Just Who Is Trump Running Against?

Recently billionaire Donald Trump announced a bid for the Republican nomination for the presidency. He said a lot of things, some basically true, some "iffy," some absolute nonsense, in my opinion, but one of the things that caught my attention was how he seems to have taken up the mantle of Ross Perot, who ran for president as an independent (at first), in 1992, when there was an incumbent Republican president, George H.W. Bush, who I usually refer to as "Bush, Sr." When Perot, actually a Republican, ran, we had had nearly twelve years of Republican presidential rule; eight years under Ronald Reagan, and going on four years under Bush, Sr. Perot clearly touched a nerve in the country, as for a time, he led in many of the polls taken in the spring and summer of 1992. One of Perot's most potent issues was his opposition to trade agreements that would send many American jobs, especially in manufacturing, out of the country. The thing was, while the two major political parties of that time were somewhat different from what they are today, Republican support for such agreements was strong, while Democratic support was far less, with a good many Democrats fervently against such agreements. It was during Reagan's time as president that the U.S. began experiencing balance-of-trade deficits with China.* So was Perot admitting he had made a mistake supporting Reagan and then Bush? Is Trump, who preached about China's economic power, admitting he made a mistake supporting Republicans who generally favored free trade laws?

Perot also touched another nerve over the national debt, a number which had soared on the Reagan and Bush watch. He made fun of "voodoo economics," an expression used by Bush, Sr. to describe Ronald Reagan's economic plan, when the two ran against each other in the 1980 Republican primaries. Reagan's plan essentially called for huge tax cuts, big increases in military spending, and (mostly) unspecified budget cuts, but that the tax cuts would "pay for themselves," by stimulating the economy, and they would not cause deficits. While most segments of the taxpaying public saw some money from the tax cuts, the biggest beneficiaries were the wealthy. The economy boomed, but so did deficits. Perot mentioned the "voodoo economics," followed by "we're now in deep voodoo," a play on "doo doo," for those unaware.** So was Perot admitting he had made a mistake supporting Reagan and Bush?

Anyway, Trump emphasized he would bring back American jobs from overseas, but he didn't say exactly how he would do so. Many politicians have railed against the loss of jobs to other countries, but there really hasn't been anyone, Republican or Democrat, who really has presented a firm plan, that has public support, to do so. Since I do a lot about words, let me do some translation here. American businesses often moved plants and jobs overseas for one reason, and only one reason .... to make MONEY! Capitalism is about one thing and only one thing ... making MONEY! It is NOT about you or your family, or educating your children, or providing you with affordable medical care, or providing for you in your old age, or providing for you in your younger age, for that matter. No, it is about investors making money! Big business and its investors saw foreign labor markets where workers made a fraction of what American workers made, and they made the conscious decision to move work to other countries, especially once American tariffs were reduced or abolished, thus making it cheaper to send the produced goods from these low wage nations to this country. The so called "free traders," often more from the conservative side of the political spectrum, didn't scream about patriotism or traitorous behavior or any such other things. This was about making MONEY!

So does Donald Trump propose to make American wages and benefits even lower to bring back jobs from overseas? Does he propose to raise taxes on companies who send jobs overseas? Just what does he propose to do? Over time, wages in some countries have risen, making some American companies consider moving some jobs back to America, and from what I understand, that has been actually happening to some degree, but I'm not exactly sure how much of this has been happening.

Trump also talked about workers who can't get jobs, and he more or less promised to see that everyone has a job, because that will make those people have more self respect, although I just forget his exact words. The thing is, if wages and benefits are reduced enough, just about anyone could have a job, BUT will they be able to live on the pay? Will they be able to save for their future? Will they be able to raise a family? Will they be able to get good educations for their children? Will they be able to afford health care for themselves and their families? Or will they be worked for long hours for little pay and few if any benefits, just to make sure people like Donald Trump make billions? What is your answer to that question, Donald Trump? And just which party are you actually running against?***

* See: http://www.iie.com/content/?ID=27

** "Doo doo" is a nice way of saying "shit," and Perot played on the expression, "We're in deep shit."

*** Trump also told supporters how the U.S. has spent two trillion dollars in Iraq, with the implication being that it was wrong to do so, but the funny thing is, it was the Republican Bush-Cheney administration that sent the troops there in the first place. So is this an admission by Trump that he supported the wrong political party?
       
WORD HISTORY:
Weave-This word, related to "web," goes back to Indo European "webh," which meant "to weave." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "weban(an)," with the same meaning. This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "wefan," also with the same meaning, and this then became "weven/weaven," before the modern version. The noun was derived from the verb. The other Germanic languages have: German "weben," ^ Low German and Dutch "weven," West Frisian "weve" (little used?), Danish "væve," Icelandic "vefa," Norwegian "veve," and Swedish "väva."

^ The common German name "Weber" is simply "Weaver" in English.

Where Are You In The Food Chain?

The retreat to the time of winner take all capitalism in America means just that, winner take all. The purists on the right, and the more anti business elements on the far left, have formed something of an alliance, although only by conviction, not by their respect for each other. The purists on the right say, "No bailouts, businesses either sink or swim, but if you swim, you deserve to shoot for domination," although they can't or won't tell people what that really means.* The "sink" part is clear, if the auto industry is on the verge of failure like a few years ago, "The hell with 'em. Business decisions have consequences, and we all have to tough it out. If you're an investor who will lose your investment, oh well; if you're a worker who will lose your job, oh well; if you run a business that will fail because of dependence on the auto industry, oh well. If unemployment goes up by hundreds of thousands or even millions, oh well, and we aren't too crazy about giving you unemployment benefits either, you bunch of lazy losers, so if we have our way, benefits will be severely limited, or eliminated. And don't tell us how unemployment benefits stimulate the economy, because we don't believe in stimulating the economy, even though people say our conservative god, Ronald Reagan, stimulated the economy with tax cuts, military spending and huge budget deficits, that's all just a big lie, and don't try showing us the numbers either, they've just been cooked up by the liberal media. You can't have freedom if you bail out the companies, and you may not realize it, but if you lose your job or your business, that's freedom, worship it, and don't look for the taxpayer cavalry to come riding to the rescue. If other nations come to dominate the auto industry, that's the price you pay for a free society and free markets, even if those other nations do provide government assistance to business; we pity them for such a practice." 

