SU: The 'Entitlements'

 A reminder of the approach I'm using

The idea is to approach the entitlements subject--which is primarily social security, medicare and medicaid--conceptually, i.e., placing these in a conceptual framework.  The framework deployed in the Social-X series is the social contract, as developed in the philosophy of John Locke.

The Social Contract Paradigm

Government makes a contract with its citizenry, severally, i.e., with each citizen. The citizen agrees to live by the rules established in the contract (these could be spelled out) in return for protection and a modicum of well-being governmental services can provide.

This relationship generates certain social principles, two of which, though negative, are germaine to discussion of entitlements:  1.  The Principle of Endangerment and 2. The Principle of Incapacitation.  In terms of these principles, governmental action on behalf of the citizen is to prevent a citizen's bodily endangerment and the effects of disability, both of mind and body.

I think you can see that the entitlements are in the purview of these two principles.

We must also keep in mind that there are two basic accounting principles that are used in describing governmental financial activities, viz., accounts payable and accounts receivable.  With respect to financial transactions of the government, then, social security, medicare and medicaid are clearly expenditures, i.e., on the accounts payable ledger.

Pertinent Features of governmental accounts payable    

Accounts payable transactions tell us nothing about where the funds to pay to beneficiaries come from.  For political reasons, I believe, social security was presented to Congress in 1935 as an employer-employee pay-as-you-go (PAYG) system.  Government would simply dole out money from its Social Security Trust Fund, established as part of the program (though some economists regard it as a fiction).  So, even today, a beneficiary, a citizen 62 or older, will claim he is simply getting back funds he already contributed!  Well, we are only too aware, that many workers live longer and receive benefits far in excess to the total amount they and their employers made into the system.

Nevertheless, by the social contract, the citizen is entitled to the protection from life endangement that each month's social security check provides.  In sending the check, the government is living up to its obligations under the social contract.  "Social security" in its fundamental sense means the government's providing the financial means for the beneficiary over 62 to live under the poverty line.   

Not to mention the benefits medicare and medicaid provide to the elderly.  The question involving the negative principles of endangerment and disability is, what catastrophic occurrence would happen to the beneficiary of the entitlement should the government not come to his aid?  In some cases, the potential beneficiary would die (e.g., due to starvation), would lose use of a limb or sensory organ; would become insane.  It is important to realize that prior to the enactment of the entitlement programs such possibilities were very real and immenent.  It is most times possible to submit the citizen seeking government's help in dire circumstances to request a means-test so that the implicit claim of the citizen that indeed he is in need in a critical situation for which his own assets are insufficient toward remedy is justified; but not always is the test convenient.

These entitlements are offered to those in need--in the waning years of life, viz., 62 years and older; and the permanently and temporarily disabled no matter the age.  They are part of a program of relief for the citizen who has not the wherewithal to meet even the basic costs for a remedy, including  for life material sustenance.

Retirement Benefits issued by the government with no means-testing relevant             

But there has evolved a secondary meaning of the term "Social Security," involving amounts of money both the employee and his employer have contributed to the employee's retirement.  It is this sense of the term that Congressman Ryan advocates a beneficiary's savings account maintained in the Social Security system--from which to draw during retirement years, e.g., a Medicare sum.

Indeed, financial institutions in the United States and many European governments have already set up retirement programs, such as the 401K plans.  A retirement program that sets aside a certain percentage of an employee's wages (with whatever contributions an employer has been allowed to make) must be distinguished from Social Security in its fundamental sense as discussed above, which is actually an insurance program against a "rainy day."  It is the derivative sense of "Social Security" that  Republicans argue for a beneficiary's separate account(s), drawn upon in retirement years.  No problem there.  Such plans are effectively in play in Chile and some other South American countries now.  Assets in such personal retirement accounts can be used to invest in the stock and bond markets, just like the 401K funds.  But if the stock market should go "belly up" as happened in 2008 in the US, though these accounts would be greatly diminished in value, the beneficiary would still find available the Social Security safety net, as needed.  In sum, under Social security, as a fiduciary system, the government may simply account for monies entrusted to it upon which the beneficiary may draw during the retirement years.

Pertinent Features of governmental accounts receivable

Wherever the government finds the money to meet its social obligations to its citizenry is another matter entirely from what its financial obligations to the citizens are.  It may create fictional accounts of why the money is needed in order to prod compliance to its taxation edicts.  Who cares?  The point is the government must find the money to meet its obligations, including those social.

I recall being in Russia during the time of the drafting of its new Constitution in the late 1980's.  There was a "green party" in existence that insisted on five-year plans that limited the development of the country's natural resources.  However, the government was bankrupt; it could not live up to the five-year plan restrictions placed upon it.

