I'm what might be called and arbor economist. That means that my understanding of economics comes from the nature of plants, trees in particular, as they were planted by my company in the desert. I came to this way of seeing the economy as a function of understanding that trees, like humans, are a circulatory life form.
Very briefly, what I came to understand is that the tipping point of whether a tree or any other plant made it, and beyond that remained healthy, was what I called its "poverty line". At a tree's poverty line it was no longer taking things up from the roots and was doomed. This was true even if the pretty leaves and flowers stayed green for a while. You see, the leaves feed the roots, as well as the roots feeding the rest of the tree. But if nothing comes from the leaves or the soil, which is part dead leaves giving up their nutrients, the entire tree dies.
Since we knew this, we always ensured that the roots got the bulk of the money invested in the planting of a tree. That always paid off, because that strategy gave the tree the wherewithal to make itself strong in the ground and do its job of transpiring what was needed upwards. As long as there was nourishment there, the tree prospered. You see, we had discovered the hard way that in proportion to the poverty of the roots, the whole organism suffered. It may not have looked for a while like it was suffering, but suddenly it all went bad if the situations wasn't corrected.
Is it any wonder, then, that even Adam Smith, the Guru of capitalism, said in his "Wealth of Nations" that there must be a mechanism to return wealth, cash, to the lowest levels. If that wasn't done, and too much accumulated at the top, the system becomes unstable and in danger of collapse. But no one is going to go first in an oligarchy (democracy?? Phffffffttt......) like ours. This is why there must be regulation and even a proportionally large government that many conservatives fear on misconstrued grounds.
So the tipping point of the health of the "National" tree could be said to be the poverty line. That is because that is where the stress which can topple the tree occurs. Why? because the most expensive thing to be in this economy is to be poor. And as a corollary, the most expensive thing in terms of the economic health of the rest of the tree is at the cost of the middle class, the trunk of the tree. While few seem to think of it this way, the cost of maintaining poverty is far greater than simply addressing it and taking care of it. How is that done? Several ways.
First, stop taking away the means that the poor could use to sustain the economy where they are. In other words, stop taxing anyone who is say 10% above the poverty line and below. That way they can, because hey *must*, spend their money locally. And of course, that money almost invariably goes up. Had the bail-out money of recent time gone to the poor, in short order it would have ascended to its actual recipients through the paper economy as people paid off their mortgages.
The benefit would have been that the collateral damage of the now defunct middle class wouldn't have happened due to the money passing trough their hands one way or another on is way up, constituting circulation. Circulation is radically (look up the root of that word) different than accumulation, which the bailouts functionally were. And as bailouts they were used not to repair the transport system within the Nation tree, but to parasitically suck life from other trees by means of tap roots in the worst sense of the word. While this may seem to work for a while, what it actually does is ensure that eventually not just one tree, but the entire forest goes down.
So another thing that can be done is to simply "give" everyone a living wage balanced against a guaranteed basic income equal to poverty + 10%. While it sounds expensive, we know that say giving small houses to the homeless is far cheaper than dealing with them on the street, in hospitals and in jails. Why? Because even with the small number of inevitable freeloaders the cost is far less than maintaining the services and dissonant attitudes surrounding their being on the street.
Many might decry giving anyone "free" stuff, but if they had the presence of mind to run some numbers it would be obvious that less would come out of the public pocket, ie taxes, for this than for deliberately maintaining poverty. The "free stuff" is cheaper because then all the things necessary for personal wellbeing and job possibilities come into play, like having an address, communication, and cleanliness.
Very briefly, what I came to understand is that the tipping point of whether a tree or any other plant made it, and beyond that remained healthy, was what I called its "poverty line". At a tree's poverty line it was no longer taking things up from the roots and was doomed. This was true even if the pretty leaves and flowers stayed green for a while. You see, the leaves feed the roots, as well as the roots feeding the rest of the tree. But if nothing comes from the leaves or the soil, which is part dead leaves giving up their nutrients, the entire tree dies.
Since we knew this, we always ensured that the roots got the bulk of the money invested in the planting of a tree. That always paid off, because that strategy gave the tree the wherewithal to make itself strong in the ground and do its job of transpiring what was needed upwards. As long as there was nourishment there, the tree prospered. You see, we had discovered the hard way that in proportion to the poverty of the roots, the whole organism suffered. It may not have looked for a while like it was suffering, but suddenly it all went bad if the situations wasn't corrected.
