← Back to the Social Clinic TOC

Current and Potential Global Economic Plans–The Corporate Consortium

The Corporate Consortium—Its Make-up, Power, Wealth, and Plans:

Hypotheses Regarding Current and Potential Global Geo-Political-Economic Plans/Scenarios

The world is critically ill—multiple horrific wars, widespread terrorism, obscene income inequality, economic instability, declining civility, increasing fascism, environmental degradation, climate disruption, potential World War III, potential nuclear holocaust, and now COVID19 and rapidly developing global economic collapse. In association, the souls and health of Humanity have been suffering.

What has been going on in the world, geo-politically and economically, over the past few decades? How did this mess (even before COVID) come about? What do we imagine could happen in the months and years ahead? What kinds of global economic plans/scenarios could play out? Most importantly, what kind of a plan could rescue Humanity and the Earth itself from this profound critical illness?

In this essay 6 current or potential Global Economic Plans/Scenarios are imagined and presented. Each represents only a hypothesis, regarding what has been going on and what could develop in the future. As with any hypothesis, each of these hypotheses needs to be scrutinized, tested and discussed in order to determine how accurately each reflects truth. Indeed, the purpose of this essay is to encourage much-needed critical analysis and discussion of what has been going on and what might occur in the future.

For a quicker read, focus on Plans 1, 4, and 6 and skip the rest. Plan 4 is the Corporate Consortium Plan that may be on the immediate horizon (both during and in the wake of the COVID epidemic). Plan 6 is the author’s preferred plan. Plan 1 is what has been going on for the past several decades. Here are the 6 plans/scenarios:

  1. A Uni-Polar Global Corporate Capitalist Economy, led by a USA-dominated Consortium of Transnational (Supranational) Corporate Ultra-Capitalists.
  2. A Multi-Polar, More Inclusive, More Equitable, Kinder Global Corporate Capitalist Economy, led by China, Russia, and Partners.
  3. A Uni-Polar Global Capitalist Economy “with Chinese characteristics,” dominated and led by China.
  4. A Multi-Polar Global Corporate Capitalist Economy, Controlled by a New Expanded Consortium of Transnational (Supranational) Corporate Ultra-Capitalists.
  5. A Bi-Polar, Split Global Capitalist Economy—A Split Global Economy, with “the West” (primarily the USA) pitting itself against a China-led Eurasian-African Economy.
  6. A Collaborative International Network of Unique, Creative, Self-Determined, Self-Reliant, Democratic National Public Economies

The first plan is the one that has appeared to be in place for most of the past 70 years and is currently in rapid decline. The second is a kinder, multi-polar version of the first. The third is a mixed version of the first and second, but with “Chinese characteristics” and Chinese domination (as opposed to US characteristics and domination). The fourth scenario, which may currently be in process, is worse than the first three, because it would represent a global economy that is completely and undemocratically controlled by a New Expanded Consortium of Transnational (Supranatural) Corporate Ultra-Capitalists. The fifth, which would lead to continuous chaos and wars, is what could transpire if the USA refuses to give up its domination of the global economy. The sixth plan is the one promoted by this essay—the Public Economy economic model.

This essay explains each of the first five Plans/Scenarios and why they are seriously problematic (particularly Plans 1, 4, and 5) and offers the sixth plan for consideration as a positive, healthy, peaceful, and democratic alternative to the other five plans.

Plan 6 is important because it is time to stop focusing only on what is wrong with capitalism and start focusing on what, exactly, could replace capitalism as the world’s operative economic model. Capitalism will continue to reign until it is challenged by a specific alternative economic model that receives enthusiastic and widespread public support, globally. If protests take the form of effectively articulating exactly what the protesters are for (e.g. replacement of capitalism with Public Economy models), and if millions of people across the globe participate in such protests, then a peaceful transition from capitalism to a healthy economic model can occur.

(Note to readers: Those with limited time or patience might want to skip the discussions of Plans 1-5 and go straight to Plan 6, which is this essay’s recommended response to the world’s current illness.)

1. A Uni-Polar Global Corporate Capitalist Economy, led by a USA-dominated Consortium of Transnational (Supranational) Corporate Ultra-Capitalists.

