Economic Development Alternatives for United States

The swelling dissident movement in United States will have to start shopping for ideas concerning socioeconomic alternatives in order to make itself viable. What does it have to work with?




The global financial crisis has clearly illustrated that there is a serious vacuum of ideas on what to do next as a civilization. Majority of the public senses (on various levels) that key leaderships of many Western states do not offer much more beyond printing more money, socially brutal austerity, etc. Playing for time and looting are not solid ideas and everybody knows it. This inevitably opens up society to ideas from below which will eventually result in part of the elite siding with these ideas to co-opt them and ride them to power.

In United States, we saw the libertarian critique meme and the reactionary "going back to FDR policies" meme rapidly become dominant online over the last 2 years. Collapsist and neofeudalism memes are also about to become dominant. Collapsism in particular forces future oriented thought. The non-Internet world is quickly following behind since it took researchers a year or so to educate themselves about the fraud that caused the crisis, to put their books out, and then another few months for people to read the books. Various socially visible pundits can now defer to books as authoritative sources in speaking up. The market for new type of demagogy (talk radio being the old type) is nowhere near to being saturated.

This awakening resembles a sort of a popular front in the making since people from diverse ideological backgrounds are creating a consensus of what they are against (federal reserve corruption, military eating most resources, financial oligarchy and its personal lawyer/butler [US congress]). A marriage of convenience of this sort is usually created when all other options are exhausted and it will split into petty infighting once the current regime is changed.

All the accelerating muckraking and massive corruption exposures going on currently will begin to create a dissident critical mass in the near future. This is due to the gently exponential curve that is word of mouth communication and most importantly due to some elites sensing that popular sentiment now allows certain things to be safely discussed on a national level. Like in a jury herd dynamic, a minority of consistent and tireless individuals can swing the entire group whether at elite level, the level of a bar or church, or national level. The vacuum of workable ideas in leadership allows such informational waves to spread and take hold rapidly. It may have taken Christianity 300 years to become a dominant meme but with present communication technology, informational "viruses" can do the trick in just years.

In interesting times like these, small but very narrative consistent groups have disproportionate amount of influence. Notice how quickly Ron Paul's faction went from being an ignored laughing stock to being a respected dissident movement (the mere fact that some oligarchs partially co-opted it with funding demonstrates level of genuine popular support). The great budding coalition of groups who usually don't want anything to do with one another (but who realize they got a common enemy) is gaining strength by the week. The awakening process does not even need to take hold of most people. A society historically needs maybe 1/4 to 1/3 of people to substantially switch their world view in order for real transition to start happening. 1/3 of the population can always be counted on to defend status quo to the last while 1/3 can be counted on to be an apathetic mushy middle that joins whoever seems to be winning or is more popular.

How will ideas be judged, what determines which will win out?

Market of ideas is limited by two things. 

1) Practicality of an idea. This means the degree to which an idea is compatible with unfolding social and physical dynamics of human civilization (can't have genuine feudalism, monarchies, or theocracies in 21st century with hundreds of millions of educated people). In a way, the strongest idea is one which is predictive of where we're pretty much headed anyway. This criteria can be said to be desirability of the good (functionality determining desirability).

2) How quickly it can be internalized by the public at large. If one needs to read too many books to understand and accept an idea, then it really is not that great. An idea having been popular previously at some point in history greatly helps with this. This criteria can be said to be the knowledgeableness of the buyer to determine which good is desirable.

So what's on the market presently?

I am going to focus on United States since in many ways the problems of United States show to the world the problems that they themselves will face very soon. The ideas that the American people adapt to resurrect themselves will eventually (if not immediately) be influential on a planetary scale after a couple of decades. The following are listed in no particular order of importance.

a) Reactionary "going back to FDR style" Keynesian monetarism, sound money, and rapid infrastructural development

b) Reactionary "going back to the John Quincy Adams style" American credit system, sound money, and rapid infrastructural development

c) Reactionary "going back to industrial robber baron style" brief and unstable period of something resembling what the libertarian faction wants. Some haphazard and rapid ego driven infrastructural development.

d) American version of Leninist New Economic Policy and very rapid infrastructural development

e) Emulation of Chinese style oligarchic dictatorship and rapid infrastructural development

f) Post-monetarist energy accounting Technocracy and very rapid infrastructural development


SPOILER ALERT:

It'll end up being f) eventually but not before one or more of the others are torturously tried, muddled through, combined, and recombined. In effect, a)-e) are a connecting bridge of experimentation that will make f) possible in due time. Some areas of the country and the world may experience de facto libertarian c) environment due to only the local oligarchs having developmental resources (see Abramovich in his post as governor of Chukotka). Such frightful old school oligarchy should not really spread too quickly before rapid backlash into other choices. There is also the matter of deflation stifling its development. Therefore the libertarian faction is primarily useful as a vibrant "rural power" part of the popular front. They will quickly fade as America's socioeconomic failure discredits capitalism (fairly or unfairly) in the eyes of humanity at large.

Emulation of Chinese police state e) and industrial worker exploitation may be preferred by one wing of American oligarchy (while the other wing seems to want perpetual banana republic style oligarchic military dictatorship with sprinkles of c)). This is due to China already combining various structural characteristics of a)-d) in one package. American version of Putinism is the other "softer" alternative to this. Neither are sustainable long term since they do not address the problem of exponential progress of technology consistently increasing planetary unemployment. There will also be the issue of China entering it's "America in the 1930s" period of industrial depression and crisis of overproduction (which in turn stands to discredit that country briefly in the eyes of the world).

We can begin to see how process of elimination reduces the extent to which the current ideas on the market will be utilized. For the older generation, some elements of a) can be used to provide them peace of mind, continuity towards the end of life, and as marketing to politically sell rapid increase in state intervention. Then, for the younger generations, the mythical elements of b) combined with the edginess of d) may follow to demonstrate that rapid infrastructural progress really is occurring and to provide the future American regime with legitimacy (it'll definitely be needing it). Transition period of the next 30 years will definitely be turbulent and interesting for all involved. We must consistently remain vigilant throughout the process to make sure the rich do not derail the experimentation into something truly frightening (which would make us wish for the old USA back).

The current projected neofeudalism is to be avoided at all costs

                                                                            VS

Northeast United States is the "Real America"

An exploration of irrational Republican claims on what constitutes "real America" as well as a brief hypothetical thought experiment on how Northeast would be as an independent federal union




A curious thing happened during and after the US election of 2008.

