Animals, Dervishes and Souls

From the point of view of empirical science it is as yet impossible to prove or disprove that there is such a thing as a "soul." Assuming that souls do in fact exist, it would be interesting to ask if not just humans but also animals have them. A couple of weeks ago I saw the documentary, "The Cove." One of the main points of the film is that dolphins have the intelligence and sense of ethics equivalent to that of humans, and they deserve the same basic respect as humankind. Is it fair to be dismissive of animals just because they see and act in ways that don't make sense to us humans?

Whether observing animals or humans, one should be careful about rejecting as bizarre any behavior that seems to make no sense. Today I saw a youtube video of whirling dervishes, men who spin around in a circle in order to attain spiritual enlightenment. Isn't it unfair to be dismissive of strange behavior simply because we initially perceive it to be pointless or silly?

I believe it is proper to extend the courtesy of not just panning another's misunderstood ways even if that other is an animal. If, for example, we see a dog chasing its tail, can one be ever so sure that in the universe of that dog his spinning in a circle is not some kind of a spiritual quest? According to principles of karma, someone laughing at a dog chasing its tail may find himself being reborn in another life as a whirling dog...

How Oligarchs Grab What is Yours

You may use points from this dialog to explain how oligarchs operate and how they become very comfortable enriching themselves at the expense of the poor and middle class.

Q. Times are getting tougher. European Central Bank economists have called for austerity measures around the world. Why?

A. The story goes, because governments around the world are in the red they cannot do what is expected of them: Things like rescues from natural disasters, law enforcement, keeping up the infrastructure, and last but not least, making sure that the poorest of the poor, even though they may not be entitled to shelter, have enough food to survive.

Q. So it would mean that governments, if they want to remain in existence, need to cut services. A sudden stoppage of all the services would be too much of a shock for any given country. If for example, roads would no longer be repaired, laws no longer enforced, fire fighting no longer available etc., even some of the very wealthiest would be unhappy because if a fire went out of control in a middle class area, the fire might spread to the more upscale neighborhood. So, where can governments cut?

A. As perhaps a majority of the wealthy would not want any cuts on any service that might affect them personally--an example might be the elimination of air traffic control because it would effect the flying safety of private jets--the areas that could be cut are the so-called entitlements...

Q. Like what?

A. Anything that would benefit people of middle and lower income. Food stamps and shelters for the very poor, aid to schools and universities, health care, subsidies to Amtrak, infrastructure grants to small and large communities etc.

Q. Are you trying to say that "entitlements" are services that the wealthy think those with less money are not entitled to?

A. Exactly.

Q. Why? What's the philosophy behind that?

A. It is a philosophy that says the wealthy deserve what they get and that they merit their fortune by being "chosen." As evidence that this is so they assume that people with low net worth are simply not worth as much as human beings and therefore are not entitled to "entitlements."

Q. They don't actually say that?

A. No, but they act it. Even though many of the wealthy have never ever produced anything of value, they assume that they have earned all they own.

Q. You are not being clear.

A. Take, for example, executives in the banking sector. They may have made good decisions in their lending or investments benefiting their institution, or they may have made decisions that ran their bank into bankruptcy. At the end of a year they still collect millions in salary and bonuses, simply because they have made arrangements that as corporate officers they will get paid, not for performance, but for the position they have assumed in the corporation.

Q. Who makes the decisions about how much money executives get and how do the decision makers justify giving high compensations to non-performers?

A. It is the board of directors who decides. Board members also get paid without having to perform. As to giving huge bonuses to non-performing executives, they claim it is necessary to pay such high compensations so that they can compete for top level talent with other corporations.

Q. Doesn't sound too logical to me. Why would they want executives with ever higher compensations to run companies into the ground?

A. Because in today's financial world there is money to be made whether the value of a company goes up or down.

Q. This does not make any sense at all.

A. It makes sense when you begin to understand how derivatives work. Derivatives work like insurance policies. If you take out an insurance policy on a house and that house burns down, you break even when the policy pays off. But if you buy several insurance policies on the same house and it burns to the ground, you win by however many policies you have bought. So where your property value was that of one house, you now have a property value of five houses if you bought five policies.

