If Twitter doesn’t want to be an echo chamber, then it should eliminate the retweet

The democratization of the internet was supposed to open up avenues of expression for the American electorate. According to progressives, the commercial faction doing the most damage to freedom of expression on the internet was the broadband internet access provider. These firms, which include AT&T, Comcast, Cox, and Verizon, posed a threat to democratic expression because they could potentially block access to a consumer’s preferred website, manipulate the speeds at which a content provider could transmit data to a consumer, or put their content ahead of content provided by another website.

Proponents of the concept of net neutrality, where broadband access providers would be prohibited from favoring their content over those preferred by their subscribers, throttling the speeds by which content providers transmitted data, or blocking access to websites, had only in their gunsights the broadband access provider. The masses of net neutrality followers were never fully informed by their leading strategists that if commercial activity was looked at in its entirety then edge providers such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google, would have to be placed under their scopes as well.

The net neutrality faction seemed to be advancing politically and legally. After taking what appeared to be marching orders from President Barack Obama in late 2014 on implementing net neutrality rules, former Federal Communications Commission chairman Tom Wheeler delivered by issuing in 2015 a set of net neutrality rules based on the Communications Act of 1934. The following year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia would seemingly affirm net neutrality after denying a court challenge of the rules by Verizon.

Unfortunately, all honeymoons end and proponents of democracy on the internet would find out over the next two years what the real challenge to democracy over the internet is: contentiousness.

For those of us who advocate in cyberspace, we know that social media can be unforgiving. Trolls hiding behind goofy looking avatars hurling one-liners and expletives make the notion of free expression a joke. Bad manners and narcissism go viral with a hashtag, the digital banner around which many, unfortunately uninformed, tend to rally. Politics is fun to watch at times, but in the end, it is low-frequency chimp shit where most of its participants vibrate at highly emotional levels.

Emotions around net neutrality were expertly manipulated by strategists to distract consumer and policymaker alike from the other side of the freedom of expression debate: a business model driven by algorithms and advertising fees.

The cynic will argue that for the edge provider, “open internet”, a term used interchangeably with net neutrality, means a business model opened to advertisement by foreign agents and the ease of infiltrating a democratic system. Dig a little deeper and the cynicism goes away because democracy is an open system that, in theory at least, allows for wide participation. Combine democracy with an open market driven by digitization and you actually lessen the argument that democracy as a political system can be attacked. Rather, democracy is increasingly susceptible to crude, direct manipulation as the alleged Russian interference with the 2016 elections demonstrates.

Russia was able to play on the contentiousness of the American political system, a system where debate is highly polarized; where communities can be quickly established around a Twitter hashtag and discussions, debates, and pronouncements made to go viral with a retweet and nary any deeper research to verify the tweet.

Maybe something for proponents of openness on the internet to consider, that while keeping their eyes and rants on the broadband access provider as gatekeeper, the focus should also be on the retweet as the Trojan Horse. To an online democracy, is one worse than the other?

White people need to stop beating up on themselves

America is a European nation. Its foundation is based on a “winner take all” philosophy, a philosophy honed during Europe’s “Dark Ages”; a philosophy that black Americans cannot come to terms with. Failure to come to terms with the legal, economic, and political paradigms that underlie the European outlook on the world has hampered the ability of black Americans to properly navigate the American political economy. In lieu of the conqueror philosophy exhibited by Europeans over the past 500 years, black Americans have chosen the path of assimilation and appeasement, deciding to make and rely on moral arguments in exchange for an easement granting access to limited civil rights and discounted economic opportunities. The result is a second-tier status of citizenship where black Americans are in constant reactive mode every time their limited civil rights and economic opportunities are threatened.

The perception that the current administration of President Donald J. Trump is working to destroy civil rights gains and set American society back 60 years has spawned black American reactive tactics over the past 18 months. Ironically, most black American responses to Mr. Trump have been done in conjunction with other groups that do not have black American interests as their priority.
One example is the alignment of Black Americans with the latest in white feminist initiatives, the “Me Too” movement, where a number of women have brought sexual harassment and assault claims against a number of prominent men in the entertainment, media, and business sectors. Not only is the vast majority of these women made up of whites, but these white women are nowhere to be found during black protests of police shootings, predatory mortgage financing, or closures of factories that employ a significant number of blacks.