Not so different from the situation in the US today.  The Republicans are right, I believe, in averring that the oil resources of the country must be developed as part of a program to decrease the federal debt with all deliberate speed.  The government must not forfeit its obligations to its citizens.

The Meta-Elements of the 'Entitlements'      

1.  The Promise.  The government will 'be there' acting on behalf of the citizen when times are rough and threatening. 

2.  The Acceptance.  The citizen applies for help from his government--in most cases to the federal government.

3.  Areas of societal advancement.  Whereas previously, the citizen was left to cry for help from anyone who would listen, today he knows there are social services available for him.  Society has advanced beyond the times when a citizen had to beg in the streets for social justice in his case.

4.  Provisions for breakdown of the 'Entitlement' systems.   Were the benefits through Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to become insufficient to meet citizen basic needs, the citizenry would undoubtedly demand better treatment--using the ballot box for their votes and communicating with governmental agencies; and even demonstrating, i.e., taking to the streets.

5.  Pursuance of the Utopian vision.  By attending to the citizen's needs, I believe, the government lives up to its commitment to societal well-being under its administration.  Not simply words, but budgetary commitment acknowledges its obligations under the social contract.

Social Uplift Meta-Elements

The American philosopher of the late 19th Century, C. S. Pierce admonished his contemporaries not to impede nor stand in the way of science.  This was a radical position to take since the achievements of science and technology had not yet permeated society.  As things were done by grandpappy, and were successful at that, so things ought to be done--the philosophy of his contemporaries.  However, I believe the admonishment amounts to a profound statement about the conditions of cultural progress since the mid-Nineteenth Century to today: if you, member of society, can't contribute to contemporary cultural achievement and by your actions add to the cultural gain, then get out of the way!  Become a spectator.  Don't be a drag on the societal flight to greater and greater heights--the social uplift.

Typically, a worker or a manager or a CEO is involved in working for social betterment and, if nothing else, applying scientific knowledge through technology.  But conditions arise in his bio which force the individual into a spectator role, abandoning his position as an involved contributor to society's betterment.  I shall argue at that juncture in a person's life he becomes a candidate for receiving the advantages afforded him through some social program, e.g., Social Security.  But I am getting ahead of myself.  Let's examine the meta-elements at play in social uplift.

The Meta-Elements  

1.  The promise. There's a societal promise that some social program exists for every individual which will sustain him as bystander of significant movement toward social uplift.  He is not being forgotten nor tossed aside.

You will recall that in England centuries ago debtors were put in prison and many prisoners were hanged.  There was no social program for them to go into; no one welcomed them.  Today's promise by society-on-the-march to those who are the bystanders to social progress is: we've got a place for you where you won't be in the way!

2.  The acceptance.  The individual, aware that he is unable to contribute to efforts leading to progress (a contribution defined as the production of a good or service used by others in the progress-progression), and having found a social program that is right for him, must apply for admittance into it.  He needs to gather the data and documents that show he qualifies for the program, i.e., meets the program requirements.  If he does not succeed the first time to gain admittance, he ought not despair but go through the appeal process that each program offers.  The acceptance process necessarily entails dialogue and communication between applicant and social agency.

3.  Areas of societal advancement.  With the individual's adherence to the terms of some bystander role he has assumed, there ought to be an obvious social gain in that area in which the individual had been performing.  If lacking that, the individual might be justified to seek his former professional status in the work pool.  For, social-uplift implies societal advancement toward social, visionary goals.

4. Provisions for breakdown of the uplift system.  If it turns out that there's more bystanders-people than contributors-people to social-uplift, an evaluation of society's commitment to its stated visionary goals is in order.  Those that can contribute to bringing about the vision are needed to do so, but if there's simply no enthusiasm and dedication among the societal members, whether as avowed contributor or accepted bystander, the goals themselves must be questioned and if necessary abandoned.

5.  Utopian vision pursued.  Significant problems in the way of reaching societal goals must be overcome as signs of progress such that the ends are continually in view.  A number of societal goals make up a utopian vision of what is being brought about by human ingenuity and dedicated endeavors.  The ultimate world-view is one that sustains human life on the planet and maintains friendly environments fit for mankind. This set of utopian ends must be open to revision and even re-direction as progress towards them continues.   

   


 






 

Social Uplift Format

This topic is the last in the social-X series (I think).  And it's certainly the most controversial in American politics today!