Q. So holders of the right derivatives make out when sectors of the economy collapse?

A. Yup, and they get away with it because people don't know how derivatives work...

How Corporate Cost-Cutting Makes People Invisible

A Dialog Between Quincy and Arthur

Q. It is January 2011. There is talk about the economy improving because the largest companies in the United States are going to report greater profits. Does that mean that those without jobs will soon be getting back to work?

A. That would be good news, but it is simply not so.

Q. Why not?

A. Because greater profits more often than not mean the company has saved on costs. And what are costs? Perhaps the greatest cost factor generally is the cost of labor. When companies save on the "cost of labor," it simply means they spend less money on salaries and wages. And that means fewer people, both blue and white collar, earning less money.

Q. Yes, it is hard to see how the economy is improving when people have fewer jobs and get paid less. It just does not make sense that when corporations are earning more, people are not better off. Where does the money go that is earned?

A. While some of the earnings translate into dividends for investors, a greater part goes to the top of the company and to its cost-saving base. It is no secret that every year company executives, whether in sectors like banking, insurance or manufacturing give themselves huge sums in salaries and bonuses.

Q. What about that money going to the bottom? Doesn't the staff at the middle and at the bottom also benefit?

A. Well, it depends how you define "staff at the middle and bottom." In a traditional American corporation it meant skilled and unskilled blue collar workers and white collar staff from middle management on down. The salary schedule would be somewhat standardized as the pay at one company would be roughly the same for the same tasks as that of other companies. For a company to remain reasonably profitable, management would strive for reasonable compensation at all levels.

Q. That sounds like everybody would be kept happy, so where is the problem?

A. The problem lies with top management. Ideally, the mission of a business is to serve society through whatever its product or services are while making a profit doing so. In this process small companies are like families, larger companies are like communities ranging from small towns to large cities and so on. Whatever the nature of the community there is a greater or lesser connection between those on top with those at the middle and the bottom. Ideally there is a measure of respect for a person at one level for anyone at any other level.

Q. Looks like you are painting an idyllic picture. So what can go wrong?

A. Communities fail when their members become confused about their priorities. With a business operation two main priorities are contributing to society with products or services on the one hand and earning enough money to keep the business viable. Where decades ago the two elements were somewhat balanced, it is no secret that today making money far outweighs any other priority. So one of the quickest ways for management to increase earnings is to cut as much of the funds going to the middle and lower strata of its workforce.

Q. So how do corporations manage? Wouldn't operations simply break down if most of the workforce were eliminated?

A. Yes, companies cannot survive without a workforce. But at this point in history, an American company can do without an American workforce. At this point you might have guessed how top management keeps operations going without paying the kind of salaries middle and working class Americans are used to.

Q. Well, it's obvious. They simply send the high-paying jobs overseas to China or India, right?

A. That's it--exactly. If you want get your work done cheaper, you outsource. There is nothing easier.

Q. But isn't there an obstacle to laying off practically an entire workforce, how can top management simply get rid of people who have worked loyally for years and years?

A. It is difficult if there is a sense of community within a firm, but there is none. If there is a sense of community, those who have the power to hire and fire hesitate to visit economic disaster upon people they know and feel close to. But with most of today's corporations upper management functions within a gated community, and those who are outside the gates are considered nothing more than a cost factor.

Q. Strange--what does this lead to? What happens when human beings are nothing more than cost factors?

A. There is a major psychological shift. As long as a person is seen as a human being, he or she benefits from a cultural value system: Thou shalt not steal, nor lie , nor above all not kill. But as long as someone is nothing but a cost factor, he can be annihilated quite easily because costs are there to be cut.

Q. So any idea of how many formerly employed humans who were eliminated as "cost factors" there in the U.S.?

A. The official figure is around thirteen million, but it is probably a lot higher because long-term unemployed are no longer part of the statistics.

Q. So what happens to all these people?

A. Some try their very best to get back to work in their area of expertise--if there is nothing where they can apply their skills, they become willing to accept any job whatsoever. If they can't get any kind of job at all, their new economic reality pushes them into becoming invisible.

