Global Kleptocracy Comes of Age: Part V of V

The Ultimate Endgame

Yet what is particularly noteworthy about this new round of U.S. crony capitalism is that it involves both multinational and foreign corporations working in unison with global governmental institutions.

In terms of government, the push for ever-increasing global power, control, and wealth accumulation has been made abundantly evident in the United Nation’s Agenda 21 architecture. All while advocates for the related Sustainable Development double down on this architecture with their commentaries—commentaries that decry individual liberty and private property, while calling for the elimination of 80-90 percent of the human world population.

In terms of business, the push for ever-increasing global power, control, and wealth accumulation has been made abundantly evident in the formation world megabanks and multinational corporations that often exist outside the bounds of national taxation and regulation systems. And it is this power that has increasingly allowed the wealthiest international concerns to outcompete smaller rivals that must compete within domestic confines while burdened by increasingly burdensome costs and restrictions.

Indeed, it is with of global government institutions and global corporate institutions working together—outside the bounds of national governmental dynamics and domestic free-market dynamics—that the kleptocratic pursuits of historical despots, tyrants, and lesser dictators of all stripes have been taken to a whole new level.

For now the top 85 richest individuals (according to a report from the British humanitarian group Oxfam International) have managed to capture nearly half of the world’s wealth—65 times the wealth of the bottom half of the world’s populations. And these are the individuals who are broadly controlling political leaders and movements throughout the world.

That is, while most see growing governments throughout the world as a means by which to counter the income and wealth inequality created by free-market capitalism, the increasingly redistributive capacities of modern governments has done just the opposite, as this ever-increasing ability to pick winners and losers within society for government officials has mainly allowed them a means by which to redistribute the resources of the middle status ranks to those of the highest status and themselves on a global scale.

In other words, whether a matter of fascism, socialism, or any other form of totalitarianism, the goal and outcome will be the same if successful: to give those of lower status just enough to keep them from rebelling while using their support to subdue and strip the wealth and power from the middle status ranks—as the latter presents the main threat to those at the top of the status spectrum.

Meanwhile, it is only maximal personal liberty and the existence of a truly free marketplace that will naturally produce a thriving middle class with minimal numbers of low-status individuals and minimal numbers of high-status individuals—all commensurate with the bell-curve dynamics that define all natural variation patterns in conjunction with the standard of merit—the standard that inevitably defines what will survive and what will not according to the timeless and universal laws that are part and parcel of evolution by way of natural selection.

Share
Posted in Capitalism vs. Socialism, Human Evolutionary Trends, Modernism and Postmodernism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Global Kleptocracy Comes of Age: Part IV of V

A Deal Difficult to Refuse, Especially Once Accepted By Others

And while many of those in the middle status ranks quickly recognize what is occurring, such that all corrupt government officials could be voted out, placing an end to the legalized theft of taxpayer resources, once the power to pick winners and losers becomes well established for government officials it becomes very difficult to buck the trend for all outside of government.

Indeed, once cronyism and dependency become the rule, all those in bed with government officials become the primary drivers of the political corruption in feedback fashion—as the ability to compete for government favoritism becomes more important than the ability to compete based on performance—including all merits related to productivity, efficiency, innovation, and advancement.

In the U.S., this trend was recently evidenced in the article with the following title: “Big Business declares War on Tea Party” (Washington Times, October 28, 2013). This is a profound and telling development indeed, as this means that Big Business has declared war on the pursuit of maximal individual liberty, free-market dynamics, and the standard of merit for all—instead embracing the standard of big government control and influence of all economic outcomes within the nation.

And as the biggest of companies and richest of individuals tend to have the greatest connections and means with which to buy favors and influence, the result is a pronounced favoritism of these types at the expense, and often the demise, of those smaller and less well established. This pattern was made abundantly clear over the last several years in the “Too Big to Fail” bailout epic.

For here it was the largest of banks and other related businesses that were saved, while all smaller, often up-and-coming, competitors were typically placed under yet greater pressure, leaving many to fail immediately, or at least over a relatively short time frame. Indeed, in line with the article titled “Tally of U.S. Banks Sinks to Record Low,” as part of the aftermath of Too Big to Fail, the number of banking institutions in the U.S. has dwindled to its lowest level since the Great Depression, at a minimum—as small lenders are having the hardest time with new rules, the weak economy, and low interest rates.

