feel free to copy and distribute the entire document

return to cover page


                            CHAPTER 1

                        STARTING NEAR THE END
                    (OR, What Have The Neo-Romans
                         Been Up To Lately)
       Our economy provides the means of survival for our species.
Economic matters decide who lives and who dies.  Life in the waning
years of the twentieth century has the same basic requirements life
has had since life began.  Food for the living and procreative
capacity for life itself.  The food of course provides fuel, the
energy necessary for growth and some sort of mobility, that even the
simplest life forms require to procreate.  We "more highly evolved"
mammals usually require some sort of shelter and, in the case of the
human species, clothing..., air conditioning, telephones,
automobiles, after-shave lotion and lipstick; in addition to the
basic requirements of the other species on the planet.
       From the beginning of humanity as we know it (i.e. human
society), there has been some sort of economy which provides our
basic, and extended basic, needs.  That's obvious, so what?  It's
also obvious that in the USA, (and most if not all other countries)
if the economy fails many humans will suffer, probably many will die.
These things are self evident.
       Economists are little help in understanding the economy because
they are so thoroughly politicized and aligned that nothing they say
can be trusted, whether they know something or nothing.  The outcome
of their debates determine only who will make the greater economic
gain, if those debates have any significance at all.  The economists
never question the origin or basic structure of the economy or the
implications thereof to survival for individuals or the species.  I'm
not interested in debate.
       I want to clarify our understanding of the basic structure of the
economy.  Most people understand that the economy has evolved
through the efforts of a small minority of the population and that this
minority set out to achieve great personal gain in the form of
wealth.  They have no thought to design an economy nor, in most
cases, any bad intent.  They think only of themselves and, if of
others, only what use those others may be to the achievement of their
personal goals.  As a consequence our collective and individual lifestyle
alternatives are forced to conform to their agenda.
       As stated, most in the majority understand this intuitively  and
are not particularly pleased to be serving our lords but think the
situation hopeless.  They believe nothing can be done.  Some true
believers think they think (but they don't of course) our choice of
lifestyles, and the economy which permits them, constitute the "best of all
possible worlds".  But the majority either believe things too hopeless to
waste time thinking about or are too caught up in the day to day
endeavors of personal survival to be bothered by the situation.
       Many, of course, get caught up in debates over today's issues,
which are important, but divert our attention from fundamental
survival.  So, if they ever understood their true function in the
economy, the understanding is obscured by the popular debates and
beliefs that can propagate like a virus throughout the community.  The
minority of wealthy and powerful feel threatened by the truth and
therefore take encouragement from any spontaneous (or deliberately
propagated) fictions, which when believed by population blocks, serve
as diversions to obscure reality.
       I would like to see the majority awaken to the true function and
state of the economy.  I want us to realize our power and ability to
make fundamental changes in our way of life.  Nonviolently I hope!
But first, I want to question the assumptions and beliefs we have
been taught from kindergarten onward to know to be true.  And to
discover along the way that which we can see to be true.
       My intention is not to propose a solution to our problems.  No
individual should have such responsibility.  We have built our world,
our economy, together; though directed by, and for the benefit of,
our lords.  But in spite of our lords, together we shall look upon
our work and together we shall recreate it to include some mutually
found concept of economic justice and ecological sanity.
              The only assumptions I make are those anyone who opens their
eyes can see.  I don't intend this to be a scholarly work.  I would never
be so presumptuous as to seat myself in an "Academic Chair of
Virtue".  But I will at least attempt an example illustrating how our
rulers, and the overseers they pay to care for us, perform their
function.
       Our economy is central to survival.  Our more primitive ancestors
lived more simply in an environment of cooperation and collective
ownership of land.  Their system was successful for ten thousand
years or more.  But our Romanized modern economy has changed all
that.  Today goods must be produced and consumed for the economy to
continue.  Most goods are consumed by the largest group.  That group
must continue to have income in order to continue consuming. Who are
the largest group?  We are the poor, the working poor, the middle
class and the moderately well to do. Though the largest group have
the smallest per capita incomes, we have the greatest purchasing
power, as a group.  All this is observable, so by definition,
obvious.  So, what's the point?
       Well, there are lots of points, maybe someday I'll get around to
talking about some others of them but today I'd like to pick on a
subset of producers of consumer goods and leave the others for
another time.  Today I want to talk about one means producers have
been lately employing to increase there personal purchasing power and
the consequences to the American people and our economy.
        Adhering to time tested methods and the wisdom of ages,
producers have moved production and jobs to a place where labor is
cheaper.  In this case, jobs have been moved out of the country.
Some of the displaced workers find jobs in the "service economy",
less find comparable positions to those they held.  I guess most
collect unemployment insurance until their benefits run out; at which
time they are dropped from the roles of "unemployed" (and no longer
figure in the unemployment rate) and are forgotten.  No one knows
what happens to them.  I'm sure they are not among the increasing
number of people seen with cardboard signs on street corners.  But in
any case they have served invaluably in the never ending war to
reduce costs.
        The producers always say the resulting reduction in costs will
be passed on to the consumer but it always ends up in the producers'
pockets.  Furthermore, domestic labor becomes less valuable, since
more are unemployed (there are no quotation marks here so this means
real unemployment not government, producer, owner fairy tales).  The
wages of those still employed do not increase as much as needed; or
not at all; or decrease.
        The employer/producers have reduced the income (and purchasing
power) of the largest group, while our lords have increased their own
incomes.  They do not consume enough to offset the losses of the
largest group.  They could not since some money is lost to us all in
the transaction.  Products (for domestic consumption) which need to
be purchased in order to keep things going, cannot be purchased by
the cheap laborers in the third world countries.  They don't make
enough to pay for the products they produce.  Their wages are lost to
our economy.  The employed at home aren't increasing their incomes
enough to make up the difference.  So what's happening?
        Our lords (regardless of gender) faced squarely the problem of
keeping the economy afloat without, heaven forbid, increasing
domestic employment or increasing wages and salaries.  How did they
bring about this miracle.  They loaned their excess (dwindling
because of what is lost in foreign lands) back to us, mostly in the
form of high return credit cards.  Wave after wave of plastic is
their answer.  This solution was/is designed not only to keep the
economy afloat but to allow the lords to keep title to their money
and to increase their power over the majority by placing us further
in their debt.  Elegant, isn't it?
        Wave after wave of unsecured plastic, along with constant
encouragement to buy more goods, must eventually leave us awash in
bad debt.  With the domestic market too debt ridden (or poor) to make
purchases and the foreign market too poor (and the richer countries
in the same situation as we are),  the economy must take the fall.
It can't be saved if the owner/producer's are to conserve their
status.  It's salvation would require more domestic employment at
higher wages and salaries,  a notion too onerous for serious
consideration.  After all, such a ridiculous solution would reduce
the wealth of owner/producers (assuming price increases would negate
the positive effect of increased incomes for the majority and so
would not be part of the salvation plan).  Salvation, therefore is
unlikely.  So, what is to be done?  Why is this happening to us?
        Who will be held responsible for the problem when it is finally
discovered.  The answer to that question is of course the problem's
solution.  For our lords know any problem may be dealt with by merely
fixing the blame.  Find a scapegoat and forget it.  This solution has
passed the test of time.  The only thing left to do is to determine
who the ultimate goat will be.  Any guesses? ...Rest assured, it will
be you and me!
        We were encouraged to buy more in order to help the economy.
Remember Ronald Reagan and conspicuous consumption?  Not the first
time we heard a direct appeal to consume.  Of course there are
commercial advertisements, acquisitiveness and envy.  But our lords
provided the plastic to respond to the appeal and indulge ourselves
in the hedonistic orgy of consumerism inspired through their puppet
politicians and mouthy Madison Avenue lackeys.  However, in the end,
it will only be remembered that we did borrow and that we did
consume.  The politicians will do the work of the masters, and the
media dupes of the politicians, along with the minion advertisers,
will spread the word.

