Beyond the Mark

In the culture of affluence to which we have become accustomed, we hear great indignation expressed against the idle poor and the bleeding-hearts who would take hard-earned, deserved wealth from the industrious rich and redistribute it to those who, with even a modicum of effort, could achieve the American dream if they would just get off their duffs!

BUT in the déjà vu of rich and poor throughout history, we seem strangely blind to the fact that redistribution has ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS been MORE upward than downward—a redistribution toward concentrated wealth that has far more to do with creating the gulf between rich and poor than idleness or industrious effort ever did.

Take the example of Ahab & Jezebel acquiring the vineyard of Naboth (Old Testament, 1 Kings 21); the “one, little ewe lamb” parable that condemned a king (Old Testament, 2 Samuel 12); the historical and current plunderings of great and small Empires; the monopolies of British mercantilism, et al.; the feudal estates of feudal lords; the cotton, sugar, tobacco, etc. plantations; the industrial factories and sweatshops; the government favors and subsidies to big-business; the secret insider tradings; the simultaneous stock puffing-and-dumping schemes; the credit-card fee-and-interest stings; the financial-adviser frauds; the Enron/Worldcom types; etc., etc., etc. The list is endless.

Whose collective labor, reduced to its lowest possible compensation through enshrined market-forces, has helped enrich the powerful? Free-marketeers are passionate that “industrious,” rich individuals should not be deprived of the fruits of their labor, yet turn a blind eye to that very deprivation by power-lords of the fair fruits of other’s labors. They deny their blindness by alleging that fair is whatever the market will bear while taking great pains on a global basis to ensure that it will bear the minimum or maximum possible—whatever favors the concentration of wealth.

Power is an aphrodisiac for many and even scant investigation uncovers an endless déjà vu of wealth accretion through avarice and exploitation of the less powerful. Redistribution UPWARDS; ever, ever upwards!

The abuse of power was a great concern of the founding fathers who strove to bind the powerful by the chains of the Constitution. But commerce continually claims that it has no need of constraint. Natural market-forces have natural constraints, they intone. But money loves power and power money, so we have come to our present state of affairs, where collectives of money and power have taken up a form of “civilized” plundering through lobbyists and other contrived means, all the while crying to high heaven that “socialism” is the monster of frightful mien. It reminds one of those masterful diversions where a cry of fire to the west of town covers for a bank heist to the east.

If the pundits and commentators on American values would study more history and less “enriched” rhetoric, they might begin to focus on the mark. As it is, the poor^[1] take the heat, while the powerful take the money and run—under cover of diversion; or if questioned, under claim of meritocracy and/or entitlement.

Christ, Himself, marked the poor for our compassion and the rich for chastisement and warning. Somehow, in our sophistication, we seem to have it reversed. And then we wonder why revolutions happen! They happen when justice can no longer stand as idle witness to the hubris, egotism, and injustice of oppressive power-lords. But, alas, in the déjà vu of power swings, nothing much seems to change except the names of the new elites as they take turn justifying the gulf between rich and poor. Even in communistic/socialistic schemes, the gulf prevails, in the midst of privilege and passionate denial.

How about we begin to explore the source and tributary waters for all that concentrated wealth? And discover the blessings of irrigation upon parched lands?
----------
[1] whether laboring or incapacitated or idle by choice or circumstance

“Lucky” You? Lucky Them?

Recently, a Thanksgiving-dinner conversation turned to the multiple sins of multinational corporations. Our well-to-do host sprang forcefully to the defense of corporations, discounting their sins, because they create jobs—MILLIONS of jobs, filled by lucky employees! The discussion aborted and we turned to more banal matters.

But the image of “Lucky,” from Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot,^[1] began to percolate. Pozzo, Lucky’s master, sought to explain Lucky’s servility:

Pozzo: … Why he doesn’t make himself comfortable? Let’s try and get this clear. Has he not the right to? Certainly he has. It follows that he doesn’t want to. There’s reasoning for you. And why doesn’t he want to? … He wants to impress me, —so I’ll keep him. … Perhaps I haven’t got it quite right. He wants to mollify me, so that I’ll give up the idea of parting with him. No, that’s not exactly it either. … He wants to cod me, but he won’t. … He imagines that when I see how well he carries I’ll be tempted to keep him on in that capacity. … He imagines that when I see him indefatigable I’ll regret my decision [to get rid of him]. Such is his miserable scheme. As though I were short of slaves!

Vladimer—one of those waiting for Godot—eventually observes:

After having sucked all the good out of him you chuck him away like a … like a banana skin. Really …

Now, this Déjà Vu post is not meant to present the other extreme—that all corporations are evil. Or that all employees are “Luckys.” It is rather to wonder whether the aggregation of power and wealth in a profit-driven, competitive culture binds employers, whether corporations or not, into Pozzo-prone perspectives vis-à-vis their “lucky” employees.

But just how lucky are many of these employees? From a Pozzo-perspective, they are lucky to have paychecks. Lucky to have necessities and amenities sustained by those paychecks. Lucky to be able to devote their gifts, talents, energies, and time to the employers' great causes, agendas, ideas, and dreams. Lucky to have daily purpose and place to go. Plain lucky to have a job.

Maybe so. But on the other hand, how much do those Luckys surrender by becoming employees, specialized to the needs of their Pozzo?

Pozzo: … He even used to think very prettily once. … He even used to dance the farandole, the fling, the brawl, the jig, the fandango, and even the hornpipe. He capered. For joy. Now that’s the best he can do. Do you know what he calls it? … The Net. He thinks he’s entangled in a net.

Or from Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations:

In the progress of the division of labour [specialization], the employment of the far greater part of those who live by labour, ^[2] that is, of the great body of the people, comes to be confined to a few very simple operations, frequently to one or two. But the understandings of the greater part of men are necessarily formed by their ordinary employments. The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, … The uniformity of his stationary life naturally corrupts the courage of his mind, …. It corrupts even the activity of his body, and renders him incapable of exerting his strength with vigour and perseverance in any other employment than that to which he has been bred.^[3] His dexterity at his own particular trade seems, in this manner, to be acquired at the expense of his intellectual, social, and martial virtues. But in every improved and civilised society this is the state into which the labouring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall, unless government takes some pains to prevent it [through mandatory educational requirements] (Bk.5, Ch. 1, Pt III, pp. 839-840).

Perhaps it is time for a revolution of thought and practice vis-à-vis employers and employees; between competition and cooperation. Maybe it is time to review what lucky really means. How necessity and fear can tie a “Lucky” to abuse, injustice, stagnation, and exhaustion. How competitive and profit-driven obsessions can bind a Pozzo to perpetuation of the same. Maybe it is time to rethink what the pursuit of happiness really means. And perhaps to consider whether Pozzo is also “the burden of Babylon which Isaiah the son of Amoz did see” (Isaiah 13).
------------
[1] Waiting for Godot was written in 1948/49 and first performed in 1953.
[2] Includes the oft-scripted service industry of our day, where employees, even high-level ones, are given scripts to handle situations as if every situation can be indexed into a tidy number of satisfactory solutions to which no additional creative thought need be given.
[3] And s/he goes home too exhausted for much of anything but beer and the blather of too much TV (the Roman equivalent of “bread and circuses”?).

ORGONITES & TARTUFFEITES: Oh, what a tangled, political web we have woven!!!

[Source: Tartuffe by Jean-Baptiste Poquelin Molière (1622-1673); Project Gutenberg EBook #2027; first written and performed in 1664. Oh,déjà vu!]

CLEANTE [brother-in-law of Orgon]
That is the usual strain of all your kind;
They must have every one as blind as they.
They call you atheist [or anti-American] if you have [differing views];
And if you don't adore their vain grimaces,
You've neither faith nor care for sacred [democratic] things.
…
What! Will you find no difference between
Hypocrisy and genuine [governance]?
And will you treat them both alike, and pay
The self-same honour both to masks and faces
Set artifice beside sincerity,
Confuse the semblance with reality,
Esteem a phantom like a living person,
And counterfeit as good as honest coin?
Men [& women], for the most part, are strange creatures, truly!
You never find them keep the golden mean;
The limits of good sense, too narrow for them,
Must always be passed by, in each direction;
They often spoil the noblest things, because
They go too far, and push them to extremes.
…
Just so I think there's naught more odious
Than whited sepulchres of outward unction,
Those barefaced charlatans, those hireling zealots,
Whose sacrilegious, treacherous pretence
Deceives at will, and with impunity
Makes mockery of all that men hold sacred;
Men [& women] who, enslaved to selfish interests,
Make trade and merchandise of [freedom],
And try to purchase influence and office
With false eye-rollings and affected raptures;
Those men [& women], I say, who with uncommon zeal
Seek their own fortunes on the road to heaven[ly prosperity];
Who, skilled in prayer [and profiteering], have always much to ask,
And live at court to preach retirement;
Who reconcile religion with their vices,
Are quick to anger, vengeful, faithless, tricky,
And, to destroy a man [or woman], will have the boldness
To call their private [or public] grudge the cause of heaven;^[1]
All the more dangerous, since in their anger
They use against us weapons men revere,
And since they make the world applaud their passion,
And seek to stab us with a sacred sword.
There are too many of this canting kind.
Still, the sincere are easy to distinguish;
And many splendid patterns may be found,
In our own time, before our very eyes.
(Molière’s Tartuffe, Act I, Scene vi)
----------------------
[1] Or manifest destiny, or true democracy, or patriotism

The Romance of Ayn Rand

(OR: Ayn Rand Romanticized)

Mark Sanford, the recently beleaguered Republican governor of South Carolina, presented his pitch for the current relevance of Ayn Rand in Newsweek, November 2, 2009. He wrote, “What strikes me as still relevant is [The Fountainhead’s] central insight—that it isn’t ‘collective action’ that makes this nation prosperous and secure; it’s the initiative and creativity of the individual” (p. 54).