The same can be said of the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Queer Transgender community, a group that sees an outpouring of support by blacks especially on social media, but like their white female counterparts, are quick to find the closet when the issue is the economic and political attack on black existence in America.

Blacks, who have a ridiculous penchant for aligning with any group that has a touch of brown in their skin have found themselves on the immigration bandwagon, heading to the streets and the southern border to protest the latest “catch and release” policy of the Trump administration, specifically taking issue with Mr. Trump’s policy of separating young children from parents when they arrive at the Mexico-United States border. Black American political and civic leaders are good at pulling heart strings, a skill honed during the civil rights era and one that white liberals and progressives in the Democratic Party are happy to enlist and leverage. But again, where are their Central American “brothers and sisters” when blacks have their civil rights violated? I have yet to see or hear any heads of state from Central America go the floor of the United Nations and chastise the American government for their wrongs.

But while liberal white America may be happy to have black America chant the “kumbaya” when it benefits them, the rest of America may be weary of hearing moral, heart-tugging arguments. Many Americans can trace their family’s time in North America to the 17th and are not naïve as to why their ancestors came here and the worldview they applied in conquering America. In their eyes their ancestors did nothing wrong and may be tired of being forced to offer some apology for their ancestors’ behavior.

And I agree with them….

A people’s weakness is measured in part by their inability to chart and create their own expectations and not rely on another group’s willingness to exude goodwill. This is a flaw in black American philosophy, a flaw that blacks will have to address on their own without the help of white America. The early Europeans that traded for or in some instances kidnapped Africans as slaves were following their own worldview. Morality was not an issue for them, at least as it pertained to the treatment of Africans. Blacks are too busy asking the descendants of colonizing whites to deviate from a business model that has worked for them for the last 500 years. That is not happening. While I would never congratulate whites for their brutality towards non-Europeans, I would never hold them to my standards of morality or view of reality. I can merely acknowledge that they accomplished their mission.

Rather than seeking to keep white Americans on the perpetual guilt treadmill, black America should spend time rebooting their mission and white America can contribute to the black reboot by getting off of the guilt wagon. It does no one any good.

Liberty doesn’t need a strict constitutionalist. Liberty requires the Constitution be busted up

The rancor toward President Trump for his choice of Judge Brett Kavanaugh as the next member of the United States Supreme Court is no surprise. Democratic members of the U.S. Senate, the body responsible under the United States Constitution for confirming Mr. Kavanaugh, probably had their Twitter statements pre-written and ready to be unleashed onto cyberspace.

On the other side, Republican senators and voters were already praising Judge Kavanaugh as a strict constructionist, an individual who stays within the four corners of the Constitution when seeking a rationale for deciding whether an act by a party to the controversy before the court violated the Constitution. This type of conservative treatment scares liberals who apparently prefer treat the Constitution as a living document that can be stretched and molded to conform with the social norms and mores of the time.

Progressives have long championed using the Constitution as a tool for creating rights and classes out of thin air much like the Federal Reserve prints cash out of the ether. The past 65 years have seen society segmented by race, sex, sexual preference, religious preference, and commercial classes and the federal courts have been used as the meat cleaver for slicing and dicing American society into not so equal classes, at times not delivering the justice members of these classes seek. In the case of the Supreme Court, its decisions are binding on the entire country, and therein lies the problem. By issuing opinions on areas outside its jurisdiction, the Supreme Court and all its inferior courts have contributed to the creation of a society connected by top down values and laws and an allegiance to a single, inorganic fealty. The Supreme Court and all its inferior courts are contributing to the demise of liberty.

Regarding the federal courts’ jurisdiction, from Article III, Section 2:

“The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; — to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; — to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; — to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; — to controversies between two or more States; — between a State and citizens of another State; — between citizens of different States, — between citizens of the same State claiming land under grants of different States, and between a State, or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, or other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a State shall be party, the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury, and such trial shall be held in the State where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.”

