Does Welfare Have To Be The New Normal?

As a nation, we are dangerously becoming dependent on the State. Anytime more people are being paid not to be productive, it imperils our liberty and democracy.

In recent years, the welfare state has expanded, propelled by the deterioration of the middle class and the fear that people experience on the edge of poverty and in poverty. This condition is creating a political movement to provide an all-encompassing security blanket to protect Americans from all vagaries of economic life. There’s now a welfare program for everything from losing a job to food and healthcare assistance to having money to pay the rent. While such need has become increasingly necessary with seemingly endless duration, it is transforming our nation from self-dependency to State dependency.

According to official data from the Census Bureau, 46.5 million Americans live in poverty with essentially 43 percent of all those on welfare officially considered poor. But the reach is far greater as over 150 million Americans receive monies from the State through Social Security, Medicare, veterans’ benefits, unemployment and other non-means and means-tested financial support funded through tax extraction and national debt.

Such dependency will not cease until our nation addresses the reality that tectonic shifts in the technologies of production destroy jobs and devalue the worth of labor, forcing people to resort to low-wage jobs and welfare support as their ONLY means of financial subsistence.

The reality is that increasingly EVERY human is having more and more interactions with machines and fewer with human beings. There is no escape from technological unemployment long-term as much more is to come.

The field of robotics is at the vanguard of this new wave of automation. The broad universal definition is a machine that can perform the job of a human. Robots can be mobile or stationary and hardware or software, but ALL are instruments of productive capital and ALL are the private property of corporations and businesses OWNED by individuals.

Business investment in machine and robotic super-automation hardware and software is more than it’s ever been. But what are not back are the jobs.

The percentage of Americans with jobs is at a 20-year low according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. A significant cause of this low rate is due to tectonic shifts in the technologies of production and job destruction resulting from off shoring production to global economies who pay workers far less. In every industry, we are witnessing fewer interactions with other human beings. While conventional economists, academia, and political leadership has called upon education as the solution, the changes are coming so quickly it will be difficult for workers to retrain themselves and effectively compete for far fewer jobs over time. They are disadvantaged to compete with super-computers, which can program themselves to improve their performance. Even if the entire American population was college educated, there still would not be the need in the private sector to create jobs in numbers that match the pool of people willing and able to work due to human work constantly being eroded by physical productive capital’s ever increasing role. Technology increasingly is demonstrating skills on a par with and even surprising human skills.

While entrepreneurs will continue to create new business opportunities, the reality is that they will not be hiring large numbers of people. Public companies such as Apple, Amazon, Facebook and Google, for example, represent in total about $1 trillion in market capitalization value. Yet together they employ fewer than 150,000 people––less than ALL the new entrants into the American workforce monthly in past months.

Annual investment by U.S. manufacturers in new technology has increased significantly since the “Great Recession” ended, and research institutions and robotics companies, funded by venture capital monies, are constantly searching for innovations to provide businesses solutions that lower the cost of production and operation and gain competitive efficiencies to maximize profits.

Technological invention and innovation is the ONLY means to effectively return manufacturing to the United States. But realistically, the global competition will be intense as other teams of engineers and scientists in other countries compete to create ever more sophisticated human-intelligent machines, super-automated processes, robotic workers, digital computerized operations etc. Thus, even if offshore manufacturing returns to the United States, well-paying jobs will be fewer than ever as most of the jobs will go to “robots.”

Sadly, unless addressed and the system reformed, State dependency is the prospect and the plight of a growing segment of the American population, solely dependent on low-pay hourly wage jobs and supplemental redistributive government welfare, which costs taxpayer billions of dollars, if not future trillions, and furthers our dependency on tax extraction and never-ending national debt and interest payments.

While our productive technological capability has been evolving for over a century during a period of labor demand, and initially made us better at our jobs, now it is becoming so sophisticated and prevalent that it is making many workers obsolete, even in the relatively labor-intensive service industries.

