●The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.
●Austerity is the government’s method for widening the gap between rich and poor, which leads to civil disorder.
●Cutting the deficit is the government’s method for taking dollars from the middle class and giving them to the rich.
●Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
●To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments.
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
●The penalty for ignorance is slavery.
For every motive, there’s yet another motive
An article in New Scientist Magazine, ”The link between devaluing animals and discrimination,” makes a connection between our treatment of animals and our treatment of other human beings.
Our feelings about other animals have important consequences for how we treat humans
21 December 2012 by Gordon Hodson and Kimberly Costello
“AUSCHWITZ begins whenever someone looks at a slaughterhouse and thinks: they’re only animals,” wrote the philosopher and social commentator Theodor Adorno. He argued that humans degrade, exploit and willfully murder “under-valued” other people once they are considered to be animal-like.
Genocides can happen, therefore, when we think of members of other groups – outgroups – to be considerably less human than ourselves.
These observations led prejudice researchers, including us, at Brock University in Ontario, Canada, to develop two novel propositions about the nature of dehumanisation and prejudice. The first is that the perception of a divide between humans and animals fuels prejudice toward human outgroups, such as immigrants or racial minorities.
The second is that this animal-human divide effect is explained by heightened dehumanisation of the outgroups.
In previous posts we have argued that the public, already brainwashed into believing the federal deficit should be reduced, does not accept a scientifically-based, non-intuitive re-education in economics. Instead, we should indulge human nature, and provide the public with an intuitive, “National Enquirer” approach to learning: Begin with the scandal, then flesh it out with facts.
The scandal is: The upper .1% income group pays politicians (via campaign contributions) and the media via ownership) to increase the income gap by impoverishing the 99.9%.
The facts are:
*Deficit reduction is not necessary, indeed is harmful, in a Monetarily Sovereign nation, which has the unlimited ability to pay its bills.
*The upper .1% income group pays politicians and the media to lie about the need to reduce deficit spending, nearly all of which benefits the 99.9%, as a way to increase the income gap.
Increasing the gap is vital to the wealthy, because it is the gap, not absolute earnings, that defines “rich.” Were there no income gap, no one no one would be rich.
And that is where the above article comes to play, because deficit cutting is inhumane. It causes poverty, hunger, sickness, homelessness and every sort of human misery one can imagine. Even the most cynical occasionally must be struck by the cruelty of the .1% in dooming their fellow human beings, the 99.9%, to lives of pain, misery and despair. Austerity is the ultimate genocide.
But, the 99.9% are not viewed as human beings, perhaps not even as animals. In the eyes of the .1%, the 99.9% have become caricatures, viewed as lazy, indolent, lawless, and deserving of their misery. And that is not the worst of it.
Building on experiments with university students, the results provided direct evidence that young children dehumanise other children along racial lines.
We replicated these patterns among the parents. We were intrigued to find that parents who endorsed social hierarchy and inequality reared children with stronger beliefs in dehumanisation and racial prejudice.
Nothing startling here. Children raised by bigots are more likely to be bigots. Since the .1% are biased against the 99.9%, their children inherit that bias, and the anti-99.9%% bigotry continues through the generations.
However, it is not just the .1% who are biased. It is the 1%, the 10%, the 50%, indeed all groups seem to be biased against groups below them on the income scale. Groups near the bottom even seem biased against themselves, inheriting a group inferiority complex.
The implications are stunning. Everyone despises those below them, a phenomenon which plays directly into the .1%’s hands. When Republicans sneered about “food stamp queens,” much of America agreed.
Psychologically, the .1% are the “parents” of our economy, and they have reared us to dehumanize those earning less. So we accept the notion the poorer are sloths who deserve their misery, and those who ask help from the government are freeloaders.
This bias serves the .1%’s efforts well. It promotes acceptance of reduced benefits for lower income groups. In essence, even when a government action hurts those in one income group, they will accept it if it hurts a lower income group even more, widening the gap between them and the lower group.
The .1% plays on the common desire to widen gaps below. To change perceptions, Monetary Sovereignty must play on the common resentment at widening gaps above.
Summary: Human nature desires the gap below to be widened and the gap above to be narrowed. Deficit reduction punishes lower income groups most, thus widening all gaps, which benefits the wealthiest most.
The middle and lower classes have been brainwashed by the .1% (via their paid representatives, the politicians and the media) to ignore the widening of the higher income gaps and to relish widening the lower gaps. This is furthered by dehumanizing the lower income groups.
The solution is first to focus on the .1%’s shameful successes in widening the upper income gaps, and the scandal of how these successes were purchased. With that scandal as a platform, the 99.9% will be more amenable to discussions of economic facts.
That is what I term, “The National Enquirer approach to solving the mythical ‘deficit crisis.’” Reveal the scandal first; facts to follow.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Nine Steps to Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Medicare — parts A, B & D — for everyone
3. Send every American citizen an annual check for $5,000 or give every state $5,000 per capita (Click here)
4. Long-term nursing care for everyone
5. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone
6. Salary for attending school (Click here)
7. Eliminate corporate taxes
8. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually
9. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99%
No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia. Two key equations in economics:
Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption – Net Imports