Humanitarian Government #20: A Review of Change from #1 to now

Humanitarian Government #20: A Review of Change from #1 to now

Hello again.

So far, I've gone over a new Preamble, pointing out flaws and potential solutions in government in general, different aspects of military, a reworking of what is needed as basics in a modern society as items.

But how will all this look in reality? Well, it first depends on you, dear reader. You'll have to step up, become a leader in your own right, make sure your information and far-reach thinking is as good as possible, propose changes every chance you get and push for small scale trials of whatever your area needs most of. Whether that is the government of whatever level you feel isn't working and you stand up in small community groups and suggest a new way: demarchy in my 'perfect world', or getting construction people together to form a co-op and start a small scale build of new buildings and neighborhoods.

But it still comes down to elbow grease and hard work. An ability to fail, try again, and keep going that road until people around you think, realize what you're preaching isn't bad, and be open to change.

Sub-Issue: Society and Humanitarian Government

I keep mentioning about personal and social accountability, responsibility, and taking care of your neighbors to start and think about the nation as a whole. In short: follow the Golden Rule and also be prepared to take accountability and responsibility of yourself to start, family and friends next, and build up to a national look.

One might think this would be too much work to manage. But think: you want clean water, a decent job, a family, home, all all that modern day good stuff in all categories, right?

Well, has playing by the rules we grew up with (I'm mid-to-late Gen X and was told 'Work hard, get an education, and you'll do better than we did' by my parents and family) worked? I'd say no because big business got into politics and the courts, managed to change things around to benefit themselves and their stockholders, broke unions, stagnated wages, upped prices and essentially has made monopolies of either vertical or horizontal (or both) natures and shafting those of us who tried to follow the rules.

But has the opposite worked, either? Being cut throat, back stabbing just to get a half step up the ladder. Become cynical and soulless because to 'make it' you have to step on the very people you depend upon to make or do the jobs you need them to do for your business to succeed and create a form of economic bottle neck that allows only those who have had money to play the game and gain and, again, those who you depend on get shafted because they can't even pay for necessities anymore.

So, Humanitarian Government isn't just all about infrastructure, pointing out flaws, and a dream of a better future for those I know will come after me. Remember: I'm never going to be a grandmother other than to furbabies. However, if we could start working, my children's lives will be improved. Not necessarily as much as I would like, necessarily, however it would be better than mine.

Humanitarian Government is also a clarion call to call to heel issues created by mercantilism, capitalism, and smaller variations of kleptocracy that runs rampant right now. I'm not suggesting communism, because honestly, until humanity evolves a lot more and re-learns or learns to accept each other as they are and gets rid of hierarchical thinking and social structures, it may exist for a while, but twist into either an octopus form of authoritarianism or into a form of socialism that may or may not work except for a few.

We'll have to change multiple things at the same time, too. This means friction on both social and economic fronts, not to mention trying to get ourselves on a good path in a new form of a familiar system of government.

Education, Healthcare, Housing would be the top three I'd say for social change. The education would be all book, yes physical books, learning and critical thinking weaved in tightly with basic education needed by all. A new study by the Dutch found attention spans and actual acquisition of knowledge happens better with actual books and electronics both personal and via school instruction, decreases mental functions and memory. Another change would be go to a model of getting ready for either further education for 'professional' jobs that require more college or university level knowledge or training for jobs from right out of school. This business of requiring college or paid vo-tech schooling after twelve years of education, not to mention our education system is failing to teach students the basics (not all of that is on teachers, if you look at changes in the education system from the mid-1950s to today, you can see how things got this messed up). Not to mention, those children who come up with an education system that isn't skewed in anyway unless populations are more or less insular, will be the leaders of the future.

That leadership will be for all those who want a say in government, take into consideration people other than themselves and in different places, learn to justify their actions and thoughts, and more spread out. Because even though my version of demarchy runs on counsels, it's got guardrails and rules that force decent timelines to read, consider, justify and give pro-cons to whatever vote comes out of the proposition of legislation, and then allow the system to breath, but also be forced to still adhere to the basic rules.

