The Establishment Fooled the Whole Population

If you bought into the idea that you live in a democracy, which almost everyone, except for the rich, believes in, you have been had by the greatest con that history has ever witnessed.

The rulers are pleased to tell you that every vote counts. They remind you, when they take your young folks and send them off to war, that you live in a democracy and that that democracy is worth fighting for, and dieing for. They tell you that we should spread democracy to every corner of the world, and that only democracies are worthy of forming alliances with. They preach and teach that only a democracy provides freedom and the opportunity to be free.

ll, if you live in the United States, or any other so called democracy, you actually live in a plutocracy. That is a word you almost never hear, and one that you probably don't know the meaning of.. It means a society where the government is run by the wealthy, one where there is a small wealthy class who control everything. A pure democracy is one in which all the members of a group have one vote and all matters are determined by a majority vote. We don't have that. And it would be impractical, because we have too many people in the group to determine every decision by the whole group. So we have, they will tell you, a representative democracy, where the group selects individuals to represent a percentage of the populous.. Well, that is a very different thing, and there is many a slip between the populous that elects the representatives, and what the representatives do in the name of democracy.

But you don't even live in a representative democracy. You live in a society where all matters are controlled by the wealthy elite who run society. This wealthy elite is concerned only about themselves, and they could care less about what happens to you. Now if you tell this to members of the wealthy, they will object and state that some of the members of the wealthy elite contribute great sums of money to "their favorite charities". Well, it is a tax deduction, so they can mollify themselves with that thought, and if they have a good tax accountant they may even reduce their taxes. Many of them manage to pay no taxes.

Now the representatives of the wealthy make a big deal about the elections that are held in this plutocracy. They make a big deal about encouraging everyone to turn out and vote. It is one of the few things that a person can do in the political process. I've just finished reviewing the U.S. Census Bureau data on income and voter participation in the 2000 elections. The results are dismal for the low income population. The figures that follow show the number of people who voted out of 100 people, for different income classes.

Annual Income Number of People Out of 100

Who Actually Voted

Below $5,000 18.2

5,000-9,999 23.2

10,000-14,999 26.0

15,000-24,999 33.3

25,000-34,999 39.5

35,000-49,999 49.7

50,000-74,999 53.5

75,000 and over 63.5

U.S. Census Bureau, Table B, Column 4, Reported Voting and Registration by Selected Characteristics, Annual Family Income, 2000 A.D.

The data is blatantly clear. Disregarding all other factors (education level, culture, race, etc.) which are not motivators, the evidence is clear that those people who have an economic stake in our society show up to vote 3.38 times more frequently than those who have little or no stake in our society. And the correlation is perfect. The higher the income stake, the higher voter turnout is. This is but one factor as to why we live in a plutocracy.

Why, you might ask, is voting voluntary and not mandatory? We require people to get licensed to drive a car, for obvious reasons. Why is it not also mandatory that all people register and vote? If democracy, or even plutocracy, is so important, why is participating not mandatory?

Obviously, it is not in the interest of the rich ruling class.

Now the 2008 voter turnout figures should be much different from that ever before. There is a black man running for president, and the afro-American population has a stake in his getting elected. Indeed, all minorities do. Plus, on the Democratic side, this year's campaign is being run from the bottom up, and the campaigners are very organized and spirited, and committed to turning the vote out.

This has never been done before.

Now look at how wealth is distributed in the U.S.:

Number of U.S. Households as of 2000

And Their Income Levels Number of Accumulated % of All

Households Households

All 102,824,000 100.0

Under $10,000 10,067,000 10.1.

10,000-14,999 6,657,000 16.7

15,000-19,999 6,605,000 23.3.

20,000-24,999 6,936,000 30.2

25,000-29,999 6,801,000 37.0

30,000-34,999 6,718,000 43.7

35,000-39,999 6,236,000 49.9

40,000-44,999 5,966,000 55.9

45,000-49,999 5,244,000 61.2

50,000-59,999 9,537,000 70.5

60,000-74,999 11,003,000 81.6

75,000-99,999 14,799,000 92.4

100,000-124,999 5,492,000 92.7

125,000-149,999 2,656,000 95.3

150,000-199,999 2,322,000 97.6

200,000-and up 2,503,000 100.0

U.S. Census Bureau, Table DP-3, Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics, 2000 A.D.

You will notice that one half of all households had less than $45,000 annual income. Thirty one % had between $50,000 and $100,000 income. Only 7.2% of all households had incomes of $100,000 up to infinity.

Now, why is there such a variance in the amount of money given to the elite 7.2% of the population, and the disproportionately small amount given to the bottom half of the population.

There is nothing in our Constitution or in any of our laws which require that money must be divided in that manner among the population. There is nothing in the economics we study to say that income should be divided in that way. There is nothing in our religions that calls for this. There is absolutely nothing that says we should divide income in that manner.