What is the ultimate effect of "winner take all?" Well let's put it this way, we're all pretty much on the menu, because the economic food chain will have the better off devouring those less well off, but those at the top will have one hell of a feast, because they will dominate EVERYTHING, a position they are not far from achieving, so if this absolute economic nonsense continues, you might as well decide if you want to be served with an apple in your mouth, or maybe with just a little parsley, when you are presented on a platter for the winner take all philosophy and the consequent idea that there's really no American nation, but only a bunch of individuals who deserve to be dominated by the successful. Of course, if outside enemies threaten the success of those magnificent successes, YOU will then be expected to defend the nation "of the wealthy, by the wealthy, and for the wealthy," or you will be dubbed "unpatriotic."

* Opponents of bailouts on the left just feel it is wrong to give money to business, while they too seem to be oblivious to the economic consequences, although some on the far left hope that such calamity will radicalize the American middle class.

Capitalism & Long Term, Broad-based Prosperity, Part Two

In 1970 the Vietnam War was raging and U.S. military forces were deployed around the world, with more than 250,000 being stationed just in Europe. The U.S. military in 1970 totaled more than 3 million (active) men and women. By 1975 that number had dropped by almost a million. In 1995 the total was just above 1.5 million, and since 1996 the total number has been "around" 1.4 million; that is, less than half the total in 1970.

In 1970, the unemployment rate in January was 3.9%, but it had climbed to 6.1% by the end of the year. In 1975 unemployment was 8.1% in January and 8.2% at the end of the year. When Ronald Reagan took office for his second term in January 1985, the unemployment rate was 7.3% and was 7.0% by the end of the year, and 5.4% when he left office. When Bill Clinton took the oath for his second term, unemployment was 5.6% and was the exact same rate at the end of the year, and 4.2% when he left office. When George W. Bush took office for his second term in January 2005, unemployment was 5.3% and 4.9% at the end of the year, and was 7.8% when he left office.*  

Critics of capitalism over time have contended that the economic system heavily benefits those lucky enough to get to the top, or those already there by birth, and that capitalism can't provide long term, broad-based prosperity without large scale war to bolster the economy. Nothing I publish here, now or in the future, will resolve that debate, but hopefully you will come away with an understanding of the debate, although the idea that those born into wealthy families having a DECIDED advantage over others is hardly in dispute, except for perhaps some on the right, who seem to view this as an "entitlement."** The direction of the economy can be influenced  by a number of factors, not just wars, but as can be seen in the numbers above, the American military has been relatively stable in numbers for quite a long period. Any war where you risk your life is a major war, but in terms of numbers, the wars and military actions since Vietnam have not involved as large a number of troops as that war, which itself didn't compare to the huge military commitment of World War Two, when more than 16 million Americans served in the military. In 1944, when U.S. forces and the American economy were both fully engaged in World war Two, unemployment was about 1%.***

So, as the American military scaled back, unemployment has bounced around, and unemployment has even dropped to fairly low levels at times, but only temporarily, and income disparity has increased. After 9/11, President George W. Bush ordered an invasion of Afghanistan, followed not long thereafter by an invasion of Iraq. Any effect on unemployment seems to have been little, if any, but there was not an increase in the overall number of Americans in the military, nor did the country require a huge build up in military goods and equipment. If we, or any other country, concentrate on building loads of military goods, even, or especially, in times of relative peace, when do we begin to look like Nazi Germany? When Hitler took power, he used a number of things, like public works projects, to help the German economy rebound from the Great Depression. Later he shifted much of the effort into both the expansion of the German military in manpower and weaponry.****

Purist capitalism has lots of rough edges, and, in my opinion, they have to be filed down in order to have reasonable periods of prosperity for many and not just the few. Business people resist hiring, by nature; after all, if you own or have owned a business, do (did) you just go out and hire people without the business to sustain such employment? The notion by some that there is (or has been) some sort of conspiracy by business people to keep unemployment high just doesn't wash with me. With some nutcase right wing business people? Maybe, but the desire to make money is too strong for most people, and that includes us further down the income scale.

When Ronald Reagan was in office, unemployment dropped from nearly 11% about midway in Reagan's first term to 5.4% when he left office in January 1989, BUT there were huge deficits run every year of his presidency. Now, I'm not against Keynesian economic policies in their proper place, but Reagan "claimed" to be a conservative. Ever since, conservatives have tried to give Reagan credit for the drop in unemployment, but place the blame for the huge deficits on Democrats. This is an attempt to have it both ways, or actually, multiple ways. Conservatives argued that the New Deal spent money foolishly and that it did not end the Great Depression. They then turned right around (no pun intended) and said that the huge spending and deficits of World War Two ended the economic downturn. Either increased government spending helps or it doesn't. Pick one, please! With Reagan, huge government deficits helped reduce unemployment, but then conservatives blamed the deficits on Democrats, claiming Reagan's tax cuts saved the economy (conveniently leaving out the number of times taxes were raised under Reagan) and that tax cuts "pay for themselves;" thus not increasing the deficit. With such huge deficit spending an issue, the Reagan administration then argued "the deficits don't matter." Conservatives continued to blame Democrats for the deficits, always saying "Democrats blocked Reagan on budget cuts." Nonsense! Reagan had "working majorities" in Congress much of the time; after all, that's how he got a number of things passed. The fact is, he NEVER proposed a balanced budget, nor did he indicate how a balanced budget should be achieved. My overall point here is, you can't claim purist "capitalism" brought unemployment down, rather huge government outlays and Reagan's military build-up (which took much of the added spending) did so, or at least had much to do with lowering the unemployment rate. If you worked in an industry that benefited from military production, you too benefited, but the 1980s saw an overall decline in the middle class, as unions lost favor,***** indeed hastened by Reagan's anti-union policy, which began to give American business a grip on the country which has only increased incredibly since then. 

So my answer is, no, purist capitalism cannot produce long term, broad-based prosperity. Purist capitalism may well need help from wars, although the kinds of wars that produce mass employment seem to be a thing of the past. Capitalism needs help in reducing income disparity and in keeping it from self destruction, and that means it then is not "purist" capitalism, although today's Republicans seem bound and determined to take the country down the road to purity. That is a dangerous path for us, and for capitalists.

* Statistics are from the Department of Labor/Bureau of Labor Statistics.

** "If" concerted efforts by Republicans to repeal inheritance taxes on the wealthiest Americans succeed, this will indeed become even more of an "entitlement" than it is now. Even some very wealthy Americans fear this will establish a true "aristocracy" in America in place of a "meritocracy;" that is, a system where a person is rewarded by their merits (achievements). An "aristocracy" is a system where people of wealth and high social standing rule by inheritance, regardless of any achievement, or perhaps, even in spite of any achievement.

*** It would be interesting to know who made up this 1% (we know who makes up the 1% in today's jargon; the wealthiest Americans), as labor was in such short supply during the World War Two, that many women who were previously out of the labor force took jobs, some of which had been seen as "man's work," in  factories that produced military goods. "Rosie the Riveter" became a popular song and poster figure representing American women working for the war effort.

**** Some would undoubtedly argue that Hitler even used the public works projects to plan for military actions, and I would agree, BUT better highways, railways, ports, and waterways do not HAVE to be used solely for military purposes. As a kid I recall some people talking about America's then developing interstate highway system as being for war (it was the Cold War era). Defense planning was undoubtedly taken into consideration as part of the program, but not exclusively, and it would have been irresponsible not to consider such measures, but by the time of interstates, the idea of some mass invasion of America by conventional forces was lessening, as long-range missiles had become the concern. Hitler, on the other hand, was able to mask his aggressive military plans in eastern Europe, to some degree, with Germany's Autobahn system being seen as a measure to bring Germany more into the automotive age, which was undoubtedly part of the plan, too. The Autobahns were then coupled with plans to build an affordable car for Germans, the Volkswagen. The mass production of the Volkswagen, however, was interrupted by the war and did not take place until the postwar period. Militarily Hitler faced a problem not historically unique to German leaders; potentially hostile forces on both Germany's eastern (Poland, Czechoslovakia, Soviet Union) and western (France and probably Britain) borders. Improved transportation between Germany's border areas would allow him to shuttle troops to either border much more quickly, something that indeed happened during World War Two. Hitler's pact with Mussolini secured Germany's southern border, which by 1938 included Austria, thus making the southern border directly up against Italy.

***** Not every decline in unions or in the middle class can be pinned on Reagan, as some things were "in motion" when he took office, but his policies certainly seemed to make a bad situation worse.    

WORD HISTORY:
Broad-The origins of this fairly common word are unknown; in fact, its forms are only found in the Germanic languages. Old Germanic had "braidaz," which meant "spacious, wide." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon)  "brad," with a long 'a' sound, and with the same general meaning. This then became "brode," before the modern version. The expression that something is "as broad as it is wide" is certainly true, because "broad" and "wide" really mean the same thing. The noun slang form for "a woman" started in the early 20th Century in America, but the exact reason is uncertain, although some attribute it to "broad hips." Common in the other Germanic languages: German has "breit," Low German Saxon has "breet," West Frisian and Dutch have "breed," East Frisian, Swedish, Norwegian and Danish all have "bred," and Icelandic has breithur. Like their English relative, these all mean "broad, wide."

Capitalism & Long Term, Broad-based Prosperity, Part One

Can capitalism create broad-based prosperity for a long period of time? Progressives have argued that capitalism can only sustain full employment and reasonable wages (and benefits) during times of major war, when large parts of the working population serves in the military, leaving job openings to the civilian population. The scarcity of labor then drives up wages (and potentially benefits), as businesses try to attract and keep workers. When I was much younger, this was one of the big economic arguments between both sides of the political spectrum, as the political feelings of the Vietnam War and the Cold War also stirred debate about economics, particularly capitalism.

When I studied economics in college, the term often used to describe the American economy of those times was "mixed." Our economy was basically "free enterprise" (I don't hear that term used as much anymore); that is, privately owned businesses, but with government regulations (federal, state or local) of certain business activities or practices* and with government programs, such as Social Security, income or medical assistance for certain elements of the population, usually elderly, although not necessarily poor, or for low income people, financed by special taxes or.by taxes paid into the general fund, which gave the American economy a socialist element (in the sense of 'shared responsibility in caring for others'). Laws and programs put in place during the Great Depression, and then during World War Two, and the expansion of American labor unions, helped smooth out the high level of income disparity prevalent before the Great Depression. Disparity remained relatively contained until the late 1970s, and it has only grown since that time, with huge increases in inequality since the late 1980s.

In Part Two I will have some data for various years.

* Just for example, "child labor laws" prohibited children being exploit...ah, I mean being employed by business. Minimum wage laws are self-explanatory, and overtime laws gave employees the right to higher wages after working so many hours, usually 40 hours per week. Banking laws kept traditional banking, like checking/savings accounts and home/auto loans, separate from riskier investment banking, like investing money in the stock market.

WORD HISTORY:
Long- This is the adjective meaning "measurement distance of a physical object or a duration of time." It is sometimes also used as an adverb. The word goes back to Indo European "dlonghos," which meant "long." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "lang(g)az," with the same meaning. This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "lang" and "long," depending upon dialect, and it was quite some time before the spelling "long" won out. Very common in the other Germanic languages: German, Low German, Frisian, and Dutch all have "lang," pronounced similarly to "long", although some Low German dialect has "lank," with the harder ending sound. Norwegian and Danish also have "lang," Swedish has "lång," and Icelandic has "langur."

Help Limit The Power Of The Rich & Powerful-VOTE!

Those old enough should remember Ross Perot's remark about the trade legislation of the early and mid 1990s, that it would cause a "large sucking sound" of American jobs being sent elsewhere.* Actually the "sucking sound" has been around for decades now, but we just didn't realize what it was, or maybe we just didn't want to know what it was. It has been the sound of money and wealth being sucked out of the wallets, pocketbooks, bank accounts, and home values of just about everyone living on the under side of a million bucks, give or take a few hundred thousand. A TREMENDOUS transfer of wealth has been taking place. Don't look the other way anymore folks, because this is serious. Reality can be tough to face, but if you supported, or "turned a blind eye to" the policies of the past three plus decades, don't be ashamed to admit your mistake. It is NOT too late, but action must come soon.

We barely escaped a total worldwide economic meltdown comparable to the Great Depression, and probably worse, just a few years ago. Why? Many people worldwide took time to forget all of the scare tactics used "to keep them in line" for the conservative; that is, wealthy interests' cause. Money was pumped into the world economy to avert an even more serious downturn, and an even "Greater Depression" instead became the "Great Recession." We are NOT out of the woods! The world economy is still hanging by a thread, and the rightwing elitists around the world have counterattacked by declaring "austerity" is the only way out; of course, "austerity" means YOU have to give up money or wealth and tighten your belt, not the wealthiest among us. Quite the contrary, we are still being fed the nonsense that "we" need to give tax cuts to wealthy people, because they are "the job creators." With all of the tax cuts given the rich over the past thirty plus years, we should be advertising on Mars for "help wanted," as there should be a labor shortage here on Earth. Conservatives keep telling us we have to give tax cuts to rich folks, or we're going to go to hell in a hand basket. Not only that, but we should further remove regulations on the Interests so they'll give us jobs. It is time for us to take matters into OUR hands, not leave things in the hands of the greediest of the greedy. We DO have potential power, but we're not united in the cause to have some control over our own lives. Giving more money to the wealthy is not going to solve our problems. For a variety of reasons, including OUR own mistakes,** we have UNDER consumption, not OVER consumption of goods and services.*** If you own a small business, this should very much concern you. You need customers! There's a major limit to how many products and services the wealthy can buy from you. Remember folks, we're all in this together. I've been in business myself, so I'm NOT anti-business. Don't be fooled by this "If you don't support tax cuts for the rich, and the repeal of every regulation in sight, you're anti-business." That's absolute NONSENSE!

If you are not registered to vote, or if you are registered, but haven't updated your address or other information with your voter registration officials (usually done by counties), please do so NOW! DON'T WAIT! Also, find out IN DETAIL (and I'd suggest, IN WRITING) what you need to be able to vote when you go to the polls (photo ID or whatever), or to vote absentee (now often done by mail). Don't think because you did this or that in the last election that things are necessarily the same. Some states have changed their laws. Don't risk being turned away from the polls, or having your ballot being challenged, and perhaps not counted, by not complying with the existing laws. Not liking the law changes is not an excuse! Like it, not like it, Republicans have tried to restrict voting under the guise of trying to keep non citizens from voting. I don't want non citizens to vote either, but I don't want eligible voters to be deprived of their basic rights over technicalities. Also, DON'T BE DISCOURAGED by any registration or voting law changes in your state. That's what they're hoping for! They DON'T want YOU to vote! The fewer average and poor people who vote, the bigger the impact of those in the upper incomes and their misguided allies. Don't cede your voice to others by not voting!

* Ross Perot became a billionaire at a time of more overall regulation of the American economy and when income distribution was far less concentrated. Hm, wonder how he did it?

** Remember too, purist capitalists and free marketers have shunned any responsibility for the economic mess. They have chosen to rewrite the Old Testament as "In the beginning, January 20, 2009, God created the heavens and the Earth." Don't be like these money-grubbing, irresponsible superegos. We all have made mistakes, and we need to acknowledge that.

*** I am working on another related article that will deal with the question of whether purist capitalism can provide broad-based prosperity for a considerable length of time, without war(s). To be clear, communism failed! So what about its counterpart?

WORD HISTORY:
Rook-English has two basic words "rook." The first "seems" to go back to Indo European "krokh/krekh," which may have meant "crow, blackbird," although ancient Sanskrit, an early form of Indo European, had a word that meant "male bird, rooster." This gave Old Germanic "(k)hrokaz," which meant "crow." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "hroc," with the same meaning. This later became "rok," before the modern spelling. The word is seldom used anymore, at least not in the U.S. or Canada. By the late 1500s, this gave English a verb form, meaning "to cheat," perhaps from the notion of the bird "stealing food from other birds." When I was a kid, it was common to hear "I got rooked," or "Don't rook me," but I don't often hear the word as much anymore. Forms of the word in the other Germanic languages have all either died out, or like their English relative, they are seldom used. Interestingly, German has the now little used noun "Ruch," which means "poorly thought of by others, bad reputation," but whether this is a relative of the English word, I'm not certain, although the idea of the English meaning "cheat" and the German meaning "bad reputation" are certainly similar.

The second, and more common modern word "rook," meaning "a playing piece for chess," has an unclear origin, although it seems to trace back to Hindi "rut," the name used for "a playing piece representing chariot mounted forces in the original game of chess," as chess originated in India at least 1500 years ago.^ The Persians borrowed the game and the word as "rukh." Later, when Persia was conquered by Muslims, Arabic borrowed the word as "rukhkh." The spread of Islam into southwestern Europe eventually spread the game and the word to give Old French "roc," and this was borrowed into English in the late 1200s or early 1300s.

^ The original game from India was based upon military forces; thus, "chariot mounted forces" (they also used pieces to represent cavalry, infantry and elephant mounted forces). The later change in the names of the game pieces in Europe (as in "Bishop" and "Knight") came as the Church and nobility were powerful forces in European society. Hindi is an Indo European language related to English further down the family tree, as is Persian.

Fear Drives The Political Ads, But... Part Two

While humans are by nature pretty much apprehensive about change, much of the political right "fears" change, some pathologically so. The ultra modern American right seems to not only want to stop change, or slow it down, but to reverse course to some unknown destination in the past. The past is a safe place, because even if there were bad times, we know the outcome. With the future, things are truly never certain. The constant barrage about "hate the government," "never trust government," "government IS the problem, not the solution," "fear the government" has played with the minds of many, and not to their own self interest, but to the advantage of corporations and other wealthy interests, who help fund ad campaigns of misinformation, disinformation and outright lies designed to scare people with irrational fears of government. I'm not naive, the political left uses fear too, but elderly and poor people are rightly fearful the conservatives, especially the ultra conservatives, will take away or curtail their security benefits. Like a gambler who can't stop trying to beat the odds, and like the bankers and others who gambled on the housing market, there are those who want to gamble Social Security money in the stock market. They will never do it if they aren't making the rules, and their number one rule will be "Heads they win, tails you lose."

Remember, capitalism is NOT about providing for everyone, or getting you medical care, or sending your kids or grandchildren to school. It is about one thing, making money. Pure capitalists see fairness as "I beat you, I get the rewards." You don't have to be a communist to see that communism, in the big picture, provided a counterbalance to capitalism for decades. Capitalists were often held in check, to some degree, by the fear that average people would turn to communism as a refuge from ruthless capitalists. The thing was, communism was fatally flawed by providing no incentives for people to strive for achievement; that is, more money, and by using total force to dominate. Like it, not like it, most people want more; we all want a better life and we all have selfishness in us. The problem comes when one group dominates and can then make the rules to benefit themselves. This little joking statement has much truth to it: "I want everyone to be treated fairly, but I just want to be treated more fairly than you." Capitalists now see themselves as the victors. To the victors go the spoils, and these ruthless people are raking in the spoils, at YOUR expense. It isn't by magic that income inequality has grown so much.

All the while the income gap has increased, the "un-rich" have remained divided over all sorts of issues, I'm certain to the absolute glee of the ruthless and greedy. When we are divided, they win, because we aren't paying enough attention to their actions. Changes in America and the world have given many people an "angst" (see "Word History" below), and the ultra conservatives plan to keep that "angst" in place. Fear of minorities, fear of unions, fear of people of different faiths, fear of people with odd sounding names, fear, fear, and more fear. The fear that should be most prevalent should be the fear of what the wealthy and the interests will continue to do to us.   

WORD HISTORY:
Angst-This word, meaning "irrational or unexplained unease, sense of fear," goes back to Indo European "(h)engh," which had the notion of "tight, narrow, constricted." This produced the variant, "angh," with the same basic meaning, but also meaning "constricted to the point of pain, distress," which then gave its Old Germanic offspring "anguz," with the same basic meaning. The West Germanic branch of Germanic had "angust," which gave Old English "angnes" and "angsumnes," both with the meaning "pain or distress of the body or mind." These words eventually died out in English, however, the same West Germanic word gave Old High German "angust, which then became "angest" and then the modern form "Angst." During the 1800s, the word came to be used among the medical community in regard to psychology, even somewhat in English, especially a bit later under the influence of Sigmund Freud's ideas on the human mind. There seems to be no "official" date the word was borrowed into English, but during the 1930s and early 1940s the word had spread more into general usage.   

The Great Depression, Part Eight

As the federal budget deficit ballooned, Hoover made a decision to try to get the budget back into balance; and his whole attempt to do so has been controversial ever since. Many leaders in both political parties felt the budget had to be balanced and that taxes would have to be raised to do so. The idea of some type of sales tax was floated, but public outrage squelched the idea, and rightly so, as much of such a tax would have been paid by poor and middle income Americans, many already struggling to provide food for their families. The tax package that passed Congress and was signed by the president into law was a pretty comprehensive piece of legislation, with support from both parties. The largest tax increase was on “true” millionaires (very few in number in those times, as people with incomes of like one hundred grand were certainly more than the equivalent of someone making more than a million dollars by the value of today’s money), who saw an increase in surtaxes on their hefty incomes. I’m sure the increase in the surtax contributed to a large part of the wailing that the Depression was made worse by the tax increase. Although he was no longer in the Hoover administration, Andrew Mellon had served throughout the 1920s as Secretary of the Treasury, until Hoover replaced him with Ogden Mills well into the Depression. One of the wealthiest Americans of his time and so conservative to be called "reactionary" by many, Mellon had a deep abiding sympathy for the plight of  millionaires, and it was with his urging, that Coolidge and congressional leaders cut taxes on millionaires by a large amount in 1926.

The wealthy and their surrogates have always argued that in order for “capitalists” to let loose and invest, they need the money to do so, and that the tax took too much of their income. Now, there is some truth to that, but the idea that millionaires of those times (equivalent to today’s multi-millionaires and billionaires) were so strapped for cash that they couldn’t invest in plant and equipment is nonsense. The problem remained high inventories and under consumption. Business people were not going to rev up factories to produce goods that were still in abundant supply. Let’s say you own a pencil factory and I work for you. (And no smart remarks like “Get the lead out!”) For whatever reason, pencil sales slow down dramatically. You have a million pencils in supply and you decide to lay me off until your inventory declines enough for it to make sense to manufacture pencils again. After a fair amount of time, you still have 900,000 pencils in stock. If Uncle Sam says, “Hey Mr. or Mrs. Pencil, we’re going to lower your taxes, so how ‘bout producing more pencils?” Are you going to call me back to work to produce more pencils just because of taxes? You can’t sell what you already have. So if Uncle Sam said, “Hey, we’re raising your taxes by such and such an amount,” is that discouraging you from calling me back to work to help produce pencils? Hell no! You weren’t going to produce them even if they LOWERED your taxes. Trust me, if there’s money to be made on something, capitalists will be there; high taxes, low taxes, in between taxes, and that is a part of our system, and I’m not knocking it. So, in the above example, you’re not going to produce pencils until your existing inventory is reduced enough for you to see that there is sufficient market for you to produce pencils again. (Get the “point?” Hey, after all of those “get the lead out” thoughts, you deserved that!) During the Depression, a substantial segment of American society lacked sufficient income, so the problem of under consumption remained. Throughout the 1930s this problem persisted, and it wasn’t until the outbreak of World War Two in Europe, and America’s supply of equipment to the Allies, and the build up of our own armaments, that unemployment fell substantially, incomes began to rise, and consumption picked up. The tax policy passed in 1932 remained essentially the same, and that didn’t stop capitalists from expanding then. There was a market!!!

Hoover, the progressive; that is, his progressive political side, felt that super large estates should not be allowed to be passed on, and part of the tax bill he signed in 1932 had an estate tax of nearly 50%, if I recall, on estates valued at more than ten million dollars. (I know I keep repeating, but 10 million was an absolutely HUGE sum in those times, much more akin to like 200 million dollars today.) Many, but not all Americans have developed a sense of “fairness” during our nation’s existence. If large fortunes are permitted to be passed on, essentially intact, the people in control will pretty much always be the same. Let’s be honest, if I make a fortune on some invention, let’s say; once I’ve got the bucks, that means a certain amount of power, and once I’ve got the drop on you… So, stop and think, I doubt that any of you reading my stuff are millionaires, but if roles were reversed, and I were the millionaire and you the “peasant,” how would you feel? And also how would you feel about immense fortunes being passed on? Many things in life are done in self-interest, and that’s human nature to a large degree. In fact, that’s the argument made by capitalists, but the argument works both ways, not just in their favor, and we are far more numerous Mr. or Mrs. Pencil, so be careful, or we might get to the “breaking point.” Ah, okay, that was a bad one!

WORD HISTORY:
Largess/largesse-Both spellings are used for this word closely related to, and derived from, "large." The ultimate origins of this word are unknown, but Latin had "largus," which meant "plentiful, abundant." This gave Old French, a Latin-based language, "large," with the same basic meaning, but with the secondary meanings "wide" (presumably from the notion of "abundant area") and "generous" (presumably from the notion of so much abundance, a person could afford to be generous). French then developed "largesse," with the meaning "having the desire and ability to spend or give freely." This was then borrowed into English during the early 1200s.

The Great Depression, Part Seven

As the economy slipped and unemployment climbed, President Hoover tried to instill some confidence with the hope that consumers would spend, businesses would borrow and expand, and that this would lead to lower unemployment, and thus, to a reversal of the downturn. One of Hoover’s problems, however, was that when he made optimistic statements, and then the economy either didn’t improve, or slipped even further, his credibility, like the stock market, crashed. Certainly in any economic panic, and subsequent downturn, confidence is important, but there were serious structural problems in the American economy, and in fact, in the world economy, as I’ve already noted in the earlier parts.

In the midterm elections of 1930, Republicans retained control of both Houses initially, but by only one seat in the Senate and by two seats in the House. Several special elections were held prior to the House convening, and Democrats took control by four seats, and John Nance Garner became Speaker. To show how politically naïve Hoover could be, he considered asking Republican senatorial leaders to allow Democrats to organize the committees of the Senate, too, and thus the two parties would have a shared responsibility for bringing the economy back to health. Of course, this was all very absurd, as Republican committee chairmen and senior committee members would never have agreed to give up their powerful positions, nor would Democrats have been willing to take responsibility, and any blame, for the mounting economic mess that was occurring on the Republicans’ watch.

As I noted much earlier, Hoover, years before he was president, had been considering ways to lessen the effects of economic downturns in the business cycle. Hoover, and some others of that time period, considered deficit spending by government as a possible way of achieving some counterbalance to recessions/depressions, not necessarily feeling that such spending would actually or promptly end downturns, but that much economic hardship could be avoided, and that downturns could be minimized, and then the economy would recover and the upward march would continue. You have to remember, Hoover was something of a mixture of conservative and progressive. He supported Teddy Roosevelt’s (Progressive) Bull Moose Party earlier in the century, and he served in Democrat Woodrow Wilson’s administration. There’s no question that during the 1920s, while serving as Commerce Secretary for the Harding/Coolidge era, he got awfully close to business, and even to big business, as that was certainly a part of his job in that capacity, but he also made some less than favorable comments about the stock market and the speculative frenzy that seized Wall Street and the country in the latter part of the decade. A number of “Wall Streeters” made it clear that they preferred Coolidge to serve again, but when he bowed out, they had little choice, but to support Hoover. Hoover is also “somewhat known” for a statement about capitalism; and to paraphrase that statement, he said that there was a problem with capitalism, and that was capitalists, because they’re “too damned greedy!”

Deficit spending by the federal government cut against the grain of economic dogma of the time, and Hoover, misjudging the Depression as more a crisis of confidence, chose instead to try to provide confidence by balancing the federal budget, which, given the severe downturn, was by that time out of whack. So, Hoover the progressive now became Hoover the conservative, and it was this image that remained with him for the rest of his life, which was considerable, as he lived to be 90 years old, dying in late 1964.

The ranks of the unemployed grew so much that there were calls for federal aid to help individuals and families through the tough times. (It should also be remembered that many people who did have jobs had hours cut, even to the point where a good number were only part time employees.) Hoover, maintaining the federal system of separate national and state authority, saw “relief,” as it was called back then, as being a state responsibility, and in his defense, it had been just that. The system had worked before, but then again, we had never experienced such a dramatic economic collapse in the past. States, required to keep budgets in balance, were suffering from lost tax revenues and soaring aid expenses. Governors, politicians that they were, didn’t want to seem weak and ask for federal aid, so they seem to have assured Hoover that they had relief efforts well in hand. In fact, as time passed and unemployment grew to staggering heights, the states were overwhelmed, whether governors wanted to admit to it or not. Hoover promised federal aid, if requested by the states, and he assured the country that he didn’t want any citizen to go hungry, but for a man who had such a great reputation for feeding starving people, he seemed very out of touch with the situation. When the Mississippi River caused extensive and devastating flooding while Hoover was Secretary of Commerce, he went right to the problem areas and was given tremendous accolades for his involvement in helping people through the turmoil. During the Depression, Hoover could have gained further esteem by making appearances at food centers, and thus showing his concern for average people, and he would have seen, first hand, the situation that was developing. Then he could have made a decision about federal aid. We’ll never know, but such a demonstration “might” have bought him some political time and support. Again, he seemed not to understand the “big picture” of his image and what people wanted from a president in time of extreme crisis.

Hoover's opponents jumped on him for being against federal aid to help people weather the storm. Later in his term, he signed legislation putting the federal government into the relief business, but by then he received no credit, as he was seen as having opposed going down this road for so long. The federal budget continued to bleed red ink in an ever increasing amount.

WORD HISTORY:
Large-The ultimate origins of this word are unknown, but Latin had "largus," which meant "plentiful, abundant." This gave Old French, a Latin-based language, "large," with the same basic meaning, but with the secondary meanings "wide" (presumably from the notion of "abundant area") and "generous" (presumably from the notion of so much abundance, a person could afford to be generous). English borrowed the word from French in the late 1100s still with those meanings, but it wasn't long before the word came more and more to mean "big." With this meaning, "large" began to overtake "great" as the word to express "big," just as "great" had overtaken the native word "mickle/micel" which had this meaning (it still exists in dialect in England and Scotland). The expression "at large" apparently comes from the notion of being "free in the wide-open spaces."

Greed Has Damaged The Country

Let's face some facts folks. We all have a certain amount of greed. The problem is, when the "haves" get almost total control of a political and economic system, they leave little but the crumbs for the remainder of society. Capitalism in its pure form is not about helping others, it's not about saving the sick or injured, it's not about helping to educate children, or to retrain workers, it's not about clean water, clean air or any other environmental concern. No, capitalism is about three things: MONEY, MONEY, and MONEY. This philosophy has now taken over America. It's been in the works since the days of the New Deal, when legislation put regulations on businesses, and later expanded even more, all with tremendous whining and foot stomping by many of the business interests and wealthy investors, even though these wealthy American remained, well, wealthy Americans. The way some of them whined, you'd have thought they wouldn't be able to buy their next meal. In the last three decades we've seen a roll back in protections for Americans, some made in the name of "competitiveness," but do any of you REALLY believe America can compete against countries where workers make a few bucks a day (if they're lucky), without cutting down American workers to that same level? Do you believe the country has benefited from these policies over the last few decades? If so, where? The gap in income disparity has grown to pre-Depression levels, as the wealthy have done VERY well, thank you, while most other Americans have seen declines or stagnation in income. All the while so called "commodity" prices have soared, even on basic food products, only damaging "unrich" Americans, and preventing any major economic recovery from taking hold. Remember folks, with these people, money trumps patriotism EVERY time.

I've heard it said several times on news programs lately, and no one has yet contradicted it; thus giving it credence, that the largest American companies have put more money into foreign countries than into their own country for the last thirty years. You want a job? Hey, go to some country where American business people have set up shop and agree to work for a pittance; you might have a chance. you might virtually starve to death, but to these people, hey so what?

We now have a major American political party, guess which one, orchestrating cuts to all sorts of government programs and to wages and benefits for America's dwindling middle class. Don't be fooled by the television and radio ads, folks. That's what this is about, cuts to middle class Americans, and the destruction of ANYONE daring to mention taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Folks, they don't call it "conservatism" because they want to empower middle and working class Americans again. They want to take the country back alright....way back! Pick any previous century. Now, a counter-balance has emerged, THANKFULLY! The recent demonstrations dubbed "Occupy Wall Street" has grown from the streets of New York City to many other places across the country, and it is expanding every day. President Obama came to the presidency with the slogan "change you can believe in." Ah, 'scuse me, where is it? The president missed the boat, and no matter how many times the Republicans virtually spit in his face, he went back for more! My mother used to say, "Don't be a glutton for punishment." The President needs to heed that advice, and he may well be heading in that direction, as he wants our votes again. The country needs leadership; leadership against the tremendous greed that is overwhelming us. The question is, is Obama up to the task?

WORD HISTORY:
Wall-This noun has an uncertain origin, although there are some theories connecting it to some Indo European roots, but I'll stick to what is essentially agreed upon. It goes back to Latin^ "vallus," which meant "stake, post." This then gave Latin "vallum;" that is, "a line of stakes forming a barrier, a wall, rampart." It seems to have been borrowed into West Germanic, an offspring of Old Germanic,^^ as "wallaz," with the same basic meaning, which then expanded to include "earthwork of stakes with dirt mounded against it as reinforcement;" thus a form of dam or dike. Old English had "weall," with the same meanings, but then expanded further to "inside and outside walls of a building." The noun later gave off a verb form, "weallian," meaning "to wall off something, to put a wall around." Both the noun and verb forms then became "wall," and have remained so ever since. Common in the other Germanic languages, but more so with the original "rampart, fortification, dike" meaning: German has "Wall" (for those learning German, it is "der" Wall), Low German Saxon has "Wäll/Wall," North Frisian, now almost extinct, has "wal," and Dutch too has "wal." The other Frisian dialects do not seem to use a form of the word any longer. Some West Germanic dialects passed along forms of the word to some North Germanic languages, and Swedish has "vall" and Norwegian has "voll." Danish has "val," which means "battlefield." Whether this comes from the same word, I don't know, but it could be tied to the "fortifications' meaning of the word.

^ Latin is an Indo European language related to English, but further down the family tree, although many English words trace back to Latin directly, or indirectly, mainly via French. Latin has also had major influences on many other European languages not direct offshoots of Latin itself. While Latin still lives on in religious circles, its usage is much diminished. It hasn't so much died out as evolved into Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, French, and others.

^^ Old Germanic gave birth to three offspring: North Germanic, the ancestor of modern Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, Faroese, and Icelandic; East Germanic, which once included Gothic, Burgundian, and Vandalic (the language of the Vandals), but all East Germanic languages have died out; and West Germanic, the ancestor of English, German, Low German, Dutch (including Flemish), Frisian, Afrikaans, and Yiddish.

Give Them Self Interest

My dad was a staunch Republican much of his life. He was a Republican by tradition, not self interest. For decades, Republicans fumed over Social Security, I'd say, early on at least, maybe because they didn't enact the legislation themselves, although the administration of Herbert Hoover had developed a basic plan for what became Social Security during that beleaguered president's term in office. Due to the severity of the economic situation, the plan was never pushed to the forefront. Other Republicans were just plain against the very idea of Social Security. In my opinion, it just kind of gnawed at the Republicans that they had failed to grasp how this important program slipped through their fingers, giving Democrats a major advantage with Social Security recipients for decades. Republicans correctly criticized the funding for Social Security, as it has always been based upon "pay-as-you-go" financing; a problem to this very day. On the other hand, some real hard line conservatives just seemed to want to turn the clock back to a time when older folks were left to fate, or to their families to provide them with life's basics of food, clothing and shelter.

Toward the end of his life, my dad made some pretty startling statements to me. He gave praise to Eleanor Roosevelt for helping my great grandmother (his maternal grandmother) with some issue about Social Security, I believe it was. He got the attention of Mrs. Roosevelt for his grandmother's cause by writing a letter to her when he was in the Army during World War Two in the Pacific. By the time he told me all of this, circa 1996, the Republicans were preaching about investing Social Security money in the stock market. His comment was something like, "The Republicans should just leave this stock market stuff alone. These business people can't wait to get their hands on that Social Security money. That's what this is about! The Republicans are getting too close to big business." Now, this was a BIG statement to be coming from my dad.

That statement shows one thing, blasting a government program for older folks when you're 30 or 40 or 50, or even 60 is one thing, but hearing about risky proposals on such a program when you're 65, 75, or 80 (he was about 80 when he made his remark about Social Security), when you're in need of that program, is another matter entirely! Self interest and necessity trumps any ideological nonsense.

I hope all of you will vote. I also hope that when you go to the polls, you will think about your own self interest. The big money people have told us over and over that self interest drives the capitalist system. We've now seen how their self interest has driven that system to the edge of the cliff (and maybe over the cliff). Now it is OUR turn. Whichever presidential candidate wins, they may well be constrained by ( and maybe destroyed by) the economic situation that confronts, not only the country, but the world. But think for a moment about which candidate will think about YOUR interest the most. Which candidate wants more tax reductions for the bastions of greed and the wealthy,*** and which candidate wants tax reductions for more average people. Give the big money folks what they love to proclaim (when things are going their way) and think about self interest, YOUR self interest!


*** To me, with the one side, it is more like, "Capitalism and the free markets really DO work, we just didn't give them enough tax cuts!" Folks, these people can't spend all that they've got now!!! If truth be told, I'll bet we'd find out that many of them took any and all extra money and invested it in various commodities, like oil, gasoline, natural gas, wheat, corn, etc; thus driving up the prices of those things and picking our pockets even more.

Word History:
World-This word only seems to exist in the Germanic languages. In Old Germanic, it was "werald," a compound of "wer," which meant "man/human" in Germanic, and is still with us in "werewolf," that is, "man wolf," and "ald," which meant "old, or age." So the basic concept was, "age of man," or "the present time." Later, it developed the more extensive meaning of the existing actual physical surroundings or "world," as opposed to "the hereafter." In Old English it was "woruld/worold," and Old Saxon (while Saxon was one of the dialects that became English, "Old" Saxon refers to the Saxon dialect that remained on the Continent) had "werold," and Old Frisian, another very close dialect to English had "warld." Modern German has "Welt," as the "r" sound died out in that variation, Dutch has "wereld," and Danish and Norgegian have "verden." By the way, in Old English, "worldly," was "woruldlic," with the "c" being a harder sound similar to "k." That sound eventually morphed into English "ly," but is still alive in modern German, which has "weltlich," although when you here some German speakers pronounce it, it is very similar to English "ly."

Keep Looking Forward

I guess there's a lot of human nature in trying to live in the past. Since we know what happened in the past, that's a hell of a lot easier to take than to look to the future, since we don't know what will happen with absolute certainty, and that makes many of us jittery to different degrees. Sometimes we refer to "the good old days," even when those days weren't really very good when they were actually taking place. There's comfort in the past and a bit of anxiety about the future, even in far less turbulent times than now. We need to look back to see where we've been, hopefully to help guide us to where we're going. There's a difference, however, in looking back to assess a situation or to reminisce, and actually trying to take ourselves back in time. I hope all of you will never get so old or cantankerous that you try to "escape to the past."

George W. Bush and his administration tried to take the country (and the world) back to a time when businessmen (now also businesswomen) and wealthy interests ruled without any restraints. Mankind learns from the past (hopefully, after all, that's why we have history), but these folks didn't learn the lessons from those times long since past, or maybe they did, and their ego trips and greed were in the forefront of their agenda. They got much of what they wanted and WE share a degree of blame for letting them get away with it. Now all will pay the price. Don't forget, years ago many people believed that kings and queens were somehow given their power from God, and that therefore, they had the right to rule. Mankind came to see that this idea was nothing but a bunch of nonsense! Mixing religion with politics in such a direct way can be VERY dangerous!

Capitalism without regulation and income fairness is, like "Divine Right of Kings," nothing but nonsense. It may sound good, but it just doesn't work that way. It is much the same with that almost indefinable word "freedom." We all talk about "freedom of speech," for instance, but the fact is, we put limits on free speech, because you can't have this "pure concept," as humans aren't pure, and the concept gets perverted. Remember the saying, "We have freedom of speech, but that doesn't give us the right to cry 'FIRE' in a crowded theater." The "capitalists" have made a major comeback from the days of "The Great Depression." Ever so gradually they got regulations removed or lessened, and as memories of the abuses of the pre-Depression times faded, they came roaring back to a position of dominance. All of this talk about free markets being so "natural," is more bunk! If you got ill and went to your doctor, how would you respond if that doctor said, "Oh I can't do anything for you, we've got to let things happen naturally. Giving you some kind of medication would be interfering." Or if the doctor examined you and said, "Well, you've got the early stages of cancer, but that must be what God wants, so go home and I'll see you in six to nine months, if God decides differently, otherwise I'll send flowers." Hopefully you see the nonsense in this bunch of malarkey! Whatever your belief about a Creator, we have minds. That's a fact! You may wonder if that's a fact with Randy, but even I was given a mind. We must use our minds to try to control things that are controllable, or to lessen the pain of things we haven't quite figured out.

Word History:
Law-This comes from the same Old Germanic word that gave us "lay;" that word being "lagan," which meant "lay or put." Old English had "ae" and "gesetnes" for "law." I'm not sure of the origins of "ae," but "gesetnes" meant "that which is set down." (See the bold!) In modern German, the word for law is "Gesetz," nearly the same as our old word, and with the same meaning, "that which is set down." Old English picked up "lagu" (with a short "a" as in "father") from Old Norse, a form of North Germanic, and again, the meaning was similar to our original word, but instead of "that which is set down," it meant "that which is laid down, or fixed in place." Over time, the "g" and "u" sounds died out, leaving us with "law."
Now...that's what I call..."Laying down the law!"