The Coming Revolution: Evolutionary Leap or Descent Into Chaos and Violence?

By David DeGraw.  DeGraw was one of the main organizers of Occupy Wall Street.

This is Part 3 in a series of adapted excerpts from my new book, The Economics of Revolution. You can read Part 1 here and Part 2 here.

A Critical Crossroad

RFK-Economics-of-Revolution

A new paradigm is organically evolving: new economic systems, sustainable communities, solar energy, organic farming, liquid democracy, worker co-ops and new media. For all the problems we are confronted by, there are existing viable solutions. There is much to feel positive about. A decentralized global uprising is undermining systems of centralized and consolidated power. A new world is being born.

However, as exciting as the evolution presently occurring is, after extensive research I am forced to confront the fact that I do not see how emerging solutions will reach a critical mass and create the needed change before the affects of inequality, poverty and the overall deterioration of society will lead to widespread chaos and violence. As much as I wish this wasn’t the case, as much as I want to just disengage from the status quo and focus on the implementation of local solutions, we cannot ignore the urgent need for significant systemic change on a mass scale now.

The longer mainstream society stays on the present course, the worse things will get and the harder it will be to overcome the growing crisis. No matter how much we are inclined to ignore it, we will not be able to escape this reality: under present economic and government policy, more and more people will fall deeper into debt and extreme poverty. The present economy only works for 30% of the population, tens of millions of people have been mathematically eliminated.

There are only enough full-time jobs for 50% of the working-age population, and half of the full-time jobs pay under $35k per year. Since 2007, the economy has lost over 14 million full-time jobs while the overall population has grown by 17 million people. In current conditions, it is impossible for 70% of the working-age population to earn enough income to afford basic necessities without taking on ever-increasing levels of debt, which they will never be able to pay back because there are not enough jobs that generate the necessary income to keep up with the cost of living.

From 2007 – 2013, overall wealth increased 26%, while the median household lost a shocking 43% of their wealth. If median wealth continues to decline at this rate, over 50% of US households will be bankrupt within the next decade. Mainstream propaganda has temporarily obscured the fact that we are sitting on a ticking economic time bomb. Statistical fraud by the government on poverty, cost of living and unemployment cannot cover up the fact that the overwhelming majority of the population is on a fast track to impoverishment.

The government’s policies and actions in dealing with the growing epidemic of poverty are the very definition of tyranny. It couldn’t be more blatant. Just when the economy has reached a point where there are not enough jobs that generate an adequate income to sustain the cost of living for the majority of the population, the government is cutting billions of dollars from assistance programs and pouring billions of dollars into the military and prison industry.

Military-Police-Zuccotti

An out of control private military complex is fueling violent conflicts abroad. A perpetual state of never-ending war is exhausting public wealth, with trillions of dollars diverted from social programs into the pockets of war profiteers. Here at home, the police force is being militarized and the private prison industry is growing at a shocking 1600% rate. We already have the largest prison population in the world. The current per capita rate is worse than the darkest days of the Soviet Gulags. On top of that, many cities are now criminalizing poverty. As ominous as it may sound, a tyrannical assembly line of incarceration is now in place.

Based on existing evidence and key indicators it is logical to think that increasing desperation within large segments of the population will soon lead to chaos and riots. Factor in the militarized police force, which will escalate violence and oppression, and this highly probable scenario will tear our nation apart.

We are at a critical crossroad.

Are we on the verge of an evolutionary leap, or will shortsighted greed descend us into madness and destruction?

Will significant systemic change happen quick enough to prevent a much larger collapse?

The ultimate point is that there is presently more than enough wealth and capabilities to solve societal problems. We can truly evolve society in unprecedented fashion. We live in the most wealthy and technologically advanced society in the history of civilization. In the US, we have $94.4 trillion in wealth. People should not have to struggle and be buried in debt to get basic necessities and live a healthy life.

It is an absolute crime against humanity for poverty to exist in today’s society. With only 0.5% of the richest 1% of the population’s wealth, we can eliminate poverty nationwide. Having poverty makes no economic sense whatsoever. It costs society more to have poverty than it costs to eliminate it. That is the insanity of the current system.

For one of many examples of how we can begin to address this urgent crisis, the Federal Reserve’s Quantitative Easing (QE) program created $4 trillion, out of thin air, under the guise of stimulating job growth. However, since QE started the economy has lost over 10 million full-time workers. Most of the $4 trillion created through QE went to only 1% of the population. Clearly, giving another $4 trillion to people who already had a stunning $21 trillion in unused wealth was not an effective stimulus for the overall economy.