Which brings us back to plutocracy and the rich elite. You have to go back into the history of humans to determine why this grossly unfair distribution came about. Prior to the advent of the Industrial Revolution all wealth among humans was divided based on the cunning and power of the rulers of a society. Kings, monarchs, generals, priests, all commanded that they be given wealth from the common class. This was a disproportionate wealth. The ruling class was composed of dominator people, and many of them founded their positions by being warriors and generals. They could, if need be, enforce whatever distribution of the wealth of society that they desired by threat , by threat and physical abuse to demonstrate that they meant it, or by death itself. That was a completely satisfactory method of getting the lower classes to accept the inequality of wealth distribution that the rulers wanted. Now this was a perfectly "natural" way for people to organize themselves. It demonstrated the fact that the rich ruling class was superior in a very measurable way. Which was, that they could beat the hell out of the lower class.

All the physical pleasures of life were thus taken by the rich ruling class unto themselves. This included the number and type of women distributed by the males in the ruling elite.

Women were generally of a lower status than males, and were even considered to be property of the dominating males.. Generally the males were able to use their greater physical power to control and subordinate the females. Which they did. Even in the Christian text of the Old Testament of the Bible we see this discrimination justified. This was unfair, but it is sufficient evidence to prove that in the absence of an interfering force, the upper class, rich, minority elites, were not constrained from their use and abuse of those who were weaker than them.

By the time of the Industrial Revolution however, circumstances had "modernized" to the point that the ruling elite felt the need of a belief system that they could use to justify their continuing acquisition and monopoly of societies economic product. Religious-supernatural philosophies had been used to buttress the ruling elite's position of dominance since the beginning of time. But increasingly the ruling elite, which was still male dominated, was put under more pressure

to give up their physical dominance of others, and to rely on a new philosophy, with all its trappings, as the means of justifying their disproportionate wealth and favored status.

Education, which evolved and grew right along with the industrial economic systems, provided a group of philosophers who called themselves economists. These economists came up with their pronouncements which they said would and should describe economic activity, including

a division of labor, a division of wealth, and a plethora of principles which legitimized the favored status of the rich elite. This philosophy they called Capitalism. Today people will regularly substitute the phrase "free trade" for the term Capitalism, but they are the same thing.

The Capitalist philosophy said many things. Among them was the idea that supply and demand ruled the market place and determined prices. If the poor people could not afford clothes, or food, or fuel, or medical care, it was no ones fault, and certainly not the rich people. It was just the inevitable operation of the law of supply and demand. Nothing could be done about it.

The Capitalists said that the differences in wealth among the classes were the result of entrepreneurship, hard work, saving, and superior intelligence. The Capitalist was of superior performance and should be rewarded for this. The Capitalist was also a risk taker. He put up his money, or talked others into giving him the money, to launch new ventures, which if they were successful, the Capitalist should be rewarded for. At the same time if the Capitalists venture was successful, it also created jobs for those people who were not able to be Capitalists, and who would otherwise be out of luck. By thrift, hard work, and determination, the ambitious could all eventually become Capitalists.

Well, all of this was a part of the ruling elite's con game as practiced on those they dominated.

The bottom line of this gibberish was that the Capitalist was a superior being, and should be granted wealth because of this. The poor people were just inferior, and belonged in the lower classes. How much more wealth should the Capitalist be given? Well, there was no limit, because the Capitalist philosophy provided the very important, and in terms of consequences, the most important dictum of all. All people, the Capitalists said, should govern their lives so as to make the largest profit they could on every transaction they engaged in. The Capitalist was above all else a maximum profit maker. This was good the Capitalist said. What this principle said, and it mandated it, was that the greatest good was greed. Now this was an easy sale. It proved out that all humans were very greedy. They all dreamed that they would one day be Capitalists and could lord it over all the inferior classes.

It did not take too long before some of the lower class, who were not good Capitalists, but were nonetheless very smart, began to see that they were in fact being had. They became the malcontents. The ruling elite had dealt with malcontents forever. In this modern age they had police who managed the political environment, and saw to it that the malcontents were kept in line and did not upset the established order. The Capitalists, with training from their non Capitalist elite ancestors, knew that it was important for the Capitalists either to hold political office, or see to it that their representatives occupied political office. This was an alliance that worked very well, and the rich elite was famous for getting favored treatment by police and their political henchmen. Of course, the Capitalist who was granted the right to gather unlimited profits, could easily afford to find some way to pay for the favors that they got.

The malcontents would occasionally strike back with random sabotage, but this was small scale and did not upset the order of things. Crime was always controlled by a greater allocation of resources for police power, when the malcontents became too bothersome. There was one serious effort by the lower classes to get a greater share if the economic pie, and that was the union movement. Labor organizers got the working class to take it on the chin with lost wages, and to refuse to work until the ruling elite paid them higher wages and greater benefits. But the unionists did not seek power. They were content to be bought out by small gains, and to then go dutifully back to their low paying jobs. The rich elite had a lock on things.