We've heard a native of Alaska (which became the 49th state over 170 years after USA was created) and certifiable moron proclaim that she comes from the "real America" and is running on McCain's ticket to fight for "real Americans". Her speeches to elderly sexually frustrated rural gawkers made it seem as if the urban Northeastern citizenry of United States was somehow an alien patch within the national fabric. Considering that Northeast was not a puppet state under any foreign occupation at the time, it was the equivalent of a minor Scottish politician proclaiming Scotland to be a more real UK than UK itself.

Of course it was strategically necessary for the poorly educated charlatan from country's far periphery, the wide eyed gold digger like Sarah Palin, to use terminology like this. After all, many people in the nation's interior and periphery got left behind economically by the country's slow decline of the past few decades. Politics of resentment do have an underlining psychological basis that is very real, based on real grievances, and uncomfortable if one is to dig into it from a class based perspective.

Now of course we hear rural Midwesterners and Southerners cry about wanting "their country back". Considering that the original heartland and tree trunk of United States (New England) voted out the remnants of the congressional GOP, the real historic authoritative soul of the country has spoken. Who can doubt that (in the hypothetical case of US splitting up) that the bulk of the original 13 states would have the best claim to be the successor state to United States? To use the example of United Kingdom again in this scenario, a politician from Utah, Texas, or Alaska claiming his or her region as the most genuine successor would be like Thomas Jefferson claiming US to be the true successor to UK. We can go all day with analogies but the undeniable point is that Northeastern states is what kept and still keeps the whole 200 year long political project functioning and possible.

In all fairness, a claim could be made that Northeast has become too "Old World" for the periphery's "frontier" sensibilities and it is thus a less "real" America. However this claim easily collapses after a minute of thought about the information in the paragraph above. Since more than half of the population is now urban, even the "frontier" as a factor of national definition has been moved out of the discussion.

So the much newer peripheral settlements and tree branches of USA want political control over the trunk/roots back instead of being ruled by them? The potentially fatal and seemingly insurmountable and permanent gridlock going on in Congress all the time allows us an opportunity to examine such thoughts. Neither the regional theocratic/oligarchic faction (that is the GOP) nor the regional England leaning oligarchic faction (that is New England democrats) appears to be able to defeat each other.

Such counterproductive gridlock (in the face of the worst economic depression since the 1930s) is exactly what happens when the fine points about union size in the federalist papers become obsolete due to the growth in scale of the federal union itself. The country loses ability to eventually reach a meaningful compromise acceptable to both sides (by acceptable I don't mean people resorting to calling politicians Nazis over the hyperdiluted nature of compromises we get currently).

A congress of a smaller federal union (say 10-15 states in regional economic and cultural proximity) would create compromises that do not bring the same level of psychological hate and disappointment in the factions that didn't get the details they wanted. Since people would subjectively get more of what they want in a smaller union, their psychological sense of personal power and control is increased. They are thus "freer" by most ways that freedom is measured and defined.

Let's think for a moment of a hypothetical scenario where the Northeast is its own country (thus keeping closer in political scale and dynamic to what James Madison had in mind). Since Virginia is demographically changing (as the Obama election has shown) yet still has a number of southern leaning theocrats, it may or may not be included. I have already written how Texas as an economic hub is vital for United States to function in its current form and how Texas can potentially get wealthier if it was its own country. But how would Northeast (a region less dependent than Texas on feeding and supplying the rest of the country through commodity and food exports as well as crude ethnic exploitation) fare on its own two legs?

Not surprisingly, rather well with strong potential to be better off than it is now. The oldest, most respected, and best funded Ivy League schools are in the region and so is the concentration of intellectual, financial, and political power elites along with their family clans. That is key to successful nation building since elites decide national direction instead of the average citizenry (especially if the new country preserves the current political system without moving more towards proportional representation). A lot of old money and bloodlines create an entrenched and relatively integrated ruling class that would be able to work well together on national projects. The sheer wealth of Northeastern oligarchs is shown by the fact that as of today, most of Northeast states have higher GDP per capita than the national average. Their hands would not be politically tied on the federal level by fellow oligarchs thousands of miles away in places like Texas, California, Florida. The region would be easier to remold into a shape that resembles the fashionable role model society at the time (for Northeastern rich, that appears to be England as it has been for a long time).

The modern day serfs that the rulers of the new country (which as mentioned above has the most right to continue calling itself United States of America if it chooses) will be working with, are also a lot more secular and educated than their Southern and Western brethren. It follows that the oligarchs' right hand men (president, congress, and supreme court of Northeast United States) can now reduce elites' control by splitting them with increasingly democratic means into a balance between the government and the oligarchy.

NUSA is also smaller in size than potential nearby competitors which allows quicker personal communication between all demographics and further economic integration. Northeast is beginning to resemble Germany in terms of population density and will be the first major region on the continent to put quality control on how the land is organized and developed. Proximity to Europe itself would allow NUSA to enjoy greater investment and cooperation with EU. The president of NUSA would not need to stand on pick up trucks or kiss bibles to get elected. The new smaller legislative branch would be made up of people who work better together due to greater closeness of culture. The federal government overall would be closer to the serfs since it would oversee 50 million people instead of 300 million. It would be in charge of a population the size of Spain not one of 3 Germanies.

As for states outside NUSA, one can only speculate. We can just imagine the absurdity and even potential Iran/Yugoslavia type horror show that the deep south would be if it was to form a federal union (not including Texas that is) of its own. Such a situation would show the real meaning of "wanting my country back".

Problem of Defining Self-Interest for Libertarian Society

Perhaps the biggest stumbling block that libertarian ideology faces is that human self-interest may be based more on power rather than happiness


The notion of self interest is altered if we think that the biggest human motivation is gathering more personal power rather than struggling towards constant repetition of joyful moments. Current popular understanding of self-interest goes hand in hand with the classically liberal notion of the right to "pursue happiness". That's the idea libertarians use to justify their maximum allowance of freedom of action for individuals. The pursuit towards something psychically warm and cuddly such as happiness seems so right and wholesome for a human being to undertake that denying it seems cruel and out of the question.

Let's look deeper into the supposed utopia proposed with increasing frequency by ideologues like Ron Paul and youthful college educated people around the world who view themselves as having what it takes to become successful capitalists themselves (regardless of the fact that social mobility is constrained in United States as well as in most countries by a small number of oligarch families gaming the system). I don't have any country in mind in this discussion and will use clean abstract concepts ( haha "clean abstract") for simplicity.

For a moment let's forget all the various assumptions and constructs that are needed for libertarian theoretical defense to work at all such as:

1) Free will or what's left of it after a century of Freud, Nietzsche, Marx and now brain scanning experiments

2) Rationality or some common thought process pretending to be rationality in a diverse population with individuals of vastly differing educational backgrounds and consciousness levels

3) Equality before the law as well as rule of law itself for a contractual society to function (laughable fictions in most societies on the planet right now since the most powerful individuals constantly evolve and change the concept of the rule of law through force and brilliant law technologists)

4) Reality. This is a big one in that applying a "perfect" libertarian construct to say, United States is like applying "perfect" proportional representation democratic construct to Afghanistan. Of course the ideologues insist it can work if the whole world united in this purpose and gradually moved towards this workers paradise

Any one of these by themselves are enough to discredit an ideology that relies on everybody being a utility calculating rational computer. Any one of them is enough to cause people in 20 years to say familiar statements such as, "well libertarianism sounds good on paper but you know, human nature and the inherent contradictions of the system make rapid application of the concept disastrous" (in terms of creating inefficiencies, inequalities, exploitation, suffering, and stagnation).

My focus however is on self-interest as the driving mechanism in a libertarian society. There is still lack of consensus on what is true human motivation but it increasingly looks that it is a mixture of power seeking as well as pleasure seeking with power being a better explanatory human goal. Many of us have seen the famous quote by Adam Smith,


"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest"

At this point many automatically think that being self interested is just wanting to be more happy and that the most important thing to aid our self interest is money. Since desire to make more money is accepted, pursuit of self interest is thus seen as harmless and even sturdy enough to build a radically different socioeconomic system. As mentioned above, there are other takes on what life is all about besides just seeking money fueled happiness. Let's take Nietzsche for example,

"Life itself is essentially appropriation, injury, overpowering of the strange and weaker, suppression, severity, imposition of one's own forms . . "

The mere fact that growing and living may involve more than just joy seeking poses a critical and fundamental problem for free market ideologues. Let's follow them on the road towards a more capitalist society while keeping in mind that it may be more important for people to keep getting stronger as well as trying to be "happy"...

Since happiness can undertake many forms, the individual thus has a strong case to argue for the right to personally negotiate governance with others and reduce as many regulations on modes/fruits of pursuit as possible. Libertarian ideology then seems the most attractive as individuals become their own utility calculating contractual lawmakers. The result is that the legislative branch in a libertarian society finds itself with little to do. By definition, making laws is creation of uniform regulation on human behavior. This type of government sponsored uniformity becomes redundant (since each citizen is now consenting to enter into contractual regulation of his or her own choice) at best and "coercive oppression" (or any number of silly names given at the GOP protests in recent months) at worst. The libertarian society would then rightfully prevent uniformity from arising and applying to all (unless perhaps dealing with matters that cause grievous harm to others and corporate externalities).

However, if we think of real human motivation as pursuit of influence over their environment (and other human beings within it), allowing humans the maximum playing room begins to take on a more sinister dimension.

click to enlarge

The familiar actor of legislative branch and the area covered by it is mostly displaced by a great multitude of smaller actors making contractual agreements with one another and creating a great patchwork of powers and networks throughout society. Without the counterbalancing small actors of local government (assuming libertarian society is libertarian top to bottom), an endless multitude of free market actors would be responsible with creation of regulation for all (for example: road company figures out with local land owner how many tolls to have, dimensions of certain infrastructure, fine limits for jaywalkers on private roads, etc).

This thriving overlapping regulatory complexity with greatly decentralized nodules of influence (assuming the invisible hand goes against all history and human nature so far and prevents monopoly formation) is a double edged sword. Free market is relatively efficient at distribution of capital (at least on sub-national local level when legal conditions are favorable) and the regulatory contractual patchwork is often better able to adapt to pressures of time and social flux. One thing the invisible hand is less good at is redistribution of justice (giving people what they think they deserve).

At the end of the day in the modern world, justice (in all its current forms) is mostly in the monopolistic hands of the legislative branch. The legislative branch makes it uniform and standard for a time. In this branch, all individual free market actors ( the people) have a say about what uniform sort of justice is right for a particular society. There is of course, indirect influence from larger clusters of power and bigger free market actors (ranging from small businesses to billionaires to churches to transnational corporations) that cannot totally be avoided.Their influence is generally somewhat counterbalanced through sheer numbers of lesser powered individuals and their allies in the powerful agent of the legislative.

Since free market libertarian justice is inseparable from wealth (arising from selling one's labor via the most cold blooded meritocracy that doesn't recognize inequality of origin), only the individuals with sufficient wealth form nodules of power necessary to create various relatively wide ranging regulatory norms in society. With wealth comes increased bargaining power and better contractual positioning. Considering the goal of human motivation is personal expansion of influence, the sheer size of some of the power nodules in society is cause for concern as their contractual arrangements affect the lives of millions of less powerful individuals. An ideologically libertarian oriented society would reduce the influence of the biggest guardian of less powerful individuals (legislative branch) by transfering regulation of society to a multitude of powerful players with their own spheres of influence.

A new form of feudalism arises. Whatever people "deserve" in this society is whatever they can wrestle from others through raw financial power (acquired by individuals with personal physiologies that thrive in free market conditions or those who were born into wealth or both). The new creators of standards and norms are thus illegitimate (nobody voted for them unless it is stock owners voting for new company leadership) and they are constrained by nobody but market conditions. Even market conditions can be shaped with strong enough players and enough money. In a legal legislative vacuum, even informed consumers and workers have little bargaining power against the abuses of various cartels, guilds, and land barons (whatever new name they would go under informally or formally). Less powerful individuals would strategically be forced to dedicate substantial amounts of time to collective bargaining. Emergence of powerful unions for service industry is difficult to speculate on but without government protection new forms of protection will have to be devised and vigilantly implemented ( 1> this in turn creates inefficiencies/other abuses as union leaders are as interested in power as CEOs and use up substantial amounts of productive resources on court battles and organization 2> union power receded in part due to rise in service industry and in part because the legislative addressed their concerns through legal regulation)

click to enlarge

In an interconnected world where wealth and influence from powerful players is transferred without regard to borders and the needs of localities, complete deregulation is dangerous.We need rigorous functioning legislative branch not just out of fear about re-emergence of old abuses (ex. blacklisting workers) and rise of new ones. We need a strong legislative branch because the powerful there counterbalance the powerful in the private sector. In libertarian world the powerful (masters of wealth acquisition with wide ranging powers derived from it), would be free to collude or battle each other with stifling consequences for the weak. Denying them some freedom of movement is not a cruel practice of denying somebody their shot at happiness but tempering raw power and reduction of private tyranny at home. Powerful entities providing services to us at our own choosing does not eliminate our reliance on them. Hand that helps for money is hand that controls. We can't imagine the police or the courts being privately owned due to fear of corruption and abuse and it is no less horrifying to think that private individuals will take over from the legislative in a libertarian world.