If they truly wanted to stimulate the economy, they could have given the $4 trillion to every non-millionaire household, which would have been $40,000 per household, or they could have given 114,285,714 people $35,000 each. If we clawback QE from the ultra-rich, we can eliminate poverty and guarantee a Living Income to every person over the age of 18.

This is just one example of many things that can easily be done when you have $94.4 trillion in wealth. In a technologically advanced society, where fewer and fewer workers are needed, we have to address the issue of providing basic necessities to everyone. We cannot just throw 70% of the population overboard. That will lead to chaos and riots.

Instead of increased productivity and wealth being a very good thing for overall society, the shortsighted greed of the richest .01% of the population has systematically taken the increase in wealth for themselves, robbing us of a life of liberty, economic security and freedom.

Most people are unaware of the paradigm shift in technology and wealth creation that should have provided economic security and made life much more enjoyable for everyone well over a generation ago. We haven’t evolved the political and economic system because the mainstream media has not revealed to the general public that we have $94.4 trillion in wealth, with $25 trillion of it unused. If people knew that this much wealth existed, and could comprehend the implications of what could be done with just a fraction of it, we would have a revolution.

At this point, a significant portion of the population knows that our present system is unsustainable and unstable, even many of the richest .01% will now acknowledge that. We already have a critical mass of aware citizens, we just need to inspire and organize them to build the cultural and political will.

Alas, the horrifying socio-economic reality haunts me; after extensive research, it is clear that we don’t have much time left before we descend into chaos. If we want to change things through nonviolent methods, the window of opportunity is closing fast. We need to radically intensify the pace in which change is occurring. The .01% and political class must urgently acquiesce to the needs of the people. As John Kennedy once said, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

The statistical evidence is clear.

We have reached the tipping point.

Revolution is coming, one way or the other.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
This entry was posted in Business / Economics, Politics / World News, Science / Technology. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Charlie Primero

    Revolution revolves around back to the point of origin. Evolution evolves to a new point.

    History does rhyme. In the near future, swinging from a steel cable by the neck won’t just be for CIA puppet dictators who forgot their place.

    • My Side Of Town

      Those pre-loaded credit cards the feds passed out after hurricane Katrina will make a re-appearance in the near future. Not little piddly $2000 cards either…
      .
      The pretense of the federal power will literally melt away. Washington will be passing out money in huge sums in sheer desperation…, Trying to buy back our loyalty. As their assholish power pose turns to panic. A. $50,000 pre-loaded card is in your future. After Washington screws around and get’s itself nuked.
      .
      You won’t be able to use it anywhere, because Washington will have created a disaster on such a massive scale, in the places where there is electricty, they won’t accept your cards.

  • My Side Of Town

    Now you all know why they indulge and shower Obama and his “family” with gifts and expensive vacations… All bribes. Paying off a selfish interloper with mere trifles while the grand larceny rages on.

    • Carl_Herman

      Yes, carrots and sticks for the puppet “leaders.” JFK showed what happened when the puppet goes off script.

  • jandr0

    [If we clawback QE from the ultra-rich, we can eliminate poverty and guarantee a Living Income to every person over the age of 18.]

    I seriously doubt this claim. Kindly provide valid empirical and logically rational evidence to support the sustainability of this claim.

    Until then, I will summarily reject it (and by association, everything else you say) as ideological hyperbole.

    [We already have a critical mass of aware citizens, we just need to inspire and organize them to build the cultural and political will.]

    Well, that is the million dollar question: WHOSE “cultural and political will” exactly? Your will? Or mine? Or Joe Smith and Jane Doe next door’s will?

    Not surprisingly, I get the impression it is YOUR will, based on YOUR ideas, that you prefer the rest of us to agree to.

    And that, my friend, is NOT in the human nature (empirically demonstrated throughout human existence).

    While I agree with you that it is highly likely that “revolution is coming, one way or the other,” I see very little in your article beside emotive “it is all sooo wrong!” and “the sky is falling” exhortations. What few “real” (and I use the term “real” with major reservation) solutions are mentioned are extremely superficially addressed (like just dish out money to a lot of people).

    Very disappointing.

    You can start improving your article by providing credible evidence for your claims, preferably beginning with the one I indicated at the top of my comment. After that, maybe you can propose real solutions (and, importantly, justify why they would work, and work sustainably).

    • tomedcollins

      “Ideological hyperbole”

      • jandr0

        [though the tone of your own comment doesn’t reflect the polar opposite hyperbole that a cursory scan of other posts by you soon reveals]

        Are you serious? It is about the tone? And not the fact that a reasonable person would firstly expect feasible, workable solutions from such an article and secondly may, on having yet again encountered mostly vague generalities for proposed “solutions,” express in the strongest terms disappointment with what was provided?

