For people living in the United States during the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, the economy was great. Factory jobs were plentiful, desk jobs were well-paid, and nearly everyone who wanted to be employed was employed. Why? Huge amounts of money were flowing into the United States from around the world.
Why was so much money flowing into the United States?
During World War Two, which ended in 1945, bombs destroyed countless factories in Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Russia, other European nations, China, and Japan. That left the United States and Canada as the only industrial nations with un-bombed factories. So, after the war ended, people around the world had no choice but to buy most of their manufactured goods (in other words, building materials and consumer products) from the United States and Canada.
That golden prosperity ended by the 1980’s because new factories throughout Europe and Asia ended the temporary monopoly.
In hindsight, the factory jobs of the 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s were just a temporary gift from warring European nations and warring Japan and China. In other words, “our” jobs moved back to where they had come from: other industrial nations.
Where did that great wealth go?
Some of that wealth was wisely invested in public education. In particular, U.S. universities became the best places to learn science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Wisely the U.S. government used that increased brainpower to put astronauts on the moon and send the Mars Rover to explore the planet Mars.
In the business world that increased brainpower fueled the dramatic growth of businesses that sell quite-profitable products and services to countless international customers. These “money-magnet” U.S. businesses include the still-very-profitable Intel, Microsoft, Apple, Google, and Amazon.
Where else did that great wealth go?
Alas, much of it went into the hands of greedy business owners. Let’s call these people the “biggest campaign contributors” because they donate the biggest amounts of money to political campaigns.
Why do they donate so much money? Because they own businesses that “fleece” U.S. customers and require extra government resources, yet these businesses pay lower tax rates compared to “money-magnet” businesses. Well-known examples of this “taker” kind of business include Altria (previously named Philip Morris), Remington Outdoor Company (which makes assault rifles), Pfizer, Exxon-Mobil, Chase Bank, McDonalds, and Monsanto.
What would make America great again?
If these “taker” businesses paid their fair share of taxes, the U.S. economy would be great again. Obviously this change would reduce the U.S. debt and reduce taxes for us “average” U.S. citizens. Even better, countless workers and entrepreneurs would shift from soul-draining-but-high-paying jobs in taker businesses to rewarding jobs in money-magnet businesses.
Most importantly, this shift from easy-to-run taker businesses to challenging money-magnet businesses would dramatically increase the flow of money coming into the United States from customers around the world. After all, a big flow of money coming into a nation, and less corruption, is what makes a nation great.
Other nations also have this opportunity. So which nation will be first to overcome its corruption and choose to increase its economic prosperity?
What’s stopping the reduction of corruption?
In the United States the biggest campaign contributors used to donate much more money to Republican politicians because labor unions exclusively donate to Democratic politicians. But in the 1970s Democratic candidates were winning “too many” elections. So, some top donors hired election consultants for advice.
The advice was to heavily influence Democratic primary elections using a divide-and-conquer strategy. The strategy worked, and now the biggest campaign contributors control both the Democratic and Republican primary elections.
This means if the preferred Republican special-interest puppet does not win, then a Democratic special-interest puppet wins. In other words, this primary-election strategy blocks any popular reform-minded candidate that dares to enter a Democratic primary race.
How does the divide-and-conquer strategy work?
It’s like herding sheep. Except that the winner does not need to get all the sheep into the barn. And the winner does not even need to get at least half the sheep into the barn. Instead, the winner only has to get more sheep into “their” barn compared to the number of sheep going into each of the other barns.
This means that if too many sheep — who represent the voters — are heading to the “wrong” barn, then extra sheepdogs — which represent extra money — can split off the sheep headed to the wrong barn, and herd some of them to yet other wrong barns. The final result is that the sheep going into the “right” barn is a bigger herd than any of the herds going into any one of the wrong barns.
For each sheep herded into one of the “can’t-win” barns, that’s not just a “wasted vote.” Each sheep in a “can’t-win” barn reduces the number of sheep that need to be herded into the money-backed barn.
Alas, too few people bother to count all the sheep in the “could-win” and “can’t-win” barns and realize that this total count typically exceeds the count of sheep in the winning barn.
Can this divide-and-conquer strategy be defeated?
Yes, by requiring that a winner must get more than half the sheep into their barn.
Alas, voters in virtually all democracies (in Europe, Asia, and North America) use primitive single-mark ballots, which only allow a voter to mark a single choice. When using such simple-minded ballots, it’s important to remember that “the person who gets the most single-mark votes is not necessarily the most popular candidate.” This is equivalent to saying “the barn with the most sheep is not necessarily the barn that the majority of sheep like best.”
Ideally a voter should be allowed to mark a 1-2-3 ballot. This means the voter indicates their first-choice barn, er, candidate, their second-choice candidate, their third-choice candidate, and so on. This approach provides enough information to ensure that the winner is preferred by more than half the voters.
This insight is hiding behind a wizard-of-Oz-like curtain named “mathematics” that few people want to peek behind. Fortunately people who do like mathematics have already looked behind this curtain, and they have written their conclusions at www.BanSingleMarkBallots.org. Fortunately you don’t need to read it.
Just remember this: What’s needed is to collect more information on the ballot. A single mark in each race is not enough to ensure fair results.
With these insights, can greatness be restored to the United States?
Yes. The most logical “scientific” approach would be for the Democratic party to adopt better ballots for use in their primary elections. The fact that the Democratic-party insiders resist this reform is proof that they don’t really want fair elections.
Fortunately there is another option. It has 3 parts, and it involves you and your friends.
- More people need to vote in primary elections.
- In each important primary-election contest, voters need to watch the popularity of the candidates and not join the voters who support a candidate who cannot win. Instead, these voters must join with other voters who are supporting a candidate who has a chance of getting more votes than the single money-backed candidate.
- Help other voters learn basic history, such as the real reasons America became so great during the second half of the 1900s.
You can be a hero by helping other people understand the divide-and-conquer strategy used by the biggest campaign contributors — to control both the Republican and Democratic primary elections.
And you can be a hero by helping people understand history so that more voters understand the difference between the following myths and facts.
Myth: The loss of factory jobs is related to the increase in immigrants.
FACT: The plentiful U.S. factory jobs in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s were a temporary gift from the warring industrial nations in Europe and Asia as a result of bombing each other’s factories.
Myth: Paying for quality education is a waste of taxpayer money.
FACT: Quality public education in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, creative problem solving, creative arts, and “why-based” history, especially at the university level, supplies the brainpower that businesses need to invent, design, develop, build, manufacture, and sell what people around the world are eager to buy.
Myth: Science isn’t trustworthy.
FACT: Science is the process of identifying which beliefs are facts, and which beliefs are fantasies. Uncertainty only happens when people fail to look at an issue from all perspectives.
We are now in the 2018 election season, and the voters, er, sheep are flocking together into herds. What are you going to do with your new-found insights?