Real Assetts..........

I can't understand why the rich don't see the real assets a country has. The real assets aren't mined or drilled for. Its not oil, gas, gold, diamonds, or any other mineral deposit left by prehistoric processes. Its not 'GDP', or cars, or houses. Its people. 

Without people there'd be no wealth, no power, no 'worth' to anything. People mine, drill, buy and sell those minerals. People give value to those fossils. People create wealth, allow power, spend and save. People work in the factories, shops, hospitals, post offices, clean, manufacture, build and do everything that all of us either want, or need. They care for the elderly and infirm, bury the dead, recycle the waste, do all kinds of filthy, almost impossible tasks, to keep society healthy and working. They entertain, race, play sports, inspire, philosophise, teach, encourage, contain and envelop. 

But sometimes things go wrong in our heads! Hitler was definitely a troubled individual. As was Stalin, or Lenin, Pol Pot, Pinochet, Attila the Hun, Vlad the Impaler, Caligula, and any number of psychotic dictators throughout history in all areas of human society. So maybe therein lies the answer to my dilemma. Maybe I can understand why the rich don't appear to understand the true assets in a country.

One thing I've learned in my short time on this planet is that, by and large, we humans are pack animals. We are more successful if we work as a group. Evolutionary lessons have taught us that. We'd be no match for a tiger, or lion, or crocodile, alone. In fact, if we were to lose all the wonderful things we've created for ourselves to live in and survive on; electricity, cars, guns, pre-packed foods, houses, roads and railways, etcetera, and had only ourselves to support in the wild - we'd become extinct very soon. We don't see very well, we don't hear very well, we have no real sense of smell, comparative to other animals, in fact we're pretty useless creatures, alone! Big predators would have a field day with us. So, as a species, we learned to cooperate. Its also why we developed language - to cooperate better! Together, we're almost invincible! We can certainly keep those animal predators at bay. We're even beating bacterial and viral infections and cancers and the like! No other animal can boast that claim. Great minds getting together and solving all manner of problems. Our only real threat is - ourselves.

We have such a complex structure in our craniums, its difficult to keep the basics in focus. Most people that I've encountered in my life have one real aim - to live a full and happy life. By 'happy', I mean secure and free of disaster. I've met Asians, Chinese, Africans, Scottish, Welsh, English, Americans, Canadians, Dutch, Swiss, Italians, Irish, Spanish, Portuguese, German, West Indian, Finnish, Polish, Slovakians, Greek, the list goes on. I've met Atheists, Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans, even a couple of Scientologists! And many others. All have one thing in common - to live an event free, full and happy life. Virtually everybody I've met seems to want the same thing. Including me. We want the best for our families, we want the best for our friends. Its how we achieve those ends that causes friction!

Politics, religion, sport, music, art, architecture, books, films, in fact almost anything can divide us. So how does that division occur? 

Well, I'm not sure, but let's start with one idea; that wealth divides. Its the thought of losing 'my' property. The things 'I've' put together for 'my' security. Underlying that thought is the fact that I'm talking about 'me'! I'm just focussing on 'my' individual needs. At this level, the fact that 'I' need 'you' hasn't impacted on 'my' sense of security. 'I' have everything 'I' need and to Hell with 'you'! What 'I've' forgotten is that 'I' need 'you' for my survival. I wonder how many of the super-rich would be willing to don an army uniform, carry a gun and go fight a war on the front lines? Or, how much of their rubbish would they be willing to haul away to the landfill? Or, go and deliver their own mail? Or, fix their own electricity supply, or go to the abattoir and kill their own cow/pig/sheep, and process the meat for their own consumption? Or, clear the sewage drains and slurry tanks? Or, design and cut their own clothes? Or, build their own homes? In fact most of the super-rich have absolutely no idea how to look after themselves! Most have inherited wealth and have never had to do anything to secure their own lives. They're simply rich. Work is for other people. 'You'! So how do they separate themselves from 'you'?

Defence mechanisms. Unconscious processes that allow us all to avoid conscious awareness of anxiety provoking thoughts. Freud was the first to introduce unconscious defence mechanisms and many of his contemporaries have discovered defences that Freud missed! Cognitive dissonance is a phrase I've used in a previous post. Is the concept of holding two opposing views in conscious awareness without conflict. Confabulation is the means to rationalising any disparity. In India, its religion that helps the super-rich deal with the guilt of seeing poor beggars in the streets. They're of a lower caste and will have a better life next time round. But in the (largely) secular West that's not such a prominent ideology. But its also not too far away when a particular psychological theory is applied.

This psychological theory is particularly Western. In fact, it was first proposed in America. We now know it as "Humanistic" psychology. The "Third Force" in therapy. First there was psychoanalysis which spawned psychodynamics. Then, to counter that, there was behaviourism which spawned cognitive behaviour therapy and rational emotive therapy. Finally, following Freud's lecture tour of the USA in 1927, there came a group of psychologists who rejected Freud's theory of the id, ego, and super-ego in constant conflict and developed theories that better suited the American mindset.

