Capitalism unchecked evolves to monopoly. Capital is abstract value and competition for capital concentrates capital. Sympathetic wealthy corporatists desire power over government and a symbiotic government-capitalist relationship develops. Government passes laws in favor or concentrated wealth, unfettered capitalism and corporatism develops replacing democracy.
Corporatism as a global power association of the most wealthy plutocrats finds sycophantic government proxy rulers in any nation and form of government. Even Communist elites will find symbiotic stake holding in global corporate power.
Capitalism does not stop with global corporatism though. Corporatism is just another phase of the life cycle of capitalism on the way toward global monopoly.
Capitalism is not the same as free enterprise. Free enterprise requires capital for production, yet democracy can cap the concentration of wealth or capital produced with free enterprise and shifting some privately generated capital to public capital such as infrastructure and ecosphere reconstruction where it comprise a percent of all public capital including natural wilderness and water resources. Ecosphericly sympatico business and eco-zoning paradigmata may be promulgated.
Capitalism that is private seeks to redistribute public capital to private capital until no public capital exists or if tolerated comprises less than 1% of national capital.
Private capital in competition with private citizens too seeks to concentrate private capital in the most few who will in turn fight to the death to control the capital of all rivals until just one winner exists-as in the game of monopoly perhaps.
Private capital has no interest in externalities such as the environment that cannot turn a profit or bring in abstract capital. In fact because scarce resources are more valuable as capital sometimes, capitalist can profit even if global warming and mass extinction reduce all life on earth to just a few people who will pay great sums for oxygen to breathe or rare species to eat. Some day a trillionaire might sign over his half of the planet Earth for the chance to eat the last grass-fed cow.
Free enterprise and capitalism directed with enlightened democratic governments concerned with public well-being are the better utilization of world resources to produce inventions from more creative minds of benefit to humanity. Guaranteed minimum income of $6000 annually for instance, could keep seven young minority men from the desperation that causes them to commit crimes sometimes for a revenue stream, for the cost of sending just one young man to jail at an annual cost of $40,000. Free public education through college and a guaranteed minimum income along with the reduction of patent exclusivity to three years with just 10% royalties for patent holders thereafter would let every citizen have some confidence that they can find a way to use their creative mind productively during their lifetime and not be bogged down in repressive or inescapably oppressive economic-social currents.
With the environment being an externality to capitalists it is necessary to cap the percent of national income any individual pay own if public sector conservation and rehabilitation measures are to be effective. Presently conservationists may save a forest or wilderness reserve for a decade with substantial political work, yet that effort may be undone in just one session of Congress allowing exploitation or harvesting of that conserved natural wealth. Fundamentally conservation is a losing ecological gamble with the odds favoring ecosphere destruction. The way to give the edge to conservation is to shift national capital ratios as well as private capital distribution such that habitat conservation and rehabilitation are favored and democracy with free enterprise for all citizens pragmatically possible without the existence of the most extreme versions of capitalism leading to monopoly.
It may be too late though. Capitalism is blind to externalities, apparently as is the public.
After the fall of
modern human morality rising with dissemination of Charles Darwin’s
opus ‘On the Origin of Species’ a plethora of ideas and
interpretations about the form and meaning of evolution theory grew
amidst the literati and government leaders that flowered like a
thousand forms of ragweed as well as sober scientific data. Many came
to view evolution as an inevitable progressive ascent of mankind. The
fact of natural history-an earlier name for evolution history of life
on Earth- that for every continuing biological line there probably
were countless others that went extinct, generally did not trouble
humanity that viewed the future with rose-colored glasses.
Especially
for those that felt oppressed by traditional Christian morality (that
was in itself usually misunderstood and already instead conformed to
model certain forms of secular social organization rather than that
of a priesthood of believers) evolution became a secular license to
abandon all morality while developing the idea that any sort of
previously immoral behavior leads to progress as a higher state is
evolved. That human behavior too can readily be extinctive behavior
leading to the extirpation of individuals or even the entire race
didn’t enter into the
evolution-as-amoral-goodness-leading-to-progress way of thought.