The first line of Article III, Section 2, gives an opening to parties that may want to take a local grievance, say between a cake baker and a gay couple in a town in Colorado, and use the federal courts to create a law that becomes applicable to citizens living thousands of miles away from the incident. The rest of the article severely limits the federal judiciary’s involvement in private lives.
I don’t think the limits go far enough.

Ideally, I want to see individuals take back their sovereignty by settling as many disputes as possible privately, outside the State mechanism of a court. If a federal court is going to be involved in solving disputes i.e. those involving diversity of residence, it should, as it does now, apply State law to the controversy. Otherwise, the final appellate body in any intrastate dispute, criminal or civil, should be a State’s highest court. A dispute in Maryland shouldn’t be resolved by a federal court opinion that holds that the opinion is applicable in North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, or West Virginia. Federal courts should focus on controversies between the Executive and the Congress; between a State and the federal government; and between the States.

Kavanaugh’s views on abortion would be irrelevant of we knew that the federal court could not create national law out of local controversy.

Donald Trump fires another salvo from the bully pulpit

If you want to know why stump speeches are referred to as coming from the bully pulpit, Donald Trump’s speech tonight at a rally in Montana provided an excellent example. Mr. Trump was in Montana to help rally support for Matt Rosendale’s bid for the United States Senate. I didn’t know who Mr. Rosendale was before the speech and I will only give him a moment’s thought in the future because of Mr. Trump’s fiery performance on his behalf. It was the ballsiest if not one of the ballsiest speeches I have heard him deliver.

While Democrats and liberals will no doubt spend the next 72 hours criticizing the speech, what you won’t hear them admit that from a political strategic view, Mr. Trump sent a message that he was confident, emboldened by his perceived successes, and that he has no problem being bombastic. In his mind, he was keeping it real, and that may be the type of ammunition that Democrats and liberals will have a hard time countering.

About the only place Mr. Trump has left for Democrats and liberals to go to are the same old increasingly tired arguments about his lack of couth, his alleged dealing with the Russians, his boarish behavior, and failure to follow precedent set by past presidents when engaging in foreign relations. While not stylish, Mr. Trump’s strategy not only provides his base with the personality and rhetoric they have grown to expect, but the approach also tells voters who oppose him and voters sitting on the fence that this is the man you saw on the campaign trail and nothing has to change from 2016 because anything less just wouldn’t be me. Mr. Trump’s attitude was captured during the speech when he acknowledged indirectly that he may not win in 2020 or might not even run; therefore, what does he have to lose from sounding like the other well-known resident from Queens, ‘Archie Bunker.’

Mr. Trump stood full frontal, stuck his chest out, and unlike past presidents, did not hesitate to call out Democrats by name, notably Bernie Sanders, Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren, and Maxine Waters. He gave Mrs. Warren a little extra attention, challenging her to a DNA test to prove her Native American heritage; daring her to fire an arrow in rebuttal. He reminded Democrats that their new leader was Maxine Waters and he even took the liberty of renaming the “Democratic Party” to “Democrat Party.” And while taunting the Democrats to fire back, he touted what he believes are his achievements: tax reform, the whittling away at Obamacare, beginning disarmament talks with North Korea, his upcoming meeting with Vladimir Putin, an economy that he expects to grow at four percent or more, and great unemployment numbers for Hispanics and blacks. He has decided to gamble that not only would any reaction from Progressives not score points, but that it would show that the only place their responses will come from is a weak, emotional place.

Mr. Trump had no problem sounding like a bully today. With an economy behind him that, for the moment, is producing jobs, he did not look afraid to swing the club.

Is America a socialist country? And if it is, so what?

Lawrence O’Donnell, host of MSNBC’s The Last Word appeared on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal this morning. One of the callers chastised him and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for supporting socialism. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez last week defeated Representative Joseph Crowley in the primaries for the 14th district. The 14th district is heavily Democratic, having favored Democratic presidential candidates all the way back to William J. Clinton. Sixty-one percent of the 14th district’s voter population is black or Latino. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is favored to win and Establishment Democrats are not too excited about a Bernie Sanders supporter (Ms. Ocasio-Cortez worked on Senator Sanders’ campaign) infiltrating the halls of Congress.