The following understanding of this plan is offered for scrutiny and discussion:

For the past 70 years the USA has dominated the global economy. Western Europe and Japan have played supportive roles and have benefitted from complying with US wishes. Israel has played a major role behind the scenes.

The goal of those behind this USA-dominated geo-political, economic, and cultural arrangement has been to create and maintain tight control over a uni-polar global corporate capitalist economy so that USA-based transnational corporations (and like-minded transnational corporations based in other countries) can freely and profitably exploit natural and human resources throughout the world. The USA has worked behind the scenes in Western Europe (e.g. France, UK, Germany, and other EU members) and in other wealthy allied countries to ensure that obedient pro-American, pro-capitalist leaders ascend to positions of power in those countries. The USA has also repeatedly orchestrated the placement of obedient pro-USA “puppet” regimes, including dictators and strongmen, in positions of power in countries throughout the less wealthy countries of the world, to ensure protection and continuation of transnational corporate activities in those countries. When anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, pro-socialist movements have developed, those movements have been demonized and crushed, and when necessary the USA has orchestrated regime change, including regime change via deliberate creation of chaos (including creation of “false flag” events), terrorism, economic strangulation, and conventional and hybrid warfare.

USA domination of the global economy has been facilitated by designation of the US dollar as the global reserve currency. This has given the USA enormous and unfair advantage, including the ability to “print money” for use in the global economy, without backing and with impunity. USA domination has been furthered by US control over the IMF, World Bank, WTO, Bank of International Settlements, G7, G20, Group of 30, Trilateral Commission, and other transnational institutions and organizations. The USA has further protected its uni-polar control by establishing more than 800 military bases throughout the world, deploying Special Operations Command (SOCOM) troops in 147 countries, and dominating and expanding NATO.

In addition to using military might and economic warfare to maintain and expand control, the USA has developed and directed an elaborate and effective pro-USA, pro-capitalist public relations/propaganda network—including corporate media, think tanks, and Councils (e.g. the Atlantic Council and the Council on Foreign Relations)—to promulgate the supremacist notion of American exceptionalism and indispensability, including the claim that the USA is a nation of superior kindness, generosity, competence, values, and leadership—none of which is true.

This geo-political/economic arrangement has created great wealth for the USA and its closest allies, while causing great suffering for the vast majority of the world’s population. The goal was to create a prosperous “American Century.” That goal has largely been met (at least for the wealthiest 1%), and many of the 1% (at least in the USA) would like to see the American Century continue indefinitely.

Who created this USA-Dominated Uni-Polar Global Corporate Capitalist Economy? How does this system work, and how is it maintained? The following understanding is offered for scrutiny and discussion:

It has taken a well-coordinated team of elite players and organizations to achieve and maintain this system. Most importantly, all of the leading team members have been absolutely committed to the ideological notion that Global Capitalism is the best economic model for all of Humanity and that the USA is the most competent and responsible country to lead the global economy and maintain global stability. This team, which, for purposes of discussion, we will refer to as a Consortium of Transnational Corporate Capitalists (CTCC, or the “Consortium” for short), has consisted of the following members/components:

Geo-Political Strategists: Among the most powerful members of the “Consortium” are its key geo-political advisors. The greatest single geo-political mastermind behind the strategies and actions of the Consortium has been Henry Kissinger. The late Zbigniew Brzezinski also played a major role. The Consortium has been highly dependent on the geo-political knowledge, advice, and manipulative skills of these two men, particularly Kissinger, who continues to provide advice to this day.

Asset Management Firms and other Transnational Financial Institutions: As has been explained, by Peter Phillips in his excellent recent book, Giants: the Global Power Elite1, extremely powerful roles have been played by the following transnational financial institutions, all of which have been dominated by the USA: Global Asset Management Firms (e.g. BlackRock); Global Investment Banks (e.g. JP Morgan); Multinational Consultancy Groups (e.g. Woods Group); Central Banks (e.g. the FED, central banks in Europe, the World Bank, the Bank for International Settlements), and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Of the above, the Asset Management Firms have been the most powerful. As documented by Phillips, the 17 largest Asset Management Firms manage more than US$41 trillion that millionaires, billionaires, and corporations have given to them to invest for further profit. In other words, these firms decide how and where US$41 trillion is going to be invested in the global economy. For comparison, the annual budget of the US government is US$3.9 trillion. The leaders of the US government decide how to allocate $3.9 trillion each year, while the directors of the 17 largest Asset Management Firms have $41 trillion to invest; and the latter invest only in profit-making activities (which increases the $41 trillion of wealth), while the US government must spend money on non-profitable services (e.g. education, health, welfare, and defense) and pays private corporations to provide products (e.g. weapons manufacturers) and many of the services (e.g. building of infrastructure). The profitable Asset Management Firms and the profitable Corporations they serve become increasingly wealthy, while the non-profitable US government increasingly goes into debt (especially when it gives tax cuts to the already wealthy).