Sidenote:

This discussion had a medium sized country in mind. If a libertarian country is smaller, one can easily see the whole of society dominated by one or two international corporate actors with the wealth flowing out of the country. A dystopian cyberpunk future in the mold of William Gibson is essentially a libertarian one. The unhealthy corporate influence in America and its corrosive effect on government is due precisely because the strong in the legislative are splintered against each other while the strong in the private sector are gaining through attrition. Having a poorly functioning legislative battling the executive does not stop excesses of power. It just creates dysfunctional weak government. The excesses continue in the private world that permeates the public. Parliamentary government with proportional representation (with constitutional protection) is thus a much better guarantor of decentralization of power within society.

The 21st century cannot afford a disjointed slow self cannibalizing government concocted by 18th century aristocrat intellectuals. Something so out of date is in no position to face a fast paced world or promote freer development of vast majority of individuals against the designs of domestic and foreign elites. It does us disservice to think of power as just residing in government that we should be free from. Better separation of powers would be the strong in private and public spheres balancing each other in a healthy dialogue with the weak being the middlemen between the two.

So emerges perhaps the biggest argument against libertarian designs, that:

1) in a free market world there is insufficient separation of powers and mechanisms to keep them separated

2) this is dangerous in that human motivation is not just about getting happy through making more money (and making trickle down economics work in deranged minds of some propagandists)

3) only democracy through some sort of proportional representation creates enough of a split and balance between power elites by creating a strong legislative branch that can check the feudalistic desires of many oligarchs

The biggest dangers affecting many "civilized" and "developed" nations are thus not too much government but a government that is too weak to stand up against private financial interests. Proportional representation democracy is not perfect of course but it seems like a step forward than backward at the moment for most of the population of any given country.

Review of Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era by Zbigniew Brzezinski

Brzezinski explores in 1970 how Internet will reshape human psychology/social climate and how United States will decline if it doesn't meaningfully direct technology that it spawned.





Zbigniew Brzezinski has long been a controversial figure and target of conspiracy theories within the United States and around the world. As one of key organizers of the Trilateral Commission (David Rockefeller's globalist platform towards greater world integration), Brzezinski combined his analytic genius with the financial and social backing of the world's most energetic internationalist activist oligarch. Reading even a bit about David Rockefeller's life is enough to catch a glimpse concerning the real power structure of the world.

It was never a secret that policy formulation about global development occurs when a few hundred powerful individuals meet to eat and drink while talking and sharing stories. Among these billionaire businessmen, heads of state, and Ivy League scientists/researchers, there are always a few who become the theoretical strategists that help the rest of the elite see more of the big picture.

Brzezinski was one of these strategically minded people in whom the will to power was overflowing. He got to position of formulating international policy for Jimmy Carter by writing a brilliant book on the state of the world in 1970 and where it may possibly be headed. A very kind conspiracy website has offered the whole text of this book in PDF format: Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era to be read by anybody who is interested in one of the best, clearest, and far reaching sophisticated political science dissections of the 20th century. Used copies can always be bought for 300 dollars and libraries don't seem to readily have it at all (all adding to the conspiratorial mystique of a text by a man who perhaps did the most to collapse Soviet Union through alienating it with American international emphasis on human rights and setting a trap for Soviets in Afghanistan).

Since the book was published in 1970, Brzezinski was writing during the peak of American civilization (1968-1973). The country's raw physical power and culture were at their furthest global extent during this time. People to this day write silly articles complaining of supposed great "self indulgence" of the generation that matured during that time period. It is understandable since people who reached their productive age of mid to late 20s in years after 1973 were working with increasingly weaker and economically stagnating society and thus couldn't do as much even if they had the will. A declining society will not empower individuals and vice-versa.

Brzezinski seems to have fallen victim to a conceptual trap that happens when observing the world by standing at the peak of a great hegemony. It is like a geostrategist writing about the future of the world right after Germany conquered France early in WW2. Brzezinski himself was 42 years old just having polished, extended, and turned his greatest research paper into a book after self sharpening criticism of other brilliant minds like Samuel Huntington.

Nevertheless, even with this understandable handicap he produced a brilliant pragmatic analysis of most of the world and even United States to a degree (even his bleak scenarios for near future American domestic developments could not envision the deterioration during 1980s and 1990s). Nietzsche, in his Will to Power notes, commented that,

"It is a measure of the degree of strength of will to what extent one can do without meaning in things, to what extent one can endure to live in a meaningless world because one organizes a small portion of it oneself."

Brzezinski captures the essence of the quote in that he observed the international dynamic by looking at changes in power arrangement that will occur from technological and conceptual trends (which in turn change social/psychological development of world's people) without applying any ideological construct. He then went on to give this personal organization direction by suggesting what to do in the decades ahead and then went ahead and did everything possible to back his suggestions with physical violence.

The book can be simply summarized as follows:

3 great constructs 1) monotheistic religion, 2) nationalism, and 3) Marxism have pushed humanity the most towards understanding more about the world and igniting human desire for greater equality and freedom (each in its own gradually increasing way that responded to particular social conditions at the time). However all 3 are beginning to lose their power over the minds of men at the time the book is written in 1970. They are all rapidly losing their universal appeal and utility since they cant be meaningfully and productively applied to a globalizing pluralistic world of many interests, factions, supranational problems, and technologies that radically and quickly reshape social forces and psychological consciousness of men. The said technologies (they are primarily mass communication technology and post-industrial managerial systems techniques. Brzezinski comfortably speaks of implications from internet's revolutionary effect on social psyche in 1970) are being the most widely implemented in the United States. As such, United States will be the hardest hit and the most reshaped by being the first post-industrial great power. Mass communications technology is creating global consciousness among those exposed to it but may also contribute to great upheavals in the third world by bringing insufferable psychological appraisal of all too real inequality. United States should thus use its position as the most scientifically advanced post-industrial state to enter into increasingly closer collaboration with Europe, Asia, and Soviet Union for its own domestic security and security of the world. Since there is death of ideology (by stagnation, growing irrelevance, and conceptual inapplicability of religion/nationalism/Marxism to solve world's problems), United States as the backbone of a new world order is the most logical and humane way to go into the unknown future for which prepackaged constructs no longer apply.

That's the shortest summary that could be done and it doesn't even touch on his dissection of the severe American and Soviet problems (as well as remarkably accurate predictions on which scenarios likely await Soviet Union in 1980s).

The book's solution may sound imperialist from the summary (and in light of Brzezinski's past hawkish geopolitical dealings in breaking Soviet power that were at times more forceful than Kissinger's). However, the analysis and book's suggestions made in 1970 are not extremist at all and I cannot think of any other way that world's elite's can bring more global unity in a more peaceful way than one proposed. Some of Brzezinski's emphasis for America's domestic evolution is on:

1) Putting aside ideological bigotries when solving national problems and using scientific and technocratic governance to best apply emergent technology

2) Increasing role of scientists and engineers in government yet at the same time countering and balancing their role with soft science policy makers (since many scientists are good at their specialized field of study and not good at integrated philosophical policy making). Putting emphasis on systems analysis borrowed from the corporate world and NASA. Thus promoting integration of technological solutions with humanistic psychological/social study into effects of said solutions when applied to the country at large.

3) Relying less on coercive measures abroad and closing down most of military bases overseas. Reducing the size and arrogant presence of foreign missions and embassies by emulating the style of cheaper corporate offices, laboratories and R&D departments

4) Closing the racial inequality between blacks and whites in United States through continuous life education (1-2 years university training every 10 years of one's life) and civil service in psychologically inspiring developmental projects. Utilizing the internet and computing to bring ivy league level educational materials to all Americans into their homes and schools and to create digital voting and legislative participation. German style technical and job training in junior year in college to better close American divides between rural/urban peoples, whites/blacks, young/old.

5) Pushing for a constitutional convention (for historic anniversaries of 1976 and 1989) to remodel American governance more on the West European model of pluralistic democracy. Do away with archaic aristocratic structures to preserve liberal democracy and prevent stagnation and oligarchic corporate encroachment.

6) Break up emerging monopolies of media conglomerates to provide a more decentralized news feed to consumers

Ridiculous, absurd, authoritarian, kinda Marxist? Many semi-educated people on the Internet are saying that about these proposals ever since Brzezinski backed Obama for president. Undoubtedly, he now has communication and thus some influence on the new president the extent of which we will see by the congruence of Obama's near future policies and Brzezinski's recent recommendations (his books in last 20 years that are highly critical of republican approach to global integration). We see a lot of his quotes taken out of context. For example his thoughts that expansion of Communism's popularity was in many ways a positive evolution for humanity. The same can be said about Napoleon's influence on the world and nationalism. We can see how out of context statements can indeed sound disastrous to conspiracy minded individuals.

However, there are currently no "more acceptable" alternatives to solving 21st century problems on international scale without relying on elites like Brzezinski "conspiring" together. Even creation of more democratic methods to solve global problems will involve elites in the formulation of these methods. Noam Chomsky praises Bolivia as the most democratic nation in the world today for their mass participatory democratic efforts. As of today, key states on earth cannot use advanced Bolivian methods satisfy conspiracy theorist's desire for needed transparency and democracy.

The most fascinating aspect of the book (and prime reason on why everybody with some free time should read it) is just how relevant it is to today's world 4 decades after being written. We are now very far in construction of global consciousness with post-industrial communication technologies. A whole generation of people has lived their whole life and has been morphed by the forces discussed in the book.

The second best reason to read it is to see how Brzezinski's analysis of Soviet Union's inability to transform into a more technocratic society now also applies to United States remarkably well. In fact, in light of the great similarities of modern USA and Soviet Union in 1980s (in terms of problems they face/faced), there is uncanny relevance if one substitutes USA for Soviet Union in a lot of the book's summaries. Since I have increasingly written about many such similarities, these parts of the book drew my interest and focus the most. Here are some examples:

"it is striking how much intellectual effort has been invested in asserting and proving the distinctive character of the communist system. It once again reveals the importance attached to the notion that the Soviet past is linked to a future that is absolutely distinctive and not part of a broader stream of man's political evolution"

"Yet, in spite of this, the Soviet conception of the broad framework of contemporary reality, as articulated by top leaders and even as presented in scholarly journals, remains fundamentally dogmatic. The basic premise continues to be the Manichaean notion of the antagonistic dichotomy between the socialist and the capitalist worlds (or between good and evil)"

"The antagonists are capitalism and socialism." 18 Eventually one or the other will have to prevail, ‡ and Soviet analysts are confident that they know which one it will be. This theme runs like a thread through all major speeches, foreign policy analyses, or scholarly commentaries on world affairs."

It is remarkable that Francis Fukuyama got as much coverage as he did due to disintegration of one "socialist" regional power while China remained standing. We can imagine how Soviets had their own Fukuyama equivalents and how Chinese and Europeans have their own today who make proud declarations. Let's continue,

"The consequence, however, is to congeal certain formulas and claims, making intellectual innovation more difficult, even when on the operational level ideological restraints are increasingly evaded. The result is a condition of arrested ideological development, of ideological petrifaction rather than erosion, Marxist thought remaining vital only outside the Soviet Union"

This quote is fascinating in that there is good reason to believe that many societies around the world today do more to evolve and improve capitalism than United States does.

"Protracted internal decay as a result of the leadership's inability to come to grips with current problems, continued failure to catch up with the United States in the scientific competition, and internal threats to national unity could in a context of increasing ideological indifference combine with an international security threat to spark a fundamentalist spasm from a section of the elite. Such spasms are characteristic of political faiths in their decline. "

It is ironic that Brzezinski recently criticized George Bush Sr. for not taking advantage of Soviet collapse by creating new international structures. It now seems obvious that Washington DC's leadership was simply not capable of being creative and flexible enough to shape a new world order in early 1990s. Beginning of the Reagan period was the equivalent of the start of the Brezhnev period of defensive ideological orthodoxy and thus stagnation. Bush administration's heightened use of simplistic symbolism and a violent jihad abroad was the last gasp and manifestation of this period.

It may very well be that old age got to Brzezinski as well (or perhaps being wealthy he became too alienated from general society) and he was not able to articulate of a crash program to reverse these difficulties. He now hopes to preserve United States as a player by a continuing push to weaken Russia and China so there is victory by default. All his advice on how to reform United States in the 70s and 80s was definitely rejected by oligarchic coup against Jimmy Carter (the collaboration between intelligence services and Reagan's campaign to have American hostages in Iran longer for political expediency being one strong dimension of the coup).

Brzezinski's worst scenarios for United States (such as those concerning potentialities of not integrating blacks and whites, consolidation of media corporations to create ideological propaganda, not being a role model for Germany and Japan anymore, not closing the growing perceptual divide between the young and the old in the 70s, not focusing on technological solutions for political and social problems, not continuing integrated efforts to eliminate American poverty, not continually expanding corps of engineers and scientists) have been surpassed by an even darker reality.

"it follows that this society's most imperative task is to define a conceptual framework in which technological change can be given meaningful and humane ends. Unless this is done, there is the real danger that by remaining directionless the third American revolution, so pregnant with possibilities for individual creativity and fulfillment, can become socially destructive."

Unfortunately the book is often known for quotes like these

Barack Obama has arrived too late in the game to create meaningful reform. The recent Japanese election has shown total social rejection of emulating United States in the foreseeable future. The new ruling party is showing their split from their former colonial master as far as not betting on its future. Democratic Party of Japan has articulated desire to not buy any more American debt. The loss of Japan as an ideological colony after the loss of Germany (its condemnation of the Iraq invasion in 2003) is a loss of a very historically key tool for an American president. Obama may try to call for "sacrifice" and try to organize the youth to perform civic duty but that will get laughter at best and radical hatred at worst. Harnessing the "technetronic age" (Brzezinski's hybrid of technology and electronics) by politicians is now impossible on this continent without drastic political reform. Internet is now effectively harnessed from below.

If you're interested in psychology, political science, sociology, technology, futurism, or just like a great enlightening read (only 120 pages) then give Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era a go. It has aged well.

Future of NATO: Europe's Security Requires That Germany and France Take Charge

US style minimal state capitalism has proven to be structurally unstable and ideologically bankrupt. As Obama tries a domestic top down restructuring to save remnants of capitalism before the dollar defaults, central European region is left destabilized.




The process of wrestling NATO's control away from the Anglo-American partnership should start immediately while the international recession is relatively young. American economic collapse is forcing US leadership to copy its former ideological colonies of Germany and Japan when it comes to implementing state capitalism. That in turn will result in a power vacuum created in central Europe and major risk involving NATO's structure the way it is led presently.

US always had elements of state capitalism although private sector was far less regulated compared to US's more state centered ideological colonies in Western Europe. However, decades of de-industrialization, social/structural decay, and military build up brought the need to accelerate ideological compromise. We now see an American president insist on the need for state champions in energy and car production as well as utilization of state organs to shape private sector development. US still has what it takes to pull that off peacefully. If De Gaulle's France and Putin's Russia managed to create successful state backed champions under conditions bordering on civil war then Obama's America can do the same.

There is sufficient amounts of managerial experience and efficiency enforcement talent to be found domestically. Subsidizing cars and green energy will do for those industries what subsidies for agriculture did. That is, create industrial base for mass cheap exports abroad after years of hard work and political coalition pressure. That will take time however and in the meantime it makes strategic sense to extend state capitalism to biomedical, natural resource extraction, electronics, and agriculture sectors. These three fields, have the most potential for economic stimulation since they are one of the few things US still has an edge on internationally. American oligarchic demands and semi-privatized medical system have created the most advanced pharmaceutical and bioengineering research and development in the world. Bioengineering, organ growing, genetic modification, and resulting transhuman augmentation and life extension, are the best potential kernels of a new American economy. As such, if US government wants to take serious stabilizing steps to save bits of the old capitalist system, it needs to nurture, subsidize, and promote the biomedical sector the way it wants to with the car industry. Biomedical product exports are potentially worth trillions of dollars long term, especially if Koreans and Japanese can be brought aboard as collaborative partners.

If Obama administration is smart and wants to really make US economic decline gradual (rather than sharp and potentially violent), it will also use increasing state capitalism to try to catch up or collaborate with Japan in robotics. A friendly US-Japanese competition in robotic exports, to aging Europe, will bring additional stream of steady revenue to claw out of future dollar default. State control of agriculture and resource extraction is self explanatory when it comes to additional money for disgruntled desperate population. Global warming will allow more land cultivation for crops and the land is rich in coal, uranium, and gas (especially if Canada is brought on board to collaborate in Arctic exploration/extraction). Obama has taken the first steps of taking control of strategic sectors and the pace of state acquisition will accelerate. Proper state subsidies and investments must be made immediately so the lifeline industries are nurtured before the default on the dollar occurs.

How does this relate to central Europe? Central European states have embraced American style free market capitalism with open arms. Legions of US capitalist commisars have flown to educate the fresh faced leaderships of Baltic states and dissolved Warsaw pact members. The Soviet collapse has been so rapid and demoralizing that the ideology of minimal state capitalism has taken root deeply and broadly as far as the core states of the former Soviet Union itself. In many ways, central Europeans even outdid their American teacher (and new NATO master) in terms of lack of regulation, taxation, and lack of investment in real industry. The supposed success stories, of minimal state capitalism, have been shown in nearly double digit growth rates throughout the former socialist space. The small Baltic countries have shown their proud ability to stand tall next to other speculative paper tigers of Ireland and Iceland. Even the normally cautious American satellite of Germany got into the housing bubble creating action in the 1990s. Supposed post-industrial financial wizardry was so visible, that in 2003 Donald Rumsfeld even proposed to make central Europe the new ideological arm of American power projection.

Germany and France were no longer seen as reliable footholds to violently spread capitalism throughout the world. Franco-German leadership of Chirac and Shroeder were fine with the split between US and Western Europe since it allowed them to pursue their own independent state capitalism with European characteristics. They decided that US lacks the industrial production to continuously exert influence in central Europe. Leading Western European leadership decided to gradually play Americans and Russians against each other while competing with US and Russians in central Europe when it comes to financial investment. With no massive global ideological alternative to warn of the risks, even the neutral well managed Swedish banks poured money into"New Europe" states like Hungary and Latvia.

When the underutilized communist built infrastructure once again reached full capacity (and when a run on the banks collapsed structural pillars of American union's capitalism), central Europe went into an even deeper tailspin than United States. Not only did the ideology preached to them by America failed but now America itself is heading into the state capitalist direction of Germany, France, and Russia. We saw what happens when the core of an ideology promoting empire changes direction. The power elites of peripheral colonies (even those within the empire sponsored military alliance) often become disillusioned, demoralized, and run into increasing conflict with their own population. Khrushchev's thaw caused social unrest and colonial rebellion. Then of course Gorbachev's top down restructuring and liberalization didn't just pressure ideological satellites to split and pursue their own political development. It didn't just result in development of cultural/ideological differences so great that a common military alliance was deemed undesirable. It actually caused backward conservative regions of the federal union itself to secede so they can be free from the betrayal and influence of the liberalizing "capitalist" center.

Now it's unlikely that Obama's move towards restructuring of the state capitalist economy to make it more efficient will cause anything as drastic as any American region wanting to secede. After all, the great American melting pot and intermingling of ethnic groups produced a much more durable artificial nationality compared to the violence born Soviet one. Surely American evangelicals, blacks, northeastern secular liberals, and Hispanics can work out a way to peacefully decline and restructure without resorting to Yugoslav style nastiness. The last statements are not meant as sarcastic or alarmist. US state capitalist political system allowed some social popular pressure to be released continuously at the polls without being angrily pressurized for decades.

However, the demoralizing effect and demonstration of the minimal state capitalist failure will mean another economic/ideological collapse in the heart of Europe. We are seeing industrial drop offs in Hungary, Ukraine, and the Baltic states that resemble the early 90s and American reversals in the early 1930s. US never even had a large enough financial presence in their new ideological colonies since most of the housing bubble money came from EU heavy weights. That means that central Europe will drag economies of Western Europe down with them to an undetermined degree as German and Scandinavian Banks find themselves in a Baltic sub-prime mess of their own. With decrease of EU's economic support, American ideological betrayal, and Obama administration's lowered priorities for NATO expansion, regional vacuum can only be filled rapidly by Russia. Kremlin has tangible natural resource and energy exports as well as over 200 billion dollars in saved wealth. China's 500 billion bailout to create internal demand for its products is beginning to push oil price up again. This means that the oil based ruble is strengthening and can be used to rapidly exert political pressure in the region filled with devaluing currencies.

This is why the need for joint French/German take over of NATO is required. Rapid expansion of Russian influence, into a collapsing and socially unstable region (that is still overseen by American puppets like Yuschenko with approval rating of 4%), can result in a potentially violent confrontation with Anglo-American led NATO. US and England still have disproportionate influence within NATO's structure. Many within the Anglo-American leadership are ideological capitalist internationalists who might not want an American regional rollback. We have already seen how even the puppet leadership of the NATO aspiring country of Georgia can create a hysterical American led reaction. We cannot rely on Anglo-American internationalists within NATO, to properly handle the situation of minimal state capitalist collapse under the direct NATO umbrella itself. Potential for escalation and violence, would be much greater than during the daring NATO aggression against Yugoslavia in 1999. The world cannot rely on military leadership of an ideologically bankrupt and collapsing society to do the right thing and retreat when the dollar is devalued, social tensions are up, and elections are coming up.

French and Germans should begin efforts to become the new negotiating power center of NATO. If US decides to dissolve the alliance in retaliation, that is fine. Europeans already have protocols to make use of NATO facilities for a new European alliance. If US decides to stay (and still provide a nuclear umbrella to augment those of France and England), then that is the perfect outcome for the continent. It'll show American people that they are still relevant and soothe England's fears of being marginalizing completely. Berlin, Paris, and Rome can then pragmatically negotiate with Moscow on security arrangements for the continent. Only negotiation untainted by reactionary ideology can bring results. This solution allows coordinated preservation of North-Hemispheric stability in a time when state capitalism faces serious challenges from economic and social stagnation. Situation that leads to serious Western infighting, further deterioration of investor confidence, and potential escalating violence must not be allowed to happen. That would allow only China to remain the biggest planetary center of influence with 1 trillion dollars of saved wealth and the only major growing economy. Even briefly, that risks giving an opening that might prove difficult to close.

10th Amendment Decreases International Competitiveness of American Workers

US is structurally unable to train a quality workforce in a time of economic stagnation and rising socioeconomic inequalities. Constitutional restructuring must be started now to avoid future superpower crisis unseen since Soviet Union's in the 1980s.



Even an incompetent weak leader is occasionally prodded into doing something right for his country ( even if to get re-elected). No Child Left Behind bill which was co-sponsored by Edward Kennedy was signed by George W. Bush in 2001. United States took a major step towards improving the quality of its workforce.

At least that's what appeared to happen if only 10th amendment didn't get in the way of creating a national standard for America's children. United States never had a national education minister to properly oversee the country's competitive development versus international rivals. A national education standard regardless of class or race to which all students strive to makes solid geopolitical sense. Yet even at the height of the cold war American constitutional arrangement stood in the way. Such a standard (that many leading Western nations have long had) would help culturally equalize the population, narrow the gap in worker quality between different regions, and allow national leadership to effectively track how much economic value an average American student can bring to the world's table. As of today it is rather difficult to assess where an average American elementary kid stands in comparison to a kid in Australia, Canada, or France.

United Nations tries to do some tracking with its Human Development Index (on which United States is 19th, sliding down, and about to be surpassed by Italy of all countries). UN's task is drastically complicated by major structural and cultural roadblocks:

1) Structural obstacle---The 10th amendment which results in each state setting its own standard,and the different ways of measuring, assessing, and comparing state wide education levels between 50 parts of American federal union. Even state wide standards took a while to implement and had to be nudged with No Child Left Behind. In many older northeastern states local governments have inefficient archaic 19th century structures, compete with each other for educational resources, and are poorly coordinated from the state's political center. Large states (old as well as newer ones in the Midwest) are prone to inefficiency, redundancy, and waste resulting from American over-emphasis on local educational controls. American Union's economically poorer regions as well as regions dependent on one crop or resource export also have their education system come under undue influence of wealthy protestant clergy or local oligarchs with political clout. When federal money is provided to states as incentives for restructuring, secularism is not strictly and uniformly enforced as a condition for aid. This results in a qualitative drop in demographic grasp of hard sciences necessary for high technology production and development. Even demographically smaller states have been given two senators by the founding aristocracy. This allows agricultural and resource extraction oligarchs to have relatively cheap influence on senators and governors in states like Iowa.

2) Substantial qualitative gaps between private schooling of the rich, middle class public schooling, and public schooling for the poor. The geographically large 300 million multi-ethnic federal union also suffers from often large cultural differences between regional, racial, and ethnic populations that translate into significant splits within the state wide education system.