The Republicans argue on the basis of the social contract that helping others should be limited, because there's no reciprocity--nothing in return.  The social contract is the idea of tit-for-tat, I do something for you and you do something for me.  And, there's penalties if the one party to the contract renigs.  Included in the topic is the idea of the dole--the true handout.  Now it may be alright to offer 'aid' to African 'backward' people from whatever motive, according to a certain line of reasoning, but it is certainly not right to offer what are regarded by Democrats as social services to people in this country.  Also included in the topic is the concept of re-distribution of wealth from the wealthy to the poor, who haven't earned it and probably will never be able to pay anything back.

Also included are the whole range of social programs including Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security--in Republican parlance, programs that offer the poor financial gains they don't really deserve.  Just gifts to the 'dregs,' as Republicans I think believe in their heart of hearts.

Under this topic, aid to disaster is sometimes brought into question:  how about the nations of the world fitting the bill?  How about the government financial bailouts?  Germany is bearing the brunt of Greece's financial woes.  Is that fair?

Well, we'll look at these issues in light of the social contract principle, which admittedly is at the heart of the English tradition, adopted by the founders of the US; and the ultimate basis for dispute between Republicans and Democrats!  Ultimately, I argue, the principle is flawed because it understates the progress of today's society and the dynamics of social change toward cultural progress we are witnessing.  iPod anybody? 

SC: The Demise of the Western World

There's a revolution in governance.  As globalization procedes, any claim by one nation that its ways amd rules and regulations apply to all within its sphere of domain no longer is legitimate.  No one nation can impose its dictates upon any other, any longer.  The day of one country's controlling other countries so as to promote its own interests is over.

What the prime mover away from Empire-building is the effectiveness of communication networks around the globe.  These networks, e.g., those over the Internet, bring about a social cohesion of indigenous peoples, who would otherwise be oppressed by a (usually) neighboring, technologically advanced country.  Instead of imposing its will upon countries around it, each major power joins with countries of lower GDP and less technological advancement in its region.  The catalyst to form a regional unit is the enormous volume of computer interactions among those countries in a particular geograghical area, especially through the use of e-mail..

1.  Regional Dominant Nations

Luckily for the analyst of this immediate communications resultant phenomenon, the dominant states of the various regions are very obvious.  Indeed, most have insinuated themselves into the international member clique known as the G20.  At one time, the G20 was only the G7 then the G8; but other powerful countries have emerged and joined to form the now, G20.  This group takes up sundry monetary and economic issues having international import.  They also adopt rules and regulations governing big business transactions worldwide.

President Obama has urged that its membership nations accept greater responsiblity in world
governance. Indeed, through NATO, an alliance composed in part of Great Britain, Italy and France, Libya is undergoing radical governmental change.  NATO sought endorsement from the Arab League, because it is interfering within the Arab world. The idea Obama is expostulating is that current magnate countries take the leadership role in determining an evolving New World Order.

Let's just mention some of these regional giants or magnates.

1.  Russia, the regional dominant nation to the North, whose region encompasses countries that form the Russian Federation of Independent States (or, simply, the Russian Federation).  Its governing principle is symbolized in the reverence it displays (and promulgates regionally) for past religious figures and distinguished Czars and political leaders, including Lenin and Marx.  In Russian philosophy, the past is the direction for a glorious future.  Indeed, it is said that Putin reveres the memory of Czar Nicholas I.

As dominant nation, Russia sets an example to the other states in the Federation in trade and commerce, viz., in selling oil and gas to European nations.  The idea is to encourage other member states to reach out in exporting.

2.  Presently, China is drawing together members in its region--which will probably come to include most of Asia as far south as East Timor, which is presently receiving aid.  Japan, the Koreas (though for now, limited to supporting N. Korea), Tibet and various islands in the Pacific Rim comprise China's area of dominence.  China offers a unique way of thinking and acting, sometimes referred to as "The Asian Mind."  This principle, evolving through ancient scripts, differs from Western logic, and predates recorded history.  Its gestalt is that of the whole human being, as participant in the cosmic dynamics of yin and yang.   As China becomes the dominant force in Asia, the Asian mode of thought will no doubt become the special contribution of the region in the development of mankind.

It is no longer possible to consider Japan as a dominant nation in Asia.  The update regarding the effects of the nuclear power plants explosions upon the environment discussed on the program Coast to Coast last night only confirm reports I have received that the country is a nuclear disaster, including the capital of Tokyo.  It will be years before the radiation is dissipated, according to what I've come to know about the radiation's  permeating the soil.  As I understand it, the Japanese government is only monitoring the sky and air to determine the effects.  But according to what I hear, the ground is adversely affected many times more; not to mention the effects on sea-life, including the salmon.  If I were in Japan now, I would make plans to leave the country immediately.  There's no point to endangering oneself with the prospect of cancer (or, if I were younger, with the possibility of becoming sterile) simply for  sentimental reasons.  I WOULD GET OUT WHILE I COULD; BEFORE THE RUSH TO LEAVE BECOMES APPARENT.   Already I understand parents who can afford to are sending their kids out of the country, e.g., to Australia; Peru.  According to the update, the Japanese simply won't talk about the threats to their health among themselves.  They are not facing reality, to my mind.

