A good reason to make Blue and Red merge into Magenta
The root of current American income equality, although a natural phenomenon of Life (Nature distributes its wealth unevenly), begins with our currency/monetary system of the Federal (actually private) Reserve and its issuance of credit and its generated debt. Yet, we do not hear of it spoken in this light, not in the media of main stream, right or left. Blue and Red alike can find common ground in this exploitative system. Perhaps we can find some unity and stop the divide before greater violence occurs. To do so we must get to this root.
To focus on solving a problem without requisite reason toward the root cause will not solve the problem. At best, it will provide a temporary band-aid to stop the bleeding. To try and fix the phenomena of income inequality by asking law-makers to create and exercise laws to manufacture income equality is a false start; it doesn’t get to the cause. The root cause of overwhelming American income equality is the Federal Reserve system which is doomed to fail because it is built on a flimsy foundation, at best. It began without a penny in 1913 and since has brought the US debt to unsustainable heights. Hence, both parties kick the can down the road and raise the debt ceiling whenever it needs. If both parties agree to foist the debt on future generations, perhaps both parties can see clear and end the scheme, take back the private ownership of the Fed and give the fiduciary responsibility back to congress.
Treasury bonds allow the government to do it’s jobs by creating money to cover its expenses. The treasury creates IOU’s in the form of bonds and goes to the Federal Reserve to get some cash. Federal Reserve says here’s your money: you owe it all back plus interest. If one can see, this means the government (treasury) will be forever in debt (in other words, how does the treasury get the money to pay the debt? It must ask for more, which means incurring even more debt). The creditors will always make money, and they have historically paid their stockholders 6% annually. Yes, the private owners of the Federal Reserve make a profit from the continuous debt incurred by the United States to keep its country running year by year. Here we see the first elephant in the room that begins the income inequality: only Federal Reserve owners get a take on the initial creation of currency. Before you or I or anybody else gets a chance to use this money, the central bank guys (and a few gals nowadays, although only men created the Fed) already took a cut and can beat us to any further action.
Next in line are the big banks, you know, those guys (and some gals) we couldn’t let drown in their own self-created debts in 2007-08, the ones we bailed out. They get first dibs on barrowing the money from the Fed. They get it at ridiculously low rates of interest and they turn around and put it into investments that will ask for higher rates of interest – their first take on the money. Then, when they loan it to people and companies, they ask for higher interest rates. When they take on a deposit, they set aside 10% more or less and use the other percent to loan to others. Either way, in every way, they get richer. When one thinks of this money-making no-brainer scheme, one is dumbfounded at how badly they run their system. Even though the scheme brings bankers guaranteed profit by making immoral decisions that take advantage of their customers, they F it up with crises from their greediness (or maybe it’s actually planned?). But hey, when the customer returns each and every time crises after crises, there is no incentive to change; the money-changers have pushed their corrupt trade for thousands of years; the Fed is just the latest installment.
Next in line for the banker’s money are the rich of the rich, the one percent. They can get all kinds of advantages because of their wealth – advantages so obvious they are not worth pointing out. More income inequality is generated.
The rest of the story is a repeat, like a never-ending chorus, of the same system outlined above. Next are the wealthy people of the ten percent or so. And then the next ten percent or so, ad infinitum. The poor, that poor guy who is either scorned because of his poverty, or looked at as a victim, gets no chance to take a cut from any money. He ain’t got none. The system rewards those that have, as we have seen.
But Nature would never devise such an inefficient system. Nature is antithetical to inefficiency. And since people ARE nature, part of it, and in it, and of it, we could try things her way and see how it goes.
First though, we must acknowledge that although Nature shuns inefficiency, Nature thrives on individual difference, at every level, on every scale. In so being, Nature is very inegalitarian. That may surprise some, but this objective truth is open for everybody to see. Wishing it away does not change things. Yes, we are subjective beings whose subjectivity directs experience, but we do so within an objective reality. Only a lunatic would claim that two plus two equals anything but four. And only a lunatic would back this defenseless error. For the world over, two plus two equals four (in absolute terms). It is dangerous to suppose the world as individually constructed without an objective reality; this kind of thinking can lead to a world with no common ground between any two individuals, let alone two parties of a political system.
Nature’s objective reality is fundamentally efficient, just look at human biology for a teaser into Nature’s incredible template of efficiency.
Human money ought to reflect this Natur-all characteristic. If this is so, the first thing we need to do to address income inequality is recognize the absolute inefficiency of the Federal Reserve system and end it. All parties should see the advantages of this potential action.
Certainly, the Democrats who are strongly focused on income inequality. And certainly, the Republicans can see the benefits of deregulation of the Federal Reserve and smaller government. The only logical folks to resist this change are the rich – they would suffer the most.
Wouldn’t it be a blessing to find a uniting principle for both parties to work on together? I can think of few more important actions and uniting issue. If the Federal Reserve system is removed and a sound money system is instituted instead, the fairness of the system would exponentially rise – the Democrats would get the greater social equality they want. As well, the ending of the Federal Reserve system would shrink government, would allow for a freer citizen, greater liberty, and a market driven alternative – Republicans would get what they want.
Let the States create their own banks and credit unions, keeping their money in their State.
If this sounds easy, it is. Nature is the most superb example of simplicity. The solutions to human problems are best aligned with Nature. Nature is so, so much bigger than us. If we are on a path toward human extinction, as many believe today, we might do well to tune in to Nature and see where we are not aligned with her principles. Perhaps if we can mimic her cooperation and ecological hierarchy of inegalitarian unity and harmony, we could stave off the possible extinction and suffer less. Some speak of saving the planet. The planet is fine. The planet will adjust, adapt, morph, and become something new and equally amazing. Just without us human animals. We too will adapt, right into dust and into the mystery. . .
A magenta unification to finding solutions sounds so much better.