .539 in 1945 to 5.291 in 2001 (compounding to about ten times what it was a half century earlier).

By 1985, the first full year of SS ‘surplus’ contribution tax revenue, taxes flowing to the federal government had equaled the revenue flow in 1980, erasing the shortfall caused by 1981 high end tax cuts. Revenue shortfalls of this tax cut were offset by the SS contributions’ tax revenue surpluses, paid only by wage-earners. But expenditures for armaments had sharply increased: making the 1980's deficits largely if not primarily caused by the armaments buildup (political spin then claimed this huge contingent government expenditure had won the Cold War; more candidly, however, David Stockman, allowed that the USSR had, as irrationally, reached financial ruin before the U.S. did). A research tax foundation showed that SS contribution tax surplus since 1984, in 1985 completely offset revenue lost by the 1981 tax cut: first-dollar SS wage-earned income taxation had completely offset revenue lost by the 1981 high end revenue tax reductions: taxes collected in 1985 equaled taxes collected in 1980: While political sophistries irrationally, emphatically had distinguished SS contribution taxes from general-revenue taxes, this sophistry succeeded in escaping perceptions of the huge tax increase put onto wages earned while high incomes received tax relief.)

Tax Freedom Day 1980 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1984 xxxxxxxxxx 1985 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx All tax revenues are collected by the US treasury and noted by their source.

In 1993, SS was taken ‘Off Budget,’ however, SS contribution taxes continued as federal budgeted’ revenue. SS ‘Off Budget’ distinction came in response to intents of the ‘84 SS law, ordering that SS expenditures were to be an ‘Off Budget’ government expense. In 1993, SS became a separate independently accounted department of government with surplus contribution tax revenue continuing as government’s budgeted revenue.

Supply-side politics had instilled, as public ‘expectation,’ that the SS

255

the teflon-coated mechanist lie

23

surplus contribution-taxes were not a form of general-revenue taxes (however, when SS was legally ratified as a form of government’s taxation authority, the Supreme Court had decided that SS taxation was legal, only as a general-revenue tax). Cut the economic dogma, and the class privileges, which are based on the dogma, and the 1984 SS contribution-tax law is the greatest general revenue tax increase ever made: this most regressive, first dollar, taxation system ever devised, applies only to wage-earners.

And thereby, government conscripts wage-earners to pay doubly for inflation that government has failed to control. Wage-earners pay for inflation when they consume to subsist, and again when paying SS contribution taxes to cover inflation affected SS retirement benefits.

What causes Inflation?

The CPI shows that the cost of goods and services rose from .539 in 1945 to 5.291 in 2001: 20 [(1967 = 1.00), what cost $ .41 in 1935, cost $ 5.29 in 2001, i.e., what cost $1.00 in 1935, cost $12.90 in 2001.] for every dollar contributed to SS in 1945, $9.82 is required in 2002. Productive efficiencies that affected wages earned, resulted in profits to capitalists while inflation (the insidious and pernicious economic effect that causally was effected by rich mens political economy’s paternalism of granted rights and privileges), is dogmatically an endemic economic disease for which the poor economic class mechanistically is the dupe, made to suffer. SS taxation of first dollar wages is mostly now an inflation over which wage-earners neither caused nor have control: and, therefore, logically shouldn’t be made to pay. Those who are the cause of inflation should be made to pay for it! And government should fulfill the Humphrey-Hawkins law’s requirements: as the Constitution instructs, Congress ‘to set the standards of trade.’

Whatever causes prices to increase inordinately in the static ‘circular flow’ of wages and profits, goods and services, causes inflation. Adam Smith indicted business monopoly of any sort as a prime source. President Eisenhower warned about the military-industrial complex. Forbes’ list of the nation’s richest, points to a select few whose primary income is not from wages earned and therefore pay nothing to offset inflation’s endemic taxation that fallaciously government exclusively put onto wages earned, while income that is non earned benefits directly from inflation. Surely

24 President Bush and Vice President Cheney are not listed on Forbes’ list of the rich and powerful, however, their 2003 assets were declared at $21 and $38 million respectively. Therefore, they also represent inflation’s prime causal source: corporate stock, when initiated is nominally priced, then as publicly traded mysticly grows to the level as set by willing buyers.

Fiat money is printed to serve the utility of exchanging goods and services. But when investment bankers misuse their license to loan fiat money to effect leveraged buy-outs of corporations, they misuse their license and as well money that is the economy’s utility, which also is the nation’s economic utility: the corporate buy-out process achieves to convert accumulated corporate capital into private money hoards of far greater value equivalence than the fiat money borrowed to effect the buy-outs, the new stock owners thereby reap great profits after paying off their short term borrowing: this ideological use of legalized economic causal mechanism greatly feeds inflation. Illegal money laundering and counterfeiting also are great causes of inflation.21

By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.

Keynes Politically, wage-earners must assert their constitutional rights to fair taxation: inflation must be paid for by those who derive profit from it.

The inflation effect put onto SS contributions is easily estimated by the CPI. In 2001, for instance, the CPI was 9.82: meaning that goods that once cost $1.00 (in 1935) now (in 2001) cost $9.82. The effect on wage earners contribution taxes, as caused by inflation’s endemism, can be estimated by the ratio 1 to 9.82, meaning that for each dollar of “original” SS insurance cost, $9.82 is inflation’s endemism related that not causally but expediently and assertively politically was put onto SS cost in 2001. Since all inflation endemism belongs to general economy it belongs to general

255

the teflon-coated mechanist lie

25

revenue taxation and not to SS contribution taxes. For 1980, the inflation’s endemism ratio was 1 to 4.62, 1985, 1 to 5.98, 1990, 1 to 7.26, 1995, 1 to 8.47 and 2001, 1 to 9.82. In 2000 the SS benefit disbursements total 22 was $358,339, 000,000, therefore by extrapolation the amount that general tax revenue should have paid for this disbursement is about $321.000,000,000.

The cost of inflation on SS contributions is that great.

OAS Contributions (in millions) 23 YEAR

CONTRIB

RATIO

INFLATION

1970

$30,256

est.

$22,692

1980

103,456

1: 4.62

80,903

1990

267,530

1: 7.26

230,680

1996

321,557

1: 8.47

283,863

1997

349,946

est.

308,360

1998

371,207

est.

327,381

1999

396,352

est.

349,558

2000

421,391

1: 9.82

378,480

SS contribution taxes due to inflation constitute the greatest portion of the SS cost that is irrationally put onto wage-earners’ SS contribution taxes.

The government’s total debt to SS, for failing to control inflation, exceeds $1.5 trillion for the decade of the ‘80s, $3 trillion for the decade of the ‘90s and will far exceed $4 trillion for the first decade of the Twenty First century. When added to the accumulating SS surplus contributions, which reasonabley will not be needed, and if like the 2001 high end tax cuts is the property of those that paid this surplus, then is the property of wage-earners: government’s total debt owed by 2010 will exceed $10 trillion. Paying for this erroneous tax burden belongs exclusively to those that benefitted from

26 inflation: those to whom the tax returns of 1981, 2001 through 2010 and beyond, if not discontinued, were irrationally returned.

The Reagan administration emphatically, dogmatically held to the opinion that SS contribution-taxes were completely separate from revenue taxes: all accounts of discussions of the general tax cuts in 1981 and 1985 were emphatically separated from the 1984 increase in SS contributiontaxes. In stark contrast, while campaigning for the presidency, a deontological political priority had focused on cutting Entitlements (a political irrationalism meaning SS and Medicare). Reagan campaigned hard for this. But, when faced with insufficient revenue in the federal till to pay the budgeted expenses, his politics was reversed and he then vowed to preserve the SS System. If this was not a political flip flop from ‘cutting entitlements’ -- and with the impending reality of unprecedented federal deficits -- it surely is a cogent example of the a priory fallacy, which Immanuel Kant had exposed regarding ideologically dogmatic mechanist determinism, as a experience-based contingent rather than a natural necessary principle: the tautological result was material-based ideology, irrationally asserted as necessary reality. Kant called this, a synthetic a priori: an irrationalism, which is based on experience, then is made the antecedent of natural principles. Kierkegard might probably say that it is irrationalism, which never transcends dogmatic belief. Anyway, orthodox official have never considered to reduce SS contributions-tax rates as an appropriate thing to do. And this shows that deontological ethics is akin to ‘duty’ bound determinism, which therefore is without teleological probity of ‘purpose.’

Excepting orthodox political sophistry’s duplicity that at once contends that SS contributions are not a tax, while also contending that surplus SS contributions are required to cover government’s expenditures, no reasonable connection between SS and the federal Budget exists! (A similar sophist duplicity contends that inflation’s cost, the causality of which relates to licenses politically granted by government, while the settlement of inflation is born by wage-earned production and consumption, i.e., is not to be settled by taxing the causal sources. After all, this would subordinate the patrimony involving the irrational licenses.) And as Medicare’s tax is piggybacked onto the SS contribution’s tax, the same irrational disconnect

255

the teflon-coated mechanist lie

27

applies. However, general revenue supports Medicaid, Part B of Medicare, and possibly “welfare” that was added to the SS System (The welfare additions to SS presented fundamental deontological flaws to the teleological SS system and therefore diminishes SS’s rational brilliance).

As 1998 ended, SS disclosed these facts: (1) 48 million benefit checks are paid each month, and (2) 145 million wage-earners pay contribution taxes.

Population facts for 1998 show 26 million natural born, of ages 65-93, eligible to receive ‘full’ benefits. Therefore, checks paid to another 22 million must be for early retirees (those of ages 62-64), spouses or minors, or disabled dependents, or to immigrants that participated. The systemic problems for SS reach far beyond preparing for the demographics of the BabyBoom. A political question of pertinence is this: should ‘welfare’ and ancillary SS insurance costs be put onto the broader base of general revenue taxes instead of, as at present, only onto SS contribution taxes?

Substantial and blatantly sophists’ political double talk embroils the SS issues. The public must become aware of and concerned with the political ideological sophistries’ irrationalism. That is unless, of course, the contribution-tax paying wage-earner-consumers wish to remain acquiescent: i.e., remain detached from the political issues, to allow the SS System to remain to be the acquisitive hunter’s political ‘pigeon,’ of the deontological and exploitative politics. After all, legislation for SS contribution-tax increases, initiated and rejected during Carter's administration, had become conveniently, supposedly neutral of partisan politics, therefore society should not hang blame for this sophistry only onto Reagan-initiated suppl;yside conservatives. D. A. Stockman wrote this about President Reagan and prominent Congressmen:

Social Security, the centerpiece of the American welfare state, was overwhelmingly affirmed in the white heat of political confrontation.

Claude Pepper: Eighty year-old folk hero of the radical senior activist groups. Bob Michel: He tried to keep the Republicans on board but couldn’t. Tip O’Neil: He helped the intimidated politicians stop the Reagan Revolution dead in its tracks. Senator Moynihan: My former rabbi led the charge in defense of SS status quo. This was truly the triumph of politics.

28 And about Stockman leaving Reagan’s Administration,

When I finally left the White House, in August 1985, the President had accepted but never understood the [supply-side economic] revolution I had brought to him on the eve of his election. And he had no idea of the failure I was leaving behind.

Reagan’s Vice President, Bush (senior) called this revolution voodoo economics. Its first ‘chapter,’ accomplished in 1981, the deficit projection of which ($1.9 trillion through 1990 24) was discerned.25 To convince it really was as bad as I was saying, I invented a multiple-choice budget quiz. The regular briefings weren’t doing the job. . . . The quiz allowed him systematically to look at the whole $900 billion budget, to see it brick-by brick. . . . He sat there day after day with his pencil. . . . After making all his cuts, the deficit remained . . . staggering . . .. [At a following meeting] When the discussion turned to taxes, his fist came squarely on the table. “I don’t want to hear any more talk about taxes,” he insisted. “The problem is ‘deficit spending!”

It is difficult politely to correct the President of the United States when he has blatantly contradicted himself. The . . . deficits were the result of the spending he didn’t want to cut. . . . The spending bar was at 24.5 percent of GNP and the revenue bar with existing taxes was at 18.9 percent of GNP. The deficit bar for 1986 absorbed 72 percent of net private savings, ‘crowding out investment and economic growth.’

With the political change in 1992, the teleological applications are evident in the more consistent level of government’s expenditures. Reagan and Bush’s deontology went only so far as their dogmatically fantasist belief. In this belief, their dogma had fallaciously supplanted necessary economic principle, while bereft of constitutionally teleological purposes to the whole of society. The belief-based political deontology was burdened with conflated unitary materialist, mechanist bias, therefore, was fallacy, the truth value of which was firmly ‘false.’ Their policies were, as Christ suggested, “in darkness and lying.”

256

Preserving Economic Baby

29

President Clinton reintroduced fiscal teleology that had the end purpose of holding expenses in line with revenues, to allow economic growth to wipe out the deficits.

President George W. Bush has returned us to the materialist beliefbased deontology: dutifully asserting private systemic affluence as the fallacious antecedent principle of funding government’s end purposes: cutting tax-based revenue from society’s affluent without concern for natural teleology requiring strict balance between government’s revenues and expenses. Again, huge deficits are accumulating for as long as the mechanist deontological politics prevails and becomes repaid, thereafter.

During the ‘80's, the orthodox bogie of the ‘Cold War,’ then became the bogie of terrorism, then as the bogie of preemptive war with Iraq, has politically distracted society’s attention away from teleology. This political bogie continues to make fear more politically popular than any real threat of danger to Americans’ lives.

End of 255 256

Preserving Economic Baby

30 (Coping with political mechanisms’ economic paradoxes To mitigate the legally licensed mechanist exploitative deontological result of government’s fiction-based American System’s economic mechanisms, social usage programs, as SS are required. However, infusing these mitigating teleologies is always vigorously met with the mechanist orthodox politics of those directly benefitting from the legal economic mechanist deontology, which is hidden ‘in the income graph’s pudding.’ The reality is, however, that this deontology has a foundation that while temporal, is real and pertinent to the temporal state of human life. And this foundation must be preserved, not destroyed! Materiality has an equal logical place in this temporal setting with the unseen noumenal things of life.

We have deontological based Workers’ Compensation, Pensions, for profit Insurance, as well FEMA, and teleological Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. We have a Constitution with a Bill of Rights which requires equal protection under law. However, we lack common philosophical opinions (politics is often irrational) to support the original American teleology of ‘equal protection’ (as the Categorical Imperative that it is supposed to be). And, to be effective, is an essential for reason-based democratic teleology. But, while casting out the dirty bath water (the irrational materialist-mechanist dogma endemic of fallacious belief that axiomatically was supplanted for the categorical constitutional teleology, with the effect that it was made the antecedent of teleology), we must still preserve this materialist deontological ‘economic baby’: The American System of Political Economy. And this is why centrist politics, with rationally antecedent principles maybe fractured but not destroyed, are of necessity to temporal philosophical democracy: only democracy offers rationally balanced philosophy that regards the spiritual and the material aspects of human life as both necessary. Irrationally, socialism, fascism and capitalism aggrandize only unitary materialism, which conflates life’s sum (spiritual essence), thereby denying, belittling, or equivocating it.)

Look again at the income distribution graph above. Particularly look at the 1996 results. The highest quintile’s income increase was almost equal to the 2nd quintile’s total income share. Holistically, increases in this highest quintile must result from offsetting decreases in the other quintiles: systemically, only by suppressing low end salaries and wages would result

256

Preserving Economic Baby

31

in increases freely given at the top.

This phenomenon shows top salaries increased greatly during the decade ending in 1996 [In 2002 Congress gave to themselves a 5 percent increase while the SS benefits COLA was held to 1.2 percent (which administrative robbery became typical)]. The grand 1981 tax rate reduction allowed the higher quintiles to keep far more of their grand “unearned income” shares.

Higher end incomes not only benefitted from tax rate reductions, they had income increases that nearly equaled the second quintiles total income. The 1984 SS surplus contribution tax increase, reclaimed the government’s revenue lost by the ‘81 tax rate reduction. In 2001 tax relief was again given to top end income without concern for the holistic economic effect of it.

Our systemic sophist culprits are deontological in nature. And solutions must give way to teleological balancing purposes. Still, in the way, vastly increased expenditures for armaments are the federal deficit’s main culprit. And with the 2001 (and again in 2003-2007-?) deontological irrationalism of refunded taxes to high end incomes: refunded only to those in the middle to highest income quintiles, represents a grand political heist from economy that only SS surpluses had sustained. Should SS‘s regressive taxation now apply to all income? And, if so, with inflation’s cost mechanistically put onto SS benefits then paid by general revenue taxes,

32 a much lower SS contributions tax rate would be required! The contributions’ tax bite on wages could be cut by more than 80 percent. And this reduced SS system’s true cost then isolates the inflation endemism, which mechanistically is put onto consumption and thereby effects SS benefits’ cost, while also rewarding unearned capital-based income. This economic justice accomplished, retiring the BabyBoom is then a ‘cake walk.’

When compared with the 77 million youngsters in the birth-boom, 55 million youngsters, who lived 45 years earlier, surprised me. Somehow, I had imagined fewer individuals existed then. The greater perceptive difference, however, is the mechanized industrial shift to life’s dependence on wages earned and the urbanization, which has resulted from this economic revolution: three of every four in the BabyBoom are urbansuburban born.

The population at the turn of the century was growing at rates exceeding 1.5% annually. Such annual growth, about the five year intervals that I reviewed, resulted in a five year 7.5% rate of growth. John-Mary's group of 55 million individuals, when conservatively projected (mapping 1 percent annual population increase instead of the experience-based indication of 1.5 percent) to the mid point of the birth-boom yields an expectation in 1957 of 86 million youngsters. In fact, 77 million natural births are not abnormal at all. Instead, the low birth rates, as depressed by the effects of depression and war, are what is abnormal! Only depression and war caused the birth abnormalities that made 77 million births appear as a babyBoom. Why shouldn’t a rational society then reassign responsibility for the fertility effects to depression and war? Surely, human nature cannot be blamed. And mechanistically making the SS System responsible represents an irrational political deontological economic affirmation that, just as irrationally, then infers that SS had caused the Great Depression and World War II. Deontological unitary material acquisitiveness, which irrationally politically affirmed this blame to SS, also are predominant accomplices in Wars and Depression.

Why then, should wage-earners mechanistically bear inflation endemism’s costs, particularly as related to SS benefits paid to the

256

Preserving Economic Baby

33

BabyBoom in retirement? The reasoned answer is, they should not.

Tax rebates in 2001-- 2006 (?) were not given to lower income tax payers (particularly was not related to SS contribution taxes). Yet, SS surplus contribution taxes are routinely spent to support economy: giving an appearance to a coming Budget surplus.

34 the theory and the related policy prescriptions of John Maynard Keynes. It is, in a broad sense, a return to the classical tradition of Adam Smith and Jean Baptiste Say, whose famous law of markets states that supply always creates it own demand. That was the proposition that Keynes was supposed to have laid to rest in demonstrating that capitalist economics had an inherent tendency toward underemployment [i.e., failed in the sense of the Constitution’s purpose to serve “all” members of society (So, which underemployed member is served by Say’s famous law of markets )], but supply-siders

say that [Keynes] argument was logically flawed. They charge that government attempts to offset temporary weakness in private demand by deficit spending have become a major source of economic instability. [Social Security, Medicare, and now Healthcare are targeted examples of this deficit spending-based conservative charge.]

To addresses Lewis Beman’s economic political contrast, this annotated excerpt from 208 is offered:

Clearly, the political mechanist deontology either consistently blames SS for war and depression or it conveniently denies any responsibility concerning these catestrophic events. Teleologically, however, those that benefit most from paternal mechanist economy, as sustained by SS contribution tax surpluses, should now reciprocate by contributing fairly to the SS cost (a half century of back taxes related to inflation endemism’s cost put onto the SS contributions tax in addition to $ trillions of SS contributions surplus that government routinely spent is now primarily owed and repayable by those of unearned income that benefitted from the economic mechanist deontology). The amount is huge!

End of 256 As a reminder,Lewis Beman’s economic political contrast is this: 26

Supply-side economics constitutes a counterrevolution against both

Profit taking became routine with the advent of licensed public corporations and stock ownership representing shares of ownership in the corporations’ accumulated profits became a subsequent investment adjunct. Rationally, this advent fallaciously had presupposed that routine profit-taking was investor-stock-holders’ property. Legally, however, this presupposition is correct, George P. Brockway, for one, objected and wrote this: 27

If capitalists have a right to receive profits -- or suffer losses -- so do laborers [who produce the goods and services that are consumed].

Professor Schumpeter also addressed profits as property and gave it to capitalists only when entrepreneurial activity was involved.

The source of profits is a question that has been gingerly handled by most economists. Smith wavered between viewing profit as a deduction from the value created by labor and as a kind of independent return located in capital itself. If profits were a deduction, of course, the explanation implied that labor was

256

Preserving Economic Baby

35

shortchanged; and if they were a contribution of capital, one would have to explain why the profits went to the owner of the machine, not to its inventor or user. Mill suggested that profits were the reward for the “abstinence” of capitalists, but he did not explain why capitalists were entitled to a reward for an activity that was clearly in their own interest. Still other economists described profits as the earnings of “capital,” speaking as if the shovel itself were paid for its contribution to output. Marx, of course, said that Smith was right in the first place though he didn’t know it -- that profits were a deduction from the actual value created by the working man. But that was part of the labor theory of value which everyone knew to be wrong and therefore did not have to be reckoned with.

Schumpeter now came forward with a brilliant answer to this vexing question. Profits he said, did not arise from exploitation of labor or from the earnings of capital. They were the result of quite another process. ‘Profits appeared in a static economy when the circular flow failed to follow its routinized course.’

Robert Eisner wrote this critical analysis of legalized profit: 28

Profits in economic theory have been variously seen as the return to ownership or capital and the return to the entrepreneur. Where ownership and entrepreneurship coincide, as in a simple single proprietorship in which the owners own capital is used to run the firm, this notion perhaps has some meaning. Most modern firms, however, are not of this sort. Capital is extensively borrowed, and most owners of equity have little to do with plant management or entrepreneurship. In practice, separate returns to ownership, management, and entrepreneurship are nevertheless difficult to identify.

[No good or valid reason exists to legally paternally grant profits only to capital-based equities.]