Pakistan, though currently looking to China for guidance and succor, will probably join yet another region of nations, one associated with the practices and beliefs of Islam.

3.  The Moslem League  led primarily by the Saudis (of Saudi Arabia), who oversee the sacred lands of Islam, are cojoined with Iran, Egypt, and Turkey to claim leadership of the Moslem countries in the Middle East--which includes Syria, Jordan, Afghanistan, Palestine, Tunisia, Libya, Iraq, Bachrain, the Emirates and Dubai.  Far off Indonesia is nevertheless a vital member of this grouping.  While oil is the primary commodity the region is known for, distributed through its cartel OPEC, it is resource-rich in a number of minerals.  Currently, Islam is enjoying a renaissance, which makes this region even more prominent in world affairs; and it is the identifying motify for the region, viz., allegiance to the Muslim faith.

4. Brazil has virtually seized a dominant leadership role in all of South America!  Compare its dominance with the posture of  neighbor Argentina.  The latter country prefers to imitate a European style of living while the former attempts to define a virtual South American continent culture as the region's contribution to the world.  Toward this end, Brazil acts to unite the continent through its efforts at mediation among disputant nations, and is a model for the region's nations by developing its own resources, especially through offshore drilling for international consumption.  Brazil, over the years has been a leader in the use of ethanol from sugar products.

5.Germany has dramtically forged ahead in developing the European Union with its European Central Bank.  It has secured a loyal band of European financiers to back its effort.  Without this dynamic aggressive policy, I believe the EU would still be a languishing dream of the several states, who for their own part have been bent on pursuing their own individual ways at the expense of economic stability.  Despite a slight downturn in its economy, Germany has not succumb to enforcing austerity measures, though it has attempted to curb its unions' aggressive posture in pursuing gains for their members.

6. The United States is by far the world leader among nations.  This point is proved by the amount of treasury notes the country has been able to sell to investors worldwide, desirous to secure their portfolios in the topsy-turvey stock- and bond- markets.  Despite the fact that its economy has only slightly improved, it has not fallen prey to a downward trend as in European, African, and now even Asian markets.  Of course, China is closely aligned with the US; and together they stabilize the world's international trade.  Banking regulation is stilll the major problem in the US, and the unemployment rate is of major concern, despite the fact that many countries have much greater unemployment.  The European banks, in contradistinction, are in much worse shape!

The region of US dominance is circumscribed in NAFTA as Canada and Mexico and of course, the US.  If free trade agreements are ratified by the US Senate, the region will also include formally Panama and extend to South America's Colombia.  Yet in surrendering the Panama Canal and in lessening involvement in Colombia's war on drugs, the US has become a weaker influence in the affairs of Central and South America.  Whether the States could again assert itself in these areas is uncertain, because of a coalescing of area groups, such as a Carribean Alliance, howbeit at this stage only informally organized by Jamaica; and the very cohesive South American Alliance of nations under Brazilian dominance.

Be it clear that it is the US military which is distinctive in molding US foreign policy and international governing policy.  With the military's bases of some 740 in 170 countries, the military offers the world a stability and security enabling corporations and business to effectively operate around the globe.  True, the US military budget is large; but international business would be severely hampered if the US military's presence were to be curtailed.  To my mind, the project of international globalization would fail without the US military's prominence around the globe. 
   
7.  The Union of South Africa  is yet to become the leader of nations in Africa, though it offers great promise because of the foreign investments it is able to command.  It has a stability in the region which other countries seek to emulate; and it continues to systematically develop its natural resources for international trade.  However, the AIDs problem is draining the country's will to lead other African nations, I believe.  Still, it serves as a model of others on the continent to develop sound economic policies domesticallly.

Nigeria prospective.  I've spoken with Nigeria reps recently.  The country appears interested to become the dominant nation for the continent.  I think they'd do an outstanding job, providing, as I told them, they calm down and quit their in-fighting!  And, of course, they're rich in resources, including oil.

As you might discern, the concept of regionalism is new, brought about by the fact that more and more nations are entering the arena through local and regional communication networks to claim regional control, making it hard for any one nation to assert itself as an Empire leader.

2. Outsourcing

Another factor that has contributed to the Western World's demise is outsourcing.  Once upon a time, a company could protect its trade secrets from piracy by retaining trusted employees over their years of service.  These were entrusted with the knowledge of how the company actually made its products.  Not on the computer but in the minds of these technical wizards the true 'patents' were known.  I think the corporations with military contracts were adept at using this method.  But no longer can a company deploy it with a high degree of confidence, because today employees change jobs very frequently, enticed by the company's competitors. 

