"FOUR FREEDOMS"
07/01/16 15:06
"The Nation" is a magazine with a history going back into the Nineteenth Century. Their most recent issue has an article titled: "Why Franklin Roosevelt's 'Four Freedoms' Are Still Relevant Today" This quote of Eleanor Roosevelt from her newspaper column of January 5,1941, is shown at the top of that article:
"America is not a pile of goods, more luxury, more comforts, a better telephone system, a greater number of cars. America is a dream of greater justice and opportunity for the average man and, if we cannot obtain it, all our other achievements amount to nothing."
Reading "The Nation" may be worth some time. Many libraries carry it.
For those who never knew or who have forgotten here are the 'Four Freedoms' that Franklin Roosevelt mentioned in his State of the Union message in 1941:
Freedom of speech and expression;
Freedom of worship;
Freedom from want; and
Freedom from fear.
42% get less than $15 an hour
09/05/15 19:16
According to a report from the National Employment Law Project cited in a story by Sonia Singh posted to inthesetimes.com on May 6, 2015, we are allowed to discover this unpleasant fact:
". . .42 percent of U.S. workers earn lass than $15 an hour. More than half of African-Americans and 60 percent of Latinos make less than this figure. And 46.6 percent of those earning less than $15 are older than 35."
The story also reports that these are the occupational areas where these lower paid workers hold their jobs:
FAST FOOD
(only 1.7% represented by a union)
HOME CARE
(only 10.6% represented by a union)
CHILDCARE
(only 5.7% represented by a union)
HOTEL
(only 9.5% represented by a union)
RETAIL
(only 5.0% represented by a union)
AUTO MANUFACTURING
(only 28.7% represented by a union)
Imagine the reality !
More than four of every ten working Americans if they are lucky enough to work an eight hour day at least five days each week . . . have a gross annual income before taxes of less than $31,200.
After taxes are withheld this means:
If single,
an annual net income of less than $24,576 per year.
If married,
an annual net income of less than $24,895 per year.
If single with children,
an annual net income of less than $24,770 per year.
If you are among the 58% of U.S. workers who take home more than this, consider how you would have to live if you were among those who earn less than $15 an hour.
It is worth a thought, isn't it?
". . .42 percent of U.S. workers earn lass than $15 an hour. More than half of African-Americans and 60 percent of Latinos make less than this figure. And 46.6 percent of those earning less than $15 are older than 35."
The story also reports that these are the occupational areas where these lower paid workers hold their jobs:
FAST FOOD
(only 1.7% represented by a union)
HOME CARE
(only 10.6% represented by a union)
CHILDCARE
(only 5.7% represented by a union)
HOTEL
(only 9.5% represented by a union)
RETAIL
(only 5.0% represented by a union)
AUTO MANUFACTURING
(only 28.7% represented by a union)
Imagine the reality !
More than four of every ten working Americans if they are lucky enough to work an eight hour day at least five days each week . . . have a gross annual income before taxes of less than $31,200.
After taxes are withheld this means:
If single,
an annual net income of less than $24,576 per year.
If married,
an annual net income of less than $24,895 per year.
If single with children,
an annual net income of less than $24,770 per year.
If you are among the 58% of U.S. workers who take home more than this, consider how you would have to live if you were among those who earn less than $15 an hour.
It is worth a thought, isn't it?
Fewer on Food Stamps
22/02/15 19:57
On February 9, 2015, in thefiscaltimes.com Eric Pianin reported that 1.5 million people stopped getting Food Stamps between September 2013 and November 2014.
Thanks to Mr. Pianin we now know that when given a chance people will choose work over the dole. Perhaps, this is one reason why the Federal government should become the employer of last resort whenever private employers refuse to provide jobs for all who are willing to work.
Thanks to Mr. Pianin we now know that when given a chance people will choose work over the dole. Perhaps, this is one reason why the Federal government should become the employer of last resort whenever private employers refuse to provide jobs for all who are willing to work.
Student Loans Reduce Home Sales
22/09/14 15:14
Tim Logan reports at latimes.com that 83 Billion in real estate sales are failing to be made on account of student loan debt held by those from age 20 to 40.
