Showing posts with label social constructs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label social constructs. Show all posts

January 15, 2016

Systemic Vulnerabilities in the Global Economy

Hello All,

     It would seem, 14 years later, that I was correct in the grander thesis I strongly eluded to throughout my H.S. Senior Paper (available at http://j.mp/SeniorPaper).  In the global economy there has been an ever-growing trend of:
  Increasing over-interdependence of large-scale economic providers, within increasingly-globalized supply chain-webs (most courtesy of “J.I.T.” supply systems, globalized ‘vertical specialization,’ and as I now recognize, the overly interdependent Banking & Lending {financing} web), have made what once was a relatively resilient economic system, capable of dampening out local disruptions, turn into one of a remarkably systemically fragile nature — inherently of the nature to propagate and “snow-ball” microeconomic disruptions into massive socioeconomic disruptions (recent e.g., the 2008 “Sub-Prime Mortgage Bubble” collapse, inducing the “Great Recession”).

I would appreciate your feedback.  This economic trend is going to inevitably be disastrous if we do not alleviate the fundamental systemic vulnerabilities elluded to in my research paper.  Thank you.



"One Love"

Matthew L. Morgan
dJ_5entIn3L / WiseFromWithin℠ }
[ Wise ‘Trip’ Records® / Harmony through Music Foundation℠ ]

March 22, 2015

Petition to Restore Community Self-Sufficiency

[From my old WhiteHouse.gov Petition]

Petition to Restore Community Self-Sufficiency

All around the world, and especially here in the United States, communities have been completely disarmed by the forces of global capitalism.  Small, community-oriented businesses everywhere are getting squeezed out by large corporations flexing their legal and economic muscles--it's seldom a fair fight, especially with lobbyists setting the legal and regulatory 'mood' in DC by physically outnumbering our Congressional representatives over 3 to 1. (In America, the moral of the business story seems to have become, "May the best paid legal team win".)  Yet, it is not just an issue of competition.



If you look at the long, drawn-out recovery process in New Orleans as one example, you can see evidence in several areas of once vibrant communities that remain nearly ghost towns because corporations are still not yet willing to invest in those communities again because "they're not a good market" right now. Large corporations are more worried about profit than communities; but that's not much of a surprise, nor precisely the point here. New Orleans neighborhoods that had a richer small-business sector, prior to Katrina, were almost always the quickest to bounce back (many in just a few days after the flooding receded), and in many cases were the only help of any kind many residents received for several days during the disaster. Several small-business restaurant owners bravely ignored fines from government food-industry regulators as they served food to as many hungry, displaced residents as possible--all while FEMA's supplies were days and weeks away for most.



Several communities in Japan that bore the brunt of the tsunami were isolated and cut-off from help from higher authorities for several days in dangerously cold temperatures, even though their country is considered by most experts to be at the bleeding-edge of disaster preparedness systems and procedures.  Those communities only had each other and themselves to rely on, despite a government genuinely desperate to reach and help its own people.  Even if the federal government wanted to put its weight behind helping you, they may not be able to for a period of time quite longer than you may presume and currently be prepared for.



As a final example, the statistics on hunger and starvation in America are indicative of a for-profit, food mass-production system that makes money off selling nutritionally-deficient foods (often containing unpronounceable "fillers" and "preservatives" to boost profit margin) to Americans who can afford it, while subsidiary corporations own (directly or indirectly) most of the arable land in this country and the expense of buying land keep the poor helpless to provide for themselves and their families.  Tax-payers currently pay for food stamps for over 43 million people and families.  Unhealthy Food + Tax-Payer Subsidized Food Distribution = Increased Healthcare Costs + Stressed Crops/Animals/Soil + Welfare State (i.e. large-scale economic servitude to, and dependence on, a hand-full of affluent landowners).