Add to this uncertainty of results is an innate universal force of the 'have not' nations to pressure the 'have' nations to equalize the economic playing field by offering jobs, building factories and generally, extending economic opportunities to the 'have nots'; or risk violence and mayhem worldwide.  In the early 1990's, the threat was seemed very real; and the advanced nations did appear to take it seriously.  Through outsourcing, the means whereby less advanced nations produce goods internationally shared yet under the control of corporations based in the developed countries, this problem appears to have been solved.  Be it recognized that international corporations cannot locate corporate headquarters in the less advanced countries lest they lose critical support from the leading nations.

China, for one, has been engaged in copying products made by the technologically advanced nations.  (It's natural for any less advanced nation to do so.)  However, outsourcing makes it more problematic that a technologically less advanced nation can be successful in reproducing all the receipe items and component parts that go into the products of the mega-corporation.  In seeming retaliation, China has come to insist in some cases that a company who does business in China must locate relevant research and development functions on China soil.

Recently, the EU in a position paper has reaffirmed outsourcing, which it says was begun in Europe.   Clearly, the method is here to stay to function as a corporate bulwark against piracy and as a corporate marketing means to ingragiate itself with governments abroad, where it wants to do business.

3.  Ecological And Generally Accepted International Rules Compliance 

Under the Western World concept, the giant powers had things "their way" with countries that they dominated.  If, for instance, the British steel companies wanted to pollute the water and air beyond its border. the English government insisted the foreigners consider it their peroragative to do so. After all, these companies were in control, having invested capital in economic development of the less technologically advanced.   Why, these capitalists were doing the 'baclward' countries a favor by entering into contractual relations with them!

Having advanced to become a major world power, initially China operated under the Western model--thinking that it was now its turn to pollute the atmosphere as it would seem fit.  It would not pay attention to any denunciations that other nations and even the United Nations might make regarding their lack of concern for the harm they would do to the ecological system worldwide.  But actually, China has become a leader in the ecological, green earth movement.  It is the leader in producing solar panels, for instance.  It is looking to make use of its garbage as fuel to produce electricity and as the 'raw material' in the manufacture of fabrics. And, its leaders appear far-sighted in recognizing the need to look for ecologically-friendly methods in burning coal for energy and in planning a city for humans to live comfortably.  

In sum, by relying upon science to planning for the future of the human race on earth and in employing scientific technocrats in business, industry and government, virtually all nations of the world are committed to the green earth movement, including Russia, Brazil, and of course, the United States. As the dominat nations fashion a New World Order, ecological concern drives worldwide edicts and principles for which they stand, e.g., each committed to developing alternative sources of energy in order to lessen carbon monoxide emissions.

Along with the project to fashion and maintain a green-earth environment has come the recognition that there must be established bodies and commissions to oversee the manifold business, trade and governmental transactions.  Specifically, these new institutions function in accord with rules and regulations, agreed to generally, i.e., by the member nations which are engaged in the particular international activity. For example, at least one intitution exists to regulate the harvesting of fish in international waters, and at least another to regulate the use of international waterways; and still another to regulate the use of the skies for travel and communication.  Then too, investment transactions are coming under scrutiny and regulation through such international organizations as the G20.  The point--no longer is free wheeling and dealing  permitted by any nation; all international activities are subject to regulation and control by appropriate institutions established and maintained through the cooperation of the nations involved.  Importantly, each of these institutions usually has an adjudication arm or function to impose sanctions upon nations found in noncompliance of particular rules.  For example, an international naval court ensures that worldwide standards for the use of maritime waterways are being adhered to by the member nations; an adjudicating body in the WTO settles disputes over trade practices.

In this way, agreed upon standards pertaining to all aspects of trade, industry, and governmental policy are coming under scrutiny and control of the those who live on this planet with the end in view of making justice and fairness an international goal for the sake of preserving the planet--its resources and enjoyments.

The Social Change Wrought

Thus, the Western World, dating back to ancient Greek and Roman times, is a thing of the past.  Rapid communication among those involved in some transactional activity denies any one nation the right to become an Empire. 

Meta-Elements of the Demise

1.  The promise.  Nations can learn from each other how to join the international community of nations.  As partners, each nation will develop into an independent state with helpers when they call for it! Moreover, they will each contribute to the well-being of the others of the community.

2.  The dominant nations.  This community has accepted certain members of the group as its leaders to bring along the others, principally, those within their geographical locations.