Quoting a report from John Burns Consulting these points are also reported:
- a monthly student loan payment of $250 reduces the home price one may buy by $44,000
- Most households paying $750+ per month in student loans are priced out of the housing market
- Households in the under 40 age group paying over $250 each month in student loans number 5.9 Million, up from 2.2 Million in 2005
Quoting a report from John Burns Consulting these points are also reported:
- a monthly student loan payment of $250 reduces the home price one may buy by $44,000
- Most households paying $750+ per month in student loans are priced out of the housing market
- Households in the under 40 age group paying over $250 each month in student loans number 5.9 Million, up from 2.2 Million in 2005
American CEO - Hard at Work
14/05/14 16:39
Citing a New York Time's article on March 20, 2014, Jim Hightower reports this astounding story:
Mr Robert Marcus started as CEO of Time Warner Cable on the 1st of January 2014.
Only six weeks later Mr. Marcus had succeeded in initiating, in negotiating, and in closing the deal to sell Time Warner Cable to Comcast.
Included in Mr. Marcus' employment contract with Time Warner Cable was a change of control clause that guaranteed a golden parachute payment to Mr. Marcus in the event that Time Warner Cable was sold.
Mr. Marcus' take for six weeks of work: $80 million.
"Nice work if you can get it" . . .
For more of Mr Jim Hightower's insights check out: jimhightower.com.
Mr Robert Marcus started as CEO of Time Warner Cable on the 1st of January 2014.
Only six weeks later Mr. Marcus had succeeded in initiating, in negotiating, and in closing the deal to sell Time Warner Cable to Comcast.
Included in Mr. Marcus' employment contract with Time Warner Cable was a change of control clause that guaranteed a golden parachute payment to Mr. Marcus in the event that Time Warner Cable was sold.
Mr. Marcus' take for six weeks of work: $80 million.
"Nice work if you can get it" . . .
For more of Mr Jim Hightower's insights check out: jimhightower.com.
DEMOCRACY IS SOCIALISM
22/04/14 11:28
Recently reported by BuzzFeed Politics at buzzfeed.com and at dailykos.com:
Dr. Greg Brannon is a Republican candidate for Senate in North Carolina. Here is his quoted remark regarding democracy and majority rule:
"Senator Hagen says we got to have a nice debate and discussion (about gun control) about what to do. See that's called democracy which is actually socialism which is called majority rule."
This implies that political decisions in the United States ought to be made by a process other than "majority rule" which may come as a surprise to those who thought that they were living in a democracy where "majority rule" is the method of decision making.
Dr. Greg Brannon is a Republican candidate for Senate in North Carolina. Here is his quoted remark regarding democracy and majority rule:
"Senator Hagen says we got to have a nice debate and discussion (about gun control) about what to do. See that's called democracy which is actually socialism which is called majority rule."
This implies that political decisions in the United States ought to be made by a process other than "majority rule" which may come as a surprise to those who thought that they were living in a democracy where "majority rule" is the method of decision making.
YOUR CONGRESSIONAL REP
21/03/14 12:59
In January from the Center for Responsive Politics we have this comment:
"Of 534 current members of Congress, at least 268 had an average net worth of $1 million or more in 2012, according to disclosures filed last year by all members of Congress and candidates. . ."
For more from their website go to: opensecrets.org
There is no doubt that these congressional representatives make no decisions that would materially affect their personal interests in a bad way.
Question is:
Why do we keep failing to elect people to congress who will represent the interests and desires of the rest of us?
"Of 534 current members of Congress, at least 268 had an average net worth of $1 million or more in 2012, according to disclosures filed last year by all members of Congress and candidates. . ."
For more from their website go to: opensecrets.org
There is no doubt that these congressional representatives make no decisions that would materially affect their personal interests in a bad way.
Question is:
Why do we keep failing to elect people to congress who will represent the interests and desires of the rest of us?
HIGHER PAY - MORE JOBS
05/03/14 07:43
On March 4, 2014, in the Personal Finance section of bloomberg.com, reporters Victoria Stilwell, Peter Robinson and William Selway have an article titled “Highest Minimum-Wage State Washington Beats U.S. in Job Creation”. They point out that the minimum wage there was raised in 1998 and linked to increases in the cost of living in future years.
They also report that these have been the results since then:
Looks like paying the lowest paid more has positive results.
Maybe we should try it elsewhere.
They also report that these have been the results since then:
- Minimum wage has climbed to $9.32 per hour;
- Job growth has continued at a 0.8% rate which is 0.3% higher than the U.S. national rate; and,
- payrolls at restaurants and bars have expanded by 21 percent
Looks like paying the lowest paid more has positive results.
Maybe we should try it elsewhere.