Is it any wonder, then, that even Adam Smith, the Guru of capitalism, said in his "Wealth of Nations" that there must be a mechanism to return wealth, cash, to the lowest levels. If that wasn't done, and too much accumulated at the top, the system becomes unstable and in danger of collapse. But no one is going to go first in an oligarchy (democracy?? Phffffffttt......) like ours. This is why there must be regulation and even a proportionally large government that many conservatives fear on misconstrued grounds.
So the tipping point of the health of the "National" tree could be said to be the poverty line. That is because that is where the stress which can topple the tree occurs. Why? because the most expensive thing to be in this economy is to be poor. And as a corollary, the most expensive thing in terms of the economic health of the rest of the tree is at the cost of the middle class, the trunk of the tree. While few seem to think of it this way, the cost of maintaining poverty is far greater than simply addressing it and taking care of it. How is that done? Several ways.
First, stop taking away the means that the poor could use to sustain the economy where they are. In other words, stop taxing anyone who is say 10% above the poverty line and below. That way they can, because hey *must*, spend their money locally. And of course, that money almost invariably goes up. Had the bail-out money of recent time gone to the poor, in short order it would have ascended to its actual recipients through the paper economy as people paid off their mortgages.
The benefit would have been that the collateral damage of the now defunct middle class wouldn't have happened due to the money passing trough their hands one way or another on is way up, constituting circulation. Circulation is radically (look up the root of that word) different than accumulation, which the bailouts functionally were. And as bailouts they were used not to repair the transport system within the Nation tree, but to parasitically suck life from other trees by means of tap roots in the worst sense of the word. While this may seem to work for a while, what it actually does is ensure that eventually not just one tree, but the entire forest goes down.
So another thing that can be done is to simply "give" everyone a living wage balanced against a guaranteed basic income equal to poverty + 10%. While it sounds expensive, we know that say giving small houses to the homeless is far cheaper than dealing with them on the street, in hospitals and in jails. Why? Because even with the small number of inevitable freeloaders the cost is far less than maintaining the services and dissonant attitudes surrounding their being on the street.
Many might decry giving anyone "free" stuff, but if they had the presence of mind to run some numbers it would be obvious that less would come out of the public pocket, ie taxes, for this than for deliberately maintaining poverty. The "free stuff" is cheaper because then all the things necessary for personal wellbeing and job possibilities come into play, like having an address, communication, and cleanliness.
They don't deserve "free stuff"? How did they lose what they had, these Veterans, these victims of Wall Street, or these people who went bankrupt due to astounding medical bills and expenses that ANYWHERE ELSE WOULDN'T EVEN BE A BLIP IN THEIR LIVES so they and theirs could continue to be productive, instead of being a drag on our wallet. These homeless people are not the problem. They are the result of the problem.
And part of the problem is the ignorance that maintains their poverty in the most financially extravagant way. That's partly why you pay 100 times more federal taxes to support profitable companies than to support social programs which would be much less expensive if we were direct about it all. We are already paying more to maintain poverty than we would with "free stuff" that would actually take care of the problem.
We just need to stop giving the "free stuff" to people already so rich that your middle-class mind can't begin to comprehend it. You may be right about not wanting to give away large portions of your money, but if that's true, you damn straight better understand who you are already bleeding it to. It's not the poor and jobless, not even 1 to 100. The 100 would be to banks, oil, and the MIC. Get it straight. You have *already* taken care of the financial end of the poverty problem; only you have been feeding the wrong end. Try taking care of the roots for once.
And part of the problem is the ignorance that maintains their poverty in the most financially extravagant way. That's partly why you pay 100 times more federal taxes to support profitable companies than to support social programs which would be much less expensive if we were direct about it all. We are already paying more to maintain poverty than we would with "free stuff" that would actually take care of the problem.
We just need to stop giving the "free stuff" to people already so rich that your middle-class mind can't begin to comprehend it. You may be right about not wanting to give away large portions of your money, but if that's true, you damn straight better understand who you are already bleeding it to. It's not the poor and jobless, not even 1 to 100. The 100 would be to banks, oil, and the MIC. Get it straight. You have *already* taken care of the financial end of the poverty problem; only you have been feeding the wrong end. Try taking care of the roots for once.
No comments:
Post a Comment