ECON 001 ~ The (In)Visible Hand($)

~

------------/
Note 1: Because symbols and pictures can sometimes be more direct than words, I have undertaken to sketch some thoughts and observations of the current state of dire affairs between Big Business, big government, small politics, and the beleaguered citizen (formerly “a person with equal rights”). Hopefully over time my rough art will improve. Where abbreviations in the sketches are not provided, some aids to deciphering (and pondering) may be found in the posts that share labels or in references noted below the sketch. For example: Refererence: http://dejavu-times.blogspot.com/2009/10/crimes-against-people.html

Note 2: All ECON sketches may be used pursuant to the Creative Commons License noted herein.

With Their Lips …1

(OR Why it is PAST TIME to abandon the Republican/conservative “read my lips” allegiance)

Note: This is not a back-hand endorsement of liberals or Democrats. They have their own endangering (and often similar) failures. Rather, this is a voice of warning concerning those who present themselves as the last-gasp “saviors” and “guardians” of liberty and the American Constitution. Their rhetoric is full of “freedoms” and “values,” but by their actions, they repeatedly violate those very freedoms and values. Consider:

With their lips—they claim grounding in rational economic and Constitutional truths, but manifest a reflexive, emotional devotion to words over realities, seemingly unable to acknowledge the colossal inconsistencies between their words and their deeds.²

With their lips—they espouse the virtues of small government and fiscal conservatism, yet preside over massive government growth and ballooning debts and deficits.³

With their lips—they claim the moral high ground and divine endorsement, yet espouse and implement policies that foster and sustain economic darwinism (survival/enrichment of the richest and most powerful).⁴

With their lips—they ennoble the sacrifices of the military, yet denigrate the service and opinion of soldiers, veterans, or family members who oppose war or criticize the conduct of war.⁵

With their lips—they denounce central, planned economies, yet cater to the centralized, planned economies of multinationals and bow to the “invisible [deterministic] hand” of (fictitious) free-markets and -trade;⁶

With their lips—they venerate justice and equity, but preside over egregious injustices in pursuit of American and business hegemony.⁷

With their lips—they scorn the follies and corruptions of their opponents, yet turn a blind eye to their own.”⁸

With their lips—they advocate the rule of law, yet justify “executive” powers that enshrine the “opinioned” rule of presidents.⁹

With their lips—they claim to be defenders and promulgators of freedom, human dignity, and the Constitution, yet foment uprisings against democratically elected governments in foreign countries that do not bow to the Washington Consensus; sanction torture and assassination; suspend habeas corpus; deliberately deceive citizens and “uncooperative” officials; turn a blind eye to human rights violations in favored nations; foster the aggregation of power and wealth to the detriment of individual citizens, etc.¹⁰

With their lips—they denounce extremists, yet wildly applaud Barry Goldwater’s infamous “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice”; and champion the bombing of enemies to manifest toughness.¹¹

With their lips—they advocate free-markets, yet subsidize big-business; bailout corporations; award no-bid contracts; cater to lobbyists; legislate private agendas; sell off public assets; etc.¹²

With their lips—they claim to speak truth, yet continually neglect/refuse to fact-check or correct themselves.¹³

With their lips—they advocate individualism, yet favor private corporate collectives and reward compliance to authoritarianism.¹⁴

With their lips—they denigrate government, yet spend their private fortunes in pursuit of its power, privileges, employment, and (where politically possible) earmarks.¹⁵

With their lips—they speak of moral and family values, yet pursue pro-war agendas that tear families apart, exacerbate moral decay, and shatter minds, hearts, and bodies.¹⁶

With their lips—they claim to honor free speech and democratic values, yet vilify voices that question their ideology, “facts,” opinions, worldview, etc., especially attacking journalists, professors, researchers, historians, dissenters, anti-war advocates, scientists, philosophers; in fine, anyone who does not “see” as they do.¹⁷

---------/
Note 1: This is a post from Deja Vu ~ Times II blog of Thursday, March 18, 2010.
Note 2: I do not concur with all that is claimed in the recommended reviews (RR) below, but there is much to consider, reconsider, and research in going beyond the “speed-of-knee-jerk” rejection characteristic of too many right and left ideologues. Both right and left have positives, but both have become enmeshed in the negatives of money, power, and ideology. Thus, we are increasingly presented with two unacceptable alternatives. But, the reason I find the right even more dangerous than the left, is their increasing abandonment of honor and justice as they pursue and justify the extremes of “individualism,” nationalism, and the primacy of the market-place.

1. “With their lips do honor democratic principles, but their actions are far from it.” Variation on a theme: Old Testament: Isaiah 29:13; New Testament: Matt. 15:8; Mark 7:6; Book of Mormon: 2 Nephi 27:25
2. RR: Conservatives Without Conscience by John W. Dean; The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism by Andrew J. Bacevich; hyprocrisy segments on The Rachel Maddow Show (MSNBC)
3. RR: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3750 ; http://thepoliticsofdebt.com/?p=177 ; http://mises.org/daily/895 ; http://zfacts.com/p/480.html ; The Predator State: How Conservatives Abandoned the Free Market and Why Liberals Should Too by James K. Galbraith; Tear Down This Myth: The Right-Wing Distortion of the Reagan Legacy by Will Bunch; government statistics of relevant periods
4. RR: Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill) by David Cay Johnston
5. Remember: John McCain 2000; Max Clelland 2002, John Kerry 2004, “Swiftboating” tactics; Pay attention to how they profile veterans or family members who oppose war
6. RR: The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power by Joel Bakan; One World, Ready or Not: The Manic Logic of Global Capitalism by William Greider; The Soul of Capitalism: Opening Paths to a Moral Economy by William Greider
7. RR: Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq by Stephen Kinzer; Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy by Noam Chomsky; Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic by Chalmers Johnson; Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins
8. That is, all liberals are evil, but errant conservatives are an infrequent aberration—“a ‘few bad apples’ in a gigantic barrel of goodness.” Observe political discourse; review http://www.factcheck.org/ ; check in on occasion with The Rachel Maddow Show (MSNBC)—hyprocisy watch; suspend emotion in order to assess facts
9. Aka: government by legal memo; Also read John Yoo, et al.
10. RR: The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Ruined Government, Enriched Themselves, and Beggared the Nation by Thomas Frank; Torture Team: Uncovering War Crimes in the Land of the Free by Philippe Sands; see also RR at #7
11. 1964 speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9buEI8SgwU ; other Republican Conventions: 1984, http://www2.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=4690 ; 2000 or 2004
12. RR: see RR at # 4 & 6
13. Listen to both conservative and liberal newscasts. Reference http://www.factcheck.org/
14. RR: see Johnston at #4; and Dean at #2
15. Listen to faux-rogue candidates from McCain/Palin past Romney to Reagan; observe the realities of politicians in power
16. See Republican Convention 2004, 2008; observe the “tough on terrorists/extremists” talk by GOPs such as Sarah Palin ( http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTI5NzBmYThkM2M5MDI4NThiMDQwNGU1NmRkMzMxMDE= ) and the repeated accusations of liberal softness—of liberal wimps. Do they forget that republican Reagan actually talked to Gorbachev of the “evil empire”? Do they forget that Democrats have taken America into more wars than Republicans? Not an accolade for either side! The tendency to romanticize war is a national shame. We can be grateful for the sacrifices of service men and women and their families, but do not pretend that war is not attended by moral degeneracy and terrible, lifelong consequences. Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_United_States
17. Observe political discourse; pundits commentators, etc.

Get Thee to a Nunnery!

Why do so many resolute “defenders” of democracy and freedom seem convinced that freedom is a one-way street? Three examples from my own small community in recent years:

• People should be able to say or display “whatever” in public places without restraint or complaint and if some don’t want to see or hear such expressions of freedom then they are free to go elsewhere or free to practice virtual blindness/deafness or perhaps free to not even go out in public, if their values are so sensitive.
• People should be free to shop on Sunday if they wish and if others would like to be free from having to work on Sunday, the brief and simple answer is “Feel free to get a different job.”
• Freedom of speech is sacred until the freedom lover has heard enough of the other-side’s opinion. Then the cry is, “ENOUGH, ALREADY!!!” (Forgetting their own advice, that they are free to stop reading, seeing, or hearing at any time.)

Whenever there is the least hint of “values-based” constraint, these emotional, local defenders decry the death or denial of their rights and freedoms. They rage against the tyranny of imposed standards and against the sanctimonious supporters of such standards. Or as one man extrapolated, mothers complaining about lewd magazines at the grocery store checkout were dishonoring the sacrifice of soldiers fighting for freedom in Afghanistan. And almost always, the advice of these freedom enthusiasts to their opponents seems to devolve into a version of “Get thee to a nunnery!” As in, “If you don’t like what’s in public, then don’t go there!”