DEBTS UP
07/10/13 14:48
Quoted today in finance.yahoo.com from Washington, DC: Reuters reports that in August, 2013, “total consumer credit advanced by $13.63 billion to $3.04 trillion, Federal Reserve data showed on Monday.”
In 2010 there were 116,716,292 households in the United States. By now perhaps there are 120,000,000. If consumer debt was distributed equally across all households today, each household would have approximately $25,333 of outstanding consumer debt. However, it is likely that the top ten percent of households with the highest income and the bottom ten percent of households with very low income probably have little or no consumer debt.
For the eighty percent of households in the middle the average amount of consumer debt is probably about $31,687. This is the amount that a middle-class household would owe for items such as car loans, student loans, credit card balances and similar loans if the debt was equally distributed among them.
Of course the debt is actually distributed unequally.
When two married adults have borrowed to pay for their undergraduate and graduate educations their household may owe as much as one or two hundred thousand dollars in student debt. Others may owe tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills if they have suffered from serious health problems. Still others may owe large sums because they have chosen to live far beyond their income by “maxing out” their credit cards. And those with smaller incomes may have much smaller balances on whatever consumer debts they hold since they likely only borrow when it is absolutely essential in order to meet their day-to-day cost of living.
One may only wonder how such large amounts of consumer debt will impact everyone as the years unfold before us.
In 2010 there were 116,716,292 households in the United States. By now perhaps there are 120,000,000. If consumer debt was distributed equally across all households today, each household would have approximately $25,333 of outstanding consumer debt. However, it is likely that the top ten percent of households with the highest income and the bottom ten percent of households with very low income probably have little or no consumer debt.
For the eighty percent of households in the middle the average amount of consumer debt is probably about $31,687. This is the amount that a middle-class household would owe for items such as car loans, student loans, credit card balances and similar loans if the debt was equally distributed among them.
Of course the debt is actually distributed unequally.
When two married adults have borrowed to pay for their undergraduate and graduate educations their household may owe as much as one or two hundred thousand dollars in student debt. Others may owe tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills if they have suffered from serious health problems. Still others may owe large sums because they have chosen to live far beyond their income by “maxing out” their credit cards. And those with smaller incomes may have much smaller balances on whatever consumer debts they hold since they likely only borrow when it is absolutely essential in order to meet their day-to-day cost of living.
One may only wonder how such large amounts of consumer debt will impact everyone as the years unfold before us.
NOT ENOUGH BUYERS
24/09/13 13:52
Commenting for CNBC on September 23, 2013, John W. Schoen makes this point concerning supplies and shortages now and in the future:
“The numbers are stark. While the current world population of about 7 billion is projected to top 8 billion by 2030, almost all of that growth is expected to come in the developing world. That means the current population of consumers- people with more than $10 a day to spend- is expected to more than double from 1.8 billion to 4.8 billion.”
Consider for a moment what this means:
Out of an expected 8 billion or more people living on earth in 2030 some 3.2 billion or more of them will have less than $10 a day to spend. That will be the situation in a short seventeen years from now - the time it will take for a 1 year old child to be graduating from high school.
What should our priority be?
How to get more stuff into the hands of those who will have more than $10 a day to spend in 2030?
Or how to feed, clothe and shelter the 3.2 billion who will have less than $10 a day to spend in 2030?
It is important to address both questions adequately if we want keep our world from descending into chaos.
Question is: Where do we start?
And what part should you and I play in the solution?
“The numbers are stark. While the current world population of about 7 billion is projected to top 8 billion by 2030, almost all of that growth is expected to come in the developing world. That means the current population of consumers- people with more than $10 a day to spend- is expected to more than double from 1.8 billion to 4.8 billion.”
Consider for a moment what this means:
Out of an expected 8 billion or more people living on earth in 2030 some 3.2 billion or more of them will have less than $10 a day to spend. That will be the situation in a short seventeen years from now - the time it will take for a 1 year old child to be graduating from high school.
What should our priority be?
How to get more stuff into the hands of those who will have more than $10 a day to spend in 2030?
Or how to feed, clothe and shelter the 3.2 billion who will have less than $10 a day to spend in 2030?
It is important to address both questions adequately if we want keep our world from descending into chaos.
Question is: Where do we start?
And what part should you and I play in the solution?
UP HIGH
17/09/13 15:54
Associated Press reporter Paul Wiseman recently summarized how those at the top are doing according to the latest available national statistics:
“The top 1 percent of U.S. earners collected 19.3 percent of household income in 2012, their largest share since 1928. And the share held by the top 10 percent of earners last year reached a record 48.2 percent. . .