Because all business costs (direct and ancillary) were cost accounted to assure the economic value returns to the individual or firm which produced

36 the ‘goods’ or services, and because economic inflation resulted from cost accountings which independently from the accounting which had caused consumer prices to increase, the inflation liability put onto consumption must be settled before the accumulated value of the individual or firm’s net Assets are accounted. While all profits legally are property of the individual or firm, the individual or firm’s liabilities must first be settled. Consumers, who purchase the ‘goods’ at retail prices, are the final providers of the individual or firm’s economic value, and investor stock holders, managers, and laborers, rationally are economic claimants of portions of this value, as accounting codification legally allows; G. P. Brockway is on the track of expedient legal codification omissions, when he wrote this: 29

If capitalists have [are legally paternally granted] a right to receive profits -- or suffer losses -- so do [should also be legally paternallygranted to] laborers.

Should Brockway have included consumers in his consideration of rights?

While neither political economy nor justice has provided accounting-based recovery or taxation-based patrimony to citizen retail-based consumers who represent constitutional units of consent to our nation’s sovereignty, these consumers, after all, provide the full compliment of returning funding to businesses. And, it generally is wage-earner-consumers ’ labor that created the ‘goods’ ans ‘services’ produced. However, this did not happen, because mechanist orthodoxy unethically and improperly made wage-earnerconsumers the scapegoats for inflation. Take a closer look at the routine political economy practice of putting inflation loads onto Social Security contribution taxes or onto Medicare insurance, for instance. While neither of these pure insurance mechanisms is causally a source of inflation’s endemism (As likewise, wages paid are not a causal source of inflation’s endemism), the rates of SS contributions taxation is unreasonably, indexed to the CPI measures of inflation. Eliminate the inflation endemism, and these pure insurance mechanisms are efficient, beneficial, and affordable.

--Isn’t inflation an accounting liability that logically is directly related to the antecedent causes of inflation’s endemism?

---

Why, therefore, does this economic value liability escape

256

Preserving Economic Baby

37

‘cost accounting’ intrinsically of the economic value circular flow?

Brockway points to the Bankers COLA as the primary causal source of inflation. Schumpeter, with Ricardo and Mill, provided rational evidences that profit, taken from the economic circular value flow of productions, is not naturally intrinsic of economic value. However, business oligarches, in the manner of Kings, take profit with impunity, as oligarches traditionally have gotten what they want (Hobbes,’ kings and oligarches assert this dogmatic ‘divine right.’). This orthodox dogmatic ‘right,’ makes the problem of inflation similar in nature to the problem of hierarchical authority and power, which to the mechanist is as fundamentally factitious as organic sovereignty. The difference between monarchy and democracy, or between the philosophy of Hamilton and Jefferson, which is the difference between logical rationalism or irrationalism (as Heidegger observed) and reason. The main problematic economic culprits are politics and dogma: the primary dogmas are ‘materialism’ and ‘divine right’ as Hobbes had embodied in his empiricism, which is also argued by free market traditionalists. The answer to inflation is as simple (and as difficult) as determining whom ethically owns the net assets of the business firm? And the irrational answer to this question has roots in antiquity: in proprietorships (firms) owned and organized hierarchically without concern for the individual democratic source of sovereignty. 30 The best (maybe the only) possible means for resolving the inflation problem is through economic adjustments as pure insurance (like Social Security and Medicare) with inflation effects put onto revenue taxation and offsetting graduated taxation rates applied to unearned income that mostly caused inflation’s and should, therefore, bear its cost.

The Industrial Age is giving way to another, maybe more insecure information age, and society's need to formalize another pure ‘social usage’based insurance to provide Sustenance Security to all citizens who find themselves in dire needs through circumstances, which are now moving far beyond their own making, is becoming increasingly important: the paradoxical companion of ‘for-profit’-based privatized political economy is a growing mass poverty that comprises longer unemployment and no insurance. While contemplating this analysis of individual units of

38 sovereignty, as consented, an unusual, and surprising, spurt of conviction convinced me to suggest that an insurance particularism, which I call Sustenance Security, must find its essential economic support from the democratic sovereignty-based politics, i.e., from a specific political physisbased reason. And while this essential social insurance must not become an extension of Social Security, it should be installed in replacement of all welfare-based insurance (as workers’ compensation, for instance) including all welfare that conveniently, politically was made a part of the SS contribution-taxation, which funds wage-based Social Security insurance.

While my conviction arose years ago when contemplating sovereignty, Economic Professor Paul Krugman recently provided these comments of support in his New York Times article and also in the Salt Lake Tribune:

Recessions are common; depressions are rare. As far as I can tell, there were only two eras in economic history that were widely described as “depressions” at the time: the years of deflation and instability that followed the Panic of 1873 and the years of mass unemployment that followed the financial crisis of 1929-31.

Neither the Long Depression of the 19th century nor the Great Depression of the 20th was an era of nonstop decline – on the contrary, both included periods when the economy grew. But these episodes of improvement were never enough to undo the damage from the initial slump, and were followed by relapses.

We are now, I fear, in the early stages of a third depression.

It will probably look more like the Long depression the much more severe Great Depression. But the cost – to the world economy and, above all, to the millions of lives blighted by the absence of jobs – will none-the less be immense.

And this third depression will be primarily a failure of policy.

Around the world – most recently at last weekends G-20 meeting – governments are obsessing about inflation when the real threat is deflation, preaching the need for belt-tightening when the real problem is inadequate spending.

256

Preserving Economic Baby

39

In 2008 and 2009, it seemed as if we might have learned from history. Unlike their predecessors, who raised interest rates in the face of financial crisis, the current leaders of the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank slashed rates and moved to support credit markets. Unlike governments of the past, which tried to balance budgets in the face of a plunging economy, today’s governments allowed deficits to rise. And better policies helped the world avoid complete collapse: The recession brought on by the financial crisis arguably ended last summer.

But future historians will tell us that this wasn’t the end of the third depression, just as business upturn that began in 1933 wasn’t the end of the Great Depression. After all, unemployment – especially long term unemployment – remains at levels that would have been considered catastrophic not long ago, and show no sign of coming down rapidly. And both the United States and Europe are well on their way toward Japan-style deflationary traps.

In the face of the grim picture, you might have expected policy makers to realize that they haven’t yet done enough to promote recovery. But no: Over the last few months there has been a stunning resurgence of hard-money and balanced-budget orthodoxy.

As far as rhetoric is concerned, the revival of old-time religion is most evident in Europe, where officials seem to be getting their talking points from the collected speeches of Herbert Hoover, up to and including the claim that raising taxes and cutting spending will actually expand the economy by improving business confidence. As a practical matter, however, America isn’t doing much better. The Fed seems aware of the deflationary risks – but what it proposes to do about these risks is, well, nothing. The Obama administration understands the dangers of premature fiscal austerity – but because Republicans and conservative Democrats in Congress won’t authorize additional aid to state governments, that austerity is coming anyway, in the form of budget cuts at the state and local levels.

40 Why the wrong turn in policy? The hard-liners often invoke the troubles facing Greece and other nations around the edges of Europe to justify their actions. And it’s true that bond investors have turned on governments with intractable deficits. But there is no evidence that short-run fiscal austerity in the face of a depressed economy reassures investors. On the contrary: Greece has agreed to harsh austerity, only to find its risk spreads growing wider; Ireland has imposed savage cuts in public spending, only to be treated by markets as a worse risk than Spain, which has been far more reluctant to take the hard-liners’ medicine.

It’s almost as if the financial markets understand what policymakers seemingly don’t: that while long-term fiscal responsibility is important, slashing spending in the midst of a depression, which deepens the recession and paves the way for deflation, is actually self defeating.

So I don’t think this is really about Greece, or indeed about any realistic appreciation of the tradeoffs between deficits and jobs.

It is instead, the victory of an orthodoxy that has little to do with rational analysis, whose main tenet is that imposing suffering on other people is how you show leadership in tough times.

And who will pay the price for this triumph of orthodoxy?

The answer is, tens of millions of unemployed workers, many of whom will go jobless for years, and some of whom will never work again.

This Professor Krugman’s follow-up was in the Tribune on Aug. 3, 2010:

High unemployment: Is it the new norm?

I’m starting to have a sick feeling about prospects for American workers - but not, or not entirely, for the reasons you might think.

Yes, growth is slowing, and the odds are that unemployment will rise, not fall, in the months ahead. That’s bad. But what’s worse

256

Preserving Economic Baby

41

is the growing evidence that our governing elite just don’t care - that a once unthinkable level of economic distress is in process of becoming the new normal.

And I worry that taking responsibility for job creation, will soon declare that high unemployment is “structural,” a permanent part of the economic landscape. - and that by condemning large numbers of Americans to long-term job-lessness, they’ll turn that excuse into dismal reality.

Not long ago, anyone predicting that one in six American workers would soon be unemployed or underemployed, and that the average unemployed worker would have been jobless for 35 weeks, would have been dismissed as outlandishly pessimistic - in part because if anything like that happened, policymakers would surely be pulling out all the stops on behalf of job creation.

But now it has happened, and what do we see?

First, we see Congress sitting on its hands, with Republicans and conservative Democrats refusing to spend anything to create jobs, and unwilling even to mitigate the suffering of the jobless.

We’re told that we can’t afford to help the unemployed - that we must get budget deficits down immediately or the “bond vigilantes” will send U.S. borrowing costs sky-high. Some of us have tried to point out that those “bond vigilantes are, as far as anyone can tell, figments of the deficit hawks’ imagination – far from fleeing U.S. debt, investors have been buying it eagerly, driving interest rates to historic lows. But the fearmongers are unmoved: Fighting deficits, they insist, must take priority over everything else – everything else, that is, except tax cuts for the rich, which must be extended, no matter how much red ink they create.

The point is that a large part of Congress – large enough to block any action on jobs – cares a lot about taxes on the richest 1 percent of the population, but very little about the plight of Americans who can’t find work.

42 Well, if Congress won’t act, what about the ederal Reserve?

The Fed, after all, is supposed to pursue two goals: full employment and price stability, unusually defined in practice as inflation rate of about 2 percent. Since unemployment is very high and inflation well below target, you might expect the Fed to be taking aggressive action to boost the economy. But it isn’t.

It’s true that the Fed has already pushed one pedal to the metal: Short-term interest rates, its usual policy tool, are near zero.

Still Ben Bernanke, the Fed chairman, has assured us that he has other options, like holding more mortgage-backed securities and promising to keep short-term rates low. And a large body of research suggests the Fed could boast the economy by committing to an inflation target higher than 2 percent.

But the Fed hasn’t done any of these things. Instead, some officials are defining success down.

For example, last week Richard Fisher, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, argued that the Fed bears no responsibility for the economies weakness, which he attributed to business uncertainty about future regulations – a view that’s popular in conservative circles, but completely at odds with all the actual evidence. In effect, he responded to the Fed’s failure to achieve one of its two main goals by taking down the goalpost.

He then moved the other goalpost, defining the Fed’s aim not as roughly 2 percent inflation, but rather as that of “keeping inflation extremely low and stable.”

In short, its all good. And I predict – having seen this movie before, in Japan – that if and when prices start falling, when below target inflation becomes deflation, some Fed officials will explain that that’s OK too.

What lies down this path? Here’s what I consider all too likely: Two years from now unemployment will still be extremely high, quit possibly higher than it is now. But instead of taking responsibility

256

Preserving Economic Baby

43

for fixing the situation, politicians and Fed officials alike will declare that high unemployment is structural, beyond their control. And as I said, over time these excuses may turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy, as the long-term unemployed lose their skills and their connections with the work force, and become unemployable.

I’d like to imagine that public outrage will prevent this outcome. But while Americans are indeed angry, their anger is unfocused. And so I worry that our governing elite, which just isn’t all that into the unemployed, will allow the job slump to go on and on.

Would have Thomas Jefferson, endorsed Social Security?

The question is, of course, academic but we know that he stood politically with agrarian interests that were paradoxical to the interests of the Federalists and the Whigs that favored mercantilism. Thomas Jefferson, an agrarian (Democratic-Republican) whose physiocratic bias favored the economic theories of Dr. Francois Quesnay, of France (with emphasis on agriculture and Quesnay's doctrine of Produit net -- wealth derived from agrarian production -- was the main source of our nation’s economic wealth), was in the 1700s practiced by more than 90 percent of the people.

V. L. Parrington noted Jefferson's physiocratic bias (the husbandry of land, not labor of manufacturing (materialist bias) as Adam Smith proposed). 31 Philosophical differences were cited: Jefferson had vigorously opposed Alexander Hamilton's politics to establish The First Federal Bank but then, as President, he outstretched the nation's bank charter to effect the Louisiana Purchase. This political-idealism flexibility bridged the contemporary, often diabolical society-business key national interest duality. And it provided a bridge to the vast Western expanse: more land to be tamed and tilled (physiocratic interest) and the vast natural resources (materialist interest) for the greatest ever government-give-away to privatization - the time called the Gilded Age, which still continues to provide vast amounts of ‘unearned income,’ which is the prime source of inflation endemism. In the long run and maybe unwittingly, Jefferson largely provided the foundation for the ravishingly hungry belly of the Industrial Revolution, and the socioeconomic changes that made absolutely necessary a pay check from

44 industry for each individuals’ economic security.

This economic metamorphism fallaciously occurred because of the orthodox affirmation of ‘believed Consequents’ in replacement of ‘Principles.’

The Industrial Revolution was sponsored by less than 10 percent of citizens, which comprised the oligarchical merchant class of bankers, manufacturers, and those of the Puritan aristocracy (and Jefferson himself was a worthy candidate here). As the merchant-manufacturing class increased their political control and general dependency on wages-earned also increased.

Quesnay's philosophy of creating wealth was right for the new American agrarian economy, but as the Industrial Revolution progressed, Smith's philosophy that only labor created the nation’s wealth was preferred, therefore was considered right. Smith, however, neither was concerned about nor did he consider oligarchical business firms, as corporations.

While Adam Smith did not contend that wealth would enure to labor with the end accumulations of marginal value increases of services and products, as created by labor, he allowed that accumulated capital would benefit nations as the goods and services of production (his definition of wealth) were sold, i.e., distributed to consumers (mostly comprising wage-earnedlabor). A nation's capacity for production would increase as accumulations of new capital increased and were re employed in production, increasing the need for wage-earned labor also would increase. Smith’s thesis was a ‘fair exchange,’ however, politics protecting individual rights were overwhelmingly skewed by the organic politics of industry.

Productions of the military-industrial complex have no usual economic consumption intent. However, defense-based products are vicariously ordered and sold to wage-earner consumers by way of the taxes required for the government to purchase the implements and machinery of war. The economic difference becomes evident in the economic inflation: a preponderance of extra income spurring on the economic circular flow involving the increased purchase of consumer ‘goods and services.’

The extra layer of income provided without services or products for direct consumption is, I believe, why the years of defense buildup -- which the Big Stick politics of fear has now perpetuated into the new century -always appears to lift the economy, as measured by GDP? : GDP average

256

Preserving Economic Baby

45

growth for the 1900s was measured at 4 percent while CPI measured inflation averaged 3 percent [Those invested in capital-based equities were rewarded (primarily wage-earners without capital-based equity were not), which mechanistically paid ‘unearned income’ provided the economic growth, so called].

As to war and war implements (i.e., the Constitution’s purpose ‘to provide for ‘the common defense’), no conscripted armed force existed when President Jefferson gave his Inaugural Address. We perceive of the avowed political camps as divided in values, as well in paradoxical thoughts. In this division, our political perceptions have drifted apart from those at our nation's formation. About original politics, Jefferson directed attention in his First Inaugural Address to the opinion-based division (which fails to qualify as reason): this excerpt from 207 is inserted here: 32

But every difference of opinion is not a difference in principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists. I know, indeed, that some honest men fear that a republican government can not be strong, that this government is not strong enough; but would the honest patriot, in the full tide of successful experiment, abandon a government which has so far kept us free and firm on the theoretic and visionary fear that this Government, the world's best hope, may by possibility want energy to preserve itself? I trust not. I believe this, on the contrary, the strongest government on earth. I believe it the only one where every man, at the call of the law, would fly to the standard of the law, and would meet invasions of the public order as his own personal concern.

In our political drifting away from Jefferson’s sentiment, we need to find common values before our Hobbesian materialist aggressions get out of hand. Since this is as good a point as any to provide definition to the labels often used to point-out our differences, these comments on inward-turned actions are included here.

Thomas Hobbes contended that brutish man is only moved by his inward-turned symptomatic (i.e., not principle-based axiomatic) interests: 33

46 In the nature of man we find three principal causes of quarrel. First, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory.

The first, maketh men invade for gain; the second for safety; and the third for reputation.

With Hobbes, aggressions and invasions are foregone conclusions. And since Hobbes, aggressions and invasions have become perceived to be normal behavior even to the point of nihilism (that is, abdication of and opposition to objective or outward-turned reasoning). And this suggests Hobbes might well have had in mind "magnificent blonde brutes," which the avowed nihilist Friedrich Nietzsche had based his existentialist philosophy on. Hobbes' false perception of man's normalcy has spawned aggression and war strategies that are favored by hedonistic politics: Do to others before they do to you, i.e., preemption, for instance, i.e., categorical imperatives’ inverse: total reversal of the virtuous categorical imperative’s intent.

Much of Game Theory, War Strategy, and Corporate Strategy is based on an implicit anticipation of aggressions and invasions. Consider, for instance, this common War Scenario: Let (A) represent one country and let (B) represent another. Then, let (a) represent an action to "arm" and let (d) represent an action to "disarm."

Now, consider the action-reaction possibilities of the (AB) scenario: When both countries act to "arm," (a,a) results producing a stand-off at great economic cost; When (A) acts to "arm" and (B) acts to "disarm," (a,d) results and defeat of (B) by (A) is the eminent possibility but at great economic cost to A; When (A) acts to "disarm" and (B) acts to "arm," the converse is true and the defeat of (A) by (B) is the eminent possibility; And when (A) acts to "disarm" and (B) also acts to "disarm," (d,d) results producing peace at no economic cost for armaments.

Obviously, (a,a) has ruled the affairs of State for many years, until recently -- until the game itself reached its ultimate end or reality: If played out aggressively, humanity itself was threatened to be at its ultimate end. It was this ultimate reality that has caused all nations to look more seriously at the (d,d) disarmament option. We call this reality the New World Order or it might be viewed as the new Social Contract of NATO or OAS in which

256

Preserving Economic Baby

47

all participating nations pounce on nonparticipants to encourage participation.

But, the ultimate end of the common War Scenario, the end of society itself, indicates that strategy based on Hobbes or Nietzsche failed miserably to recognize men of Thomas Jefferson's perception: those who would, transcend their innate conservatism to reason deliberately and ethically the end truth long before the surface evidence of humanities total destruction became generally apparent.

If our "Hawks" transcended their conservatism to embrace the ethics and morality of deliberate reasoning and thereby stopped the macho things of fainting aggressions, making profit the master of morality, or touting superiority, men as T. Jefferson, or A. Einstein's persuasion might have achieved (d,d) long ago and a new world order would not have needed to be instituted by way of stark necessity. More important we would not have a $4 trillion rapidly expanding toward $10 trillion, and higher, federal deficit.

End of insert from 207 & 208 Then, the resulting inflation was systemically suppressed by raising interest rates to slow the economy and, of practical necessity, increased unemployment. Therefore, both the procurement of military implements and the inflationary implications of arms procurement have by way of the official orthodox economy-management-policy been made to impact most adversely on the wage-earners of society and this while unearned-money-stocks, unrelated to the accumulation function in any sense Adam Smith had intended, soar to influence GDP. A gullible society trusts these official measures of economic growth which monitor only the equity value on the ‘unearned income’ accumulation side of the economy.

Thomas Jefferson confirmed his philosophical dedication: 34

We have an immensity of land courting the industry of the husbandman. Is it best then that all our citizens should be employed in its improvement, or that one half should be called off from that to exercise manufactures and handicraft arts for the other? Those who labor in the earth are the chosen people of God, if ever he had a chosen people, whose breasts he has made his peculiar deposit for

48 substantial and genuine virtue. It is the focus in which he keeps alive that sacred fire, which otherwise might escape from the face of the earth. Corruption of morals in the mass of cultivators is a phenomenon of which no age nor nation has furnished an example.

It is the mark set on those, who not looking up to heaven, to their own soil and industry, as does the husbandman, for their subsistence, depend for it on casualties and caprice of customers. Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the design of ambition . . . Generally speaking the proportion which the aggregate of the other classes of citizens bears in any state to that of its husbandmen, is the proportion of its unsound to its healthy parts, and is a good enough barometer whereby to measure its degree of corruption. While we have land to labor then, let us never wish to see our citizens occupied at a work-bench, or twirling a distaff . . . for the general operations of manufacture, let our work-shops remain in Europe. . . . The mobs of great cities add just so much to the support of pure government, as sores do to the strength of the human body. It is the manners and spirit of a people [Civitas] which preserve a republic in vigor. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution.

Social Security, it seems clear, had no need for sponsorship as our nation began and this provides an irrational reason for some to oppose it now.

Those self reliant, fiercely independent, agrarian democrats untiringly provided their own sustenance from the bounties of the land. And without them and the mass migration encouraged by the land give-a-way Homestead Act, our nation's wilderness would still need taming. (In Jefferson’s physiocratic view, the Homestead Act was a near total failure, however, in the materialist investor view it succeeded greatly.)

How governments came to "own" land is an interesting study for those with seminal interest. Conquest is always the original source of acquisition. Property title legally only has definition in the Legalities of Political Economy: in the vestiges of civilized governments. Property ownership is, therefore, an effect of what is called a nomos-based-liberalism

256

Preserving Economic Baby

49

although in its Whig origin it was designed only for the Gentry of society -as the creation of government with Laws of Political Economy also now is.

When the political call is for less government, the call is for ‘privileged individual’ privatized freedom, of course with government’s sanction and protection ( J. S. Mill’s axiom is conveniently overlooked): J. S. Mill reasoned this natural economic axiom about the distribution of privately owned goods and services.35

Even what a person has produced by his individual toil, unaided by anyone, he cannot keep, unless by the permission of society. Not only can society take it from him, but individuals could and would take it from him, if society . . . did not . . . employ and pay people for the purpose of preventing him from being disturbed in [his] possession.

The distribution of wealth [goods and services], therefore, depends on the laws and customs of society.