Hmmm! It makes one wonder which American patriot defeated the British Empire in pursuit of a more prosperous and secure future? What individual hammered out the U.S. Constitution in the solitude of his study? How railroad barons found means to lay thousands of miles of track without government/tax payer concessions, land grants, and subsidies? How Goldman Sachs (or any number of other juristic persons) would cope without shareholder collective investment and apathy? How capitalists—not to mention aspiring home-owners—would survive without access to the collective pool of credit capital or the collective sharing of risk through insurance? Or what role corporations (those ubiquitous collections of individuals—managers, consultants, shareholders, and employees) have in prosperity and security?

It seems rather naïve at best for both Rand and Sanford to romanticize the rugged, obsessive individualism of Howard Roark (The Fountainhead) and of John Galt (Atlas Shrugged). Yes, the individual Roark may dream and design, but without “others” submitting their wills and energy to his creative, inflexible realizations, he would have had no buildings at all, let alone the one he chose to dynamite when his architectural vision was compromised.

Mr. Sanford seems to view it as mainly ironic that Ayn Rand’s philosophy is based on the individual’s absolute freedom while in practice she “exercised a dictatorial control over her followers … denounc[ing] anyone who expressed opinions even slightly diverging from her own” (p. 55). This seems way beyond ironic or even flawed. It seems to manifest a colossal disconnect that strips her of every relevance, unless it is the relevance of exposing deep hypocrisy and the human propensity to lust for power and control even when touting the virtues of freedom. Rand’s intolerance of diversity and lack of self-awareness seems strongly prescient of current Republican disconnects about their own complicity in the present state of dire affairs and their own Roarkness/Galtness. Too often passionate freedom-advocates seem to practice it in the Rand-sense. “You are free to agree with my vision and if you do not, I will seek the destruction of your vision.”

So why, in Mr. Sanford’s view, is “this a very good time for a Rand resurgence” (p. 55)? Do we need more justifications for the “Virtue of Selfishness”^[1] or of idealized self-interest or of individualized tyranny? Do we need more Ayn Rands (or Roarks or Galts) claiming a genius that qualifies them to be “supreme arbiter[s] in any issue pertaining to what is rational, moral, or appropriate to man’s life on earth” (p. 55)? Do we need more romantic notions that aggressive individualists and free-marketeers know best; that the genius of industry giants is untainted by baseness; that order, fairness, and equity are the natural selections of strictly free-markets? Do we need less government regulation of the markets, especially financial ones? (Or do we really need more appropriate regulation?) Do we need to champion the primacy of the individual or to balance individualism with the social contracts of living in collectives of families, communities, nations, and global stewardships?

Sanford seems to prefer the deluded romance of Rand’s rugged individualism to the delusions of paternalistic government. If they are both delusions of primacy—one of individualism, the other of collectivism—perhaps we are just arguing over two caustic extremes which can only be neutralized to the safety of both individual and society when managed in reasoned, ethical, and judicious balance.

And now a word to die-hard individualists: Of course, many rugged, creative individualists have contributed to making the world a better place, but perhaps not even a handful have done so without the support of collectives of some sort or other. There would be no kings or queens without subjects (and their collective taxes). No George Washington without compatriots. No enduring capitalists (or managed corporations) without laborers. No thriving playwrights without actors and audiences. The list is endless. Endless too, is the unromantic remembrance of individualists and their supporters who have amassed power and then horrendous histories of death, destruction, slavery, and injustice. There would have been no Alexander the Great without his armies. No early cotton kings without slave ships, captains, crews, and traders. No Hitlers, Stalins, Pol Pots, or Saddams without compliant (though often terrorized) comrades and citizens. Obsessive, inflexible visions, whether individualistic or collective in nature, always bend toward tyranny. [See the DéjàVu Times blog post, Sep. 29, 2009, “Are We There Yet (at the T-point)?”]

A rose-tinted, monocular view of the Rands, Roarks, and Galts of this world and their idealistic, naive, inflexible descendants reveals less than half the picture. (Once again we come close to encountering the 3-monkey stance of “hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil” concerning the rugged individualist.) At least Gov. Sanford acknowledges the need for limited government, though he stops well-short of confessing the collective sins of the Republicans in that regard, while he laments those of the Democrats. Still his call to remember the primacy of the individual through a Rand resurgence seems firmly planted in the romantic fictions of idealized heroes and of espoused, but unlived philosophies. Of course, government and society needs the "annoyance" and perhaps frequent rebellion of informed (not propogandized) citizens challenging the status quo, but we seem ever ready to merely substitute one form of tyranny for another, especially in the name of freedom.

Perhaps the governor’s call to remembrance would have been more enlightening to focus on Rand’s scorned “second-handers”:

“the opportunistic Peter Keating, who appropriated Roark’s architectural talent for his own purposes, and Ellsworth Toohey, the journalist who doesn’t know what to write until he knows what people want to hear—” (p. 54).

If there is any real-world relevance and déjà vu to Rand’s fictions, Keating and Toohey seem the unvarnished, unromantic progenitors of many present-day elected officials, aspiring politicians, corporate managers, and every-day common folk (like this blogger). The heroism of those who seem to stand alone against injustice, corruption, and error appeals to our better natures because our worse natures tend to think in collectives of ideology and status quo; to speak in endless, scripted talking-points; to single-file in tight corporate- or party-line; to sing the tunes written by lobbyists and CFOs; and to fall in domino-fashion to the intrigues of self-indulgence.

Sanford laments this sad mindset of the world’s Keatings and Tooheys, but does not seem to have party- or self-awareness

1) that much of Rand's romanticism lies in comparing the best aspects of individualism to the worst aspects of collectivism;
2) that the Roarks and Galts of this world are men of such extreme individualism they basically refuse to live except as a law unto themselves, and thus, in similitude of Ayn Rand, as dictators of private fiefdoms they construct around them—without recognition of the contradictions and without diminishing the high-sounding rhetoric of free mind, will, and expression for every soul; and
3) that unrestrained individualism is also the fertile ground of its own tyranny.

--------------
[1] Title of a collection of essays and papers written by Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden, published in 1964; subtitled: A New Concept of Egoism.

By Smaller Means: The demise of giants, elites, and superpowers

Professor J. Rufus Fears^[1] in his lecture series, The Wisdom of History, alleges that Lesson/Law One of history is, “We do not learn from history.” This short phrase sums up the tragedy within many past and current events and the woeful reflections of this Déjà Vu blog.

Why is it that so many “giants,” elites, and superpowers consider themselves the exception to the déjà vu of “By Smaller Means”?

Consider this small sampling of “smaller means”:

1. Gideon and his 300 rout the hosts of the Midianites, Amalekites, and children of the east (circa 2nd century BC; see Old Testament Judges 6-8).
2. David slays Goliath (circa 1000 BC; see Old Testament 1 Samuel 17).
3. The allied city-states of Greece conquer the mighty Persian navy of Xerxes at Salamis (480 BC).
4. The fatal sickness^[2] of battle-hardened Alexander the Great at age 32 (323 BC).
5. The victory of the outclassed Thierry against the superior warrior Pinabel as described in the French epic poem, Song of Roland (circa 1100s AD).
6. The victory of a vastly outnumbered English army over the French one at the Battle of Agincourt (1415 AD).
7. The victory of French forces over superior numbers of British forces in the Battle of Carillon (aka: 1758 Battle of Ticonderoga) during the French and Indian War.
8. The fragmented 13 colonies of the barely-united states defeating, against impossible odds, the vastly superior forces and navy of the British Empire (1775-1783 AD).
9. IEDs used in almost every theater of war since 1943 (from Germany to Vietnam to Ireland and beyond) by insurgents, guerillas, rebels, etc, against superior armies and armaments.
10. Revelations of infidelities of Gary Hart (1987), Bill Clinton (1998+), James McGreevey (2004), Eliot Spitzer (2008), John Edwards (2008), Mark Sanford (2009), John Ensign (2009), David Letterman (2009), etc., etc,. etc.

Yes, giants, elites, and superpowers can prevail for a time, but when obsessions, hubris, expansionism, imperialism, etc. become dominant, “smaller means” often bring downfall, whether sooner or later. These various “smaller means” are like bits and helms to which the giants, elites, and superpowers seem blissfully ignorant (even when self-imposed), until their whole lives or agendas are turned in directions they had no intention of going.

Behold, we put bits in the horses' mouths, that they may obey us; and we turn about their whole body. 4 Behold also the ships, which though they be so great, and are driven of fierce winds, yet are they turned about with a very small helm, whithersoever the governor listeth. (New Testament James 3:3-4)

------------
[1] University of Oklahoma
[2] some allege poisoning

Crimes against the People

(And we are all guilty—some more than others—in some way or other)

▪ Unregulated laissez-faire markets*
▪ Excessive government regulation of markets*
▪ Tax structures that are both onerous and full of loop-holes
▪ Massive concessions to big-business while pretending the market-place is free, fair, and level
▪ Financial IVs for too-big-to-fail corps (too seldom spelled corpse)
▪ Revolving doors between big-business and government service
▪ Reorientation of local governments from service to profit (by taking on the business model)
▪ Equating collectives (corporations) with individuals and then favoring the collective
▪ Pretending HyPEs (Highly-Paid Employees such as CEOs, CAOs, CFOs, etc.) are capitalists and entrepreneurs.
▪ Allowing HyPEs to fleece shareholders
▪ Discrediting the import of government and the public good
▪ Selling public assets to private parties for their profit
▪ Serving special-interest collectives rather than electors
▪ Redefining individualism to mean self-interest instead of self-expression & -development
▪ Contributing to the profits of unethical business through consumer purchasing
▪ Fear mongering for power
▪ Secrecy
▪ And so forth
-----------
*Yes, crimes come from both the right and the left.