Healthcare should be a human right. The US is about or is the only industrialized or post-industrialized nation who doesn't take care of their people in general: the corporations don't allow it because they want to exist and/or gain as much profit as they can all at the same time, causing issues they themselves didn't want to think of, just that fat bottom line. Guess what big business: your want of more profits with stagnate wages and cutting jobs every time you feel that bottom line will shrink will still, eventually, cause that bottom line to be non-existent. The reason is simple: you've priced everyone out of everything, demand more than a person can do in whatever method that is 'efficient' that I hate to say human's may be biological machines, but we need down time more than for sleep and eating. You want robots? Fine, but don't count on people to make them because eventually there will be such a backlash that tech will be heavily monitored and regulated because you've shown yourselves incapable of wanting anyone else not making millions per year and being well off to exist. It's those people you don't want to exist that has allowed you to exist in the first place.

Housing is another human right item. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs has it within it's base. Currently, we've enough housing that if we forced, I can't say 'modify', changes, we'd be able to house everyone. Between housing and healthcare, we can take those who have ended up voluntarily blurring reality regularly or those whose physical make-up allows for quick addiction and slow, hard recovery, get these folks on their feet and trained or into current jobs.

But those three aren't the only things, nor is the forced changes in government. Those two would need not only time to be accepted fully and modifications done on the fly during a fairly short transition, but also a shift of our mental and social focuses.

I mentioned military. This would be a possible good start on the shifts needed.

Granted, military isn't necessarily run by counsels, but it's got a chain of command and the higher up you go and the need for interrelated groups trained in specialties are needed, the more leadership and collaboration needs to happen. So, we could look at the military to help create frameworks on change and even some day-to-day frameworks. I'm not talking everyone has to take orders, I'm talking about having to look out for your 'battle buddy' that is your next door neighbor or your 'platoon' that is your neighborhood, 'battalion' for your city. Just to start.

I'm also going to say and reiterate: weapons safety and knowledge should be taught on a nation-wide level. Mixed liberally with the thinking that everyone has a sanctity of life and the 'OK' to walk into a situation and ask for help both physically and mentally without censure or judgment if you're thinking you'll be harming yourself or others. Trust me, I've a history that isn't pretty and it's not been kind to me or others around me. I've done that very thing and I've seen the looks, and felt the vibe of what people think about me. I will defend myself though: I grew up in a time that psychiatry was for institutionalized folk when I was very young, had things happen that no child should have to endure, and with long term, but 'minor' issues, the very core of a person can become warped. Then, it takes more work to root all that out instead of a much lower cost in all ways to catch and fix things early on.

However, that very form of thinking: weapons safety and knowledge along with a reverence of other's peoples lives can be the very system that reforms the military and national defense.

For one, I'm going to suggest that a mandatory two-year active duty stint be for all. Even those who are 'silent' citizens who can't seem to learn about history and government and pass the very same citizenship test that those who immigrate here and gains citizenship takes. Some might find the military agreeable as a full time job. That's fine, we can support at least a bare-minimum active military. However, also think: each citizen would also be a soldier and that changes the focus and thinking of what military should be like. I'd also address folks like the Amish or Mennonites, or conscientious objectors, or those that have diagnosis of potentially stable or treatable mental illness but unsuited for both firearms training and military service.. You can skip the weapons training if against your religion or morals, however the service is still mandatory and can be limited to office work, food service or something like that. However, if ever issues come up that involve firearms and violations of the law, don't consider that as a method of saying 'I didn't mean too'. Also, don't expect easier sentencing, either, if found guilty. Those who fall under the mental-health issues, you're skipped over for weapons training but still involved in the sanctity of life learning/outlook. The same applies, though, for law issues.

For one, those of us who've served, have a different outlook on things. Yes, some of us have found we're not suited to being within the military and serve one contract and might have issues in various ways to prove that out. However, just volunteering for service may have self-serving interests as a basis for the decision to serve. But serving, being in 'mixed' company and being exposed to different frameworks, thoughts, ideas, speaking and mental focuses changes minds for the most part.

For those who have served overseas and/or had family with them overseas have an even wider view. Granted, some area's aren't American friendly. To be honest, as I've grown older and noted quite a few things in the last year especially, the US has a big ego, but has gone downhill in mentalities and that's created issues with allies and enemies. So, that's a national mental-health issue as I call it.