One might wonder
about evolution in the natural history of the Universe or Multiverse
and ask what role life has in it? Every physical process since the
start of the Universe has occurred inevitably as a result of prior
physical states of mass and energy. There were no accidents nor
randomization about the phase changes in the Universe that occurred
throughout it from the first instant of existence. A unified physical
force presumably part of a larger unified force somehow was released
into the void. It broke down into the Universe-spanning forces of
nature in existence today allowing numerous smaller particles and
wave forms to exist.
Gravity aggregated
much of the mass together to form stars, elements and planets, at
some point more complexity or breaking down of the initial somewhat
monopolar unified field/force let life exist. Life is a stage in the
way of the natural history of the Universe that inevitably unfolds;
yet one wonders what its role is and what phase change follows.
Jesus Christ said
that unless a seed is buried in cannot grow. He may have been
speaking about his own life and resurrection. It is possible that he
was also speaking about the role of life in the evolutionary
Universe. The teleology of life may be to give rise to sentience and
spirit reborn with faith unto a higher stage of progress.
Evolution of life in
a Universe that does not give rise to spirit would be in a conundrum
of paradox. Though it can produce complexity in phase with the
general physical direction of the breakdown of the initial unified
force, the complexity endangers its existence and may be
self-negating.
Life on Earth today
is in what natural historians call the Anthropocene Era (of mass
extinction). Human beings are bringing perhaps the largest mass
extinction of species on Earth to fruition. If biological diversity
that enables a variety of forms to exist that may allow some or even
one species to adapt to new environmental challenges is eliminated by
human beings, life’s chances of surviving environmental challenges
are much reduced. In fact, if humanity is the sole large mammal that
remains on Earth eventually and humanity must successfully adapt to
environmental change and cannot, then the last mammal will perish
too.
It
may have been the evolutionary biologist Jay Gould who wrote that the
most successful life form on Earth is the simplest and most numerous-
one that can survive nearly any environmental change. If I remember
correctly it was simple prokaryotic, multi-cellular life form. The
complexity of larger organisms through evolution make them more
vulnerable to extinction. Present human activities on the planet
exemplify the problem.
The Lord Jesus Christ
replied when asked once when he would return for his third coming
(His resurrection and appearance to his disciples was the second
coming of Christ) that it would be when the Age of the Gentiles was
fulfilled. The time of the fullness of human life on the Earth could
be taken to mean several things including the time it is most
populous on Earth with no prospects left for survival because of
over-population, or it could mean when humanity has served its
purpose of birthing souls destined for eternal life through salvation
through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. It is difficult to know
exactly what he meant when there are several alternate and equally
valid meanings that might be given to interpretation.
Evolution theory
brought many to simply abandon theological interest and faith in God.
That is rash as is the assumption that evolution is inconsistent with
Biblical creation; it isn’t at all an a wrote and that topic in a
couple of books. One is free to download named God, Cosmology and
Nothingness. What is rash is overlooking the meaning and structure of
evolution as it pertains to human life and its role in existence. In
no way does evolution entail the necessity of human progress toward a
secular Valhalla of immorality and hedonistic fulfillment. Humanity
should not abandon rational thought about finding the best ways to
adapt to existence on Earth given the phenomena of biological life
and limited natural resources. Self-determining philosophical failure
or neglect to comprehend the multifarious and complex mechanisms of
evolution and its place in natural history would tend to doom the
prospects for human life on Earth rather than support them.
If
humanity needs to adapt free enterprise creative and the distribution
of private and public capital to perpetuate human life in an optimal
way then it must. If halting environmental loss of bio-diversity and
habitat is necessary then humanity cannot afford to wait until it is
lost to respond to the challenge. There are innumerable ways to fail
along the lines of evolution rather than a few. In fact humanity
cannot theoretically determine its own place in natural history
comprehensively any more than one can create a set of all sets
including itself per Kurt Godel’s incompleteness theorems. The
hubris of belief that one can entirely determine human species
destiny as a self-reinforcing philosophy of greed is not reasonable
to keep. However humanity may be unable to meet the ecospheric
challenges of adapting its social and economic needs to the natural
and social realties it experiences these days. Leadership is lacking
thanks to the profusion of bad eschatology and the godless drift of
the Democrat party under the amoral philosophy of evolution.