        Furthermore, in responding to my disappointment, you opt for false caricature (“the organic machine mind that you appear to be”) and the ad hominem route (apparently I have now been found to be, at least partway, a sociopath), rather than provide actual evidence for a sustainable solution.

        In short: the evidence for at least a somewhat workable solution is still glaringly missing in your response, but to make up for that failing… why, the way out is clear: just call me names.

        Oh well, it seems you also can’t answer my original request. But no matter, I am used to being disappointed (even more than once on the same day).

        As I suggested to the original author, the same applies to you: Kindly propose real solutions (and, importantly, justify why they would work, and work sustainably).

        • tomedcollins

          Yes, it is partly about the tone, because if you genuinely expect people
          to respect your views, and to perhaps even come around to them, writing
          like an arrogant, pompous, emotionless, compassionless prick isn’t
          going to work. But then sociopaths – which, frankly, most Libertarians
          present themselves as; after all, your beloved ‘free market’ is
          effectively a sociopathic system, which is precisely what you people
          seem to love about it! – can only really comprehend their own egos and
          ways of thinking…

          ‘False caricature’… you’re the one who is
          so self-superior about the use of ‘logic’ at all times. Is logic – and
          logic alone – not how a machine ‘thinks’? I’m simply responding to the
          caricature of a human being that your seemingly ‘utilitarian’ mind
          presents on here.

          If you want ‘logic’ though, here’s some; you’re
          a hypocrite. For all your noble talk about ‘rational’ and ’empirical’
          evidence, your very first response to the idea of a basic income being
          feasible through clawing back QE is that YOU don’t BELIEVE such a claim.
          You defaulted to your own personal opinion, and as such did nothing
          less than what you criticised the author of the article for himself doing. Secondly, for all that you also attack the author for trying to promote his ‘will’, is your own so vehement and condescending rejection of his ideas not simply an attempt to impose your own ‘will’? And then there are your sneering comments elsewhere about ‘bleeding heart’ government social initiatives, and the idea of universal internet access… what is the way in which you attack such suggestions – as well as losing you any moral high ground when it comes to personal attacks (or ‘ad hominem’ ones, as you pretentiously – and predictably – chose to put it) – if not an attempt to shove your own opinions down other people’s throats by dismissing different ideas as lesser?!

          Frankly, if I can ‘disappoint’ people like you then I figure I’m doing something right. If it’s any consolation, having to share a planet with people like you is something of a disappointment for me…

          • jandr0

            [… an arrogant, pompous, emotionless, compassionless prick…]

            Oh, but you must be such a nice, kind, compassionate, loving person for unleashing all those invectives against me.

            [But then sociopaths – which, frankly, most Libertarians present themselves as; after all, your beloved ‘free market’ is effectively a sociopathic system, which is precisely what you people seem to love about it! – can only really comprehend their own egos and ways of thinking…]

            Really? The free market is effectively a sociopathic system?

            Solid evidence please.

            [your very first response to the idea of a basic income being feasible through clawing back QE is that YOU don’t BELIEVE such a claim.]

            Erm no. A once-off transfer would likely be mathematically feasible, but that was not what I did not believe.

            Maybe I should repeat it: I do not believe that it is an enduring, sustainable, workable proposal.

            [is your own so vehement and condescending rejection of his ideas not simply an attempt to impose your own ‘will’?]

            Once again, no. The author made a claim. I called out the claim as having no credible supporting evidence.

            So my reaction is AGAINST someone trying to advocate their views – in particular, when they provide no strong support justifying those views – and NOT imposing my views on them.

            Key difference, when you think about it. You do THINK about life, the universe, and everything at times, I assume?

            [And then there are your sneering comments elsewhere about ‘bleeding
            heart’ government social initiatives, and the idea of universal internet
            access…]

            Well, call it sneering if you want to. I call it realistic. Universal Internet access is not a right, and never should be (the aforementioned dutifully typed without any accompanying ‘sneering’).

            [an attempt to shove your own opinions down other people’s throats by dismissing different ideas as lesser?!]

            You appear to be confused. I do not dismiss DIFFERENT ideas as lesser. I do, however, not believe claims that are not backed by strong support. And I will challenge people making claims without strong support.

            If you claim (say) that there are fairies and elves at the bottom the garden, don’t expect me just to believe it.

            [If it’s any consolation, having to share a planet with people like you is something of a disappointment for me..]

            But of course. That statement of yours must be the ultimate demonstration of what a nice, kind, loving human being you are.

            Now, would the nice, loving person finally provide (at least reasonably) strong support for the contentious claim?