But also, if everyone is mandated to be active duty for two years, qualify shooting yearly and making sure the 'baseline' soldiering skills stay sharp yearly, having recruitment and such no longer applies: everyone is a soldier, and if things hit the fan a controlled activation can happen fairly quick. But also, those who have served have one other change that is more important.

Most, I can't say all because...again humanity, tend to not want hot wars. Having your buddies or family members losing their lives and because of 'pay-back' to corporations in proxy wars, or wars stirred up by various toxic mixes of government and economics isn't well liked.

I'm not saying don't prepare or not do research and development. However, I will say that AI is becoming more prevalent in the military and in my eyes, that's a mistake. We're taking personal thinking and decision making out of the picture and placing those needed skills into unfeeling, a- or immoral systems and letting that type of action become more prevalent. I'd say, if you want to not think and follow blindly, allow a machine that has no real repercussions of actions be in charge of decisions and even independent actions with autonomous hardware, please find yourself a nice quite corner somewhere and live there please. You're the kind of people who wants issues and not take accountability or responsibility for your lack of empathy and a lack of wanting to put in the mental, spiritual, or physical elbow grease to improve all.

This brings me to business and guardrails.

So, we've a population that has seen the failure of capitalism, forced changes because there was no other choices other than violence and even worse forms of government to take hold, and having the open mindedness that wants change. This also will affect business.

For one, we've already laws and regulations on the books to prevent monopolies, both vertical and horizontal. However, those very laws are either ignored, or simply circumvented because of buddy networks, money exchanging hands or some other 'hanky-panky' being done to allow big corporations to thrive, a few families being allowed to gain nearly all of the power of various industries, and allowing small business to be a pawn to gain more money via government subsidies or killing those small business because they might have come up with something better which would cause spending by bigger businesses to compete effectively and therefore hit that bottom line.

So, I'm talking about major and very hard to change guardrails and guidelines to follow when it comes to business.

In at least one of my articles, I mentioned getting business to stop and reverse entirely the centralization of supply and processing lines, their thinking, how they do business, and also how they are their own worse enemies because they cause an issue or issues, then they can't seem to understand their basic Econ 101 mandatory class for nearly every college student in America. I'm serious.

There is a place in Italy that most of the businesses there, to include public trash pickup, are done by co-ops. The CEO/CFO/C-suite people aren't making 300 times more than the person on the floor. Instead, the workers and those C-suite folks work together to be productive and profitable. My version of economics will be vastly different that it is now. Not that we'll all be working for the government, it's more that the government will work for the people, along with business, up morale, profitability, acceptance and adaptability of new ways of doing the same thing and still being able to pay for government and living for everyone.

For the US, we should have learned certain things from COVID. One of which was the centralization created bottle necks and supply issues that left empty shelves and price gouging. The price gouging is a huge issue that needs to be broken....yesterday. I've lived enough life to have noticed that any time or exuse used for a corporation to up a price, it doesn't come back down. In fact, if that new price ups the bottom line, they'll find ways, such as shrinkflation, to keep that fat bottom line, give less, and yet still want to not understand everyone else is doing the same but for a slower growth pool of money. Hence, business, especially big business and real estate, is creating their own issues. Again, a circle back to responsibility and accountability. Yes, corporations are legal fictions but created and ran by a great many people. However, when you're talking about decision makers, those folks are short-sighted, single goaled, and apparently ignorant to everything but the almighty dollar. So, we break them.

Yes, I know, I will be hearing all sorts of things from the business world, our current leaders of government and frankly I will use a acronym: IDGAF. Look it up if you don't know what it means, please. When any corner of life that affects more than your family and especially affects 340 million people, I will hold you accountable for your business practices and I will hold those in the C-suite responsible for any issues their practices have caused. Just because you're a legal fiction doesn't mean a thing: it all still comes down to people.

So, we break big business to a degree. We make businesses more co-op rather than corporate or capitalistic, and we develop a better way of doing things.

Now, I'm also going to touch on something: an idea. It's not fleshed out, just something that keeps pinging in my head. I've learned to listen to that pinging so the following will only be something like a thought experiment. It also ties into my section of how farming would be done (Food) and the economic frame work I've written before.