3.  Development of the commuity of nations.   Through commissions and multi-institutions, nations will participate in world governance.  Member states make the rules and regulations governing trade and commerce and use of natural resources.  These bodies include a functional judicial organ to assure compliance.

4.  Provision for system breakdown.  In that international transactions are governed by appropriate institutions, the member states, who drew up the rules and regulations being enforced, should adhere to the edicts rendered down by these institutions, and they could be sanctioned if found in non-compliance.

5.  Vision of things to come.   The system's objective is to secure peace in the world among nations with differing points of view and purposes.  In the end, justice is to prevail as the system's hallmark.  And, from each nation's standpoint, independence from each other shall be maintained through the actions of appointed institutions, tribunals and commissions.

SC: Harassing Austerity Programs Lead to Anarchy

 Politicians by nature promise more than they can deliver.  When the promises involve finances in the form of new programs, they frequently offer benefits beyond what the country can actually afford.  It's natural to do so; and happens all the time.

Confronted subsequently with deficits, the first line of attack that politicians use is the budget cut-back, i.e. program (including payroll) slashing. We find state governments use this method with good results; spending is kept in check.

But debts can mount overtime after one federal administration succeeds another.  Unforeseen catastrophes intervene adding to the mounting deficits.  So, how should these politicians deal with an ever-increasing debt that at some time or other, becomes overwhelming--approaching or surpassing the level of the country/s GDP?

Austerity Programs are Tricky 
Politicians are programmed to 'gut' response:  at this stage, they institute an austerity programs.  Be it noted, that the IMF is notorious for its attempts at supervising austerity programs it devised for the Latin American countries in the 1980's and 1990's; and today, no countriy in South America wants this organization on its shores!  SA autserity programs were an economic disaster, which, finally, these nations have come out of.  Sometimes, they simply defaulted on the IMF loans, but in all cases that I'm familiar with, the governments to the South abandoned IMF edicts and advice.

Little wonder.  Did not the French Revolution start because the people were sick and fed up with austerity forced upon them by a high-living royalty?  And did not the Germans, burdened with the Dawes Plan etc. committing it to reparations to the victors of WWI, throw off austerity by turning to the Nazis?  Humans find austerity repugnant to the human spirit.

On the contemprary scene, the Greeks have taken to the streets to protest the austerity program forced upon them by the EU.  Interestingly, the ECB (European Central Bank) is supplying eros since these demonstrations, apparently recognizing the limitations of austerity to turn a country's finances around without bringing about violence and bloodshed.  (I argue that the violence does not end under auterity programs until the country is thrown into anarchy.)

The London Riots,  August 9-11, 2011  
With a new conservative goverenment in power, Britain launched its own austerity program to rid the deficit burden.  The basic idea is to eliminate as many social programs as it can and  to weaken the overall safety-net.  Cutting out child-care run by the government, cutting back on senior lunch programs are within ken of its austerity philosophy.

The riots took place in poverty neighborhoods of London and Birmingham, UK's second largest city, and in other industrial towns.  These neighborhoods are ethnically composed largely of Muslims, who have immigrated during the recent Labor government's regime.  Burnings and lootings resembled to some onlookers as "bits...like Berlin or London in World War II" US Today.

Causes cited, e.g., by those at the scene and commentators on-TV, include class warfare between the rich and the poor, because the austerity measures prey heavily on the "deprived," i.e., the poor.  Then, too, on the FOX network news, a British dignitary claimed there had been a lax-hiatus on the part of the police to immediately quell the violence.  He further said had not the Labor government permitted in so many immigrants culturally different from the British, there would have been no turning to the violence as an acceptable means of protest.

In a major address, David Cameron, Prime Minister, attributed the violence to the work of inner-city gangs and kids in these segregated neighborhoods.  He called attention to the looting of stores by mere children as evidence of the presence in Great Britain of a culture that condones violence ("It's a culture that glorifies violence.") and teaches an inferior morality; and he denied the claim by some Labor legislators that the country is in social dysfunction and despair.  From this I derive the opinion that Mr. Cameron decries the Muslim faith.

Could it happen here in the USA?

On the Hannity Talk Show after the Riots, Mitt Romney was asked, "Do you think the riots could happen here?"  Presidential Candidate Romney replied, 'When there's inadequate leadership at the top, riots are a real possibility.'  Evidently, Romney doesn't think much of PM David Cameron's leadership.

Nevertheless, some analysts on these talk shows have noted the patience of the downtrodden.  For instance, up to now the unemployed have not taken to the streets to protest their woeful financial condition.  Yet, with the coming of the end of their unemployment checks, some of these may be motivated to visibly show their indignation.

