6.Trade Agreements
There has been a good deal of criticism over the years directed at the effects of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement). I found an article in the Milwaukee Journal (www. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) posted on 1/22/14 by David Newby entitled "Fast track on Trade Agreement is Wrong Track". Newby says NAFTA resulted in the loss of at least a million American jobs. Other "free" trade agreements since then resulted in the loss of several million more.
NAFTA's overall effect on life in America is debatable. What is less debatable is that the richest Americans, Canadians and Mexicans are richer today than they were in 1994. How? If hundreds of thousands lost jobs as a result of cheaper goods from Mexico and Canada being bought by American consumers, would that not indicate less gain for American manufacturers? If you are an American manufacturer who can not compete with goods from other countries, you have choices. You can invest your money in your foreign competitor's business or you can move your operation to a country where the expense of manufacturing is cheaper. Either way, you continue to make money. Too bad making money is not that simple for those who lost their manufacturing jobs. But if it were that easy for everybody, who would do the actual WORK?
In his article cited above Newby reports that there is a new trade agreement in the works. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement has been negotiated in secret for four years. The 1000-page draft has 29 chapters, 24 of which have to do with "harmonizing " standards and regulations between participating nations. Translated, that means the large corporations are trying to undermine American standards and regulations that support worker safety, environmental quality, etc. In other words, if this treaty is approved, wave goodbye to the Common Good and hello to increasing Plutocracy. The way to preserve and promote the Common Good here and in the rest of the world is for America to remain steadfast and demand that other nations raise their standards and regulations. Multinational Corporations won't like that because it might cause a slight decrease in the rate at which the 85 richest individuals' net worth grows. American businessmen would rather the federal government and the states drop their standards so that owners and stock holders of businesses can get even richer.
7. Legislation
Not all Federal Congress members are always irresponsible and dismissive of the Common Good. A few may have experienced real life in the Lower or Middle Classes prior to taking office. And I don't object to government of the rich, by the rich. There is no reason why Upper Class people are not as capable of governing as Middle and Lower Class people. The problem is that most members of Congress evidently view the nation's problems through a distorted filter of political power and upper class wealth. This results in governing for the benefit of the rich.
These congressional representatives try to convince us that their actions and proposed legislation are in the best interest of the middle class. As if the Lower Class doesn't make up 33% of the country's population or as if their interests are non-consequential. Politicians like to "spin" issues, facts, etc. in order to convince us that we should want the same thing they want. They want us to believe that what they do and what they propose to do with taxpayer money is for the
Common Good.
How can you tell what is true? Look at who benefits the most economically and whose well-being gets threatened.
Let's take for an example a bill that would facilitate the building of a new coal burning electric generation plant. The congressman proposing the plan, who will probably represent a major coal producing state, will claim that the additional electricity is needed and that the new plant will generate
x number of jobs. Who benefits the most economically? The owners/stock holders of the coal company that will supply the coal. Who will suffer? People who live in the vicinity of the new plant. If they are already sick, the pollution from the plant will make them sicker. Some formerly healthy people will not be as healthy after breathing the dirty air for a time. If you have any doubt that coal burning has negative health impacts check out the American Lung Association's reports at
http://www.lung.org/healthy-air/outdoor/resources/. There's also the contribution the plant will make to global warming. Nor would those who want this new coal burning plant allow it to be located near an Upper Class neighborhood. Yet they expect us to believe the new plant would serve the
public interest.
If more electricity is needed why not promote solar and wind generated electricity? People won't get sick or sicker. More jobs will be created. Using energy from alternative sources results in less climate change. The one drawback to alternative electricity generation is less business for fossil fuel companies
How many bills in Congress would help businesses to get richer? Contrast that with the WPA (Work Projects Administration) and the CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps) that helped America cope with the Great Depression. Millions of unemployed Americans were put to work planting trees and building thousands of bridges, schools, parks. In other words the WPA enhanced the Common Good without the ulterior motive of adding to the coffers of the Upper Class. Without the three billion trees planted by the CCC, global warming would be progressing even faster than it is. If FDR had the present Congress to deal with during the Great Depression, I believe they would have tried to block the formation of the WPA and the CCC.