In short, not only did the largest financial-industry competitors gain immense cash infusions from taxpayers via government intervention, the lack of cash infusions and influx of expensive regulations better endured by large companies effectively stomped out many, or most, of the smaller rivals that are the primary driver of ever-increasing marketplace standards.

And in the meantime, the following article title also confirms how and why the rich get richer when the government is allowed to pick winners and losers with increasing crony capitalism in effect: “D.C. Far Outpaces Nation in Personal Earnings.”

Share
Posted in Capitalism vs. Socialism, Human Evolutionary Trends, Modernism and Postmodernism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Global Kleptocracy Comes of Age: Part III of V

Fairness and Justice Redefined

With high-status cronies being favored, in effect having resources redistributed to them, and low-status voters increasingly having resources redistributed to them in the name of fairness—all while an ever-expanding and increasingly-affluent government bureaucracy takes its share of the redistribution pie—it will inevitably be the private-sector middle-status ranks that increasingly have their prospects quashed as their resources are the ones being redistributed to others.

Hence, in addition to government officials and their high-status cronies getting richer, while the ranks of low-status individuals dependent on government redistribution continually grow, another central feature of any redistributive scheme will be a shrinking “middle class.” Of course, noteworthy here is that while all these phenomena are recognized by all societal participants, they are blamed not on government officials and the redistribution they facilitate, but on the unfairness and inequality created by the free marketplace. And it is with government said to be the only possible solution to eliminating such problems—all of which are said to be part and parcel of market dynamics—that governments claim the mandate to do more of what has actually caused such problems.

It is then that the growing divide between rich and poor—both of which have their positions reinforced via government redistribution—tends to be further fueled by claims that those who have less are being victimized—both by the free marketplace and those who have acquired more within it. The result has been the depiction of any given group that somehow fares worse than another in some way as being a victim of others in a way that only government can address.

Indeed, the more grievances and conflicts there are within a nation, the more that government can demand a greater role in societal interactions while replacing free-market dynamics. And it is as the self-proclaimed savior for oppressed groups, with all remedies coming through redistribution, that government officials are able to increasingly consolidate power and wealth at the expense of middle-status ranks.

Of course, also necessary here is that unequal outcome be detached from a perceived standard of merit. For if the standard of merit can be used to justify inequality within society, there is no cause for the government to get involved to counter marketplace injustice. This means that all inequities must derive from either varied exploitation or varied circumstance that leaves some better off than others—neither of which renders those who have more or less as being deserving of their lot in life. This is the basis for the notion of “social justice” that has become increasingly globalized as the West’s political correctness has been spread far and wide.

Share
Posted in Capitalism vs. Socialism, Human Evolutionary Trends, Modernism and Postmodernism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Global Kleptocracy Comes of Age: Part II of V

It’s Not Who You Know, It’s Who You Pay!

While recognizing that such disparities are not the norm for the leading Western nations that have relatively well-established and reliable democratic systems in place, leaders have increasingly discovered ways to overcome new-age defenses against power accumulation and wealth consolidation. All of which tend to involve government officials enjoying and/or striving for the power to pick winners and losers within society despite the structural governmental protections against such practices.

For in addition to providing government officials with a vehicle to trade their power for wealth while holding their positions—via the creation and/or enforcement of laws, regulations, etc., that treat businesses or individuals differently—it also allows government officials to trade favors for the campaign contributions and buying votes using other people’s money—thus allowing them to both extend and increase their hold on power. Indeed, with each election, a government official’s hold on his or her position will tend to become stronger and stronger.

With regard to businesses and wealthy individuals, the inevitable outcome of allowing government officials to favor some over others will be cronyism. And as government officials will strive to maximize their wealth and power acquisition by playing those who bid for governmental favors against one another, all marketplace competitors will eventually have to come into the fold, as those who refuse to participate will lose out competitively—based on marketplace corruption, that is—to those that agree to participate. The combination of greater power for government officials and more complete participation by marketplace bidders for the former’s favors will ultimately mean the end of whatever free-market dynamics once existed.

Meanwhile, with regard to the voting public, the inevitable outcome of allowing government officials to favor some over others using other people’s money will be increasing socialism. For, beginning with those at the bottom of the status spectrum (which would take the shape of a bell curve distribution in a truly free marketplace) who can have their votes purchased with minor amounts of redistribution, increasing the amount of redistribution will rapidly expand the pool of voters for sale, again based on bell-curve dynamics (a phenomenon defined as bell-curve creep in the book Living With Evolution or Dying Without It).

Share
Posted in Capitalism vs. Socialism, Human Evolutionary Trends, Modernism and Postmodernism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Global Kleptocracy Comes of Age: Part I of V

From the time of the first tribal mergers some 6,000 years ago, there has been a strong tendency for those of high status to increase their status—including power, wealth, and fame—at the expense of others within their societies. For while encouraging all citizens to work together for common cause has been critical to the survival of nations, and the human species at large—the reason for tribal mergers from their beginnings—natural selection has long rewarded those who instinctually maximize the survivability of their lines by whatever means are necessary, including win-lose arrangements when they are deemed necessary, or some cases merely preferred based on risk/reward calculations.

In modern times the situation is no different, but the means by which those of high status consolidate power and accumulate wealth has had to change in leading nations. For over the last 2,500 years there has been an increasing push for social technologies that keep those of high status from exploiting those of low status, which will ultimately prove detrimental to a population as a whole, not to mention those of lower status. Central here has been the establishment of democracy, whereby those without power, wealth, and fame have the power to vote out those in power who attempt to consolidate power and accumulate wealth at the expense of others.

Indeed, the democratic ethic was to be applied more generally within leading nations—and especially the upstart American nation—when the standard of status birthright and entitlement was systematically replaced with the standard of individual merit. All with the protection of the entire system being provided by pushing political power down and out, culminating in maximal liberty protection for the individual. In short, the goal was to prevent both tyranny from above and tyranny from below via mob rule—with the latter being an obvious threat for any type of democratic governmental system.

Meanwhile, we must only take note of the recent article titled “The Richest World Leaders Are Even Richer Than You Thought” to recognize that much has remained unchanged in the modern age with regard to those of high status using their position to consolidate power and accumulate wealth—often not in conjunction with the standard of merit, as doubtless exemplified by many of those listed below:

Vladimir Putin of Russia is believed to be worth between $40 and $70 billion, with the average Russian per capita income being $14,000.

Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand
is believed to be worth over $30 billion, with the average Thai per capita being $4,400.

Hassanal Bolkiah of Brunei is believed to be worth $20 billion, with the average Brunei per capita income being $4,100.

Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud of SaudiArabia
is believed to be worth $18 billion, with the average Saudi per capita income being $21,000.

Kim Jong Un of North Korea
is believed to be worth $4 and 5 billion, with the average North Korean per capita income being $1,800.

Mohammed VI of Morocco is believed to be worth $2.5 billion, with the average Moroccan per capita income being $3,000.

Share
Posted in Capitalism vs. Socialism, Human Evolutionary Trends, Modernism and Postmodernism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

ObamaCare’s Spectacular Success With Regard to the President’s Fundamental Transformation of America: Part IV of IV

 For the Good of All. . . . of Those in Power

Indeed, such equalization has increasingly been declared the inevitable product of human enlightenment for those on the Left, as all that is good is perceived to extend from equalization—leaving a utopian existence all but assured once all that that is associated with varied outcomes for humankind has been eliminated—with private property being at the heart of all other evils. Indeed, if one were to eliminate the existence of private property, with the government then distributing resources equally among citizens, the greater elimination of competition would eradicate the forces behind inequality once and for all. Perpetual peace and harmony for humankind would finally be realized—if it weren’t for one minor detail that is.

Nature—or more specifically the natural selection that gives rise to it—not only “abhors a vacuum,” it abhors equality. Indeed, while natural selection can only recognize and reward “fitness” with regard to survivability—which defines “merit” in its greater sense—such fitness can only come through the variation that leads to maximal productivity, efficiency, innovation, and advancement in the economic and combat realms as necessary to overcome the surrounding threats that exist–including those physical, predatory, rival, and microbial. Indeed, in many ways it is maximal variation that will lead to maximal performance for humankind in ways critical to maximizing survivability for any given group or the species at large. Hence, to select for the opposite via policy seems more than a bad idea from the evolutionary perspective—as the Left does when attempts to abolish status variation, the standard of merit, and competition with regard to human existence.

However, this model does not actually abolish the existence of status variation that derives from wealth and power inequities; it merely shifts the high status to those in government who have all the power and control over all the resources they are in charge of distributing. Indeed, even China’s Mao Zedong made it clear that the citizens should not expect the communist leadership to live as the masses do, as it was effectively held that “some are more equal than others.”

What this means is that, while it is true that the masses, and a nation at large, will be weakened in performance to the degree that equalization policies are enacted, those in government will be strengthened in proportion. Indeed, given total control over combat and economic assets—as necessary to have total equalization within a nation—there are few scenarios that could present a serious threat to the survival of higher-level government officials, short of, say, picking a fight with a nuclear rival to the death. Indeed, with the masses serving as expendable pawns, and a nation’s resources available as bargaining chips, those in power rarely have difficulty finding their way out of existential trouble should it arise.

In other words, from the evolutionary perspective socialistic pursuits can prove extremely beneficial to those in power who facilitate them, and will always prove extremely detrimental to the average citizen who must endure them over time. For while in good times the proclaimed promise of reliable protections and provisions by an all-powerful and all-benevolent government elite may be compelling, in tough times those at the top will not hesitate in claiming all military and economic assets for personal use, while throwing the compliant masses under the evolutionary bus, so to speak—leaving those with high status an excellent chance of making the cut while those within the masses stand an excellent chance of joining the “99 percent” of historical species that can only be viewed within the fossil record.

Share
Posted in Capitalism vs. Socialism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

ObamaCare’s Spectacular Success With Regard to the President’s Fundamental Transformation of America: Part III of IV

No Freedom of Speech Here!

Most important here is that, once one accepts the notion of relativism, one must also logically accept the notion that equal opportunity will automatically translate to equal outcome, as the lack of meaningful differences between human groups must also necessarily include differences in merit—regarding talent or industriousness, be they genetically or culturally expressed. And it is with merit being eliminated from the equation that the only two possible reasons for differential outcomes become good or bad circumstance/fortune or the existence of exploitation that leads to some benefiting at the expense of others.

Moreover, it is with merit being eliminated from the equation that personal responsibility is also eliminated from the equation with regard to how individuals or groups fare in life—as all causation becomes external, with no one being able to take credit or blame for their lot in life. All while stifling opinion to the contrary are the accusations of racism, sexism, homophobia, bigotry, hatred of poor and old people, etc., that can have more impact than calling one a murderer or child molester at this point in time.

Indeed, anyone who argues for any idea or policy that in some way leads to restraints on government power and/or less redistribution, or who calls for personal responsibility, is now instantly labeled with one of the epithets mentioned above. And leading the charge has been the government officials that claim to be the only possible antidote for the racism, sexism, homophobia, bigotry, and hatred that animates those on the Right is more government power to impose the Social Justice that will create an utterly just equal outcome for all.

And of course, nothing is more central to the pursuit of Social Justice than equal access to good health. Hence, once those on the Left convinced enough individuals (albeit far less than 50 percent of the U.S. citizens according to virtually all polls taken during its implementation) that universal healthcare should become the law of the land, any efforts to take the right to equal healthcare away will prompt the one or more of the accusations listed above. And equally important here is that, any issue associated with food, housing, personal safety, personal transportation, etc., can be related to the individual right to good health.

In fact, if one were to include mental health in the mix, which now includes the effects of stress, depression, (unhappiness?), etc., the entire spectrum of human existence instantly falls under the umbrella of “healthcare.” And being that those on the Left argue it is the existence of inequality, and indeed the existence of competition (leading to poor self-esteem, and the like) that is responsible for poor human mental health, the government mandate for total equalization that only the government can provide will instantly become the call for many on the Left.

Share
Posted in Capitalism vs. Socialism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

ObamaCare’s Spectacular Success With Regard to the President’s Fundamental Transformation of America: Part II of IV

Utopian Wishful Thinking

The reason this strange feedback loop predominates is that, for most humans, feelings, beliefs, and desires trump conclusions that derive from reason and science. And in this case, for many it is the belief in socialism that derives from the desire for equality that derives from the feeling that all members of the human species would live in peace and harmony if all were equal in every way. For this would in turn eliminate the existence of winners and losers, and therefore competition, and therefore all the stresses that afflict humankind and encourage it to exploit and denude the earth’s resources.

Hence, as total equality is viewed to be the key to establishing paradise, or a utopia, on earth, those on the Left must necessarily hold that government officials are all- knowing, all-compassionate beings that would never abuse their all-powerful status—all qualifying as angelic if not god-like. For to create total equality for all means giving someone—i.e., those in government—the total power to make it happen.

All the while, the more individual freedom that exists, the more humans tend to compete with one another for status and resources while exploiting and denuding the earth, leading to dramatic outcome differences that encourage all to exploit each other and the earth’s greater environment. Hence, a constitution that protects individual liberty by restraining the supreme power of government officials is the mortal enemy of the Left. Indeed, the freer individuals are, the greater the inequality that will arise—leaving any idea or institution that protects individual liberty as a mortal enemy of those on the Left—something that qualifies as demonic in every way. And meanwhile, any pursuit that degrades individual liberty is viewed as the mortal enemy of the Right.

All of this certainly explains why those on the Left and Right see the world so differently. Indeed, not only do these groups view the world in opposite fashion; for one side to see progress necessarily means the other side must see regress. Or, in other words, for one side the win the other must lose in incremental zero-sum fashion, as the Left will never stop pursuing its goal of maximal equality for members of the human species—typically excluding those responsible for facilitating the redistribution, that it—while the Right will never stop pursuing its goal of maximal liberty for members of the human species.

At the same time, allowing the Left to get the upper hand in recent decades has been the promotion of a number of concepts that have turned the debate from one of utopian pursuit to one defined by what is moral and just. Here, central to all other related concepts is that of relativism: the idea the all humans are fundamentally the same in their meaningful characteristics—with none being superior or inferior with regard to their race, religion, traditions, level of technological advancement, etc. Rooted in the 18th century notion that acceptance of this premise would keep nations from invading and subjugating one another, the acceptance of relativism now applies, not only to all races and ethnicities, but to all sexual differences as well.

Share
Posted in Capitalism vs. Socialism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

ObamaCare’s Spectacular Success With Regard to the President’s Fundamental Transformation of America: Part I of IV

While many are lamenting the less-than-stellar start for the application of President Obama’s landmark legislation, the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as ObamaCare, there is no need to fret; it is a sure winner with regard to the President’s promise for the “transformation of America”—one with a distinctly neo-Marxist flavor.

That is, while many were hoping that the largest redistributive entitlement program in American history—one which give the U.S. government control over 1/6 of the economy—would produce immediate results in terms of creating healthcare fairness and low cost for all citizens, the actual goal of ObamaCare was to be the first step in establishing a government-controlled single-payer system, which would be most effectively enabled by the failure of ObamaCare!

While this may be counterintuitive at first, the reason why this is indeed the case becomes clear when one considers the primary driving cultural force for larger government: the demand for government solutions to overcome purported free-market capitalistic failures. That is, as the Left has been highly successful in portraying free-market capitalism as the root of all societal dysfunction with regard to the rich exploiting the poor, which further results in there being a few haves (e.g., the “one-percenters” and many have-nots (everyone else), the only way to correct the situation is to have an all-benevolent and all-controlling government take charge of marketplace phenomena that often become corrupted and unfair when freedom prevails.