Already, the blacks, led by Tavis Smiley and Professor West of Princeton University are touring the country's poor neighborhoods to observe their plight but may also be singling out leaders who can unite their communities.  Specifically, any austerity program contemplated by the Tea Party must be countered with resistance, according to these men.

There's a target group the poor have identified in class warfare terms as the source of their problems, be it unemployment or poverty: viz.,  the rich who won't pay their "fair share."  Obama's speeches in which justice is appealed to, have confirmed the rich as the poor man and middle class' warring adversary.

A Better Way to approach Indebtedness

If you look at indebtedness as indicative of a national crisis approaching the magnitude of threatening the very existence of the country, then the rightful approach to handling the problem is akin to dealing with any national emergency:  by mobilizing the country's people to contribute what they severally are trained and skilled to do in order to save the nation.

I contend, deep-pocketed indebtedness must be handled as a state of war.


Be it noted that the Russians in the late 1980's were confronted, I believe, with the gravity of austerity programs.  In my opinion, they acted courageously in giving up the pursuit of an Empire and in embracing the notion of a federation of independent states, each of which must make its contribution to the continuance of the Russian Bear.  Their decision as to how to handle their indebtedness is embodied in the present Russian Constitution.  

Meta-Elements of the Austerity Disaster   

1.  The austerity proposal.  Those who recommend austerity imply 'Austerity, yes; but not for me!'  Accordingly, they seek out groups upon whom to prey.

2.  The accusation of deliberate overspending or pursuing flagrant policies leading to deep indebtedness.  The charges are made and accepted in social parlance.

3.  Austerity measures are undertaken at the expense of a group of individuals deemed philanderers.  The punishment is inflicted, causing great social harm.

4.  Provisions for retaliation.  Those singled out for punishment and deprivation of rights are empowered to retaliate.  Fightings and violence breaks out.

5.  Down the line: anarchy.  Neither side--the imposers nor the imposed upon--give in until death is widespread or the death-knell is silenced.
       

Soc Chg: Globalization

Overview
Globalization as a concept means today something much different from its typically assigned meaning.  Originally, it was a pie-in-the-sky idea to integrate the countries of the world into some economic cooperative whole.  You still find that mode of thought in such books as In Defense of Globalization by Jaedish Bhagwati (2004).  However the term has taken on a different meaning as underdeveloped nations have come to recognize that such a vision was clouded by the exploitive actions of multinational companies bent upon dictating international trade policies to effectively benefit only the wealthy and powerful nations in which their corporate headquarters reside.  The poor countries, usually carrying much debt to the international financiers who align themselves with large corporations and cartels, sought to alter the rules and regulations of international commerce and trade so as to take into consideration their own interests only.  Through collective effort, i.e., by banning together to form a block, the underdeveloped have become an ever-present force to resist yielding to the demands and dictates of the magnate corporations.

Acting as a united front against the powerful corporate structures spanning the globe, any one of which has access to wealth far in excess to that of any particular poor country, they altogether have protected each from the onslaught of pressures being forced upon them in such areas as managing their own resources.  The Internet and other communication networks are being used in the binding process.       

Parenthetically, I became aware of the new globalization thrust, when I involved myself in the design phase of Russia's current constitution, while I was visiting Russia in the late '80s.  Russia, which owned the industries within its borders and those of its satellites, had operated as a unified Soviet Union Empire, a single vast corporate conglomerate, as it were.  To my way of thinking, the several provinces were the same as underdeveloped nations.  Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia broke away from this and went their own way.  I perceived in the effort to establish a new constitution there was a way to retain the positive aspects of the Empire while permitting an autonomy to each member state heretofore unheard of.  A founding document emerged for what is now called the Federation of Independent States (FIS).  Under it there will be no czars, e.g., Nicholas I, ever again--if the Constitution remains in tact--but there will be a unity of political will and purpose among the member states, including Russia herself.

Be that as it may, I think globalization, signifying the emerging economic picture worldwide, points to a continuing successful effort to maintain the balance of power between corporate multinationals and poor but resource-rich countries, upon which business must rely.  I traveled a lot in Central and South America during the late '80s and through my many encounters I  became convinced that if the poor people of the underdeveloped countries did not substantially improve their lot, their lands would become areas of foment and revolution expressing hatred toward the wealthy and dominant great powers.  They would engage in civil strife not unlike what we have seen occur in Rwanda and Southern Sudan.  I think it encouraging that the Tunisian politicians in power are turning to technocrats to solve their long-standing financial and social problems rather than to going off ro lead the desparate and discontented into social upheaval.

In sum, the globalization system is working!

Discussion
Let's develop the current vision of a world globalized within the facts of history.