Unless they could have figured out a way for the WPA and CCC programs to make their wealthiest constituents even wealthier.
C. PSYCHOLOGY OF THE WEALTHY
Why don't businesses voluntarily raise the wages of the lowest paid employees? Could there be a psychological factor affecting the disproportionate distribution of wealth from the bottom to the top? Does it surprise anyone that wealthy people and businesses make blatant efforts to influence our government and the legislation that comes out of the government in order to increase their wealth? Is it surprising that they care not at all about what is good for all of us in general? Consider an article in the Aug. 20, 2013 issue of
Personality and Social Psychology entitled "Wealth and the Inflated Self: Class, Entitlement, and Narcissism". It suggests a definite connection between narcissism and higher socio-economic status. The Mirriam-Webster Dictionary defines narcissistic as "overly concerned with one's own desires, needs or interests". Lower class disadvantaged individuals seem to learn to be other-centered and more interdependent with others. Research suggests that children from wealthy families learn to be more independent, self-focused, entitled (believing they deserve more and bettter than others), less socially responsible.
A good example of this is 16-year old Ethan Couch who, in 2012, killed four people and injured nine while speeding drunk in a pick-up truck in Burleson, Texas. (Source -
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Judge-Jean-Becomes-Target-of-Ethan-Couch-Affluenza-Criticism-235718611.html). Judge Jean Boyd, who presided over the court case, was evidently convinced by the defense attorney's claim that Ethan was a victim of "affluenza". His parents were rich and loathe to discipline their entitled son. Rather than doing the bidding of the prosecution that called for the teenager to be sentenced as an adult to 20 years in prison, Judge Boyd opted for one year in a rehab facility and ten years probation.
D. MATERIALISM
It may seem to the reader that I am blaming the Upper Class for either the existent or approaching Plutocracy of the United States. The data presented so far supports the idea that the Rich in general are not concerned about the Common Good. I suspect that most Americans who are not wealthy would share the same indifference if they had been fated to be wealthy. Why? Because wealth gives one a sense of additional power and power corrupts.
Members of the upper class are probably more indifferent to the Common Good than members of the Middle Class, and the Middle Class, in general, may care less about the Common Good than the Lower Class. But I find no indication that the Common Good is a priority for any particular socio-economic class in this country.
I heard on an NPR program yesterday that, although the number of college graduates from the lower class has been increasing, it is not resulting in a corresponding increase in lower class graduates entering the middle class. It was stated that no one knows why this is. I can think of a couple possibilities. The more negative possibility is that, because of the influence their socio-economic background has had, many of these graduates are judged as unworthy of joining the elevated ranks of the Middle Class. The other, more positive possibility, is that their college education has enlightened them to the negative effect of materialistic values which they have freely chosen to reject.
It seems to me that younger adults seem more concerned about improving society than middle aged adults. They may even pursue a college education with the idea of using it to make a difference. What happens to most of these people? Upon graduating they get married, get into intractable jobs, have kids, procure a home mortgage. In other words, they join the rat race of working to survive, pay the bills, etc. Improving the world becomes nothing more than a pipe dream for many formerly idealistic young people.
Did the Top 1% "socially engineer" this scenario in which those caring individuals who are smart enough to make a difference, to improve life for everyone, find themselves in situations that cause their priorities to change and that distract them from the larger social issues? Does the International top 1% create economic downturns such as the Great Recession of 2007-2009 in order to intensify the distraction of the Middle Class from the Common Good and increase their own wealth and power in the process? I don't know. But I wonder, what is to stop anyone with the wealth and power to do that?
Concern for the Common Good is not on the lists of New Years Resolutions made by the Upper 1%. But it probably is not on most any one's list regardless of their income level or net worth. The wealthy have a logical reason for not promoting the Common Good. It doesn't increase the bottom line, i.e. profit. While government regulations, in many cases, protects and promotes the Common Good, complying with those regulations can cost corporations money, i.e., decrease profits.