Republicans may see this single win as a virus that is about to spread through the Democratic Party and may position themselves as the cure. While Nancy Pelosi may express outwardly a lack of concern about a democratic socialist win in a single district, democratic socialism has attracted more attention since the November 2016 election as an alternative to a Democratic Party that has been enjoying a quarter of a century of corporatization.

No doubt Establishment Republicans are enjoying the schism being caused by a socialist insurgency, but I sense run-of-the mill conservatives within and outside the Republican Party like the C-SPAN caller are concerned that a seemingly increasing number of young people are moving toward socialist philosophy. Mr. O’Donnell adroitly addressed the caller’s vitriol arguing that the United States has a political economy that mixes certain aspects of market and centrally planned economies. Conservatives tend to focus on the anti-freedom approaches of socialism such as limited speech, and a lack of universal suffrage at the voting booth. They focus on the brutality of a socialist State toward dissidents, currency manipulation, and closed access to economic markets. They assume that socialism is the only top-down, lock down system on the planet.

They are wrong.

Just one look at America’s monetary system alone should tell a critical thinker that the economy of the United States is top-down and centrally planned. Most people do not issue their own currency. That job is for America’s central bank, the Federal Reserve. See mortgage rates going up and you can reasonably tie some action by the Fed to your pain. And while Republican members of Congress scream about free markets and alleviating the tax burdens of entrepreneurs, they add to the entrepreneur’s burdens by increasing budget deficits creating spending gaps that have to be filled by more borrowing which increases demand for loanable funds which leads to higher interest rates which leads to businesses facing increased barriers to entry into the credit markets. This is top down, centrally planned, oppressive economics in American form.

And let’s not forget our tax system. Talk about centrally planned. Have you ever been asked to give direct insight and opinion on whether your marginal tax rate or effective tax rate should be increased? Of course not. America’s version of the National People’s Congress does that, with the only difference between China’s legislative body and America’s is the frequency of meetings and the amount of checks they place on their executive.

Conservatives would argue that the American electoral system is indicative of an open democracy. That fallacy has been exposed twice in the past eighteen years where the “people’s choice” lost because a small body of unknown electors decided five weeks after a presidential election who the winner was and had that decision certified three weeks later by members of Congress. Top-down. Centrally planned.

Lastly, if Obamacare didn’t convince you that your healthcare finance system is centrally planned, then the history of Medicare should inform you as to the impact and influence the federal government has on the insurance industry. Medicare opened up two markets for the private insurance industry: the administrative services market, where private insurers invested in and provided the administrative infrastructure for serving an influx of newer patients, and underserved market of people over the age of 65 and medical insurance supplemental market, where insurance services gaps in Medicare are filled by private insurers. It is hard for conservatives to argue that the free market met these needs when on the contrary government action created the markets and the opportunity for private insurers to increase revenues.

You can probably find more examples, but the point here is that too many Americans express their lack of economic literacy when wailing about the ills of central planning. While I don’t want to give liberals credit for much, they do make a point when clarifying that the United States’ economy is a mixed one and expose the irony that many critics are likely enjoying some of these socialist programs themselves.

When asked to choose an “ism”, my response is either one, whether socialism or capitalism, represents top down suppression of individual choice because government exercises an inordinate amount of influence under either paradigm. The individual has no say in the crafting of policy in either framework. It is a take it or leave it scenario either way. The questions conservatives should be asking themselves is, can I create a better benefit for myself on my own terms?

Democrats want to take over government but can’t make up their minds about governance

The Democrats are a flighty bunch. Since January 2017 they have been all over the place looking for a narrative that can gain traction with voters. So far, they have come up with the following:

1. Trump the Pussy Grabber is Not Fit for President
2. Trump the Russian Sympathizer is not Fit for President
3. Trump the Disloyal Friend to Canada is not Fit for President
4. Trump the Banger of Porn Stars is not Fit for President
5. Trump the Disruptor of Immigrant Latino Families is not Fit for President

So far, five major ones but the President’s first term is still young.
Do any of these issues have anything to do with how Mr. Trump is running the political economy? How does admitting on a video tape made in 2005 on the set of a soap opera that he approaches women like a boar translate in to his implementation of commerce policy?

