# The Mathmatical Formula that Shattered the Global Economy

Above are some links to the math that has brought our world to its knees. And to think I used to fall asleep in junior high school algebra.

Perhaps you, like me, heard reference to this formula on NPR or various other news outlets. After looking at it, I wonder if any of the bankers had even the slightest clue about it, let alone applying it to anything tangible.

So here’s my lame math formula. All based on the simple geometry:

The one guy gets more than a third (33.4 %) of the whole pie while the 9 people share almost a third (28%). So lets be clear here, 10% of wealthy Americans control 61.4% of all the wealth. And just 1% of the wealthy control more than a third. while 40% of Americans make it sharing just over a third of the wealth at 38.6 %. And the rest, half of the country, 50% of us live in abject poverty.

This was before the market crash. I’m sure there are more people who have fallen into the abject poverty pile since then.

I have a simple question to ask to those who subscribe to unbridled free market capitalism and the notion of those who work hardest are rewarded with the most money. Firstly, that one guy controlling more than a third of the pie, does he really work harder than the equivalent of 150,000,000 Americans put together. Because man if he does, he’d have to be God as working that many hours would mean he not only never slept, but also had an army of clones.

And if one wants to make the argument that somehow that guy has provided some service or great work that entitles him/her to more pie than they could ever eat in one lifetime while half the people around them starve, I ask, did that person cure cancer, Aids and save our planet from a deluge of asteroids? Because there is nothing that anyone who has such ungodly amounts of money has done that warrants the pie being that lopsided.

Take for example Bill Gates. He stole the idea for Windows from two inventors who stole the idea for the operating system from the way Macs worked. Gates literally bought their program for something like 500 bucks and then turned around and sold it to IBM for millions or billions, whatever. Did (or does) he deserve to control that much of the world’s resources because he was an unethical opportunist? Or even someone like Jim Carey, does he deserve 20 million dollars to make fart jokes in some lame half-baked movie? Does anyone really deserve to hog more resources than they can actually make use of?

And what does it say about people who choose this for themselves. I’m not saying people don’t have a right to be wealthy, be comfortable, and even be decadent and live uxorious ridiculously comfortable lives. But one doesn’t have to control that much of the wealth to do so. As a matter of fact if the pie was at least a little more evenly distributed, more people would have more and be more productive.

For example if everyone had enough money, to at least make their own pie, then there would be a constant flow of money, goods, services and new wealth for everyone to partake in. It would be exponential rather than a closed, fixed system where the poorest 50 percent cannot participate in the economy because they can barely afford the basic necessities of life.

Historically, our country has always done best financially when there was a strong, healthy middle class, like in the 1950s when a guy could work at a gas station as an attendant, buy his own home and support a wife and two kids. Or during the Clinton era when there was a huge boom in the middle class and new service orientated and luxury businesses sprung up due to the increased flow of money being funneled into the economy.

So why is it that Republicans hang onto this bizarre Ann Ryand philosophy of unhinged free market capitalism without restraint or regulation and the idea of the individual as purely and solely responsible for him/herself?

Well, let’s take a look at Ann Ryand. First off she was from Russia and had a knee jerk reaction to having grown up there. She was also a screenwriter and no offense here, but part of being a Hollywood screenwriter is being able to boil things down to very simple black and white arguments and ideas. There is no room for subtlety, complexity, and depth of character and layers of meaning in a 90-minute screenplay. The best one can hope for with a great movie is a clear well defined argument that makes you think about a situation in a new way.

Anyone who has read the Fountainhead can attest to the ridiculous modernist notion of special treatment for the super human, great genius who stands outside of normal human expectations (such as decency, compassion, human kindness, caring, being interested in things other than yourself) because of his great talent. She literally makes the case that some people should be above the law, above human decency and be lavished with an endless fountain of praise and support no matter how socially retarded, because they are intrinsically better than everyone else.

Hmmm, what does this sound like?

Oh, yeah, Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Funny she lived here in the land of NPD (Hollywood). And there in lies the key. There seems to be a fundamental personality dysfunction which is attracted to this (conservative often Republican) model. One that feels the need to be better than everyone else, to be treated specially and has to have other people suffering so they can feel good about themselves. Upon closer inspection the conservative movement seems to be less motivated by an ideology than a mental illness – what I used to deem “Mad Squirrel disease” where an individual can never have enough and constantly seeks out more and more nuts to add to their storehouse despite the fact that they will never be able to physically use all of what they have acquired.

After studying psychology I realized this was a character trait of Narcissism. Our culture has promoted it. Wall Street was immersed in the darkest part of this mental illness. I wish these people would spend their money getting therapy and get out of the way of change. They spin empathy and humanitarianism into socialism and communism. They turn the notion of helping people who are losing their homes into something akin to a welfare state, but yet, for them, the special few, they not only have their hands out, but their pockets, their buckets, their private jets and anything else they can cram taxpayer dollars into under the guise of “saving jobs.” When they say that I think they mean, saving the jobs of the captains of their private jets, not the 10,000 jobs they are shipping to India because they don’t want to pay a living wage or give their employees healthcare.