[What is noteworthy is that Mill reasoned this conclusion, as based on human nature instead of the conflated mechanist ‘property definition’, which is usual but not natural.]

The inevitable tradeoff of less organic authority, is less organic security. Ultimately, the call is for chaos and anarchy: the inevitable rise in organized and syndicated corruption intent on exploiting, as allowed or possible, the private property of others. Ultimately, the call is for a return to feudal society. In materialist rationalism this call is for greater forceful economic dominance of others: for to accumulate greater privatized shares of the nation’s wealth. In Locke’s empiricist reasoning of democraticsovereignty, the Whig call is eventually taking it all in violation to Locke’s reasoned human soul-based Imperatives: 36 --No individual has a right or power over the life of another.

--Force without Right, upon a man's person, makes a State of War.

It is a 'right,' a possession of each individual which must be protected together with his other freedoms, protected from others who are in a 'State of War' against the individual . . .

He that in the State of Nature, 'would take away the Freedom,' that belongs to anyone in that State, must necessarily be supposed to

50 have a design to take away everything else, that 'Freedom' being the foundation of all the rest.

The Sagebrush Rebellion in Nevada and Sagebrush Rebellion 2 are of the same materialist nomos but with application limited to ‘Western Nevada Counties’ rather than ‘Western States.’ These rebellions provide examples of political calls for greater privatized exploitations of the nation’s resources with tradeoffs that compromise the commonwealth’s environmental and security interests. On the past successes of materialist nomos, of laws applicable to Western public lands, these rebellions are rational. As to sovereign rights and equities, particularly as respects ethereal public interests as environment, they are irrational.

Consider what a crime is? Or what makes money illegal? When a crime is committed, money stolen is illegal. But it has no special markings to show its illegality. Crime and illegality are determined by applications of law, as defined: as legally codified to accord with the nomos or physis of Political Economy. Each of us might have received and spent illegal money in our usual transactions. Did we notice it? : No! Still, Illegal Money as Illegal Property in our possession can be taken from us lawfully without redressing transactions in which our legal money was exchanged.37

crime An act or omission that is prohibited by law because it is harmful to the public. . . . Crime, which implies serious wrongdoing, usually means either a Felony or a Misdemeanor.

Crime, therefore, is a ‘consequential’ illegal act against society’s Civitas that always is soulfully mysterious. And, only those caught, are punished. Until caught, many crooks are orthodox society’s heros?

Liberals generally are, in thought, permissive of others while of themselves, strictly truthful. Conservatives are, in thought, strict of others while permissive of self. Which can be most trusted, as an arbiter of crimes?

The liberal conscience makes for good criminals for in states of repentance, they are more prone to confess their crime. The conservative is unrepentant since he or she considers self as ‘better’ among humans that ‘all are bad’: having ‘pre affirmed consequents’ of the crime, as their special ‘right,’ and thereby in denial that a crime was committed, as Cain responded

Should our political economy be improved?

51

when God asked about slaying Abel: ‘am I my brother’s keeper?’. Tolstoy’s observation particularly applies to dogmatic materialist beliefs:38

I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven into the fabric of their lives.

We had crimes with prohibition and we now have drugs and terrorism to deal with. Other social corruptions with roots in hedonism (which also are matters of fallaciously ‘Affirming Consequents’), deny personal transgressions while affirming self-righteousness; as being strict on others, Conservatives paint cultural sexual permissiveness, as legalized abortion, for instance, as criminal (until, that is, the unwanted pregnancy is their own).

While law is loaded with political deduced prejudice and antinomy (as unresolvable paradoxical belief-based controversy, as is constant in nomos-based situations), it positively can nevert be perfect. And, while positive laws have not, for instance, considered as criminal what made investment banking more profitable than General Motors: laws allowing take-over-buyouts of corporations did this. Investment consortiums took, as their own, the accumulated capital, including cash dividends derived from restructuring corporations, which had increased contractual corporate debt.

Then by new APOs, they returned the cash drained corporations to the public investment domain to again grow and accumulate ‘unearned capital.’

George Anders’ book, Merchants of Debt, told about the investment banking firm Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts’ (KKR), and their corporate buy outs during the 1980s. KKR’s audit firm listed KKR’s business returns as ‘greater’ than that of General Motors’ . 39 While their conduct was lawful, KKR privatized $ many billions of accumulated corporate capital, just as burglars that are not caught, also do. Then came the crash of ‘87; The experience of 2002, which inferred the myriad other routinized economic abuses of public held corporations (as the outsourcing of jobs, for instance); and related stock market busts; And now the economic bust of 2008 and an interesting

52 scenario involving drugs exported to the US became disclosed when recently US forces were allowed to overpower the drug-lord gangs operating out of a Central American Country. The drug-lord-take was disclosed as $ trillions, which then found its way back into legal investments in US business and housing. This instance of illegal profit taken from exporting drugs to the US, from which legal US investments were then made is a similar result as our legal purchase of oil from the Mid East, which also ends in provided funding for war efforts against the US. . . .

Our society has the highest proportionate incarcerations of any nation and they do not include most white collar robbers, as laws usually demure from specifying their acts as criminal. (That is until, Martha Stewart was convicted of stock fraud trading: of having lied to the prosecutors, which she denies). And with paradoxical political nomos along with its companion antimony (anti + nomos, i.e., the contradiction between beliefs) in the making of laws, chances are that nomos-based laws will not improve: Parrington observed, more than a century, this aspect of the mechanist designed ‘American System of political economy’ as:

an ingenious scheme to milk the cow, then divide the milk among the superintendents of the milking. [Profit-taking politics overpowers.]

Was Parrington prophetic? Yes! Is the mechanism-based political economy ‘true’ or ‘right,’ i.e., sans paradox? No! However, does a better nomosbased political economy, exist anywhere? There is no credible evidence that nomos works better elsewhere. And because ours’ claims to be democratic, ultimately physis-based reason ( no paradox) is possible and might prevail politically to improve the otherwise mechanist nomos-based economy, and ours, as all others of nomos, inevitably must fail because of the believed sophistries of temporal nomos with the paradoxical companion antimony are not reasonably redressed. So long as temporal nomos-based politics dominates, as orthodoxy, and the physis-based part of democracy remains elusive and suppressed (i.e., conflated into seeming insignificance), the politics of orthodoxy, which dogmatically believes there is no alternative to coercive mechanist control. Surely, the human fate, depends on whether or not an organized and beneficial controlling force can be installed. Should our political economy be improved? Yes, but only a gentle Civitas can provide reasoned holistic answers that are not paradoxical.

Should our political economy be improved?

53

Without deliberate-intellectual-liberalism (i.e., functional ethics in which hedonism is corralled individually by physis of deliberate reason) we can never deal with the myriad causes of social corruption, which is found in hedonism that legally is empowered by mechanist materialism, which self-righteous nomos-based conservatism has inculcated. Should we wish to find essential sovereign security, only Civitas (i.e., deliberate Physisbased liberalism) is the only answer: and while the orthodoxy of established, conservatism can be expected to always cry for greater freedom in disregard for security of powerless members of society: The insane quarrel over assault weapons is an example and Preemption doctrine, is another. Still reason cannot be taken from the individual and prose as Desiderata will provide comfort. Desiderata, is prose found where its unknown author had put it, in an old church of Fifteenth Century America.

Desiderata Go placidly amid the noise and haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence. As far as possible without surrender be on good terms with all persons. Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even the dull and ignorant; they too have their story.

Avoid loud and aggressive persons; they are vexatious to the spirit.

If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain and bitter; for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.

Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans. Keep interested in your own career, however humble; it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time. Exercise caution in your business affairs; for the world is full of trickery. But let this not blind you to what virtue there is; many persons strive for high ideals; and everywhere life is full of heroism. Be yourself. Especially, do not feign affection.

Neither be cynical about love; for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment it is perennial as the grass. Take kindly the counsel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of youth. Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune. But do not distress yourself with imaginings. Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness. Beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself.

54 You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should. Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul. With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams it is still a beautiful world. Be cheerful. Strive to be happy.

When individually we transcend paradoxical nomos to the physis of deliberate reason, the critical need for government and regulation becomes clearly understood. Society’s problem, however, embroils a common lack of understanding the issues and political “trickery” involved when addressing lawmaking that will work with beneficial rather than positive paradoxical effects: soulful issues embroiling human rights, from which terrorism is a desperate response will not abate any time soon unless and until the licensed mechanized political economy’s corporate extortion for profit is lawfully constrained and regulated.

Many have raised concerns with fictitious corporations, Thomas C. Jorling’s reluctant concern, stands out prominently in the particular light of contemporary recent acts of terrorism and rioting. 40

With some reluctance, I have chosen to register independent views on . . . the exercise of power by large, often multinational corporations.

Deep concern over accountability in the exercise of power, especially as it affects individuals, has been a hallmark of American society.

In my view, the Commission (for a National Agenda for The Eighties) should have acknowledged, in the context of the [nineteen] eighties, the historic concern of Americans with the exercise of power.

At the time of the framing of the Constitution, many provisions were adopted to constrain and make accountable an agent of power--the federal government. During the past 200 years, new aggregates of power have come into being, especially the large, multinational corporation. Brought into existence by state charter, these institutions

Should our political economy be improved?

55

were once constrained by limits on size and power, limits rapidly made obsolete by interstate competition. Justice Brandeis, in a descent in the 1932 case Liggett v. Lee, described the history concisely: 'Although they fully recognized the value of this instrumentality in commerce and industry, they commonly denied incorporation for business long after they had granted it for religious, educational, and charitable purposes. They denied it because of fear. Fear of encroachment upon the liberties and opportunities of the individual. Fear of the subjection of labor to capital. Fear of monopoly. Fear that the absorption of capital by corporations, and their perpetual life, might bring evils similar to those which attended 'mortmain.' There was a sense of some insidious menace inherent to large corporations. So at first the corporate privilege was granted sparingly; and only when the grant seemed necessary in order to procure some specific benefit otherwise unobtainable.

The removal by leading industrial states of the limitations upon the size and powers of business corporations appears to have been due, not to their conviction that maintenance of the restrictions was undesirable in itself, but to the conviction that it was futile to insist upon them; because local restriction would be circumvented by foreign (other states) incorporation. Indeed, local restriction seemed worse than futile; Lesser States eager for the revenue derived from traffic in charters, had removed safeguards from their own incorporation laws. 288 US 517, 548, 557.

Nothing took the place of the limits -- limits designed to control power -- once imposed by states. Subsequently, the corporation has continued to grow, and it now is the source of the exercise of the greatest amount of power in national and global society. Simply put, the large business corporations, separately and collectively, wield the greatest quantum power in our society. Power with many dimensions: to shape the form of society, to alter the

56 landscape, to distribute new chemicals, to provide or withhold food, to determine income differentials, to make us dependent upon technology. On and on we could go, but for purposes here it is sufficient to assert that the power once thought of as the exclusive province of government -- to exercise power to control others -- is now held and executed largely by large business corporations.

Where government has such power, we establish measures to protect the individual, but not so with the corporation. While government cannot deprive a life experience for the exercise of speech, a corporation can deny employment providing the paycheck essential for survival for such expression. Specific multinational corporations wield power beyond the boundaries of any national jurisdiction.

The government’s economic affairs and regulation must become more effective. But, expecting effectiveness without pure intellectual liberalism -- the deliberate reasoning of ethics which culminated in Locke’s conclusion for actualizing democratic-sovereignty -- is paradoxical because it is belief-based on nomos or antinomy.

As our nation began, money was not the absolute necessity as goods were exchanged by means of barter. Even the orphan, the homeless and the traveler could find shelter and food in exchange for chores and menial services in the barter system. And we might note that there were few doctors and fewer hospitals then. Political economy-based industrialism has made money an absolute necessity. This economic metamorphism resulted from expediently tautologically ‘Affirming the Consequent’: money, as the absolute lawful medium of exchange. Still, courageous individuals always openly share talents and possessions in times of need.

The Industrial Revolution changed not only the demographic composition of society; along with taxation, it made money the absolute medium of legal exchange. And we must admit that life for most has improved, as along with these fundamental changes including more doctors and hospitals, the expected span of life has increased dramatically and this welcome reality not only provides a factor of need for Social Security benefits but also is a factor of the heavier burden on those wage-earners

Should our political economy be improved?

57

whose contribution taxes make Social Security work (For each life-year added to longevity, an additional $10,000 in contemporary inflation loaded Social Security Benefits must annually be paid).

Less than 4 percent of the population now claims an agrarian-based existence. And as the self-reliant, agrarian lifestyle was traded for a paycheck, the need for the wage-based insurance system of Social Security grew in importance to society: Business cycles remind us, all too often, of our need for insuring individual economic Security.

Even as Benjamin Franklin was in the forefront of developing the private insurance systems which have pervaded our society and as these private systems are based on what Roger Williams called social usage, i.e., mutual public-based considerations, it is reasonable to think that Thomas Jefferson, had he lived to experience the transition from agrarian to industrial life, would have been in the forefront of the politics to install Social Security Insurance.

Thomas Jefferson foresaw and expressed great concern with the masses inevitable dependence on the wiles of banks and business.

[Jefferson foresaw that Henry Clay’s Whig politics would install the "American Plan," and the GOP, following Lincoln, did this.]

Thomas Jefferson fought valiantly to curb the business dimension of government. But this didn't stop the migration from farm to factory. And this migration made society squarely dependent on profit-based manufacturing and business for its economic security. Society now depends more squarely on a Corporate America that has become international and this indeed portends the potential of dismal prospects for the abiding basic security of Americans -- particularly as regards Constitutionally based democratic sovereignty, as wage-earning is transferred to foreign productions so to increase corporate profits. Wage-earned consumption, has been converted to consumption without wage-earned production, for increasing corporate profits. What happens when foreign produced goods are not purchased?

With these thoughts in mind, we can compare the condition of our sovereignty today with the predicament of our new nation's sovereignty.

Parrington chronicled the presidential election results of 1800: 41

58 With the triumph of Jefferson in the great struggle of 1800, the first democratic battle had been won at the polls, but victory remained still in doubt. The new liberalism was in the saddle, but how long it would keep its seat, or whither it would drive, no one could foresee.

The aristocratic eighteenth century was still in secure possession of all the vantage points of polite culture. It still held the positions of honor and emolument and dictated the ways of society. . . America was still dwelling in the twilight of a century that was loath to be gone. [And was returned to that former century by successes of Whigs’ politics.]

We might contrast Jefferson's political victory with the landslide mid-term elections of 1994 and ask if Jefferson type liberalism was again the victor? As one disgruntled voter lamented:

We should return the Statue of Liberty as our nation no longer represents its values of origin. [In 2003 the political divide is greater.]

While liberalism’s definition included Whigs of another time and place: 42 The Whig party maintained a strong position in English politics until the 1850's, when the Whig progressives adopted the term Liberal: American Whigs adopted the abandoned Grand Old Party (GOP) identity for their politics and cleverly rationalized from materialist belief, from which their affirmed fallacious principles, as based on popular nomos-based catch phrases became the reassigned economic antecedents of John Locke’s rational ethical philosophy (Locke, at the time, was considered the seventeenth century philosophical ruler in America, while Hobbes had ruled the sixteenth, and Whigs then politically achieved to return America to the conservative philosophy of Hobbes.) With the election of President Lincoln, and the adopted GOP identity, the Whig party in America then simply vanished. And the GOP of today celebrates their conservatism, as of Disraeli and Burke, of former times. Lincoln, as President, was a philosophical anomaly since his rational proclivity did not fit with the GOP identity.

Liberalism, as represented in John Locke's rational democraticsovereignty, ever since the Lincoln Presidency, clearly has been a political loser (sixteen republican presidents and nine democrats 43): our newly found

Should our political economy be improved?

59

American conservatism, while not new, benefits from conservatism that is naturally inherent to all humanity. It therefore, is far more, than just a philosophical trend, which favored Whigs. Rather, it has become dogmatic, as for instance, with political reaction to down scaling the military-industrialcomplex (in which huge industrial ‘for profit’ corporations influence unduly the politics) at a critical time of extreme economic stress caused by a huge and expanding national deficit. In this political situation, our politics has become a finger pointing contest that cannot be understood (is unreal), i.e., is analogous to this flippant metaphysics definition:

When he that speaks, and he to whom he speaks, neither of them understand what is meant, that is metaphysics.

Voltaire (However, metaphysics while not understandable, is not at all unreal, as conservatism has become) And our growing problems involve a critical need to understand the paradoxical nature of believed causes, including our federal deficit, we should be clear, the solutions are mostly founded on the mechanist American System nomos (i.e., Whig-based idealism). And John Locke's ethical (non paradoxical) Liberalism offers hope for rational solutions:

Men living together 'according to reason' are 'properly in the State of Nature,' Reason must find a prominent and respected place in our nation's character (Civitas) if we are to honor democracy: if we are to maintain any semblance of democracy as based on individual sovereignty which not only secures individual freedom but also individual empowerment in matters of individually achieved economic well-being.

This excerpt also is from 208 Locke’s experience-based reasoning alone defined the inalienable essence of individual equality, i.e., the democratically "leveled" sovereignty for which Colonial America had aspired. However, while Locke’s clear explication was commonly revered, many of the Constitutional Convention held fast to Hobbes’ ‘Divine Rights’-based materialist view. Only reluctantly, did they adopt democratic-sovereignty as the cardinal anchor of constitutional purposes, as expressed in the Preamble: the Convention adopted democraticsovereignty as the physis-based Strategic plan but by adopting a Republic instead of a Democracy, they marginalized and isolated this strategy. While

60 the Convention adopted leveled “essential democratic sovereignty” as the strategy for governance consent, as with England’s unit of money, the American nation’s sovereignty is quantified by the collective value of the individual sovereign units, however, into this mix our conservative ‘White Rabbit materialists’ affirmed the nomos-based practical sovereignty of wealth as measured by substantially defined individual property values, was legally included to act as a check on Populus-based democratic rule. The Convention proposed dynamic individual democratic-sovereignty as the physis-consentbased foundation to the Constitution, i.e., naturally endowed human rights that we each claim as our own individual “cardinal entity of value” constantly requiring a dynamic and responsible intelligent presence in every sovereign individual (however, by infusing practical property-based sovereignty into the mix, the Constitution infused perpetual legal dogmatic controls on this individual responsibility). While we each are more allowed than expected to exercise this responsibility by thinking clearly, proclaiming candidly and acting upon what we think. And while this exercise provides the constantly renewable reparation of the constitutional Strategic Plan, i.e., each fresh generation of dynamic sovereign citizens quantifies and qualifies its consent of the nation’s sovereignty, our administrations of laws and government are controlled by an elected Congress that often acts covertly on the one hand and the appointed for life Supreme Court that acts independently of governments’ strategic sovereignty-based influences on the other. Still, the constitutional reparation, we call freedom, requires of each individual (and political factions) an outward-turned (objective) perspective regarding all aspects that are common to the whole of society. Each individual is naturally accountable to admit to all others the liberties that they themselves require, as Locke’s philosophy had specified: 44

[Locke] assert[s physis-based natural law] in the contemporary,' to 'claim' that it is true by the admission of any individual that his or her requirements of liberty and freedom must be admitted to others, 'unless' the form of political society under which they live is unjust.

Craig Thomas end of excerpt from 208 The substantial quintessence of American Sovereignty has everything to do with the government’s internal affairs:

Should our political economy be improved?

61

--Do we each enjoy equitable prospects of sovereign equivalence and individual empowerment?

--Are we together in principle or divided? (Do we illogically deny antecedent principles by either affirming consequential biases or denying outright the reasoned antecedent principles?)

--Are we ethically moral or amoral, knowledgeable or ignorant, a wage-giver or wage-earner, or in other words, are we worthy of being called liberal in the sense of Jefferson’s liberality?

--In short, do we embrace democratic ethics to an extent that it is of strategic, i.e., only of holistic interest to us?

--And, when elected to the Senate, particularly, and having taken the oath of office to uphold the Constitution, do we consider the strategic nature of our election, or do we dismiss this strategy in favor of a much narrower personal duty to only those who elected us and probably will again if we serve only them? Do we violate our strategic oath when serving duty only to our constituent base, rather than the constitutional whole of society? In this, do we violate the Constitution? excerpt from 251 Economic Paradox: supply v.s. demand.

Extremes of the price spectrum, of the mechanist economic paradigm, are paradoxical: Price is low when supply exceeds demand (suppliers then need price supports of one sort or another). However, when demand exceeds supply, consumer-subsidies are then required. Adam Smith’s competition paradigm intends that economy will regulate this price paradox. When the paradigm fails, the extremes of price embroil distribution disputes that are paradigm-related more than competition related. Did J. S. Mill reason from this paradox to state the following economic axiom about the distribution of privately owned goods and services.45

Even what a person has produced by his individual toil, unaided by anyone, he cannot keep, unless by the permission of society. Not only can society take it from him, but individuals could and would take it from him, if society . . . did not . . . employ and pay people for the purpose of preventing him from being disturbed in [his] possession.

62 The distribution of wealth [goods and services], therefore, depends on the laws and customs of society.

[What is noteworthy is that Mill reasoned this conclusion, as based on human nature instead of the conflated mechanist ‘property definition’, which is not natural.]

When prices artificially, mechanistically, rose for electricity in California (Governor Davis’s deficit problem) and gasoline prices rose nationwide, ‘supply’ and ‘demand’ issues politically divided the population?

(All politics is ideological, i.e., sans logical necessity.) Political issues, which embroiled the price paradox, clearly showed that Adam Smith’s competition paradigm had failed to mitigate the issues? 46

And now comes (Adolph) Lowe’s most serious contention, if modern, ‘organized’ capitalism cannot any longer depend on spontaneous forces of the market to assure its orderly operation, economics itself also changes its relationship to society. As long as the laws of behavior could be discerned at work within the system, economics could be a passive pursuit, a detached contemplation of the workings of society. . . .

But the change in the social setting of modern capitalism [now] rules out [Smith’s competition paradigm]. To be effective, economics is now forced to become an instrument of active interference with the course of things. Its function is no longer to predict or prognosticate, ‘because that is no longer possible.’ The new function of economics-the only function left open to it by the increasing indeterminacy of behavior--is to control the economy. Lowe does not mean authoritarian central planning. Rather, he sees the task of economic control as guiding the system to a socially desired goal through appropriate market behavior. Behavior may be made appropriate by very mild policies, such as tax inducements, or it may be steered by bolder government actions that directly affect supply and demand.