Freud believed that Americans had sublimated their libidos through religious indoctrination. Religion was indeed a prominent force in the USA, especially fundamentalist protestantism. Americans couldn't lose the "soul" to unconscious, uncontrolled processes. Austrian born psychologist Heinz Hartmann was the first to argue that the ego was the most important aspect of the psyche. He and others, including Erik H Erikson, felt that the ego searched for gratification brought about by sheer learned ability. A minor sense of 'success', such as when a child learns to ride a bike. These new ideas revolved around the idea that the ego operated independently of internal conflicts and strived for these moments of achievement. Essentially; ego was in control.

It was given this backdrop that Abraham Maslow concocted his appalling 'hierarchy of needs' pyramid! All of Maslow's hierarchical needs depend on individual emotional and physical successes. His list of "self-actualized" people reads like a "Who's Who" of the rich elite of the time, including the likes of Eleanor Roosevelt! This self-interested, egocentric model of the psyche led to Carl Rogers developing the "Person-Centred" model of therapy.

The thing is, as a therapy model, it provides the individual with personal goals. To be successful one must be aware of one's own needs and not take on the world's problems. Sounds good doesn't it? It also allows a degree of altruism - but not at the cost of one's own needs! One of the metaphors I've heard in the training of this form of therapy is: "If you were the only one who could row the lifeboat, it's no good you getting out to swim for a potential survivor!" It's obviously the drowning survivor's own efforts that should save him!

So successful is this form of therapy that it's made its way over to Britain. There are now 'person-centred' approaches to education, health and customer services. 'You' are the most important being! We must feed 'your' needs to make 'you' adopt this attitude of "can-do"! It all feels very positive. In fact that's one of the three 'core-conditions' a therapist needs for a successful outcome of person-centred therapy.

These core conditions are: "Unconditional Positive Regard", "Congruence", and a "Non-judgemental Attitude". If we examine these conditions what we soon discover is that they are mutually exclusive! The easiest is the 'non-judgemental attitude'. It is humanly impossible to be non-judgemental! We make judgements all the time and don't even give it a second thought. We judge family, friends, enemies, risk, foodstuff, news items, homes, cars, sports, you name it. Everything has been subjected to some form of judgement! Every single person we meet is judged. Even our parents! Are they in a good mood or bad? Can I get away with this today, or not? It's an automatic response to judge!

Next: 'congruence'. This, in the Rogerian text, means to be 'truly yourself'. Well, if I'm not supposed to judge, how can I be truly 'me'? I judge! The only way I can make sense of this is if I change the meaning of 'non-judgemental' to 'non-negative-judgement'. Which means that whatever my client brings to me, I cannot judge him/her negatively. However, I'm still judging, but in a positive way.

Which brings us to the most important condition; 'unconditional positive regard'. Roughly translated as 'love'. The kind a good parent gives to their offspring. Unconditional love. So, I meet a stranger who has a problem. (For ease of writing only, male.) He tells me he's been having an affair with a younger girl and his wife doesn't know about it. So far, so good. In another life, I can imagine I might be tempted to stray. He also tells me his Christian values prevent him from continuing the affair, but he cannot face being honest with his wife for fear of losing her, all of which is causing great anxiety. I'm with him on this. I don't need to be negative about his religion, even though I'm an atheist, because it's his belief system given to him by his parents and the community he lives in. So all's ok, right now. I'll stay with it. Then he tells me that he finds it difficult to tell the girl it's over. I can understand that. If a relationship has developed then someone's going to get hurt. I press ever so slightly to find out if the girl is from his home community. My thoughts are moving to the possibility that there might be some risk to his marriage if the girl behaves jealously. He tells me she's a pupil at his wife's school! I'm now very quiet! He continues to tell me that his wife runs an infant school! I'm gagging to ask him how old this girl is. But I'm afraid of the answer. He talks about her as if she's an adult, but something tells me he's not giving me the whole story. I remain quiet. Eventually he reaches a point where he tells me that if anyone in the community were to discover their relationship he would be in serious trouble!

I'll leave you to ponder that one! In the meantime I'll ask the question: How much "unconditional positive regard" are you feeling for this guy, right now?

These 'core-conditions' for person-centred counselling are totally unworkable. But they give a sense of something 'positive'. A sense that you're trying to reach your client. When reading what little theory there is behind it, you may be led to believe that it is totally compatible with the 'spiritual' aspect of a person. In reality, it's just about making a person feel good about themselves - whatever the problem.