Then something strange happened. A black, or at least half black, man began to stir the lower classes with his rhetoric and demeanor. A young and talented man, of great patience and self control, announced that he was going to run for president of the United States. He enunciated ideas that turned on the young Americans, and then maneuvered to get the support of the other age groups. And he was doing this by running a campaign from the bottom up. He refused contributions from the traditional representatives of the rich, and relied on his eager supporters to finance him with penney anti contributions. But multiplied by millions of supporters, this amounted to as big a financial backing as ever a candidate for president had. First he took on the Old Guard of his political party in the primaries. By superior organization and leadership he defeated them in a carefully managed campaign that concentrated on gathering delegates, rather than popular votes. He had come out of nowhere to take the place of the candidate who was the early favorite.

But that was just a hint of what was to come. Overtaking the remaining racial bigotry in the country, he faced off with the Old Guard of the Republican Party. After a few weeks it was apparent that he was more a man of the times than his opposite. To the power brokers this was alarming. Here was this darky, in what used to be a bastion of white supremacy, not only holding his own, but showing evidence of being very presidential. His opponent was an

enthusiastic foot soldier taking on a real Commander in Chief. And then an even stranger event took place. The world's financial system and economies cracked. This black candidate for president had committed to the people of America that he would bring great change to the Capital and entire student body of the country. And in an instant the entire nation, and the world, knew that he would do just that. The party was over for the old rich dominating class of oppressors.

Well, for maximum profit Capitalism is doomed to fail. It has failure built into it. Not everyone is a good profit maker, and in fact most are not. So what happens over a period of time is the good maximum profit profit makers go on gathering all the profits and money. But when they get to that point, everything falls apart. That is what happened in 1929, when the United States had a fixed money supply, the amount of which was limited by being tied to the amount and value of gold that they had. Well, the Capitalist economists got together at the end of World War II and thought and thought. They decided that it was not good to have a fixed money supply because a 1929 could happen again. So they took the national money supplies of a fixed amount and made them liquid. They could go on having the maximum profit makers making maximum profits forever. They would just expand the money supply and the maximum profit makers could go on making profits forever. Well, the Capitalist system wouldn't let this work.

The faster the governments expanded their money supply, the faster the maximum for profit makers expanded their profits. In fact they outpaced the speed with which governments could expand their money supply. This produced inflation, and inflation ran wild in the world's first economic collapse, and so was avoided. But the flaw that the economic Capitalists were blind to see was that no matter what type of economic manipulation they tried, the Capitalist for maximum profit profit system always ended up with a small percentage of the population controlling all of the money and assets. And in "service" economies particularly, which depended upon consumers ever spending more money, they, who had been denied a fair share of a nations profits, had no money or wealth to spend. Once again all economic systems must collapse.

All of this was coming to a head again when the Americans held their 2008 elections. And there was this black man running for president proclaiming that he was going to change everything.

Coincidentally or not, the world believed him. There was going to be big changes. As everyone sensed that the economic systems they had were corrupt, unfair, and inviolable, the juxtaposition of events alarmed them. They really had no alternative system to turn to

Crisis. And enter Desirable Whole Economics. Desirable whole economics said that all members of an economy were of equal worth. There was no way to price the work of people in different jobs that was fair and viable. One could come up with all kinds of rationalizations as to why one type of work was worth more than another type. But this was arbitrary and capricious, and in the end not defensible. The people were used to a system that was unfair, and in which inequities were forced on the people by Capitalist maximum profit makers. So they were bewildered when their jobs were taken away in the economic collapse. They didn't know where to turn to. And they had been subjugated, deprecated, and led to believe that they were worthless - led to believe that they were worthless from the moment of their birth right up to the present, that they did not have the self image, confidence, and habits to see themselves as anything but peons to clean up for the greedy rich elite. This was the great brainwashing job that the rich elite forced on the "inferior" ones, and all the institutions of society that the rich elite controlled.

Well, all of this was coming crumbling down. Desirable Whole Economics was ready to move in and pick up the pieces and implement a fair, equal, and just system of economics. DWE maintained that if the social whole was a desirable whole, then all of the people in that system were of equal worth., for to remove anyone, or reduce there income, was to make the desirable whole less than a desirable whole. The goal of society was to create a national desirable whole in which all members could contribute up to their interests, talents, proclivity. and ability..

As each person was a necessary part of the desirable whole there was no basis for distributing the material abundance of the DWE on any other than an equal basis. The group's economic interests would replace the decrepit division of wealth of Capitalist systems, and the envy, greed, and destructive values that this system contained. We would still look to quality of service, and cost efficiencies, and innovation, etc, but on a group rather than an individual basis. If the group made important innovations in price and product then all members would share in the bonus for this. It would be much easier and rational to organize innovation and invention, and worker enthusiasm for all projects and undertakings. Profits would rise.

It has been well established in the field and literature that effectively organized groups, under DWE, are much more efficient and productive, than with all members of a corporation competing agenst each other. Desirable whole groups should communicate with each other, and their duly designated facilitators, who play a supervisory, managerial role, which they might trade off at regular intervals. DWE is one sure way of preventing economic collapses as we have seen under Capitalist maximum for profit systems.

List of Sources:

Table B, Column 4, "Reported Voting and Registration by Selected Characteristics, Annual Family Income" U.S. Census Bureau, 2000

Table DP-3, "Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics 2000" U.S. Census Bureau, 2000