Mild policies or not, the task of economics can no longer be what it once was. The old economics was, so to speak, philosophical economics. The new economics will have to be ‘political economics’

Should our political economy be improved?

63

-- discipline that must discover the economic means to achieve politically chosen ends.

Setting utility standards is a constitutional function that requires centralized regulation. Unfortunately, Congress has failed its constitutional duty [as specified in Section 8 (3) & (5)] of the Constitution. ‘to regulate commerce and fix the value of money, and standards.’

Roger Sherman influenced this constitutional provision: Congressional inaction then disappointed him.47 With the GOPs Whig-idealism, which installed the mechanist American System of Political Economy, as the given reality, Lowe’s guiding ‘political economics’ confronts materialism-based politics that legally granted deterministic controlling advantages to the huge fictitious corporate entities, thereby, supplanting the constitutional purposes, as stated in the Preamble, with the licensed deontological duty-based corporate objective to achieve private profit. And the legal perpetual corporate existence gave license to corporate leviathan combines that now control the utilities they serve (As the Governor Davis’s deficit problem cited above). They can charge whatever the utility public can pay and otherwise can deny providing the utility. This question lingers: Will ‘ballot initiatives’ spur Congress to do their constitutional duty? ...

Heilbroner documented the following from the underworld of economics: Mandeville to Bastiat, then the incisive Henry George.: 48

The irrepressible Mandeville shocked the eighteenth century with a witty demonstration that virtue was vice and vice virtue. Mandeville merely pointed out that the profligate expenditure of the sinful rich gave work to the poor, while the stingy rectitude of the virtuous penny pincher did not; hence, said Mandeville, private immorality may redound to the public welfare, whereas private uprightness may be a social burden. The sophisticated lesson of his "Fable of the Bees" was too much for the eighteenth century to swallow; Mandeville's book was convicted as a public nuisance by a grand jury in Middlesex in 1723, and Mandeville himself was roundly castigated by Adam Smith and everyone else.

But whereas the earlier eccentrics and charlatans were largely banished by the opinions of sturdy thinkers like Smith and Ricardo,

64 now the underworld claimed its recruits for another reason. There was simply no longer any room in the official world of economics for those who wanted to take the whole gamut of human behavior for their forum, and there was little tolerance in the stuffy world of Victorian correctness for those whose diagnosis of society left room for moral doubtings or seemed to indicate the need for radical reform.

It was a far more interesting place, this underworld, than the serene realms above. It abounded with wonderful personalities, and in it sprouted a weird and luxuriant tangle of ideas. There was, for example, a man who has been almost forgotten in the march of economic ideas. He is Frederic Bastiat, an eccentric Frenchman, who lived from 1801 to 1850, and who in that short space of time and an even shorter space of literary life -- six years -- brought to bear on economics that most devastating of all weapons, ridicule. Look at this madhouse of a world, says Bastiat. It goes to enormous efforts to tunnel underneath a mountain in order to connect two countries.

And then what does it do? Having labored mightily to facilitate the interchange of goods, it sets up customs guards on both sides of the mountain and makes it as difficult as possible for merchandise to travel through the tunnel!

Bastiat had a gift for pointing out our absurdities; his little book "Economic Sophisms" is as close to humor as economics has ever come. When, for example, the Paris-Madrid railroad was being debated in the French assembly, one M. Simiot argued that it should have a gap at Bordeaux, because a break in the line there would redound greatly to the wealth of the Bordeaux porters, commissionaires, hotel-keepers, bargemen, and the like, and thus, by enriching Bordeaux, would enrich France. Bestiat seized on the idea with avidity. Fine, he said, but let's not stop at Bordeaux alone. "If Bordeaux has a right to profit by a gap . . . then Angouleme, Poitiers, Tours, Orleans . . . should also demand gaps as being for the general interest. . . In this way we shall succeed in having a railway composed

Should our political economy be improved?

65

of successive gaps, and which may be denominated a "Negative Railway." . . .

When the Chamber of Deputies in the 1840s legislated higher duties on all foreign goods in order to benefit French industry, Bastiat turned out this masterpiece of economic satire: PETITION OF THE MANUFACTURERS OF CANDLES, WAXLIGHTS, LAMPS, CANDLESTICKS, STREET LAMPS, SNUFFERS, EXTINGUISHERS, AND OF THE PRODUCERS OF OIL, TALLOW, RESIN, ALCOHOL, AND GENERALLY EVERY-THING CONNECTED WITH LIGHTING

To Messieurs The Members of the Chamber of Deputies Gentlemen, We are suffering from the intolerable competition of a foreign rival, placed, it would seem, in a condition so far superior to our own for the production of light, that he absolutely inundates our national market with it at a price fabulously reduced. . . . This rival . . . is no other than the sun.

What we pray for, is, that it may please you to pass a law ordering the shutting up of all windows, skylights, dormer-windows, outside and inside shutters, curtains, blinds, bull's-eyes; in a word of all openings, holes, chinks, and fissures. . . . If you shut up as much as possible all access to natural light and create a demand for artificial light, which of our French manufacturers will not benefit by it? [This analysis applies to all licensed profit-based exploitations, as carbon-based energy productions rather than renewable energy which cannot be owned and where profit is not at play.]

. . . If more tallow is consumed, then there must be more oxen and sheep . . . if more oil is consumed, then we shall have extended cultivation of the poppy, of the olive . . . our heaths will be covered with resinous trees.

Make your choice, but be logical; for as long as you exclude,

66 as you do, iron, corn, foreign fabrics, in proportion as their prices approximate to zero, what inconsistency it would be to admit the light of the sun, the price of which is already zero during the entire day!

A more dramatic -- if fantastic -- defense of free trade has never been written. But it was not only against protective tariffs that Bastiat protested: this man laughed at every form of economic double-thinking.

In 1848, when the Socialists began to propound their ideas for the salvation for society with more regard for passion than practicability, Bastiat turned against them the same weapons that he had used against the "ancien regime." "Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state," he wrote. "They forget that the state lives at the expense of every one.". .

How he loved to demolish the specious thinking that argued for barriers to trade under the guise of liberal economics. . .

His function, it seems, was to prick the pomposities of his time; but beneath the raillery and the wit lies the more disturbing question: does the system always make sense? Are there paradoxes where the public and private weals collide?

Can we trust the automatic mechanism of private interest when it is perverted at every turn by the far from automatic mechanism of the political structure it erects?

And these questions raised by Bastiat remained unanswered.

The underworld continued to prosper. In 1879 it gained an American recruit, a bearded, gentle, fiercely self-sure man, who said that "Political Economy . . . as currently taught is hopeless and despairing. But this is because she has been degraded and shackled; her truths dislocated; her harmonies ignored; the word she would utter gagged in her mouth, and her protest against wrong turned into an indorsement of injustice." And that was not all. For this heretic maintained not only that economics had failed to see the answer to the riddle of poverty although it was clearly laid out before her eyes,

Should our political economy be improved?

67

68

but that with his remedy, a new world stood ready to unfold. . . .

The newcomer was Henry George . . . George began to write about matters of more than routine interest: about the Chinese coolies and their indenture, and about the land grabbing of the railroads, and the machinations of the local trusts. He wrote a long letter to J. S. Mill in France on the immigration question and was graced with a long affirmative reply. . .

When the University of California established a chair of political economy, he was widely considered as a strong candidate for the post. But to qualify he had to deliver a lecture before faculty and students, and George was rash enough to voice such sentiments as this: "The name of political economy has been constantly invoked against every effort of the working classes to increase their wages."

And then to compound the shock he added: "For the study of political economy, you need no special knowledge, no extensive library, no costly laboratory. You do not even need textbooks nor teachers, if you will but think for yourselves."

That was the beginning and the end of his academic career.

He will tell you, "No, the wages of common labor will not be any higher. .."

"What then will be higher?"

"Rent, the value of land. Go, get yourself a piece of ground, and hold possession."

[What Henry George cited here is but one

With his passion mixed with little professional circumspection, George went on to write Progress and Poverty, about which Heilbroner wrote this:

His basic criticism of society is moral and not a mechanistic one.

No wonder the guardians of economics could not seriously consider an argument that was couched in such a style as this: Take now . . . some hard-headed business man, who has no theories, but knows how to make money. Say to him: "Here is a little village; in ten years it will be a great city -- in ten years the railroad will have taken the place of the stage coach, the electric light of the candle; it will abound with all the machinery and improvements that so enormously multiply the effective power of labor.

Will, in ten years, interest be any higher?" He will tell you, "NO!" "Will the wages of common labor be any higher?"

source of “unearned income.” A geometrically accumulating source is interest bearing loans which when legally enured by the investment owners (Banks mostly) as their property, also represents “unearned income.” ] Heilbroner then extracted this rational conclusion that bothered not only Henry George but most mechanized lifestyles, of hard-pressed productive wage-earners, which The American System of Political Economy’s mechanism-based treadmill puts them on:

We need not spell out the emotionally charged argument. . . Henry George is outraged at the spectacle of men whose incomes -- some times fabulous incomes -- derive not from the services they have rendered to the community, but merely from the fact that they have had the good fortune to hold advantageously situated soil. . . When we come to the central body of the thesis we must pause. . .

Why should a man benefit merely from the fact of ownership, when he may render no services to the community in exchange?

We may justify the rewards of an industrialist by describing his profits as the prize for his foresight and ingenuity, but where is the foresight of a man whose grandfather owned a pasture on which, two generations later, society saw fit to erect a skyscraper? . . .

The problem is not just one of land rents, but of all unearned income; and . . . is a serious problem that cannot be adequately approached through land ownership alone.

Now, how has orthodox economics reacted to these realities that bear so heavily on the underclass? The answer seems always to rest in meanings that

Should our political economy be improved?

69

have become described as conservative mechanist politics: as for instance, in the sense of the following Robert Hughes’ observation:49

In the '80s, one of the features of the electoral scene was a public recoil from formal politics, from the active reasoned exercise of citizenship.

This trend is no longer affordable. It came because Americans didn't trust anyone. It was part of the cafard [overwhelming fatigue and indifference to duties and surroundings] the 80s induced.

In effect, the Republican and Democratic Parties since 1968 have practiced two forms of conservative policy, one episodically liberal and the other aggressively not.

[And, isn’t this what Noam Chomsky documented in his recent book, Hegemony or Survival? : the more aggressive, conservative mechanist, we consider as orthodox, stable, the national security protector; the non aggressor, the liberal, we distrust for being contemplative, therefore, incapable to protect national security] Now in late 2007, the U.S. political situation is analogous to our war in Iraq: regardless of why, we are where we are: neither form of mechanist politics can be expected to change. Therefore, while the non mechanist politics has sovereign endorsement, it should prioritize the most urgent social usagebased insurance for adjusting the mechanism-based economy with intent to grant distributive justice to those who have only political economy’s treadmill to depend on for employment and subsistence.

The argument, which Henry George made should convince all who reason that “unearned income” (all that is not wage-earned) is government’s paternal gift which unconstitutionally was granted by mechanist political economy without requiring services to the community in exchange (should this income be taxed to the extent it is needed to balance economy?).

Robert Hughes’ observation continues: Both are parties of upper-middle-class interests . . .

The whole apparatus of influence in Washington is geared to lobbying by big business, not to input from small citizen groups. As E. J. Dione eloquently argued in his book "Why Americans Hate Politics," there is

70 no bloc in Congress or the Senate that truly represents the needs or opinions of people in the enormous central band of American life where workers and the middle class overlap.

Because we are more interested in profit than ethics, our Political Economy is bereft of ethical morality. We do this in an absence of intent.

We do it anyway. Utterances of Cicero and Confucius make the point:50

He only employs his passion who can make no use of his reason.

Cicero

Our headstrong passions shut the door of our souls against God [the pure source of ethical morality].

Confucius Passionate influences to obtain wealth are the driving force behind “American System” politics. Our headstrong passions to gain wealth (as measured in hoards of money) shut the door of ethical morality. Without conscience or probity, political economy is now primarily a matter of whose “ox gets gored.” Orthodox economists are partly to blame as they chose to focus on accumulation where the passions of wealth are most active and the forces of politics are extreme. With too little regard for the wage-earners’ role with “spending” on the side of consumption, they have compromised the economic equation. In this they rationalized the character of “man” as Adam Smith, with Thomas Hobbes and many others, had done (However, Smith’s uncompromising view of the need for probity, in the administrations of economy, distinguish Smith from the orthodoxy of his economics following).

While the rationalization of “man’s” character demeans “man’s” infinite sophistication in matters of ethics and morality, The American System of Political Economy authenticates the base qualities that in cultural settings are considered as vain and immoral. This authentication legitimizes “man’s” passion-based qualities and it makes their acts appropriate. this:51

Manufactures are founded in poverty. It is the number of poor without land in a country, and who must work for others at low wages or starve, that enables undertakers to carry on a manufacture, and afford it cheap enough to prevent the importation of the same kind from abroad, and to bear the expense of its own exportation. . . .

In 1769, in his Positions to be Examined concerning National Wealth, Franklin also wrote this:

Should our political economy be improved?

71

There seem to be but three ways for a nation to acquire wealth. The first is by war, as the Romans did, in plundering their conquered neighbors. This is robbery. The second by commerce, which is generally cheating. The third by agriculture, the only honest way, wherein man receives a real increase of the seed thrown into the ground, in a kind of continual miracle, wrought by the hand of God in his favor.

[So, where does exponential compounding of interest fit?]

Franklin’s view of “cheating” became acceptable on weekdays and therefore was made compatible with Sunday’s preaching. In this, The American System of Political Economy outfits the passionate politics of profit-based self-interest with legitimacy -- a sort of “economic sainthood” -- even while it “shuts the holistic economic door” to increasing systemic devastation to the equally important economic function of consumption!

The passions of concupiscent self-interest always tear at the values and morality in all of us and at the extremes -- now aided systemically by political economy -- leaves some desperately forlorn. Then as Cicero prophetically warned: with no avenues or room for reason, ugly passions arise and a predictable result is increasing instances of mayhem.

William Wordsworth may have had mayhem in mind when he wrote Sonnet:

Sonnet “The World is too Much With Us” The World is too much with us; late and soon, Gettting and spending, we lay waste our powers; Little we see in Nature that is ours; We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon!

This sea that bares her bosom to the moon; The winds that will be howling at all hours, And are up-gathered now like sleeping flowers; For this, for everything, we are out of tune; It moves us not.---Great God! I’d rather be A Pagan suckled in a creed outworn; So might I, standing on this pleasant lea, Have glimpses that would make me less forlorn;

72 Have sight of Proteus rising from the sea, Or hear old Triton blow his wreathed horn.

William Wordsworth 1770-1850 Heilbroner noted Henry George's reasoned contributions to the unpopular, unorthodox underworld of economy. In light of political disaster produced by conservative mechanists, this underworld’s truth springs forth: 52

"Progress and Poverty" sold more copies than all the economic texts previously published in the country; in England his name became a household word. Not only that, but the import of his ideas -- albeit usually in watered form -- became part of the heritage of men like Woodrow Wilson, John Dewey, Louis Brandeis. Indeed there is a devoted following of Henry George still active Before leaving this thought, it is religiously pertinent to review St. John’s First Epistle: mechanist temporal concupiscence is St John’s central concern, which preceded his final revelation and his predicted Armageddon. (end of excerpt from section 251) Paradoxically, hidden economic inflation endemism contradicts constitutional teleology of purpose, which Roger Sherman had argued for:53

So long as we part with our most valuable Commodities for such Bills of Credit as are no Profit; but rather a Cheat, Vexation and Snare to us, and become a Medium whereby we are continually cheating and wronging one another in our Dealings and Commerce, and so long as we import so much more foreign Goods than are necessary, and keep so many Merchants and Traders employed to procure and deal them out to us . . . I say so long as these Things are so we shall spend great Part of our labour and Substance for that which will not profit us.

Whereas if these Things were reformed, the Provisions and other Commodities which we might have to export yearly, and which other Governments are dependant [sic] upon us for, would procure us Gold and Silver abundantly sufficient for a Medium of Trade. And we might be as independent, flourishing and happy a Colony as any in the British Dominions.

Should our political economy be improved?

73

Sherman achieved ‘an exquisitely simple piece of legislative machinery’: the Constitution’s Article I Section 8. And Sherman was greatly disappointed that Congress failed to act, as this had empowered Congress with authority, power, and responsibility: . . . to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the standards of weights and measures.

Congress was given this constitutional assignment to forestall Bills of Credit devaluating specie, and to forestall money’s devaluation (Today’s dollar is now worth pennies of years past): this endemic currency devaluation, is caused by inflation. And if alive, Sherman would add ‘fluctuating mediums of exchange’ to his indictments of endemic inflation.

Irrationally, monarchical politics, which is mechanist, dogmatically asserts ‘the king can do no wrong.’ And because this asserted dogma is deemed as mechanist principle, consistently Sherman’s ‘standards.’ have been ignored. Dogmatic ‘divine-right-based’ politics has also deductively asserted that ‘law’ is the ‘American king.’ Parrington credited Hamilton for the idealist belief: 54

It is sufficiently clear that in tastes and convictions Hamilton was a high Tory. The past to which he appealed was a Tory past, the psychology which he accepted was a Tory psychology, the law and order which he desired was a Tory law and order. His philosophy was not liked by republican America, and he knew that it was not liked.

Practical business men accepted both his premises and conclusions, but republicans under the spell of revolutionary idealism, and agrarians suffering in their pocketbooks, would oppose them vigorously. He was at pains, therefore, as a practical statesman, to dress his views in a garb more seemly to plebeian prejudices, and like earlier Tories he paraded an ethical justification for his Toryism. The current Federalist dogma of the ‘divine right’ of justice -- ‘vox justiciae vox dei’ -- was at hand to serve his purpose and he made free use of it. But no ethical gilding could quite conceal a certain ruthlessness of purpose; in practice justice became synonymous with expediency, and expediency was curiously like sheer Tory will to power.

In certain of his principles Hamilton was a follower of Hobbes.

74 His philosophy conducted logically to the leviathan state, highly centralized, coercive, efficient. But he was no idealist to exalt the state as the divine repository of authority, an enduring entity apart from the individual citizen and above him. He regarded the state as a highly useful instrument, which in the name of law and order would serve the interests of the powerful, and restrain the turbulence of the disinherited. For in every government founded on coercion rather than good will, the perennial unrest of those who are coerced is a grave menace; in the end the exploited will turn fiercely upon the exploiters. In such governments, therefore, self interest requires that social unrest shall be covered with approbium and put down by the police power; and the sufficient test of a strong state lies in its ability to protect the privileges of the minority against the anarchy of the majority. . . . In his plan of government presented to the Convention, the principle of centralized power was carried further than most would go, and his supporting speeches expressed doctrines that startled certain of his hearers. He was frankly a monarchist, and he urged the monarchical principle of Hobbesian logic. “The principle chiefly intended to be established is this -- that there must be a permanent ‘will’.” “There ought to be a principle in government capable of resisting the popular current.”

Another excerpt from section 207 Thorstein Veblen whose education and experience primarily represent the last quarter of the Nineteenth and first quarter of the Twentieth Century observed prominent individuals as John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, and Cornelius Vanderbilt. Each had accumulated huge idled hoards under paternalistic privatized arrangements with the federal government (As Restated by Heilbroner and Grider 55 ):

Rockefeller in oil drilling on public lands, Carnegie with exploitation of natural elements freely taken from public lands in the making of steel, and Vanderbilt with grants of public land and funding as well to lay the rails of his vast railroad empire. . . .. J.P. Morgan was the

Should our political economy be improved?

75

primary common banker of these empires of wealth. And J. P. Morgan also was the primary banker providing the banking functions that upon his death in 1913 were assumed by the Federal Reserve Bank.

How William Rockefeller and Henry Rogers purchased Anaconda Mining Corp. provides a seminal example of special privileges enjoyed, then and now, by privileged affluence in our society. This condensed restatement is credited to Robert L. Heilbroner.56

Rockefeller and Rogers issued an unfunded check for the full amount of purchase under condition that the check be deposited in a specified bank and left on deposit, untouched, for a specified time. Rockefeller and Rogers incorporated a paper company and provided its stock as collateral for a bank loan from the same bank. They then made a public offering of stock for an amount that nearly doubled thier purchase.

From the proceeds of the public offering they deposited to cover the check and pocketed the remainder as profit. And, of course, they still controlled Anaconda.

Without using a penny of their own money (they had a bank to handle the agency details), Rockefeller and Rogers purchased the controlling ownership and made many millions of dollars profit.

This nefarious fact provides a sample of the webs of intrigue that unearned profit taken by operating on the margins of legality by using licensed banking functions to effect capitalists’ privatized grand schemes.

Usually, bank representatives require a handsome fee for what one might call “agency services” while another views the same as “agency abuses”: as Michael Milken's $550 million income as an investment banker in 1987.

Anyway, such grand fees also contributed to the huge banking profits in 1988 (Also, to the economic crash of 1987, as mentioned at the outset.). They were unprecedented and they counted in measures of GNP & GDP. The saddest fact is that privilege-grooved orthodoxy underpinned the legal avarice of our political economy’s industry captains, and they comprise our respectful conservative nomos-based gentility?

A recent example is found in the news about the junk-bond-king,

76 Michael Milken. Milken went to prison Sunday, March 3, 1991 to serve ten years for investment fraud. Milken surely never served time equal to the crime’s financial magnitude, as belatedly defined. Worse, others who are as guilty will never be prosecuted. And still worse, our perceptions that greed represents a positive economic force in our nation desperately needs to be flavored with the negative economic effects of our capitalists helping themselves to huge profits on the back of debt laid onto corporations, or taxes, or insurance, . . .(which comprises the endemism of inflation). In pure truth, we allow them to violate their public trust, exceeding the like of profiteering from donations that resulted from appeals to our sense of charity: this because of innate conservatism which shackles the public mind.

Deterministic shackles leave the public with no effective choice. It leaves conservatives, like our captains of industry, with gold’s glitter blinding their cognizance of pure truth (which comment gets ahead of Plato’s). a furious struggle going on for a secure place [at the top] An interesting twist that demonstrates David Ricardo's caveat, is Milken's former, now defunct employer, Drexel Burnham and Lambert seeking to recover $ billions in their suit against Milken. About which, many questions linger: ---If Milken's fortune was taken fraudulently and one must presume that much of it was, does the booty become nonfraudulent by taking it from him in a law suit?