The negative side to all this nonsense is the perception of people having choices in their lives. We look at our drowning man and say: "You should've learned to swim. You had the opportunity!" Anyone stuck at the bottom of the 'hierarchy of needs' obviously made the wrong choices in life, yes? Because of which they weren't able to build a business, buy a house, become the boss, 'self-actualize'. They obviously blew their chances in some deliberate, self-destructive way, didn't they? And being congruent, not judging negatively and offering them unconditional positive regard you can say: "Never mind fella, better luck next time!" and walk away with the spoils. (Because you wouldn't want to risk drowning in the lower depths of your own hierarchy of needs in case you couldn't row your own boat to safety, eh?)

So there's my answer - Ego psychology based "person-centred" reasoning for not realising the true value of people. Too busy rowing away with a boat full of your stuff!

Cognitive Dissonance? Where does this thinking come from?

In 1927 Sigmund Freud visited the USA on a lecture tour. He came back to Europe vowing never to return saying that America was full of "savages". He seemed preoccupied by the concept of "dollaria", or the intense drive just to make money. He argued that Americans, through religion, had sublimated their 'eros', or sex-drive, and it had manifested itself as "making profit at all costs". Money replaced a natural urge for procreation! He may have had a point.

I've often thought about great sums of money and its 'meaning'. If I were to inherit, earn, or win £1million, it would solve all of my problems. I'd have no debt. I could take early retirement and travel. I could buy a new car. I could afford all the latest gadgets that I so covet. In fact one million pounds would really make my life comfortable. What more could I want? If I had £10million, would I do the same things ten times over? No. But it would mean I had the choice to do all of the above ten times over! But it wouldn't change my life in any discernible way. If I had £100million - then we cease talking about "money". At this level, and some point leading up to it, "money" becomes irrelevant. We're now talking "wealth". Wealth has no connection to 'money'. It has more to do with what wealth brings as opposed to what money brings. We reach a figure where being able to "afford" things never enters the equation. We never need question the "affordability" of anything. What we do question, however, is how do we protect ourselves against those who would want some of our wealth. Wealth brings a sense of power. With £100million plus, I can walk into any restaurant, five star hotel, or even airport in the world - and no-one would ask me to pay! They would assume that "my people" would sort these trivial matters out. I would never have to deal with the messy stuff we call money.

Two things might disturb my peace: Other rich people and governments. Other rich people have - in their power - the resources to take away what's mine. Governments might decide that my wealth should be taken down a bit! So there may be some conflict regarding my power - er, I mean wealth! - between myself and other rich and powerful people! There may be some consolation in knowing that those other wealthy people may suffer the same paranoia. So, many of them tend to stick together. There's safety in numbers, so the saying goes! If enough of us agree, then at least there's one fear alleviated somewhat. But what about governments? In Cyprus, they took up to 60% of residents' savings! That could happen anywhere! So I live with the fear that governments could take away my "money", or more accurately; wealth/power. (Because its not about 'money' at this level, remember?)

Freud's comments referred to wealth creation - not the "almighty dollar". Wealth replaces children. It becomes something to worship, to nurture and to protect. There's a point when one ceases counting their coins, or gold bullion, security bonds, or whatever, and start to 'worry' about how to make it grow and mature! And just watching the number of noughts increase in the 'value' of wealth is not about counting the amounts. Its about watching something grow and age. Something changes in the mind of the wealthy.

A couple of years ago, on British TV, there was a panel show where rich and famous people were asked to guess the price of everyday items on a shopping list. How much is a pint of milk? Or half-a-dozen eggs? Or a loaf of bread? A pair of shoes from Primark? Or a fridge from Argos? None of them got anywhere near a right guess! Ask them what the exchange rate is on the airport bureaux de change for sterling to euro, no idea! None of these things occurred to them because they never deal in cash. Ask them how much they're really worth - mind you own business!! The information that's available in the public domain is fine. But the real net worth is a private matter. It's a bit like me giving out too much information about my kids!

So, when the "lefties" begin talking about poverty and inequality the wealthy don't fully understand. It would be impossible for them to imagine what it must be like to actually pay for something like winter fuel, at the cost of food for a day! Wealthy people, with no knowledge of the price of a week's groceries and the cost of fuel, would not understand that £100 per week is not nearly enough! Not if one has to pay rent and council tax and water bills and clothing for the kids and bus fares and any number of other annoying living expenses that costs MONEY.