Being able to provide one's self and family with nutritious foods grown out of non-toxic, nutrient-rich soil is a natural, God-given right.  Likewise, there is no excuse for millions to go hungry each day in this country while obesity is meanwhile considered an 'epidemic' here--no excuse, period.  Ultimately only greed and indifference, being the root of the problem, can explain this sad state of affairs and it needs to stop.  Remember, "global capitalism" is not the same as "global trade".  Global trade is not the disruptive, disarming force imperiling communities; it is the proliferation of monopolizing, international corporate conglomerates (calling plays from the 'profit-motive handbook') that act as middle-men in particular markets for goods and services, driving up the prices for consumers and reducing the quality-of-life for the supply-side labor force (by artificially suppressing the true value of their work), while adding little true value themselves to that particular product or service. 


A critical first step to getting 'at the root' of these particular problems and vulnerabilities is to restore families' and communities' capacity to provide (through non-profit, 'quid pro quo' cooperation) for their own basic necessities (i.e. food, water, shelter, heat, etc.)--a capacity that can not be reliant on or otherwise affected by outside socioeconomic forces, for the capacity for survival is too critical to risk unnecessary exposure. Any product or service not essential to survival would naturally continue to fall under global capitalism (at least for the time being).  As with global trade, state and federal resources are still very important and beneficial to us all, but none of those things can ever substitute for a culturally-vibrant, close-knit network of community-oriented citizens and community-oriented small-business owners whom, in times of disaster or other dire need, would be able to effectively "take care of their own", as opposed to large corporations and governments whom would either be disinterested or unable to do so. 


The country, and indeed the whole world, are in dire need of bold, selfless leaders who recognize and appreciate the importance of acting on this issue now and are willing to put their fellow human beings and the unborn before country, party, reelection, or other personal profit.  It is wholly wrong to allow our brothers and sisters in the "third world", our younger generations, and future generations to suffer a bleak existence, just so the affluent and entertained of today can continue on about their greed and indifference.



I urge those holding positions of influence in our government to consider acting on this matter as being "in the nation's vital interest".  Ultimately, it is a national security matter for a government purporting to serve "the People", particularly in light of:

  • 

Increasing frequency and severity of natural and man-made disasters in the last couple centuries (continuing to follow an exponential growth and crash cycle of increasing amplitude throughout human history)
  • 
An over-leveraged global economy that now resonates local and regional disruptions, instead of quelling them
  • 
Drastically reduced energy return on energy invested (in non-renewable energy sources, which will mean energy shortages or outages for communities reliant on external power sources {as non-renewable energy projects continue to approach a 1:1 return on investment ratio--eventually making such energy-capture ventures no longer worth the effort})
  • 
A global eco-system that is facing 'runaway' pollution-accumulation, loss of genetic-diversity, and inter-species collapse (leaving communities with fewer and fewer globally- and nationally-sourced food and fresh water resources to pull from)



By signing this petition you are sending a clear message to the highest levels of U.S. executive and legislative government (and indirectly to other world leaders), reminding them that the same principle applies to nations and humanity as does to a house: it is only as strong as its foundation.  In the case of country and humanity, the core foundation for a non-self-destructive society is one built upon strong family units, vibrant community life, and self-sustainability. Ask your leaders to take immediate actions to promote community-restoration for the sake of the greater good in securing the blessings of this Earth for all.

A View on Exploitative Economics

[From someone's old Facebook post: https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=129518630489338 ]


Non-Exploitative Economics: Economic Rights, Economic Justice

For more than 300 years, economic decency, sanity and justice has been within our reach, yet we have failed to take it. This is an attempt to outline some of why our economic world is so unjust and so unsustainable, and to then show that we have some extraordinarily powerful tools at our disposal to change it. I will outline how we can make up for our past and finally create the vibrant and exciting human story that only an organization of the 99% can achieve.