At the same time the situation is ripping our nation apart with one segment of the population declaring “laziness” and opposing minimum wage laws, Food Stamp benefits and Medicaid expansion, and another segment promoting job dependency, government-dictated wage laws (not free market), and socialistic welfare support. Both see ONLY a job as a source of income for the majority of Americans and fail to recognize that job creation is not a viable long-term solution, and that the non-human factor of production resulting from technological invention and innovation makes many forms of labor unnecessary. Both also fail to see that the majority of Americans are being systematically denied equal opportunity to acquire private sector individual wealth-creating, income-generating productive capital property ownership on the same terms that the wealthy ownership class now utilizes. Rich people are able to use their investment’s earnings to pay off the capital credit loans used to finance their investments, without having to use their own money or deny themselves consumption. The unfortunate result is that the rich get richer through their continued concentration of productive capital ownership and the vast majority of Americans struggle with progressively less well-paid job opportunities, the devaluing of their worth as laborers, and the prospects of falling into poverty and dependent on tax extraction from the productive sector. As a result, politicians have continued the incurrence of national debt to support supplemental welfare programs that increasingly more Americans require to make ends meet.

This should not be what America is about. Instead, our focus should be on OWNERSHIP CREATION in which employees of companies and other ordinary citizens OWN full-dividend-paying-and-voting stock in the corporations they work for and patronize, and build over time a diversified portfolio of wealth-creating, income-producing stock assets that will provide them a second income beyond their reliance on a job. We need to reform the system to provide equal opportunity for EVERY American to become an OWNER, just like the wealthy ownership class, and significantly improve their long-term financial security. The focus needs to be on FUTURE sustainable production and broadened individual ownership. This will put us on a path to prosperity, opportunity, and economic justice and in the short-term significantly grow our economy with “full-employment” opportunities as EVERY American benefits from two sources of income and as we build a FUTURE economy that can support general affluence for every man, woman, and child.

We are at the horizon of a new technological frontier and the capabilities of computerization and robotics are projected to exponentially expand. The work in this FUTURE economy will be largely done by “machines,” and support general affluence for EVERY citizen.

As we build this FUTURE affluent economy, consumer confidence will be strengthened and businesses will benefit from an expanding population of “customers with money.” This will drive the demand for products and services the economy will be capable of producing, while achieving environmental renewability and sustainable viability. At the same time United States credibility and leadership around the world will be restored as our economy booms and we successfully alter the choices people must make between choosing alternative, more costly “greener” choices that do not threaten the environment and their very livelihood.

While this is not a short-term “click-the-switch” solution, in the short-term we must not fail those who require supplemental support. But we need to adopt a long-term solution that will eliminate and drastically reduce dependency on tax extraction and national debt and build a FUTURE responsibly sustainable economy that can support general affluence for EVERY citizen and provide financial security into retirement.

For more on how to accomplish such structural reform, see “Financing Economic Growth With ‘FUTURE SAVINGS’: Solutions To Protect America From Economic Decline” at…economic-decline

Support the Agenda of The Just Third Way Movement at and support the Capital Homestead Act at and See the full Act at

Transform Western Power Into Community Investment Corporation – Perth Herald Tribune

Western Power, privatisation. WA Labor, WA Liberal Party

On October 8, 2016, the Perth Herald Tribune writes:

When asked by Perth Herald Tribune whether she would be interested in the privatization that would make all of Western-Australians residents shareholders Ms. Skender expressed her interest.
Such privatization is not only possible but also economically efficient. Here is how it would work.
Imagine that the company made investment on behalf of all Western Australian citizens – and by merely registering to vote, or just living in the city, citizens would receive dividends on those investments.
Citizens of Western Australia can transform the Western Power government owned company into a Community Investment Corporation (CIC). This would provide WA citizens with a free equity stake in economic investments made by the CIC.

Transform Western Power into Community Investment Corporation

This is a concept I have been advocating since the late 1960s. See The Citizens Land Bank: What It Is and Is Not at

Basic Common Sense Is Key To Building More Intelligent Machines

robot workers

It’s good to learn on the job


On October 5, 2016, Sally Adee writes on New Scientist:

“…the most startling consequence of a workable hybrid architecture, Bryson points out, is that it could enable machines to convert their representations into reusable symbols – analogous to language or words (see “Conversational skills“).”

