??? THE FUTURE OF AMERICA ???

The result of more than two years of research (1964-1966) on Rights not now guaranteed, but needed. A tabulation of ideas, gleaned from the records of the U.S. Supreme Court. The voluminous documentation is not included here. Among them protection from corrupt government and predatory economics. Since 1966 many of these ideas have become current in 2003.

My Economics Ideology

On 28 Feb 1996 I posted this explanation of my attitude about economics:

We have different perceptions of the problem being discussed. So from the same data we reach different conclusions. Then get in a fight over it. The story of the blind men describing an elephant after each touching a different part of the elephant.

Let me make clear my concern, overstated for clarity:

I have no interest - zero interest - in the general economic situation as represented by the unemployment rate, the trade balance, or any other aggregated data. References to them seem silly to me. I can't comprehend why they are being mentioned.

I do have a strong interest in the circumstances of the bottom quintile - or pick a percentage - of the population. I do have a strong interest in layed-off, long-time, "loyal" employees who have committed to the tasks of a company, are therefore poorly equipped for other tasks, and are in difficult circumstances.

I do have a strong interest in the population dependent on, and perhaps crippled by the blunders of the welfare state; and the population not adequately trained for employment.

My interest is purely self-serving: I don't want to be robbed or shot by a robber. I admit my own personality flaw, i.e. if I were in one of the groups mentioned above, I would get a big gun, join a gang, and feed myself rather than depend on welfare. I empathize with the young black males in the U.S., with the newly laid-off, with the unemployables, with those who struggle below the poverty level (however defined), and with those who migrate into the U.S. to escape worse poverty.

In a modern, well-armed nation revolution does not occur by the storming of the Bastille, it occurs by shots heard in the streets, by schools too dangerous to attend, by a growing prison population too expensive to maintain, by the collapse of safety nets. And by the rise to power of the radical right or the radical left. And that, gang, is revolution.

So respond to my posts with no general statistics - they sound evasive, plutocratic; simply silly in the context of my perception of the problems. And by plutocratic I mean that I sense that the arguments are being made by economically secure, perhaps wealthy, perhaps tenured, well-meaning citizens who would - if not embarrassed to do so - say "let them eat cake."