          • joe pesci

            i’m not OP, but the free market is a sociopathic system because it optimizes directly against human welfare for the vast majority of people in the world. companies, as capitalistic entities, will always try to cut wages, benefits, and jobs for as many workers as possible, to reduce their marginal costs and increase profits. those with specialized skills (giving them bargaining power) or those who control business decisions make a good living, while those working blue-collar jobs that directly create value are exploited as much as possible. the only argument libertarians give against this is “well get a specialized skill LOL”, as though blue-collar workers are somehow not entitled to human rights and a decent quality of life.

            additionally one of the biggest problems we’ve seen with capitalism is that it advantages bigger market players more than smaller market players, redistributing wealth from the poorest to the richest. capitalism actually tends to be very anti-competitive, as we can see in energy, agriculture, and other sectors.

          • jandr0

            [the free market is a sociopathic system because it optimizes directly
            against human welfare for the vast majority of people in the world]

            Joe, I would argue the opposite. The free market is the most efficient way of distributing resources over the world, improving human welfare for everyone.

            Yes, the free market is not “perfect” by most abstract utopian visions of perfection. However, it is the best that I have seen. And most interference in it detracts from its ability to deliver.

            [companies, as capitalistic entities, will always try to cut wages, benefits, and jobs for as many workers as possible, to reduce their marginal costs and increase profits]

            Well of course companies need to manage their cost base. Because the end consumers do the same to them. The end consumer (collectively everybody in the world) continually strive to maximise their value (in simple marketing terms: benefit less cost) they get from their purchases, and either the producers become more efficient or they lose out – including the employees who often lose their jobs too.

            So, what you are describing is a way of reacting to a general trait of ALL humans, to maximise their personal value.

            Really, if we want to consistently apply your argument, then we should label most people (as end consumers) in the world “sociopaths.”

            [those with specialized skills (giving them bargaining power) or those who control business decisions make a good living]

            Your generality hides too much. Those who “control business decisions” decidedly do not all make a good living – many businesses fail and many lose their investments and many work extremely hard. Yes, some do visibly earn a good living, but you cannot falsely generalise that to “(implicitly all) who control business decisions make a good living” and use that as a basis for an argument.

            [additionally one of the biggest problems we’ve seen with capitalism is that it advantages bigger market players more than smaller market players,]

            No, it doesn’t consistently do so. Please study the theory of the firm. In a real free market, so-called “bigger market players” advantage is fleeting. Many (although not all) of those “bigger market players” that endure do so by collusion with government. And once again, it is the general citizen’s own fault for voting in politicians that “represent” them by colluding with crony capitalists (as opposed to free market capitalists).

            [those working blue-collar jobs that directly create value are exploited as much as possible]

            Everybody that is involved in creating a product are part of the value chain – the value created is not just by “working blue-collar jobs.” Focusing only on the value that the “blue-collar jobs” are adding is not a full and accurate reflection of the complete situation. The reality is that the amount of value added by many blue-collar workers are often the smallest, which is why they get the smallest part of the reward. That is not exploitation. It is pure merit.

            [capitalism actually tends to be very anti-competitive, as we can see in energy, agriculture, and other sectors]

            I agree that those sectors are less competitive than before. Strange then that those are sectors with strong government interference.

            See where the bigger problem is?

          • tate matson

            your a moron, under this system the poor your so worried about, do not work, get free housing, free healthcare, free college for their kids, free transportation(bus suck but its free) earned income credit–so a few thousand dollars 1 per year per child, and they can go to school, and get a government job so if they want to move up the income ladder, they can– if they are not white–because No white person is allowed in the government anymore thanks to Obama and yeah its us the white people who are racist and evil….sure ok…….. All they have to do is make an effort. Your Utopia does not work–everyone will be dirt poor–the only reason china or Russia have money today is from the western capitalist nations–if we(USA)continue crashing under the Marxist Obama we all will be poor, and it won’t matter if you are white, black, brown we will all be poor–and the Rulers will be EVIL Tyrants(that’s why in 10 years it will be illegal to own a gun……because they want everyone poor and unarmed….that is why they targeted the USA for downfall,…The USA is not a bad place to live–only the people who hate us and are trying to bring us down, trash us, and turn race against race, so they can have their fake revolution, war leads to death and destruction…..whoever says it will liberate you and lead to a whatever, is one sick puppy……

          • jandr0

            [your a moron]

            Great way to demonstrate what kind of person you are, leading off with an personal attack on my character.

            [Your Utopia does not work–everyone will be dirt poor–the only reason china or Russia have money today is from the western capitalist nations–if we(USA)continue crashing under the Marxist Obama we all will be poor, and it won’t matter if you are white, black, brown we will all be poor…]

            Etc. Etc. Etc. These are essentially just assertions.

            Now, it would help if you actually explained how you link up “Your Utopia does not work,” “everyone will be dirt poor,” “the only reason china or Russia have money today is from the western capitalist nations” and so on, but until then I do not see that you have made any sort of reasoned case.

            You are welcome to try.

          • tate matson

            I learned it from your people….but your right–I should not of personally attacked you–I should have attacked your methods, and your agenda. Those are what deserve my focus, not you personally. Thanks for reminding me of that–it is easy to go off the path and I will try harder!

          • jandr0

            [I learned it from your people..]

            Frankly, Tate, I do not recall ever in my life being a wholly subsumed part of any “your people.” On the contrary, I have a track record of independent non-group thinking based on analysis of a wide diversity of views.

            [I should have attacked your methods…]

            You are welcome to do so. I appreciate solid, valid, well-reasoned arguments.

            [–it is easy to go off the path and I will try harder!]

            Agreed, it is very easy. Regrettably, I have also succumbed to that at times in the past (and hopefully less in the future).

          • Rick Sanchez

            You know, you are a really smart person Alejandro, but you really are a prick. Perhaps this author does have a great deal of information to support his claims and it’s in the book that this article is an excerpt from. Even if he does I doubt any amount of evidence would stop you from being a contrarian know-it-all. Such a handout has never been tried in america before (to my knowledge) so there isn’t really evidence to prove or disprove that it would work but I’d be willing to bet that giving the normal population 4 trillion dollars would get it into the economy a lot more effectively than letting it fall into the bank accounts of the super-wealthy. The high level of welfare in europe seems to be helping them along very well. I’m really straying from my original point though, that you are a sad person. Like I said, you are smart but all you do is pick apart other peoples thoughts. You don’t seem to have any solutions yourself or even a definitive position other than that everyone else is wrong. Which begs the question of your motivation to say anything at all. I’m guessing that you live alone or at the very least in someone elses basement trading back and forth between spewing your pessimism via the internet and abusing your syphilitic genetalia, the former being the result of the sexual frustration and brain trauma of the latter. That’s tough dude, I’m sorry. You should probably get some penicillin. If you’re allergic they’ve got this other stuff that’ll do the job too, it just takes a bit longer. I just hope you get some help Alejandro. It’d break my heart for you to spend the rest of your life in that cold dark basement typing hour after hour of negativity until you simply can’t function anymore and you slip slowly into the horrible dark abyss of madness and eventual death, your only mourners your beloved cats feeding on your decaying body. But don’t even trip Alejandro, I’ve got your back dawg. We can make it out of this together.

          • jandr0

            [I’m really straying from my original point though, that you are a sad person.]

            Why thank you for your uncanny insight, Rick, and at least being honest in that your main point is about me and “what a sad, bad person I am” rather than rigorously querying solutions that are being proffered.

            [You don’t seem to have any solutions yourself…]

            I have examined and queried most “solutions” that I have encountered (and have consequently been called everything from a communist to a reactionary conservative). I assume that is because I rigorously investigate and evaluate all claims by anyone who claim to have “THE answer.” Frankly, I therefore do not claim to have “THE complete answer” myself, but I do respond to purported “answers” that are unsupported, or have obvious flaws, and so on.

            […or even a definitive position other than that everyone else is wrong.]

            Certainly not. It is a property of our human minds that we often tend to notice and (where necessary) focus on and respond to anomalies in our observed environment rather than on the conforming background (neurological basis for fight and flight response and all that).

            So, I agree with many things many people say (“conforming background”), but that agreement is not always visible to others because I do not necessarily comment on them all.

            On the other hand, when I see an unsubstantiated claim dressing itself up as “truth,” I am much more likely to query its validity (often in strong terms).

            Your generalisation that I have no position “other than that everyone else is wrong” is therefore blatantly false.

            However, based on your incorrect generalisation, you obviously feel that gives you the “justification” to launch a labelling crusade against me (as in “back and forth between spewing your pessimism via the internet and abusing your syphilitic genetalia” and the like).

            I suggest that really reveals more about you than about me.

    • Carl_Herman

      Economic data can be understood when we take one part of the data at a time. $4 trillion distributed to ~100 million US households would provide the amounts David explains.

      And yes, jandr0, we do need both the problem described accurately as well as solutions.

      I do recommend to everyone to put your education to real-world use, for the topics of interest for you. Write, speak, and take actions with what you see the problems are, and how to solve them. Really: these are worth learning with powerful command of language.