Democrats acquiesced with devolution to membership in business-owned
union sycophancy under corporatist leadership.
The
shift of private capital into the control of a tiny minority is
itself destructive as is the destruction of secure national
boundaries and properties of rights under the aegis of godless
corporatism and miscellaneous social collectives. He challenges of
comprehending evolution and Christianity simultaneously are great for
a world population increasing too quickly toward ecospheric
breakdown. That too may be the very next phase though it seems
insufficient for the purpose of life in a theology of natural
history.
There are many
directions for humanity and political economy to take along the
evolutionary line that are wrong. Maybe there are fewer that are
right or that lead to survival. It is difficult to know prospectively
rather than retrospectively what economic and political lines would
work effectively and support human happiness too given the
challenging economic, environmental and socio-political challenges
for avoiding mass extinction of all mammalian life on Earth.
Evolution is a backward looking science. Its use as a forward-looking
political ideology isn’t well-suited.
As
a phase of matter, evolution has no meaning beyond whatever
teleological values humanity may infer that God provides for it.
For-itself as an empirical idea evolution is entirely meaningless. It
is a state akin to the oriental concept of joss such that whatever
is, is.
Transhumanist
theorists may exploit some Darwinian ideas of progress and of
directing evolution yet directed evolution by humanity hasn’t any
right direction. A thousand different designs could be said to be
equally right or wrong even though they are in complete conflict as
anti-thesis to one another. The complete complex of compresent
anti-thesis of evolution in-itself is an evolutionary state of
affairs as meaningless as any of the individual directions being
developed, and each have reciprocals interacting with and evolving in
relation to each directed evolutionary vector of human design.
Fundamentally it is better to use the word evolution with less
liberality than it is presently applied to virtually any desire to
change social structures where the implication is that it advances
biological Darwinian progress to a higher state. People may entirely
evolve beyond an ideal state or into a deleterious and extinctive
state as readily as moving toward a superior position viewed of
course, subjectively. It is better simply to reason with classical
virtue and philosophy toward good political and economic affairs
respective of God and the concept of divine grace, providence and
trust that honest work and due diligence are the better efforts even
while respecting individual rights of others as much as mackerel
respective the space of other mackerel schooling in the sea.
Philosophy
is a way of developing new ideas. There are perennial questions
philosophers and others have asked and continue to ask such as what
the meaning of life is. Some of those questions have been answered
and some may never be answered. Philosophy is a way of developing
questions and answers for challenges that may not already exist.
Often the data is abstract yet one may also consider purely empirical
issues.
An
example could be in fisheries management. One of America’s largest
rivers, the Stikine of S.E. Alaska, had so few king salmon returning
this year (in 2018) (to spawn) that all fishing was closed. The
pitifully low number of 740 fish to repopulate a river that formerly
had hundreds of thousands or millions could not be reached.
Fishermen, politicians and others can’t manage the fishery well at
all. A philosopher might suggest practical ways to restore the
fishery such as working with Russia and Canada to halt all fishing
for king salmon across the North pacific, Alaska, Canada and Siberia
for seven years to let the fishery recover and limiting the annual
harvest after restoration. Though it is a realistic plan politically
it is unfeasible. A philosopher might further inquire into the
reasons why.
Philosophers
may classify all knowledge into fields that seem appropriate places
to file the data. The history of ideas has many divisions.
Philosophical inquiries perhaps occupy just a fraction of those.
Ways
of thinking about ideas and the objects that are represented in ideas
about objects are a basis for reviewing the nature of ideas human
beings have about objects, occupational activities and knowledge
built up in technical work. Over time technical work can build up
quite a lot of material. Non-philosophical writers may express the
knowledge of technical fields in books or tracts.
Technical writings
describing occupations and scientific data and methods can be
voluminous. Fields such as metallurgy and auto mechanics sit beside
astronomy and ocean diving, botany and anatomy. In times past
philosophers among other examined many of those technical works and
brought concepts from them together to form synthetic and new
interdisciplinary ideas.
That brings me to the
essence of this essay on what philosophy is. That is it is more than
simple technical writings in the field of philosophy known mostly to
historians of philosophy and some academic philosophers pursuing
those technical fields such as ethics and logic. Philosophy is also
an activity that examines data from several disciplines to construct
new ideas. It is a process quite like one method of making
inventions. The inventor researches and studies up a lot of
scientific and technical material and lets his mind and subconscious
combine the ideas to form something new. A philosopher can research
several academic disciplines such as theology, philosophy and
cosmology and write about ideas that are newly combined at least for
the philosopher and comprise a synthetic, non-methodical approach to
writing an essay or developing a different perspective with a unique
or nearly unique point of view.
In
the United States occupational speculation does not permit much time
for interdisciplinary research. Even academic people tend to need to
remain within their field of specialization. An historian for
instance would need to find an elaborate explanation for why he or
she spent most of their time studying insects instead of Western
Civilization if that was their area of educational responsibility.
Philosophers shouldn’t have any problem like that.
In
fact philosophers might consider the role of insects on various
stages of western civilization or the way music corrupted it, if it
did, when it became fashionable among aristocrats. Philosophers might
combine history with anthropology and sociology to ask if Aristotle’s
politics was anything besides meaningless speculation of no interest
to ordinary people or even royals for nearly 2000 years after he
wrote about the cycles from democracy to tyranny.
Philosophy can be
simply the construction of interdisciplinary essays about virtually
anything drawing from material that already exists within field
specialization to construct or invent something new. In doing so they
may find more things true.
Special
Council Robert Mueller has a been investigating President Trump since
May 2017; nearly a year, and the lengthy process itself is starting
to interfere with the election cycle. Hopefully the Special Council
would conclude the investigation after a year has passed in time to
allow the mid-term election to pass without being under the dark
cloud of suspicion of one party's leader colluding with the
traditional main enemy of Wall Street.
It may
not have been a good idea to appoint a former head of the F.B.I. To
investigate the President who had shortly before fired a head of the
F.B.I.; James Comey. That itself presented a form of the appearance
conflict of interest. If a union boss had been fired by a CEO perhaps
appointing a former union boss to lead an investigation into the
CEO's affairs would be the brightest way to go.
F.B .I.
Chief Comey seemed to interfere in the 2016 election process with his
unusual timing of the release of investigations into Candidate
Hillary Clinton's loose private e-mail server and statements about
her was exonerated or not. It was discovered eventually that one her
her hard drives with the record of emails was erased without a good
reason why. Former Chief Mueller duplicating former Chief Comey's history of F.B.I. election influence is an unfortunate
emergent condition contributing to the public opinion about the
veracity of U.S.A. Democracy. Creating dubiously non-partisan investigations that do not cohere with the idea of due process of law so far as reasonable timeliness goes that have a real affect on voter decisions probably should not occur just because it is popular with a broadcast media and opposition party to do so. In the Watergate burglary there were plain overt felony crimes to be investigated to start with rather than a broad effort to implicate anyone connected to the President in any sort of crimes, while the President himself hasn't been shown to have done any sort of criminal activity for-himself.
A Partisan intifada to protest the election result seems a banana republic. sort of political event instead of one of speedy and transparent legal procedures.
What
can be done to make imperialism and Britain great again? Commercially looting
and sacking Russian natural resources might be a place to start. The world has
run out of easy continents to loot and sack, so apparently Russia is about the
only place with a plausible possibility. Margaret Thatcher helped end a cold war; Theresa May fuels getting it restarted.
Is Britain up to the task? If only Winston
Churchill were still around to stand up to the bully. Fortunately British
leadership again may draw upon the U.S.A. as the enforcer of its stranglehold on
the Russians. When two Russians were poisoned by nerve agent in England
recently, and Britain, who invented the nerve agent GB positively identified
the poison as nerve agent, the west fell in line behind Britain in containing
Russian so the looting and sacking might become closer to fruition. The phrase
‘win one for the Footsie’ took hold.