. . . since the recession officially ended in June 2009, the top 1 percent have enjoyed the benefits of rising corporate profits and stock prices: 95 percent of the income gains reported since 2009 have gone to the top 1 percent.
That compares with a 45 percent share for the top 1 percent in the economic expansion of the 1990s and a 65 percent share from the expansion that followed the 2001 recession.
The top 10 percent haven't done badly, either. Last year, they captured 48.2 percent of income, up from the previous record, 46.6 percent, in 2011.
The top 1 percent of American households had income above $394,000 last year. The top 10 percent had income exceeding $114,000.”
For any who may be concerned about such matters one may now determine the position one has in the economic hierarchy of the USA.
If you had income in the last year that was greater than $114,000, you belong at the top.
If not, you are in the remaining 90% of Americans who get to share the 51.8% of national income that those at the top are not currently getting.
Wait a while longer. The trend is that the share for the top is going up while the share for the rest is going down.
Perhaps you have noticed.
“The top 1 percent of U.S. earners collected 19.3 percent of household income in 2012, their largest share since 1928. And the share held by the top 10 percent of earners last year reached a record 48.2 percent. . .
. . . since the recession officially ended in June 2009, the top 1 percent have enjoyed the benefits of rising corporate profits and stock prices: 95 percent of the income gains reported since 2009 have gone to the top 1 percent.
That compares with a 45 percent share for the top 1 percent in the economic expansion of the 1990s and a 65 percent share from the expansion that followed the 2001 recession.
The top 10 percent haven't done badly, either. Last year, they captured 48.2 percent of income, up from the previous record, 46.6 percent, in 2011.
The top 1 percent of American households had income above $394,000 last year. The top 10 percent had income exceeding $114,000.”
For any who may be concerned about such matters one may now determine the position one has in the economic hierarchy of the USA.
If you had income in the last year that was greater than $114,000, you belong at the top.
If not, you are in the remaining 90% of Americans who get to share the 51.8% of national income that those at the top are not currently getting.
Wait a while longer. The trend is that the share for the top is going up while the share for the rest is going down.
Perhaps you have noticed.
YOU SHOULD GO FIRST
13/04/13 13:26
Most of us view this world from where we live it, in our work, in our home, in our family, in our personal life. Is any one of us surprised anymore when we discover that some or many disagree with us about conclusions which to ourselves seem obviously true? Probably not. Yet we each must go through this life with one another no matter what. I may not know you and it is highly likely I never will. In a lifetime the number of people we actually meet is numbered in tens or hundreds - not thousands. For most of us the number who we ever talk with alone and who we ever speak with for more than an hour may well be fewer than a hundred.
We seldom think of the isolation of our individual lives that separates us into countless numbers of different groups. We have been convinced that being on different sides and competing with one another is in our best interest. To compete of course is to win or to lose. Since every competition must have a loser, having losers must be in our best interest.
Since losing is in our best interest, I have only one suggestion:
You should go first.
We seldom think of the isolation of our individual lives that separates us into countless numbers of different groups. We have been convinced that being on different sides and competing with one another is in our best interest. To compete of course is to win or to lose. Since every competition must have a loser, having losers must be in our best interest.
Since losing is in our best interest, I have only one suggestion:
You should go first.
CHAINED CPI
10/04/13 12:54
“Tote that load.“, said Tennessee Ernie Ford in in a song from the 1950s.
And in 2013 we are getting ready to put that weight right on the backs of the old, of the sick, and of the disabled.
According to the businessinsider.com in an article by Walter Hickey on April 9, 2013, quoting a study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research:
“Switching to the Chained CPI immediately would have a more significant impact on the retirement of seniors than the ending of the Bush-era tax cuts would have on the after-tax income of the wealthiest 2 percent of households. For the average worker retiring at age 65, this would mean a cut of about $650 each year by age 75 and a cut of roughly $1,130 each year at age 85.”
Get ready for the new America. No need to cut them off when they become too expensive. . . Just slice the level of their benefits and let them slowly fade away. . . a little more quickly. . .
And in 2013 we are getting ready to put that weight right on the backs of the old, of the sick, and of the disabled.
According to the businessinsider.com in an article by Walter Hickey on April 9, 2013, quoting a study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research:
“Switching to the Chained CPI immediately would have a more significant impact on the retirement of seniors than the ending of the Bush-era tax cuts would have on the after-tax income of the wealthiest 2 percent of households. For the average worker retiring at age 65, this would mean a cut of about $650 each year by age 75 and a cut of roughly $1,130 each year at age 85.”
Get ready for the new America. No need to cut them off when they become too expensive. . . Just slice the level of their benefits and let them slowly fade away. . . a little more quickly. . .
AMERICAN POLITICS
16/09/12 13:34
What stands as politics in our country is a great democratic charade that shows well while having these over-riding goals:
Once these goals are understood the tactics of both the Democrats and the Republicans become perfectly clear.
- Consolidation of power and of wealth in the fewest possible number of hands;
- Subjugation and shaping of the population into massive submissive groups whose individual identities are primarily established by their level of personal consumption;
- Unfettered increase in the growth of business to supply consumption demand without outside intervention;
- Division of the electorate into as many groups as possible upon irreconcilable grounds; and,
- Absolute control over who may enter the pool of candidates for election to public office.
Once these goals are understood the tactics of both the Democrats and the Republicans become perfectly clear.
UNITED
10/07/12 16:23
One for All. . . All for One. . .
When is the last time you heard someone use that phrase?
It is sometimes used when someone wants you to fight a war, to join a team, or to put forth extraordinary effort to achieve a goal.
United suggests community and concern for the welfare of all.
Most of us want to be part of a united country.
So what attributes would each citizen have in a united country?
How about these:
- each one is well fed;
- each one is well clothed;
- each one is well housed;
- each one is well treated when ill, sick, or injured;
- each one is skilled to her or his capacity;
- each one has the opportunity to work at a wage that pays for the rest.
Now ask yourself:
Why is this untrue in the United States?
A Good Society
12/06/12 22:52
Does anyone want a bad society? Not likely if our choice and preference may be given sway. We will choose good over bad if we can recognize the difference. It is a simple concept and most would agree: good is better than bad.
The problem comes in the definition. The employed manager of a business wants to please his employers, the owners of the business. The owners of the business want a sizable and growing return from their investment. In many commercial activities the largest expense of business is the cost of paying workers. As night follows day you may be sure that the successful manager will offer the lowest possible rate of pay to workers in order to increase profits and the return on investment to owners. So low pay is good for the manager and the owners and low pay is bad for the workers.
The value judgements here are these:
Would any of us disagree with these judgements? Probably not.
Question is: How may we have a good society when the same thing that is good for some members of society is bad for other members of society?
The problem comes in the definition. The employed manager of a business wants to please his employers, the owners of the business. The owners of the business want a sizable and growing return from their investment. In many commercial activities the largest expense of business is the cost of paying workers. As night follows day you may be sure that the successful manager will offer the lowest possible rate of pay to workers in order to increase profits and the return on investment to owners. So low pay is good for the manager and the owners and low pay is bad for the workers.
The value judgements here are these:
- low pay is bad for workers
- growing profits are good for managers and for owners
Would any of us disagree with these judgements? Probably not.
Question is: How may we have a good society when the same thing that is good for some members of society is bad for other members of society?
America - Bought and Paid for
31/05/12 16:39
Democracy is where every individual’s choice is counted and where each person’s will is felt in the process by which decisions are made and things get done. Most Americans would agree with that.
There is a little more than five months between now and the national election of 2012. According to Tom Raum of the Associated Press, The Obama-Romney Election Contest will cost about $1.6 billion plus “another few hundred million from super PACs and convention spending”.
The question is: Where among this hoopla and deluge of cash does one find the “choice and will” of any particular person? On the national news? Gallup poll results, maybe. What the person wants who lives across the street in our towns or cities, not likely. Perhaps that is why only 56.8 percent of the voting age population turned out to vote in 2008.
The only individuals who end up running for office in America as a Republican or a Democrat are those whose political highways have been paved and paid for by those who can afford to pay $1,000, $5,000, or more for a plate of food and a speech at a campaign dinner.
There is a little more than five months between now and the national election of 2012. According to Tom Raum of the Associated Press, The Obama-Romney Election Contest will cost about $1.6 billion plus “another few hundred million from super PACs and convention spending”.
The question is: Where among this hoopla and deluge of cash does one find the “choice and will” of any particular person? On the national news? Gallup poll results, maybe. What the person wants who lives across the street in our towns or cities, not likely. Perhaps that is why only 56.8 percent of the voting age population turned out to vote in 2008.
The only individuals who end up running for office in America as a Republican or a Democrat are those whose political highways have been paved and paid for by those who can afford to pay $1,000, $5,000, or more for a plate of food and a speech at a campaign dinner.