      David is a friend of mine; he’s hammering the problem here, and he’s also got solutions, like these: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/08/labor-day-2014-economic-solutions-already-full-employment-zero-public-deficits-debts.html

      • jandr0

        [And yes, jandr0, we do need both the problem described accurately as well as solutions.]

        Agreed. The proposed “solutions” in the article is visibly thin.

        [Economic data can be understood when we take one part of the data at a time.]

        Carl, frankly that borders on a truism. But, I assume you made it with the honest intent to explain.

        [$4 trillion distributed to ~100 million US households would provide the amounts David explains.]

        Yes, of course it would provide the amounts David explains. But it does NOT explain why dishing out those amounts would be an – at least more or less – sustainable, workable solution.

        So repeating a simple mathematical sum does not answer my points. There is still a distinct lack of a well-constructed, credible proposal in the article, which is a large part of my disappointment.

        However, in your comment you suggested there are better, workable solutions (“he’s hammering the problem here”), so I followed the link you provided, and then yet again to your July 3, 2011 article at Examiner entitled “Debt-damned economics: learn monetary reform or kiss your assets goodbye. 2 of 2.”

        FWIW, I have watched essentially all of the “Money As Debt,” “The Money Masters” and most of Zeitgeist videos you refer to in your article (and many more).

        And, as you may suspect, if I was a U.S. citizen (I am not) I would position myself in the “End the Fed” group. That means, no more Fed AT ALL.

        On the other hand, from your article you appear interventionist: “nationalize the Federal Reserve” and “government to be the employer of last resort” to highlight two excerpts from your article.

        Now, correctly or wrongly (and feel free to correct me if I am wrong), I ascribe that interventionist approach of yours to another part of my disappointment with David’s above article I alluded to in my earlier comment: the bromide that “if we could all just love / like / work for each other” we can solve all the problems.

        Well, of course we could. But there would be no problem because we are then by definition all “loving / liking / working for each other” (essentially a tautology in which the problem becomes defined away). Unfortunately this is where reality rears its ugly head: through the ages us humans (that’s you and me too) have a distinct track record of not being able to unequivocally and unfailingly “love / like / work for each other.”

        Given that basic trait of humanity, I hold that if anybody’s solution does not address that core fact, then the proposed solution is simply unrealisable pie-in-the-sky utopian feel-good visions.

        And what has happened with such visions? Any of reactionary conservatism, worker’s paradise communism, religious fundamentalism, enforced group-hug socialism, warmongering-securocrat progressives, or such-like “we will decide for everybody else what the perfect solution is” visionaries.

        And to put words in those visionaries mouths predicting the outcome: “If you disagree with us ‘we will all be happy together’ visionaries, jandr0, why, in the end we will eliminate you of course. You evil jandr0 for not wanting to be happy with us in the way we demand.”

        • Carl_Herman

          Thank you for your obvious inquiries into Truth, Jandr0. The structural solution of money being operated as a “team” is not easily imagined given Earth’s criminal history leading right into today. This is why I also emphasize that no solution is possible until the criminal .01% are arrested for OBVIOUS crimes centering in war and money. If this happens, we can have our full truth emerge and honestly consider options for a brighter future.

          One of soooooo many articles calling for the public to demand oligarch arrests: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/10/01-slaughter-innocents-millions-parasitize-trillions-speak.html

          • jandr0

            [This is why I also emphasize that no solution is possible until the
            criminal .01% are arrested for OBVIOUS crimes centering in war and
            money.]

            Well, firstly, as a non-US citizen, I contend that the biggest aggressor around the world since WWII has been the US (there are sufficient articles here on Washington’s Blog propounding that same contention, so I need provide no further evidence).

            It therefore appears to me as if the US citizens have essentially abdicated their responsibility by allowing their presidents (since Truman) to effectively wage war by circumventing constitutional requirements for declaring actual war.

            So, since citizens abdicating their responsibility and US presidents sneaking around the constitution are the primary cause (and have essentially gotten of scot-free for how long), I fail to see how you are ever going to arrest those responsible for, as you say, “OBVIOUS crimes centering in war.”

            Secondly, regarding “OBVIOUS crimes centering in money,” can I assume you refer to one of your own articles, where you call out “fundamental fraud by lying to the 99% that debt is ‘money,’ and lying in omission by failing to inform that public credit and money would solve all current economic issues?”

            In that case, I am not sure how you are going to achieve that either. First you will have to prove that people with authority / responsibility deliberately lied that debt is money, and that seems improbable as even the Fed publicly explains how money is created (and the relation to debt is clear from that). The information is publicly available for an inquiring citizen to see if they but make the effort to look. So that can certainly not be termed “lying.”