But let me address a huge elephant in the room: hedge funds, equity firms, and foreign 'investors' who own and/or rent out land, apartments, businesses, and homes: you have violated every known more of good behavior and as such, I condemn you out of business unless major changes are made...immediately. Those changes are to develop and create businesses to replace those you've destroyed with decent wages and worker amounts, benefits, and do penance by forking over at least 30% of gross profits to reputable, non-corporate charities in the communities you've affected per month until either those jobs are replaced or 50 years. Even if that money has to come out of your own pockets. No compromise, no quarter given.

For hedge funds and equity firms based in the US/Erf, you no longer exist, all profits from inception of your business will be examined, taxed and/or seized in full. I know...I'm a bitch and I've issues with bad habits of how people make money. I've never said you can't make money; just that you have to be sane and reasonable about it. Equity firms in particular are notorious for buying a business, tearing it apart to gain as much as possible, pile that business with every form and amount of debt it can bear until it can't then it goes bankrupt and out of business. Guess who pays for the economic aftermath?

Yeap, you guessed it: you do. First in jobs, pricing or fees from banks and supply creditors to off set the bankruptcies, and then the lessening of whatever industry of just one more competitor in that pool, creating waves and closer to monopoly issues (which generally means higher prices and lower quality). So, I'm not sorry to do the same to you. Only I won't be piling debt on your business, I'd find ways of personally pile debt on those who own and work at equity firms who knowingly do that despicable money making....and prevent you from being able to discharge those debts via bankruptcy. Yes..again, I'm a bitch when it comes to greed, and those who have been doing that for decades need to atone for their sins: meaning whatever gains you've made from pain, you shall reap what you sowed.

For hedge funds, it's not quite as bad, but still cornering markets, upping prices in ways to gain profits and whatever other sneaky ways of making money that isn't from making or selling products or other honest endeavors (or at least more honestly than what you're doing), I say the same thing.

For foreign 'investors' either via government or private sponsored businesses that might hold a few US/Erf citizens within that company...well, unless you're 55%+ owned and/or operated by US/Erf citizens, you've a few options.

For those that own real estate in any form, be prepared for hefty taxes and possibly fees. I'm talking 80% gross profit and fair value market costs of the land, buildings and whatever else on those lands (for farming land, all equipment, water/mineral rights, improvements, and fees for use of that land, and if burnt out, fines and fees to restore that land). In this case, you've another option.

If you're not wanting to pay taxes, fees, fines and deal with any issues equitably like improvements, decent rents and other financial considerations...that's fine. You've two options: you work out with the citizens of the US/Erf on a buy back contract and remove yourselves from the US/Erf post-haste. Or, if you want to be a butt about things, go to court or other side-stepping, you can still leave post-haste, but with $0.10 per dollar of fair market value. That's it. Those two options. Because for decades more and more real estate has fallen into foreign hands, rents have skyrocketed to the point that even with contracts demanding only so many people per apartment or house and all, it's damn near impossible to get the first, last, deposits and whatever other costs just to get in the door together and then pay monthly rent. Failure to recognize that pay is finite for most workers and costs for everything keeps going up but the pay doesn't move to cover 99% of increases means it's going to be a collapse eventually because of greed and gouging or you'll still end up having economic issues because you won't be able to get people in the door to rent. So, therefore, we'll just hurry things along, decide what to do after that real estate changes hands, and you go sit and think about your 'investment'. I know this might create bad blood between other countries and the US/Erf. However, I say again: you created your own problems, and we're paying to clean that up. Doing economic voodoo isn't doing you any favors.

That takes care of that. Now, we'll go to 'normal' businesses and personal methods of taxation or straight funding of the government in addition to above.

For one: yes, we're going to have loads of big business break down due to tearing them apart from being various kinds of monopolies. That will leave vacuums and even opportunities for employees to form co-ops and develop ways of having equitable work for equitable needs (basics).

That bookkeeper or accountant in the office that keeps track of profits? Because this system would have reasonable profits as being necessary. That bookkeeper or accountant could work directly for the government. In addition to wandering auditors to make sure that bookkeeper/accountant is on the level. Wait...just hear me out.