Exceptional Performance
23/04/12 21:24
No one argues that each of us is equal in either native ability or skill. Few would claim that everyone completes their work with the same level of performance. Most would say that exceptional performance should be more highly rewarded than average or poor performance.
The questions are: Is there any possible reward that is too much? Is there any possible reward that is too little? How great a difference should there be between the reward of the exceptional performer and the reward of the average performer?
A little consideration will reveal that there are some limits to how high or how low a reward may be. If an imaginary company has ten employees and income of one million dollars a year, it is clear that no one employee can be paid one million dollars a year. If one was paid one million dollars, no one else would continue working since there would be no money left to pay anyone else a wage. Let us say that the minimum wage needed for an average worker to live a good life is $50,000 per year. If all were paid that minimum, then our imaginary company would have up to $500,000 a year available from which they might pay bonuses to the exceptional performers.
So compared to the average performer how much more should the exceptional performer be paid? Twice as much? Three times as much? Or more?
This is a value question, isn’t it? How much more should the exceptional among us get? Worth a thought, isn’t it?
The questions are: Is there any possible reward that is too much? Is there any possible reward that is too little? How great a difference should there be between the reward of the exceptional performer and the reward of the average performer?
A little consideration will reveal that there are some limits to how high or how low a reward may be. If an imaginary company has ten employees and income of one million dollars a year, it is clear that no one employee can be paid one million dollars a year. If one was paid one million dollars, no one else would continue working since there would be no money left to pay anyone else a wage. Let us say that the minimum wage needed for an average worker to live a good life is $50,000 per year. If all were paid that minimum, then our imaginary company would have up to $500,000 a year available from which they might pay bonuses to the exceptional performers.
So compared to the average performer how much more should the exceptional performer be paid? Twice as much? Three times as much? Or more?
This is a value question, isn’t it? How much more should the exceptional among us get? Worth a thought, isn’t it?
Looking For Work ?
19/03/12 07:22
According to Barron’s, as of February, 2012:
This is called a recovery ?
Some say job seekers should rely on networking to find employment. Sounds like a lot of phone calls to old contacts, doesn’t it ? After all, how many phone numbers do you actually have in your address book whose owner may know of a job opening ?
- There were 12 million 806 thousand unemployed people in America.
- There were 4 million 423 thousand Help Wanted Ads published.
- That is one ad for almost every three people looking for employment.
This is called a recovery ?
Some say job seekers should rely on networking to find employment. Sounds like a lot of phone calls to old contacts, doesn’t it ? After all, how many phone numbers do you actually have in your address book whose owner may know of a job opening ?
Real Change for America
10/03/12 20:39
Disentangle our foreign military involvement from as many places as possible as soon as possible.
Reduce our military expenditures to whatever minimum is required to ensure that we may respond to an attack upon us or upon any to whom we have currently committed ourselves to be a protector.
Negotiate a change in all of our current treaty agreements with the goal of gradually but absolutely removing ourselves from the obligation to go to war over disputes that exist between other parties.
Allow foreign trade with the explicit understanding that companies that choose to engage in such commerce do so at their own risk and without any assistance or protection from the United States government.
Limit private enterprise in the United States to only one type of entity: the corporate cooperative that is entirely owned and only managed by the executives and by the workers who are directly and personally engaged in the operation of the enterprise.
Set a date certain within five years when every sole proprietorship, partnership, and corporation will have been converted into a newly formed corporate cooperative or will have been sold at its current fair market value to a newly formed corporate cooperative on terms that allow payment of the sales price over any time period that is less than one hundred years.
Reduce our military expenditures to whatever minimum is required to ensure that we may respond to an attack upon us or upon any to whom we have currently committed ourselves to be a protector.
Negotiate a change in all of our current treaty agreements with the goal of gradually but absolutely removing ourselves from the obligation to go to war over disputes that exist between other parties.
Allow foreign trade with the explicit understanding that companies that choose to engage in such commerce do so at their own risk and without any assistance or protection from the United States government.
Limit private enterprise in the United States to only one type of entity: the corporate cooperative that is entirely owned and only managed by the executives and by the workers who are directly and personally engaged in the operation of the enterprise.
Set a date certain within five years when every sole proprietorship, partnership, and corporation will have been converted into a newly formed corporate cooperative or will have been sold at its current fair market value to a newly formed corporate cooperative on terms that allow payment of the sales price over any time period that is less than one hundred years.