Accommodating democracy and differing views is not easy, but why are we so prone to extremes; so prone to discounting others’ views and opinions; so dogmatic; so emotional; so often irrational? Perhaps science has the answer. In Sharon Begley’s Newsweek column of August 16, 2010, p. 24, entitled “The Limits of Reason: Why evolution may favor irrationality,” she outlines some findings that help explain our propensity to emotional irrationality. In short, we like to win arguments—and so “effective argumentation” becomes the goal, not truth or justice. We abandon “reason” for persuasion and self-validation. The tools/ploys we cultivate in this endeavor are:

1) confirmation bias: that is “seeing and recalling only evidence that supports [our] beliefs …”;
2) “not [testing] our beliefs against empirical data” (that is, being “blind to counterexamples”);
3) “not [subjecting] beliefs to the plausibility test”; and
4) “[being guided] by emotion.”

Thus we “mislead [ourselves] about what’s true and real, by letting examples that support our view monopolize our memory and perception ... .” We ignore flaws in our position, but actively seek flaws in evidence that “undermines our point of view.”

Perhaps this helps explain the dismal state of politics and the proliferation of endlessly reiterated, fallacious talking points! Is anyone looking for truth anymore or is it all about persuasion (rhetoric), winning arguments, and pursuing hegemony?

Woe is us. We seem to have forsaken reason, rationality, fairness, balance, justice, and truth for the mere sake of appearing “right”! And for all those who are wrong? Well, if you ask the winners, these losers should just go cloister themselves so the “right ones” can be free of irritating counterexamples, parallels, and plausibilities!

----------------------/
See also related post: http://dejavu-times.blogspot.ca/2010/08/contraries-of-freedom.html

The contraries of freedom

In a nearby rural community, there has been a vigourous, ongoing discussion in the local paper about the headlines and pictures that "grace" the "Magazines at the Checkout Counter." The initial complainant (a young mother with several young children frequently in tow) has been immensely relieved and gratified that the grocery store chose to heed her concerns and to initiate a cover-up of the worst offenders at the checkout. Others soon become outraged, claiming that their fundamental freedoms and rights have been infringed; that mothers and other supporters of the cover-up were mis-educating children to be ashamed of semi-nudity and of sex; and how dared these complainants impose their rigid values on others!

This same "freedom" controversy has raged in more towns and cities than we can count. (“Déjà vu all over again!”as Yogi Berra would say.)

These are my thoughts, entered into the fray.

Letter to the Editor:

The contraries of freedom: Some people want the freedom to say and display in public anything they wish. Others want the freedom to use and enjoy public spaces without being subjected to anything they view as offensive. Most take a position somewhere between these opposites.

Some say “If you don’t like (… … …), then don’t read, watch, go there,” etc. Others say “I should be free to navigate in public without my values being affronted.”

Some object to any constraints, seemingly unaware that such a position imposes its own form of constraint on others who do not see as they do.

In light of these contraries, has not Extra Foods taken (like other stores in various locales) the most reasonable and respectful course to accommodate opposing views?

Isn’t EVERY customer STILL FREE to examine or purchase ANY magazine offered for sale? STILL FREE to walk to the magazine aisle (where most magazines cover each other—without anyone’s complaint!)? And now, additionally FREE to proceed through checkout without the blizzard of sensational displays?

If everyone is STILL FREE to look at any magazine they wish, perhaps the present controversy is NOT really about freedom, but about inconvenience and misunderstanding. Perhaps we should consider the contrary of Mr. Hendericks’ view (TCS, 5 August 2010, p. 8)—and regard the “cover-up of covers” as an extension of freedom, not a restriction—a type of community ClearPlay where MORE people are free to avoid things they find distasteful—without altering IN ANY WAY magazine content or the purchasing choice of others.

For those who lament the slippery slope of censorship, there are others who equally lament the slippery slope where private (as well as profane) matters have become so public and so universal that many are forced by this “freedom” to see and hear things they would prefer to “see not” and “hear not.” Do their preferences and values not merit respectful consideration on the continuum of freedom?

Extra Foods’ action seems the fairest win-win possible in this controversy. Magazines are freely available with only minor inconvenience to overt/covert scrutiny at checkout (easily remedied with a little wrist action)—thus leaving ALL customers FREE to exit with fewer visual intrusions (and who doesn’t wish for a little more calm in the midst of our troubled world!?)