Q. Hmmm, why invisible?

A. A job or any valid source of income provides dignity. Having neither job nor income brings with it a sense of shame for being seen as someone who cannot function in life. The jobless/incomeless person tends to keep his lack of wherewithal under wraps to avoid embarrassment. More often than not the need to become invisible is met through a life of seclusion.

Q. So what does that mean?

A. Someone whose identity has been annihilated because he was no more than a cost factor that has been cut will have to find a new path in life.

Q. How do you do that? Is there a formula?

A. There is no formula and there is no easy answer. One may look for a clue in two words adopted from the collapse of the Soviet Union: glasnost and perestroika...

How Can We Pull Out of the Recession?

Q. What is a recession?

A. It is a period in which the middle and working class have less money to spend, and as a result, those who earn money when consumers buy things also earn less. As car dealers sell fewer and fewer cars, they have to let go of sales associates, and the sales associates in turn can't afford to buy furniture, and the furniture stores close causing more layoffs etc. etc.

Q. It sounds like the general public is running out of money. If almost nobody has any money, how can the economy keep going?

A. Well, it can't. People draw on their reserves, and once these are gone more and more activity comes to a halt.

Q. What about the government? Can't the government create jobs?

A. Yes, it can. It can create public works projects.

Q. So why can't the government start more and more projects and get people get back to work so that the recession ends?

A. As long as government infuses more and more money into society, there will be more and more activity. And more activity does mean more jobs. More jobs gives people more money to spend. As more is spent more taxes are collected, and with more tax revenue coming in the government can start even more projects with the result that more people get back on their feet.

Q. But there are those who say it's time to pull back on spending to make the economy healthy. What's wrong with that?

A. A society with a bad economy is like a person who is sick. If someone is sick because he or she is starving or dehydrated, it makes no sense to save on food and water just so his personal budget is balanced. If you need to make debts to keep someone alive, you don't ask whether or not money spent on recovery increases size of the person's debt.

Q. Are you trying to suggest the government should simply print more money and hand it out to the public without any limitations?

A. That is not the way to go. The government has incredible investigative and research capacities. A major part of the money lost in the last two to three years was lost through high risk speculation. Speculation is a form of gambling, and gambling there is always a winner and a loser. Government investigators and researchers need to find out who the winners in the financial contest are, and where they are hiding their money.

Q. This just does not make sense. Can you give me one example of who might be a winner in the market collapse we have just seen?

A. Examples of winners are those who made bets that the housing market would fall. Betting in the financial market place is done through derivatives. A speculator buys bonds or funds that pay off in case of a market fall. Once the market has actually fallen, he quietly picks up his cash. Most people don't know such speculators exist, let alone how they operate. The source of the money lost through gambling is to a great extent money gotten from people who listened to deceptive investment advice. Deception is a first cousin to fraud. Money fraudulently acquired is stolen money, and once stolen goods end up with an even unknowing buyer the goods once found are to be returned to the person they were stolen from.

Q. Are you saying that those who gambled against people's investments are in actuality beneficiaries of stolen goods?

A. Maybe not directly within legal terms. But they are benefiting from the hardships that were bestowed on innocent people. Without fraud and deception, the gamblers betting on a market downturn would have had nothing to gamble with. So the government needs to find creative means to get back that which was stolen.

In Defense of Craigslist

One of the activists on a website called change. org succeeded to rally enough support to get Craigslist to shut down its adult services section because it "promotes child sex trafficking." Activists are now promoting a movement to prohibit such internet communications altogether. While I agree with a lot of what change. org promotes, I strongly feel its attack on Craigslist for its adult services is wrong because it encourages the suppression of some very basic human rights.

Yes, child abuse, especially child prostitution is wrong, but it is equally wrong to close down a message center where consenting adults seek other consenting adults to join them for sexual pleasure.

The quest for sexual liberation has been a long-fought battle in the history of western society. As late as the 1950s, the Catholic Church succeeded in getting any scene censored in any movie showing two adults being intimate beyond a closed-mouthed brief kiss. Unmarried people could not get an apartment unless they lied about their marital status. Promiscuity was fought so intensely that people who wanted carnal variety had little choice but to become serial husbands and wives with one divorce after another.

It was in the sixties that sexual liberation made its greatest strides reaching its foremost achievement in 1973 with Roe v Wade when a woman was granted the right to decide who entered her body and which embryo would be allowed to stay in her womb. Eventually both women and men would be given the freedom to have sex with partners of their preferred gender.

As for prostitution, it should be a basic right of any adult as to circumstances under which carnal contact is entered. If a woman or a man decides to take cash for having sex with multiple partners or to attach him or herself to a long-term partner for financial advantages, he or she needs to be recognized as having the right to do so.

We know that there is a potential danger in any given human activity. Dating on campuses is good for the social life of young people, but if someone happens to go on a date with a sexual predator he or she may end up being raped. Medicine that heals can be abused if taken in large dosages. Alcoholic drinks can relax many a social function, but most of us know the tragedies that may result from their abuse.

What is the answer for dealing with potential dangers resulting from human pleasurable activities? Should we outlaw dating because it might result in rape or in STDs? Should we make the use of herbal and pharmaceutical substances so difficult that anyone violating the norm for consumption in the slightest risks incarceration at any moment? Should we outlaw the sale of alcohol and close all bars as was done in the 1920s so as to eliminate the evils of intoxication?

As to the wrongness of human trafficking and child abuse, there is enough legislation in place to deal with transgressions in these areas. Our laws outlawing slavery and protecting children from abuse are adequate if enforced sensibly and judiciously. There is no more need to shut down the adult section of Craigslist than there is to close the bars, casinos and brothels of Nevada. As for the internet, there is so little in the way of safeguards of privacy that catching online criminals becomes easier by the minute.

The right to a life of freedom includes the right to enjoy being "sinful," and there may be few wrongs worse than to deprive people of that right.

Why Raising Taxes on the Wealthy Helps Everyone, Including the Rich

Q. What's the story with tax cuts? Taxes were cut again and again during the Bush II years. The U.S. was supposed to prosper more and more because as taxes were being cut, people would have a lot more money in their pockets. What happened?

A. The tax cuts didn't do much of anything for most people.

Q. Why not?

A. Well, ten percent of the population has seventy-one percent of liquid assets (stocks, bonds and cash holdings). The other ninety percent of the population owns the other twenty-nine percent. But to make it even clearer, assets owned by the lower fifty percent of the population amount to only 2.5 percent of the nation's total. So if you have a general tax cut across the board, the extra money the lower income half of the population gains or loses does not have much of an impact at all.

Q. So what's the message?

A. It does not make sense to tax that lower fifty percent of the population with 2.5 percent of the the total wealth, because practically all of their income is money already in circulation. You need to take the money from the top ten percent.

Q. Why?

A. Although there are investors in the top ten percent whose money is invested in solid companies that produce much needed goods and services, there are also speculators who use other people's hard earned cash to gamble in derivatives.

Q. Do you have any evidence that lowering taxes on the wealthy is bad for the general public's living standards while raising taxes on the rich benefits the whole country?

A. Yes. In the roaring twenties (1918-1929) the top marginal income tax rate (that's the rate paid by the rich) went from 60% on incomes over 100,000 in 1920 down to 25% in 1929. A major part of the money not paid in taxes now went, instead of going to the government, into the hands of speculators who had only one interest: to make more and more money. High risk speculators are gamblers who use the stock market as their casino.

Q. Can you explain?

A. Like gambling, high risk trading in the financial markets becomes an addiction. A gambler at a roulette table experiences the thrill of a winning bet. As the thrill lasts only a short time , a player will put his winnings back on the table, hoping to recapture the exhilaration again and again by doubling and then quadrupling his money etc. This goes on until the player's luck changes and he loses all he has won the last time he doubles his bet.

Q. So the big market crash in 1929 came as thousands of gamblers lost their shirts in the stock market?

A. Yes, and as the gamblers lost everything, they could no longer pay debts owed on houses, businesses and other loans. This set off a domino effect. Banks who had lent money to people who had been able to repay their loans before the crash now had to write off the loans because their borrowers no longer had an income. For so many of the banks and their customers bankruptcy was the only option. People became desperate for money to keep farms producing, to keep businesses going and to get food on the table.

Q. Isn't that an oversimplification? Weren't there those among the wealthy who managed to hang on to their money and property because they were simply better at financial management? Why should they care about reckless gamblers who lost everything? Would there be a risk that the disciplined and wise who have survived the economic collapse might experience losses of their own?

A. Perhaps not at first. But if not stopped, economic decay brings social collapse. Without recovery, cities eventually turn into ghost towns, people die of starvation, communicable diseases begin to ravage the country, and eventually even the wealthiest of the wealthy would be unable to escape ravaging pandemics.

Q. So ultimately, it is to the interest of the wealthy to have a prosperous country with healthy people?

A. Without a doubt.

Q. So how did the country pull out of depression?

A. When businesses, factories and farms no longer had any cash to stay operational, they looked to the government for a rescue. The government, in order to bring society back on its feet, created jobs through public works projects and other means.

Q. So how did the government get the money?

A. In 1932 the government raised the marginal tax rate on $100,000 that had been lowered to 25% back up to 56% and this made it possible to finance a recovery. People got back to work as dams, roads and public buildings were built, and after the end of World War II, ordinary people managed to find prosperity as the government educated returning soldiers through the G.I. bill.

Q. How was it possible to get the money to educate millions of returning soldiers?

A. It was possible because the government imposed a marginal tax rate of 92% on $100,000 in 1945. A rate of 89% in 1946 stayed in place until 1954. Then the rate was lowered gradually until it hovered around 75% through the early 1960s. It was a time during which the U.S. became the greatest industrial power of the world, with the result that not just the rich, but everyone got richer.

---Tax data based on figures provided by the Tax Foundation, http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

How Can We Pull Out of the Recession?

Q. What is a recession?

A. It is a period in which the middle and working class have less money to spend, and as a result, those who earn money when consumers buy things also earn less. As car dealers sell fewer and fewer cars, they have to let go of sales associates, and the sales associates in turn can't afford to buy furniture, and the furniture stores close causing more layoffs etc. etc.

Q. It sounds like the general public is running out of money. If almost nobody has any money, how can the economy keep going?

A. Well, it can't. People draw on their reserves, and once these are gone more and more activity comes to a halt.

Q. What about the government? Can't the government create jobs?

A. Yes, it can. It can create public works projects.

Q. So why can't the government start more and more projects and get people get back to work so that the recession ends?

A. As long as government infuses more and more money into society, there will be more and more activity. And more activity does mean more jobs. More jobs gives people more money to spend. As more is spent more taxes are collected, and with more tax revenue coming in the government can start even more projects with the result that more people get back on their feet.

Q. But there are those who say it's time to pull back on spending to make the economy healthy. What's wrong with that?

A. A society with a bad economy is like a person who is sick. If someone is sick because he or she is starving or dehydrated, it makes no sense to save on food and water just so his personal budget is balanced. If you need to make debts to keep someone alive, you don't ask whether or not money spent on recovery increases size of the person's debt.

Q. Are you trying to suggest the government should simply print more money and hand it out to the public without any limitations?

A. That is not the way to go. The government has incredible investigative and research capacities. A major part of the money lost in the last two to three years was lost through high risk speculation. Speculation is a form of gambling, and gambling there is always a winner and a loser. Government investigators and researchers need to find out who the winners in the financial contest are, and where they are hiding their money.

Q. This just does not make sense. Can you give me one example of who might be a winner in the market collapse we have just seen?

A. Examples of winners are those who made bets that the housing market would fall. Betting in the financial market place is done through derivatives. A speculator buys bonds or funds that pay off in case of a market fall. Once the market has actually fallen, he quietly picks up his cash. Most people don't know such speculators exist, let alone how they operate. The source of the money lost through gambling is to a great extent money gotten from people who listened to deceptive investment advice. Deception is a first cousin to fraud. Money fraudulently acquired is stolen money, and once stolen goods end up with an even unknowing buyer the goods once found are to be returned to the person they were stolen from.

Q. Are you saying that those who gambled against people's investments are in actuality beneficiaries of stolen goods?

A. Maybe not directly within legal terms. But they are benefiting from the hardships that were bestowed on innocent people. Without fraud and deception, the gamblers betting on a market downturn would have had nothing to gamble with. So the government needs to find creative means to get back that which was stolen.