“This experiment barely scratches the surface of what we believe is possible with this architecture,” Shanahan says.

As technology exponentially progresses, the non-human factor will simultaneously eliminate the necessity for masses of human labor, with “machines” performing the work that humans had previously done.

With increasing punditry, scholars  and others are writing about the impact of the Second Industrial Revolution where tectonic shifts in the technologies of production are destroying and degrading jobs due to the shift from labor worker input to the non-human factor––human-intelligent machines, superautomation, robotics, digital computer operations, etc.

The question that requires an answer is now timely before us. It was first posed by binary economist Louis Kelso in the 1950s but has never been thoroughly discussed on the national stage. Nor has there been the proper education of our citizenry that addresses what economic justice is and what ownership is. Therefore, by ignoring such issues of economic justice and ownership, our leaders are ignoring the concentration of power through ownership of productive capital, with the result of denying the 99 percenters equal opportunity to become capital owners. The question, as posed by Kelso is: “how are all individuals to be adequately productive when a tiny minority (capital workers) produce a major share and the vast majority (labor workers), a minor share of total goods and service,” and thus, “how do we get from a world in which the most productive factor—physical capital—is owned by a handful of people, to a world where the same factor is owned by a majority—and ultimately 100 percent—of the consumers, while respecting all the constitutional rights of present capital owners?”

Solutions are to be found in the platform of the Capital Homestead Act. Support the Capital Homestead Act (aka Economic Democracy Act) at,, and


The State Of American Jobs

On October 6, 2016, Pew Research released this report on The State Of American Jobs:

How the shifting economic landscape is reshaping work and society and affecting the way people think about the skills and training they need to get ahead.

Tectonic changes are reshaping U.S. workplaces as the economy moves deeper into the knowledge-focused age. These changes are affecting the very nature of jobs by rewarding social, communications and analytical skills. They are prodding many workers to think about lifetime commitments to retraining and upgrading their skills. And they may be prompting a society-wide reckoning about where those constantly evolving skills should be learned – and what the role of colleges should be.

The State of American Jobs

Unfortunately, while an educated population is absolutely desirable, even if EVERY child, woman and  man achieved a college education, even a PhD we will not have addressed the REAL problem or the solutions necessary to make EVERY citizen a productive member of society in terms of inputting into the productive sector of the economy, no matter what their education level they have achieved.

See “Education Is Critical To Our Future Societal Development” at…etal-development.

Given the current invisible structure of the economy, except for a relative few, the majority of the population, no matter how well educated, will not be able to find a job that pays sufficient wages or salaries to support a family or prevent a lifestyle, which is gradually being crippled by near poverty or poverty earnings. Thus, education is not the panacea, though it is critical for our future societal development. And younger, as well as older people, will increasingly find it harder and harder to secure a well-paying job––for most, their ONLY source of income––and will find themselves dependent on taxpayer-supported government welfare, open and disguised or concealed.

Three Reasons A New President Won’t Help America

On October 3, 2016, Paul Buchheit writes on Nation Of Change:

There are at least three major American failures that are too entrenched in our society to undergo change with anything less than an FDR-type effort.

Corporations Continue to Ignore Their Responsibility to Education …

The Rich Lack Incentive to Help Others: They Believe an “Invisible Hand” Will Do It…

Too Many Americans Think They’re “Exceptional”…

One Way to Help America

Inequality has ripped us apart, not only economically, but also emotionally, as people further removed from the lives of others tend to distrust each other. Tragically, it may take a war or a natural disaster to reverse that.

But there’s another way, and it’s becoming increasingly important with the technological takeover of middle class jobs. We need a guaranteed income. It’s the one way we could immediately instill a degree of equality in America, while restoring some of the missing trust in each other. The new President would probably have to institute a financial transaction tax. He or she would have to create jobs in alternative energy infrastructure. It’s unlikely, but it’s doable. It may be the only way to help America.

3 Reasons a New President Won’t Help America

A guaranteed income is a socialist solution, which destroys the principle of the natural law of individuals owning private property as it require redistributing wealth (taking from those who have and giving to those who do not have or who are determined to not have enough by the State). The solution is to make EVERY child, woman and man productive by OWNING the FUTURE product of technological invention and innovation, wealth-creating, income-producing capital assets (machines, robotics, computerization, automation, etc.)

Economist Robert Reich recently asked a similar question in a new video: What should we do when robots take most jobs? (It will happen sooner than you think.) Watch his new video to find out. Robert Reich’s as well as this author’s problem is they completely ignore that the non-human (the “machines”) means of production OWNED by individuals, singularly or in association with others (as in a public corporation), earn income from the productive input the “machines” contribute to the production of products and services. This is the REAL reason the wealthy are wealthy, because they OWN the means of production. But Reich or Buchheit (as in previous articles) NEVER advocate for broadening individual productive capital asset OWNERSHIP and instead advocate for “redistribution” schemes such as a universal basic income, which destroys the natural right to property and essentially creates dependency on politicians and the State for redistributing income derived from taxes on those who are productive through employment and/or the “machines” (capital assets) they OWN. The universal basic income would not abate productive private individual property (capital asset) OWNERSHIP, which would continue to further concentrates among the already wealthy OWNERSHIP class and their heirs.

For effective alternative solutions that protect the natural right to property and creates NEW OWNERS simultaneously with the growth of the economy see the Agenda of The Just Third Way Movement at,, and

Support Monetary Justice at

Support the Capital Homestead Act (aka Economic Democracy Act) at,, and

Universal Basic Income

Robert Reich asks the question in a new video: What should we do when robots take most jobs? (It will happen sooner than you think.) Watch his new video to find out.

Robert Reich’s problem is he completely ignores that the non-human (the “machines”) means of production OWNED by individuals, singularly or in association with others (as in a public corporation), earn income from the productive input the “machines” contribute to the production of products and services. This is the REAL reason the wealthy are wealthy, because they OWN the means of production. But Reich NEVER advocates for broadening individual productive capital asset OWNERSHIP and instead advocates for “redistribution” schemes such as a universal basic income, which destroys the natural right to property and essentially creates dependency on politicians and the State for redistributing income derived from taxes on those who are productive through employment and/or the “machines” (capital assets) they OWN. The universal basic income would not abate productive private individual property (capital asset) OWNERSHIP, which would continue to further concentrates among the already wealthy OWNERSHIP class and their heirs.

For effective alternative solutions that protect the natural right to property and creates NEW OWNERS simultaneously with the growth of the economy see the Agenda of The Just Third Way Movement at,, and

Support Monetary Justice at

Support the Capital Homestead Act (aka Economic Democracy Act) at,, and

Why So Few American Economists Are Studying Inequality

French economist Thomas Piketty at a conference in SwedenJanerik Henriksson / AP

On September 13, 2016, Alana Semuels writes in The Atlantic:

Wealth at the top of the income distribution is skyrocketing, leading to growing inequality. This trend is especially pronounced in the United States. But much of the leading research on the topic isn’t coming from American economists.

… “In general, the [American] economics profession has avoided the subject of class conflict. All issues of distribution have been regarded as less pertinent than ideas of growth,” Arthur Goldhammer, a senior affiliate at Harvard’s Center for European Studies who studies French and American politics and history, told me. “Distributive questions in economics just raise hostility, and ultimately, growth is the important issue.”

… It may not be surprising, then, that in a 2013 issue of the Journal of Economic Perspectives dedicated to income inequality and the top 1 percent, it was Atkinson, Saez, Piketty, and Facundo Alvaredo of the Paris School of Economics whoauthored a paper on how the share of wealth going to the top has skyrocketed in America but not in European countries, while it was an American economist, N. Gregory Mankiw, who published a paper called simply “Defending the One Percent.”

Sadly, academic economists are not studying the mechanisms of how wealth-creating, income-producing capital asset OWNERSHIP becomes concentrated. After all, the root cause of economic inequality is the rich OWN productive capital assets and the vast majority of people do not. Further, the monetary system has been rigged to ensure that the already wealthy OWNERSHIP class will continue to concentrate OWNERSHIP of all FUTURE capital asset formation projects.
Nor do academic economists offer any instruction on financial mechanisms that would empower EVERY child, woman and man to acquire individual OWNERSHIP interest in the formation of FUTURE productive capital assets, without the requirement of past saving, having a job, or having any income whatsoever. Nor do they offer instruction on how to use INSURED, INTEREST-FREE capital credit to broaden capital asset OWNERSHIP in the FUTURE.
Our education system is sadly lacking. Academia is failing the American people. The ONLY solutions they come up have to do with some manner of taking from those who are productive, through their OWNERSHIP of productive capital assets, and redistributing to those who are not OWNERS of productive wealth assets.

Immigrants Don’t Steal Jobs Or Wages. Billionaires Do.

On September 27, 2016, Richard Eskow writes on Moyers & Company:

… Economically vulnerable populations are often told that immigrants “take our jobs” and drag down wages.

Is it true? The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine appointed an interdisciplinary task force to look at that question. It found that, on the contrary, “immigration has an overall positive impact on long-run economic growth in the United States.”

Immigration, the report says, has “little to no negative effects on overall wages and employment of native-born workers in the longer term.” Native-born teenagers who have not finished high school may work fewer hours, at least in the short term. (They won’t lose jobs.) …

Immigrants Don’t Steal Jobs or Wages. Billionaires Do.

Of course, jobs can be “stolen” if enough immigrants enter the country. That is why the governments sets quotas.  We have a legal immigration system whose mission is to “promote a highly talented workforce and a dynamic work culture” -U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) ( The mission does not support illegal immigration, which is the REAL issue.
But the REAL reason American jobs are being “stolen” (replaced is a more accurate term) is: Technologies that result in efficient non-human substitutes for humans and the globalization of manufacturing at low wage and tax levels is what steals jobs. We need to start focusing on OWNING the “machine” assets (the non-human factor of production) that will exponentially replace humans, and abate the further concentration of OWNERSHIP among the already wealthy OWNERSHIP class.

Three Fallacies That Make You Fear A Robot Economy


On September 12, 2016, Branko Milanović writes on Evonomics:

Recent discussions about the “advent of robots” have some rather unusual features. The threat of robots replacing humans is seen as something truly novel possibly changing our civilization and way of life. But in reality this is nothing new. Introduction of machinery to replace repetitive (or even more creative) labor has been applied on a significant scale since  the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Robots are not different from any other machine.

The obsession with, or fear of, robots has to do, I believe, with our fascination with their anthropomorphism. Some people speak of great profits reaped by “owners of robots”, as if these owners of robots were slaveholders. But there are no owners of robots: there are only companies that invest and implement these technological innovations and indeed they will reap the benefits. It could happen that the distribution of net product will shift even more toward capital, but again this is not different from the introduction of new machines that substitute labor—a thing which has been with us for at least two centuries.

Robotics leads us to face squarely three fallacies.

1. The first is the fallacy of the lump of labor doctrine that holds that the new machines will displace huge numbers of workers and people will remain jobless forever. Yes, the shorter our time-horizon, the more that proposition seems reasonable. Because in the short term the number of jobs is limited and if more jobs are done by machines fewer jobs will be left for people. But as soon as we extend our gaze toward longer-time horizons, the number of job becomes variable. We cannot pinpoint what they would be (because we do not know what new technologies will bring) but this is where the experience of two centuries of technological progress becomes useful.  We know that similar fears have always existed and were never justified. New technologies ended up creating enough new jobs, and actually more and better jobs than were lost. This does not mean that there would no losers. There will be workers replaced by the new machines (called “robots”) or people whose wages will be reduced. But however these losses may be sad and tragic for individuals involved they do not change the entire society.

2. The second “lump” fallacy which is linked with the first, namely our inability to pinpoint what new technology will bring, is that human needs are limited. The two are related in the following way: we imagine (again, looking only at any given moment in time) that human needs are limited to what we know exists today, what people aspire to today, and cannot see what new needs will arise with a new technology. Consequently we cannot imagine what will be the new jobs to satisfy the newly created needs. Again history comes to the rescue. Only ten years ago we could not imagine the need for an intelligent cell phone  (because we could not imagine it could exist) and thus we could not imagine the new jobs created by the iPhone (from Uber to ticket sales). Only 40 years ago, we could not imagine the need to have our own computer in every room and we could not imagine millions of new jobs created by the PC.  Some 100+ years ago we could not imagine the need for a personal motor car and thus we could not imagine Detroit and Ford and GM and Toyota and even things like Michelin restaurant guide.

Even best among the economists, like Ricardo and Keynes (in “The economic prospects of our grandchildren”) thought that human needs are limited. We should know better today: the needs are unlimited and because we cannot forecast the exact movements in technology, we cannot forecast what particular form such new needs will take. But we know that our needs are not finite.

3. The third “lump” fallacy (which is not directly related to the issue of robotics) is the lump of raw materials and energy fallacy, the so called “carriage capacity of the Earth”. There are of course geological limits to raw materials simply because the Earth is a limited system. But our experience teaches us that these limits are much wider than we generally think at any point in time because our knowledge of what earth contains is itself limited by our level of technology. The better our technology, the more reserves of everything we discover. Yet accepting that X is an exhaustible energy source or a raw material and that at the current rate of utilization it will run out in Y years is only a part of the story. It neglects the fact that with the rising scarcity and price of X, there will be greater incentive to create substitutes (as inventions of sugar beet, synthetic rubber or fracking show) or to use a different combination of inputs to produce the final goods that now use X.  Indeed, the cost of the final good may go up  but here again we are talking about a change in some relative prices, not about the a cataclysmic event. Earth carriage capacity which does not include development of technology and pricing in its equation is just another “lump” fallacy.

Some famous economists like Jevons who collected tons of paper in the expectation that the trees would run out entertained the same illogical fears. Not only did it turn out that, with many thousand (or milion?) times greater use of paper, the world did not run out of trees—Jevons simply, and understandably, could not imagine that technology would enable recycling of paper and that electronic communications would substitute for much of what paper was used for. We are not smarter than Jevons because we too cannot imagine what might replace fuel oil or magnesium or iron ore, but we should be able to understand the process whereby these substitutions come about and to reason by analogy.

Fears of robotics and technology respond, I think, to two human frailties. One is cognitive: we do not know what the future technological change will be and thus cannot tell what our future needs will be.  The second is psychological: our desire  to get a thrill from the fear of the unknown, from that scary and yet alluring prospect of metallic robots replacing workers in factory halls. It responds to the same need that makes us go and watch scary movies. When we do not go to a movie theater we like to scare ourselves with the exhaustion of natural resources, limits to growth and replacement of people by robots. It may be a fun thing to do but history teaches us that it is not the one that we should rationally fear.

Economist Branko Milanović: Three Fallacies That Make You Fear a Robot Economy

The author states that “But there are no owners of robots: there are only companies that invest and implement these technological innovations and indeed they will reap the benefits.” What? The companies (corporations) are OWNED by individuals, and that OWNERSHIP is concentrated among a relative few who OWN the bulk of the stock (title). As technological development continues, as it has since the Industrial Revolution, the non-human factor will continue to obsolete jobs affecting far more workers than the new jobs resulting. The solution is to institute financial mechanisms that simultaneously create new capital asset OWNERS simultaneously with the growth of the economy. In other words, EVERY CITIZEN AN OWNER. This can be accomplished by using INSURED, INTEREST-FREE capital credit, repayable out of the FUTURE earnings of the investments, without the requirement of past savings, have to have a job or having any income at all. See the Capital Homestead Act (aka Economic Democracy Act) at,, and

Self-Driving Trucks Threaten One Of America’s Top Blue-Collar Jobs

On September 25, 2016, Natalie Kitroeff writes in the Los Angeles Times:

Trucking paid for Scott Spindola to take a road trip down the coast of Spain, climb halfway up Machu Picchu, and sample a Costa Rican beach for two weeks. The 44-year-old from Covina now makes up to $70,000 per year, with overtime, hauling goods from the port of Long Beach. He has full medical coverage and plans to drive until he retires.