            Now, as to “failing to inform that public credit and money would solve all current economic issues,” then that is also going to be difficult to prove. Politicians make promises (that’s probably the ONE thing that they are really good at), but you can not prove that they were lying if or when they made such a claim, as they may themselves have actually believed it themselves!

            In that case, it is not a lie. For example, if I honestly believe and say that Obama is the best thing since sliced bread, and he turns out otherwise, then I could not have been lying originally (as I actually believed that at the time).

            FWIW: For the full reasoned argument, I refer you to Aldert Vrij (professor of applied social psychology in the department of psychology at the University of Portsmouth, a world leading authority on lying).

            Frankly, many US citizens (and you are not the only country in the world in this position) are between a rock and a hard place – you have allowed your government to grow and grow and grow (always for all the ostensibly “good” and “just” and “right” and “progressive” and “great society” reasons trotted out by politicians), and now you are saddled with a behemoth that you can hardly keep accountable.

            Rather strange it is to me, therefore Carl, that your own monetary “solution” apportions even more interventionist rights to the behemoth. You seem to be harbouring some contradictory notions. Unable to hold them accountable, but quite happy to give them more power!

          • Carl_Herman

            It’s a paradox, Bro, for sure. We can’t imagine a monetary system under current conditions, yet structural efficiency seems to demand “teamwork” in many economic areas. Another word for teamwork is government. I do emphasize transparency, and those of us for monetary reform do our best to contrast the criminal system we have today with a future requirement of objectively verifiable accountability.

          • tate matson

            Israel has been in control of the USA for 100 years, so blame them not the US citizens…..and since the US media controlled by Israel lies how would the normal citizen who has been criminally dumbed down by mercury laced vaccines and flouride in the water. Lets be honest, we all know who responsible for every back thing that has happened in this century…and it is not the US people…

          • jandr0

            [Israel has been in control of the USA for 100 years, so blame them not
            the US citizens…..and since the US media controlled by Israel lies how
            would the normal citizen who has been criminally dumbed down by mercury
            laced vaccines and flouride in the water. Lets be honest, we all know
            who responsible for every back thing that has happened in this
            century…and it is not the US people…]

            Really? And you know all of this because you miraculously escaped from being a “normal citizen who has been criminally dumbed down by mercury
            laced vaccines and flouride in the water.”

            How did you do that? And why did you not save the others in the same way?

          • flopdog

            Israel did not exist before 1948.

        • Eric

          Jandr0,
          The economic principles behind the direct distribution of wealth to individuals rather than the banking industry is that lower income individuals spend a much higher percentage of their disposable income, as basic fixed and variable expenses comprise a much higher percentage of said disposable income for lower income individuals. This is the reason there is a progressive tax system in the US. This is also why sales tax is considered a tax on the poor and death tax a burden on the wealthy. As a matter of fact during the stimulus package negotiations there was much debate as to how to distribute the bailout money. Ultimately they officially decided on distributing a much greater portion to the banks, as they claimed the banks were too big to fail and to a lesser extent the administrative burden of distributing the wealth to the masses. Frankly, most people believe that the banking system has the politicians in their pockets and having one more intermediary is not the most efficient may to distribute money, especially when that intermediary has shown a propensity to enrich themselves greatly for their services. This is another example of supply side economics; there are countless articles of how trickle down vastly helps the rich disproportionately versus the poor. I actually don’t agree with a lot of the article, but you seemed to ask an appropriate question, so I just wanted to respond with one economic principle that might be shed some light on what the writer may have had in mind, whether you agree with it fundamentally or not. If you are only looking for citations, as you probably already know, for every economic theory, one can find anecdotal evidence to defend or refute that theory.

          • tate matson

            all your conclusions are false, the poor pay no taxes in the US—the poor get all kinds of tax credits for being “poor” (free housing, free food, free pot in California, free daycare and after school here in Seattle even though they do not work….got forbid a middle class person get something like that which would really help out since they have to work…….the problem with our nation is we reward the poor who do not contribute and we screw the middle class, and we do what the rich want–which is put the whites against the blacks, and leave the borders open so the rich can have cheap workers, if the government wanted to help people they would close the borders and without the massive over supply of workers wages would rise……

          • jandr0

            Firstly Eric, what a pleasure to actually see a comment displaying well reasoned analysis.

            [I actually don’t agree with a lot of the article, but you seemed to ask an appropriate question, so I just wanted to respond with one economic principle that might be shed some light on what the writer may have had in mind, whether you agree with it fundamentally or not.]

            I am in agreement with you in that I don’t agree with quite a few things in the article.