Actually, ever since the Middle Ages trade worldwide has been achieved through the establishment of East-West trade land and sea routes.  It was further advanced by international companies sponsoring trade such as the Dutch East India Company and the tea trading companies of England.  And in Central and South America the United Fruit Company started sending agricultural products to the US over a century ago.  In these several instances, one notes the involvement of these trading companies in the internal affairs of the foreign countries they did business at, for the sake of maintaining a stable political and social environment in which to operate.  The CIA, no doubt acting on behalf of the US companies with foreign investments abroad, also endeavored to maintain law and order, e.g., throughout Central and South America.

What's new about the current effort toward globalization is the insinuation of governments, native and foreign, to regulate and oversee commercial ventures.  Just as in centuries past, the companies from prosperous and powerful nations invest capital to develop resources in the poor countries.  But what you're seeing today is that companies in the poorer countries are co-joined with those making the investments under government supervision,  e.g., through joint-venture agreements.  There's many more partnership-relationships occurring, in order to control outside influence upon internal industrial policies--as established and enforced by the native government.  No longer will foreign countries permit outside dictation of the rules and regulations of business transactions by the multinationals.  Corruption, such as bribing a politicl official, has not been eliminated; but governmental oversight, even intervention into the commercial arena, has been added; that importantly, tyranny of the rich nations and smart corporations be placed into check.


Helping these foreign lands to stand up for their own self-interests are the many, many NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations).  Some of these assume the fight to protect the environment and the land of the poor countries from pollution and unsafe use.  They act as a support network to assure that the rights of these countries are properly respected.  NGOs make wide use of e-mail and the Internet to conduct campaigns for human rights and social justice.  It is unconscienable but true that Big Business tends to look the other way when instances of child labor and poor working conditions are brought to their attention; yet to their credit, NGOs take up the cudgel--providing information and offering remediation

To be sure, trade barriers are being eliminated  where it makes sense to do so; and international trade is being facilitated by actions taken from the multinationals and the governments and the industries in the underdeveloped countries.  Financial institutions such as the IMF (International Monetary Fund) and the World Bank offer financial carrots to the developing nations to improve the climate of trade and commerce worldwide.  There's also a plethora of bilateral aid organizations to add encouragement for countries to engage in sound fiscal policies that lead to greater dependability of international trade.

However, the multinationals are posturing a political climate of laissez faire or free trade with no interference by government and no imposition of regulations inhibiting Big Business worldwide.  Yet, some tariff barriers enable a developing country to make a substantial amount of money.  If, for example, a country's major export is fish and the product is in great demand worldwide, it's crazy to demand of that country to make less money by offering the item for less than what the industry and its government could otherwide realize in profit.  Tariffs have been used effectively not simply in instances of protecting native industries but for gaining much needed revenue--as in cases of Canada and Argentina, reported by Bhagwati.

I sympathize with what President Chavez must endure. as in his country there is being waged a viscious media campaign to get his government out of trade and commerce.  In the US, we're experiencing much the same from the Radio Talk Shows, who daily implore the removal of government interference in affairs of business.  Corporate America, no different than the multinationals of any country, want a free hand in their business activities, no matter how such activities,including those nefarious and fraudulent, impact society as a whole.

Regardless of certain issues raised because of government enforced trade and business policies existing in one or another underdeveloped country, many have realized a per annum growth rate of over !0%!  Remarkable.

Meta-Elements of Globalization
1.  The promise.  Through the use of computerized communication networks, the poor countries have formed a formidable block to withstand the pressures of certain multinationals dedicated to policies of laissez faire, placed upon one or another country to foresake or simply ignore doing what is in its own self-interest.

2.  An Acceptance.  Surprisingly, even the governments of nations where multinational headquarters are located have frequently helped in bringing about an acceptance of the the underdeveloped countries' positions on export-import trade .  I, for one, was certainly taken back that Russia seemed to appreciate the need for its satellites to maintain their own independent points of view and ways by adopting the FIS constitution!

3.  Areas of development.  With help from the NGOs, including the creditable Bill Gates Foundation, even the poorest of countries have been enabled to pressure the multinationals to stay out of its internal affairs and to place into the fore of international trade discussions the concerns such nations have in promoting their own self-interest.  The idea here is to enable each participant in a commercial enterprise to promote the goodwill of the venture for others: each for all.

4.  Provisions for its breakdown.   If the globalization effort were to disintegrate, be prepared for widespread social upheaval.  Order in the society would be maintained through the use of the bayonet.

5.  A vision of things to come.  Even the poorest of countries would slowly but surely mature, such that each country of the world would deserve the respect of the others as an equal trading partner.  Thereupon,  the stage would be set, I believe, for the drama to shatter the barriers maintaining national and religious exclusivism, i.e., exclusivity, the current bugaboo of international commerce among the peoples of the world.