SMSmith

PS: In the spirit of opposites and equity—If the cover-up of “checkout” magazines is so offensive, would those offended consider taking their own advice recently given to others, namely: “to shop in places where they do not feel offended or inconvenienced”? Surely we can see! there is no cause or need for the exclusion of anyone. Thank you Extra Foods for fairly considering the freedoms of all complainants.

“More popular than you! So there!”

Recently, a popular news/entertainment commentator¹ sought to disparage/discount a competitor’s criticism of his network by touting its/his ratings and mocking the ratings of his critic's network—somewhat in déjà vu replay of grade-school standoffs. Oh, the “fame” of it all!

When have popularity/ratings/celebrity ever been the paradigm? Does this host really think his network’s ratings serve as some special “mass value” lending greater credence, weight, and truth to broadcasts? Perhaps he should consider the long (and short) history of preference.

Who/what has proven generally more popular?

• At the party (even family) table: vegetables or cream puffs?
• At the thought of exercise: racetrack or recliner?
• In the face of peer pressure: square-ness or hip-ness?
• At the mall: cash or credit?
• At the political rally: conscience or charisma?
• In the assurance of anonymity: integrity or avarice?
• At the ratings game: thoughtful/honest or sensational/hype?
• Before the cross: Jesus or Barabbas?
• Etc., etc., etc.

Considering the history of popular choice, our host might be wise to rethink his parade of superior ratings. The déjà vu of “more popular than you” is rife with surprising twists and downturns. Just ask the rich man.²

-----------/

1. O’Reilly Factor, FNC, Wednesday, July 21, 2010.

2. New Testament Luke 16:19-31

The Mentality of Merchants

(From Esoterism & Symbol, written in 1947 by R.A. Schwaller de Lubicz¹)

When one beholds the emotional reactions of the animal—envy, hate, fidelity, love, joy, sadness, devotion to his master to the point of self-denial—one says that an animal sometimes seems human. This is a mistake: it is man who is still an animal. All emotional reactions are based on egoism, the first cerebral consciousness of oneself, a mirror of the object, a freed slave. From a moral point of view, these emotional reactions are natural. But only man has in him that gift allowing him to free himself from all these reactions; to attain aristocratic liberty by fusing with the Whole—love without cause, without aim, without reward, and therefore without deception. // This gift is Reason, which makes Man out of the animal; … Reason affirms in us what the brain cannot understand—a priori knowledge; Reason shows us the nobility of the useless which is beauty, pardon, faith, sacrifice: the sacred act. … (p. 48-9)

But we have prostituted this Reason and made it into a utilitarian rationalism, the mentality of merchants for whom the scales are the working tool, for whom everything has its countervalue, its counterweight, leading to equational logic, the erudite decimal system, algebra. (p. 49, emphasis added)

To base existence on work is as stupid as to found society on economic principles. Love of the task makes work joyful, and a good economic order is a secondary result. Mechanicalness, the emanation of a warped consciousness, as well as valueless money, these have been the cause and means of action for ambitious leaders to drag our world into the depths of misery. (p. 76)

--------------------/
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._A._Schwaller_de_Lubicz

Yes, We Get It!

(Lessons from the “GULF”¹ between theory and practice; between words-then and words-now; between seeing and not seeing; between astute and stupid; between talking sense and talking points; between …; between …; between … . Oh! Déjà vu!)

Yes, we get it.² Oh! how WE GET IT!

WE GET that deregulation exacerbates greed, corruption, cutting corners, oppression, collusion, cover-up, irresponsibility, finger-pointing, hypocrisy, asininity, ETC., ad infinitum.

WE GET that laissez-faire is a false and pernicious theory that has mugged reality LONG ENOUGH.

WE GET that the absence of appropriate business law and regulation leaves exploiters free to do their worst damage.

WE GET that government is not the enemy; the enemy is the voracious, unregulated profit-seeker.

WE GET that government can become an “enemy of the people” when it sells itself to unregulated profit-seekers (thus, presenting a “state” of GUI: Governing Under the Influence).

WE GET that profiteers seek to have government defined as “people’s enemy #1.”

WE GET that those who denounce government intervention are amongst the first to denounce its failure to intervene (in the right amounts and ways, of course) in order to save us from the worst of the profiteers. (Such denouncers constituting “fair-weather” laissez-faires.)

WE GET that it’s time to account the social (etc.) costs of business against their profits.

WE GET that the extreme right is as dangerous and anti-democratic as the extreme left—perhaps even more so.

WE GET that hubris and hypocrisy eventually trip themselves up.