Are We There Yet (at the T-point)?

We seem to forget that Tyranny can come from both the right* and the left:*

• from the right via anarchists, or perhaps even more dangerously, via non-governmental persons/organizations/corporations, whose wealth/power/influence is so great that they make and play by their own rules, including circumventing the rule of law and lawful consequence; and
• from the left via dictators/totalitarians and other control-mongers who are generally out-of-control in pursuit of ideological agendas.

From all appearances we seem to have these two extremes—excessive individualism to the right and excessive collectivism to the left—bearing down against democracy from opposite directions heading for the tyranny-point. Neither extreme seems inclined to re-evaluate and take the “centrist-way” of balance, reason, constitutional guide, or democratic representation. Are we at or near the T-point? You decide.

At the right:

• Massive government failure to appropriately regulate that which is within its mandate (under both Republicans & Democrats, it mattereth not!).
• Massive corporate/collective lobbying and influence peddling that sideline democratic values and citizen participation.
• Massive corporate/collective lobbying and influence peddling in pursuit of favored-status, subsidies, and mergers/acquisitions that increase power by lessening competition and consequence.
• Massive corporate/collective disinformation and propaganda campaigns to manipulate election results.
• Privately-owned collectives that consistently defraud taxpayers via government contracts by massive overcharging for goods and services without meaningful penalty, and too often, with continuing contracts even when criminal conduct is revealed.
• Framing objectives of the public good as incompatible with democracy, individualism, and free-markets.
• Etc.

At the left:

• Massive government involvement beyond its mandate (under both Republicans & Democrats, it mattereth not!).
• Torque-ing of constitutional checks and balances and subverting the rule of law.
• Planned, centralized, or command economies that stifle individual initiative and private enterprise.
• Expanding the culture of secrecy, including secret prisons and trials.
• Torturing of suspects.
• Spying on citizens.
• Denying habeas corpus.
• Intimidation or attempts thereat of dissenters and journalists.
• National Security Letters and gag orders.
• Etc.

Tyranny, whether originating in the public or private sector, destroys democracy; so whether our allegiance favors individualism or collectivism, the weight of each increasing excess will bend inexorably downward toward tyranny.
-------------------
* Not to be confused with conservative/liberal, Republican/Democratic designations as the sins of tyranny always presents its beleaguered citizens with a mixed bag of left and right excesses, despite the rhetoric. In recent years, in addition to their natural preferences, conservatives have co-opted many leftist excesses and liberals have fallen victim to the anarchy of private power and influence.

PANGLOSSARY

(In remembrance of the 250th anniversary of Pangloss’s birth)

Pangloss was Voltaire’s fictional philosopher of optimism in his satirical work, Candide (written in 1759 AD). According to Pangloss, “… all that is is for the best. If there is a volcano at Lisbon it cannot be elsewhere. It is impossible that things should be other than they are; for everything is right” (p. 21); and “… all is for the best in the moral and physical world, …” (p. 114).

Well, unsurprisingly, considering his previous feats of survival, Pangloss^[1] has found his way into the twenty-first century (“Oh déjà vu!”) because panglossophers are everywhere—professors of unremitting optimism; advocates of spontaneous order; devotees of blind, mechanistic optimizing systems; preachers of “attract everything you desire;” and so forth. Here is a small sampling from the modern-day panglossary of excessive optimism.^[2]

Big is better: self-evidently optimal in all cases (aka, the proof is in the disparity). In addition, economies-of-scale are uniquely suited to tilt level playing fields to a quasi-vertical, favorable slope which speeds up assembly-line production; asset acquisition from smaller, less robust capitalists; and capitulation by antagonists. Bigger also means transnational, (with a judicious eye on emerging trans-world options); and since anything trans is more optimal than non-trans, (except for the edible fats market^[3]), government is optimal that refuses to regulate growth and bigness in all its forms. Further, bigness insulates from annoying complaints, from unstable flexibility, from big bullies, from confusing the right hand with the left^[4], and from a myriad other inconsequentials.

Borrowing & Spending: since housing and land prices always go up (except when they briefly go down) mortgages are optimistically good investments. And since the best thing to do, to stimulate the economy and to manufacture growth, is to spend, it is best to buy as much as you can leverage. If you save, you are just loaning your money (via your banker who skims interest) to someone else to finance their consumption, so the best of all possible options is to spend it yourself, or, in the even more optimal alternative, to borrow from a foolish saver and consume while the consuming is good.

Entropy: although buildings, monuments, pyramids, archives, books, art, software, computers, vehicles, human bodies, etc. (ad infinitum) are all subject to the law of entropy^[5], laissez-faire markets and human folly are different, both being undirected by an invisible hand of naturally occurring allocations, growth, and repetition. The entropy part may not be optimal for the status quo, but it is surely optimal for new markets in constituent elements. As for human folly, that too is for the best because optimistically, humans learn by experience, and reportedly more from mistakes than from successes.

Laissez-faire markets (aka, Panglossonomics): a perfectly free market-place is blind to bias, prone to systemic order, and invisibly self-driven to optimal allocations of the market’s best interest. Self-interest and self-regulation result in optimal global coordination of rich (though scarce) global resources managed by HyPEs [highly paid employees] on behalf of an aggregate of dispersed, disparate, generally disinterested investor/owners. If things don’t appear to be optimal, the various markets will correct themselves in due course if left sufficiently to themselves, or—in the second-best alternative—if given sufficient stimuli by an aggregate of dispersed, disparate, generally compliant (though complaining) taxpayers. In this best of all possible economic systems, the free, competitive markets will always work out what is best.

Lawses (pronounced losses) of Attraction: if you haven’t got what you want, you haven’t obeyed the Law of Attraction. Displace all suggestions/thoughts to the contrary. And remember, if prophets, apostles, saints, and sages died [often martyred, mind you!] without receiving the “good stuff,” it was because they either didn’t discover the Law or, if they did, just didn’t get with the program. Thus, keep your optimistic eye on the ball and it will come.

Merit: if you have it, you deserve it. If you don’t have it, you don’t deserve having it. It’s all as it should be. You are in the best of all possible worlds, whether with or without health insurance, with or without a job, with or without shelter, etc., etc., etc. And pay special attention to the moral hazard of helping those who don’t merit—for it has been soundly proven statistically that those who are insured^[6] against misfortune or irresponsibility have more of it. It’s better for the poor and unfortunate not to be insured for their own optimal moral good, growth, and safety. (Note, however—for those who can afford insurance, don’t leave home without it.)

Philanthropy: the superlative art and science of minimizing wages and costs of production or service in order to optimize charitable givings that can be used to build libraries, museums, galleries, schools, parks, art centres, sports arenas, etc., etc., or to establish endowments, scholarships, etc., etc., for 1) perpetuating and honoring the family or corporate name; and 2) for the public good (of those whose salaries are sufficient to use or merit the above).

A note to the Candides and Cunegondes of this world: A little experience should go a fair way to tempering Panglossian optimism.

[1] And the philosophy of incessant, romanticized optimism, espoused by Leibnitz, that Voltaire found so distasteful.
[2] Again a note to those with high-horses saddled with optimism. Optimism has its place, but too often it sets up expectations that WILL NOT be met because life is NOT a bed of roses; it IS the entire bush—thorns and all.
[3] Note: the efficiency of both trans-and non-trans fats and oils has been demonstrated to advantage during lobby-sponsored luncheons, proving the panglossian point that everything has an optimal purpose and use.
[4] In voluntary compliance with a variation of "But when thou doest alms [or secret deals, etc.], let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:" (New Testament Matthew 6:3)
[5] Law of Entropy: Tendency of matter to disintegrate into its smallest constituent elements over time without the intervention of externally imposed order or maintenance.[6] Especially via government-run programs of last resort when the omniscient market finds no profit in it or too much risk.
---------------------
*Ref: The Project Gutenberg EBook of Candide, by Voltaire [EBook #19942]

Moral Hazard — to the Right and to the Left

?— Who has the greater moral hazard: the poor begging alms or the rich denying them?
?— If social security, health care, public education, and other government insurance programs that share the risks and costs of life are moral hazards, what of private insurance programs that externalize and share the risks and costs of ownership and/or business?
?— If capitalism cannot exist without the lubricant of insurance (collectivized risk-sharing), is capitalism, as presently constituted, a moral hazard?
?— If competition is so advantageous, why do so many small- and big-businesses succumb to the predatorship of bigger-business? And why does competition have a propensity to devour its neighbor?
?— If supply and demand is so co-efficient, why are there dumpsters full of edible food behind every supermarket in North America? Why are there continual massive "remainders" of books, magazines, newspapers, etc.? Why are there so few family-rated movies? Why did the “global money pool” run out of places to safely invest its money? What did its managers then choose to do? How many “insured” high-risk investors were paid out with tax-backed stimulus?
?— What is the saving difference between state collectivism (i.e., communism and socialism) and private transnational collectivism?
?— Why are there more lobbyists per elected official than grains in a minute-glass?
?— Is it progressive to create tax bracket inequities in order to redress other inequities?
?— Who has the greater moral hazard: Those who promise to do, and don’t or those who just don’t?
?— Is it OK to deceive citizens for the “good” of war?
?— Is torture by democratic countries more justified than torture by despots?
?— Is Jack Bauer (of Fox TV’s 24) a national hero?
?— Do safe ends justify tortured means?
?— Why don’t we have more “Mr. Smiths going to Washington?” [Ask: 1) Frank Capra; 2) the PACs]

How Long Till We Get It??!