So how about those wealthy folk who donate vast sums of money to charity? Surely they have a handle on the realities of life for the ordinary folk below? Well, not really. This is more in line with the peacock's display of having some kind of conscience, but not for 'ordinary' folk. Its about training their minds to feel as though they are a bit altruistic. What they tend to give away are poultry sums comparative to their actual net worth. Its about being seen to care. John Lennon - that great "working class hero" - left England because of the tax system. (Keynesian progressive tax system that meant he would have been in the 90% tax bracket on his earnings). He bemoaned the fact that he was "down to his last million" (in the 70s, so times that by at least eight!) and had to go somewhere where his money wouldn't be taxed so heavily. He went to America! His fortune soon grew again. He spent the rest of his life telling everyone how much he cared! Gary Barlow does much for charity. He performs at events for 'free' in the hope of raising money for the poor and needy. Most of his fortune is housed in "off-shore" accounts to avoid tax. Seemingly unaware that taxation is what helps the poor and needy in the first place! (Well in a properly managed economy, anyway!) Artistes of the pop and rock world sometimes astound me! 'Live Aid' concert managed to raise some $50million+ across both sides of the Atlantic, yet every one of those artistes could have donated that amount and not changed their lifestyles one iota! Bono - that great champion of poverty issues - has his fortune managed 'off-shore' and hasn't paid taxes for years.

Its easy to forget one's roots! The acquisition of wealth is more than "earning" money. It can gather its own momentum. When one can 'swan-around', paying for nothing and having all one's needs and wants met, the whole seductive process can become totally entrancing. They can then tell themselves they're "doing the right thing" for the rest of the world, whilst nurturing their growing wealth!

Respect to (and for) the Professor.....

I've been thinking a lot, recently, about the state of the country and how we got here, how it's affecting us now, and how it'll destroy us in the near future if we don't do something now!

How we got here looks surprisingly simple: Bad banking practice, greed and no regulation or accountability in the financial sector. How long did it take? Around a hundred and fifty years!! It was obviously accelerated during Thatcher's years, but nonetheless, this has been a catastrophe brewing since industrialisation and globalisation. In the words of the (very) old song:-

          "Its the rich what gets the pleasure, its the poor what gets the blame.

           Its the same the whole world over, ain't it all a bloomin' shame!"

Taxes are for poor people! If you have a good accountant, you can be sure that no matter what the tax rate is in your country - you'll never pay it! Whether you've built your business up from scratch, (an extremely rare event!), or you've become a famous sports-person in a high-paying, commercial field, or entertainer whose manager has managed to secure high prices for tickets to your wonderful events, or you've inherited the family fortune, (a far more common phenomenon!),  you don't have to pay taxes anywhere in the world! And you can get helpful advice on how to invest your money, get the best returns and take all the profits "off-shore" paying little, or nothing, in revenue on those returns! Only the working plebs and peasants pay for national security, the NHS, education and the country's infrastructure. We pay and you stay for free! Great deal, yes?

So now you have to figure; what about these people in work you read about who are struggling to make ends meet and having to rely on government handouts and food banks for survival? They're taking up some of that valuable tax revenue that keeps this country safe for us to live in (for free) and must be forced to do more!! Those feckless types who live on those "sink-estates". (I've heard about them. They'll rob you blind, given half a chance!) How can we be sure to make them pay their way? Let's stop their benefits - I mean, tax credits, child benefit, 'top-up' benefits, social security benefits, housing benefits, disability living allowances, carers allowances and JSA, all of which only encourages them to stay 'lazy', don't they? Would you work if you were getting your rent paid and your food subsidised? No way! And they've all got plasma screens, iPhones, holidays in Benidorm and fancy cars, haven't they? I've read that in the Daily Mail - so it must be true. The Daily Mail is the 'voice of the people', isn't it? Or there's that Philpott bloke - didn't he screw the system by having a hundred kids to a harem of feckless women? They must all be doing that! Young women getting pregnant just to get child benefits. Its so obvious! Screwing the system is what they're all doing. Taking away our "hard-earned" cash! Bleeding honest tax payers. (Oh! Wait a minute - I'm not paying any!) Anyway, they have to be encouraged to go to work - or the value of my shares shrink! That could harm the economy - not me, just the economy! I mean, who would invest in a country's output if there weren't any profits to be made? My money's on Bangladesh! Workers there are happy to get something in their wage-packets, and they don't seem to complain as much as these whining "lefties" in this country! They don't know how lucky they are to be living in one of the richest country's in the world! Poverty - they don't know the meaning of the word! I'll bet they'd be more encouraged if we told them that the country's half-full of foreigners! And most of them are terrorists! Hmmm....!

Perhaps we could fudge the figures to make it look like this country's over-populated by immigrants! If we did that then they wouldn't be so concerned about the tax losses from my overseas accounts and investments, would they? That would encourage the ultra-right to shout their mouths off and cause enough of a stink for those feckless, uneducated slum-dwellers to focus on beating the crap out of foreigners! What a brilliant idea! Or better still - whilst we hide away somewhere safe and neutral, we could start a war! Just think of the investment opportunities then! No, maybe that's going a bit too far.......

http://www.poverty.ac.uk/report-developing-countries-wealth/super-rich-could-end-poverty-four-times-over

(Incidentally,  The Professor to whom I've "repected" is Prof. Richard Wolff - look him up!)