I had a friend one time who drove an old green VW Bug. She happened to be driving it around the Silicon Valley in a very wealthy area. This guy in a Mercedes was offended by how carefully and slowly she was going, not and yelled at her, “Peasant!” I think that says it all.

When it comes to how these people feel about themselves and the way they see everyone else. They appear to be living in feudal Europe during the dark ages. Sad for us they are not actually living back then, but are just imposing these unconscionable notions on the rest of us.

Best wishes and many blessings to all you good people,

Denise

P.S. I will announce the winners soon. And have you noticed on the Myers Briggs poll almost no extraverts. I’m guessing this is because extraverts are not very interested in taking personality tests.

Don’t forget to vote in the poll if you know your Myers Briggs type or your Enneagram type.

# Barack Obama vs. Abraham Lincoln

Their career paths have been compared, and almost parallel in their meteoric rise from being state legislators to Presidents (in Obama’s case potential president). But what do their charts say. Are they similar? And if so how? Let’s take a look at the man who helped start the Republican party and the current lead Democrat.

Despite the unknown time of Lincoln’s actual birth we can still compare the basics so here goes:

Although Lincoln was an Aquarian he had a lot of water in his chart, specifically Pisces which gave him great compassion for the down trodden. Pisces is opposite of Virgo and the two have a lot in common, as Leo is opposite of Aquarius. Again both signs share similarities, this is because if you have the sun in Leo like Barack Obama your earth is in Aquarius, meaning the earth is actually traveling through the constellation of Aquarius. So in a sense opposites are not really opposites in astrology but rather two sides of a see-saw.

WIth so his sun and moon in Aquarius Lincoln definitely thought outside the box and was ruled by his principles but unlike Sarah Palin who is utterly lacking in compassionate or sensitivity in her chart, Lincoln had oodles of it. He was a visionary, literally and extremely intuitive, eccentric, odd looking as we know and a revolutionary for the greater good. His chart is heavy on trines like Barack’s making it easy to communicate, rise to the head of the class and understand others on a very gut level, very similar to Barack Obama’s abilities. Barack shows great aptitude for communication and shows intellectual brilliance in his chart, Lincoln shows immense genius with Uranus making a trine to his mercury both in water signs he was probably spooky (if you knew him personally) in his ability to read things others couldn’t see and size up situations in a glance. His chart is the stuff of legends. He also had Mars in Libra trining his sun, making fairness a huge issue for him much like Obama. The civil war probably pained Lincoln greatly on a personal level as he wasn’t a hawk but would have preferred to work things out through debate, alas this was not his fate. Saturn and Neptune conjunct in Sagittarius gave him charisma and uncannily good luck in his career. But it also gave him trouble as evidenced by his assassination (square to Mercury with Neptune there — Neptune bringing loss.) This was not helped by his Uranus, ruler of his sun and moon in Scorpio (can mean sudden death) square his moon. His Venus inconjunct Uranus also brought turmoil to his relationships with women and his love life which he probably didn’t see until he was smack in the middle of it and it was too late to bail out.

Obama’s chart is more stable, grounded and service oriented rather than sacrifice oriented like Lincoln’s but there are some real similarities between these two men. Obama however is a more dramatic orator, (supposedly Lincoln had a strange high pitched voice and of course Obama has a deep melidious one) and his passion is more on a gut level than Lincoln’s which was more intellectual in nature. Neither are/or where hawkish in their world view but rather keen to diplomacy first. Obama is more of a fighter with so much Leo in his chart, some would say a bit more bombastic but also much warmer. It’s doubtful that a man like Lincoln could be president during our age of TV and the internet, as his looks and personality would have been very eccentric and off putting at close inspection. Obama on the other hand has the charm and charisma needed to win the office in contemporary culture with good looks and personality playing such a key role in elections.

Obama is about as close to the likes of Lincoln as we could concievably see in contemporary America. There are some real parallels not just in their careers but in their personalities. Obama’s main focus is the working person however, and of course Lincoln’s was a bigger more pervasive assumption that he tackled. Lincoln’s chart reflects his ability to truly shake up the statis quo, Obama’s is not really set up like that, it is focused primarily on serving the everyday American trying to get by and the economy which if Obama wins we’ll be able to dig ourselves out of the rabbit hole. If not, if McCain wins look for a major global Depression where the rich get richer and less and less fit into that one percent. Our nation will look like a bad day in Tijuana. We will see the end of the middle class if McCain wins at least until someone else takes the reigns but by then it maybe too late.

MAKE SURE TO VOTE NOVEMBER 2.