---Are the court costs born by general taxes?

---If not, who pays these substantial costs? One might presume to guess on this last question but don't look very far beyond the mirror. The bottom lines now reveal that private profit of the 1980s, whether by investment bankers, captains of industry, or from our military buildup, were all taken from debt laid onto the taxpayers of our nation. Check out the amount of consumer debt and one finds in the mirror, a more true view of what conservatives claim was our ‘most prosperous decade.’ Money taken from Milken will not, in any event, be returned to those from whom it originally was taken. Such loosely defined money provides great legal incentives for perpetrating such economic fraud. In this we

Should our political economy be improved?

77

find the rewarding enterprises of the legal profession, but as the captains of economy, also of human cognizance deficient in measures of pure truth.

End of excerpt from 207 About belief-based truth, as contrasted with reason-based truth:

Whatever we are acquainted with must be something: we may draw wrong inference from our acquaintance, but the acquaintance itself cannot be deceptive. Thus, there is ‘no dualism’ as regards acquaintance. But as regards ‘knowledge’ of truths, there is ‘dualism.’ We may ‘believe’ what is false as well as what is true.57 Bertrand Russell Temporally, only when all falsehood is dismissed, does ‘no dualism’-based pure truth exist. Parrington noted that a cultural fallacy, as commonly believed had conflated natural rights. Parrington mentioned Ralph Waldo Emerson, as having provided philosophical ‘no dualism’-based context to the orthodox cultural conflation of natural principles by Federalists: 58

(As one would expect of a Connecticut Federalist) Theodore Woolsey was renewing the fight against an infidel [i.e., reasoned no dualismbased] philosophy that with its doctrine of natural rights denied the authority of the godly [i.e., a Federalist dogmatic belief] to police society.

In harmony with Lieber and Calhoun he rejected the [‘no dualism’based] romance doctrine of natural rights, and substituted a [‘dualism’based] composite [hedonist or sensualist] socialistic conception, that from John Winthrop and Roger Williams to Channing and Emerson had colored the Puritan thought of New England.

This sample of Emerson’s thoughtful transcendent clarity displays his ‘no dualism’-based faith in preference to orthodox belief-based ‘dualism’ : All that I have seen teaches me to trust the Creator for all I have not seen.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

78

Emerson’s “trust,” shows his abiding faith-based evidence of unseen things 59 (i.e., his untarnished abide in no dualism-based purposes (teleology), rather than in realtime-restricted duties (deontology).

Duties differ vastly from purposes: i.e., duties existentially are related to common meanings of ‘now,’ whereas purposes transcend to ‘always?’ : Duties relate to the Greek word nomos, as deon and ontos define deontology-based duties, which in a human temporal setting always occur in realtime, i.e., presently, and incur acquaintance-based dualism. Purposes transcend the realtime action-based restriction: as for instance, intent, which of temporal intelligence, have a cognitive past and future, as the Greek word physis, which implies telos, i.e., eos (eternal end goals) distinguishing purposeful causality, i.e., teleology, which has no dualism (i.e., has naturally categorical imperative).

Deontological duties are nomos-based and register only realtime human activity. Teleological purposes are physis-based and eternal, i.e., causal teleology has moral necessity, in what “the old philosopher” LAU TSE called Sinderesis (abides necessary moral imperative, i.e., no dualism).

He (Emerson) applied these ideas to scholarship in “The American Scholar,” a lecture which he delivered at Harvard in 1837. Oliver Wendell Holmes called it “our intellectual Declaration of Independence.” In it Emerson advised his hearers to learn directly from life, then to know the past through books, and finally to express themselves in action. A year later, Emerson delivered his “Divinity School Address.” In this lecture he applied his ideas of intellectual independence to religion and spoke against formal creeds. This lecture was so opposed at Harvard that Emerson was not asked there again for thirty years. 60 Belief-based dualism of acquaintance becomes covert endemism when eternal physis is conflated by orthodox mechanist belief ( physis then hardly exists covertly within the nomos-based materialist orthodoxy): eternal is then commonly conflated to temporal, essence to material, and teleology to mechanism. Craig Thomas observed this orthodox effect in Europe’s Idealists’ quest of unitary spiritual-material meaning 61 : Hegel’s

Should our political economy be improved?

79

Dialectical Materialism resulted, on which Lenin then based communism on.

(The following is excerpted from section 253) John Maynard Keynes had observed this about debauchery:

By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose. 62 Among the dualism-based fallacies of the Federalist Agenda, as legally made constitutional, ‘Broad interpretation of this constitutional Power’s Doctrine’ is egregious, the only conflated truth of which is found in Federalists’ ideal constitutional legality: 63 When as U.S. Treasury Secretary, Hamilton asserted the ‘broad power’ doctrine to justify his vision of government’s economic dimension, the U.S. Judiciary was overtly apolitically neutral in Hamilton’s debate with Jefferson, but clearly covertly either legally supported or allowed Hamilton’s idealistic Federalist Agenda.

Not until 1819, in McCulloc vs.Maryland, did Chief Justice John Marshall 64 uphold ‘Broad power’ doctrine, giving power to Congress to create The US Bank, which also firmly established the doctrine that federal power must prevail over state power in case of conflict. Then as fallaciously deduced, States Rights’ was also legally asserted,’ from which States now routinely legally license fictitious person corporations, which to great extent set the nation’s causally mechanized political economic agenda (particularly as regards Foreign Policy)? While these legally deduced ‘consequents,’ undoubtedly arose from ‘constitutional ambiguity,’ Nomos-based (i.e., manmade) ‘broad power’ doctrine, which is Hobbesian Leviathan-baseddeterminism (i.e., mechanism-based), while by some supernatural federalist legal wand made it constitutionally legal, is paradoxical to the consented authorities of ‘we, the people,’ and this mystical ‘vapor-like’ illogic became the legal cornerstone of separation between the U.S. government’s officially privatized Political Economy [i.e., of seeking and accepting campaign donations (i.e., bribes denied as bribes) to gain elections, and the return of ear

80 marked legislation, in which ‘pork barrel’ grants became the privatized rewards of the political exchange], and privatized Political Economy [of private business entities (which legally are licensed on the same supernatural ‘broad power’ cornerstone doctrine)]. Candidly, however, constitutional ‘private economy’ and ‘States Rights’ are legally only based on ‘vapor-like’ assertions: i.e., private economy, and corporate entities licensed to act as persons, are Federalist assertions that issued deductively from belief-based Federalist dogmatic materialist ‘positivism,’ the expedient of which was to gain idealistically perceived privatized economic advantages: ‘positivism,’ deals only with positive facts and phenomena, rejecting abstract speculation (World Book Dictionary, 1965), and Federalist, then Whigs’ materialism was the basis of this idealistic asserted tautological fallacy. Political Economy, as idealistically made legal, is as fictitious as corporations are that States now routinely, excepting jail time, license to act as humans (If they could, which duty-based reality is impossible, they undoubtedly would also impose jail time.)? About differences of Whigs and Federalists, Parrington wrote this:65

In the hour of peril, principles go by the board. The Whig party was the lineal heir of the old Federalism, but it denied its philosophical patrimony. It substituted [dualism-based] expediency for the old economic realism, and began and ended intellectually bankrupt.

Parrington also documented this about government’s banking practices:66 “The great desideratum . . .,” [Andrew Jackson] said in his message to the twenty fourth Congress, “is an efficient check upon the power of

banks, preventing that excessive issue of paper, whence arise those fluctuations in the standard of value which render uncertain the rewards of labor.” [This desideratum eventually would burst in 2008.]

And while Andrew Jackson was on the track laid by Roger Sherman’s ‘A Caveat Against Injustice,’ neither had, logical factual information that is now available to justify their argument. 67 Change, according to [the Idealist G. W. F.] Hegel, was the rule of life.

Every idea, every force, irrepressibly bred its opposite, and the two merged into a “unity” that in turn produced its own contradiction.

History, was nothing but the expression of this flux of conflicting and

Should our political economy be improved?

81

resolving ideas and forces.

[Hegel, the principal European Idealist, the unitary materialism of which conflated Kant’s dual existential reality (i.e., life’s noumenal essence and phenomenal appearance) to a unitary orthodox materialist reality] About this irrational unitary materialist reality, Craig Thomas observed that Kant failed to recapture metaphysics from a dogmatic materialism: 68 Kant . . . had failed to recapture metaphysics that ‘queen of the sciences,’ as a truly valid -- indeed, as the most valid -- branch of philosophy. [A romanticism had] judged his work as incomplete and as manifesting the Cartesian dualism in another form by his distinction of the ‘noumenal’ and ‘phenomenal’ realities of the world [The Nicene Creed’s believed unitary materialist reality had conflated noumenon’s essential ubiquitousness: still while irrational, the ‘three in one’ doctrine was unimpeachable and, therefore, was not challenged?].

G. W. F. Hegel’s dialectical materialism, with others of phenomenon-based belief (nihilism, positivism, French Romanticism and Enlightenment, Prussian Idealistic ‘power-state,’ . . .), provided to Marx a philosophic foundation to communism, which Leninist politics then forcefully impressed on Russia. And, the dogmatic, inconsistently fallacious rationalization stands out. This fallacy called ‘materialism’ is at the core of dogmatized predicates that intrinsically deny the essential source of pure truth: Craig Thomas referred to the shift in personal identification with ‘divinity’ to the identity with a nation-state (rationalization that defined English ‘conservatism’ is similar with the new nation of America, which affirmed it as doxy-based mechanist economic materialism-based mercantilism). 69 . . . to be precise, not even Germany but prenational Prussia under

Frederick the Great. Christian theology assumed a [unitary] merger with the divine after this life; Hegel posits such a merger here on earth -- with history and the collectivity he terms the state.

Craig Thomas also wrote about those who influenced Hegel’s unitary materialist view (Hegel claimed he wasn’t a materialist!):

The principal Idealists -- Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel -- sought, above all else, a unitary explanation of reality, some essence behind all

82 appearance -- in Kant’s terminology, a ‘common’ and universal noumenon, and in the poet Hölderlin’s description, the ‘spirit that is in everything’ [ontologism]. They were [expedient idealist] systemizers, assuming that there could be discovered some essential explanation of all experience, knowledge, and reality, and it was largely on this basis that they objected, Fichte most immediately and systematically, to Kant’s division between self and the world, which [they as irrationally contended] for Kant could be no more than a world of appearances. To achieve the healing of that dualism the Idealists posited, in Fichte’s theory most succinctly, the ego as the ‘ground of experience.’ It was not the rational ego of Kant [Plato, Descartes, or Christ] nor the passive receptor of the empiricists but what Fichte describes as the ‘active ego,’ inextricably intermingled with reality, imposing itself upon the world of experience, to a degree ‘making’ the world of experience in its own image. [In this, the principal idealists even conflated God’s noumenal antecedence, to which Nietzsche, when realizing this, cried out, “we have killed God!”] As Fichte claims in ‘The Vocation of Man’ of

1792, ‘Not to KNOW but to DO, is the vocation of Man.’ For Fichte (1762- 1814), there were only two possible responses to the world, that of the realist, or ‘dogmatist’ in his terminology, and that of the idealist. The philosopher’s response, more profound than that of the ordinary man, is idealist, while realism remains the province of nonphilosophical response to an understanding of the world. . . .

Thinking is no longer reflection, it is experience. Also, because of this, there can be no kind of reality that is distinct or separated from the ego that experiences it. Whereas empiricism posits, at least by implication, a ‘real’ world that is experienced, the Idealists assumed no distinction between the subject of the experiencing agent and the objective world being experienced.

Further, Fichte and Schelling assumed that the ego was innately a moral agent, again contrary to Kant’s conception of the effort of moral duty for the rational being, the necessity to achieve

Should our political economy be improved?

83

the categorical imperative [of ‘do unto others . . .’] in making any moral decision or taking any moral action. Men are regarded by the Idealists as innately, though imperfectly, moral in their essential, non dualistic natures. This leads, as we shall see, to a strangely Hobbesian view of the State as possessing the right and duty to perfect the ego’s moral imperfection by the exercise of its authority.

[Note how dogmatic (Federalist and Whig) ‘Idealists,‘ as Fichte and Schelling, are typically alike conservatism’s mechanist philosophical underpinning of unitary materialist Hobbesian philosophy, which as Parrington noted achieved to return the Seventeenth century philosophy of Locke back into the Sixteenth century philosophy of Hobbes.]

Parrington wrote this about idealist religious dogma called ‘divine right’ and mechanism: i.e, ‘economic determinism.’ 70

The three parties that emerged from the theological disputes, Anglican, Presbyterian, and Independent, followed, in the main, political divisions of Tory, Whig, and Democrat.

---The first stoutly upheld the absolutist principle in church and state. It stood for Bishop and King. Numbering probably a large majority of the English people, and led by the hereditary masters of England, it was dominated by the feudal spirit of corporate unity. It believed that social order, the loyal subjection of subject to ruler, was possible only through a coalescence of church and state. The subject-citizen was born into the one as he was born into the other, and owed allegiance both to his spiritual and temporal overlords. Authority, whether in church or state, was of divine origin, and Bishop and King were the Lord’s appointed, answerable for their stewardship only to God. ---The second party was a compromise between aristocracy and democracy. It substituted the principle of elected stewardship for divine right. Rejecting the absolutism of the hierarchy, it turned to the system newly brought over

84 from Geneva, a system that retained the principle of a state church, but which yielded control of the parish to the eldership, a select body of the best and wisest chosen by the laity, with final authority in doctrine and discipline vested in the synod. It drew its support largely from the London burgesses, but with a considerable following of country gentlemen. As the party developed it tended to merge with the nascent capitalism, restricted the doctrine of natural rights to property rights, and prepared the way for the later WHIGGERY of Pitt, or capitalistic imperialism.

---The third party was more or less consciously democratic in spirit and purpose, the expression of the newlyawakened aspirations of the social underling. Numbers of rebellious individualists appeared who wanted to be ruled neither by bishop nor elder, but who preferred to club with the like-minded and set up an independent church on a local, selfgoverned basis. They took literally the command of Paul, ‘Come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing.’ That was the true church, they asserted, which withdrew from all communion with sinners and rejected the authority of a sinful state; and so they call themselves Separatists. . .

It was the doctrines of Separatism, quite as much as the principle of the independency of the congregation, that aroused the fierce antagonism of Presbyterians equally with Anglicans. In the main those doctrines did not derive from John Calvin; they go back rather to Wittenberg than to Geneva, to the principles of Luther and certain German sects. . . . The Quaker was a mystic, sprung from the New Testament, who denied the Scriptural validity of the Hebraized Calvinism and a hireling priesthood, and accepted the Holy Spirit as the sole guide to his feet. The Seeker, on the other hand, who may

Should our political economy be improved?

85

perhaps be regarded as the completest expression of Puritan radicalism, was an open-minded questioner who professed to have found no satisfactory answer to his inquiry concerning the nature of the true church, and was awaiting further light. The Seekers were individuals rather than a sect, few in numbers yet greatly influential, men like Roger Williams, Sir Harry Vane, Cromwell, and perhaps Milton, outstanding figures of a great age, who embodied the final results of Puritan idealism before it was submerged into Restoration.

[These individuals were seekers in the sense of Socrates, Plato, Thomas, Descartes, and Kant]

During the long years of rule by divine right under the first Stuarts, the Anglicans held the Puritan unrest in strict control.

Nevertheless a hundred years of debate and changing economic conditions had rendered the attempt to erect in England a counterpart of the French centralized state, no better than an anachronism. The Presbyterian opposition grew rapidly in numbers and prestige, and the early years of the Long Parliament marked the culmination of Presbyterian power. The bishops were overthrown and the elders were in a fair way to seize control of England. But unfortunately for Presbyterian hopes, the radical sects thrown up out of war clashed with the moderates and finally broke with them; whereupon followed the “root and branch� revolution that had been long preparing. The left-wing Independents secured control of the army and set about the work of erecting a government that should be a real commonwealth of free citizens. The voice of the underling, for the first time in England history, was listened to in the national councils, for the excellent reason that his sword was drawn to enforce his demands. But they were too small a minority to leaven the sodden mass of a people long subject to absolutist rule. The psychology of custom was against them. They could strike down their armed enemies in the field, but they could not liberate the minds of men unfit to be free. Militant Puritanism was overthrown and its idealisms

86 became the jest of every drunken tapster in London. But fortunately, not before its political principles, long obstructed by theology, were sufficiently clarified to be laid open to the common understanding of Englishmen. Out of the debates around the camp fires of the army had come a new philosophy that rested on the principle that the individual, both as Christian and citizen, derives from nature certain inalienable rights which every church and every state is bound to respect. This far reaching doctrine of natural rights, to the formulation of which many thinkers had contributed and which received later its classic form from the pen of Locke, was the suggestive contribution of Puritanism to political theory, with the aid of which later liberals were to carry forward the struggle.

The far-reaching liberalisms implicit in the rejection of a hierarchical organization of the church were to discover no allies in the major premises of the system of theology accepted generally by the English Puritans, and by them transported to New England. Calvinism was no friend of equalitarianism. It was rooted too deeply in the Old Testament for that, was too rigidly aristocratic. It saw too little good in human nature to trust the multitude of the unregenerate; and this lack of faith was to entail grave consequences upon the development of New England. That the immigrant Puritans brought in their intellectual luggage the system of Calvin rather than of Luther must be reckoned a misfortune, out of which flowed many of the bickerings and much of the intolerance that left a strain on the pages of early New England history.

Two divergent systems of theology, it will be remembered, were spreading through northern Europe during the years of the Reformation, systems that inevitably differentiated in consequence of certain variations of emphasis in the teachings of Luther and Calvin.

Both thinkers accepted the adequacy of the Scriptures to all temporal needs, but Luther was at once more mystical and more practical than

Should our political economy be improved?

87

Calvin, deriving his inspiration chiefly from the New Testament, discovering the creative source of the Christian line in the spiritual union of the soul with Christ, and inclining to tolerance of differences of opinion amongst believers; whereas Calvin was ardently Hebraic, exalting righteousness above love, seeking the law in the Old Testament and laying emphasis on an authoritarian system. The one was implicitly individualistic, the other hierarchical in creative influence. The teachings of Luther, erected on the major principle of justification by faith, conducted straight to political liberty, and he refused to compromise or turn away from pursuing the direct path. If one accepts the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, one can scarcely refrain from following Luther in his conception of Christian liberty. If the mystical union of the soul with Christ has superseded all lesser loyalties by a higher and more sacred, the enjoyment of spiritual freedom must be reckoned the inalienable right of every child of God. Neither the political state nor the official hierarchy can justly coerce the individual conscience. ‘One thing and one thing only,’ said Luther in his ‘Treatise on Christian Liberty,’ ‘is necessary for Christian life, righteousness and liberty.’ And from this he deduced the conclusion that ‘neither pope nor bishop nor any other man has the right to impose a single syllable of law upon a Christian man without his consent; and if he does, it is done in the spirit of tyranny.’ 71 Clearly, this is the spirit of uncompromising individualism that would eventually espouse the principle of democracy in church and state; and it was their native sympathy with such liberalism that led the radical Separatists to turn more naturally to Luther than to Calvin.

Many of the differences that set Roger Williams so greatly apart from the New England brethren must be traced to the Lutheran origins of his thinking.

There was scant room in the rigid system of John Calvin for such Christian liberty. The Genevan thinker was a logician [who deduced irrationally from an ideal absolutism] rather than a philosopher,

88 a rigorous system-maker and dogmatist who knotted every argument and tied every strand securely into its fellow [to the presumed causal ‘mechanism’ which dogmatically is based on temporal substance called ‘materialism’], til there was no escape from the net unless one broke

through the mesh. The formalist who demanded an exact system, and to the timid who feared free speculation, the logical consistency of Calvinism made irresistible appeal; and this perhaps suffices to explain its extraordinary hold on the rank and file of middle-class Presbyterians. More original minds might break with it -- men like Richard Hooker and Roger Williams and Vane and Milton -- but academic thinkers and schoolmen, men whom the free spaces of thought frightened and who felt safe only behind secure fences, theologians like John Cotton and his fellows, made a virtue of [dogmatized idealistic] necessity and fell to declaiming on the excellence of those chains wherewith they were bound. How narrow and cold was their prison they seem never to have realized; but that fact only aggravated the misfortunes that New England was to suffer from the spiritual guidance of such teachers [Parrington’s description of mechanist deterministic ‘chains’ and ‘prison’ is reminiscent of Plato’s Allegory of The Cave.]. In seeking for an explanation of the unhappy union of a

reactionary theology and revolutionary political theory, Harriet Beecher Stowe suggested in ‘Poganuc People’ that the Puritan immigrants were the children of two different centuries; that from the sixteenth century they got their theology, and from the seventeenth their politics, with the result that an older absolutist dogma snuggled down side by side in their minds with a later democratic conception of the state and society. In England the potential hostility between Calvinist dogma and individual freedom was perceived by the more liberal Separatists, but in America it was not till the rise of the Revolutionary disputes of the next century that Calvinism was discovered to be the foe of democratic liberalism and was finally rejected. It is a fruitful suggestion, and in its major contention that the

Should our political economy be improved?

89

liberalism implicit in the Puritan revolution were ill served by a reactionary theology, it is certainly in harmony with the facts.

That Calvinism in its primary assumptions was a composite of oriental despotism and sixteenth-century monarchism, modified by medieval conception of a city-state, is clear enough today to anyone who will take the trouble to translate dogma into political terms. In recasting the framework of the old theology, Calvin accepted as sovereign conception the idea of God as arbitrary and absolute will -an august ‘Rex regum’ whose authority is universal and unconditioned; and this conception he invested with Hebraic borrowings from the Old Testament. The principle of absolutism, indeed, he could scarcely have escaped. It came down to him through the Roman Empire and the Roman Church, from the ancient oriental despotisms, and it was interwoven with all the institutions and social forms against which the Reformation was a protest. But unhappily, instead of questioning the principle, he provided a new sanction for it and broadened its sway, by investing it with divine authority and erecting upon it a whole cosmology. . . .

From this cosmic absolutism, that conceived of God as the stable Will sustaining the universe, binding together what otherwise would fly asunder, two important corollaries were derived: the universality of the moral law, and the necessity of divine judgment.