WE GET that common, ordinary people eventually do and pay for most of the cleanup of our many and various “GULF” disasters.

WE GET that it’s time to be accountable and to demand accountability of our legal fictions (business entities), beguiling investment portfolios, and our, WE THE PEOPLE, (distracted) government.

WE GET that it’s time to forge a balance between individualism and the common good.

-------------/
1. April 20, 2010: British Petroleum (aka BP) and their drilling agents suffer a deep-water oil rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico that kills 11, sinks the blazing rig, and begins an oil spill disaster that goes beyond damage control.
2. At least those who have not become so loyal to or romanced by theories (stiff-necked syndrome) that they cannot/will not brook questions or criticism.

Free Agents, One and All !

Corporations—those bastions of hierarchy, planned economy, command-and-control, short-term rationalizing, meritorious disparity, creative accounting, externalized costs/internalized profits, and enforced consensus—ARE emphatically (you will be pleased to know) none of the above. They have changed. Transformed completely. They now believe in transparency, in democracy, and in YOU, the free consumer. YOU dictate what they produce (via China, et al.). YOU (and YOUR capital) choose what and how they market; how much mark-up is tolerable; how green is their logo.

They listen to YOU—the freely choosing, fully informed, free agents of expanding markets. YOU are the amazing, active rebels against the previous status quo, against the domineering elitism of old-style corporatism, now discredited in epiphanies of power in the people. But as they say (though who they “is” is often difficult to trace beyond the initial “sayer,” but nonetheless, THEY say) that the vacuum created by their mass exodus into democracy (from domination) is now crammed with a menagerie of “bad progressives,” and other like-minded domineering elitists, as in (liberal) journalists, academics, professionals, and critics/skeptics of any stripe who question the new, improved economy and enhanced democracy.

But YOU, the real people, are not deceived. Astutes (even juristic, fictional ones) can see the light (at the end of the train tunnel) and change (directions). Corporations have. They now believe in diversity, not conformity. Every culture, every life choice and voice, fashion and flutter, idea and incentive has equal validity¹ (and market potential!). All because of you.

That’s why supermalls are each unique; or, in the alternative—not so much—but only because YOU (WE, the people) want access to sameness.

That’s why McDonald’s, Starbucks, Yum! Brands, Nike, Tom Cruise, Haliburton, Exxon, GE, Xe,² et al. are found in nigh every nation (for your convenience, pleasure, comfort, and safety).

That’s why MS Windows^™OS is the preferred (though frequently the ONLY) choice of savvy (or not), satisfied (or not) new and old customers.

That’s why the New Corporations rush to acquire fresh (and competing) technologies, innovations, and broadcast/media licenses—to ensure YOU have the best of their choices.

That’s why they study and research YOU (your babies, tweens, and teens) (covertly of course, so as not to infringe upon your freedoms, agency, and privacy) in order to brand and deliver what YOU (and your loved ones) want—synchronized precisely with your awareness of want.

That’s why your favorite ______ (you name it) has suddenly vanished into the marketplace ether because THEY have sensed coming trends and efficiently synchronized their future with yours.

That’s why there are infinite versions of “new and improved” and why tech-support for the past becomes so rapidly passé.

That’s why escalating fees for service, support, early cancellation, late payment, refinancing, and risk are so ubiquitous and justified, because YOU have chosen to be held accountable for the costs you exacerbate for beneficent market collectives.

That’s why radio stations give local news and weather at the bottom of every hour, bi-monthly (unless pre-empted by commercial), and why it is so easy to be well-informed about local issues, elections, and politicians.

That’s why Hollywood, at the far edge of a nation of believers, keeps the name of God alive in its stimulating, cathartic movies and upon the lips of its stars and CEOs, for truly, the star-crossed maxim is, “Even profane press is better than no press!”

That’s why YOU wisely despise government—that defunct people’s collective—because it has repeatedly violated the checks-and-balances of its sacred Constitution and taxed YOU beyond endurance in changing its mission from “sheriff of the contract” to “sheriff of the common good” which is the sacred prerogative of the market’s invisible hand that was born to be free of external: checks and balances, criticism, oversight, accountability, and profit-taxing taxation.

That’s why labor has conceded the social and democratic injustices of collective bargaining, employee benefits, health insurance, job security, etc. because WE THE PEOPLE understand and support what is most advantageous to our well-being.

That’s why CEOs switch jobs (and presumably salaries and bank accounts) for trial periods with common-folk receptionists, clerks, chauffeurs, janitors, etc. to foster democratic empathy in the new democracy.