—▪ that unregulated competition destroys competition.
—▪ that mergers and acquisitions are mere façades of growth.
—▪ that too-big-to-fail SHOULD MEAN too-big-to-be!
—▪ that short-term profit mentality does not produce long-term productivity.
—▪ that “opposites attract the same lobbyists.” (So whether conservative, liberal, Republican, or Democrat, the concessions and catering to power-brokers descends the same beaten path.)
—▪ that unregulated capitalism descends inexorably to economic tyranny, oligopoly, and monopoly.
—▪ that unregulated capitalism rewards the most anti-social motivation of mankind, i.e., unmitigated self-interest which is the cornerstone of greed, hubris, sense of entitlement, distain, illusion, elitism, corruption, etc. etc. etc.
—▪ that allowing poorly-regulated profit-seekers to manage/dictate health-care and utilities is irresponsible.
—▪ that unregulated capitalism favors the unethical.
—▪ that the ideology of meritocracy and an “even-handed” market place in unregulated capitalism is a fraud.**
—▪ that managers (i.e., CEOs, CAOs, CFOs, etc.) are NOT capitalists, but highly paid employees, courtiers, and spokesman who have too often sold their ethics for a place in the economic sun (and retirement twilight).
—▪ that big-business owners have become non-participating, alienated, aggregated-yet-isolated shareholders without responsibility, power, or interest in much but the periodic dividend.
—▪ that corporate bureaucracies are as prone to inefficiency, corruption, and intransigence as government bureaucracies.
—▪ that government, powered and driven by corporate collectives, is scarcely more democratic than old communist regimes.
—▪ that communism denies the best gifts of mankind (spontaneity, ingenuity, creativity, generosity, etc.) while unregulated capitalism denies the worst tendencies of mankind (fear, greed, hubris, elitism, selfishness, corruption, etc.) giving mankind the worst of both worlds.
—▪ that wealth created through financial manipulation is extorted wealth.
—▪ that the financial sector’s denigration of government regulation is self-serving, self-aggrandizing, and untrustworthy.
—▪ that economic elitism and plunder thrive on deregulation.
—▪ that there are appropriate, wise, and stablizing levels of regulation.
—▪ that most politicians today are not re-electable without the approval of anti-regulation big-business.

*(Suggestion to die-hard, laissez-faire capitalists: Don’t saddle your high-horses so fast, if you don’t get this. Leave them stabled and take a long, slow, inefficient walk through economic history. (Just the facts, not the propaganda.) The sad truth is, appropriately regulated capitalism can bless the world. Unregulated? Well, take that long walk. Maybe begin at the South Sea Bubble (1711-1720) or with John Law (France, 1719).
**(Put it to the test. Compare the numbers? Strictly honest, fair businessmen v. unregulated profit-seekers; prophet-led v. profit-driven. Count them one by one.)