Is Russia really an enemy of the United States? Granted Russia probably still is a little pissed 100 years after American troops known as the Polar Bear Expedition invaded northern Russia back in 1918 and the United States may be tired of Russia referring to Soviet Union soldiers passing themselves off as just technical “experts” in the Vietnam War, but forty-plus years since the Vietnam War was declared over, and no official hostilities recorded on either side, Democrats simply can’t convert the “Russia ain’t our friend and Trump talked to them” into any substantive narrative for the better informed.

While women on the Left may find Canada’s Boy Toy prime minister, Justin Trudeau, to be a hottie, does Mr. Trump’s trade disagreement with Mr. Trudeau over steel and timber imports amount to the president being a poor manager of foreign policy or economic affairs? Not at all. For example, under the North American Free Trade Agreement and section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, the President has wide power to address unfair or discriminatory practices of a foreign country. Ally or not, if the President determines via an International Trade Commission or United States Trade Representative investigation of Canada, why should America’s friends in the Great White North get cut any slack versus its friends south of the border?

The Trump/Stormy Daniels narrative tells me that Mr. Trump is no saint. Did Mr. Trump, during the run up to the November 2016 elections, pay off Stormy Daniels to avoid the embarrassment of knocking boots with a porn star while married in 2006? I don’t know nor care. That’s a private marital problem and Democrats who are gung-ho for an impeachment should at least provide evidence where Mr. Trump denied otherwise unimportant, non-government related incidences to federal officials ala Bill Clinton in the Monica Lewinsky affair.

Lastly, there is Donald Trump the Disruptor of Latino Families. Mr. Trump implemented a policy, in development since December 2017, to separate children from parents who cross the United States-Mexico border without documentation. The Democrats argue that such acts are cruel and that such cruelty is not what America is about and is further evidence of Mr. Trump’s despicable character. But while Mr. Trump may be auditioning for Machiavellian of the Month, the Democrats never argue that his policy is illegal. By the Administration’s admission, the separation policy is designed to scare parents, to make them think twice about making the trek through central America and Mexico. For the majority of Trump supporters, Mr. Trump’s prosecutorial discretion and scare tactic in this case is on point.

So, what is really going on with the Democrats? Their scatter-brained approach to keeping the President in check is so unfocused and non-sticky that by the end of December they will need a fresh batch of heart-tugging, nonpolicy-based narratives to toss at the American electorate. I suspect the Democrats will spend 2019 ensuring that 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls tie and spin these events.

It won’t work, because a more important event will take place during 2019: the slow down of the economy. Americans will spend more time worrying about how to feed their own children.

Understanding your country as a payment system

A macroeconomy is a payment system. Historically, the first payment system was the one where an individual paid himself. His effort i.e. getting up in the morning, finding something to eat, killing it and cooking it, was exchanged for survival i.e. eating, housing, and sex. As he sought comfort, convenience, or security, man decided to enter into an extended payment system called trade with people outside of himself. The results of his efforts represented by a portion exceeding the amount necessary for his survival could now be exchanged for additional comfort, convenience, or security.

The payment system has expanded with trade, becoming local, then regional, now global. The value of the trader’s effort is now represented by hard and digital currency.  But the system is also imbalanced.  It is bloated having been converted into an extraction conveyor belt excavating more out of natural and human resources.  The bankers depicted in Pieter van der Heyden’s The Battle about Money have programmed the conveyor belt to extract more from one’s effort in exchange for access to units of survival that have been increasingly expensive.

This imbalance has led to a widening of the income and wealth gap. The imbalance has also led to a macro payment system that intrudes on the privacy and civil liberties of the individual in order to extract more of his effort and more of his financial resources. It surveils him in order to market items to him that will persuade him to spend more of his coin.

The imbalance has spawned political, social, and economic factions based not on familial ties or lineage but on artificial classes of haves and have nots. Why do I say artificial? Because the reasons usually presented by the political elite for the existence of these classes never takes into account the hoarding of capital, an activity political elites take a heavy hand in.  For if the political elites were truly concerned about reducing these gaps, they would promote initiatives that promote getting into the hands of current consumers the technology that would make them self-sufficient.

Such promotion may result in getting the individual off of the payment system plantation, an end result the elite is not interested in.