And it is by accepting this basic premise that powerful dynamics were set to follow. For with each marketplace fluctuation or perturbation to the negative, it is argued and by many and accepted by many others that only government intervention can provide a viable solution. And it is then that the government tends to in some way gain in the capacity to pick marketplace winners and losers—something that tends to occur based on political ramifications alone, as the government is typically not subject to self-corrective market forces while having a virtually unlimited budget at taxpayer expense. Hence government programs are famous for their abundant waste, fraud, and abuse in addition to their distinct lack of productivity and efficiency.

Yet instead of the government being recognized for such dysfunction when it increases its marketplace footprint, it is typically the marketplace that is blamed once again, with the government again being claimed to be the only viable solution. And when the highly predictable outcome repeats with yet greater vigor, the increased dysfunction is said to demand even more serious government intervention to counter the more serious marketplace villainy, and so on.

Share
Posted in Capitalism vs. Socialism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

More on the Future Perils of Postmodernism: Part V of V

 Plan For the Worst, as Someday the Worst Will Occur

As the most recent and best documented event in this line of ecological perturbations there is much to learn from the Little Ice Age that lasted from around 1350 to 1850 CE. For the major problems began around 1145 to 1200, when the Medieval Warm Period begin to drop off from its peak temperature.

That is, even though it remained quite warm by historical standards, which tends to promote maximal food supplies, especially with increased precipitation to match, the populations of the age had expanded commensurately. That is, the best of times tend to be marked by increasing supplies that occur during periods of increasing warmth. And once population levels catch up, moderate levels of competition resume quickly, such that even a minor ecological stressor can get bring on early signs of dark-age dynamics.

And it is these same evolutionary dynamics that dictate when recoveries begin to occur—not when resource supplies begin to increase, but when populations have been cut down to match the existing supplies. This is what spawned the Renaissance during the late 1400s, whereafter the combination of technological advance and warming temperatures again led to food abundance and population expansion.

Indeed, the Renaissance would lead the way for the European Enlightenment, the age of science, and the Industrial Revolution, all in the midst of some 500 years of warming as part of only the second climatic optimum of the last 125,000 years—all with regard to the greater Pleistocene ice-age cycle. In short, the combination of steady or increasingly warm temperatures combined with unprecedented technological advance has allowed for times of spectacular abundance for the human species over the last 500 years or so.

Unfortunately, this, once again, has left most with the seriously false perception that we modern humans are enjoying a new age consistent with the postmodern worldview—one in which such good times with abundant resources can be expected to continue forever more. Yet clearly this postmodernist assumption does not comport with the reality of the Pleistocene ice-age cycle, as well as all other major threats to human existence for that matter—such as those associated with supervolcanoes or asteroid impacts.

Indeed, as far as looming ice ages go, there are data that indicate for the last 15 years the temperature trend has been flat, and that for the last 2000 years there has been a slight temperature decline (all of which has sent Global Warming enthusiasts into a tizzy). Adding these short- and medium-term indicators to what we know of our place in longer-term cycles and patterns, there seems excellent reason to suspect were are scraping along the top of our current interglacial span and that some degree of temperature decline is immanent—perhaps one that will prove both steep and prolonged. This is something rendered all the more possible by the fact that the amplitude of the Pleistocene ice-age cycle has increased over time—with both temperature highs and lows being more extreme relative to the previous cycle.

Meanwhile, current human dynamics are also offering signs that the good times are coming to an end and that selection pressure is on the rise. For despite being in the warm, moist times that are producing abundant resources with the assistance of extreme technological amplification, there are many peoples throughout the world living at a subsistence level, often being subsidized by others, with local combat situations threatening to become regional combat situations. Indeed, not only is there only a three-month global surplus of food, plus or minus; most nations are feeling a renewed impulse to build up their military capacities.

And those that satisfy this impulse will indeed be viewed as the wiser ones somewhere along the line. For in contrast to postmodernists who conceive that one can act as one chooses without fear of consequences, evolutionary reality has forever rewarded those of all species that plan on the worst and hope for the best while pursuing maximal function and adaptivity—during good times and as well as bad times. For it will be those who are best prepared to deal with the bad times when the come that will be most likely to make the cut as natural selection runs its course.

 

 

Share
Posted in Modernism and Postmodernism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment