The Dryer Plan

The concept of the Dryer Plan is rather simple. The concept states that the economies and monetary systems, at local, state, national and then global levels should operate for the general good of the population they serve.

Presently, they do not.

It comes as no surprise to anyone at all that the world at large struggles with issues of financial and economic natures, largely from out-of-control budgetary deviations, rising costs, lack of income, significant lack of production, and corruption at all levels. When we listen to the news and media on a daily basis, we hear leadership from the very highest levels soberly inform us of how bad it is and how worse it’s going to get if we don’t make some serious changes real soon. Yet, there seem to be no experts or upper-level authorities who offer workable solutions to what is obviously a crisis spinning out of control. Why? The Dryer Plan claims the lack of solutions result from a staunch refusal to modify these systems in order to make them function reliably, and a stubborn demand to make them work more effectively without addressing the fundamental failures and shortcomings. Or, everyone is trying to put out the fire by disarming the alarms while not focusing on what continually catches fire. An even simpler illustration demonstrates there are too few solutions focused on the root cause while most attempts at solutions are focused on the symptoms. The Dryer Plan offers a number of perspectives to assist in bringing these issues to an understandable level.

One perspective of The Dryer Plan is to recognize, truly recognize and acknowledge the present systems do not function properly. There are only two primary conclusions potentially explaining the failure of these economic and monetary systems, which are either severe mismanagement or severe corruption. If anyone has another potential conclusion, please present it. It seems disingenuous to assume humanity cannot manage a system so completely woven into the function of society when every other function relies on it. This is particularly glaring when many of these are so astounding in their complexity and technological sophistication. We know the Japanese earthquakes pushed the planet off its axis by a matter of inches and the earth’s rotation was slowed by a fraction of a second, but we can’t figure out a system operated by more people than virtually any other industry on a global scale? We can observe the finest natural details of our world and the universe around it, but we can’t make an invention as important as the economy and its currency work right? We can build a global communications system so complex and sophisticated that our phones are well beyond anything possessed by Mr. Spock, yet we can’t manage an economic deficit or balance a budget, no matter how many people are supposedly working around the clock to do so?

It seems more plausible to assume the economy is more akin to other systems and subjects that the authorities use to control the masses. Therefore, it seems quite easy to assume the cries from the government about the economic and debt crisis is almost purely contrived. More than likely, this is yet another example of governmental overreaching into the function of everyday life in order to gain more absolute power. This is a daring claim, but the claim that these functions are failing intentionally stands until someone puts forth an argument claiming the economic and monetary systems are too big and complex for humanity to repair, even though humanity created and lives by them.

Another perspective reveals a significant failure of our present system is because it does not function in a manner suitable to such a large population. While the monetary and economic systems should function as a virtual form of infrastructure (in that it is the fuel of the engine driving our society forward), it largely functions as a mode of rewards and punishment, leaving most of humanity shackled by its failed construct. It seems impossible to accept any claim it operates for the good of society when such a minor percentage of society demonstrates any effectual economic operation in daily life due to functional restrictions at a monetary level.

Yet another perspective is one of the largest fundamental flaws in the system of today is that it contends that the more money there is, the less it is worth, which is just another way of saying only a minor percentage may benefit from it. The quantitative easing is driving the value of money down, and forcing the gold standard higher. But we must recognize this is only by choice. All of the rules are by choice, but to what end? Why must we believe we must force an enormous percentage of humanity down in order to accept the validity of the system? Why do we demand so much suffering and demand so little actual success? Why must people who don’t achieve an assumed position of wealth have to suffer on the borders of genuine poverty? Money volume is actually a weak argument, since the world possesses so much more money presently than was harbored in times past. It would be intriguing and revealing to know what the world’s money volume (the M3) was when Bill Gates was born compared to what he is worth today.

Further, most of humanity fails to recognize the primary purpose of the monetary and economic systems (a standardized system of production, distribution and consumption of goods and services), choosing to only acknowledge the statements made by those who have the most control over it. Most choose to assume these systems run independent of human control and therefore fail to acknowledge it is a system of our making. Therefore, we accept that societies short on economic prosperity must suffer by default and accept misery as the norm. Questions asking why are often shut down with authoritive demands or complex rhetoric so confusing that people are duped into thinking they’re idiots for not knowing. They allow themselves to be convinced the emperor is wearing something he is not.

Another point of view claims a normalcy bias has long been in effect over the vast majority of people, for generations and likely centuries. The assumption is that this is how money works, whether we like it or not. But too few question this function and the origins of it. Further, nobody questions the function of the system when it clearly works only rarely, and precariously. Rare are those who question the system, and they’re largely scorned for their trouble if they do. But it is time for people everywhere to demand specific answers to specific questions, and these questions should be steered towards seeking answers hitherto avoided, such as why does money and the economy have to function only this way? It is ours and we made it, so why can’t we control it?

Another point is, with the way the economy is working today, globally and here within the United States, everything is heading towards complete failure. In many ways, most of our GDP goes to debt, and our situation isn’t far from being similar to that of Greece. Further, there is not one official individual who offers a viable solution to what promises to cause societal failure in a foreseeable future. The only acceptable answers should be geared towards creating a better economic and monetary system, or at the very least, upgrading the present system rather than smearing around what is already a system spread too thin.

No one asks why our monetary and economic systems force nearly all of humanity to answer to its callous demands. Even when the economy is strong, too few ask why it only serves to benefit a slightly larger minority than it does when it operates weakly, which is far too often to be acceptable. We have to acknowledge and widely recognize this is our system and our making, not something separated from us yet forced upon us by some unknown force.

The Premise

The basic premise of The Dryer Plan is the system in play now is simply not working. In fact, the way the system works as it stands is causing unacceptable hardship on most of the global society, thereby causing more conflict than it serves to ease. In fact, the present system is actively destroying the fabric of human civilization and severely impeding the progress of every society on every level. Rather than being in accordance with the best of the human condition, it appeases the worst within us. So, rather than accentuating the finest humanity could be, it only acknowledges the basic need to be better than most everyone else, so it keeps most on a short leash in order to feed the lazy carnivore. But in the process, it locks down our kind to a severe and self-imposed limitation. We know science and technology present so much promise, yet these disciplines are forced to sit idly because so much of their potential is stifled by archaic economic rules.

Because the economy and its financial and monetary systems are entirely creations of humanity, humanity can make the decisions required to better the situation, should there be an honest effort to do so. We have the power and the right to decide that our kind does not have to suffer and face potential destruction for a failed system we simply refuse to repair. It is time we move our economic and monetary systems from philosophies of centuries past to the civilized hopes of the present.

We have to recognize that we can do this, and that we must do this. It is almost laughable that we stand with our heads in our hands and give in to assumptions we’ve mortgaged the financial futures of the next several generations, forcing the species of Man to enslavement by what is truly nothing more than a societal and cultural function. What is not funny is that it appears our kind is serious in pursuing this ridiculous notion with the intent of destroying our kind for no real good reason other than to resist positive improvements.

The Argument

The argument is the present system is either completely corrupted or completely overwhelmed, or more likely, some combination of the two. Another aspect of the argument is the present system allows for too small a population percentage to thrive, virtually guaranteeing an economy that is anemic at the very best. After all, the lower percentage points of the top ten percent of earners live fairly well, but most work frantically to maintain their lifestyle, and their income value is based on gross income. The information rarely posits that most of that income goes back into the career choice or business. There is nothing wrong with any of that and it is, in fact, a good thing to work for anything worthwhile, but progress is subject to too much precariousness in this stormy economy, and years of effort can be lost in days.

Another part of this argument is that the information disseminated about the economy rarely provides an accurate assessment. The rich are vilified in the eyes of the struggling as being heartless and greedy, and the poor are vilified in the eyes of the wealthy as being lazy or dysfunctional. There are those demanding a redistribution of wealth, but they actively refuse to acknowledge the outcome of such a foolish notion. Sure, the very wealthy enjoy elaborate and luxuriant lifestyles, but they also provide the greatest impetus to the economy at large, with the way it functions presently. Further, the very wealthy are such a small percentage of the population that even if their wealth was entirely confiscated, it would not make enough of a difference, and the difference would be very short lived. This will simply snowball through the lower economic income brackets and decrease their economic input, causing nothing but more harm. This is part of the myriad of problems with the present system.

A positive spin on the argument posits that a transformed economy would vitalize through the spectrum of the economic position. The wealthy could enjoy the fruits of their labor with a greater sense of confidence, while the working and middle classes could enjoy a more secure lifestyle thanks to a stronger system allowing them to work and earn with confidence. A modernized economy would greatly reduce the poverty percentages and minimize them since human advancement and innovation would create so much more opportunity.

Arguments surrounding the impoverished and welfare classes could be minimized since a stronger and more intelligent economy would minimize and work to eliminate limitations on innovation and business prosperity potential, so those seeking to take advantage and obtain the free ride would no longer have the system in place they commonly use to their advantage. This would be, in part, because the system would allow for so much prosperity, innovation, potential and possibility that there would be virtually no welfare system left to exploit. In turn, the fewer numbers of those seeking this exploitation would be spotlighted and subject to more intelligent scrutiny. In short, these systems would function primarily for whom they were intended, such as the severely disabled.

Issues Presently Not Addressed

There are numerous issues not addressed in today’s economic arena, or, because the problems are not solved and in fact only exacerbated, left to deteriorate without check. Some of this is obvious, such as the collapse of peaceful society within Greece, and the continual analysis that other countries, such as the USA, are not far from a similar fate. It is acknowledged today that a significant percentage of the present GDP goes directly into the debt, but the percentage is only expected to rise until it becomes a complete economic failure. Oddly, with those facts so obvious, the best they seem to accomplish is another rise in the debt ceiling and more finger pointing.

How could this possibly be viewed as a let’s wait and see/blame game sort of scenario? How does a civilized, intelligent society allow its future to be placed in such risk, particularly when the risk factors are truly manageable, if just chosen to be? How much of humanity must be destroyed before we recognize the system needs a reset button installed?

Well, there are supposedly some actions being affected to slow the decline, but none of them offer genuine hope. In fact, the primary solutions offered by virtually everyone in position to offer solutions largely sound off the same rhetoric. It is claimed here that no genuine and workable solution has been offered at any given time in recent history. The pedestrian and clichéd notions of creating jobs and balancing budgets lost their value in reality long ago. After all, we’ve had jobs for virtually all seeking them up until recent years and yet here we are in economic dire straits. Further, the word budget is not a new edition to the dictionary.

So, we’re expected to wear sad faces and idly watch our world and global society crumble into an apocalyptic state of despair, lawlessness and destitution while accepting that there just isn’t any realistic way to solve the problem. Rather than recreate the system seeking to force humanity into revelatory dark ages, people are encouraged to buy ridiculously expensive gold and hoard freeze-dried foods. People are inundated with cries of nearby hyper-inflationary dynamics forcing humanity into a potential state of anarchy rather than anyone shouting out how there is nothing doing this to us but ourselves.

Well, while The Dryer Plan cannot offer specific and concrete plans to solve the problems, it does take the bold step to state that the problem is not unsolvable and then presents points to state why. First of all, the economic and monetary systems are human creations that are not imposed on humanity by unseen and extraterrestrial forces, so the decisions are truly ours to make, for us. We simply must acknowledge that the systems in place need upgrading and an overhaul in order to function as intended, which is to assist human civilization continue forward in an active progression towards a better society for our kind.

Another issue not addressed is the economic and financial systems should not be locked into their present rules and state of function even if it comes to global destruction and the collapse of civilization. These systems were created to better humanity, and they have up to a point, not force upon it a prophesied expiration date once the systems run their effective course. We consistently improve our technology and levels of science and understanding of our environment, but only with an economic system we stubbornly refuse to improve. The simple act of going forward with the sincere desire to improve the system for the betterment of Man would bring tremendous strides towards improvement on all levels. This would simply be because once those gates are opened, the ideas and theories to create a better system would flood in.

The fundamental failures of the present systems are viewed as the 800 lb gorilla everyone chooses to ignore, but once someone simply points at it and says, “Look at that,” the possibilities will appear in droves. When the mere acknowledgement of the fact (yes, fact) that the economic, financial and monetary systems are ready for and require changes occurs, the proposals for change will surely be overwhelming. Thus, because the option for improvement will actually be on the table, it will have to be recognized. Something is sure to be done to some extent because nothing will no longer be acceptable.

One shiny example of how poorly run the present-day system is this: Many like to point fingers at the top ten percent and claim their greed and corruption is the cause of so much fault. Yet, the bottom rung of that top ten percent, while living well and confident, must struggle continually in order to maintain what they’ve gained. The work days are long with very few days off, and the earnings placing these people into this demographic are largely based on gross income. Once expenses and the various bills are paid, the residual profits are pale by comparison. So, while these people are doing well, they must do constantly and diligently in order to maintain. They are not the problem.

There is nothing wrong with working hard and, in fact, there’s a lot right with it. There’s so much more satisfaction gained when one’s earnings are stained with the sweat from one’s brow, but if this is the state of affairs for number ten in the top ten percent, what do we have to say for the remaining ninety percent? The top ten to twenty percent within the remaining ninety struggles constantly but for substantially less and faces concerns that dynamics in the economy could force everything they’ve struggled to attain and retain to fail and even disappear. We know this because it happens a lot, and herein lays the problem. Much of that was mentioned above, but it bears repeating because exposing the flaws within this is part of the crux of The Dryer Plan.

As for the bottom half of the earners, life within the present system offers very little incentive to drive forward, resulting in a large class vying for shortcuts and availability of welfare subsidies. More freebies are desired, at best. Lower costs are demanded even at the risk of the supplier of the goods and services. Further, there are those who put forth an intense amount of effort to get over on the system and take it for all it is worth. Exacerbating the problem is that there are so many within this demographic that weeding through them is so costly that just passing them through is easier. That in itself only serves to feed the monster.

There are hoards of people sucking off the welfare system, taking advantage of virtually every free entity within it. They do so because the other option, which is working for what’s earned through honest means, offers what’s perceived as so much less, and what is offered is almost always at risk. Basically, there’s so much motivation to just scam for it and very little to work for it. This snowballs into a lumbering mess, particularly when the economic system is weak because the more people relying on the government systems there are, the easier it is to take advantage of. But on the dark side, those genuinely relying on these systems are offered less and promised less than that. This is because those who are loathing to redistribution of wealth (a sound philosophy) seem quite open for the redistribution of debt through reduced benefits and trimmed entitlements. But the obvious answer to the situation is the minimization of a population percentage relying on these programs and a marked accentuation of availability to earn.

So, rather than the top ten to twenty percent of all earners being the only ones who are living well, this population percentage should be so much higher. People working full time and doing a job worthy of creating and therefore worthy of effective pay should be making enough to live confidently and provide effective contribution to the economy at large. Those genuinely feeling the discomfort and impoverishment should be those without the fortitude to seek a better means and those failing to demonstrate the ability to exercise an appropriate work ethic. But we should not have a workforce that only recognizes genuine success and confidence in life to those who net six figures and more annually, because there are way too many good, honest jobs that would never pay such wages in the present-day anemic system.

People who work an entry-level part-time position do not begrudge the fact that they do not make the incomes of the wealthy unless they’ve been duped by some political agenda. But people working honest trades and jobs required by the society and economy at large shouldn’t be operating just above the poverty line. The system of today, however, demands business leaders and owners retain the vast majority of income and disseminate a small percentage to those who worked to achieve the possibility, mainly because offering more places them and their businesses at increased risk. This is because the theory is that there’s only so much money to go around, for one thing, and that the perception is only the elite should earn discretionary income. This creates a shaky and anemic economy right from this fundamental yet flawed position because the vast majority of people offer the most potential to economic strength. Anything is better for the most people when the most people are in position to make it better.

Potential Positives in a Revitalized and Modernized System

A stronger and more promising society with a more intelligent economic system would seek greater advancement and innovation, particularly when trite limitations are pushed out of the way. Further, such a society would be motivated to take active stances against efforts to quell its function rather than accept them as the common norm. In the present system, factors are used to fuel the polarization of the two primary political factions on the left and right in America and their belief systems, regardless of how extreme. In America, the pundits on one side claim the powerful and wealthy use the present system for their own gains and that the common folk are being taken advantage of by evil corporations and big oil. How curious it is to view that most of those who spew this rhetoric are millionaires themselves. Then, the other end of the spectrum argue that it’s the wealthy and economically powerful who stimulates the economy the most and create the most jobs as well as spur the most innovation. How curious it is, then, to view a world where the vast majority of humanity squanders in poverty and the so-called wealthiest nation in the world owes more than it is worth and spends almost twice what it brings in while a significant percentage of its population relies on subsidized assistance from the government that is financially destitute.

There are no potential positives to recognize in those scenarios. With a revitalized and more intelligent (and therefore straightforward and honest) economic and monetary system, the function of the system would encourage industry and innovation while encouraging financial health within the populace. A populace stronger and more confident in their economic standing would offer tremendous and trustworthy stimulus to an already robust economy.

We know businesses and industries as well as innovators and inventors do better when their goods and services are offered to a broader customer base. Would the cell phone of today be what it is if it was only a luxury offered to the millionaires and higher? Sure, there are luxuries in communication they enjoy beyond that of the average citizen, but the industry benefits from offering more to the masses. Clearly, this is a positive to be accentuated, and that could be done if the masses had the chance to earn more to spend. The average citizen will never own a Lamborghini or Bugatti, but the transportation industry benefits by offering affordable vehicles to the public at large, and in ways beyond just selling affordable vehicles. They also benefit by providing transportation for those seeking economic improvements and ways to attain greater incomes so they can, some sunny day, by a better vehicle.

In these examples there are positions clearly indicating the world does better when more of its honest and ethical people do better. If the present-day economic and financial systems worked to function in a vibrant and robust manner rather than like some bizarre contest that only a select few are allowed to win, the world would obviously be a better place.

Within The Dryer Plan, it is claimed this situation is obvious. So, the question of why it does not operate in such a fashion is posed. Some would claim the desire for more motivates people to do better, but this philosophy runs with poor mileage. Not everyone desires to be a business mogul or high-end entertainer or have a position requiring decades of expensive education. Some honest, ethical and morally responsible people would like to be mechanics, truck drivers, home builders, construction workers, teachers, firefighters, law enforcement officers, and so forth. There is no reasonably intelligent excuse to offer defending the theory that these people must endlessly struggle to provide for their families and maintain a safe home. They know they’ll never live in the lap of luxury, but they would benefit their communities more if they could do more to contribute to the local economy. They would benefit their communities by being able to buy more of what they need and then buy some niceties now and then without feeling frightened they’re going to go broke or suffer hardship if they order the occasional pizza or enjoy a family night at the movies. How does an economy benefit when the working class, after work, is offered mainly the lifestyle of just being quiet and holding still?

Sure, many enjoy the movies and a pizza, but so many good people who go to work every day and maintain a responsible lifestyle are too constricted by the economies of today. It simply seems smarter to allow a greater rather than smaller percentage to enjoy life reasonably and responsibly because the economy would thrive that much more. No, the average dentist doesn’t need to buy a yacht, but the opportunity to go on more cruises would benefit more than just them.

Further, the opportunity for the average population to attain a reasonable retirement and contribute to the economy would benefit the economy. So, the theory that more than just the top small percentage being able to achieve financial stability makes more sense. This allows much less reliability on the government to offer entitlements that otherwise could be earned in the private sector, reducing government costs and then creating a more effective government running on fewer expenses. Today, an enormous percentage of people rely on government programs when the more intelligent choice would have an infinitesimal percentage relying on them. This will only happen when more money is earned by more people, and that will only happen when the percentage of effective earners climbs.

Any Conspiracy Theories?

Unfortunately, yes. But the theory is simple. If any of what’s been described in this thesis is even close to the truth, in that the economic and monetary systems are systems of humanity controlled and operated by humanity, and are not independent entities operating on their own volition, then it is fair to assume these systems are being used to control the population and not the economy at large. So, it is fair to suspect the notion that the economy is not something spiraling out of control, despite the claims. It is fair to assume the severe debt claimed to be so high simply is not. How easy would it be for those pulling these strings to claim such crises when such crises are only used for the purpose of controlling the people? They claim the debt and deficits are something the people must assume over the next several generations, yet those in power continue on unchecked. They claim to spend and spend, and they claim to be two separate political entities warring with each other to stop it, for the sake of the people and the country, and even the world. They tell us this ship is sinking, that this train is going off the rails, and the security of our future is at risk, yet there they go, continuing on with their same modus operandi.

Perhaps if the theory is posed that they’re simply lying to us and that we’re done accepting the insanity, then maybe something might change. But if we continue to cry under our beds while they drive the future of humanity off a cliff and claim they don’t know what to do to stop it, they’ll simply continue on until they’ve attained whatever goals they seek.

While this is daring, it is fair to claim the debt does not really exist and that the economic and monetary systems are not out of control, but very much in control; they’re simply being used to implement some conspiracy to place the world’s populace under the increasingly heavy thumb of those in power.

Some would say this is a kooky theory, but consider this: If the situation is just as claimed, and the systems we employ to drive the proverbial engine of society are out of control, isn’t that even worse, even dumber, than some insidious plan by megalomaniacs to control the world? Because we are a species capable of viewing other planets and microscopic particles as small as atoms, and we can create inventions such as global communications and spacecraft, then how could we be so brain damaged that we cannot control a creation like the economy? Using these systems to control the populace fits in with common human modus operandi, but losing complete control of such global systems such as the economy and monetary systems do not.

The debts, deficits, and economic crises make no sense, and it is time the people point that out.

In Summary

The Dryer Plan does not demand any redistribution of wealth, but more wealth to distribute to those earning it. Logically, this reduces the unfair and nonsensical redistribution of wealth and minimizes redistribution of debt. It also allows the government to retain the wealth it receives through taxation because the tax base won’t be feeding the taxed. That, simply put, eliminates deficits and debt.

If The Dryer Plan could be reduced to a single sentence, it would be this- The economical, financial and monetary systems should function reliably for the majority of the honest, hardworking and contributing labor force, not just the top small minority.

http://money.howstuffworks.com/how-much-money-is-in-the-world.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply

http://www.correntewire.com/how_much_money_is_there_in_the_world

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/07/increasingly-crackpot-solutions-debt-ceiling/39759/


People also view

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *