The American political scene probably needs some sort of consistency. America’s national situation is that of a nation among nations globally reaching toward income equalization. Capitalism works toward that end. For U.S. politics to defend its advantages while it still can, there is a requirement for both major parties to work together like shelter halves forming a tent in economic storms of rapid change and capital relocation chasing profits.
Policy implementation for consistent policy—not flip-flopping back every four years or eight years as a different party takes over, rendering chaos onto everything—would require about 20 years. I tend to prefer a Republican party approach for 20 years. Not that I believe the Republicans have policy that is without problems. Like the Roman Republic, the Republican party would have some prospect of instilling discipline while yet allowing free enterprise to persist.
Of course, there would be a tendency to concentrate wealth with the Republican party. The world economy, though, and the national economy have experienced substantial changes in the last century and a half that would perhaps best be remedied by the Democrat Party. Republicans tend to be blind in their allegiance and loyalty to the rich and to the abstract idea of concentrating wealth generally. And that leads to various problems involving an anisotropic distribution of income nationally, with wealth concentrated in the top five percent or one percent.
Substantial problems challenge the United States today in economics as well as security that require both political parties working together to solve. Of course, the primary reason Democrats and Republicans differ on policy, and the country has become more divided, is on the basis of morality. Democrats prefer moral positions that are virtually anathema to half of the country. And while Democrats focus on those moral positions or immoral positions, the country remains divided and becomes even more so, while the public debt has increased roughly to 40 trillion dollars—I believe it is—and the budget is out of balance this year alone by a trillion and a half dollars, and the interest on the public debt is more than a trillion dollars annually.
For both parties to work together to solve the nation’s primary economic challenges would fundamentally require Democrats adopting the Republican moral positions on abortion, border enforcement, border security, homosexuality, marriage, and so forth. In order to render the moral positions a non sequitur as far as dividing the public, Democrats would need to return to simply being a primary economic advocate for the majority of Americans. And of course to do that, Democrats would actually need to increase taxes on the rich and create attacks on capital, as well as passing a law to require that the federal government balance the budget annually. It would be very difficult for the Democrats to accept the Republican moral positions for their own or to recognize that their extreme moral positions are extremely divisive. They would find it very difficult to accept the Second Amendment, for instance, and allow Americans to own guns liberally. In fact, Americans today—an argument could be made—should have the right to have fully automatic weapons at home to shoot potential drone threats in the future.
The entire idea of a well-armed militia could well be applied today to the idea of well-armed homeowners, especially rural homeowners with thousands of weapons among them in a city area or in a county, able to shoot at potentially thousands of opposition force drones flying over the country. The changes in modern war brought about by the Democrat party’s Ukraine war—the changes and the pace of the advancement of modern weaponry—is entirely extreme and rapidly accelerated by the persisting war, which is going on for four full years now.
Changes in war technology that are fairly simple with robotics and AI are being developed that will totally change the modern state of war and enable the second and third world to afford air forces and militaries they never had before, and increase the prospects for war. While Europe, meanwhile, unable to attack each other—European nations because of NATO and the United States still involved in it—has banded to convert NATO into a European military force and attack others and expand and attack Russia. But in Ukraine, Europeans being complete war lunatics and attacking as they can, as they did before the first two world wars, and are resuming now.
One simple application of that modern weapons technology is simply the ability of AI-driven platforms—mobile as well as hovercraft—to fly in mortars, rockets, machine guns, flamethrowers, and other explosives, completely camouflaged and waiting for an advance at low cost. With AI able to surveil and launch weapons at enemy forces that appear at any given time later in the war. The platform weapons platforms would have no human operator, would present no infrared signature to satellite, could be totally latent, and with its signal off could communicate with headquarters via burst transmission, such as spies have used for the last 40 years. And the platform itself, along with extra drones to have better vision—drones perhaps made of hard plastic explosives that work better as suicide bomber attack drones—would totally change the state of modern war, infantry war that is, even above what it is in Ukraine presently.
There are possibilities for aircraft to launch thousands of plastic explosive molded electronic glider drones that can fly and descend like a cloud or even think individually to attack particular targets or to accomplish other missions on the ground. If they’re given some kind of ability to burrow into the ground, and everything is all visually optically camouflaged too, even with extra camouflage nets. And so this sort of development is not actually a good thing for stabilizing peace.
Democrats, though, even on Homeland Security, don’t believe that they should be willing to give up cheap labor from Mexico that has to work as underclass for lower than average wages. I tend to believe that if a law passed requiring that every worker in the United States—legal or illegal—had to be paid the minimum wage, that Democrats would oppose illegal immigration. And that, like the old Southern slavery party, they like cheap labor or free labor if they can get it. Free and cheap labor, though, is totally inimical these days to American job security and the idea of sovereignty and self-determination.
Politically, the electorate is totally in a disconfirmed relationship to the workers and worker class. To renormalize the American economy and adapt it to the modern changes that have happened in the last 150 years, there would need to be zero illegal immigration. Economic changes that the Democrats could bring into being by control of both parties of Congress would need to be expressed before they were ever elected. One cannot ever expect politicians to bring positive economic legal changes after they’re elected if they didn’t mention them before. The kind of changes they bring without mentioning them are generally those that they foist upon the public forcibly.
In order to rectify the economy, Democrats would need to recognize that the nature of the workforce is fundamentally changed. Job security comprising a career position as a normal way of being has changed. Instead of one or two different jobs in a lifetime, a worker today may have a different kind of job every year, with frequent periods of unemployment. And the support structure or welfare safety net for workers should be adapted to reflect that. That would include a basic income and a basic national income—say, ten thousand dollars added to any worker or any American citizen that earns less than twenty thousand dollars a year—in order to bring his earnings up to twenty thousand dollars a year. This would go a long way toward providing a rational security and continuity of life, including planning for training, retraining, building, micro-investing, and such as that.
Capitalism has become totally global. Warren Buffett invests abroad in China in Chinese electric cars all over the world—wherever profits can be made. And that sort of investment occurs very quickly. Capital will not sit around waiting under some kind of idea about loyalty to a nation. Economic levels tend to equalize with the capital assistance globally internationally over time. And that means the United States and American workers can expect to be thrown out of work often, can see jobs move overseas without outsourcing, can’t expect to see industries become obsolete with new factories built in places where workers are either very cheap or not required at all. And then policies like the Ukraine war close off Russia to American investment and blockages and other markets and sanctions even.
To pass a balanced budget act law, bring in more federal revenue to pay down that public debt. The border needs to be secured, and there needs to be a basic national income. While capital is taxed. In order to get great structural changes like that done, one needs a unified electorate, which is the overwhelming majority of the people who are outside the top 10 percent. And yet they are powerless to act and are even distracted with dog and pony shows of socialism and other deviations from democracy.
Those are the basic economic facts. Without a unified electorate and without a balanced budget and without eliminating the vast repayment of public debt—which basically sells the social safety net of Americans to the rich who own the public debt—the prospects for employment in America are rather dim. And one can see that it is the Democrats’ unwillingness to compromise on their preferred immoral, atheist, dopey, illegal alien, cheap labor, foreign and domestic policies. And that will divide the electorate. And that is the way I see the economic situation of the United States today. So, obviously, I am not optimistic.
A political toolkit of affirmative action and affirmative action classes will continue to motivate Democrats toward queer illegal alien immigration dope, foreign and domestic policies, and that will divide the electorate.
Garrison Gibson: books and blog 
Leave a comment