The TEN DICTATES (& Natural Selections) of the Laissez-faire Market-Place

~~~
1. Thou shalt have no other economic theories before you.^[1]
2. Thou shalt^[2] research, develop, and manufacture goods and services, but above all, the DESIRE for goods and services; and NEVER bow to any attempts to regulate the natural order (and flow) of desire and laissez-faire markets.
3. Thou shalt not permit critics of the laissez-faire market-place to remain guiltless and uncastigated.
4. Remember the seven holy days of the market-place are scarcely enough.
5. Thou shalt honor Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman as principal advocates of self-interest, meritocracy, and pure and free-markets.
6. Thou shalt kill the competition (before they kill you).
7. Thou shalt acquire, merge, and control as many businesses and assets as possible.^[3]
8. Thou shalt steal trade secrets, market share, insider information, and anything else that thou canst reasonably expect to get away with.
9. Thou shalt bear false witness whenever brand or corporate respectability are at risk.
10. Thou shalt covet all that is thy neighbors,^[4] for only in this way can there be eternal growth, profit, and prosperity.
_______
[1] Yea, NOT EVEN a mix; except during unexpected crises when public assistance is temporarily necessary.
[2] With all thy heart, might, mind, and strength
[3] Déjà vu: Ahab v. Naboth (1 Kings 21)
[4] (corporate or not) including secret government subsidies, earmarks, preferential loans, favors, favoritism, special legislation, private ownership of public assets, perks, status, etc., etc., etc..

Money Woes!!!

The obsessive pursuit of profit & wealth (gain) has been with the world since Cain killed Abel*; and has been the subject of lamentation in every age. Here is a small sampling of lamentations and warnings:**

King Solomon (900s BC)
How much better is it to get wisdom than gold! and to get understanding rather to be chosen than silver! (Old Testament Proverbs 16:16)
Isaiah (700s BC)
Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter. (Old Testament Isaiah 56:11)
Jeremiah (600s-500s BC)
For from the least of them even unto the greatest of them every one is given to covetousness; and from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely. (Old Testament Jeremiah 6:13)
Sophocles (496 BC-406 BC)
Surely there never was so evil a thing as money, which maketh cities into ruinous heaps, and banisheth men from their houses, and turneth their thoughts from good unto evil. (Antigone)
Socrates (469-399 BC)
Men of Athens, I honor and love you; but I shall obey God rather than you, and while I have life and strength I shall never cease from the practice and teaching of philosophy, exhorting anyone whom I meet after my manner, and convincing him, saying: O my friend, why do you who are a citizen of the great and mighty and wise city of Athens, care so much about laying up the greatest amount of money and honor and reputation, and so little about wisdom and truth and the greatest improvement of the soul, which you never regard or heed at all? Are you not ashamed of this? (Emphasis added) (Plato, Apology, Translated by Benjamin Jowett)
Polybius (ca 203-120 BC)
… at Carthage, nothing that results in profit is regarded as disgraceful. (see Will Durant, The Story of Civilization: Part III, Caesar and Christ, p. 414)
Cicero (106-43 BC),
Endless money forms the sinews of war. (Philippics, Oration V, sc. 5)
Horace (65-8 BC)
Money madness is the basic disease of Rome. (see Will Durant, The Story of Civilization: Part III, Caesar and Christ, p. 245) Petronius (ca 27-66 AD)
What power has law where only money rules? (Satyricon, Cap. XIV)
Paul, the Apostle (died ca 64 AD)
But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. 10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. (New Testament 1 Tim. 6:9-10)
Francis Bacon (1561-1626 AD)
Above all things, good policy is to be used, that the treasure and moneys, in a state, be not gathered into few hands. For otherwise a state may have a great stock, and yet starve. And money is like muck, not good except it be spread. This is done, chiefly by suppressing, or at least keeping a strait hand, upon the devouring trades of usury, ingrossing great pasturages, and the like. (Essays of Sir Francis Bacon, “Of Seditions and Troubles”)
Oliver Goldsmith (1730-1774 AD)
Ill fares the land to hast’ning ills a prey
Where wealth accumulates and men decay. (The Deserted Village)
Charles Dickens (1812-1870 AD)
This narrow thoroughfare, baking and blistering in the sun, is Wall Street: the Stock Exchange and Lombard Street of New York. Many a rapid fortune has been made in this street, and many a no less rapid ruin. Some of these very merchants whom you see hanging about here now, have locked up money in their strong-boxes, like the man in the Arabian Nights, and opening them again, have found but withered leaves. (American Notes, Chap. VI)
Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910 AD)
Money is a new form of slavery, and distinguishable from the old simply by the fact that it is impersonal – that there is no human relation between master and slave. (What shall We Do Then? 1886)
Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882-1945 AD), 32nd US President
The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson. (Letter to Col. Edward Mandell House (21 November 1933); as quoted in F.D.R.: His Personal Letters, 1928-1945, edited by Elliott Roosevelt (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1950), pg. 373.
Sen. Barry Goldwater (1909-1998 AD), (R-AZ)
Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders ... The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and ... manipulates the credit of the United States.
(With No Apologies: The Personal and Political Memoirs of United States Senator Barry M. Goldwater (1979)
Robert L. Heilbroner (1919-2005 AD)
No other civilization has permitted the calculus of self-interest so to dominate its culture. It has transmogrified greed and Philistinism into social virtue and subordinated all values to commercial values. (Business Civilization in Decline, Norton, 1976)
John Danforth (1936- AD), former Republican senator from Missouri
I have never seen more senators express discontent with their jobs. ... I think the major cause is that, deep down in our hearts, we have been accomplices to doing something terrible and unforgivable to this wonderful country. Deep down in our hearts, we know that we have bankrupted America and that we have given our children a legacy of bankruptcy. .. We have defrauded our country to get ourselves elected. (Reported in the Arizona Republic of April 21, 1992)
----------------
* See "Selections from the Book of Moses" 5:31-33, Pearl of Great Price—scripture of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
**Thanks to http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Money for several of these quotes

To Loyalists* Everywhere

(*Addressed specifically to every soul upset by Déjà Vu criticisms & more generally to Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals, Socialists, Communists, rebels, terrorists, groupies, nationalists, globalists, sectarians, and loyal dependents of every stripe—including those dependent on an employer’s pay cheque^[1] or those intimidated by dependency into the façade of loyalty; etc., etc.)

Every desired value has its extremes, and LOYALTY has been pulled and pushed to the extreme since the dawn of power; pushed and pulled to that place where seeing we will not see, hearing we will not hear, and being challenged we will not read, research, investigate, or admit of any negatives.

This willful ignorance^[2] is the sad legacy of unquestioning loyalty to any person, cause, group, idea, or ideology. We mount our political, religious, or ideological high-horses and wield the sword of our various passionate loyalties striving to cut asunder all criticism and opposition. Thus, too many of us speak democratic principles with our lips but in our hearts and councils seek monopolies of thought, perspective, and action. We call our version “patriotic” or “the ONLY truth,” and resist with anger, the historical parallels—the corruptions, conspiracies, and crimes (the 3Cs) that forever tempt (and too often accompany) power and influence. For extreme loyalists, the 3Cs that might apply to their own loyalty are fiercely denied or justified for extenuating cause.

But questioning and requests for transparency and accountability are not acts of disloyalty. They are duties—obligations of intelligent life to demand balance, integrity, justice, equity, thought, and consideration. Intelligence demands accountability. Intelligence rejects the hypocrisy of saying one thing and doing another. That is how I see it, and that is why I “déjà vu” in the hope that my insights (perhaps mistaken at times) may help move us from intransigence to seeing, hearing, and investigating the full story of our loyalties; and to recognize both the richness and the tragic waste in the complex, precious, and déjà vu world of such loyalties.

[1] “It is difficult for them to see whose paycheck depends on them not seeing.” Upton Sinclair
[2] A version of the three-monkey stance: See no evil, hear no evil, & ask no question concerning the object of loyalty.

Adam Smith’s Open Letter* to Former-President George W. Bush (et al.)

(*First published in 1759 in anticipation of many presidencies, and also includes Prime Ministers, Kings, Queens, and other heads of state; therefore Mr. Bush is not the first to receive this open letter, nor shall he be the last. It’s all déjà vu for Mr. Smith.)

[Dear Mr. Former-President:]

[I, Adam Smith, first published this observation in 1759 and made it comprehensive in scope so as to be useful in a variety of situations. I suspect you may fall into several categories of my concern. Hopefully, you will recognize the ones that apply, which may be useful as you draft your memoirs and prepare for your after-life—by which I mean, after-your-presidency-life. So here we begin, as I quote myself:]

“To attain to this envied situation [of wealth and greatness], the candidates for fortune too frequently abandon the paths of virtue; for unhappily, the road which leads to the one and that which leads to the other, lie sometimes in very opposite directions. But the ambitious man flatters himself that, in the splendid situation to which he advances, he will have so many means of commanding the respect and admiration of mankind, and will be enabled to act with such superior propriety and grace, that the luster of his future conduct will entirely cover, or efface, the foulness of the steps by which he arrived at that elevation. In many governments the candidates for the highest stations are above the law; and, if they can attain the object of their ambition, they have no fear of being called to account for the means by which they acquired it. They often endeavour, therefore, not only by fraud and falsehood, the ordinary and vulgar arts of intrigue and cabal, but sometimes by the perpetration of the most enormous crimes, by murder and assassination [of reputations in more civilized societies], by rebellion and civil war [or dissension], to supplant and destroy those who oppose or stand in the way of their greatness. They more frequently miscarry than succeed; and commonly gain nothing but the disgraceful punishment which is due to their crimes. But, though they should be so lucky as to attain that wished-for greatness, they are always most miserably disappointed in the happiness which they expect to enjoy in it. It is not ease or pleasure, but always honour, of one kind or another, though frequently an honour very ill understood, that the ambitious man really pursues. But the honour of his exalted station appears, both in his own eyes and in those of other people, polluted and defiled by the baseness of the means through which he rose to it. Though by the profusion of every liberal expense; though by excessive indulgence in every profligate pleasure, the wretched, but usual resource of ruined characters; though by the hurry of public business, or by the prouder and more dazzling tumult of war, he may endeavour to efface, both from his own memory and from that of other people, the remembrance of what he has done; that remembrance never fails to pursue him. He invokes in vain the dark and dismal powers of forgetfulness and oblivion. He remembers himself what he has done, and that remembrance tells him that other people must likewise remember it. Amidst all the gaudy pomp of the most ostentatious greatness; amidst the venal and vile adulation of the great and of the learned; amidst the more innocent, though more foolish, acclamations of the common people; amidst all the pride of conquest and triumph of successful war, he is still secretly pursued by the avenging furies of shame and remorse; and, while glory seems to surround him on all sides, he himself in his own imagination, sees black and foul infamy fast pursuing him, and every moment ready to overtake him from behind.”

[PS: Mr. Former-President: Some of this may also apply to certain of your former associates. You are not alone. Ambition, on many levels, can be blinding and power intoxicating so as to pursue agendas at any cost. Thus, I send this not in judgment, but as a general observation of déjà vu.]

Reference: Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (Mineola, New York: 2006, Dover Philosophical Classics) first published 1759; p. 61-2—I.III.III.

Mr. Smith [is desperately needed in] Washington*

(*AND Beijing, Berlin, Brazalia, Cairo, Canberra, Damascus, Harare, Havana, Jakarta, Khartoum, Kingston, Kinshasa, Lima, London, Madrid, Manila, Moscow, New Dehli, Oslo, Ottawa, Paris, Riyadh, Rome, Santiago, Seoul, Stockholm, Tegucigalpa, Tehran, Tokyo, Warsaw, and every other place inbetween that is feeling the pressure of extremes from laissez-faire ideology to command economies; AND in every corporate boardroom)

Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” has been presumptively extracted from his 1000-plus page treatise on economics to mean “hands-off” business. Too bad those who wrap themselves in this invisible hand haven’t taken his books in-hand. Mr. Smith was not a laissez-faire determinist, but a moderate, aware of the need for balance between the private and the public good; and fully aware of the dangers inherent in accumulated power and wealth. Here, for the record, are a few of Mr. Smith’s observations:

On the Public Good:
The interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens. The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it. (The Wealth of Nations, p. 287-8—I.XI.III)

Though the standard by which casuists frequently determine what is right or wrong in human conduct be its tendency to the welfare or disorder of society, it does not follow that a regard to the welfare of society should be the sole virtuous motive of action, but only that, in any competition it ought to cast the balance against all other motives [emphasis added]. (The Theory of Moral Sentiments, p. 304—VII.II.III)

The wise and virtuous man is at all times willing that his own private interest should be sacrificed to the public interest of his own particular order or society. He is at all times willing, too, that the interest of this order or society should be sacrificed to the greater interest of the state or sovereignty of which it is only a subordinate part: he should, therefore, be equally willing that all those inferior interests should be sacrificed to the greater interest of the universe, to the interest of that great society of all sensible and intelligent beings, of which God himself is the immediate administrator and director. (The Theory of Moral Sentiments, p. 236—VI.II.III)
[In the interests of full disclosure, Mr. Smith also wrote, when speaking of the invisible hand, that he had “never known much good done by those who affected [emphasis added] to trade for the public good.” (The Wealth of Nations, p. 485)]

On Labor:
Labour, it must always be remembered, and not any particular commodity or set of commodities, is the real measure of the value both of silver and of all other commodities. (The Wealth of Nations, p. 214—I.XI.III)

The liberal reward of labour, as it encourages the propagation, so it increases the industry of the common people. The wages of labour are the encouragement of industry, which, like every other human quality, improves in proportion to the encouragement it receives. A plentiful subsistence increases the bodily strength of the labourer, and the comfortable hope of bettering his condition, and of ending his days perhaps in ease and plenty, animates him to exert that strength to the utmost. Where wages are high, accordingly, we shall always find the workmen more active, diligent, and expeditious than where they are low: … Some workmen, indeed, when they can earn in four days what will maintain them through the week, will be idle the other three. This, however, is by no means the case with the greater part. Workmen, on the contrary, when they are liberally paid by the piece, are very apt to overwork themselves, and to ruin their health and constitution in a few years. … Something of the same kind happens in many other trades, in which the workmen are paid by the piece, as they generally are in manufactures, and even in country labour, wherever wages are higher than ordinary. Almost every class of artificers is subject to some peculiar infirmity occasioned by excessive application to their peculiar species of work. (The Wealth of Nations, p. 84—I.VIII)

If masters would always listen to the dictates of reason and humanity, they have frequently occasion rather to moderate than to animate the application of many of their workmen. It will be found, I believe, in every sort of trade, that the man who works so moderately as to be able to work constantly not only preserves his health the longest, but, in the course of the year, executes the greatest quantity of work. (The Wealth of Nations, p. 94—I.VIII)

On Management:
The directors of such companies [joint stock company, i.e., corporation], however, being the managers rather of other people's money than of their own, it cannot well be expected that they should watch over it with the same anxious vigilance with which the partners in a private copartnery frequently watch over their own. Like the stewards of a rich man, they are apt to consider attention to small matters as not for their master's honour, and very easily give themselves a dispensation from having it. Negligence and profusion, therefore, must always prevail, more or less, in the management of the affairs of such a company. It is upon this account that joint stock companies for foreign trade have seldom been able to maintain the competition against private adventurers. They have, accordingly, very seldom succeeded without an exclusive privilege, and frequently have not succeeded with one. Without an exclusive privilege they have commonly mismanaged the trade. With an exclusive privilege they have both mismanaged and confined it. (The Wealth of Nations, p. 800—V.I.III)

On Corruption:
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies, much less to render them necessary. (The Wealth of Nations, p. 148—I.X.I)

... This disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect, persons of poor and mean condition, though necessary both to establish and to maintain the distinction of ranks and the order of society, is, at the same time, the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments. That wealth and greatness are often regarded with the respect and admiration which are due only to wisdom and virtue; and that the contempt, of which vice and folly are the only proper objects, is often most unjustly bestowed upon poverty and weakness, has been the complaint of moralists in all ages. (The Theory of Moral Sentiments, p. 58—I.III.III)

When masters combine together in order to reduce the wages of their workmen, they commonly enter into a private bond or agreement not to give more than a certain wage under a certain penalty. Were the workmen to enter into a contrary combination of the same kind, not to accept of a certain wage under a certain penalty, the law would punish them very severely; and if it dealt impartially, it would treat the masters in the same manner. (The Wealth of Nations, p. 164—I.X.I)

On Monopolistic Tendencies:
But the cruellest of our revenue laws, I will venture to affirm, are mild and gentle in comparison of some of those which the clamour of our merchants and manufacturers has extorted from the legislature for the support of their own absurd and oppressive monopolies. Like the laws of Draco, these laws may be said to be all written in blood. (The Wealth of Nations, p. 700— IV.VIII)

… Were the officers of the army to oppose with the same zeal and unanimity any reduction in the numbers of forces with which master manufacturers set themselves against every law that is likely to increase the number of their rivals in the home market; were the former to animate their soldiers in the same manner as the latter enflame their workmen to attack with violence and outrage the proposers of any such regulation, to attempt to reduce the army would be as dangerous as it has now become to attempt to diminish in any respect the monopoly which our manufacturers have obtained against us. This monopoly has so much increased the number of some particular tribes of them that, like an overgrown standing army, they have become formidable to the government, and upon many occasions intimidate the legislature [emphasis added]. The Member of Parliament [or Congress] who supports every proposal for strengthening this monopoly is sure to acquire not only the reputation of understanding trade, but great popularity and influence with an order of men whose numbers and wealth render them of great importance. If he opposes them, on the contrary, and still more if he has authority enough to be able to thwart them, neither the most acknowledged probity, nor the highest rank, nor the greatest public services can protect him from the most infamous abuse and detraction, from personal insults, nor sometimes from real danger, arising from the insolent outrage of furious and disappointed monopolists. ¶ …The legislature, were it possible that its deliberations could be always directed, not by the clamorous importunity of partial interests, but by an extensive view of the general good, ought upon this very account, perhaps, to be particularly careful neither to establish any new monopolies of this kind, nor to extend further those which are already established. Every such regulation [favoring monopolists] introduces some degree of real disorder into the constitution of the state, which it will be difficult afterwards to cure without occasioning another disorder. (The Wealth of Nations, p. 501-2—IV.II)

References: Adam Smith’s: 1) The Theory of Moral Sentiments (Mineola, New York: 2006, Dover Philosophical Classics) first published 1759; & 2) The Wealth of Nations (New York: 2000, Modern Library Paperback Edition) first published 1776.

Promises, Promises

By lavish self-presentation, BK is a b-b[1] oilman; though by comparison to the BM-types[2], BK is of the bottom-rung variety. He began a dream-project—a massive, corporate retreat for b-b comrades who were said to crave a western, cowboy experience on a big ranch. BK bought sections of land on a river; fenced it with miles of post and rail (none of that tacky, cheaper barbed wire!); bought cows, horses, exotic harnesses & tack, and brand-new, earth-moving equipment. Not just one new high-hoe, but two. Not just one new Cat, but two. Not just one massive, commercial-size, fuel-storage tank, but three. Not to mention the county-size road-grader and the tractor-trailer unit to haul his equipment to “other” big projects, as needed. And, of course, three, huge generators to power the “K-Ranch” project as electricity had not yet arrived on site. BK instructed that a lake (pond-size) be constructed; and hired a gifted, local contractor to construct houses, cabins, and two huge barns, as fast as he and his crews could (calving season was on the near horizon). And of course, top-of-the-line, panel corrals were ordered and installed to manage the livestock.

Over the next months, BK and his courtier side-kick would arrive on Fridays to review the progress and make expensive change-requests that had popped into his (their) minds. Huge progress was mandated for each visit, so outward appearance would have to always trump finish-work. Soon there were dozens of projects, half-done, and promises, promises about agreed-upon compensation, supply accounts, up-front payments, etc., etc. It was a huge, potentially profitable job for many, but soon the red-flags began blowing in the western breeze all along the long, gravel road to the “K-Ranch.” It’s just that no one wanted to see them—to doubt BK’s integrity, his honesty, the viability of his dream or their own jobs or their outstanding accounts. Why BK even had some local family roots!

So promises, excuses, and periodic, late payments kept his contractors and other employees working—and buying materials & supplies, out of their own pockets, to meet the requisite weekly progress. Wages and reimbursements were always just a cheque away, even though several payments bounced once or twice before finally landing firm. When unpaid contractors, with less trust and patience, walked before job completion, BK hired others to finish up (and didn’t quite get them paid either). Of course, he paid critical employees (e.g., his calving crews) till the end of their last crucial month, then zip—nada. Even extended family members were recruited at the end to push the earth-moving and building projects as far as possible before … .

Well, no one yet knows what he told them. Perhaps, before the equipment had to be moved to some “other” big project?

His one-on-one personal chats about employee loyalty were crafted to solicit silence or spread the BK-line.

NOW, the cattle are sold, the equipment hauled away in a long convoy (by repo?[3]), and hundreds of thousands owed to contractors, suppliers, and employees. And still the promises are coming. “You will be paid—ASAPT[4].” With the unspoken, but subtle message, “Don’t do anything rash like try to sue, or register a builder’s lien, or do anything more than just wait patiently, and trust that I will do the right thing. ... Otherwise, you might offend me. And of course, neither of us wants that.” (Like the unpaid, young cowboy who reportedly carried his saddle offsite as collateral for unpaid wages? Now reported to the police for theft—by or on behalf of our b-b man who, dare we say, has a legion of his own more egregious offenses?! Dare we suggest reciprocity for all the materials and supplies BK incorporated into his project that he “neglected” to pay for? Dare we suggest that BK and his courtiers self-reflect?!)

And so the déjà vu strikes. How many must repeat this sad saga as the con-frauds wend their way through the world?

But of course, there was no intent to con or defraud! There was always intent that income or loans would be sufficient to exceed project outflow, even when extravagance, excess, and new commitments seemed undiminished by the reality of bouncing cheques, late payments, cash-flow bottlenecks, and mounting defaults. There was always intent to get things sorted out even as new contractors and employees were hired while prior ones remained unpaid. There was always intent to pay for the stuff he maneuvered contractors and employees to buy on his behalf. There was always intent to set up accounts for materials and supplies. There was eventually intent (promises) to realize enough from the sale of assets to pay unsecured debts even when those assets were known to BK to be secured by others. There was always intent to keep his promises.

And so, another b-b man, with “no intent” to harm, con, or defraud, manages all three with a clear conscience, offended by any suggestion otherwise. A b-b man who will likely follow in the steps of his greater and lesser comrades whose red-flags look suspiciously criminal in pattern and consequence, but who manage to keep things “civil” in the bankruptcy courts. A b-b man who will in all likelihood pass on his improvements to someone (an insider?) for a fraction of their cost, because huge parts of the costs were born by others.

The story of BK is still playing out, unknown to the general public as he maneuvers his options, stalls whatever creditors he can, postures himself, and plans to literally “parade” his defunct enterprise before an unsuspecting, festive public. For what purpose? To solicit new investors to pay off prior obligations? To stall for self-interest? To self-delude?

Maybe it’s about time to begin calling a spade, a spade.

[1] big-business
[2] aka Bernie Madoff’s
[3] Those who know are commanded not to talk about the equipment!
[4] “As soon as—perhaps tomorrow."

To my good niece

(Thoughts sparked by her questions and struggles)

Who are you? Freaking Job? Probably more than you know! The problem is, most of us don’t have the first idea of who Job really was. We hear “the patience of Job,” or “the faith of Job” and cast him-and-his-faithful-patience into the rising heap of our own failures. Thus, we never meet the real Job.

We remain strangers to this man who said: “I will complain in the bitterness of my soul” (7:11); who cried out, “I am full of confusion” (10:15); this man who accused God of breaking him with a tempest and multiplying his wounds without cause (9:17) and of being cruel to him (30:21); this man who charged God with removing his hope like a tree [tearing it up by the roots?] (19:10); this man who, in the integrity of his soul, stood up to God and demanded to be judged in truth and justice (chp. 31). Job suffered immense despair (6:2-4) and terrifying dreams (7:14) and railed against his own birth (3:11). Why? Because the God he thought he knew, the God he had been acculturated to, the God his “friends” were defending with passionate certitude, was nothing like the God who was manifesting in his life.

And yet Job could not quite give up believing in an honorable God. He was horribly conflicted, cycling between railing at God’s seeming injustice and inexplicable silence, and believing that God loved him and was indeed honorable, just, and worthy of every trust (13:15). (Is there even the odd déjà vu here?)

It is troubling when teachers/leaders laud Job for his patience and testimony and ignore all the despair and sufferings in-between, for therein is our best affirmation and comfort—in Job’s ability, courage, and integrity to say what he really thought, felt, and experienced (27:5). Many latter-day testimonies and explanations of God’s purposes and character seem reminiscent of Job’s friends—some even quoting the words of those friends without realizing what God said of those very words and friends (42:7).

Maybe you already know the real Job. But if not, maybe you can find a comfort-brother in him. Most losses/traumas are not as extreme as his (or his wife’s), but the questions and psychic pain are just as real. I do not understand God’s answer to Job (beginning finally in Chp. 38), unless it is to reiterate that our mortal perspective may be less than a pinhole in the dark—with periodic flashes of understanding, comfort, and hope (that seem to fade again, all too quickly). God's answer seems to say, “You haven’t even grasp the lesser questions like where the rains come from etc. etc. and you’re wanting answer to the great question of why your life and this creation of mine is awash in tears—when I am a just and loving God?!” (I think you have it right, in part—agency is key, but as I read Job, his story goes beyond the tragedies within agency. It goes to the very heart of who God is and what He intends to convey in this story of suffering and confusion.)

Maybe God’s answer is also a little déjà vu your recent visit to the vet with Josser—like “there is no way this pain, fear, and confusion can make sense with his present capacity to understand.” (Or maybe it’s just the chaos/hazards of life? I don’t know.)

Job didn’t seem to get the answers he pled for, but it appears that he, at last, saw something (42:5) that made the difference: “Wherefore I will be quiet [at peace] for I am comforted that I am dust” (See other translations of 42:6, e.g. Stephen Mitchell’s Book of Job, p. 88). So I wonder, at core: Is the change you seek really a question of determining you are worth having good things happen to you? Maybe, in part, (again, I don’t know), but I look at Job, at the sorrows of nearly every striving person in the scriptures—at the Savior, himself—and it all seems more a matter of living in this fallen world and being tested to the max.

So, as I see it: 1) many who seek God will be like Job, cycling in conflicted agony, between relentless questions/struggles and deep belief (or desire to believe) until a sufficient answer/insight/ reconciliation comes; 2) God is not offended with sincere, honest confrontation and questioning (42:7), even though some of His friends and defenders may be. (Though He may do a little confronting and questioning of His own; e.g., Job 38-41); and 3) the adversary is obsessively attracted to every soul (in every degree of imperfection) who strives to overcome the natural man. Thus, some failures are a given; renewed strivings, a choice; repentance, a constant necessity; and the atonement our only hope (if only we could understand it!).

But how to endure? So far, for me, it has been those periodic flashes in the dark (sometimes found in the writings of others); and my attempts to say, “Thank you,” for the smallest of serendipitous mercies, graces, and reminders—even in the presence of pain and confusion and the absence of the greater gifts and blessings that I desperately seek and think I need (maybe even think I deserve!).

It is worth getting to know the real Job.

va: A Bill of Goods?

“Do you realize this year is the twentieth anniversary of a huge world event?” my friend Sondra said as she accosted me outside the local grocers.

“Well, I guess that would be ’89,” I said, as I scrambled to remember what 1989 was all about. As usual, I did not have to reveal my ignorance of huge historical facts as Sondra’s questions were almost always leading onward.

“And here we are,” she moaned, “twenty years later, watching our own economy collapse under the weight of its own false premises. It’s just so disgusting.”

“Oh right, ’89,” I said. “Those command economies bit the dust. I remember. It was kind of huge.”

“And you know what gets me?” she said. “We were so smug. Our good old capitalism, all vindicated; but I have been thinking, and I think we’ve been sold a bill of goods—as bad—maybe worse that those poor old deluded comrades of yesterday. I mean, I have been reading and thinking, and I have to wonder—with all this déjà vu “red scare” stuff—if it’s not just more diversion, to keep our noses off the true scent of ourselves. And do you know what that is?” she exclaimed.

“Well, I haven’t given it as much thought as—”

“Well, you really should,” she interrupted, “because as I see it, we are all just two sides of a counterfeit coin. It’s just too clear. With all their coercions and freedom paranoia, they deny the very best of who we humans are; and we, with all our free-market talk and regulation paranoia, deny the worst of who we are. So what do we get—out of both systems? Pretty much the worst of ourselves.”

“Hey, that IS interesting,” I said. “But you do have to admit that free-markets have gotten us a lot more than their command ones ever got for them.”

“Well, let me see,” she said. “They live in one long depression. We prefer to recycle and recession ours. Like doesn’t anybody notice? Like how many billions—trillions—of our good capital do we have to flush every quarter-century or so, to wake us up to reality—to permanent memory? And what has all this periodic, free-wheeling prosperity got us anyway? Too much stuff, too much fat, too much debt, too many elites, and too many poor—all of which we could do very well without. And I’m serious.”

“You could be right, but—”

“And another thing, I don’t see too much difference between their command economies and all our prestigious transnational dictatorships. Talk about command and supply. Talk about selling free speech and conscience for a mess of employment pottage. Talk—”

“What?” I interrupted.

“Read a transnational—maybe even any—employment contract and see just how free our corporate comrades are to speak their minds—to blow their whistles—to organize themselves—to refuse to work on their holy days. Oh, man, it’s just all too depressing. We’re just a bunch of deluded, debt-loaders, thinking we can serf our way to prosperity. And then to have the temerity to call this the pursuit of happiness.”

“Well, at least we have—”

“A fraud,” she scoffed, cutting me off. “What should we call it when our favored “citizens” are mere legal constructs; when our so-called reps are under the influence 24/7; when free-market means free-ranging predatorship with bonuses for dessert, and then bailouts when the indigestion strikes? And answer me this. If labor has its capital sins needing restraint, what of capital?”

“I guess I’m like most of my fellow citizens. I haven’t read Adam Smith, so I—”

“That’s another thing!” she exclaimed. “Adam Smith has been hijacked. People should inform themselves.”

“Honestly, Sondra, you know it’s not that easy. Life is pretty consuming. That’s why we elect people. THEY keep informed; and we trust—hope—they’ll do the right thing.”

“Well, history is not on your right side, my friend; and why we keep ignoring that is beyond me.”

“Maybe because there’s too much history out there. And anyway, when you’re in the thick of a thousand things, it’s hard enough to focus on the big picture, let alone the past picture—even to know what those pictures are.”

“OK, I know. I sympathize, but that’s part of the fraud package. Our macro-elites claim the entire big picture, but it’s all single-lens reflexive—free-wheeling economic determinism—as if that ever made sense—the global view-master! The inevitable solution! And we passivate.”

“Passivate?!’ I said.

“It’s a word I hijacked,” she said. “But it’s true. We’re so coated in expert’s rhetoric we don’t even try to think, let alone question all this hype about deregulation and competitive free-markets. We tie competitive sports up in knots of rules and referees, but not hyper-capitalism! Oh, no. Capitalism and free-markets must be allowed to follow the dictates of natural flow, and all the while we pretend the natural man-ager will be self-restraining; and that they’re doing it without massive concessions and handups. Like sports-doping doesn’t occur?! Like that makes a level playing field?! So you see what I mean. I’m not saying, ‘tie capitalism in knots of regulation’; I’m saying, ‘use common sense. Wisdom. Balance. Balance. Balance. Get a memory! Acknowledge the greed gene. Make it mighty uncomfortable! Inflict consequences. Don't give away the commonwealth for private profit.’ But no, it’s like we keep recycling the same stupidity we manifest in Iraq, watching the theft and vandalism with such surprised wonder and distaste. As if we hadn’t seen it a thousand times before. And it’s such a bill of goods.”

“So then, what am I to do if I’m not to ‘passivate’? And if YOU are not to be late for lunch?” I asked, waving my wristwatch in her face.

“I’m always late, I can’t help it,” she said, “But the thing that matters is that WE the people reclaim the pursuit of happiness. It’s been plastered over by the pursuit of wealth which we bizarrely pursue by way of debt and leverage. And it’s pretty much illusion, delusion, and theatrics. Just look at all those no-balance sheets of our too-big-to-fail, prestigious corps. Not to mention, all our foreclosed houses.”

I waved my watch again.

“OK, OK. I’ll let you go with this,” she said. “We have to multi-focus. No more single lens. We have to slap economics back onto the tightrope along with all our other competing values and get them all walking in balance as best we can. Democracy is ruddy inefficient, if you want the truth. Probably the most inefficient form of government there is, but that’s democracy. Well, at least until that determined efficiency of competitive-markets grabs it by the jugular. And then it’s just plain oligarchy, oligopoly, and all the rest. So there you have it. No more leveraging that bill of goods. My sermon for the day. So, go forth and do not ‘passivate.’ Be a persistent Socratic annoyance.”

“I don’t have to ask how it’s done,” I said, waving her off.

But frankly, as I watched her drive away, I’m sorry to say, I could not help thinking how much easier it was to just ‘passivate.’ How much more simple life was without persistent Socratic annoyances. But then again, What is citizenship, if not a walk upon a tightrope?

Sticky Notes for Politicians*

*(et us all)

• Collateral damage is not collateral to those who are damaged.
• Stop sound-biting.
• Fact check talking points.
• End the free-market charades.
• Reflective is better than reflexive.
• Listening is more efficiently effective than talking.
• Ask not what your enemies are doing to you, but what you are doing to yourself.
• Remember the Pharisees.

Déjà Vu Eden

Seven-second drama by SMSmith, playwright

Adam & Eve (et all thereafter): "Oh, what are we to do?"

Voice (Off-stage): "Just put one foot in front of the other, and try not to slip on your tears."

Democratic Blues: Confessions & Lamentations of “The Unknown Democrat”

(:Transcribed from meetings of Democrats Anonymous in undisclosed U.S. locations:)

▪ Unfortunately, too many Democrats seem confused by the media’s “blue” labeling. Historically, we Democrats have been closer to the theoretical left, which is not conservative (or big-business) blue. However, by this same twist-of-color, our political rivals appear even more disoriented by their “red” label. They continue to proclaim true-blue conservative (plus b-b) values but have taken to furtive, authoritarian tactics and strategies. This Republican dualism should be a huge Democratic advantage. Why it isn’t, is probably attributable to the American monocle.
▪ Unfortunately, even though we stump for the poor and needy, labor and small business, the middle class, and mother-earth, the reality is: big-business is more present, persistent, visible, and donation/perk-oriented, so we can’t always financially justify what we proclaim or prefer.
▪ Unfortunately, we would prefer to always honor the constitutional checks and balances, but executive orders and an imperialistic presidency (expanded by our predecessors) are too useful and efficient to disregard.
▪ Unfortunately, b-b lobbying is a fact of political life that pays personal and family dividends, both now and in the future.
▪ Unfortunately, since the revolving door between business and government is too lucrative to bypass, exceptions, exemptions, etc. must be made to our lobbyist-free commitment in order to re-access our best, compromised experts for public service. This can make for public relations problems, but there is some consolation in the general shortness of American memory and the abundance and frequency of their distractions.
▪ Unfortunately, nearly every qualified candidate for elected or appointed office will experience moral-, tax-, or nanny-challenge in our hyper-vetted, public-service contests, so PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, young Democrats, keep your nose, hands (yea, your entire portfolio) CLEAN for future service to your party and country.
▪ Unfortunately, too many businesses have become so big, pervasive, and interconnected that they cannot be allowed to fail; therefore prudent government must periodically step in to halt credit and capital free-falls in order to save the world from capital follies. It is regrettable that labor, small business, the average Joneses, the poor, and the common good* suffer disproportionately in these recurrent meltdowns. We would it were otherwise.
▪ Unfortunately, bail-outs, stimuli, and deficit spending often reward the unwise, imprudent, corrupt, greedy, and capital-elites; not to mention mortgaging the vast, uncertain future—which we try not to talk about; but from one POV, if NOW implodes, there may be no future to worry about!
▪ Unfortunately, big-business can cancel its pension, health-insurance, and contract obligations with past and present employees when restructuring; however, present government is limited in the adjustments it can make to CEO/management salaries and bonuses when bailing-out or resuscitating. On the brighter side, this may result in less Republican censure for offending The Myths of Big-Business, and also be less subject to campaign blowback by big-donors.
▪ Unfortunately, despite our beliefs that laissez-faire economics should be less laissez and more fair; that regulations and taxation have purpose; that environment matters; that we can be an inclusive, imaginative people; and that there are good alternatives to every bad idea; we are still mired up to the hip-pocket in status quo. (Sorry, folks.)
▪ Unfortunately, our political rivals are predisposed to repetitive leaps, generalizations, and mis-labelings (e.g., calling us socialists, communists, Marxists, traitors, treasonists, “aiders and abettors,” wimps, crazies, scary, etc., etc.), which is targeted to our electability and to make us think we must support regrettable authoritarian measures to avoid being labeled or seen as “unpatriotic” or “soft-on-terrorists.”
▪ Unfortunately, sometimes it works.
▪ Thus, unfortunately, we have, too often, been in the Congressional minority. Therefore, try to push through as much as possible when in the majority. Try not to be discouraged when in the minority. Try not to resort to neo-Con-Rovian strategies (unless necessary). And try to get elected somewhere other than Minnesota!

(*i.e., the general welfare provision? of the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution)
(Posted in full version on Tuesday, May 19, 2009: 9:17 pm)

Neo-Republican* Redbook** (Ideological & Practical Samplings)

*ska, Neo-Cons; **Not to be confused with other Red books.

• Advertizing: The art of manufacturing desire and producing dissatisfaction, envy, and so forth, all in the greater cause of economic growth and free-market capitalism. A pillar of democracy.
• American Covert Operations: Secret interventions to promote democratic values and thwart anti-capitalists/corporatists. These are necessarily secret to minimize the loss of American lives, values, and image.
• Capital Facts: Greed is good; selfishness is a virtue; paper and property have real and speculative value; and God is a free-market capitalist. (Cautionary note: His rhetoric can be deceptively regulatory, but do not be deceived. See Common Good.)
• CEO Compensation: A means to confer and/or acknowledge prestige and power. Preferably attached to knowledge, expertise, and competence, but not essential. A fundamental of competition. Not to be confused with Efficiency or maximizing profit or Conquest & Plunder.
• Common Good: A subtle, emotive phrase that is leftist code for Socialism and its more evil sibling.
• Conquest & Plunder: The most efficient means of acquiring wealth and power. (See Efficiency.) Not to be confused with acquisitions & mergers, takeovers, British Empire (et al.), globalization, Haliburton, Charles Keating, CEO Compensation, Enron, Dot-coms, Abramoff, business subsidies / bailouts, American Covert Operations, and so forth.
• Cooperation vs. Competition: Cooperation was a Neanderthal necessity, but competition is the name of the greater game where the manufacture of desire (see Advertizing) supplies the demand for manufactured goods.
• Depression: Rare, commonly recurring, mysterious market-system failure characterized by negative growth (aka, bottomless market), pink-slip employment, low caloric intake, vaporization of financial institutions, and massive adjustments to real value and home ownership. Not associated with Deregulation or Poverty. Potentially eased by bailing out the VIC’s and substituting a Recession. (See Talking Points.) Alternately, the feeling one may have resulting from any of the above.
• Deregulation: A capital fact that free-market businesses whose bottom line is growth and profit do best without oversight. Not to be faulted for Enron, Freddie or Fannie, Lehman Bros., the 2008-2010 mortgage meltdown, the recent corporate/bank supplicants, the Dot-com-cons, the former S&L problems, etc. And not to be compared to the Constitutional checks and balances mandated for government. (See Public vs. Private.)
• Efficiency: That which confers maximum return for minimum cost / effort. A pillar of free-market capitalism. No to be confused with Indolence or callousness.
• Environment: That which surrounds you. Not to be confused with lobbyists. Cleaning up the environment means cleaning up on oil and gas reserves from in or near national parks.
• Fabrication in pursuit of true conservatism is no vice. Moderation in the denouncement of Liberals is no virtue. (See Public Speaking.)
• Global Warming: A figment of liberal imagination and a scientific misappropriation of the heat generated by angry liberals. (Not to be confused with the righteous anger generated by Rush Limbaugh, et al.)
• Indolence: The cause of Poverty. Tendency to be unproductive. Not to be used to explain the differential in production outputs of management and labor.
• Invisible Hand: Term coined by Adam Smith to explain the competitive market’s intuitive management of goods and services through self-interest. Not to be confused with Bernie Madoff (et al.), CEO Compensation, or vaporization of assets.
• Litmus test for true Conservatives: God ______ America. God ______ those Liberals.
• Military Spending: A spiraling growth-industry of destruction segued into reconstruction. To be inflated, conflated, and repeated as necessary.
• Patriotism: 1) To support all American efforts (overt or covert) for the perceived safety of America, the liberation of all people, and the imposition of American capitalism; 2) To honor military service and sacrifice in all cases—except perhaps during elections, as in such cases as John McCain 2000; Max Clelland 2002, John Kerry 2004, etc.; and 3) To not question Traditional Values.
• Poverty: Caused by Indolence. Not to be attributed to Conquest & Plunder, medical crisis, layoff, Abramoff/Madoff, Deregulation, Depression, and so forth.
• Public Speaking: Opportunity to espouse small government and proclaim fiscal conservatism. Not to impact spending practicalities such as earmarks; costs to produce House or Senate majorities; subsidizing deserving VIP’s and VIC’s; appointing loyalists to bureaucratic posts; waging war; running deficits; etc. Also an equal opportunity to ____ those ____ Liberals.
• Public vs. Private: Government (of the people, by the people, and for the people) is a necessary evil and must be constrained. Free-market structures (of the few, by the few, and for the few) are pillars of democracy and must be allowed to self-regulate all growth and profitizing.
• Right: There is only one Right, and it is us. Not to be confused with the 4th Crusade or with certain bombastic Reverends.
• Speculation: 1) Unsubstantiated rumor that Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand, CEO Compensation, hedge funds, derivatives, creative accounting, NASDAQ, the IRS, and the U.S. Tax Code are a volatile mix of this & that, which is not comprehensible by anyone with a PhD in economics; or 2) Short-term massive gains by propheteers of rising (or falling) values, real or imagined—see Depression; or 3) An unproven theory that market bubbles (aka, booms) cause virtual amnesia, leading to unexpected, déjà vu vaporizations (aka, busts).
• Talking Points: Saying something often enough makes it true—or at least believable, which is close enough. (See Public Speaking.)
• Traditional Values: Competition, Efficiency, maximized profit, Deregulation, supply & demand, individualism (as to corporate collectives), public virtue, uncompromising loyalty, anti-collectivized-labor, pro-collectivized-capital, growth and consumption, manifest destiny, truth (see Fabrication), certainty, affluence and influence, Patriotism, good reasons, and re-election.
• Transparency: A smokescreen is more transparent than an iron curtain. (See Environment.)
• U.S. Constitution: A document of uncommon wisdom where WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure prosperity to all who merit and deserve it, do uphold these values proclaimed in this Preamble of the Constitution for the United States of America. (See Talking Points.)