The Sarah Sanders fiasco challenges the notion of free exchange of ideas and nation-state.

America’s hypocrisy when it comes to the freedom to exchange ideas was further exposed last weekend when Sarah Huckabee Sanders, press secretary for the White House, was asked to leave the Red Hen, a restaurant in Lexington, Virginia. According to The Hill.com, Mrs. Sanders along with seven members of her family, was asked by Stephanie Wilkinson, the co-owner of the restaurant, to leave the establishment because she took issue with the Trump administration’s policy toward transgender members of the military.  Listening to calls this morning to C-SPAN on the issue is giving me the sense of how increasingly polarized the United States is politically. It has me asking, “Are Americans really serious about the free exchange of ideas or is that just some Madison Avenue hype designed to maintain an artificial society?”

The first three words in the Constitution of the United States of America, “We the People”, seem farcical given this latest event. Yes, humans are expected to disagree, but the United States has been transmitting a message to the world that the choice to disassociate based on the groups you want to disassociate away from is somehow a bad thing and that real strength lies in diversity of people and ideas.  The Sanders event is an example that this creed is built on shaky ground. It seems more likely that Americans rather not share space with people who do not share their political beliefs or political lineage. “We the People” means, “We, a Particular People Who Have Taken Charge.” Inclusive means only including those who share your beliefs.

The State had to sell the notion that the disenfranchised were allowed to come to the party. The last thing the United States needed to see was its own version of Bastille Day on American soil. To keep the barbarians at bay the political elite needed a doggy bone and democracy has been that bone since the country’s inception.  But as the guise of democracy and its phony noble intent falls away, are the disenfranchised ready for a world that is not inclusive?

If Americans are serious about freedom of association and the freedom to exchange ideas, they must accept the freedom to disassociate and go one’s own way. The Left is afraid of such a mindset because disassociation means fewer people across which to spread the costs of unnecessary programs and fewer people towing their party line.  The Left has been historically aligned with freedom of thought, but their support for the co-owner of The Red Hen demonstrates to me that even they do not understand their equality standards and the artificial nature of those standards are coming back to harm them.

The co-owner of the Red Hen, again, took issue with transgender policy of the Trump administration and given the lack of anonymity that Mrs. Sanders could not avoid were able to single her out and direct a protest against Mr. Trump by asking her to leave.  Would the Left take issue with a restaurant owner who does not support the Democratic Party because of the party’s support for gay marriage but because she is aware that 90% of blacks support the Democratic Party decides to not serve them? The answer is yes and not because the Left would think the owner is wrong, but the loss of black votes stemming from any Democratic support for the restaurant owner’s free speech would cost Democrats at the polls.

I don’t believe the discussion on free association will ever end. Quite frankly it needs to continue and get louder.

Citizenship is not property

Everyone’s citizenship i.e., license for occupancy, can be revoked. How you got your license determines the length of time it takes for revoking it. Having an occupancy license doesn’t provide you with much sway as to whether a license to occupy should be extended to another person. Nor does having a license provide you any basis of authority for commenting on the form of occupancy another occupant holds. The license is not exclusive.
 
In short, your license was issued to you by a stroke of luck and the stroke of a pen. It is not your property, this thing called citizenship. You didn’t earn it. It was given to you because like any tax and customs farm, a good farmer (politician, capitalist, economist) knows that the higher the population of occupants, the greater the amount of tax receipts and number of potential voters.
 
Hell. You haven’t even taken a few minutes, like any mature, self-actualized person would do, to ask yourself why should you need a license of occupancy i.e., citizenship, permanent residency, visa, etc., to live anywhere?

Some thoughts on how I model the economy

This is still a work in progress. The old saying is money makes the world go ‘round. Spoken from a consumerist view, the conclusion I can understand. You want to eat, sleep, and shit in relative peace and safety you need coin. Lately I have been taken a harder look at my role in this political-economic ecosystem. I have concluded that we are merely extraction points for tax and sales revenues with intravenous tubing going into one side of our bodies and coming out of the other.