CEOs of Transnational Corporations: The world’s giant corporations extract natural resources, make products, and generate the profits that are then invested by the Asset Management Firms. The geo-political strategists help create and protect opportunities for these corporations to freely make these profits, globally. The CEOs of transnational Corporations sit on the Boards of Asset Management Firms, international policy bodies, and the other powerful components of the Consortium of Transnational Corporate Capitalists (CTCC).

Geo-political and Economic Think Tanks: Neo-Conservative think tanks (e.g. Brookings Institute, Project for the New American Century); Neo-Liberal think tanks (e.g. Center for a New American Security); and Pro-American, pro-Capitalist Academics (e.g. University of Chicago Economists and foreign policy experts at the JFK School of Government) have provided additional geo-political, economic, and military/security advice to other members of the Consortium, while also serving a Public Relations and Propaganda role by “researching” and creating narratives that support the Consortium’s interests, ideology, and plans. Corporate media play a major role in “educating” the public about these narratives

Others Planners/Advisors/Facilitators: Many global organizations have been established to advise the Consortium and facilitate implementation of global capitalist plans—the Group of Thirty, Atlantic Council, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group, Council on Foreign Relations, Business Roundtable, WTO, etc. These groups meet regularly (e.g. the World Economic Forum) to develop and explain Consortium plans and to direct governments (mostly western governments) to implement them. The Military/Industrial/Intelligence/Security Complex—e.g. the Pentagon, the Intelligence Community, National Security Advisors, weapons manufacturers, and lobbying groups (most notably AIPAC) also provide the Consortium with specific advice, regarding implementation, maintenance, and protection of Consortium plans and interests.

Enablers, Executioners, and Enforcers: The following people and entities further enable, execute, and/or enforce the wishes of the most powerful leaders of the Consortium: the US President, US Congress, US State Department, CIA, other US Intelligence Agencies, Pentagon, USAID, Pro-American Presidents/Prime Ministers of other countries, NATO, Pro-American/pro-capitalist NGOs (e.g. National Endowment for Democracy, Soros Foundation), ultra-wealthy families (e.g. Rockefellers); and Corporate Media (e.g. NYT, Washington Post, CNN, Hollywood). In addition, the US Armed Forces protect the Consortium’s interests, as does a network of private military and security companies (e.g. Blackwater), that have been developed to more secretly protect the interests of the Consortium. Other more clandestine executioners, and enforcers include mercenary “Freedom Fighters,” terrorist groups (e.g. Al Qaeda and ISIS—yes, these were created, funded, armed, and have been directed by the USA), the Mafia, and Drug Cartels (as exemplified by the role of drug cartels in the Reagan-Bush Iran-Contra affair.)

Figure X (which may be found at the end of this essay) depicts the members of the Consortium sitting around a board room table, as they discuss the agenda displayed on the table. The most powerful members of the Consortium, in terms of setting the agendas and making specific plans are the Geopolitical strategists (particularly Kissinger, historically) and the financial institutions (particularly the Asset Management Firms and the Investment Banks). They sit at the head of the table. The next most powerful members are seated elsewhere around the table. Those sitting farther away from the table (including the US President and Congress) primarily play roles of enabling, executing, or enforcing the plans made by those sitting closest to the table.

Every four years, the leaders of the Consortium decide whom they prefer to have in the White House. They then elevate and support that person and enlist the Corporate Media to ensure his/her election. They then make sure that the President of the USA effectively executes the plans of the Consortium. The Corporate Media not only promote the Consortium’s choices for US President and Congress, the Media also slant the news to promote the Consortium’s desired “narratives,” which portray the USA as the “good guys” who are protecting the world from the “bad guys.” The leaders of the Consortium decide who the “enemies” are and instruct the Media to demonize those individuals or countries. In these ways, the corporate media serve as a major propaganda arm of the Consortium.