From the former flowed that curious association of God’s will with natural causes which induced Cotton Mather, when suffering from toothache, to inquire what sin he had committed with his teeth, and which left no free spaces or non-moral impulses in the lives of men.

From the later flowed the doctrine of theological determinism. If time is embedded in the eternity of God’s mind, if to Him past and future are here and now, fore-knowledge is an inevitable divine attribute, and predestination is only a finite way of expressing God’s understanding of how human fate works itself out. Ally this doctrine

90 of determinism with the Biblical account of the fall of man, and the doctrine of the elect becomes the theological complement of the class prejudices of the times. Bred up in the current aristocratic contempt for the sodden mass of the people, Calvinist theologians easily came to regard them as stupid, sensual, veritable children of Adam, born to sin and heirs of damnation. Only the elect shall be saved. That there was a remnant in Israel whom God had chosen, Isaiah had long before pointed out; and the doctrine of the remnant was confirmed for Calvinism by the sinful heart whose daily actions testified to their lost estate.

According to such a theology, the individual clearly is in no effective sense a free soul. There is no room for the conception of human perfectibility. The heritage of natural freedom was long since cast away by the common forefather; and because of the pre-natal sin which this act entailed on all mankind, the natural man is shut away eternally from communion with God. He is no better than an oriental serf at the mercy of a Sovereign Will that is implacable, inscrutable, the ruler of a universe predetermined in all its parts and members from the foundation of the earth. Except for the saving grace of divine election, which no human righteousness can purchase, all must go down to the everlasting damnation that awaits the sons of Adam. In the eyes of such a philosophy it is sheer impertinence to talk of the dignity and worth of the individual soul. Men are no other than the worms of the dust. The boon of eternal life is not included in God’s enumeration of natural rights; it is a special grant from the Lord of the universe who is pleased to smile on whom he is pleased to smile. In the hard words of Paul, ‘Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.’ [One might note the inconsistency inherent of this doctrine: if God practices only categorical imperatively, God’s heart never hardens. However, he is undoubtedly pleased by those whose actions live in accord with rational categorical imperative] And

those on whom he hath had mercy are his Saints, and they are gathered

Should our political economy be improved?

91

92

into his church, as the free city-states had risen out of the muck of medieval despotism. They are the stewards of his righteousness and are called to the great work of rulership on earth that God’s will may be done and righteousness may prevail over iniquity.

It was an ambitious program, and so long as the Presbyterian party maintained its ascendency in England it endeavored to thrust its Calvinism down every throat, no matter how unwelcome; but with the passing of power from its hands, and the growth of a common-sense spirit of toleration, Calvinism long lingered out a harsh existence, grotesque and illiberal to the last. In banishing the Antinomians and Separatists and Quakers, the Massachusetts magistrates cast out the spirit of liberalism from the household of the Saints.

dualism) and those that exist by human-made convention (nomos, with inherent paradoxical dualism). Sophists, however, tended to place law in the latter category, whereas Socrates put it in the former, as did Plato.

(end of excerpt from 253) — Is US constitutional Justice, as economically causally determined, of nomos (as Hobbesean materialist), or physis (i.e., reason-based)?

The difference, as conflated by Federalism’s mechanist orthodox ideology, begs for rational answers, which Federalism’s dogmatic belief-based orthodoxy simply denies: US legal case history shows that the Supreme Court fails often to distinguish physis from nomos.

Mechanists’ politically affirmed conservative ideology ignore the endemic dualism-based-determinism-based paradoxical economic mechanism-based causality on which the US economy’s deontology is based: covert inflation endemism, for instance, is a source of a paradoxical economic myriad. 73 This contrarian classical mechanist deontological politics asserts that duties were specified in the Constitution’s Preamble (when clearly, however, the Constitutional Convention had intended to convey a purposeful teleologybased dualism-free strategy), ensure that what elected representatives’ agree upon in sufficient numbers, regardless of ensuing dualism-based paradoxes, represented sufficient ‘trueness’ on which legislation should be based (The validity test of legislated law is meted, after the fact, by government’s Judicial Branch, which has a propensity for Federalist conservatism-based persuasion). Conservative representatives, as elected, therefore, fail to reconsider the covert dualism-based paradox of mechanism-based economic determinism, as is intrinsic of the government administered political economy, in which business capital investments in goods and services, when consumed, cyclically are legally returned as enured capital, i.e., exclusively legally becomes the business owners’ property (and because of the inherent paradoxical dualism, as causally was determined, by political economy, government’s constitutional teleological purpose “to sustain all,” because covertly conflated by materialist political ideology (i.e., no dualism purpose became separated and aborted by the legal definition “to enure74”)

The morally imperative presence of physis in society’s philosophy and culture (Civitas) required to effectively confront and balance the myriad asserted ideology-dualism-based dictums of the nomos-jaded American sovereign will, culturally routinely is severely conflated to a pervasive and expanding unitary materialist nomos-based orthodoxy, however, often fails to consider the causal effects of the mechanism-based resulting economic determinism, as further on is cited by Prof. Weatherford. This political contest is not new, as ‘antinomy’ (anti nomos) was attested in this centuries-old passage about the Socratic debate:72 Like Western philosophy in general, philosophy of law in particular first emerged in ancient Greece. In the 5th century BC the Sophists and Socrates, along with his followers, took up the question of the nature of law. Both recognized a distinction between things that exist by nature (physis, with no

Sophists’ legal opinions of old, as Federalists’, were acquaintance-based beliefs, as asserted, that failed to distinguish dualism-based ‘consequents,’ from dualism-free natural ‘antecedent principles’(Whigs did the same when expediently they asserted, as dualism-free economic principle, mechanismbased (i.e., is determinism-based) causality (i.e., the material World acts as a big machine): then when in political administrative control of US government, Whigs officially codified the mechanism-based American System of Political Economy): since then, a dogmatic materialist political economic practicing of nihilism and positivism, ignore or say no to dualismfree naturally ‘true’ essential principles, all in the name of “unearned” profit.

Should our political economy be improved?

93

providing dualism-based unearned awards of unreal exponential compounding economic effects of inflation endemism together with economic growth, all of which were consumed “by all,” legally enured instead, as the exclusive property of “Business owners.” The Bankers’ COLA [i.e., the government-granted interest allowance added to “borrowed money,” which resulted from the Constitution’s instruction to Congress: to “create and regulate money”] paternalistically was granted to Bank owners along with the mechanist legal decision “to enure” this cyclical exponentially compounded allowance, as the Bank owners’ exclusive property (However, since banks neither create nor construct anything in a real time sense of production, this banker’s COLA, as consumed and legally enured, not only is a primary endemic source of economic inflation, it is either bogus real-time-based deontology or teleology sans moral imperative, which is equally bogus). Brockway, I expect, reasoned that exponentially compounded financial returns, had no logical relationship to realtime productions, still fictitiously legally were considered enured as corporate owned profit, however, rationally could equally be claimed by wage-earner consumers. [A great fiction, of this legal economic

mechanism-based determinism, glaringly appears in the unreality of economic exponential compounding effects: which unreality-bubble eventually had burst (i.e., vast economic value had simply vanished in 1929, 1987, 2003), and reached the brink of a total economic crash in 2008 (Former Fed Chairman Greenspan, on a recent “Meet the Press” panel, estimated that the economic value that had vanished worldwide was about $ 37 trillion, which threatened the US economy’s collapse.)

Please explain how production reality exists involving “unearned income”-based economic growth in the GDP, which now approaches absolute dominance of wage-earned production-based growth, then will I agree that exponentially compounding “unearned income, which legally enures as privately owned “unearned profit”, is real!

Then, as regards fiducial trust, which constitutionally has nothing to do with the Constitution’s instruction to Congress [as specified in Section 8 (3) & (5)] : ‘to regulate commerce and fix the value of money, and standards.’

Naturally, this constitutional instruction must only occur in a realtime

94 economic manner, excepting maybe banking’s mediating accounting role involving owned property as exchanged. So, which part of this mediating role’s fiducial trust, “incurs the unreal mechanized exponential compounding of economic value, which legally then is enured, as privately owned property” (i.e., converts physis-based responsibility of trust into hoarded nomos-based “unearned income” that legally enured became privately owned?) : Brockway’s analysis of the “Banker’s COLA,” as the primary cause of inflation endemism, clearly inferred this economic unreality. Anyway, in this paradoxical human unreality of natural existential transcendence has been imposed onto “now-based” realtime economy, banks, as fictitiously legally licensed, are allowed to create unlimited money-based value, which clearly is not money in any constitutional sense!

Each bank’s legal contract-based accounting entries in which the economic property exchanges occur at some defined future date, rather than as “now-based” realtime money-based exchanges occur, from which mortgage contracts and derivatives therefrom, are then bought and sold as if they were real commodities, which instead are unreal since exponential compounding of value is unreal. Exponential compounding of value is unreal, and occurs regularly only because it fictitiously is legal. And the compounding effect on contractual mortgage retirements is surely known by mortgage debtors, in which all payments cyclically then legally become enured as bank owners’ private property, which enured value surely is not real, as becomes evident when vast amounts simply vanish in somewhat regular economic crashes! (In 2010, the local newspaper reported that a woman in foreclosure, had sued Bank of America for evidence that they, after bundling and selling her mortgage contract, was truly still the contractual ‘other party’ entitled to receive the foreclosed property.)

Government constitutionally creates ‘money’ to ease the private exchange of goods and services.’ And government also constitutionally [Section 8, (5)] was instructed to “coin money and regulate the value thereof”: The US American System of Political Economy, as officially installed by political affirmation rather than by way of legislation, codified the deontological conduct (i.e., economic duties, as regards money-based exchanges). Government, therefore, is responsible for covert inflation’s endemism that exclusively is first consumed at the retail level of economy

Should our political economy be improved?

95

(as empirically measured, the average annual economic inflation for the twentieth century was 3 percent, the compounding effects of which, conflated each original dollar’s value to less than 25 cents), second, by governments legally defined ‘enuring’ of capital, as business owners’ exclusive ‘property,’ inflation endemism (3 percent), when enured together with average growth in produced products and services (4 percent), exponentially compounded, effected a large part of the legally enured increase in business capital: the exponential nature of the dogmatic mechanism-based enuring of capital investments, as warehoused and compounded in licensed private mechanisms, which essentially doubled each decade, had doubled more than 1024 times in the century’s last decade [Multimillion dollar salaries and bonuses that contemporarily are paid by major corporations (Top “unearned incomes” now exceed 500 times the low wage-earned incomes) confirm this grand but unreal economic determinism, which cannot be sustained, as was recognized in 2008.

Because the originally defined dollar’s value is also greatly conflated, reminds one of inflation’s value debauchery, as Keynes observed, which particularly devastates the value of wage-earned fiat created money, as paid for realtime economic production, which is all that is economically real. Which exponential doubling of “unearned income” had anything to do with governments constitutional authorization to create money? Not much, for sure! : However legal enuring of “unearned income” granted to bankers by government’s licenced determinism-based economic causal mechanism, provided a huge, but existentially unreal, income advantage to business and invested stock owners (Even when vast amounts simply had vanished, however, what was also particularly apparent but generally considered as less important, is the mirror based public loss that lingers without redress).

Adding to this unreal scenario, when money, as legally created, is unfairly used (misused as in fraud and crime) or unusually used [(When considering that the great economic equalizer of human life is a naturally assured death, and that licensed corporations enjoy a legal fiction-based existence which has no defined equalizing end), puts greater concern onto licensed corporate hoarding and accumulating], the nation’s inflationary endemism is then merely a complementary comparative negative result of the lax, or no regulatory performance, of government, as constitutionally

96 assigned [Section 8, (5)]: discretionary hoarding of “unearned income”based money, for instance, when considered with the government’s mechanism-based economic paradox, which Parrington cited “as giving to ‘Peter’ by taking from ‘Paul, ‘” ensues simply by a causally determined, but unreal economic value-based exponential accumulation process involving legal capital inurements, as warehoused in licensed corporate entities, [profit taken by businesses and banks, which now often exceeds 10 percent annually (the private corporate profit allowed in the newly legislated US health care legislation is 15 percent), as legalized mechanism-based enuring], returns from consumption as business owned capital.

Government’s US economy administration constitutionally involves all of GNP. No private enterprise in the US is exempted from complying with this government-based administration, which antecedently was constituted to serve sovereign citizens’ interests, and only consequently,government’s licensed private enterprise. However, acquaintances with government’s mechanism-based economic paradox (i.e., dualism) clearly show in the above example of doubling, which has vastly advantaged licensed business owners’ (including investors’) income and thereby disadvantaged low income citizens that are left with conflated low value-based wages that because of natural subsistence needs do not qualify as discretionary income, still, whose rights and interests are as coeval of constituted government, as high income citizens are, however legalized ‘unearned incomes”, as enured, are greatly unequal as causally determined by political economy’s mechanism-based dualism. So where is constitutional equality found in this legal definition of mechanism-based “enuring?” The Constitution’s instruction to Congress to regulate the value of money, as regards equal sovereign human rights, rationally justifies government’s regulation of the government’s economic determined compounding effects of enured capital, so to assure a constitutional equal granting of fundamental human rights to life, liberty and happiness, of which health care is surely a fundamental right. And government’s licensed businesses are not, in any way, coeval.

The licensed unitary materialist acquisitive capitalist nature of private businesses, has conflated government’s teleological constitutional administrative purposes (as stated in the Preamble), as created on behalf of sovereign citizens, not businesses, which makes’ citizens conform to this

Should our political economy be improved?

97

economic mechanism-based determinism, which paradoxically is nomosbased mechanized deontology (i.e., dualism based): in which reason-based principles (no dualism) are conflated by the economic determinism, as Prof.

Weatherford had cited: 75 determinism. It is often taken as the very general thesis about the world that all events without exception are effects -- events necessitated by earlier events. Hence any event of any kind is an effect of a prior series of effects, a causal chain with every link solid. The thesis is fundamentally simple.

The ideas which it contains, notably those of events and causal connection, are certainly open to definition. If the thesis cannot be expressed as some part of science or theory in it, some determinists say, the shortcoming is not in the thesis.

If the thesis is true, future events are as fixed and unalterable as the past is fixed and unalterable. One graphic expression of determinism is in terms of what William James called ‘the iron block universe’: “those parts of the universe already laid down,” he wrote, “ appoint and decree what other parts shall be. The future has no ambiguous possibilities hidden in its womb: the part we call the present is compatible with only one totality. Any other future complement than the one fixed from eternity is impossible. The whole is in each and every unity, an iron block, in which there can be no equivocation or shadow of turning.” If this is what the way of the world is, then only what actually happens in it could possibly have happened. There are no genuine alternatives to be realized.

Philosophers and scientists have been concerned with the question of whether determinism conceived in this general and all-inclusive way is true. The problem is ancient in its origins. The Homeric Fates were enigmatically described as having power over the future. Early forms of atomism were more clearly deterministic, so disturbingly so that Epicures found it necessary to hypothesize an uncaused ‘swerve’ of the atoms as they fell through the void. Hobbes and Hume, and many great and not so great philosophers after them, have been determinists.

But philosophers have been more concerned with what is to many of us the most compelling part of that general question: whether we ourselves, persons, are subject to the same sort of causal necessity.

Philosophers have cared less about whether or not the rest of the universe

98 is determined -- what they have cared more about is whether or not our lives are determined. Indeed determinism has often been taken as the more limited thesis that all our choices, decisions, intentions, other mental events, and our actions are no more than effects of other equally necessitated events. The problem of determinism in this second sense is pretty well identical with the problem of freedom, or the free will problem.

When philosophers have worried about this limited thesis in the past, they have typically focussed on what it would mean for our concept of moral responsibility. But Strawson led us to see that more is at stake than that, including many human attitudes such as resentment and gratitude.

Honderich has raised the stakes higher. Determinism puts in doubt all “life-hopes, personal feelings, knowledge, moral responsibility, the rightness of actions, and the moral standing of persons”. And van Inwagen has suggested that if determinism were known to be true, no one could ever rationally deliberate about any type of action. Deliberation, it is said, makes sense only if genuine alternatives are available to us. If I deliberate about whether or not to raise my arm, my deliberation is rational only if I am able either to raise it or not to raise it. If determinism is true, only one course is genuinely open to me. So it is alleged, my deliberation is irrational.

But, as remarked, the most important issue historically has been moral responsibility. And what can be said about it applies in a general way to the other implications of determinism. Typically we believe that agents are morally responsible only for those acts that are freely chosen and within the power of the agent to decide. We are guilty only if we could have done otherwise. But if determinism is true, then in some sense we never could have done otherwise. Thus many philosophers have concluded that determinism and holding people responsible are incompatible. Others have strongly disagreed.

Recently, however, quantum mechanics and relativity theory have generally displaced Newtonian mechanics, and various proofs of them have been claimed. Many scientists and not a few philosophers believe that the dragon of determinism has been slain. . . .

[Is mechanism then true or false?]

Should our political economy be improved?

99

But, as remarked, the most important issue historically has been moral responsibility. And what can be said about it applies in a general way to the other implications of determinism. Typically we believe that agents are morally responsible only for those acts that are freely chosen and within the power of the agent to decide. We are guilty only if we could have done otherwise. But if determinism is true, then in some sense we never could have done otherwise. Thus many philosophers have concluded that determinism and holding people responsible are incompatible. Others have strongly disagreed. ... Recently, however, quantum mechanics and relativity theory have generally displaced Newtonian mechanics, and various proofs of them have been claimed. Many scientists and not a few philosophers believe that the dragon of determinism has been slain.

[So, when will reason-based no-dualism be adopted as legal constitutional purpose, replacing legal duties?]

As Einstein’s special relativity, for instance, which rationally equated energy with mass (E = MC2), instead of essential antecedence (no dualism) deontologically economically becomes a conflated appendage to propertied unitary materialism, which while acknowledged to be Einstein’s individual ‘intellectual property’ that is naturally coeval of government (business is not), is also lawfully enured capital, as in most cases of the pseudo necessary labor employments, also are lawfully enured (i.e., legally owned) by businesses.

(Excerpted from section 212) Orthodox ‘Inward-turning’ in England and America, had adopted ‘conservatism’ (also adopting Auguste Comte’s positivism as “their gospel of reason”), then denied Locke to exalt Hobbes. Antithetically, intolerance was not the only mutuality common to capitalism and communism: dogmatic materialist values, which included nihilism, positivism, and Nietzschean ‘blond brutes,’ were also common. All represent the dogmatic fallacy of belief, i.e., ‘irrational’ predicate values which function prescriptively in the human logos as dogmatic belief that religiously is inculcated, so to spread. When reasoned values of noumenon (no dualism) are denied or suppressed, correspondingly paradox (dualism-based) results

100 intrude that truth and economy.76 What nihilistic prejudice of communism’s ‘Absolute unitary materialism’ differs from the positivist ‘Absolute unitary materialism’ of capitalism or organic religion? Are the resultant paradoxical destinies the same for truth and economy? Or, does the outcome of our positivist American economic experiment [The American System of Political Economy, as tempered by philosophic democracy’s no dualism-based political influence (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, are social-usage based (i.e., no causal dualism) systems that are government funding administered.)], depend on if and how Hegel’s conflated noumenon to phenomenon-based ‘dialectical materialism’ is governed, or allowed to remain freely actively liberated? : to prod-on Rational empiricism’s no dualism-based side, must seek to find teleological fiducial principle (no dualism) to regulate (offset), capitalism’s ‘Absolute idealism-based dualism’? And, ‘Positive’ laws administered by the materialist dogma-jaded judiciary, expose values which claim democracy (Rational empiricism) but prefer ‘Absolute idealism.’ 77

‘Rational Empiricism,’ the philosophic basis of democracy, believes that the world is both material and spiritual. It holds that change and progress occur by applying reason to experience, and human nature can be changed and improved by experience. On the basis of these principles, democracy stresses discussion and the use of reason as a way of arriving at conclusions. It emphasizes the importance of tolerance and freedom in developing intelligent, loyal citizens.

Absolute idealism, i.e., stress[ing] the existence of one ‘absolute reality,’ a being or element that is complete in itself and does not depend on anything outside itself. It asserts that there is a principle of authority expressing the will of the absolute. As a political philosophy, ‘Absolute idealism’ considers the ‘state,’ or the national government, as the absolute, according to this philosophy, everything in society is a part of the state and subservient to it. From these doctrines follow dictatorship by an absolute ruler, rejection of

Should our political economy be improved?

101

parliamentary procedures, and submission of the individual to the state.

Rene Descartes advised humanity to make no moral choice until the truth of the choice is “clearly and distinctly” perceived. Bertrand Russell often referred to deliberate reason and undoubtedly had Descartes’ disciplined analytical process of proving truth (no dualism) in mind. John Locke applied deliberate reason to prove, then explain the truth that nature had endowed each individual with inalienable properties (i.e., rights): each individual’s equal properties of person. Locke’s natural truth appealed to Americans and they expressed it to declare their independence from England: We have preserved this expression of Locke’s natural truth in The Declaration of Independence. Rene Descartes’ natural truth, as follows, gives one a perspective of the uniqueness of human rights, qualities and capabilities:78

---What then am I? A thing that thinks.

---What is that? A thing that doubts, understands, affirms, denies, wills, refuses, and which also imagines and knows.

As we act, we do so instinctively, habitually or, preferably deliberately by associating the likely choices of an action posited with the inevitable results of that realtime action: deliberately we choose the “good” (no dualism) and when not deliberate the outcome has inevitable dualism-based results (i.e., paradox of which both “good” and “bad” outcomes are possible. Society decided early on that each independent person is responsible for their own actions (in this, society, sided with Von Leibniz’ monadology over Voltaire’s opposition (Voltaire’s satirical opposition to Von Leibniz had erred in the aspect of what, Kant had exposed with synthetic a priori causality. Voltaire, a Deist, had failed to reconcile God’s causal teleology inherent of the human free will with the causal determinism inherent of materialism): i.e., each person’s existence is in harmony with God’s purpose). For the conscious mind to be responsibly in control of an action posited, the mind must be capable to make a value judgement on the spectrum between the “good” and “bad” choices. With actions involving moral judgements on all spectrums of linkage between mind and body, the

102 mind must choose, for instance, between celestial (however vague) and terrestrial (pervasively real and carnal); eternal (no dualism) and temporal (dualism); truth and ignorance; pure (no dualism) and impure (dualism). Or in Jean-Paul Sartre’s existentialism, that human aspirations lead to God as a living reality: Sartre's natural truth considers the realtime dimension of all human action:79

"There is no reality except in action." More over it goes further, since it adds, "Man is nothing else than his plan; he exists only to the extent that he fulfills himself; he is therefore, nothing else than the ensemble of his acts, nothing else than his life."

[Everything we do in realtime is accounted to each of us.]

While intelligent perception allows us to think about actions of the past, present, and future, the present has no equal. While we can plan and anticipate, we must always act in the present. What we do in all moments of the present is what really counts and this, I believe, is the essence of Sartre's philosophy. All else has no philosophical state of active cognizance, no deliberate reason. Without moments of the present, there can be no actualization and therefore no memory or hope. Again, Sartre's natural truth for responsible action is this:

Nothing can be ‘good’ for us without being ‘good’ for all.

[This imperative, Lau Tse had called Sinderesis] Sartre’s philosophy involves deliberate choices. From research section 201, I recall that the spectrum of dependent-independent life has everything to do with actualization based in objective comprehension. Human life invariably begins in complete dependence as our very survival depends upon those who care for us: on those who care about our vital needs and act to provide them.

However, while such care is surely objective (outward-turned), particularly for parents, instinct and love motivate them more than consciously chosen objective thoughts and actions. Love, therefore, also plays a huge role in the transcendence from dependent to independent temporal life.

Similarly, and in direct proportions, the welfare of society depends on the actions -- on the relative good or bad -- of the choices made by the “doers” among us (As for Sartre's philosophy, society depends on the Sinderesisbased moral choices upon which each of us will act):80

Should our political economy be improved?

103

To choose to be this or that is to affirm at the same time the value of what we choose, because we can never choose evil. We always choose the good, and nothing can be good for us without being good for all.

[In Sinderesis, we must treat all others as our self] Our natural capability to reason deliberately provides definition to the absolute poles of each spectrum of choice. More particularly, deliberate reason provides definition to the absolute pole of moral “purity,” “virtue,” or “truth.” “Purists” always claim that the absolute pole is the only correct moral choice. The pure ideal, however, is often not a practical choice: The pure ideal is often impossible in the physical sense of morality.

Rationalization provides reasonableness and practicality to actions involved with moral choices that are less than “pure” and still “virtuous.”

Rationalizations mostly arise in adapting to the material aspects of life and maybe more, to fit a mutuality with others’ material-based choices.

However, when we allow predispositions as concupiscent passion to rule the rationalizing of our deliberate reason, we invite the internal conflict of conscience. Dr. Read’s lesson (belief-traps) will be learned only by some, and only at times:

Three of these attitudinal or methodological beliefs are: ---1) belief in the absolute certainty of the doctrine (the dogmatic attitude); ---2) belief in the wickedness of doubt; and ---3) belief in the authoritative hierarchy.

All three of these beliefs are conditioned responses. No one of them can be justified as an aid to cognition [Which is the only human faculty that allows one to garner truth and knowledge?] . They all intend to block inquiry, or, rather, to transform inquiry into rationalization.

(Excerpted from pp 132-35) Goethe's explication of social problems caused by subjectivity. Hughes' ‘inward-turning’ described man's subjectivity (as in language of today is ‘conservative’) clarifies the generally ‘orthodox’ political values of a society (Johan Wolfgang Von Goethe (1749-1832) spent 60 years dramatizing ‘the truth’ of the primary cause of a society’s regression and growth.): 81

104 The problems of inward-turning [tending to conservatism] were sketched long ago by Goethe, speaking to Eckermann. "Epochs which are regressive, and in the process of dissolution, are always subjective, whereas the trend in all progressive epochs were all objective in nature. . .[When free enterprise capitalism is objectively administered, it remains atomistic in nature, and best serves society as Adam Smith had postulated. As its purpose ‘turned inward’ onto duty-based profits, ‘to grow,’ however, it lost its objective value to society. Organically licensed profit taking from products and services produced by wage-earners, as Economist Joseph Schumpeter convincingly found, a century ago, was not justified by Smith’s capitalism.] Every truly excellent endeavor turns

from within toward the world, as you see in the great epochs which were truly in progression and aspiration, and which were all objective. . .." [Deontological ethics-based subjectively is inherent to all economic causal mechanisms,82 whereas organic teleology (as practicing Christ’s categorical imperative, for instance) is objective in nature] Teleological end-purposes are God’s causal standard. ‘Good’ or ‘moral’ purposes (objectives without paradoxical dualism) are of teleology.

This report emphasizes the point, as intended here: 83

Exxon Molbil Corp. posted the fifth highest quarterly profit for any public company in history.

[This duty based example of economic success is deontological (involves paradoxical dualism) and therefore, is not teleological (involves no paradoxical dualism).]

Because profit-based businesses’ deontological duties are subjective (causally applies acquaintance-based belief, which involves dualism), and therefore, views objective teleology, as negative and regressive. And this capitalist culture of ‘affluence’ politically skews by conflation effects, the ‘Good’ or ‘moral’ values of those conscripted to practice it. Economics Professor Schumpeter expressed economic teleology in his book published in early part of the twentieth century. But first, the ‘golden ratio’ and G. P. Brockway’s analysis.

105 The ‘golden ratio’ [Phi (N)], which the Greeks found was related to population growth, probably, therefore, is naturally applicable to deontological capitalist economy: i.e., restricts dualism-based effects, as paradoxical systemic inflation, for instance. N is an irrational number like B, which approximate decimal value is 1.618. [Over the last century, average GNP-based growth was 4%, inflation 3%. Compounded Stock growth, which reflects “unearned income” from investments (mostly reflects growth in shares of corporate profits that has legally enured to private ownership, and was distributed to the stock holders), i.e., cost accountings of the consumed goods and services, in which consumer price inflation was also inherently consumed and was legally enured, as the owned capital of businesses (Business profit taken from the enured capital returns from consumption, generally is greater than the combined GNP growth and inflation). And while Stock monetary value growth enhances the “unearned income”-based affluence of the Stock owners, inflation’s effects on consumer prices severely reduces the value of wages earned: mechanistically giving to ‘Peter’ by taking from ‘Paul,’ as Parrington had observed.

84

‘The golden rule of accumulation,’ in which growth in economy equals growth in population (with consumption maximized), is nearly in balance when the ‘golden ratio’ is applied to economic growth, and should administratively be made the ultimate economic goal. If Congress accepted its constitutional teleological charge and controlled inflation by limiting GNP growth to N, the balanced investments in production and wageearning with consumption would shift away from the present casino economy of stock investment growth from “unearned income” fiction into an inflation neutral, wage-earned consumer-based real economy.

And a dollar earned would retain far more of its original value. Brockway challenged the classical mercantilism-based notion of economic rights: 85 In contrast, Whigs, politically support the mercantilism-determinismbased economic rights which contrast since President Reagan is based on a Supply Side economy: as L. Beman wrote (the emphasis is mine):86

Supply-side economics constitutes a counterrevolution against both the theory and the related policy prescriptions of John Maynard Keynes. It is, in a broad sense, a return to the classical tradition of

106 Adam Smith and Jean Baptiste Say, whose famous law of markets states that supply always creates it own demand. That was the proposition that Keynes was supposed to have laid to rest in demonstrating that capitalist economics had an inherent tendency toward underemployment [i.e., failed in the sense of the Constitution’s purpose to serve “all” members of society (So, which underemployed member is served by Say’s famous law of markets )], but supply-siders

say that [Keynes] argument was logically flawed. They charge that government attempts to offset temporary weakness in private demand by deficit spending have become a major source of economic instability. [Social Security, Medicare, and now Healthcare are targeted examples of this deficit spending-based conservative charge.]

G. P. Brockway challenges the classical mercantilism-based rights: 87

There is no right that capitalists claim, that equally cannot be claimed by labor.

[If enuring contracts involving property exchanges were restricted to N based interest, labor would then justly be rewarded!]

Brockway asserts. Classical economic authoritative orthodoxy legalized authoritative paternal economic advantages to capitalists: for instance, with pay delayed until a work period is completed, capitalists were legally granted an interest free capital consideration (If the wage-earner has an equal constitutional right, why then are wage-earners not granted a paternal interest free capital grant, as education costs that capital has paid for, for instance?). Capital required for production’s wage-earning is, thereby, freed for other activities, as advertizing and lobbying, for instance. And, this legal advantage is deemed as a business right (as speech rights are legally defined, for instance). But contrarily, this mechanist orthodoxy has put wage-earners into an ‘iron wage cage’ with no free access to their wages-earned before the pay period’s end, and wage-earners are expected to subsist on the wages they earn but don’t have. And, about Capitalism’s propensities for growth, R. L. Heilbroner gave this analysis by economist professor, J. Schumpeter: 88

‘The Theory of Economic Development’ sounds like an analysis of what we have come to call the underdeveloped world. But in 1912 the special economic status and problems of that “world” had not yet come into existence -- this was still the unabashed colonialism [Whigs

Should our political economy be improved?

107

during government’s Gilded Age officially had installed the American System of Political economy with its pork barrel ‘internal improvement’based paternalism]. Schumpeter’s book was about another kind of

development -- the way in which capitalism develops its propensities for growth. . . . this academic treatise was destined to become the basis for one of the most influential interpretations of capitalism ever written. . . ..

Schumpeter’s initial portrait describes a capitalism that lacks the very ingredient that brought growth into the worlds of Smith and Mill and Marx and Keynes -- namely, the accumulation of capital.

Schumpeter describes instead a capitalism sans accumulation -- a capitalism whose flow of production is perfectly static and changeless, reproducing itself in a “circular flow” that never alters or expands its creation of wealth.

The model resembles the stationary state envisaged by Ricardo and Mill, with the difference that the stationary state seemed the end of capitalism to the earlier writers, whereas for Schumpeter it was the beginning of capitalism. Therefore we must examine the characteristics of the circular flow a little more carefully. Because the system has no momentum, inertia is the rule of its economic life: “All knowledge and habit, once acquired,” writes Schumpeter, “becomes as firmly rooted in ourselves as a railway embankment in the earth.”

Thus having found by trial and error the economic course that is most advantageous for ourselves, we repeat it by routine. Economic life may have originally been a challenge; it becomes a habit.

More important, in this changeless flow competition will have removed all earnings that exceed the value of anyone’s contribution to output. This means that competition among employers will force them to pay their workers the full value of the product they create, and that owners of land or other natural wealth will likewise receive as rents whatever value their resources contribute. So workers and landowners will get their shares in the circular flow. And

108 capitalists? Another surprise. Capitalists will receive nothing, except their wages as management. That is because any contribution to the value of output that was derived from capital goods they owned would be entirely absorbed by the value of labor that went into making those goods plus the value of resources they contained. Thus, exactly as Ricardo or Mill foresaw, ‘in a static economy there is no place for profit!

Why does Schumpeter present us with such a strange -- not to say strained -- image of the system? Perhaps we have already divined the purpose behind his method: the model of a static capitalism is an attempt to answer the question of where profits come from.

The source of profits is a question that has been gingerly handled by most economists. Smith wavered between viewing profit as a deduction from the value created by labor and as a kind of independent return located in capital itself. If profits were a deduction, of course, the explanation implied that labor was shortchanged; and if they were a contribution of capital, one would have to explain why the profits went to the owner of the machine, not to its inventor or user. Mill suggested that profits were the reward for the “abstinence” of capitalists, but he did not explain why capitalists were entitled to a reward for an activity that was clearly in their own interest. Still other economists described profits as the earnings of “capital,” speaking as if the shovel itself were paid for its contribution to output. Marx, of course, said that Smith was right in the first place though he didn’t know it -- that profits were a deduction from the actual value created by the working man. But that was part of the labor theory of value which everyone knew to be wrong and therefore did not have to be reckoned with.

Schumpeter now came forward with a brilliant answer to this vexing question. Profits he said, did not arise from exploitation of labor or from the earnings of capital. They were the result of quite another process. ‘Profits appeared in a static economy when the

Should our political economy be improved?

109

circular flow failed to follow its routinized course.’

Now we can see why the wildly unrealistic circular flow is so brilliant a starting point. For all the forces leading to disruptions in routine, one stands out. This is the introduction of technological or organizational innovations into the circular flow -- new or cheaper ways of making things, or ways of making wholly new things. ‘As a result of these innovations a flow of income arises that cannot be traced either to the contribution of labor or of resource owners.’ A new process enables an innovating capitalist to produce the same goods as his competitors, but at a cheaper cost, exactly as a favorably located piece of land enables its owner to produce crops more cheaply than less well situated fellow landlords. Again, exactly like the fortunate landlord, the innovating capitalist now receives a “rent” from the differential in his cost. But this rent is not derived from God-given advantages in location or fertility. It springs from the will and intelligence of the innovator, and it will disappear as soon as other capitalists learn the tricks of the pioneer. The new flow is not therefore a more or less permanent rent. It is a wholly transient profit.

An innovation implies an innovator -- someone who is responsible for combining the factors of production in new ways. This is obviously not a “normal” businessman, following established routines. The person who introduces change into economic life is a representative of another class -- or more accurately, another group, because innovators do not necessarily come from any social class.

Schumpeter took an old word from the economic lexicon and used it to describe these revolutionists of production. He called them ‘entrepreneurs.’ Entrepreneurs and their innovating activity were thus the source of profit in the capitalist system.

Schumpeter’s Entrepreneurs did not require government paternalism, such as granting free capital or Gilded Age ‘internal improvement’-based policies, to accumulate capital. Innovating activity was required however.

110 So, which part of capitalist orthodoxy justified government’s paternalism, of pork barrel policies, and mercantilism?

Answers require the political recognition that innovating Entrepreneurs necessarily are unorthodox, therefore, not in any orthodox sense of any particular social class: particularly are neither endorsed nor inculcated by orthodoxy. Schumpeter indicted capitalism for spawning a particularly subservient duty-based orthodox class: corporate Chairman Paul Baran (?) presented this fundamental difference of the present public corporate culture with that of past individual tycoons, to a forum of business executives some thirty years ago (Because my notes focused on substance and not the presenter’s name, which was a belated concern and surely deserves my apology, if it is inaccurate?):

There are many ways to describe the contrast between the tycoon and modern manager [which contemporary position of pseudo aristocracy most in society now aspire for]. The former is the parent of the giant corporation, the later is its child. The tycoon stood outside and above, dominating the corporation. The manager is an insider dominated by it. The loyalty of the one was to himself and his family . . . the loyalty of the other is to the organization to which he belongs and through which he expresses himself. To one the corporation was merely a means to enrichment; to the other the [duty-based] good of the company has become both an economic and ethical end. The one stole from the company, the other steals for it.

[Note the organic metamorphism from purpose to duty, which has occurred!]

Many have raised concerns with licensed organic fictitious, called corporations. Thomas C. Jorling’s reluctant concern, stands out prominently in the particular light of recent acts of terrorism and rioting. 89

With some reluctance, I have chosen to register independent views on . . . the exercise of power by large, often multinational corporations.

Deep concern over accountability in the exercise of power, especially as it affects individuals, has been a hallmark of American society.

Should our political economy be improved?

111

In my view, the Commission (for a National Agenda for The Eighties) should have acknowledged, in the context of the [nineteen] eighties, the historic concern of Americans with the exercise of power.

At the time of the framing of the Constitution, many provisions were adopted to constrain and make accountable an agent of power--the federal government. During the past 200 years, new aggregates of power have come into being, especially the large, multinational corporation. Brought into existence by state charter, these institutions were once constrained by limits on size and power, limits rapidly made obsolete by interstate competition. Justice Brandeis, in a descent in the 1932 case Liggett v. Lee, described the history concisely: 'Although they fully recognized the value of this instrumentality in commerce and industry, they commonly denied incorporation for business long after they had granted it for religious, educational, and charitable purposes. They denied it because of fear. Fear of encroachment upon the liberties and opportunities of the individual. Fear of the subjection of labor to capital. Fear of monopoly. Fear that the absorption of capital by corporations, and their perpetual life, might bring evils similar to those which attended 'mortmain.' There was a sense of some insidious menace inherent to large corporations. So at first the corporate privilege was granted sparingly; and only when the grant seemed necessary in order to procure some specific benefit otherwise unobtainable.

The removal by leading industrial states of the limitations upon the size and powers of business corporations appears to have been due, not to their conviction that maintenance of the restrictions was undesirable in itself, but to the conviction that it was futile to insist upon them; because local restriction would be circumvented by foreign (other states) incorporation. Indeed, local restriction seemed worse than futile; Lesser States eager for the revenue derived from traffic in charters, had removed safeguards from their own

112 incorporation laws. 288 US 517, 548, 557.

Nothing took the place of the limits -- limits designed to control power -- once imposed by states. Subsequently, the corporation has continued to grow, and it now is the source of the exercise of the greatest amount of power in national and global society. Simply put, the large business corporations, separately and collectively, wield the greatest quantum power in our society. Power with many dimensions: to shape the form of society, to alter the landscape, to distribute new chemicals, to provide or withhold food, to determine income differentials, to make us dependent upon technology. On and on we could go, but for purposes here it is sufficient to assert that the power once thought of as the exclusive province of government -- to exercise power to control others -- is now held and executed largely by large business corporations.

Where government has such power, we establish measures to protect the individual, but not so with the corporation. While government cannot deprive a life experience for the exercise of speech, a corporation can deny employment providing the paycheck essential for survival for such expression. Specific multinational corporations wield power beyond the boundaries of any national jurisdiction.

Because granting privilege to some is only half of the political economic paradoxical holistic gift: the other half is the paternal economic result: a natural holistic equal economic offset must take from others what political economy administratively grants to some. And, if politically this unlikely materialist capitalist paternalist economic orthodoxy rhetorically claims that our constitutional nation is democratic, instead of fascist or monarchical, which philosophically also favors individual rights only to those in favor, the difference between what is democracy and fascism is not clearly evident! Therefore, a democracy will redress economic privileges only to some with beneficent economic offsets to the paradoxically unprivileged: political beneficent sovereign equality requires that economic privilege, as mechanistically granted, must repay in taxes to support

Should our political economy be improved?

113

beneficence to those who were disadvantaged by governments patrimony.

Political Economy’s inordinate capital intensive growth was achieved by Federalist legal irrationalism that greatly enhanced mechanized economic paternalism only to some. T. C. Jorling’s statement above supports what I have just written in this aspect:

Justice Brandeis, in a descent in the 1932 case Liggett v. Lee, described the history concisely: 'Although they fully recognized the value of this instrumentality in commerce and industry, they commonly denied incorporation for business long after they had granted it for religious, educational, and charitable purposes. They denied it because of fear. Fear of encroachment upon the liberties and opportunities of the individual. Fear of the subjection of labor to capital. Fear of monopoly. Fear that the absorption of capital by corporations, and their perpetual life, might bring evils similar to those which attended 'mortmain.' There was a sense of some insidious menace inherent to large corporations. So at first the corporate privilege was granted sparingly; and only when the grant seemed necessary in order to procure some specific benefit otherwise unobtainable.

While inflation’s endemism is covertly cost accounted to goods and services and when consumed, inflation then is legally metamorphosed, i.e., legally is enured to return with production-based costs as privately owned capital, which combined with economic growth has yielded profits that now routinely are taken, as accounted exceed ten percent of GNP. (And, if the increases in multi million dollars of “unearned incomes” surprise you, you might reconsider the opposite but related inflation that exponentially accumulates in SS and medicare benefits: the “unearned income” increases that accumulate exponentially and the required SS benefit increases and medicare costs that also increases exponentially, are indicative of the mechanized economic paradoxical inflation effect, as a paternal gift in the one instance and as its holistic offset in the other) The mechanist paternalist policy for controlling inflation is to slow economy so to cause wage-earning reductions. Rhetoric, which claims that profits will trickle down, invariably has begged for answers, as to when? 90

114 Henry Ward Beecher, the 19th century American clergyman, said 'You cannot sift out the poor from the community. The poor are indispensable to the rich.’

[As described her, they are in holistic fact the paradoxical complement of paternal economic grants and sinecures]

The early-20th century English poet and novelist G.K. Chesterton felt that even when the rich helped out, it was more through acceptance of poverty than a desire to cure it. He wrote: 'If we wish to protect the poor we shall be in favor of fixed rules and clear dogma. The rules of a club are occasionally in favor of the poor member. The drift [the political flux] of a club is always in favor of the rich one.

Beecher and Chesterton thoughts are teleologically rational and recognize that granting economic privileges to some, naturally will impugn the economy of others. Politics always has and will favor the rich and powerful.

Parrington observed this political irrationalism as giving to ‘Peter’ by taking from ‘Paul’: leaving equally deserving individuals to suffer myriad economic misfortunes caused by government’s business licensing which grants, without consideration of constitutional rights, both natural and human resources to businesses to exploit economically (myriad natural principles are compromised to accommodate these organic business exploitations 91), where growing public debt is tolerated, or ignored, simply because the cost of economic progress, so called, ultimately mechanistically rests only on wage-earners, which Whigs considered were economic slaves..

For instance, the GDPs third quarter increase for 2003 was extolled as having exploded to more than 0.7 percent, which annualized is 2.8 percent.

This economic drum-beating happened while the annual federal deficit, expected for the future years, had grown to a $ trillion ($500 billion from deficit spending and $500 billion from a foreign trade imbalance ).

Curiously, the economic stimulus from an unprecedented increase in home sales and refinancing at rates unseen for thirty years or more was ignored, while the 0.7 percent quarterly GDP increase officially was touted as a sign the economy was on track. New automobile sales based on zero interest contracts also were not evaluated. Nor was increased consumption based on

Should our political economy be improved?