This may sound cynical but I suspect most heads of households feel this way as they try to balance their budgets with increasing expenses.  Will I be able to send my son to college? Can I pay that medical bill?  Will I meet my mortgage?  The frustration stemming from increasing difficulty to obtain the basics is like a stroke, sneaking up on Americans.  In a credit-driven economy, that heart attack may be on the horizon.

Forty-five economists surveyed by the National Association for Business Economics today have a less rosy outlook on the 2018 economy versus three months ago. Although expected growth in gross domestic product is still positive at 2.8%, the forecast is down from a previous forecast of 2.9%.  Current trade policies, according to economists surveyed, will have a drag on future growth with 82% of economists expecting a recession by 2019.

As I discussed in an earlier blog post, data from the Federal Reserve and the International Monetary Fund are not holding out the sunniest expectations for the economy over the next two years.  Inflation is expected to peak at 2.8% in 2018 but fall to 2.4% and 2.0% in 2019 and 2020, respectively. The years 2021 and 2022 will see inflation at 1.9% climbing slightly to 2.0% in 2023.

Also constraining spending will be the rise in interest rates as the Federal Reserve exceeds its targeted 2% federal funds rate goal. America runs on credit and the more expensive is to purchase, the less of it Americans have to spend.  According to IMF data, the ten-year bond rate ended at 2.4% in 2017. The rate on a ten-year note sets the interest rates for lending in the United States. By the end of 2018, the rate on the ten year is expected to climb to 3.2%; in 2019, 3.7%; and in 2020, 3.8%.  The rate will then level off to 3.6% in 2021 and 2022; and hit 3.7% in 2023.

If the last decade is any indication of how well household incomes keep up with inflation, then many American households are in trouble. Average annual growth in household incomes for the lower (.70%); second (.64%); third (.29%), and fourth (.90%) quantile of household income are all growing at rates lower than expected inflation. The top quantile is seeing growth in annual income at a rate exceeding inflation (2.8%).

Many Americans would be upset with this scenario. Why can’t we get ahead? Why this gap in wealth and income? As I mentioned earlier, we are extraction points. We sit, along with natural resources, at the start point of a conveyor belt. At the other end of the conveyor belt is capital made up of coin and credit.  The conveyor belt is fueled or supported by a transportation, communications, and energy infrastructure. Riding on top of the belt are the components trade, government rules, markets, and money. They are to the conveyor belt as application programming interface is to a computer network; a go-between that enables work and income to be extracted from human resources and transported to the eventual owners of capital.

For example, human resources enter markets in order to sell labor or buy goods. Government rules determine the level of tax revenue that will be extracted from human resources.  The amount of money held by a human resource transmits information about that resources economic and financial value; her spending power.

Communications networks provide the conduits for transmitting information about a human resources value. Transportation networks move human resources to areas of employment where human resources convert natural and other resources into goods and services. Transportation networks also move the goods and services produced to end users. The facilities that create goods and services and the vehicles that transport goods and services run on various forms and sources of energy, including coal, nuclear, oil, electricity, solar, wind, and geothermal.

The top 20 percent occupy the capital side of the belt. Social justice warriors who argue the use of politics in order to close the gap between the top 20 percent and everyone else are making a losing argument. Politics is ineffective as a wealth and income gap closer because of the grasp that capital has on the conveyor belt. Central bankers and treasury ministers derive their influence and prestige from ensuring the conveyor belt (which we can also call a tax and payments system) operates at optimal to deliver returns (income) to the conveyor belt’s bond holders. Capital invests resources in lobbying, advocating, and the electoral process to ensure there are politicians in place that will make rules that do not impede the conveyor belt.

Those who are fed up with being extraction points want to stay off of the conveyor belt. We want to limit or eliminate our use of the communications, energy, and transportation networks that power the conveyor belt. Use of unlicensed spectrum to create our own networks; use of renewable energy sources in order to remain off grid; avoiding the purchase of vehicles in order to avoid the taxes and surveillance that are attached to them should be a goal.

I do not endorse living like a hermit (although I have no problem with prolonged peace and quiet), but we should pursue self-sustainability in order to minimize the consumerism that pulls us into unnecessary trade and market engagement.  We will free ourselves to accumulate more capital while starving the beast that created the imbalance in wealth and income in the first place.