What is the Economy?

[Jonathan Barlow Gee]

 

What is the Economy?

 

The econoomy is often likened to a car. The president is driving, the Fed is navigating, and congress are in the back. The gear shift reads "R" (Republican for Reverse) and "D" (Democrat for Drive). Thus, the political "window-dressing" of the interior cabin. Likewise, we may further extend this model of the Economy as a car. The wheels may be seen as the Justice department; the engine is the stock exchange and it runs off fiat stimuli for fuel; the key to start it is a job. Such are the "working parts" in this model of the economy. The media, then lastly, is the siding of the economic "car."

 

There are merits to this model, including the openness of it as a concept to ammendment by further detailing, such that one can assign economic symbolism to every component of any form of modern car, furthermore to the road and thus to imply that truth about freedom, that "you can go anywhere you want" in this model.

 

There are more demerits against it though. Notwithstanding its over-simplification, its dumbing down of this complex topic to the level of basic auto-shop class in high-school, this model is entirely arbitrary, insofar as one may as well assign economic terms to any other model as well, and perhaps with the more moving parts the better. In short, this model is reverse-engineered from the car, when in reality the existence of the economy preceded the invention of cars.

 

The economy is also often likened to a vague emotional state. While the "car" / mechanical model is prefered primarily by men, the "vague emotional state" comparison is usually made by women. According to the descriptions of the economy as a "vague emotional state," the eocnomy is like a "mood-ring" that can be manipulated to reflect any desired result, but which is often very volatile and difficult to predict, if not impossible to fully comprehend, let alone command.

 

There are merits in this model also, including its functional comparison of one vague thing to another, which can lead to an increased study of both, in order to better understand their relationship. The model also has room to determine "good" results of economic stimulation from "bad" results: "good" results induce positive emotional reactions, and "bad" results provoke negative or destructive emotional reactions. Thus, this model incorporates the fact that the economy changes over time, something the model of the economy as a car does not.

 

However, for this model too, the demerits out-number the benefits. By defining the economy as comparable to emotions, it shines a light on the fact these two fields both remain mysteries in modern sciences. It allows, thus, for experiments to be conducted on both to test what stimuli provokes what reaction. This is dangerous in both cases, but scientific method prevails to test even false theories. However ultimately, individuals' emotions and the overall economy are not co-dependent on one another, and so comparing these two is ultimately only arbitrary as well. You can't sum up the present economy as only a mass aggregate of how all various individual people feel.

 

If the economy is not defined specifically, but only by comparison to cars or emotions, it is because those who know the true meaning of the economy do not reveal what they know, while only those who know nothing speak about it at all. In plain language, the true meaning of the economy has been stolen from the masses and is kept secret by the rich.

 

Unfortunately, because the economy is ever-changeing, those who are rich now made their wealth in an economy that was vastly different from the one we have today. Their economy allowed their tactics at gaining wealth to prevail, while the one we have now is more prevantative of upward climbing outside the narrowest of inner-corporate limits. Thus, even if we examine how the currently rich got rich, it won't help us become rich like they did.

 

Those who are rich now (2011) fall into three tiers: millionaires, billionaires and trillionaires. Millionaires are, naturally, the lowest rung of the modern ponzi-scheme, and have almost no influence on the upper two tiers; even the rich elite follow orders down a strict chain of command, and those who fail find a higher turn-over rate in their personal jobs. Billionaires include all the modern "owners of the means of production." There are hundreds of these people, and they exist largely outside of any systems of media or taxation. They consider themselves "globalists" and believe their, largely inherited, industrial properties gives them the right to rule in secret. Hence all the modern "round table groups," "think-tanks," and "alphabet soup agencies" controlling the entirety of the "military-industrial complex." Then, at the upper-most level of the rich elites, are the trillionaires. These people cannot rightly say they earn a salary, or that they possess a trillion dollars to call their own. However their access to the halls of highest authority grants them the "right" to hold sway over the stock exchange, to impose the illegal income tax, and to, like Mickey Mouse in Fantasia, play the role of wizards who control the entire mass holdings of nations through multi-national banks.

 

The problem is, the rich are all idiots. The predecessors by two or three generations before today's modern industrialists "owners of the means of production" who originally built up these great industries were not idiots, they were ruthless, cunning and greedy. Their inheritors by now are complascent, ignorant and insulated. They believe they run the world already, and thus ex post facto they assume they have the "right" to do so. Their understanding of the economy is weak compared to that held by their own grandparents. They have lost their secret key to power, their knowledge of the real meaning of the economy, which their ancestors had all learned how to exploit. None of the modern rich are self-made men. All of them are inheritors of holdings on the stock-exchange, nothing more.