            For the record, if your “one economic principle” is the one you opened with, namely…

            “The economic principles behind the direct distribution of wealth to individuals rather than the banking industry is that lower income individuals spend a much higher percentage of their disposable income, as basic fixed and variable expenses comprise a much higher percentage of said disposable income for lower income individuals.”

            … then I view that as a reductionist approach as well (to follow) and have serious reservations about its practical applicability.

            My first postulate is that the total amount of money “injected” stays the same, no matter where you “inject” it into the system.

            You may counter that the point of “injection” is precisely the point, but that leads to my second postulate that one can not (and should not) isolate consumption spending from saving. Therefore any principle causing policy to be based primarily on consumption spending (or aggregate demand) is inherently deficient.

            I suggest that Keynes (a strong candidate for a “defunct economist” in my reading) attempted to manufacture a false wedge between consumption and saving. The world is poorer for his attempt.

            But I must repeat, thank you for actually addressing the issue in a well articulated manner.

            Have a great day.

    • AndrewF

      May I respectfully suggest that we monetize our prison population and use those individuals as “labor”. Needless to say they are not going to be our future doctors, lawyers or productive members of our society. Let’s do something with them.

      • Carl_Herman

        Great idea, AndrewF! People like Obama, Bush, bankster CEOs have no productive use, so let’s put them to work!

        Oh, wait, you did mean the real criminals, right?

      • kimyo

        in terms of cost, which option is superior? your plan, or mine: release all individuals convicted of non-violent crimes, and hand each one a check for $25k, with the promise of a second check after 1 year arrest-free?

        using current nyc incarceration costs, this would save the state $270k. in l.a. or chicago, this would save $50k.

        your plan, btw, is aka slavery. further enrichment of the prison industrial complex is morally reprehensible.

        but, regardless, in terms of monetary cost to society, my plan is much cheaper. plus, the money given to the released creates additional economic activity.

      • Neurorit

        I guess your not up to date with how prisons work. This already started happening more than a decade ago. Most prisons a corporate-ran for profit and the inmates (slaves) are forced to work for cents an hour then often are charged after their release for room and board. Google prison-industrial complex for more info.

      • Mirza Borogovac

        Soylent Green?

      • flopdog

        They already do. Look up UNICOR.

  • Carlos

    Would it be pointless to submit some of these proposals to petitions.whitehouse.gov ? I do like the fact that you speak of solutions after laying out a problem. We certainly need more of that in this world. 🙂

  • kimyo

    this article easily ranks among of the best i’ve ever read here at washington’s blog. thank you, mr. degraw. and thank you, washington’s blog.

  • Brian Wulfekotte

    I believe in multiplying the number of nonprofits on a hyper-local level. Many Np’s do carry a taboo for misallocating funds and being inefficient, but at this point, it might not matter.

    The 1% could easily fund a vast amount of tax deductible np’s that can be as simple and unskilled as “Stop the Trash,” “Find More Books,” or “Everyone Come Paint,” and pay employees with workable salaries of $40-50k per year.

    This way, we invest in our county’s economy, our communities and (for some np’s) the endlessly rewarding world of arts, which will never stop enriching our lives and defining our individualities.

  • clarioncaller

    The author cavalierly uses the words ‘we’ and ‘they’ to sell his income re-distribution idea without bothering to address the blowback from the ox that’s being gored. What middle-class Americans want is a legal, financial, political, and economic system baseline reset that allows everyone to participate equally based on merit, not entitlement. A rational person can identify the historical incidents which brought us to where we are today. A visionary can see where we need to go. Since I don’t see anyone with a vision leading this nation, we will continue to drift haphazardly until we land either on the rocks or in a sheltered harbor.

  • AstroCSJ

    We need freedom hero martyrs, take it as you will.

  • Tony Diethelm

    All that, and it’s basically “buy my book!”. Lame….

  • Mirza Borogovac

    You have to distinguish between money and resources. Often times something is expensive because it’s scarce. If you created money out of thin air and distributed it to everyone, that would not magically make scarce resource more abundant.

    Truth is that the gap between rich and poor has actually been narrowing. However you have to keep in mind that poor in question are the third world poor, and rich people are the middle class of western nations. What is happening is the massive correction in the distribution of resources. US has only 5% of the worlds population but is consuming 25% of the worlds resources. Clearly that is unsustainable and what we are seeing is the correction as standard of living in the west goes down while standard of living in the third world goes up.

  • tate matson

    Total crap, why with our poor having a better standard of living then most other nations would we have a revolution due to economics? That makes zero sense. Marxist equals non freedom capitalism equals freedom.