In my opinion, people who amass and preserve great wealth don't do it for altruistic purposes. The movie Social Network is an example of wealth accumulation by whatever means work. This movie tells the story of Facebook's beginnings. Did you know that Facebook made one billion in pre-tax dollars in 2012, paid no federal taxes and reported a $429 million refund from state and federal tax filings for 2010 and 2011? In case you're wondering, I've never used Facebook. And I've been boycotting Exxon gas ever since the Exxon Valdez sallied the Alaskan coast.
Why don't the Middle and Lower classes demand of government and corporations that they make the Common Good a priority? It is the consumption of goods and services by these classes that help make Upper Class existence and growth possible. Might the efforts of millions of people trying to be rich and famous or at least more materially comfortable be contributing to the problem?
Remember the Monkeys' singing "How much do we really need?" Contrast that with Madonna singing, "I am a material girl living in a material world". Material comforts, nicer clothes, finer jewelry, expensive accouterments is just stuff. It becomes a problem when one overvalues the stuff; craves the stuff to the exclusion of concern for others; when stuff becomes more important to one than what effect one's actions may have on others.
Back in the 70s I wrote and copyrighted a manuscript entitled The Way of Christ: A Guide to Christian Behavior. It wasn't a religious tract. It wasn't touting Christian faith nor trying to make converts. It answered this simple question: How would people behave if they were to follow the teachings of Jesus - only those teachings reportedly spoken by him in the four Gospels? If an alien from another planet was to read this manuscript and try to find a Christian culture anywhere on earth as defined by my manuscript, I predict the alien would fail.
One of the chapters of my manuscript was on materialism. Jesus taught in Matthew's gospel (6:24) that one cannot serve God if one worships Mammon. Mammon is the translation of a Greek term meaning Wealth and the worship thereof. I believe that America is not a Christian country. Even though the majority of the population consider themselves to be affiliated with some sort of Christian religion, I don't believe there is any evidence to suggest this country is religious in the way an Arab country with a majority of Muslims is religious. I remember reading a book entitled The Secular Society about 48 years ago. It presented a convincing argument that our society is secular rather than religious. I would not want to live in a religious society. However, I think it would be good if Americans respected the desire of those who wish to do so.
Another way of looking at it is this. America has a culture that is as religious as a Muslim country's culture. Materialism is America's de facto religion and Mammon is the nation's god. Perhaps the high priests are the top one hundredth of 1% of the country's highest earners and the large ad agencies are Mammon's prophets. Mammon's followers are the materialists who can be found in all of the economic classes.
How to tell if someone is a materialist? The following is a list of the beliefs and attitudes held by those who practice Materialism:
- Money and power are intrinsically good.
- More is better.
- Bigger is always better.
- Greed is good.
- I need to improve that which I possess.
- All I should care about is me and mine and that which benefits me and mine.
- I will never have enough.
- I live by the law of the jungle.
- I am justified in doing whatever is necessary to hold on to what I have.
I believe the American Upper Class as a whole is materialistic. A great many people in the Lower and Middle Classes are also materialistic. Their materialistic consumerism helps to create and maintain Upper Class income.
I think it is unfortunate that the churches in this country don't spend as much time and energy preaching against materialism as they do attacking abortion and homosexuality. The churches, like the U.S. Congress, are part of the problem. They have found that in a materialistic culture, a church, especially one with televised services, can be more successful preaching the gospel of prosperity.
Just because one lives in a materialistic, secular society does not take away an individual's power of choice. In fact we are always making choices based on our priorities. For example, is buying that motorcycle, which will increase the net worth of millionaires with Harley Davidson stock, more important than feeding the children more nourishing food? Is going to bingo so important that one is willing to leave the kids with the boyfriend whom one knows has abusive tendencies?