No Child Left Behind reaffirmed the political notion that backward underdeveloped regions (such as Mississippi and West Virginia) should be left in charge of setting their own education standards. The above mentioned problems were thus codified and in many ways worsened. Some backward regions blatantly lowered their standards to receive Federal resources for adhering to NCLB act. Since NCLB had no enforcement provisions, tax payer money from states with solid education flowed to reward states that publicly hurt their own students' future. Predictably this occurred in states with high populations of poorly educated and disenfranchised peoples not belonging to ruling ethnic coalition (American south). A situation was created (and federally encouraged) where a High School student in one region of the American union thinks he has an A- in math and English whereas that A- can be a C+ in other regions. Millions of American citizens, their families, and institutions are being psychologically tricked for years to think their grades mean the same throughout the whole country. NCLB however, at least forbid reliance on the average test scores within the states. This was important since hyper educated upper class whites often skew the mean test scores up artificially (the way a millionaire walking into a gas station would bring up the average income of all the patrons in the station).

When High School children around the country reach the time to take a nationally standardized SAT test, many are in for a rude awakening. A "good student", from a rural locality in a state that doesn't try to modernize might think his high grades prepare him well. However he often scores worse than a "good student" from a state that tries hard to modernize and implement European style standards and assessment.

In 2005, the then chairman of the federal reserve Alan Greenspan has identified that American students compete well globally at 4th grade level but that there is a drop off in average quality after that. Greenspan, one of the biggest defenders of the free market, has pinpointed the lack of educational investment for high schools as the leading cause of widening gap between the rich and the poor.

"The income gap between the rich and the rest of the US population has become so wide, and is growing so fast, that it might eventually threaten the stability of democratic capitalism itself" - Alan Greenspan in a public testimony.

Such shocking statements by a man who oversaw nation's fiscal policy have gone unnoticed by most of the union's population. A chart of mean 2008 SAT scores by state can show the extent of the socioeconomic divide that is pushing US towards potential social instability in the future. What is most striking and telling about the state of economic inequality in US is that the states with the highest average SAT scores have the lowest amount of students taking the exam.

Upper classes that also often have the tools and extra wealth to influence political direction of the state/locality perpetuate chronic lack of public education funding while getting qualitative preparatory advantage via private schooling. Private schooling techniques and methods have continued to improve in United States even as overall quality of life declined. US private education for the upper classes is some of the best in the world and analogous to the American medical industry. The states with the highest mean SAT scores not only have the least amount of people managing to even try to pass the test but they are also amongst some of the poorest states in GDP per capita.

This is taking into account the distorting effect that those earning over $100,000 a year have on the average GDP per capita evaluation. Midwestern regions of the union as well as the non-diversified export states are under oligarchic control as blatant as that seen in parts of South America (where GINI index of inequality is even higher than in US). Midwestern and the Southern regions are much poorer than their entrenched strongmen claim. Announcements of high SAT scores or more people getting into college serve to perpetuate the illusion of rural development.

Perhaps the best example of oligarchic influence on political power centers is shown by Washington DC. Many nations of the world are judged by the social conditions of their capital cities. Capital cities often show the microcosm of the overall society itself since that's where the most power elites are concentrated (whose thoughts in turn shape society). In US, due to its decentralized federal structure, that is less of a case (considering the importance of state capitals, financial/cultural hubs of New York and Los Angeles, and strategic port cities) but still worth a look.

District of Columbia has the highest GDP per capita, the lowest mean SAT scores, and the highest SAT participation rate (and subsequent disillusionment). Lets dissect this innocent data.

The gap between private schooling for children of oligarchs and public schooling for the poor has never been more on display than in the capital of the former superpower. 1/3 of the city's population is functionally illiterate whereas the SAT scores resulting from elite private schools (that are grew 13% annually since 2001) don't even make much of a dent in mean SAT calculation. The mere fact that DC manages to have such low mean SAT scores (while its mean GDP per capita is the highest in the nation) shows that mathematically distorting effects of high SAT scores on average score calculation can only go so far. We wont see all the bourgeois upper class high schoolers scoring 1600 equivalent on the new SATs whereas the richest 1% living close to country's leadership have a drastic effect on mean calculation.

New York for instance has same level of participation rate in SAT taking as DC and is only 45th worst mean SAT score performer (DC is 51st worst). However, New York is 6th highest by GDP per capita (DC is first) and we see that nation's capital is 34% more socioeconomically unequal than even the state with the financial heart of the American union, Wall Street. Such striking gap in wealth and ethnic culture is unthinkable in Europe's capitals (even now that they are becoming culturally segregated by immigrant and native neighborhoods). Even Moscow, with the flashy belligerence of its oligarchs has not reached such a level of gilded age extravagance. Such reality in the beginning of 21st century should make any American pause about direction of the country. Past Western accusations that involved materialism gap between Soviet elites and average Soviet citizens begin to sound ridiculous in comparison to counter Soviet accusations of material gap in capitalist urban areas. Washington DC, of course, also has the best medical care in the country to keep its elderly Brezhnevs functional for decades.

After taking an explanatory background detour we return to the issue of worker competitiveness. Political realities make even a rabid modernizing president unable to create proper educational assessment of citizenry within his own country. Lack of national educational standards will continue to make rural regions of the country more uneven compared to economically growing urban areas. We have seen how group think of American elites has led to the financial bubbles as well as to the nationally draining occupation of parts of Asia. Doing an American perestroika-style restructuring when the economy is stagnating or declining runs the risk of massive failure. Undergoing needed restructuring itself will require nothing short of a constitutional convention or a number of new amendments. The entrenched regional powers in more distant parts of the union will not allow such a restructuring to happen or to properly succeed even if it begins. Large swaths of the American population in rural areas are thoroughly indoctrinated with ideological nationalism. Many sincerely believe the American federal union is in a rather fine shape compared to more consolidated, educated, industrialized, and egalitarian countries of the world. Many also sincerely believe that if they just work harder (to make capitalism more pure), the superpower will be set on the right path. Unfortunately, many of these ideological conservatives are the elderly and about to gain even more power as baby boomers retire. Their neural patterns are thoroughly indoctrinated and they are not as open to education via new forms of media like the Internet.

Massive investments in education are not enough if their target is not social equalization of the American workforce. Since United States lacks economic egalitarianism, the least it can do is build egalitarianism of standards in math, English, and science. We must not allow the average American worker to educationally decline to such a degree that even incentives of low taxes and lack of union protection prevents foreign investment. This story, of Toyota deciding to open a factory in Ontario instead of southern US, is a foreshadowing of whats to come. Toyota decided that although America has workers willing to work for less (and local authorities provide tax incentives)it is still more profitable to open a factory in Canada since Canadian workforce is better educated and better medically covered. Considering the rate of income growth in US slowed to below growth in inflation in 2008, we need to start thinking about what to do about the 10th amendment. It's THAT serious.