But in a decade, his big rig may not have any need for him.

Carmaking giants and ride-sharing upstarts racing to put autonomous vehicles on the road are dead set on replacing drivers, and that includes truckers. Trucks without human hands at the wheel could be on American roads within a decade, say analysts and industry executives.

At risk is one of the most common jobs in many states, and one of the last remaining careers that offer middle-class pay to those without a college degree. There are 1.7 million truckers in America, and another 1.7 million drivers of taxis, buses and delivery vehicles. That compares with 4.1 million construction workers.

While factory jobs have gushed out of the country over the last decade, trucking has grown and pay has risen. Truckers make $42,500 per year on average, putting them firmly in the middle class.

This is just one other example of how robotization and computerized automation is eliminating the necessity for masses of human labor. Such technological evolution will continue to accelerate, destroying all manner of jobs. This acceleration is driven by business corporations who seek to produce at the lowest cost possible to dominate markets, both domestically and internationally, and increase profits for their OWNERS. The vast majority of Americans, and other citizens of the world, will be further deprived of the opportunity to work at jobs to earn a significant income, thus causing increasing societal unrest and mayhem.

Some are advocating, as the solution, a guaranteed income, but that means income would become politicalized and determined by the OWNER MASTERS who control the State’s political systems, and who would agree to “hand-out” a portion of their earnings to quell social unrest, yet still maintain total OWNERSHIP of their capital asset wealth.

The alternative solution that I have been advocating in my writings since the late 1960s is EVERY CITIZEN AN OWNER! Most people have no idea of what this means because our education institutions do not teach the fundamental of enterprise structure and the logic of corporate finance, both used to empower the 1 percent to become productive capital asset OWNERS and create wealth and earn income from the capital asset portfolios they OWN.

Additionally, the vast majority of Americans, and other world citizens, ONLY know that a JOB is necessary to earn an income. They know nothing about becoming a capital asset OWNER. Or if they do, they realize that they are not in a position to become an OWNER because the system requires past savings to pledge as security for capital credit loans to invest in launching a new business or to invest in buying previously-owned stock in corporations, both of which are prone to risk.

What the vast majority of Americans do not know is that there are financial mechanism that can be used to empower EVERY child, woman and man to acquire wealth-creating, income-producing individual OWNERSHIP stakes in new capital asset formation projects, without the necessity for past savings or, in fact, not even a requirement to have a job or other other source of income. Such financial mechanisms use the logic of corporate finance, which EVERY wealthy person understands and uses to acquire OWNERSHIP of more and more capital assets, without using their own money.

The solution is to use INSURED, INTEREST-FREE capital credit to acquire OWNERSHIP of FUTURE capital asset projects whose formation has been determined, by bankers and return-on-investment studies, to generate FUTURE income to pay for the capital credit loan, and once payed, to continue to produce income for the OWNERS.

Unfortunately, our politicians and so-called leaders today NEVER educate the electorate nor advocate for economic policies that will transform our job-ONLY culture into a culture in which EVERY CITIZEN IS AN OWNER. Instead, every new project is justified on the basis of JOB CREATION, not OWNERSHIP CREATION, which the project backers know is the real interest.

What is needed is for people to educate themselves to the possibilities and opportunities presented in the proposed the Capital Homestead Act (aka Economic Democracy Act) at,…/capital-homestead-act-a-plan-for-get…/,…/capita…/capital-homestead-act-summary/and

As a primer please read “Economic Democracy And Binary Economics: Solutions For A Troubled Nation and Economy” at