115

116

owners cash outs taken from inflated home equities. The inordinate quarterly increase in GDP undoubtedly did not so much result from the $ 1.3 trillion high end tax rebate of 2001, as from effects of the Fed discount rate: now barely more than 1 percent, and assured to remain low for years despite empirical fears of the long term inflation effects.

proposition that Keynes was supposed to have laid to rest in demonstrating that capitalist economics had an inherent tendency toward underemployment [i.e., failed in the sense of the Constitution’s

So ‘hyping’ the ‘good’ prospects for economy because a few components of the GDP increased inordinately while millions of jobs were lost during the first three years of the twenty first century, and with more than forty million now without medical insurance, and the ranks of poverty swelling to reach past 20 percent of the population. These facts surely are not included in this ‘hyped’ economic focus.

say that [Keynes] argument was logically flawed. They charge that government attempts to offset temporary weakness in private demand by deficit spending have become a major source of economic instability. [Social Security, Medicare, and now Healthcare are

Neither Schumpeter nor Brockway’s analysis has registered with this spurious analysis of GDP. If Schumpeter were to analyze the U.S. economy now a century later, and look at GDP’s components, as defined in 2000, would he not note with shock that profit taking by corporations had become routine at 10 percent of GDP? He surely would ask, which, if any of these corporations fit his analysis for profit, because they were entrepreneurial?

Would he not sternly declare? : ‘this rapacious profit taking is economically unsustainable, and rationally indefensible.’ And, didn’t he recommend paying salaries instead of enuring profits: Capitalists will receive nothing, except wages as managers. But then, would the unreal Stock market exist?

We can’t leave Shumpeter with this dismal note. For, he concluded:

Entrepreneurial capitalism was the beginning of capitalism : if only we become rational in administering Political economy.

It is now mid July, 2010 and politics quite hotly embroil the facts and ideological fictions resulting from the Supply Side economic contrast, which Lewis Beman had authored (the emphasis is mine): 92

Supply-side economics constitutes a counterrevolution against both the theory and the related policy prescriptions of John Maynard Keynes. It is, in a broad sense, a return to the classical tradition of Adam Smith and Jean Baptiste Say, whose famous law of markets states that supply always creates it own demand. That was the

purpose to serve “all” members of society (So, which underemployed member is served by Say’s famous law of markets )], but supply-siders

targeted examples of this deficit spending-based conservative charge.]

However, the ‘supply-side’ argument suffers, as facts clearly show that deficits during conservative administrations since 1980 are causally related to economic crashes, and since 1984 included SS surplus contribution taxes which government routinely spent as its general revenue, and were coincident with capitalist investments that resulted in huge concupiscent capital privatization: government now owes the SS Trust Fund $ trillions.

The Regan administration took office in 1980. The Bush one administration then held office until 1992, after which the Clinton administration held office until 2000 when Bush two held office through 2008. The Obama administration has now been in office for eighteen months (when the midterm election arrives, he will represent only two years of the thirty-year duration since Supply Side economics began), i.e., had its startup in the Regan administration and was again applied by Bush two in 2000: Supply Side ideology has prevailed for twenty of the last thirty years.

The dogmatism of this economic experiment began with a top end tax cut without concern or consideration of governments revenue needs: the ideology held firm that the economics would adjust in the end, however, instead, Reagan’s budget director D. A. Stockman provided this analysis:93

The supply-siders are not the first revolutionaries who have perverted and twisted their original idea beyond recognition. But like all the others before them, they continue in a way that suggests that they would rather bring on calamity than admit that they were wrong.

Government’s tight money monetarist policy effected the depression of 1981-82. The 1981 general-revenue-tax cut exacerbated government’s

Should our political economy be improved?

117

revenue shortfalls. The combined economic policies produced the extreme federal deficits of the '80s. William Greider's book, The Secrets of the Temple (pages 396 - 397) documented this charge. Left unsubstantiated, however, is that Our Federal Savings Plan (My title chosen to characterize the Social Security Law of 1984) was installed to soften the effects of the extreme deficits more than to "fix" Social Security for the eventuality of retiring the baby-boom. David A. Stockman wrote:94

So there we sat looking at a fiscal shambles, heading for a monstrous deficit in excess of $300 billion by the middle of the decade. And in marched Donald T. Regan, Paul Craig Roberts, Jack Kemp, Jude Wanniski, Art Laffer, and Irving Kristol, saying, ‘We're still not wrong. Stand pat. It will go away.'

118 had raised top end taxes, which resulted in the midterm Republican win in ‘94, he still ended with a sizable surplus, which Bush two then renewed the top end tax rebate because they were the ones which had paid for the surplus, which in reality were the result of not spending as general revenue the SS surplus taxes.

Tolstoy’s sentiment describes the supply-side politics : 95

"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven into the fabric of their lives."

Capitalist materialists’ political dogmatism is recidivism prone, however claims to represent political economic orthodoxy. Consider the Clinton administration’s political depth, for instance (this excerpt from 208):

Anyway, in Reagan’s eight years the federal deficit skyrocketed and continued during the Bush one administration. The economic result of Clinton’s eight years is visually summarized in the above graph. Of particular note is that the receipts of government were deliberately set according to supply-side theory to be less than its expenses during Reagan and Bush, whereas they were balanced during Clinton. Even though Clinton

George Will is not the only conservative to point an editorial finger at liberalism as the source of economic problems. Jude Wanniski’s article -You Call This a Good Economy? -- is first on the list of articles on the cover of the February 1995, Readers Digest. Wanniski has successfully been published, crying about our "poor economy" for more than fifteen years.

And he advised the Reagan administration regarding supply-side economics and the top end tax cuts motivated by, if not resulting from, it’s dogmatism: politics that produced more than $ three trillion of federal deficit during the ‘80s. Wanniski, as Will, is a very capable writer but he is more. He also is a lobbyist with an agenda and his cause was as logically fallacious as the political result clearly shows: not tempered with ethical probity that considers natural ‘antecedents’ as democratic-sovereignty, for instance. I expect that Wanniski would like to tell us that supply-side Economics and a return to the Gold Standard are still the right economic medicine.

In the instance of, You Call This a Good Economy, Wanniski writes with an intent to put all blame for the poor economy of '92-'94 onto democratic President Bill Clinton (Did the voters falsely perceive of this blame due to spins such as Wanniski’s?). Without mention of Clinton’s

Should our political economy be improved?

119

achievements to reduce federal budgets while economic policies resulted to create some four million new jobs, more than any president during the last thirty years, and while overall despite the annual federal deficits government ended with an unprecedented surplus, Wanniski accusingly wrote:

Since the Republicans trounced the Democrats last November, I have been asked countless times, "Why didn't President Clinton get credit for the good economy?" . . .

Wanniski then provides his notions of the economic effects on American life since the '50s and concludes this:

The difference, then and now, goes beyond the time warp of inflation.

Forty years ago, a smaller percentage of the work force was employed as lawyers, accountants, regulators, bureaucrats, social workers.

Members of congress made $12,500, but did most of what was needed in less time with less than half the staff.

The November elections were a primal scream from the voters about the terrible inefficiency of our national government and its tax maze. As long as there was a Cold War [which republicans thrived on by perpetuating their strategy of fear of monolithic-communism], the people put up with the inefficiency. Now, they say, its time for fundamental change, to put things back the way they should be.

Does Wanniski mean by this that we should return to a more deliberately reasoned democratic-sovereignty. I suspect that he did not.

It's not too much to ask to get moving in that direction. The truth is, President Clinton and the Democrats "did" get credit for the economy as it exists today. By past U.S. standards, it stinks.

Maybe Wanniski should read George Will's article to open his prejudice to the fact that Whig-based GOP Republican Progressivism first engineered central government with an ever flowing agenda of ‘pork barrel’ patronage, in the sense of Parrington’s words:

Hence arose a modification of "laissez faire," from which resulted the

120 theory that a democratic state stands in "loco parentis" to the economic interests of its citizens, and should guarantee the progressive well-being of strategic groups on whose prosperity depended the common well-being. [ Lincoln’s policy of ‘internal improvement’ as then administered by Whigs, and now is conservative policy as regards paternal economic corporate welfare] To maintain this strategic policy, then also provided our strategic heritage of war: the Big Stick policy that Republicans even today choose to retain at great expense and tradeoffs to the internal matters of the national economy.

And he should read Parrington’s documentation of (GOP) Republican Whigs, which engineered our central government’s political embroilments in private enterprise by fallaciously affirming Henry Clay’s "American System" Political Economy along with its foundations in dogmatic materialist mercantilism. Which now unsubdued, threatens the foundations of constitutional physis in our essential but fledgling democraticsovereignty. Wanniski exhibits here the shrewdness of the Teflon Whiggish republicanism that fails to admit to being the source if not the cause of the multi $ trillion federal deficit. In this Wanniski provided but another example of Leo Tolstoy's thoughts on materialist concupiscent pride rationalized nomosly in replacement of truth?

We can now fast-foreword thought to the present (July 2010) as this supplyside politics confronts the Obama administration. The federal deficit related to deliberate, but fallacious economics has now reached an unprecedented $ thirteen trillion. In Obama’s first eighteen months in office, he has achieved what is considered to be social legislation as regards both personal health and economics: this achievement is particularly egregious to supplysiders’ and the new political breed that calls themselves “The Tee Party.”

The BP corporate oil spill tragedy has acted to clarify the political sides to the supply-siders’ economic argument: elected representatives’ clearly favoring corporate welfare instead of wage-earners’ welfare, as if the Constitution was created to economically serve corporations rather than the sovereign people: This political clarity has arrived with three months of politics remaining before the midterm elections. The question remains as to rhetorical effectiveness: Will the Jude Wanniskis’ patently false rhetoric as

Should our political economy be improved?

121

fostered by wealth and orthodoxy again achieve the supply-side voting results of 1994?

Unless the politics of 2010 is as highly “energized” as it was in 2008, the political outcome could easily be a similar voting tragedy as in 1994! And beware: Social Security, Medicare, and now Healthcare are targeted examples of the social deficit spending-based supply-side ideology, which dismisses annual deficits that are caused by top end tax reductions.

President Roosevelt might have anticipated the supply-side politics when he responded to Luther Gulick’s claim that maintaining each SS participants account was a wasteful exercise: 96

Luther, your logic is correct, your facts are correct, but your conclusion’s wrong. Now I’ll tell you why. That account is not useless. That account is not to determine how much should be paid out. That account is there so those sons of bitches up on the Hill can’t ever abandon this system when I’m gone.

122 mortgage banking in total represent, surely will pall when compared to government’s political heist of SS surplus contributions, which government has routinely spent as its general revenue.

EVIDENCE that this grandest political theft is still ongoing: Beginning in 1984, because of SS tax law, which collects SS surplus and government has routinely spent the SS surplus as its general revenue, the government’s unfunded debt to the SS Trust Fund through 2000 exceeds $2.9 trillion, in 2008 exceeds $4 trillion, and eventually is expected to reach $12 trillion, as 1983-84 SS Tax Law had anticipated and specified the surplus collections to pay SS benefits to the retiring Baby Boom.

Worker Population (millions), $ (billions)

Leonard explained that SS insurance contribution-tax-based funding, on a pay-as-you-go basis, was separate from US revenue taxation. He warned that if this SS insurance ever was discontinued, an unfunded government liability involving future SS benefits, would be onerous indeed. His book was published in 1956. He therefore could not have anticipated the government’s liability to the SS Trust Fund that has grown since the SS Tax Law of 1984 when surplus contribution-taxes began. While these taxes were received by the government, instead of being transferred to the SS Trust Fund, they have routinely been spent as government’s revenue. The governments unfunded liability to the SS Trust Fund had reached past a $ trillion as we entered the new century. This excerpt is from section 261: In a few years, as wage-earning contributors to SS, become aware that the Surplus Trust funds were routinely spent as government’s general revenue, and were not needed to pay SS benefits to the Baby Boom, as the SS Tax Law of 1984 had anticipated, therefore, however, is not available to recompense wage-earner-contributors, will the evidence of this grand theft, the IOUs of which must be paid from future revenue taxes only then become a political issue?

Economic fraud, which Enron, Worldcomm, Tyco, . . . , and now

Yr

wage" ($1000s)

Wrk (Pop.)

SS ($ Pd in)

SS ($ Pd out)

Debt$ to SS

‘84

13.1

92.4

118.312

113.104

5.21

‘85

13.9

93.5""

132.723

114.45

18.3

‘86

14.8

94.4"""

152.664

115.552

37.1

‘87

15.7

95.6

187.028

117.021

70.01

‘88

16.7

97

201.85

118.735

83.12

‘89

17.6

98.2

226.3

120.204

106.1

‘90

18.5

99.1

240.05

121.306

118.7

"

Per Capita Income, Information Please Almanac, 1996, 53

""

"""

New rates for 1984 (first year of SS surplus) apply. SS rate was increased 4.48%. .07% inc. in ’85, .14% in’86, and 5.03% in ‘88.

Should our political economy be improved?

123

124 ENDNOTES

wage" ($1000s)

Wrk (Pop.)

SS ($ Pd in)

SS ($ Pd out)

Debt$ to SS

1 G. P. Brockway, The End of Economic Man (Cornelia & Michael Bessie

‘91

19.1

100

250.01

122.408

127.7

2 L. P. Pojman, PHILOSOPHY, The Quest ... (Wadsworth, 1989), 152

‘92

20.8

101

274.98

123.595

151.4

3 V. L. Parrington, Main Currents in American Thought (Harcourt, Brace

‘93

21.8

102

291.05

124.818

166.2

‘94

24.1

103.1

325.23

126.164

199.1

‘95

26.5

104.4

362.13

127.755

234.4

‘96

28.8

105.7

398.46

129.346

269.1

‘97

30.1

107.2

422.356

131.549

290.8

‘98

31.6

108.9

450.435

132.878

317.6

6 D. Greenwald, Encyclopedia of Economics (1962),781

‘99

33.2

110.6

480.629

134.952

346.7

7 Encyclopedia of Economics (1962), 910

‘00

34.8

112.3

511.535

137.026

374.5

8 Parrington, Volume Two, Winds . . ., 297

Yr

Books, 1993) 111

and Company, 1930) Vol. I, 62-75, Vol. II, 97, 327, 379, 399, Vol. III, 121

4 Grolier Electronic Encyclopedia 5 G. P. Brockway, The End of Economic Man (Cornelia & Michael Bessie

End of excerpt from 261

Books, 1991) charged that government’s unregulated paternally granted Bankers’ COLA is inflation’s primary economic cause, as granted with the dogmatic companion (the legal definition “to enure”), which allows profit to be taken, excepting entrepreneurial startups, upsets’ the static economic circular flow: as Schumpeter’s economic analysis showed?

9 E. A. Powell, Americans drowning in sea of debt as bankruptcies, defaults rise, Las Vegas Review Journal, June 20, 2001

The eight million layoffs related to the economic crash of 2008 caused SS to cash in some of its IOUs, thereby obtaining funding from government for paying SS benefits that otherwise would have been available from normal SS contributions had the 2008 crash not happened.

Without the economic stimulus provided by SS benefits, as expended to subsist, the paradoxical economic disaster of the crashes since 1929 would have been far greater: The 137 billion dollars paid in SS benefits in 2000 is about half the amount paid out each year after 2008. This amount, which mostly is directly expended to subsist, is almost as great as the special economic stimulus, which Congress provided.

10 H. B. Leonard, Checks Unbalanced (Basic Books, 1956) 59 11 T. Honderich (Editor), The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (Oxford, 1995) 707

12 Workers and Beneficiaries, World Almanac, 2000, 767 13 World Almanac 1986, 257 14 World Almanac 1994, 958 15 Social Security; World Book Encyclopedia, 1965 16 Social Security; World Book Encyclopedia, 1965 17 In 1990, the Census counted 31 million older than age 65. And in 2025,

"

Per Capita Income, Information Please Almanac, 1996, 53

the survivors of natural birth are similar natural facts, that when considering mortality, will nearly total 33.25 million older than age 67. I suspect, therefore, that the 80 million cited during the 2000 campaign for President, was a political assertion based on an almanac’s published error: that had

Should our political economy be improved?

125

126

stated 80 million, representing what clearly in context was shown as eight million: slipping digits is a common error. However, citing this error as a fact was a deliberate ideological irrationalism. About this simple unreality, I wrote this: “Has an over active political imagination retold 1983's projected ‘fish story’ of only two workers per retiree?”

36 C. Thomas, There to Here (Harper Perennial,1997) 91

18 D. A. Stockman, The Triumph of politics (Harper & Row) 397

39 G. Anders, Merchants of Debt (Basic Books, 1992) back cover

19 A. Lincoln, Letter to H. L. Prince, April 6, 1859, in Works, Vol. V, pp.

40 Excerpted from An Additional View to the Report of the President's

125-126

37 Family Legal Guide, 266 38 J. Gleich, CHAOS-Making a new Science (Penguin) 38 [about tones of calumny, also read A. Franken’s Lies and Lying Liars (Dutton, 2003) 132-]

Commission for a National Agenda for the Eighties.

20 World Almanac 2002, 103

41 Parrington, Vol. I, 397

21 J. M. Keynes,‘The Economic Consequences of the Peace,’ 1920

42 Encyclopedia, Vol 20, 235

22 The World Almanac, 2002, 739

43 Encyclopedia, Vol, 15, 680-680a

23 World Almanac 2002, 739

44 C. Thomas, There to Here, 82-85

24 Stockman, 268

45 Heilbroner, 129

25 Stockman, 357

46 Heilbroner, 319

26 Encyclopedia of Economics (1962), 910

47 R.Sherman, A Caveat against Injustice (Spencer Judd, 1982)

27 G. P. Brockway, The End of Economic Man (Harper, 1991) 127

48 Heilbroner, 187-189

28 Encyclopedia of Economics (1962) 773

49 Hughes, 32

29 G. P. Brockway, The End of Economic Man (Harper, 1991) 127

50 Edwards, 450

30 D. Greenwald (editor), Encyclopedia of Economics (McGraw Hill,

51 Parrington, Vol. I, 171-175

1982) 406-07

31 Parrington, Vol. 1, 346 32 T. Jefferson (edited by D. Ravitch), First Inaugural Address, The American Reader WORDS THAT MOVED A NATION (Harper Collins, 1990) 42

52 Heilbroner, 191 53 F. T. Saussy (R. Sherman), A Caveat against Injustice (Spencer Judd, 1982) 23

54 Parrington, Vol I, 300-301

33 L. Pojman, The Absolutist Answer: The Justification of the State Is The

55 W. Greider, Secrets of the Temple (Touchstone, 1987) 268-271

Security It Affords, PHILOSOPHY The Quest For Truth (Wadsworth, 1989) 391

56 R. L. Heilbroner, 216

34 Parrington’s note, Vol. 1, 347: Writings (Jefferson), Vol. III, 268-269 35 R. L. Heilbroner, The Worldly Philosophers (Simon & Schuster, 1986) 129

57 L. P. Pojman, PHILOSOPHY, The Quest ... (Wadsworth, 1989), 152 58 V. L. Parrington, Main Currents in American Thought (Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1930) Vol. I, 62-75, Vol. II, 97, 327, 379, 399, Vol. III, 121

Should our political economy be improved?

127

128

59 Bible Dict.: Faith is that quality in a believer which enables him to

76 R. L. Heilbroner, The Worldly Philosophers, (Simon & Schuster, 1986)

grasp the unseeen and the future. (Heb. 11,1, 27; 2 Cor. 5, 7; 1 Peter 1,8)

153-54

60 World Book Encyclopedia (1965), Vol. 6, 209

77 World Book Encyclopedia (Vol. 15) 348

61 C. Thomas, There to Here (Harper Perennial, 1991)

78 L. Pojman, Cartesian Theory of Knowledge, PHILOSOPHY The Quest

62 J. M. Keynes,‘The Economic Consequences of the Peace,’ 1920 63 M. DeYoung, Ethereal Gold (an unpublished, personal research

For Truth (Wadsworth, 1989), 103

79 Pojman (Existentialist Ethics) 372-76

document).

80 Pojman, Ibid.

64 John Marshall, World Book Encyclopedia (1965), 185

81 Culture of Complaint, The Fraying of America, Robert Hughes, Oxford

65 Parrington, Vol. II, 298 66 Parrington, Vol. II, 150 67 R. L. Heilbroner, The Worldly Philosophers, (Touchstone, 1986) 142 68 C. Thomas, There to Here (Harper Perennial, 1991) 250 69 Thomas, 264-265 70 Parrington, Vol. I, 8-15 71 Parrington’s note: See “The Babylonian Captivity,” in Works, Vol. II, p. 233 (Philadelphia, 1915).

Press, 1993, p. 10

82 Britannica Encyclopedia defined deontology and teleology: deontology (Greek deon, duty, and logos, science). deontological ethics, in philosophy, ethical theories that place special emphasis on the relationship between duty and the morality of human actions. teleology (Greek telos, end, and logos, science) what is good or dedireable is an end to be achieved. Opposed to deontology, which holds that basic standards for an action being morally right are independent of the ‘good’ or ‘evil’ generated. (Amoral deontological ethics opposes teleology)

83 Steve Quinn (associated Press), Exxon Mobil earns 8.4 B in Q1 (in The Salt Lake Tribune April 26, 2006)

72 Grolier Electronic Encyclopedia 73 G. P. Brockway, The End of Economic Man (Cornelia & Michael Bessie Books, 1991) charged that government’s unregulated paternally granted Bankers’ COLA is inflation’s primary economic cause, as granted with the dogmatic companion (the legal definition “to enure”), which allows profit to be taken, excepting entrepreneurial startups, upsets’ the static economic circular flow: as Schumpeter’s economic analysis showed?

74 World Book Dictionary (1965) 658 : Capital is in fact as fungible as

84 D. Greenwald, Encyclopedia of Economics (McGraw Hill, 1982) 115 85 Brockway, 127 86 Encyclopedia of Economics (1962), 910 87 G. Brockway, 127 88 R. L. Heilbroner, 293

money. However, as legally defined and granted, it includes the economic endemism (as inflation), which is allowed to be added, as profit taken, to the cost of production and distribution of goods and services, as consumed. By the magic of legal definition “to enure,” money-based value in goods and services, including all endemic add-ons, legally returns as the owned capital of business.

89 Excerpted from An Additional View to the Report of the President's

75 T. Honderich, 194

91 V. L Parrington, Main Currents in American Thought, Vol II, 197-98

Commission for a National Agenda for the Eighties.

90 Excerpted from a United Press article carried by the Daily Spectrum, St. George, Utah; Oct.2, 1988.

92 Encyclopedia of Economics (1962), 910

Should our political economy be improved?

129

93 D. A. Stockman, The Triumph of Politics (Harper and Row, 1986) 400 94 D. A. Stockman, 397 95 J. Gleick, CHAOS-Making a New Science (Penguin, ) 38 96 H. B. Leonard, Checks Unbalanced (Basic Books, 1956), 58