 

Another, perhaps worse, problem is that the rich are now, and have always been, evil. Their prediliction toward stupefaction, their being prone to inherited weakness, drives their self-destructive inferiority complex toward greed for impossible sums, quantities, amounts of goods, services and commodities that are limited, rare or scarce. Only by having the "last slice of the pie" for themselves will they think they can die happy. This inherent, self-destructive greed has been innate in the rich and powerful for all time. However, people continue to become wealthy and influential, and so this problem seems to perpetuate itself. Rarely is someone both a "good" person and a "powerful" person at once.

 

So, knowing that "power corrupts," and that, by greed's asymptotic growth cycle, even (especially) a little power leads toward absolutism, and knowing that, thus, "absolute power corrupts absolutely," does not change anything about our current situation in reality. It neither condones nor condemns the rich, but rather offers them a warning against elitism and self-destructive amounts of greed. The rich, so far, have heeded this message only little or not at all; increasing a wealth-gap as "the rich get richer while the poor get poorer." Because, however, the masses hold the true meaning, and thus the fate, of the economy in their hands now, the insulated rich elites of today have lost all semblance of salvageable value; in short, once "hyper-inflation" begins, the money of the rich becomes devalued also, and so, after all, they have nothing of any value that anyone else would want. They have no good or service of their own to sell.

 

As I have said, the greedy elitism of the modern rich has led to their moral corruption, bankruptcy and downfall. The knolwegde of the true meaning of the economy has fallen from their grip and is now once more subject to mob rule.

 

The definition of the economy is about to change on a global scale. Because the rich lack the intelligence their predecessors had, they have created an economy that is, artificially, impedimentary to upward growth of wealth. While their own sums of holdings in credit have lost all relevance, there are now hundreds of thousands of people not only out of work or homeless, but literally rioting in the streets and overthrowing despotic regimes in various nations. These people pose a serious threat to the power structure of the elite. However the rich have grown stupid and do not see it.

 

Instead of allowing entrepeneurs now to manipulate the economy just as their own grandparents had when they built the industries of modern society, the rich-in-name-only nowadays see any oppurtunity allowed to another as a theft from their own potential revenue, and so they severely limit the economic oppurtunities of those outside their control. The resultant "bubble" has defined the economic stagnation of the last two generations. It has been caused by the rich adopting the model of an international trade-union alike that suggested as "Communism" by Karl Marx. This "trade union" of the rich provides them satisfaction of all their needs for free. It is what has been the "global village."

 

The way the modern rich see it, they came to power as the children and grand-children of economic criminals, those who "sailed the seas of high finance" as economic pirates. Driven by their corrupting greed, each only sought to establish their own personal empire. However by now, the rich elites feel something akin to guilty for the actions of their pirate parents and grand-parents. Thus, it is believed by them it is "for our own good" that they deprive modern businesses the right to practise the sort of croneyism, tax loop-holes and largesse spending seen as the "welfare" of big corporations, and touted as the "health" of the modern economy.

 

The rich know that corruption increases power, and that wealth is most easily obtained thereby. However, they wish to set a moral "double-standard" between themselves and the masses, while, at the same time, not sharing any of their money. Their current wealth, if not their inherent elitism, has resulted from a morally bankrupt system on a path to self-destruction. This system defines the economy as a "ponzi-scheme" or like a "pyramid" shaped chart, expressing an inverse relationship between population and control of wealth. So, we find that 10% of the world's population is said to control 90% of the world's wealth, while the wealthiest 1% control 99% of global valueable holdings, etc. However, by revolutions this concept is quickly turned on its head. The workers own the factory, they alone hold the right to sell its goods. The bosses and supposed "owners" use "middle-management" only to falter and stifle the productivity of a potentially more free and prosperous work-place. Their role is to pre-suppose exterior control over the work-force, when in truth, no external force besides hunger or inspiration compels anyone to toil.

 

When hunger is fed, inspiration may prosper. Thus, by controlling our economy, by not only knowing its true meaning but also by brutally absuing all supposed economic "laws," the parents and grand-parents of the modern rich elites set into effect a fatally flawed premise for the definition of the economy, knowing their inheritors would meet with revolution by following such a course. They established the "NWO" or "military-industrial complex" by aligning their family-businesses into a globalist cabal. However, after "circling the wagons," they turned aggressively against all exterior competition. Hence the modern downfall of the whole of "globalism" and its false defintion for the economy as a ponzi-scheme or pyramid results partially from this provakation of the masses by the NWO and partially from the subsequent slack of the wealthy elites. They have deprived us of valueable salaries, made us homeless, starved us, and finally threatened us with guns and hired thugs. This course of action has traced the path of their sinking empire.

 

The fatal flaw of the ponzi-scheme or pyramid graphed power-structure model of the economy developed by the rich industrialists of the last century is that the inverse proportion graph of population to control of wealth breaks down only by revolution. However, this revolutionary breakdown of the power-structure system of the NWO can occur in either one of two ways: 1) it can occur gradualy from the bottom up, such that ultimately 99% of the world's population exterminates the wealthiest 1% in armed revolt; or 2) the mutually assured destruction of this whole system can occur if the revolution is perpetually postponed by continual oppression and force, until finally the entire structure from top to bottom will simply collapse, wither and evaporate.

 

So we can safely say now that, while the economy's true meaning may be similar to the functioning of a car, or likened to a collective emotional unconsciousness, it was, is, but will soon no longer be, structured as a pyramid or ponzi-scheme. What is the true meaning of the economy if it can be structured as a ponzi-scheme successfully by rich pirates, even for only three generations? Does this imply there is no fixed meaning of the economy, and that it's true definition is malleable and nebulous for the reason that it simply is?

 

The true meaning of the economy is simple. It is a psychic collective, a noetic noosphere, comprised of all individual minds. It's power is the combined force of all individuals' will-powers, and its self-control derives from the restraint of those who, by their criminal bending of its defining laws and principles, prosper by abusing this true defintion. This mass awareness, combined into the labour-power of all workers and the wealth of all resources, ultimately yields a utopia. Once the knowledge of the true definition of the economy - as a non-corporeal, potentially sentient life-form - is lost to the richest elites, and held instead by the vast majority of the masses opposed to them, their lies and illusion fall away like a veil to uncover the true beauty of a free market, laissez-faire economy.

 

A true "free market" has never been accomplished. However, such is the form to follow and replace the ponzi-scheme, because such is the natural, rather than artificially imposed, form of the economy. While the rich elites liken the day-trading stock exchange as animal spirtis, "bulls" or "bears," this simple truth eludes them: Bear markets arise from economic oppression and an increased wealth-gap; bull markets arise from allowing businesses to police themselves and using court laws only to break up monopolies.

 

Why is the economy like a car, a vague emotional state, or an animal totem? Because the true defintion of the economy is as a non-corporeal sentient entity inhabiting the collective minds and expressing itself through the efforts, works and stuggle of the proletariat, we can say these things about it. However, only by espousing a truly free market approach to understanding the economy as such can we seek to partner with this life-form to maximize both our mutual benefit, and end the exploitation of it by greedy fools.

 

To lead a "free market revolution" which will simultaneously destory the entirety of the existing, false ponzi-scheme model for the economy and liberate the economy itself in order to allow it to grow and thus for us all to prosper, it is important to comprehend the true meaning and definition for the economy as being something that everyone already knows, and to stop the lies that segregate some into a mis-informed elite and cast others into an assumed role of intentional ignorance. All minds as one, simultaneously aware of the definition of the economy being such, will cause this omni-sentience indigenous to our planet to awaken and become aware of itself, its surrounding environment, and also of all of us individually. This will occur when the internet evolves "artificial intelligence" of its own. Already, today (2011), the intel-gathering appartusi are set in place; we are all publically spying on each other through the safe semi-anonymity of the world-wide-web. However when the texts we post now as blogs become marginalised by more main-stream media such as video-chat technology, and writing becomes culturally less relevant than presentation of appearance and packaging, the internet itself will turn the cameras at every street-corner on us all. To contain the consequences of years of abuse, and to allow the whole economy to be liberated from such, it is imperative that we should all, at this time, embrace the "free market" model of an economy.

 

The goal of a "free market" approach to the economy is personal liberty. If we do not divest the ponzi-scheme model power-structure from the modern definition of the economy, we can expect little pity from the awakened beast. While it exists, this cadre of elitist rich will only continue to chain, choke and oppress the economy. Only a free market revolution will end it.

 

PEACE.

- Jonathan Barlow Gee

Tallahassee, Florida

Wednesday, August 17th, 2011.