        And the word will be responsibility.  And we will be the word
and the word will be us.  And we will be at fault.


       How do they make this work?  How can we possibly believe it?
Simple, we have been told repeatedly that our economy and way of life is
the best possible system.  Whenever that assertion is challenged, and
almost everyone challenges it at some time, the conditioned responses are:
the same people or ones just like them would take over any other system or
that's the natural way of things or show me a better one or, failing to bore
you into submission with cliched answers, what are you going to do about
it?
       And why would you want to do anything about it?  Isn't it obvious
that all good things come from our lords, the providers?  If our lives are
without prosperity it is because we haven't worked hard enough or been
clever or cunning enough.  If good things come of the economy it is because
it is designed so well by the providers.  They are so good and we are so
bad we're fortunate they allow us to live at all.  What purpose do we
serve?
       For that matter what is the nature of every economy?  Why do they
exist at all?  What is their purpose aside from providing leisure and
luxury for the few?  All economies must first provide food and shelter in
order to assure the continuation of the species.  That is, they provide
for survival and, hopefully, can provide some extras to make survival
comfortable, maybe even fun.  That is there purpose.  That is why they
exist.  Their nature is collective and cooperative.  Unless we act together,
collectively, and cooperate with one another, no large scale (and not many
small scale) operations could exist. No energy production, no mass
production, no transportation, no food, clothing or housing would be
available in the way we have learned to depend on.  There would be nothing
to consume if we, the serving majority, did not work together to create it.
       I guess that also answers the question about why they allow us to
exist.  The real question is why do we allow them to exist?  They don't
even acknowledge our contribution to, much less share benefits of, the
economy.  They claim to create it all themselves through the use of their
capital.  But our work creates the wealth!  They merely hire (coopt really)
a few of us to provide the ideas and a few more to oversee our work.  We
make everything!  But they get most of the benefit.  Of course, we get the
blame when things go wrong.  Aren't we lucky?
       Before we forget, due to the euphoria of our blissful existence,
lets examine another heavy contributor to the declining standard of living
in America.  Of course I refer to government spending and it's cure,
welfare reform.


TO BE CONTINUED...?





APPENDIX A
        This document may be copied and distributed freely if and only if
it is copied in it's entirety, including title page and appendices
and no charge, monetary or otherwise beyond reasonable copiing and
transmission expenses, is made.  I reserve ownership of this property
and all copyright priveleges.
        What you have read is a draft of a fragment of the work I wish to
accomplish.  But since I am unemployed (EE) and homeless I spend a lot
of time simply struggling to survive.  I want to ask you to help by making
a monetary gift to me so that I may spend more time writing.
        If you care to help to provide me with the purchasing power I
will need to continue to reflect on problems and communicate the
products of my thoughts to you.   Please send your gifts in the form
of checks or money orders.  (I would gladly accept cash but they say
you're not supposed to mail it.)
payable to:
GREG KAISER
PO box 22935
Tucson, Az. 85734
        If you are so kind as to send $25.00 or more I will place you on
a list (unless you ask me not to) of persons to be made charter
members of  "A SOCIETY OF CULTURAL REFORMERS"; should such
an organization ever be formed and should I be in a position to do so.
        The preceding is to me a better stratagem for survival than
standing on a street corner with a sign indicating that "I will write
for food".  I prefer this less humiliating form of begging.
                   Thank you,
                       Greg Kaiser