How the BB-LiA targeted American conservatives … and won

In the beginning the BB-LiA was just another lobby in Washington DC, plowing through congressmen to get policies that favored its existence (Big Business Lobby in America).

The organization got its trickle-down favoritism, and then got its NAFTA-type agreements (imbalanced foreign business relationships). It put a lot of effort into these campaigns, working the congressmen at golf courses, ski resorts, social affairs, and then selling these ideas to people.

But in the 90′s the BB-LiA realized something: why waste our time on the congressmen … we should lobby the people.

At this point all Americans were fair game. But any good strategy team will analyze cost/return equations. They realized that highly-educated, secular-leaning people (typically these are democrats) were too pragmatic to influence easily; but that the conservatives, who were gullible (gullibility is a by-product of trusting, which is a by-product of faith … the gullibility of conservatives is a sacred feature and should not be exploited), would be easier to influence.

Of course you can’t call up 100 million conservatives and invite them to a vacation retreat in the Hamptons to make your case. What you need is a large scale marketing component, such as a media source or two. Rush Limbaugh was hired; FOX News was put together.

Rush Limbaugh and FOX News are merely the media component of the BB-LiA’s campaign to lobby America’s simple folk, to get them to do the BB-LiA’s bidding in DC through democracy channels. And now you have religious conservatives teaming up with fiscal conservatives, two sub-groups that should be polar opposites.

Was Jesus being an unrealistic emotional sap?

Was Jesus being an emotional sap when he told the rich man to give all of his wealth to the poor person (Mathew 19:21)?
…OR…
Was Jesus hinting at a fiscal policy?

——————————————————-
To find out we have to take Jesus literally, and build a legislative rule around his suggestion: JR-7473: Rich guy must give wealth to Poor guy … now let’s see what happens:

scenario 01 – The rich man, we’ll call Aaa, follows the rule and gives all his wealth to the poor person, we’ll call Zzz.
scenario 02 – But now Zzz is rich, and Aaa is poor; so Zzz must follow the rule and give all his (new found) wealth back to Aaa.
scenario 03 – The cycle continues: Aaa and Zzz keep handing the money back and forth indefinitely.

For me, what I see here is an Economic Circulation Pattern.

——————————————————-
Of course, the money is meaningless to both Aaa and Zzz if they do not spend it. So let’s try a different scenario set, allowing them each to spend money while they are in possession of it:

scenario 11 – Aaa follows the rule and gives all his wealth, $1,000,000, to Zzz.
scenario 12 – Zzz, who is starving, goes out and buys a loaf of bread and a Porsche.
scenario 13 – But now Zzz must follow the rule and give his wealth to now-poor Aaa … but what to give? The bread does not constitute ‘wealth’ (at least not in appropriately modest quantities), but the Porsche is clearly excess and so it is ‘wealth’ … therefore Zzz must hand over the Porsche and remaining cash (assets + cash = $999,997) to poor Aaa.
scenario 14 – Aaa receives the Porsche and cash. He is psyched about the Porsche, but quickly realizes that JR-7473 will not allow him to keep it, so he trades it in for a Ford Taurus. Also he buys some groceries.
scenario 15 – Aaa then gives his wealth to the poor person. The current value of the wealth is $979,977 (the Taurus was about $20k).
scenario 16 – Aaa and Zzz continue the cycle, each time getting the basic things that they need. The wealth slowly dilutes until at some point neither has excess wealth. The cycle stops.

In other words, Jesus’ rule, if followed literally, leads to a middle-class society of economic equality … interesting.

——————————————————-
I personally believe that in a real functioning society that this is not realistic, but I do think that there can be systems in place to foster this type Economic Circulation Pattern, specifically I think Bubble-Up Economics via Productivity-Oriented Social Programs does it, although Productivity-Oriented Social Programs do go against JR-7473, which required nothing of the recipient, whereas Productivity-Oriented Social Programs do require something. Read more: P-OSP

critical point psychology … and the class war

Remember back to your freshman astronomy class and the discussion of the event horizon that surrounds black holes. It is the distance from the black hole’s core  such that for any particle that goes beyond this point, it will never be able to come back out … it has become trapped in the black hole … it has fallen beyond a critical point.

The only opportunity for the trapped particle is if some magical external grabber reaches into the black hole and pulls it back out.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Water also has a concept of ‘critical point’ associated with it, but instead of this critical point being based on distance – like the event horizon – it is based on temperature. When water falls below 32F, the molecules become trapped in solid form, incapable of moving … kind of like the particles that fall into the black hole.

And the only opportunity for the iced molecules is if some external agent injects warmth into the system thus freeing them again.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
There also exists a critical point in human psychology … for all of us.

And once you or I or anyone falls below it we are no longer capable of functioning and behaving as would a normal, healthy individual. The only opportunity is if some external force helps us.

random picture of a black hole

I think that most of the lower class in our country are actually just individuals, entire neighborhoods, that have fallen below this critical point.

In the meantime all the healthy people sit around and express their doubts about the members of the lower class: they’re lazy, they’re drug addicts, they’re criminals … but we have only observed them in their sub-critical-point psychology state, and we have done so from our own healthy state point of view. They struggle to function.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Bubble-up economics has the potential to fix this, to directly inject positive influences into the difficulties that the lower class faces. It is a system that attempts to re-invigorate the lower class via productivity-oriented social programs, an array of types of programs, each with the similar expectation to benefit the struggling individual but also the taxpayer paying for the program through an applicable ROI.

if the HaveNots would just work hard

I am amazed by the people that say that they got what they got because they worked hard for it, referring to the demands of their academic experience. And then they go on to say that if poor people would just worked as hard, that they could pull themselves up by their own bootstraps rather than begging at the government coffer.

The Haves have a terrible habit of taking for granted all of the mitigating and supportive factors that have accompanied their life of diligence.

Here are a couple of questions for our mega-diligent college alumni:
1 – did you ever go snow skiing during your college years, or to the beach for spring break?
2 – did you ever have sex with a beautiful girl during your college years?
3 – did you ever take a summer hiatus for three months?
4 – did you believe in your future, did you have a sense of optimism?

The point is that although college can be tough, it is accompanied by an assortment of positive mitigating factors. These reduce the stress level of the academic demands, making the hard work of college much more survivable.

But for people below the Subsistence Threshold (their head is below the water), these mitigating factors do not exist and thus the hard work of a person struggling to get out of their own hole is much more complex and difficult, and as such the odds of success are DECREASED.

Self-righteous vs. Compassionate charity

It is important to not downplay charity regardless of the motivation.

But typically:
Self-righteous people give charity to make themselves sleep better at night.
Compassionate people give charity to make the poor person sleep better at night.

Don’t get me wrong, self-righteous people do accomplish a lot. In fact, the nature of self-righteousness is an important engine in getting good things done. Imagine corporations that sponsor cultural events or seasonal soup kitchens.

But usually the nature of self-righteousness blinds the giver to understanding the truth and complexity of the recipient’s situation, whereas compassionate people are more likely to really put themselves into the recipient’s shoes and are thus enabled to think about fixing the problem rather than merely applying a band-aid.