Sensationalizing American capitalism as the one best economic system for such a diverse socio-economic population of people, as is the United States, is, in and of itself, a multi-million dollar business which well-paid pundits are using quite effectively to enhance their own financial standings. This is in direct correlation with the unrestrained pragmatism of acquiring wealth, the capitalist ideology, which is the chief concern of the affluent 3 percent of the nation who control 98 percent of American wealth. For in such a nation as the United States, the only way rampant laissez-fare capitalism can flourish without a violent socio-economic upheaval, by a revolt of the struggling 97 percent of the population, is through such a propaganda ministry devoted to sophistically persuading the lower-middle class, and the abject poor, that the rich are not getting systematically richer and that the poor are not getting inexorably poorer. These cajoling sophists are making it seem, to the wage-bound 97 percent of population, that the prevailing system is working effectively according to the esoteric constitutional mandate of promoting the general welfare.
Lean economic times, frequently called recessions and depressions, are times of unrestrained misery for the poor and simple idle production for the rich. Contrary to popular belief, these dispensations of meager capital investment are hardly accidental cyclic periods in the productive life of corporate capitalism. Though capitalists want the bulk of the American population to believe that these manufactured austerities are mere benign hiccups in the ordinary progression of normal business activities, they are, rather, the end result of a system predicated upon the pragmatic acquisition of profit and upon the number one adversary of social equality, human greed. The absurd notion that capitalism is beneficial to the poor is as much a delusionary principle, taught by well-compensated exponents of the economic ideology, as was totalitarian communist ideology, taught by vehement Marxists. As such, the constraints of being continually poor, without the basic necessities of life, as being life-long members of a meager economic caste, aren’t recognized and decried in a system extolling profit over utilitarian justice. To the rich, the poor and unemployed citizen is a natural, and essential, by-product of a viable capitalist system. In the midst of poverty and deprivation you have scads of pacifying euphemisms poured out by the haves onto the have-nots, persuasively encouraging them to be generally satisfied with the meager status quo of their lives https://www.topgradeessays.com/.
For instance, during the recent months throughout the U.S., when the price of gasoline rose above $3.50 per gallon, countless billions of dollars of profit were generated for the already wealthy fossil-fuel fat cats. Conversely, there was a pathetic loss of money for poor families who had to pay the exorbitant prices to fill-up their gas tanks. Then suddenly the price of a gallon of gas suddenly plummets to below $1.50 per gallon. For the sake of the deluded individuals earning less than $30,000 per year, who were forced to spend $60.00-or-more to regularly fill-up their automobile gas tanks, in order to get to work every day and take care of family business, the propagandizing pundits, the television’s talking heads, glibly generated esoteric numbers, convoluted statistics, and corporate business analyses to make it seem that the economy was essentially working for the benefit of the have-nots. These deluded hardworking consumers, who are, in most cases, family-bound wage earners, watched CNN, and the other network news presentations, and religiously assured themselves that those educated knowledgeable commentators must be correct, or they wouldn’t be allowed to say what they do. Most of these consumers readily accept what they see and hear from these, supposedly, knowledgeable people as gospel truth. They are told to be happy with a system that is inherently flawed and only advantageous for the wealthy 2-to-3 percent of the nation.
Consequently, you will never hear from those pundits the basic underlying causes for the economic woes of the republic, whose government cares little for the basic human rights and dignities of the much greater number of citizens who work to their detriment to finance such a government. They will never hear from these propagandists that the prices of a gallon of gas, and all other basic essential necessities, never really have to rise in cost in a properly structured and managed economy.
Getting directly to the point, when the American dollar (the silver certificate) was worth 90-to-100 percent of its value, prior to 1960, something basically worth 5 cents wasn’t arbitrarily and destructively assigned the value of a dollar, or a hundred cents. Yet, when a system of private bankers (the Federal Reserve Board) was allowed to politically control, over time, the value of American money, or public tender, something basically worth 50 cents one day could be manipulated to be worth well over $250.00 on another. This was the sad effect of the Federal Reserve Act, which was signed into law in 1913 by Woodrow Wilson and changed, without constitutional amendment, the mandate placed into Article 1, Section 8 by the Framers, which stipulated that the Congress, or the legislative branch, possess, and exercise, the sole exclusive power to coin money and to determine its value. Sadly, somewhere along the way the United States Government’s character, integrity, and collective conscience, which should actually be brilliantly reflected in the care and regard it has for the security and welfare of the greater number of American citizens, were tragically compromised and then lost. Somehow, along the way, the U.S. Supreme Court became politicized and was permitted by an apathetic American electorate to render precedent-setting interpretations of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, commonly referred to as the Necessary and Proper Clause, in such cases as McCullough v. Maryland, 1819. This particular case was the original lynchpin that allowed Congress to pass laws, with impunity, to alter the rules of the U.S. Constitution in lieu of constitutional amendment. While some people would, strangely, not consider the Federal Reserve Act unconstitutional, as some didn’t regard the congressional act chartering the Second Bank of the United States unconstitutional, the fact remains that the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed a law as constitutional that, in 1913, altered the singular textual power of the legislative branch to regulate the value of money.
I think it is much like what occurred in 1969, when the U.S. Supreme Court, under Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, handed down the landmark decision, Terry v. Ohio, which altered, without constitutional amendment, the text of the 4th Amendment. Essentially, Terry v. Ohio, 1969, changed the requirement imposed by the 4th Amendment that police officers (municipal, county, state, and federal) have probable cause in order to stop, detain, and search a person. In an 8-to-1 majority vote, the Court ruled that a police officer must only have reasonable suspicion that a person has committed a crime, or is about to commit a crime, in order to seize and search that person. The only dissenting vote was from Justice William O. Douglas, who wrote in his dissenting opinion that if the letter of the U.S. Constitution is to be changed, let it, rather, be done by, and through, the amendment process, by the will of the people, than by fiat. Douglas blatantly appealed to reason in his writing when he also said that the stairway to totalitarianism begins with such rulings. Hence, if the U.S. Supreme Court can alter the letter of U.S. Constitution by the practice of precedent-setting judicial review, what can’t it do to change the Framers basic intent, set forth as the basic rulebook of the U.S. Government? If the U.S. Constitution still states, in the text of the 4th Amendment, that probable cause is ultimately necessary for a police officer to seize and search a person, why does a U.S. Supreme Court decision only requiring reasonable suspicion trump the Bill of Rights? Likewise, if the U.S. Constitution still states, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, that Congress possess the exclusive power and authority to coin money and regulate its value, how can Congress possibly relinquish that duty to the Executive Branch, and to the profligate jurisdiction of a group of private bankers?
Getting back to the discussion of political economy, the reason for the American Framers insistence in the U.S. Constitution that the value of money be determined, and regulated, by the elected representatives of the people was that, perhaps, the welfare of the greater number of citizens would be a greater primary concern for those chosen by the voters to legislate the republic’s laws, than for unelected individuals more concerned with their own financial welfare. I must believe that a few of the Founding Fathers were desirous to see the manifestation of law as a means of insuring equity, justice, and social equality rather than merely establishing and maintaining social order. Perhaps, in such a broad view, most of the Framers intended for the U.S. Congress to be infused with new representation every two years, for representatives, and every six years, for senators. I can see where such regular representational change would proscribe cronyism and dynastic political influences, which continual re-election of the same senators, and representatives, would encourage and proliferate.