Crash Course on Capitalism (part 1)

You might think 35% income tax for the rich is too high, but only if you don't understand capitalism. In the 21st century, about four hundred people have almost 50% of the wealth in the United States (Forbes). Quick explanation below:

In a free market, those with money can make more money a lot faster than those without money. Over the course of generations, the playing field is more and more uneven. People without money have to seek out those with money and apply for a job. Those with money spend time investing, and those without money spend time working as employees.

The free market was only an even playing field when it began; now it is a very uneven playing field. That's why we need government to regulate with labor laws, social services, etc. Of course, the propagandists hired by the big financial interest groups will do everything they can to help the rich save money -- so we have the GOP pretending we can magically fix the economy by LOWERING taxes for the rich, increasing the retirement age so the poor can work more years, etc... and lately, they are even trying to de-fund the Environmental Protection Agency! Unscrupulous.

If you want to learn more about the conflict that causes the rich to buy politicians and use propaganda, please follow this blog.

Also, learn about Keynesian economics. John Keynes was a famous economist who observed that government spending can compensate for a lack of private spending during a time of economic recession -- and he believed government could effectively improve the free market. The purpose of government is to protect people, and after 2 centuries of free market American capitalism we do need to be protected from the effects of this exponentially increasing imbalance of wealth. Just like the rich, the government should make good investments.  To the rich, though, the government is just a big pain in the ass.

Strategy for ending an argument #1: "Offering a way out"

If the partner in argument already knows he's wrong and doesn't want to admit it, remember that there is actually no reason he should be forced to admit it. You know it, he knows it, and... unless there is an audience to the argument, that accounts for everyone involved in the situation. Instead of being a slave to your ego and working to get him to admit he was wrong, you can become the voice of the subconscious mind.  In doing so, one option is to offer him a way out:

[Someone unreasonably becomes angry and abusive]

Communication Ninja: “Wait a minute... maybe the reason you got so angry was because you care so much about Molly.”

(Maybe Molly has nothing to do with the situation, but if the partner in argument knows he was wrong he will quickly accept that idea and confirm it.)

Partner in Argument: "Yeah, I don't like anyone talking about her like that, and I know that's what set me off."

Communication ninja: “Well I'm glad I realized that before making a fool of myself. I was thinking about the whole situation the wrong way. I understand where you're coming from and I'm sorry we clashed like this.”

So the moral of the story is that getting the other guy to admit he is wrong is not real winning. That builds resentment that can't be helpful to your real purpose. You can win by suddenly “noticing” something that makes you “understand where he is coming from,” and you can admit that you had judged him prematurely and that now you “regret clashing with him this way.” And to take it to an excellent extreme you can even say, "I'm glad I realized this before making a fool of myself."  To the conscious mind of the partner in argument, this sounds like you are taking all responsibility for the problem, but the subconscious mind hears something like this: "REALIZE, before making a fool of myself, thinking the wrong way, understand where you are coming from..." 

If it's clear to you that the other guy already knows he was wrong, this powerful gesture of reconciliation can be a source of both healing and … winning. The other guy comes away from the argument with the knowledge that you are not someone who can be easily bullied, and he also feels that you suddenly understand him and genuinely like him. And if you are a good practitioner, you really do like him, just as you like life.

Expectation Magic

Most people believe that attitude influences outcomes, and usually they reason that it is because a positive attitude improves performance, perception, and the atmosphere of the whole operation.  Attitude influences outcomes, because a bad attitude brings everybody down, and a good attitude lifts spirits.  Also, people who understand the psychology of language know that attitude is transmitted from person to person via the words they share (and altered in the lens of associations).

But these are only the obvious mechanisms that cause attitude to influence reality.  Some of us believe that there is something more.

It has been called the "Law of Attraction," "Universal Will," "The Power of Prayer," "Creative Visualization," and many other names.  This mechanism is the mind itself, the one that Zen Master Shunryu Suzuki has called "Big Mind." You can find clues about it in every spiritual tradition and meditation discipline that has ever been practiced.  I have always thought of it as Expectation Magic.

Dr. Deepak Chopra has reported many miraculous healings that have been the result of attitude and expectation. Zen masters are reputed to have been able to perform various miracles with their meditation. Dr. Paul Cho, a minister in Korea, has written about the power of petitionary prayer when it is followed by a period of feeling intense appreciation, as thought the request has already been granted.  Father Anthony Demello has written about a similar phenomenon in his book Sadhana. Pagan magical traditions use rituals that amount to a powerful affirmation of expectation.  It is not far-fetched to believe that expectation influences reality.

And for all you empiricists who are scoffing at me right now, I'll offer this argument to show that your assumption is not better than mine:

Empiricists assume that physical matter somehow came into existence and that some of it somehow came to life.  That leaves little room for expectation magic. I begin my thinking with the assumption that it is consciousness that somehow started existing -- not physical matter. 

Consider the implications of that.  It is not a new idea. If it seems new, it's just because it is hard to explain. This is an old idea:

If it is consciousness that somehow started existing, it would surely be having a dream about physical matter. And we all know how expectation can influence events when we are dreaming.