To start with: corporations have been very bad on trying to get out of taxes in any way possible since any sort of business has been in existence within a tax code in this country. I get it: the Kings of England in particular soured people on funding governments because they didn't care about people: they cared more about personal gain and wars.

However, this is also where personal and social responsibility and accountability comes in at.

Say you have a business, co-op like I've mentioned, not necessarily majorly small but still much smaller than most of corporate America is today. Now, we could do this a couple of ways from this foundation.

One: a direct 'tax'. A bookkeeper/accountant per business to do all the money handling, money goes directly from profits to the government, what you get paid, you get paid, no income taxes. All that money used for tax records and filings is drastically cut for the common person, yet, taxes are still being paid in to work the government, fund needed items and such. It's still a version of income tax, because it's still the workers who create those profits, but without individualized filling out of forms, less auditing other than via businesses, and even with more businesses in existence, it would still be less man-hours per year to make sure everyone pays in.

Maintaining good equipment, keeping a safe environment due to investments in that, and even to a degree of upgrading or business model movement to keep economically alive would be something society could give as 'tax breaks'. However, a very large chunk of net profit would be paid into the levels of government: city/county, state, regional and national. We're talking streamlining the entire system, everyone pays via the business, and let's just say: if you don't keep things up and good morale and your taxes are the same or going up because you're using old tried-and-true methods of upping bottom lines, you will be looked into for tax evasion. The C-suite people? They will be the ones held accountable because I'm going out on a limb and say either they aren't working with the workers on the floor, or they are doing things behind the workers' back that isn't conducive to long term existence or profitability.

The other version is more varied because it would be more along the lines of gains in lieu of a cash salary beyond acceptable limits or things like stocks, bonds, and such. Let me throw out a few numbers: $100/hr, 8 hours per day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks per year, and 100 years. Let me show you the math:

100 x 8=800/day.
800 x 5= 4,000 per/week.
4,000 x 52 = 208,000 per year.
20,800 x 100 = 20,800,000 for 100 years.

That's heaven for most of us considering most of us only make about or under $1,500 per month. But that is one life time of really nice pay, a normal amount of hours for full time, and enough money per year that with our economy right now, you can afford at least one nice house, and not worry too much about bills unless you consistently overspend or in areas were the issues of real estate costs ballooning started even decades earlier before it became a nation-wide issue.

But for these numbers, I'd break things down a bit further on a 'tax structure'. That 20 million plus would be a cap on what you can have. A penny over, and you'll be thrown into a world of a mix of capital and material gain taxes at fairly hefty rates. Everything you own would be audited, an inventory made, matched up with current prices of those items or money you have invested or such beyond a salary, and that won't end until you're not breathing. A long life of eternal audits and taxes because you can't seem to live on a decent amount of money.

Here's another option: tax structure and acceptable rate of pay for any position in existence be created and would only be updated every third year unless an emergency happens and even then, limited time allowed and justification of calling that emergency for any mid term changes. But that's more of an income tax system as we have now. The other part is: you can have a comfortable life, a varied amount of compensation based on social thinking of the time for whatever job, and if you find you need to go elsewhere but want the American citizenship? Uh, no. If you want to decamp offices and jobs, or work in another country altogether but not for an entity owned/operated by 55%+ US/Erf citizenship, and/or go to another country while ignoring the country of citizenship and not want the responsibilities of running our government financially...

Well, lets say: you don't want to pay taxes, fine. However do it without anything from the US to include all your in-country physical assets to include homes, buildings, and whatever else around. Because we will seize it, sell it off and put money toward the huge debts you've indirectly made via the government subsidies, corporate welfare and more. This would require things that mix capital gains (stocks, bonds, crypto), material (like homes, boats, etc) gains, and yearly taxes on items beyond a certain level because they've turned into luxury and exclusive items rather than a straight gains. That tax would not go down, either. So those who have multiple multiple-million dollar homes, private jets, yachts and other items, guess what? Yeap: inventory and get ready to pay 50% tax on all those luxuries since it seems you can afford them with or without loans.

So, that's what's bouncing around.

Now, the chunk of change from net profit would be for common held or human right related basics. I've detailed this more in the other articles. It would go also into reasonable and fully and yearly audit-able national security and military branches. If either can't pass an audit, then their next budget would be cut by the same amount they failed to keep track of. Yes, I'm well aware of black ops and deep well projects. Black ops is one thing, deep well projects that are publicly funded but privately held would be a relic of the past. If public funds are used, and I've mentioned this, the public is automatically a partner in whatever comes from whatever research and development. They are no longer paying for the research, paying for the product through the government for government/military use, and then paying again later for commercially available items. Again: I'm tired of funding others greed, having things blamed on everyone but the very people who have driven up the national debt and shifted costs into safety net programs and charities. I give you two letters for this type of behavior: N. O.

Now, yes, there will be hiccups to all of this, the next part would be the major one that I'd need help by economists and financial specialists to create fully. Again: I'm not a specialist, and I'm not an economist.

If you're providing a socially impactful job, meaning just about anything, you're supporting the economy. Up to this time, the US has had an underpinning of unequal wages and even forced, nearly or fully free work given by various groups. Right now, we've a big push by a certain small but determined individuals to cut out half the workforce by forcing women into the home, create children and raise them. Again: a fertile ground for issues they are already bitching about. With that said, let me add this: Social Security would be no more and wrapped up in the next theme.

What if everyone got something for their individual spending needs? Not a lot, but enough for spending on specialty foods, or electronics? How about clothing or jewelry? Shoes, anyone?

This sort of economic thinking is known as Universal Basic Income or UBI. It's been bandied about for decades and in my mind, between highly regulated and one might say forced paying of taxes based solely on the amount of benefit a company provides as a numerical fact instead of a tax schedule, filling out forms, filling out more forms for specialty pay or deductions and all that mess, it's a flat rate no matter the industry or production for businesses. The structures for individuals are above. Not to mention: the days of artificially supporting industries is gone, too. Yes, it would drastically shrink bottom lines in some industries, but also that would spur on development or upgrading to keep current and competitive.

I'd change things a bit more than I have already stated in previous articles, though if we go this route.

For one, you'd have to do something that helps out society: child care, being in charge of a multi-generational home and take care of elderly but are still competent and healthy enough to live in a family home. Besides, I don't just count blood family as family, either. Even near 'adult' status children, and I'll get to my thoughts about adulthood in a later article, and significant other of the time both blood and 'adopted' would fit in that multi-generational home. Reading books to children, or making audio books for public and specialized groups like the blind, shopping for neighbors that need help or simply because you're going there and transportation is available to you and you're spending that time at the store anyway. All that feeds into the economy, believe it or not. Social structures that exist when this is determined both on amounts and types of work agreed upon would be something mandatory. Even being an artist or other job that develops from a hobby to an actual job would fit this bill.

But the amounts won't be huge and splurges would have to be worked out ahead of time. So, instant gratification for most things won't be something comfortable for many. However, everyone would get a bit of something, just not a lot in one go. The reason why all of this change is simple: we're going to co-ops, cutting out multiple steps on funding the government, those items determined to be human rights and commonly held would have their costs spread out and shared by the population at large. Would it equate to a large jump in personal income tax in today's world? Yes. The good news is: you're getting what you need in ways that is supposed to be done by government. However, the safeguards and controls of spending for national security and military would be tight in this new world I see. The amounts of money that goes out for subsidies, military and security spending and a few other things both corporate and governmental would cease to exist and can be used for something tangible to the public rather than most everyone I know of feeling like they're a gerbil on a run wheel. Sure, you get exercise and run, but you go nowhere.

Billionaires both personally or business in today's world that are based in the US, would instantaneously have all assets frozen. Now mind you again, I never said you couldn't be well off more than one might think should happen. However I did say 'controlled.'

Currently, a good portion of the billionaires in existence in the US gain profits off subsidies, governmental loans, contracts that go A-Z and I've gone through that circle more than once. In the US, currently, we have eight, just eight, multi-billionaires in existence and one of those may become the first trillionaire very soon. How does this impact?

For one, these folks could cut our national debt in a heartbeat to something manageable. However, they use all sorts of trusts, loans, and whatever else they can find to avoid taxes. So, both personal and business, they aren't paying nearly as much as the public. Granted, the public is 340 million people, part of which are children and elderly, however when you're talking 50% or more in taxes not being paid yet they make the same as 90% of all working Americans, it's time to stop and reevaluate. So, again, I'm going to hear things like 'communism', 'anti-American', 'thief', and more. I've already stated my thinking on communism, so let's go to 'anti-American'.

First: I want a definition of American that everyone can agree on, doesn't favor any one person, group, or branch of anything, and also I want reasons why controlling wealth to a reasonable rate is anti-American. If you say that's the American dream of 'making it', think: when was the last time that was possible for most Americans that weren't born with generational wealth was able to hit 'big'? Don't go Bezsos or Musk, either: their families both had money before they were even born, gave out loans and such to either one, and they took off with money at their backs. Not to mention maneuvering into governmental contracts and getting subsides and loans.

Second: a good portion of today's multi-million to multi-billion dollar profit companies either have a history of paying substandard wages that force people to work, however shoves safety nets needed for those workers to the government because the companies wanted a fatter bottom line. Yet, these same companies complain about various worker issues, having to pay for healthcare (which, if you're working 30-39 hours a week, a business can get away with not doing that because you're not 'full time' and normally aren't qualified for other job related benefits), unemployment, corporate taxes and all that. Guess what: again accountability and responsibility. Forcing a no-win situation on workers isn't the way to go. You work but you can barely afford maybe a room in someone's house and cheap food, yet, you have student loans, cell phones, and other needed bills that didn't exist in the 1990s. So, you're working more than one job to make things to attempt to meet, and still ending up on a raw deal because of the way business is running today.

So, those who've been profiting both corporate and private on the backs of workers and shoving responsibilities onto the government would be paying for their lack of keeping themselves accountable and being responsible for those they ultimately answer to: the consumer and workers. This type of behavior has been going on for decades and needs to be corrected.

So, freeze assets, create co-ops of parts of monopoly companies that are forced to break up, persons would be forced to fork over...oh how about 80% of their gross wealth because they need to not only pay back the public for their behaviors, but also fees, fines, interest, and whatever other economic lever we can throw at them, and not a one time pay out, either. Say...five to ten years instead. If a company wants profits, do it sanely and fairly: make a better product, treat workers better so they produce more and that sort of thing. If straight out a business, then if you can't do better or if your industry is taking a hit because of changing markets and such, get your asses in gear, change business models with input from workers, or be willing to sell/trade and someone else take the task on. I know: money and time. Guess what? Again: those of you who have more money than 90% of workers and still gain more, fund space programs and more can't bitch at me. You can afford to fork over a fair percentage of what you've earned by your behaviors and to be honest, I want to make you examples of what happens when a populace gets ticked off enough at you to take what you have. Remember, also: you can reign yourselves in and do right and still keep at least a portion of what you have now. OR, you can keep going, piss enough people off that once there is a power tipping point, you won't have anything. Your choice.

So, society will change because the economy will change. The economy will change because the government and society changes. The government changes simply because what we have now isn't just broken. That's been the case for a few decades now. However, it's now been warped out of all bounds placed on it and needs to be re-worked and updated to today's world.

Nothing can exist in a vacuum. We create those all the time in labs and, sigh, even countries when whomever gets a whim to get whatever they want when told 'no' or in a way or price they want to pay. Nothing exists without interacting with other beings, resources, or life needs. Our lives are no different. Our world is being replaced as we speak because of issues that those in power and position have created and have zero want to put in effort to compromise, or change things. It's much easier to, now that the Oval Office is allowing itself and whomever else public bribery, to get bought off by special interest groups, keeping things the same or being regressive in only ways that would be beneficial to a few, and when they speak and their behaviors clash they want to duck accountability because simply taking responsibility for their actions is too much exposure for themselves and/or others.

Closing

So, yes, change is a theme of mine. Interaction and inter-dependency is also a theme. Being human and humane with empathy is also a theme.

My question to end is this: Do you want a better life even if giving up what you know now would be a shock to everyone's thinking and system? Or, do you want the system we have now, which puts more and more people out of work, getting sick, making only a few more and more money, allowing politicians to gain space and distance from their constituents, no accountability for their actions or inactions, and allowing corruption grow wider and more public and normalized when you can't work enough to pay your bills?