American foreign policy makers should have
quality strategic goals rather than reactionary donkey replies in
Stimulus-Response (SR) mode to any phenomenal political event or false flag
operation abroad designed to manipulate gullible or disingenuous U.S. political
leaders. Making Russia and China solid friends and moderate defense associates
ought to be strategic goals of U.S. foreign policy. That would enable better
global allocation of finite government resources from defense spending to
ecospheric recovery and removal of vestigial elite, aristocratic crimes upon
the poor.The nation’s political leadership has squarely
bungled the peace dividend that should have followed the end of the cold war
and transition of the Soviet Union to a market economy. There really isn’t any
excuse for that, and it has harmed American economic national interests.
It would be wrong to give credit
to U.S. Government leadership for political wisdom when it is perennially
lacking. Stages in evolving national history occur; now’ists have symbiotically
upsurged into being dialectically concentrated corruption with two corrupt
parties conjugating as one under judicial oversight pissin on principles of the
founders.Corporatism has ended democracy.
The cost of failing to develop a mutually
prosperous and secure military relationship with Russia after the cold war is
high for each respective nation. The United States had all of the advantages at
Cold War’s end and should have been the dance leader in a dialectical
reformation of capitalism for Russia as it related to the U.S.A. The U.S.
instead choose to develop an antagonistic relationship because it could so long
is it could find opportunities to dispute with Russian President Vladimir
Putin. American foreign policy since the end of the Cold War seemed to require
perennial military conflict in some form in order to keep the Defense budget as
high as at Cold War levels.
If one considers the real
military situation of the U.S.A. today it can be difficult to find large scale
enemies or enemy relationships that could not be fairly readily transformed
into non-belligerent conditions. Fundamentally China and Russia are the sole
enemies that comprise potential survival threats militarily, and each of those
probably have no interest in war or the old idea of conquest.
China does have a communist
party corps that distrusts the most rich and aristocracy well-founded on its
own imperial past. Richard Nixon began the process of normalizing U.S.-Chinese
relations and that has continued so far as to bring China and the U.S. into
reasonably amicable trade relations. America buys lots of stuff from China; no
one needs war.
That leaves Russia as the best
potential enemy to justify a large defense budget. Yet the only real Russian
military threat is nuclear and maybe some secret trick weapons. Yet the vast
Pentagon budget has a huge number of military personnel taking home too-high
salaries. Before the volunteer army E-1s might take home 62 dollars to 350
dollars I recall. Now it’s something like $24,000. Cutting the Defense budget
by half would be a good idea if we were on-good-commercial with Russia as with
China. If that were the case there would no large standing military threat of
world war scale on Earth challenging the U.S.A., Russia, China, Europe or Latin
America and that would be a good thing.
U.S. leadership cannot bring
themselves to comprehend the importance of saving the nation a half a trillion
dollars annual from the Defense budget. A tacit agreement with China and Russia
could create an agreement for them to freeze their own defense budgets and even
roll them back toward new, lower U.S. levels. Realistically the greatest
threats to U.S. national security are not conventional war these days. It is
instead terrorism from a number of organizations globally some of which are
state organizations. There are dangers of surprise nuclear and biological war.
I suppose there are even dangers of kinetic weapons launched from space.
Defense spending might want to adjust to the new military reality instead of
prepping to fight old wars that require nothing more than simplistic
Hatfield-McCoy role playing.
Russia, China and the United
States face the mutual threat of global ecospheric degradation and perhaps
eventual collapse in the greatest mass extinction underway in millions of
years. They face similar challenges of terrorism and like all nations require
security from global organizational imperialism subverting national interests.
U.S. leadership should choose to
use logic as well as myopia in prioritizing foreign and domestic policy. A free
world with a security and ecologically recovering Russia as a business and
military partner is better than with Russia as an isolated foe. Leadership in
peace is requisite for logic and political progress as well as the ability to
resist invaders or return to hostile relationship as the normal condition.
The incipient trade war with
China might have gone in many directions. China might have begun trying to grow
its own apples in Inner Mongolia or some better place. Washington State apple
growers might have found a way to make apple energy bars replete with vitamin
B, C and D in shiny foil wrappers that were loosely based on applet and
cotlets; the translucent, sweet apple and apricot candy bars famous from
Cashmere.Chinese selection of
Washington State apples for possible tariffs may have supported a communist party
bias against the exploitation of labor. The Washington State apple growing
industry exploits vast numbers of poorly-paid migrant farm workers. It is such
businesses that demand cheap foreign labor. The West Coast of the U.S.A. and
the South are an archipelago of illegal alien workers laboring far below
minimum wage. The Federal Government does nothing to eliminate that serfdom as
it easily could be attaching felony penalties for paying anyone in the U.S.A.
anything less than minimum wage for work-even if they are illegal workers. The
United States cannot have a vast evil serf labor empire benefiting the most
corrupt powers of concentrated wealth and pretend to be a good moral force on
the world; especially if it tries to force a Sodom and Gomorrah social ethic of
homosexual marriage on the rest of the world. A billion Muslims, a billion
Chinese an a billion Latin Americans might resist. Tolerance for the life
choices of others is important. The Middle East might have experienced the
goodness of apples without an expiration date. Wars lead sometimes to places
that none expected to go. One should tolerate heterodox forms of political
systems rather than exterminate them.
Mass movements of populations in
a world with nine billion people is itself dangerous in a number of respects.
U.S. leadership is however Britain’s bête noir easy to exploit as an enforcer
of British imperial interests. Europe too seems to prefer belligerence with
Russia rather than neighborliness on a positive basis. Russia’s vast lands have
always attracted the interests of foreign invaders and now that mind-set again
comprises anelement in the inability of
Europe and the United States to move beyond the old paradigm to something new;
a planet restoring its ecosphere, developing renewable and sustainable
economics with liberty justice and security for all.
Before taking office with the
acclaim of Americans that want a wall covered in solar panels built on the
Mexican border, President Trump owned a hotel and possibly additional
properties in the nation’s capital city. The President has been sued by two
state’s attorney’s generals for letting foreigners that have public business
presumably, stay in that hotel. There is some sort of ban on receiving bribes
or emoluments from foreigners while in office.
In the founder’s day corporate
collective business didn’t exist. Individuals just owned land and private
buildings. It was easier to recognize illicit contributions then now. A new
herd of capital at Arlington pastures before Washington choose to cast a veto
would have been noticed. Capitalism and government could use reform.
Traditionally U.S. Presidents
have not been showered with foreign gifts or financial support and were thus
weak on the trade balance issue, giving more than receiving-a Christian yet not
a Democrat Party way of being-for-oneself. However there may be no law against
foreign born Americans actual taking the office of President through stealth
and subterfuge votes if one goes on the precedent offered by 2016 candidate
Senator Ted Cruz who is a foreign born citizen of Canada and Cuba. Canadians
and other foreigners including Ted Cruz may not be allowed to stay in the
President’s Washington D.C. hotel even if U.S. Senators if they have not
forfeited their foreign citizenship with denunciation and stamping on the Maple
Leaf flag and all of the foreign syrup that stands for within a foreign embassy
witnessed by their co-conspirators. The President may need to ban Brits and all
30 million illegal aliens and Mexicans from staying at any of his hotels to be
sure they aren’t slipping him emoluments including ketchup and Gray Poupon,
under the table.
If Hillary Clinton had been
elected in 2016 the Clinton foundation might have had to give up tours of the
state department or contributions from Russian oligarchs (life can be
hard).In order to comply with American
law the President may need to boot foreigners out of all his hotels and
possibly the Martian El Largo too.
When President George Washington
posed at the front of a boat while crossing the Delaware River amid ice floes
to stay at the four-star Mayflower Hotel he possibly day-dreamed of revenues
from his own future hotels when potentates of the Middle East and Canada would
pay top dollar for the privilege of staying at his King Suites chain to watch
Dusty Lanyard on special-view TV at a thousand dollars a night. Maybe he
knew that domestic Americans agitating for abortion and homosexual marriage
would never stay there to try to bribe him, yet if he could he probably would
have sent a tweet or two on the topic so future historians could reflect upon
in order to comment knowledgeably on such matters.
President Trump could just ban
any foreigners with government employment at least, and maybe even their
proxies and foreign media too and just give discounts to the National Rifle
Association members that are the only really trustworthy national organization
in a time where illegal aliens are better regarded in the state of California
(state officials regard a mustache as chauvinistic and are considering
litigating about National Security Advisor John Bolton over it when he gets on
the job).
Wars
have been quite costly for nations to prosecute since the 18th
century.Britain and France took on
great public debt to wage their wars of conquest and colonization during the 18th
and 19th century. The British fight to keep America enslaved brought
them to take on debt equivalent to 800% of their national annual income. If
Britain had won that war the British would have had vastly more wealth and
income, so the rich were gambling on a good policy for positive payback. Russia
may have a similar appearance to contemporary Brits and Wall Street.
Britain
lost the American revolutionary war lost so their debt persisted until about
World War One when they drew the United States into the battle to help them win
an armistice costly to Germany.
The ratio of private capital and debt to
public capitol and debt as they relate to national income is quite an
interesting historical study about which I have been reading recently in Thomas
Pickety’s ‘Capital in the 21st Century’. There are various
relationships that occur to nations over history between public and private
capital that recur. I am just adding a few of my own remarks here that pertain
to the U.S.A.
In Britain today 99% of capital is private yet
of course the U.S. public often tend to regard Britain as a neo-socialist
nation with its public health system. British public capital is rather puny
because it is a small nation without much public land or parks. In the 21st
century land does not comprise a great percent of capital in first world
nations. The United States probably has a greater level of public capital
because it still has substantial public lands and obviously those will be
targets of long-range hostile takeover by the private sector though that would
cause egregious ecospheric harm.
Private capital is definitely in the rise in
the United States. It crashed during the second wo0rld war and has since
recovered such that it comprises many times the national income. Public capital
is comparatively deflated though the ecological value is quite undervalued. As
private capital is concentrated because of the nature of networking and
collective ownership in stocks it has a self-reinforcing nature that lets it
accumulate more wealth and power reducing the masses to dependent and
relatively powerless status. Mass political parties evolve to condition the
masses to pursue unrealistic and irrelevant, non-economic political objectives.
Interestingly enough it is war that tends to
reduce the ratio of private capital to public capital though not always in a
way that one expects. Britain and France financed their wars in different ways.
France took on vast public debt on which it eventually defaulted while Britain
fought America without raising taxes. Instead the Brits borrowed money from the
rich and repaid them over a century. A huge percent of British government
spending for a century went to just paying off the loans to the rich with
interest. The rich got much richer as a result and public infrastructure was
neglected. The United States seems to face similar challenges today.
With tax cutting programs since the Reagan
administration wars and defense spending have generally been accomplished
without raising taxes to pay for them. I believe that President Roosevelt
probably didn’t get his ideal 90% tax rate on the rich made law until the
outbreak of the Second World War though the depression before had perhaps
supported a legislative increase in taxes to benefit the public sector. Wars
that are fought without raising taxes in the U.S.A. along with great defense
spending even during peace rely in loans/bonds sold to the rich. The nation
pays for that for decades or centuries. While inflation remains low and wealth
is concentrated through a number of mechanical networking means of technical
power the public debt is a great lever on the public sector reinforcing the
corporate ad hoc governing state of an elite 1% of the people over ever one
else to have their way. They own the broadcast media and increasingly the
Internet and suppress or marginalize any sort of dissent or suggestion within
Democratic means for changing ratios of taxation and public capital (that does
not require socialism incidentally for effective reform).
I believe the United States following the
black pimpernel administration and the most recent tax cuts have passed over
the event horizon into the realm of corporatism as the de facto political
structure of the United States and that little can be done about it. Few
understand it and fewer have the will or capacity to return to a reformed
constitutional democracy since even the interpretation of the constitution by
the High Court has become one of creative fiction.
Capital makes for good reading, tough John
Saul’s book from 1999, I believe, named ‘The Unconscious Civilization’ describing
corporatism, and perhaps ‘Ecological Economics’, and some political philosophy
about the nature of capitalism in addition to Adam Smith’s ‘The Wealth of
Nations’ probably are required readings if one is to understand Smith’s idea
about breaking up concentrated wealth and power latent in the Aristocracy of
England in his day sufficient well empirically to think about creating a
reformed constitutional democracy in the United States with a sustainable
ecospheric relationship that provides and supports the means for enabling
citizens to achieve their maximum inventive and productive potential that would
keep them happy.
In
contemporary popular economic philosophy there is generally confusion about the
relation between private capital and public such that it is believed that to
reform and to have a more equitable distribution of wealth private capital must
be shifted to public capital and that of course is the road towards socialism.
That mistaken belief readily overlooks the possibility of reforming private
capital and reforming tax and business laws to assure that wealth is not
concentrated and that everyone has an equal opportunity to produce and conserve
capital without the problem of running into the obstruction of inherited
concentrated wealth that dominates capital.
With the British invention of evolution theory
a major change has occurred in support of the British method of concentrating
wealth for the benefit of elites. Adam smith of course opposed and reformed
that policy that is recurring now. Evolution theory made a political device
appeals to every godless goon and immoral thug in the west seeking an amoral environment
to exist in as a kind of amoeba without civic or moral concerns under the
aristocratic supervision of behavioral evolutionary biologists. The trend isn’t
good for the American paradigm.
President Trump's first year in office was luck-luster regarding the creation of wars. President Obama's first year saw glorious speeches made across the middle east followed by several wars during the Arab spring. In fact the President never lacked for wars he had stimulated being fought during his entire administration in addition to watching over the rise of the Islamic state. It is difficult to defend the President's lack of wars and some must face up to the fact that he could be more interested in business and building than destruction. Fortunately the President is hiring the known tough guy John Bolton for his new National Security Adviser. Maybe he can get things on track possibly through North Korea, though it must be recognized by war mongers that the meeting scheduled with the Warrior-Dictator Kim Jong Un may nip in the bud the prospects for a quick and effective small nuclear conflict to end the North Korean build up of weapons of mass destruction while being bellicose and threatening toward the 1%. President Trump has given 700 billion more to the Pentagon for national defense in his new spending bill yet about nothing for a defense wall with Mexico. Without solid wars its hard to justify the budget for a DOD that can't even defend the southern border. One can have difficulty understanding the reasoning for war for the worlds instead of ecospheric restoration of course. I believe it goes like this... When the aliens return and hover over Mt. Everest they shall drop an anchor line to the summit, descend a few who will walk down to the 22,000 level where their press spokesman Elvis, will explain it all.
Nuclear reactors release energy when U-235 undergoes fission. Apparently that's a reasonably simple process. Usually water is used to dampen that so the heat and energy is moderated. one would think that something besides water could be used and it probably has; maybe sodium or something. Nuclear reactors have sometimes had their energy runaway and causing meltdown of the unit and of course contamination as radioactive fallout and such things are as harmful for human prospects for life on Earth as basic environmental damage that significantly harms the ecosphere and people too. Thus its a good idea that continuing research on safe reactor design and alternative mediums for capturing the fissile energy release safely. Russia and China have some very small nuclear reactors used commercially as well as the very large, yet they are still rather substantial in weight and possibly not valuable in the forseeable future for providing energy to electrify barren outer solar system moons cleanly. One might like to find dampening moderators that occurs simply as superconducting materials or batteries; solids that don't require liquid water; so rare in some places beyond the other. Not all solid moderators are without implications for bomb making of course. Graphite is used as a moderator at Oak Ridge to compile plutonium for weapons and of course to power satellites like Voyageur. The value of creating safe solid moderators for in-line superconducting and of a very light weight structure that could be placed by drones and robots on distant lifeless moons without enough sunlight for solar power to speak of, would advance manned space exploration and research colonization. The Earth economy probably doesn't need much more than solar power and super-conductors of course, yet that can't be said of distant worlds that people may want to vacation and live on in the next century. The Brits made a gas cooled and graphite moderating reactor among others, based on the Magnox reactor design.