I suppose some people will choose to believe that the materialistic nature of American culture keeps us more secure as a nation. There have been four major military conflicts involving the American military since World War II. Korea was a draw. The Korean War ended in a ceasefire with neither side declaring victory (
http://www.ask.com/question/how-did-the-korean-war-end). The Communists beat us in Vietnam as they had the French before us. We withdrew from Iraq before defeating the Taliban. The outcome in Afghanistan is uncertain as well. These wars have made billions of dollars in profits for arms dealers, military contractors like Haliburton, and corrupt officials in the embattled countries. A lot of dedicated men and women from lower and middle class families have died. But are we more secure? According to PEW Research Center (
www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/07/worlds-muslim-population-more-widespread-than-you-think/), as of 6/7/13 there were 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. That was 23% of the human population. Before 9/11/01, many devout Muslims viewed America as the source of a false religion spreading its corrupt materialistic values to the countries of the Near East. I wonder if the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have resulted in even more Muslims sharing that viewpoint.
Most Americans who identify as Christian don't condone the murder of abortion doctors and the bombing of abortion clinics. At the same time they oppose the practice of abortion, believing it is offensive to the Christian God. Similarly, most Muslims do not condone Jihad or holy war. But they do not condone the worship of Mammon either. For a devout Muslim there is only one God and that is Allah. In their view the worship of Mammon is offensive to Allah. Nor do they favor materialism polluting the religious culture of countries where Muslims are in the majority. Any group of people who practices a religion or philosophy which potentially angers 23% of the world's population is foolish to think of itself as more secure.
The wealthy take advantage of poorer people's materialistic desires, longings and addictions. They hire advertising firms to persuade people to buy more and to buy more expensive products and services. The successful ad agency executives rise in the upper class when consumers respond positively to their ads. How many in the middle and lower classes are in debt thanks to successful advertising? But it's not the ads that are to blame for economic inequality. It's not the materialistic nature of American society. It's my fault. It's your fault. We have free will. No one is forcing us to support an American Plutocracy.
E. DOING NOTHING
Let's assume you and I don't care enough to do anything to stop the slide toward more plutocracy. In other words, we freely choose to go along with the agenda of the rich and powerful in order to get along. Just like our parents' and our grandparents' generations did. What will that look like? The wealthy amassing even more power? Expect the following:
1. More unsafe working conditions.
2. More food contamination and poisoning.
3. Dirtier more contaminated water supply.
4. Higher prices.
5. More middle and lower class workers earning less.
6. The above paying fewer taxes.
7. An increase in unnecessary harmful pollution.
9. More chemical spills.
10. Closed public parks and playgrounds.
11. Dirtier air, more unhealthful to breathe.
12. Increased world-wide climate disruption.
13. Increased litter.
14. The wealthy and corporations paying less in taxes.*
*Some large corporations that depend on national airports and federal highways to do business and maximize profits do not pay the full 35% federal income tax. They evidently think that it's OK for other businesses and individuals to pay for the maintenance of that infrastructure, as does Congress.
You may be wondering what I mean by the "Common Good". The above list is the antithesis of the Common Good. Even though the very wealthy are willing to accept the above list as the price of their maximizing profits and power, I don't believe they are evil per se. They are products of a materialistic culture which teaches all of us that money is good because more money means more power and/or improved security. Power is neither good nor bad in itself. How one uses that power determines if it is beneficial or detrimental.
We all have the power of free will. We can always make different choices. And we can also make the wrong choices.
Perhaps it is human nature for increased power to change a person's priorities. The movie "All the King's Men" based on the life of Huey Long, senator from Louisiana, certainly makes me wonder. A person with good intentions can become the very problem that person sets out to correct.
Please read the list above once more and ask this question: Is this what the founding fathers of our country intended? That seems to be what the rich Tea Party Republicans would have us believe.
One may wonder, at this point, why anyone should care about the Common Good. If you are a member of the upper class living in your noise-free guarded and/or gated community or estate with your in-house water filtration and air purification systems; with your free proximate access to litter-free park-like open space; with your in-house gym; with regular trips to the health spas; with daily deliveries of healthful mostly organic meals; with your top-of-the-line nutritional supplements, I got nothing. No reason why you should care about the Common Good.
If you live in a Middle Class household, you should care. Your household has been losing net worth through no fault of yours. One of your three children is probably going to join the ranks of the Lower Class as an adult. The price of goods and services is going to continue to increase while your buying power continues to decrease.
If you are a member of the Lower Class, you should care. Even if your children should be fortunate enough for someone to put them through college, they still may not be able to break into the Middle Class.
A decline in the Common Good negatively impacts Lower and Middle class families and individuals the most. We all should have access to certain rights and opportunities and that access should not be dependent on our income or net worth. Those rights and opportunities include the following:
1. To be physically healthy.
2. To breathe clean air.
3. To drink pure water.
4. To eat nutritious uncontaminated food that is not going to result in obesity.
5. To access good quality health care.
6. To access nearby quality public parks and playgrounds.
7. To be financially secure without compromising our principles, our dignity,our health and safety.
8. To safely get to and from work, to and from the park, to and from the market, to and from school.
9. To affordable pleasant healthful dwelling space.
10. To hot running water.
11. To adequate privacy for each household member.
12. To governments that care about environmental quality.
13. To governments committed to worker health and safety.
14. To governments committed to the upkeep of parks and playgrounds.
15. To governments that can effectively discourage criminal abuse of citizens.
There are 208 million people in the Lower and Middle Classes. Their indiscriminate materialistic consumption feeds the rich and powerful. The top 1% of earners in this country number over 1.5 million. That's an average of 30,000 per state. They have the collective ability to finance the campaign of every political candidate in every state. The Upper Class makes up 33% of the population - more than 104 million people. That's not only a lot of potential votes. It's also a huge source of financial support for those political candidates willing to do the bidding of the rich and powerful in deference to the Common Good. If we add to that the materialistic voters from the Lower and Middle Classes, it is little wonder that so many Tea Party candidates have been elected.
If I could address materialistic voters in the lower classes I would say the following:
"The Upper Class and the candidates they back don't care about you and your well-being. These people value money and power and want to use you to get more of it for themselves. The only way to save the Republic of the United States is to stop supporting powerful wealthy special interests. Stop thinking you are powerless and dependent on the wealthy. This is supposed to be a governmnet of
all the people, by
all the people, and for the benefit of
all the people."
F. HARD WORK AND CLASS
We probably all know Lower Class people who work hard all their lives. Perhaps their labor helps their employers and supervisors to remain in the Middle Class or even advance to the Upper Class. They, however, never make it to the Middle Class.
There are also Lower Class individuals who don't work because of chronic physical illness, severe mental illness, severe mental challenge, physical disability, etc. Then there are some financially poor people who are able bodied and able minded but just don't fit in. They have not been fortunate enough to find a niche. Some of them must work harder than Exxon's CEO just to survive. And there's some people who are unemployed because the niches they occupied have been eliminated.
The very wealthy are not concerned about losing their niches. You may believe that greater financial gain can only be achieved by working harder. That depends on who you are and how wealthy you are. In fact, the very rich don't have to work to make millions. According to a University of California study entitled "Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, Power" (www2.UCSC.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html), 13,480 American individuals or families reported incomes exceeding $10 million in 2008. Only 19% of all that income came from wages and salaries.
In this materialistic society successful people like to think that the harder one works the
more money one will make. I've found that is not always the case.
Am I saying people should not work hard? Not at all. I am saying those who do honest labor while still remaining poor deserve at least as much respect as any member of the Upper Class is given. An honest ethical Lower Class person who does not resort to abusive criminal acts in order to make ends meet or to "make it big" is more worthy of respect than an Upper Class person who "bends the rules" in order to gain more wealth.
Work is a means to an end. Some people work to survive. Some work to improve their health and fitness or skill level. Some work to serve others in need. Some work only for material gain. The latter are the hard-core materialistic followers of Mammon which teaches them it is good to make one's fortune by whatever means necessary. If they are not already in the ranks of the rich narcissistic indifferent who value their own comfort and security over the Common Good, they are willing to work as hard as necessary to get there.
What's the alternative to Mammon's teaching? That is best expressed in the immortal words of John F. Kennedy, "Ask not what your country can do for
you. Ask what
you can do for your country." It will require a lot of hard work to restore, enhance, and maintain the Common Good for all Americans.
There are two-thirds (66%) of American earners who make less than $77,056 annually. They will either join together to reverse plutocratic rule in this country and preserve the Common Good or they will continue to focus on winning the lottery or American Idol or whatever so they can join the Upper Class.
G. CONCLUSION
In this country there is a shrinking middle class and an upper class increasing its net worth. The middle class lost worth between 2009 and 2011. The lower class is getting poorer. The wealthy are spending millions if not billions to shape the size, power and purpose of the Federal Government to benefit the wealthiest Americans. All U.S. Senators and Representatives, who are supposed to represent all the people, are paid enough to be among the country's upper ten percent of earners. They are more responsive to their upper class constituents. Congress has become a nest for the wealthy. The old saying "You're either part of the solution or you are part of the problem" is applicable to Congress. The current members of Congress lack the motivation to save the Republic from becoming plutocratic.
Will the Supreme Court, whose members get paid enough to put them in the Upper Class, save the Republic? According to them the Constitution protects the right of the very rich to influence government through the exercise of free speech. The rich have no qualms about spending billions on unlimited campaign contributions and lobbying for legislation that benefits them and their businesses and opposing legislation which threatens their "bottom line".
The psychology of the rich makes it very unlikely that most of them will do any selfless thing for the good of the nation. There may be exceptions. So far I have not heard about any of the "megarich" donating a million dollars toward paying off the national debt. Nor do I expect to see any of the largest corporations give up any of their net worth in order to pay more to their lowest paid employees. That would be an economic stimulus. If businesses were willing to sacrifice some of their profits by lowering the price of goods and services, more people would be able to afford those goods and services. The greater demand would lead to more job creation. Perhaps fewer stores would have to close. Why won't it happen? Because the rich don't care about anything but wealth-getting it, protecting it, increasing it. If businesses did what I suggest above, their owners and major stock holders may not be able to endow an impressive multi-million dollar legacy toward the end of their most productive years. The rich think they are entitled to great wealth and they teach the same mentality to their children. If you need a real life example of the indifference of large corporations and the people who run them, watch Michael Moore's movie Roger and Me. This film documents the role of GM in the decline of Flint, Michigan while Roger Smith was the head of General Motors.
There are apparent exceptions. Bill Gates giving millions away to whomever. Andrew Carnegie endowing libraries. We should be respectful and grateful for their generosity. But the problem remains.
Can we look to the Christian church for support? After all, Jesus was opposed to materialism. "It is harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven...." (MAT19:16-24). I doubt the rich of Jesus time were as numerous as today. Times have changed and so has the Christian church. You won't hear many church leaders criticizing materialism for fear of alienating their wealthiest donors.
My opinion is that the rich are influenced by the materialistic nature of American culture as we all are and that that influence is a major contributing factor to the disproportionate distribution of wealth in America.
Republic or plutocracy? If they have not already done so there does not seem to be much preventing the wealthy from taking over. To do nothing to staunch the flow of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the upper class will result in the decline of the Common Good.
What can we do? The present situation of the major national political parties makes it unlikely that a person from the Middle or Lower classes has a chance to run for national office in either party. Perhaps the best one can do is find out which candidate has the least backing from the wealthy and vote for him or her. Then hope who ever gets elected will work to promote the Common Good instead of doing the bidding of the upper class.
Remember that you have the power of choice. What you buy and who you buy from can make a difference. Support small local businesses rather than big box stores whenever possible. Stop purchasing things supplied by any corporation that doesn't care about the Common Good.
If you have investments, find out what your money is doing. There are more important considerations than getting the greatest return on the money you invest. Does the stock you own belong to a company whose actions degrade the environment? Does the company export jobs overseas to child labor operations? Has the company fully paid fines for violating regulations and has it taken steps to avoid the same mistakes in the future? How do they treat their employees?
Support and learn from non-profit organizations like Green America (
www.greenamerica.org) and Public Citizen (
www.citizen.org) which are working to protect and promote the Common Good.
If enough people express their concern for the Common Good by the way they spend money, it will force businesses to be accountable. That may not be enough to impact some businesses because of the huge financial support they get from governments. Another option may have to be added to correct the behavior of these corporations. That option would be an organized personal individual tax payer revolt. By that I mean changing the number of deductions from one's payroll check to "0" and withholding tax due until the governments and corporations stop threatening the Common Good and start promoting and preserving it instead.
Materialists, regardless of their class designation, tend to see themselves as eminently practical. I believe if enough people commit themselves, the Republic can be saved, or at this point, revived. A materialist would view that as an unattainable goal. For materialists doing nothing to save anything is the preferable, practical, less stressful choice. In other words, the EASY WAY OUT. Each of us chooses. The easy way out or the harder path. You can either serve Mammon or be an heroic sucker for a seemingly lost cause. If you choose the former, too bad. Too bad for the Republic. Too bad for the Common Good. Too bad for the environment. Too bad for the poor.
I started writing this blog to answer the two questions in the title. In the process of writing and research I have discovered what happens when a materialistic society allows an increasing number of narcissistic followers of Mammon to accumulate wealth without limits. The results are increasing social and economic inequality, plutocracy, and neglect of the Common Good.
ADDENDUM
There are
churches, synagogues, and mosques who try to help the needy by supplying their
physical needs. This is quite
commendable and necessary. It is also
like a doctor treating a patient’s physical pain without addressing the
underlying cause of the pain.
Churches
should be urging people to forgive and to be tolerant. Forgiveness, however,
is not a substitute for holding accountable those who need to be forgiven. The very wealthy seem to me to be living on
clouds. They have no firm foundation to
hold them up. One individual,
concentrating hard enough can dissolve a small cloud using his/her mind. A sufficient number of people with enough
concentrated commitment can dissolve the cloud bank of the very wealthy. As long as less wealthy people give the very
wealthy a free pass, show the wealthy more respect than they would show a skid
row bum, the narcissistic, self-righteous attitudes of the very rich will
persist
Despite
everything I have written about the dire situation I believe the country is in
there are a number of positive things happening in the world lately. For example, Warren Buffet’s reported plan to
give away his fortune before he dies. Of
course, this will not help at all if he gives it directly to his wealthy cronies. There’s also Buffet and Gates forming a club or
whatever of the super rich who agree to give half of their fortunes to
charity. One must wonder if the
recipient charities will suddenly decide that staff and management deserves a raise
in income and/or that the organization can suddenly afford to make their
offices more modern and comfortable. Or
will the donations from the rich be used instead to create jobs for the poor
unemployed-jobs that enhance the Common
Good?
Another positive
thing is that one can sign petitions, donate or make pledges that support the Common Good using one’s
PC. I, myself, was unsuccessful in
launching a campaign to combat plutocracy on Causes.com. Perhaps a more computer savvy person wiil be
able to do that. There is also Moveon.orgCivicAction,
and CARE2.com where you can support positive change.
I just heard
on public radio about the millennial generation. Those are the people born in the 1990s. Supposedly this generation is less greedy and
selfish than previous generations and desires to contribute to society as
opposed to making maximum income. Maybe
future historians will be able to look back through time and realize that
December of 2012, the end of the Mayan calendar, was actually the beginning of
a new era marked by a decrease in human greed and self-centeredness. I don’t think that can happen unless enough
people get with the program.
I have not put
much emphasis on the positive in this blog because I think many people use
other people’s good intentions and actions as an excuse to remain complacent. This blog is not designed to enable
complacency.