That’s why, as free agents, THE (astute) PEOPLE can be trusted to detect the smoke screens of insincerity, pretence, propaganda, hypocrisy, elitism, finger-pointing, power-plays/-grabs, and global agendas of the “bad progressives.” WE (with the ample aid of their "fair & balanced" research/reporting) can be vigilant critics and castigators of faux flips and real rip-offs.

SO, be comforted. The old-style, multinationals and behemoths—those unwieldy, inflexible, insensitive, obsessive, compulsive, conformist, inefficient, egoistic, domineering, distracted, and RAVENOUS creatures of the past—are gone. Replaced now by humble, amenable, serving, greener, slimmer global giants! [And since YOU asked, the golden scepter/cudgel has been retained only for amusing, museum display!]

[Giants, they say??!! Hhmmm! maybe, just maybe! there are more options than just meek belief/surrender!]

----------/
1. Except of course for propagandized, duped dissenters, OR where “creative destruction,” of necessity, creates an improved, more just culture.
2. Formerly known as Blackwater

Who ate my cheese?!

Several years ago, my sister asked if I remembered the book, Who Ate My Cheese? Well, we had a good laugh for the book by Spencer Johnson was named, Who Moved My Cheese?¹ Now, in light of our (cyclical) economic times, my sister’s mistake seems not so mistaken—that the real (déjà vu) story in this real (déjà vu) world is, indeed, “Who ate my cheese?”²

Thomas Frank in One Market Under God is less than complimentary—judging this Cheese book “to both call for childlike innocence before the gods of the market and openly advance a scheme for gulling, silencing, and firing workers who are critical of management—”; a book “proceeding to boast of its own powers as a tool of labor pacification.”³

All of this got me to thinking that if I were a cheese BALL (Business And Lobby Lawyer), I would recommend ramping up all the positives to counter these increasing negatives against corps, big-business, and management. I would proceed plan by over-lapping plan.

Plan A: Keep touting that the people’s cheese has merely been moved to a better place because unregulated global markets know (and do) what is best; that (management-driven) change is manifestly inspired to nurture and bless in the long-run; and that the root of all our problems is government attempts to regulate cheese, especially cheese-making and cheese distribution.

Plan B: Assure the people that CEOs (Cheese Endowed Officials) deserve all the cheese in their lives; that cheese cannot be mis-distributed in any way (except downward to the masses); that any suggestion of mis-distribution upwards is tantamount to market treason; and that anyone with a modicum of effort can become a CEO.

Plan C: Proselyte that regulating cheese—its movement and/or consumption—is anathema to democracy and is a Marxist/socialist plot to control cheese and cheese-eaters; provided however, that those who work in cheese factories must not be allowed to organize or bargain for more cheese as that would be manifestly undemocratic for CEOs and potential CEOs.

Plan D: Reassure the people that possession of cheese proves the competitive market is working fairly; that God rewards laissez-faire; and that “merit is as merit does.”

Plan E: Cannot be revealed at this time (patent, trademark, and copyright pending).

Plan F: Promote the “philosophy” that thinking cheesy thoughts will, without the least doubt, manifest an abundance of cheese in people’s lives; and if not (i.e., if the cheese is all Swiss), the transparent manifestation is that thoughts are not cheesed enough (i.e., are riddled with doubts) because in the New Economy there is no limit to cheese or how much cheese can be profitably consumed. In this profit-inspired, effluent- ^[sic?]4prone universe, everyone can “Just say cheese”!

This is manifestly true, according to ahistorical derivatives.⁵

---------------/
1. Who Moved My Cheese? An Amazing Way to Deal with Change in Your Work and in Your Life, by Spencer Johnson, first published in 1998; rated as the #1 book on Change. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Moved_My_Cheese%3F
2. I just discovered today at Amazon.com that there ARE books entitled Who Ate My Cheese? © 2008 by John Nichols and Who Stole My Cheese? by Ilene Hochberg © 2003. These might be worth the read.
3. One Market Under God: Extreme Capitalism, Market Populism, and the End of Economic Democracy by Thomas Frank; Anchor Books, New York © 2000, pp. 248-250
4. Perhaps I should have said affluent! I don't know. Sometimes I get confused with all the rhetoric.
5. For thoughts on historical derivatives see http://dejavu-times.blogspot.com/2009/08/how-long-till-we-get-it.html , especially the footnote*. Also: http://dejavu-times.blogspot.com/2009/12/beyond-mark_14.html