The issues we face are fundamentally economic and nothing is more important in economics than money. It should be unsurprising, then, that we find the most powerful possibilities by looking at money itself. For more than 300 years, nations have lived with the existence of purely symbolic money. As a means of exchange, then, nothing more than ink printed on paper, or digits in a computer system, has served to facilitate the complex range of transactions required by modern societies. Many of you will already know that symbolic money is vulnerable and must be protected by a society, but is it worth protecting? The emergence of symbolic money, as a technological advance, is something that was and remains almost entirely missed by the vast majority of the world’s people. Quite simply, symbolic money offered humanity some extraordinarily powerful options which we are yet to grasp. By our own ignorance, we have allowed those who have understood and have seized that power, to wield that power over us. So let’s shed our ignorance and stand on an equal footing with the powerful, lest we remain ignorant and vulnerable to their abuses.

The most important thing we can say about today’s economics is that it’s fundamentally imperialistic/exploitative, operating by extracting vast amounts of wealth from those who produce/earn it, transferring it up the socio-economic pyramid towards an undeserving minority. Capitalism is already a dangerous animal, for it is an imperialistic economic system, being a system which allows the wealthy to earn wealth on wealth (I can assure you that kings and queens, the aristocracy and the propertied classes would advance no alternatives, so, unless you’re part of that 1%, I suggest you listen up). For every penny earned on wealth alone, that penny is being offered up by those who produce the value it is traded for. We must be vigilant, then, to ensure that we offer up our wealth only in faithful exchange and in a manner which conforms to basic justice. We certainly have the tools to achieve that, but if we find ourselves incapable of change, we’ll earn for ourselves continuing or worsening servitude to what appears to be an emerging global economic dictatorship. It’s about time we understood that we have the tools to stand up against the illusion of authority crafted by the controllers of money, when money has, for so long, been used to silence us and secure our impotent obedience.

Whilst we have long lived under economic structures which are designed to create and deliver upwards great wealth, the last 300 years has seen an amplification in this process, as the world’s economies have steadily been subsumed/conquered and laid under a system of (purely symbolic) ‘credit’ money (debt). The single outrage which defines human life on Earth today is the fact that all money has been privatized and is issued into existence as interest bearing debt to western financial interests. So all money is debt and bears its weight upon the world’s people. Although banking could be a legitimate business (and that’s very much what we can help to achieve here), private money powers are not doing the same job a publicly accountable authority would do. Today, banks will only create/release money into the economy as debt and only when it is profitable for them to do so. The vast majority of humanity suffers want (as much as 85% of all people know no comfort, only a struggle for survival) because most people have no way of making their existence profitable to western financial interests. Sadly, today’s banks are very much the outstretched fingers of the aristocracy and are the houses through which humanity’s indebtedness has been fashioned and exploited. In the wrong hands, the power to create and issue money has been the most powerful tool by which to conquer, to enslave and to harvest the productivity of working people that was ever conceived of; indeed, until we fix this aspect of our economics, money will continue to have a more profound and devastating impact on the world than any other weapon of war. Imagine, if you will, what kind of people are behind this operation. Whilst the developed nations of the world were better equipped to bear the weight of this draining systemic debt and usury than poorer nations, it is now becoming increasingly clear, even to westerners, that systemic debt and usury (which creates the conditions for its own exacerbation), is no basis for an economy/society.

Let’s look at some numbers. Whilst countless souls can thank the western imperial money system for the destitution and death that marks their existence on Earth, the comparatively privileged western worker is harvested for 80-90% or more of their earned wealth, with only those few, largely sub-standard public services given in return. Western workers will pay some 60-75% or more of their incomes in taxes alone, much of which can be traced back to the interest on borrowed money (don’t forget to add up all the taxes. Multiple sources for tax data on Google). On the money they do have left over, western workers are subject to near lifelong debt and unnecessary interest farming (to understand how banks create money, see ‘Modern Money Mechanics’ by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.) In addition, it has been estimated that around 50% of the cost of everything working people buy can be traced back to the interest on borrowed money (The Green Party, UK). Further still, we should add inflation; a difficult phenomenon to understand, but something which may be caused by the usury culture, monopolists’ price setting behavior, or the expansion of the money supply for parasitic money manipulations rather than investment in the productive economy.

We cannot let this global horror show continue and the growing movement of truth-seekers and Occupiers (and all those who support them) suggests that people are increasingly ready for change. If we were to decide upon a different foundation for our economies/societies, what might we choose? Well, the historical imbalance between a minority of wealthy people and the rest of humanity who are dependent/vulnerable/exploitable, is likely to be unavoidable to some extent, but what is not unavoidable is the peoples’ continuing subservience to powers that are unjust, predatory, parasitic and unserving to the point that they are undermining of the economy/society and our ability to live peacefully with others.

The alternative to privately issued and controlled money has long been argued to be full public/governmental control of money and banking. This article outlines the as yet unrecognized power of a third way, where the power to create, issue and control money is not left in the hands of concentrated private powers or concentrated State powers, but is taken up by all people. In effect, we can democratize the ‘money power’ and create a new, rights-based foundation for our economies. Money can come into existence not as debt to private banking interests, but on the back of inalienable rights to the money you can repay, interest free, for items of need like a home. Think about that; we have the power to say ‘no’ to the usurer/exploiter, who prints money into existence and then lives lavishly on our interest payments, and secure for ourselves the basic components of life unburdened. Other qualifying items of need might include education, healthcare, small and community businesses, transport etc. You decide. Wherever a society draws the line, an essentially protected zone is created, beyond which life and commerce can carry on according to rules that you lay down; will that be some form of capitalism, something more commensurate with common ownership or a meeting of the two? Either way, through economic rights, we can offer the world’s people and our societies/economies protection from the madness that is human economic relations.

I hope you can see that economic rights are not about free lunches, as what is borrowed is paid back. Indeed, the whole thrust of Non-Exploitative economics, or Economic Rights, is to reduce those community-draining free lunches our societies routinely offer up to the already vastly wealthy. By ending exploitation, we might be able to realize and enjoy our own and the economy’s capacity for full productivity. Today, not only is the debt that binds you to your desk predatory and parasitic, it is highly economically inefficient, for anything that binds you and forces you to compromise on your fullest potential runs counter to economic efficiency. Many of you will recognize that as a free-market argument, only this time, made for the benefit of working people. Of the 80-90+% of incomes currently harvested from working people, we will only need to pay that amount required to furnish us with a government and legitimate public goods/services. What will that cost, 30% of incomes? If you go from enjoying 10-20% of your income to enjoying 70% of it, that equates to a 3-7 fold increase in your real wealth. With this profound redress in the balance of economic power (and stride towards decency and justice in the world), working families can begin to shape their world according to their values. How would you use your economic power to shape your world once it has been returned to you? My experience suggests that people will invest in community enterprises and endeavors such as local permaculture and recreational/developmental activities for the young.

Understanding symbolic, social constructed money (the form it exists in today) grants us new possibilities about how we might live our lives; all of a sudden it really becomes a requirement that it be imbued with rights. In theory, there’s no incompatibility between economic rights and money backed by commodities such as gold, so don’t assume that economic rights are somehow opposed to ‘sound money’, but it appears to me that it would be far harder to implement and would, of course, rule out the noble initiative of allowing governments to spend debt- and interest-free money into the economy on valuable public projects like schools, hospitals, recycling/clean energy technologies etc. When we think deeply about money, the only thing we can really settle on is the idea that, as a tool, it should be employed for the greatest amount of good it can be employed for. Money spent freely into the economy by a publicly accountable authority, therefore, should be a very positive thing, but it is tempered by the fact that corrupt governments have used or abused this power for near limitless corruption, including waging aggressive wars of acquisition. When it comes to keeping governmental powers in line, I believe economic rights has yet one more powerful thing to offer; that is, if populations are enjoying interest-free loans for things like homes, parents and teachers will be teaching children precisely why. The power to create and issue money will therefore go from being the closely guarded secret used to drain working people and power the empire, to being the most important lessons we have in school. Economic rights will not only produce economically empowered families/communities, but also economically literate populations.

January 10, 2015

Homosexual Equality (the Lessons of History & Clarifying the Concepts of "Marriage")

[Originally Posted 9/24/09; edited and expanded 1/10/15]

Despite being 100% heterosexual, I find choosing to support homosexuals having equality of social status, as well as rights and protections provided under the rule of law, in amazingly simple decision to reach given the constitution and lessons provided by history.  I realize large social changes take time, but how can so many of us still be so blind to the lessons of the past?  It wasn't so long ago in the annals of world history that the majority of men struggled vehemently to deny women equal rights to own property and participate in the voting process of democracies.  Not so long ago the majority of whites in this country so passionately fought, either through force or active bigotry, to deny blacks genuinely-equal social status and legal rights.  And now, our society once again finds itself socially polarized, this time on the topic of homosexual equality.  Well, let us be honest with ourselves.  As past generations had their social revolutions, this generation is, too, experiencing a social revolution, and I would argue success in overthrowing the current social status-quo with regards to granting homosexuals equal social status and legal rights is as every bit as inevitable as the successes hard fought for by blacks and women over the last couple hundred years.

I was told a story recently about a black man who was obliviously broadcasting his side of a cellphone conversation about homosexuals to a small crowd sitting nearby him.  Needless to say, his opinion of homosexuals was passionate, egregiously unfavorable, and, quite simply, astoundingly hypocritical.  Past generations of this man's family, as recently as his parents undoubtedly, poured their blood, sweet, and tears into fighting and struggling against that very same prejudicial attitude towards blacks—simply because they were "different" in some relatively benign way compared to the majority.  Nevertheless, there he was, as blind to the absurdity of his irrational attitudes towards homosexuals as whites' attitudes had been towards his ancestors.  It just goes to show that personal self-awareness and rational reasoning can be absent in anyone, even someone whose heritage should have made him realize what a hypocrite he was being that day.

We all must always be on guard against and actively fight against prejudice and hatred, especially within ourselves.  We each harbor a degree of stereotypical thought processes in our daily lives, usually without being consciously aware of its subconscious influence on our thinking and behavior, and occasionally have what would be deemed by our own self to be 'undesirable' emotional responses to certain circumstances we encounter.  To provide a relatively clear-cut example: if you were a middle- or upper-class white, who genuinely believes they do not have a racist "bone in their body" thanks to a non-racist upbringing, walking through your nice, mostly-white family suburban neighborhood at dusk and see a young African-American male heading towards you on the sidewalk wearing a hoodie that hides all but part of his face and sagging, baggy jeans, there is a really good chance you are going to have an instinctually negative emotional reaction upon first recognition of those circumstances, such as a degree of anxiety, even though your conscious belief system reminds you seconds later that you should not judge that person and their potential threat to you based on a stereotype; despite this rational reminder you may continue to feel tense until you pass him without incident.  This example was constructed to maximize the understanding of the general concepts, but countless, less clear-cut real life examples exist in practically everyone's daily life in which the brain is naturally, inherently, constantly interpreting and evaluating the things in its environment at a subconscious level, using probability as its guide in prioritizing how it evaluates what things should receive what percentage of the finite resource of one's attentive awareness at that moment, and judges what the safest instinctual interpretations of the things going on in that person's environment are.  Because of the way the brain automatically processes information about its environment based on probabilities, which are determined by patterns recognized in past life experiences and engrained "background information"/knowledge, stereotypes we know about, whether we consciously object to stereotyping or not, factor into how the brain instinctively reacts to its environment.  To a large extent, instinctual responses are unavoidable at the moment they occur, and can only be overridden through conscious evaluation of a given situation using good reasoning.  Thus, the path towards social prosperity and harmony, which benefits us all in the end, must begin with a thorough, objective self-evaluation of the quality of one's own rational and moral reasoning and knowledge-base which forms one's established worldview, belief systems, and values.

We need to recognize that marriage under the law and marriage 'under God' need not, and should not, be considered one and the same thing in this debate.  I myself was legally married in a court of law to my wife almost five years before we married through the church.  The argument by the majority of religious people, who improperly entwine the concepts of legal marriage with "spiritual" marriage, and, in so doing, believe that allowing such legal marriages some how sullies the 'sanctity of marriage' ("sanctity" being a term that, by definition, can only be associated with religious marriage 'under God'), that legal marriage should be prohibited for homosexuals, despite the fact that our constitution specifies the necessity of recognizing a 'separation of church and state,' is simply untenable.  Measuring how sanctimonious a marriage is has everything to do with how faithful, loving, and selfless the behavior of the two partners towards one another is, and has nothing to do with what is in their underwear—in similar fashion to Martin Luther King, Jr.'s belief that a person should not be judged based on the color of their skin, but "by the content of their character."  There is no doubt in my mind that there are countless homosexual couples whose behavior is far more laudable than many heterosexual couples.  Let us leave the religious side of the debate to the religious establishments and stop letting conservative religious arguments unconstitutionally influence our government from obeying its own constitutionally established protections.  The 14th Amendment to the Constitution states, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."  This constitutional amendment did not happen by accident.  It was one of the most consequential and direct results of the Civil War and the overall social struggle to restore the human dignity of, and establish legal rights and protections for, blacks.  It will take time but it is certain that the 14th Amendment, and the same kind of revolutionary social attitude that gave birth to it that exists today, will earn homosexuals equal social status and protection under the law across this country in the years to come.

[The prediction I made nearly five and half years ago, when I first published this post, concerning the social progress that would occur to provide for equal social status and application of law for homosexuals turned out to be correct, though the good fight against prejudice continues....]

January 9, 2015

Gender Inequality (Response to a College Assignment)

[Originally posted: Wednesday, February 03, 2010]

My overall interpretation of "Gender, Race, and Class in Silicon Valley" was that the primary issue creating inequality (of treatment, opportunity, and support) between the sexes in 'stereotypically male' industries is the common perception, by both sexes, of what gender role constructs are accepted and expected.  Personal family experiences and other cultural influences have shaped the beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions of past and current generations of men and women concerning gender roles.  I found it somewhat surprising that, at least as represented by this author (despite her own gender), the majority of women are as guilty of possessing gender perceptions that propagate workplace inequality as men are.

Despite the continued prevalence of this socioeconomic inequality between the sexes, it is my opinion that the average trending, especially in the U.S. from the mid-20th century to the present, towards more socially liberal attitudes and beliefs in society is gradually eroding the prevalence of the traditional role constructs that are largely responsible for the current gender inequalities.  Therefore, I find it at least relatively reasonable to believe that the pervasiveness of this problem will continue to steadily dissipate over the next few decades.

I thought it would be interesting to point out an example of work-related discrimination that is often experienced by men for similar reasons: male nurses.  A typical perception is that women have a significantly higher capacity for empathy and ability to care for others to a higher interpersonal standard, and that it is not the place of men to have such an occupation.  Therefore, as has been related to me from a female RN, male nurses are far more likely to have to deal with patients that mistreat or devalue them and their work, and are also likely to experience a slightly increased challenge in establishing or maintaining male-male friendships because of their occupation.  Again in this case, persistent cultural role constructs have formed the personal perceptions that feed these (arguably negative) behaviors and reactions.

One particular line in "Violence Against Women" really stood out for me.  "Violence therefore operates as a means to maintain and reinforce women's subordination."  Clearly men who are violent towards women usually consciously or instinctively justify their behavior, at least partially, based on socially-propogated constructs of what a 'real man' is expected to be physically, psychologically, and in their interpersonal behaviors, which include an inherent perception espousing male domination and female subordination through these various socially-promoted male attributes.  As the quoted sentence implies, more often than not, the reason for the violent behavior is to maintain and reinvigorate the man's self-perception of having the aforementioned qualities defined by the prevailing social expectations.  Although I realize I'm treading a fine line here and do not claim women are at all directly responsible for the violence against them, I would suggest that womens' acceptance of these same gender constructs is an underlying reason for the stubborn persistence (staying-power) of individual relationships in which violence has taken place.  I would argue that if abused women had been raised in a social environment in which women were taught and expected to think and behave in ways that were truly equal to men in all practical respects, those same women would be far, far more likely to end an abusive relationship promptly.