The FED, IMF, World Bank, other central banks, and the WTO enable and execute the economic plans of the Consortium, including plans for economic de-stabilization and economic warfare (e.g. sanctions), as well as global investments the Consortium would like to make. The Military is responsible for conventional warfare, when needed. But, often, the “dirty work” that is needed to carry out the agenda of the Consortium is done by a clandestine network of CIA operatives, mercenaries, terrorists, mafia members, and drug cartels who loosely and secretly collaborate to raise money for and actually execute Consortium plans (e.g. the Iran-Contra affair). Pro-USA, pro-capitalist NGOs (funded by the USA and/or Consortium members) play roles in destabilization and regime change in “uncooperative” nations, as well as promotion of desirable leaders.

Although many might dismiss the above described “Consortium” as a “conspiracy theory,” it is not. As Peter Phillips has carefully documented, this network of people and institutions actually exists, and its members actually collaborate (a more accurate word would be “collude”). The members mentioned above actually meet regularly to discuss the agenda outlined on the table. Most notable are the annual meetings of the Trilateral Commission and the Group of Thirty. As Peter Phillips has documented, the Trilateral Commission has over 400 members (including 55 executive committee members) from all countries of the world, except Russia, who specifically represent the same groups mentioned above (directors of financial institutions, CEOs of transnational corporations, and other leaders in the worlds of politics, business, and academics). And, as depicted in Figure X, the most powerful members of the Trilateral Commission are the geo-political strategists, the Directors of Asset Management Firms, and the Global Investment Banks. The Group of Thirty consists of the same types of powerful individuals. These same individuals also meet at the annual Davos World Economic Forum and meetings like the G-20, G7 meetings, which are designed primarily to discuss how the presidents/prime ministers of various countries are to execute plans made by the Consortium.

The Consortium is not a democratic network. Despite the fact that this Consortium controls the global economy and associated geo-political events, none of its most powerful members is elected to serve in this capacity. Most US citizens have no idea that such a Consortium exists, much less who its members are, how powerful it is, and how much money it has at its disposal (much of it deposited in secret accounts in off-shore tax-free havens in places like the Cayman Islands and the City of London). They have little awareness of how peripheral the role of the US President is, at least at the level of planning. As Figure X depicts, the American people are barely even in the room and have no real representation at the table. Most of the world’s people have absolutely no access to the room.

Over the past few years it has become increasingly apparent to the Consortium’s shrewdest architects (like Kissinger) that this current USA-dominated uni-polar model of global capitalism is unsustainable, has run its course, and needs to be modified. Kissinger senses that the “American Century” is over and that an “Asian Century” is dawning and inevitable. Kissinger is ready for transition from a uni-polar to a multi-polar global capitalist economy. Unfortunately, Kissinger’s plan is probably Plan 4, rather than Plan 2, and he certainly does not want Plan 6. The extent to which other powerful members of the current Consortium will be willing to allow development of a multi-polar global economy remains to be seen. Some members (a minority) of the Consortium’s power structure will likely want to fight to the bitter end to preserve the current USA-dominated uni-polar model (Plan 1), and will even be willing to risk World War III and potential nuclear holocaust to do so. Other wiser members of the power structure, like diabolical Kissinger, recognize the realistic and pragmatic need for change. All of those in the Consortium’s power structure, though, will insist upon capitalism as the predominant economic model and will steadfastly fight and prevent alternative non-capitalist economic models.

2. A Multi-Polar, More Inclusive, More Equitable Global Capitalist Economy, led by China and Partners

The following understanding of this plan is offered for scrutiny and discussion:

Over the past 3 decades, and particularly over the past decade, China has taken the lead in developing a new multi-polar global capitalist economy, as a replacement for the USA-dominated uni-polar “world order.” This effort is exemplified by the “New Silk Road” Projects and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Russia and Iran (to a lesser extent) have been partnering with China in this effort, and many other countries are feeling tempted to join (such as Pakistan and some European countries). This group of nations is in the process of rejecting the US-dominated uni-polar model, rejecting the US dollar as the global reserve currency, and developing a new multi-polar global capitalist economy.

This new global economy will still be a capitalist economy, but will, potentially, have new characteristics: a mixture of state capitalism and private corporate capitalism (at least in some countries, as seen most notably within China itself); a markedly diminished role for the US government; more evenly distributed, multi-polar leadership (more inclusive and equitable participation); trade in currencies that do not give excessive advantage to any one nation; more peaceful collaboration between nations; less imperialism and less colonialism; less debt trapping; and more respect for the sovereignty of nations.

The US will be welcome to participate in this new global capitalist economy, but only as a cooperating co-equal, not as a domineering power. Countries within this global economy will likely vary, regarding the extent to which they choose to provide a “Scandinavian style” social safety net for their citizens—such as a universal Public Health Care and other public services.

Although this potential multi-polar model, realistically, will likely be dominated by China, the hope would be that China (with Russian support) would promote more inclusion, more fairness, and more equitable participation for other countries than we have seen with the current exploitative USA dominated uni-polar model. The hope, too, would be that China and Russia (being the leaders of this new model) would discourage the imperialism, colonialism, predatory exploitation, warring, regime changes, and racism that the US has exhibited so floridly over the past 70 years (and throughout its history).

It remains to be seen, however, the extent to which this new model, particularly its leaders (China and to a lesser extent Russia), would truly be committed to the above improvements (i.e. more inclusion, more fairness, less exploitation, etc.) and would bring them about.

Although this multi-polar, more inclusive, more equitable model of global capitalism could represent a marked improvement over the current uni-polar model, it still represents a capitalist model and, therefore, perpetuates the serious problems associated with capitalism. Those problems may be lessened in severity under this new model, but are not likely to be lessened sufficiently, particularly regarding climate concerns.

3. A Uni-Polar Global Capitalist Economy “with Chinese characteristics,” dominated and led by China.

The following understanding of this plan is offered for scrutiny and discussion:

Although China is probably committed to Plan 2, it is possible that China, while giving the impression that it is committed to Plan 2 (more inclusion, more fairness, more equitable participation, and less imperialism, colonialism, exploitation, warring, regime changes, and racism), will, instead, seek to create a uni-polar global capitalist economy that is thoroughly dominated by China—a version of Plan 1, but with “Chinese characteristics” and Chinese domination (as opposed to US domination). China has certainly developed the wealth, the power, and the know-how to do so.

At this point it is important to emphasize that China, under the leadership of Xi Jing Ping (following in the footsteps of Deng Xiao Ping), has clearly chosen a capitalist economic model. China’s current model may be a mixture of “state capitalism” and “private sector capitalism,” but it is still capitalism—as evidenced, for example, by the extensive amount of private sector entrepreneurship, the obscene income inequality that has been permitted (many millionaires and billionaires in China), the callous and widespread exploitation of ordinary workers, and a belief in monetary incentive, “trickle down” theory, and other tenets of capitalism. Also disturbing is the absurd extent to which urbanization (including massive proliferation of sterile, ugly, de-humanizing high rise apartments) has occurred in China, and the growing extent to which state surveillance is being implemented in China. China has certainly not chosen a Public Economy model—an altruistic model that is described in detail in the discussion of Plan 6 (see below). The Public Economy model does not produce billionaires, does not exploit workers, and does not believe in “monetary incentives,” or the necessity of “competition,” or the need for private enterprise. Chinese capitalism may be wiser and kinder than the grotesque capitalism practiced by the USA, but it is still capitalism, and it is undemocratic.

For the above reasons, it seems wise to view China’s current leadership (Xi Jing Ping, et al) with a certain amount of skepticism, regarding their commitment to egalitarianism and kindness. It is appropriate to apply this skepticism when thinking about both Plan 2 and Plan 3.

4. A Multi-Polar Global Corporate Capitalist Economy, Controlled by a New Expanded Consortium of Totalitarian Transnational (Supranational) Corporate Ultra-Capitalists:

The following understanding of this plan is offered for scrutiny and discussion:

Although it is quite possible that Plan 2—a kinder, fairer, more inclusive multi-polar model of global capitalism— is what is developing (under the leadership of China and Russia), there is no assurance that this is, indeed, what is happening. It is possible that the world is currently “being prepared” for a much more sinister form of global corporate capitalism (with considerable and unfortunate advice coming from Kissinger)—namely, a multi-polar global capitalist economy that will be completely controlled by and protected by a small multi-national group of ultra-powerful transnational (supranational) corporate capitalists who are quite totalitarian in mind-set—i.e. by a New Expanded, even more powerful Consortium than the one described earlier (Plan 1). In other words, it is possible that the relatively benign-appearing multi-polar model discussed earlier (Plan 2) is not going to eventuate in a more inclusive, more fair, more democratic global capitalist economy, but, instead, will soon be followed by a takeover of the entire global economy by an New Expanded Consortium of collaborating ultra-powerful transnational corporate capitalists (e.g. powerful Chinese, Russian, Japanese, Indian, Korean, European, American, and Canadian ultra-capitalists) who are committed to serving and protecting each other’s opportunities to accumulate wealth and power, and who care little about the citizens of their native countries (i.e. are supranational, in that they care little about their home nations).

It is possible that, currently, ultra-powerful capitalists (billionaires) in China, Russia, Japan, India, the USA, Western Europe, and to a lesser extent in other countries, are already banding together and collaboratively preparing for a transition from the old, out-of-date, no longer sustainable, too-much-exposed, USA-dominated uni-polar global capitalist economy (Plan 1) to a new global corporate capitalist economy that will be completely dominated and co-equally controlled by this New Expanded group of powerful multi-national ultra-capitalists (Plan 4). This New Expanded Consortium that would control the global economy would be an expanded, multi-polar (now including ultra-capitalists from Russia and China), even more transnational and supranational version of the original USA-dominated Consortium (Plan 1) discussed earlier.

The following scenario can be imagined:

Leaders of the current USA-dominated Consortium (described earlier, in Plan 1) have recently recognized (thanks to Mr. Kissinger) that the days of their USA-dominated unipolar model are numbered and that their future (their opportunity to continue to enjoy extreme wealth and power) lies primarily in economic development and control of Asia/Eurasia, with North American markets no longer being more than modestly needed as a source of wealth.  Ultra-wealthy multinational corporate capitalists from the USA, China, Russia, India, Japan, Korea, Europe, Canada, and other countries, along with their associated (expanded and more inclusive) global financial institutions and geo-political accomplices, are already in the process of creating a new Global Corporate Capitalist Economy that is run by their New Expanded Consortium of Multinational Corporate Capitalists and associated financial institutions.

This New Expanded Consortium of Giant Multinational Corporations/Global Financial Institutions, guided by geo-political strategists like Kissinger, will soon declare that the “good times” that average Americans have been enjoying for the past 70 years (primarily during the 50s, 60s, and 70s) are now over and that “austerity” is now necessary for the USA (except for the super-rich, of course).  In other words, America will be “thrown under the bus” and will likely be turned into a version of present day Greece.

This New Expanded Consortium will soon declare that, because the world has become such a dangerous mess (so many wars, so much terrorism, so much climate disruption, so much suffering, so many refugees, and so much economic instability, so much debt, so much incompetence, the emergence of so many dangerous demagogues in many countries—and, now, the COVID epidemic), “it has become necessary” for their New Consortium to heroically step in to restore order and save the world from WWIII, nuclear holocaust, COVID, and total global economic collapse.  Suddenly, thanks to the New Consortium’s heroic intervention, COVID will be brought under control, the wars and terrorism (which certain members of the Consortium deliberately created and the other members deliberately tolerated) will cease, a new global reserve currency will be established, and “in fairness” the next 70 years will favor the peoples of Asia/Eurasia, while the ordinary people of North America (and western Europe) will be asked to accept “overdue austerity.”  The austerity will be quite harsh.  The New Consortium will throw Americans “under the bus,” because the New Consortium has concluded that it can now thrive wonderfully well without the huge North American market. The Asian and Eurasian market is where profit-making opportunities will be greatest.

Members of the New Consortium, of course, will be able to continue their wealthy existence (as supranationals) wherever they please, living in any one of their homes on multiple continents.  Their lives will not change, except to become even wealthier, more privileged, more powerful, and more international.  Corporate capitalists from the USA, China, Russia, Japan, Korea (S. Korea for sure, but potentially N. Korea as well), Europe, and India (and a few from Eurasian countries) will enjoy fraternizing in greater luxury than ever before.

Much of the blame for “the need for the New Consortium to save the world” and the “need to impose austerity on the USA” will be placed on Trump and COVID.  At a time of their choosing (quite soon), the New Consortium will declare that Trump’s incompetence, ignorance, economic mis-management, boorishness, incivility, and bellicosity—and now COVID and its effect on the global economy—have become so threatening that the New Consortium feels a responsibility to step in to restore order, civility, and economic stability, and even prevent a nuclear holocaust. The New Consortium will justify their decisions on a “humanitarian” basis—on the basis of their felt “responsibility to protect (R2P)”.  The New Consortium will declare that the USA will need to be punished, to at least some degree, for the de-stabilizing tariffs and economic sanctions implemented by the Trump administration.  The New Consortium will declare that the USA, under Trump, has been responsible for terrorism, unnecessary wars, and war crimes—for which it must be punished.  All of this will be said to justify punishment of the USA (i.e. the American people) with austerity, at the very least.  “Besides,” it will be argued (and reasonably so), “the USA has had its turn to enjoy prosperity; now it is only fair for the people in Asia/Eurasia to have their turn to enjoy prosperity.”

The New Consortium will, of course, leave out the fact that its members, long before Trump, were responsible for creating the terrorism, wars, enormous debt, and economic instability in the first place—with the USA and European members taking the lead, while the Asian members played their role of remaining silent and focusing on preparatory economic development in Asia/Eurasia, in anticipation of playing key roles in the New Consortium.

Narratives spun by the New Consortium will, of course, also leave out the fact that the original Consortium deliberately arranged for Trump to become President, because they knew he would be the perfect “patsy” for eventual blame. Think about it—there is no way Trump could have become President without American members of the Consortium (the usual Neocons/Neoliberals and their powerful networks, including corporate media) seeing to it that Trump received the absurdly excessive media attention he received during his campaign for the Republican nomination. Despite their feigned protestations, the Consortium (at least some of its most powerful members) wanted Trump to become president.  He was their choice, because he was their chosen eventual patsy.  He would be the “preparer.” Trump may or may not realize that he is their patsy.  He probably does not.

So, at some point, when the time seems right to them, and now seems to be the right time (because of COVID) the New Consortium will step in to heroically save the world from COVID, WWIII, nuclear holocaust, terrorism, economic collapse, and even climate disruption.  Trump will be sacrificed, as planned all along.  The American people will also be sacrificed, as planned all along.  Austerity will become the operative theme in the USA.  Health care, education, and other public services will suffer—because they are simply “unaffordable,” due to the “new economic realities,” including enormous US and international debt, which the heartless Consortium created in the first place (though, of course, they will try to keep this from being known).  People in the USA will become poorer, while ordinary people in parts of Asia/Eurasia will enjoy a modest middle class amount of controlled prosperity.

[Note: In 1992 Leonard Cohen wrote a powerful song entitled, “Democracy is coming to the USA.” Unfortunately, true Democracy has never come to the USA. If Leonard were to write a song in 2019, it might be entitled, “Austerity is coming to the USA.]

This New Expanded Consortium-controlled global capitalist economy will be even more powerful, more malignant than the USA-dominated Uni-Polar Global Economy. It will be even more uncaring, undemocratic, surveillance-controlled, and totalitarian. It will have the capacity to crush any and all opposition and will not hesitate to ruthlessly do so. It will be tantamount to a Corporate Dictatorship, Corporate Totalitarianism, or Corporate Fascism. Information will become increasingly controlled. Protests will be ruthlessly suppressed.  True dialogue and critical thinking will be replaced with “shaming” those who do not parrot the official narrative. Order will be maintained via New Consortium-controlled fascism. And, of course, the perpetrators of all of this, the New Consortium members, will go scot free, not to be held accountable in any way for past or future atrocities.

Henry Kissinger has already demonstrated, many times over (in Chile and Cambodia, e.g.), how the Consortium can “disappear” and otherwise kill those who stand in the way of the Consortium’s plans. Kissinger, one of the greatest criminals in international history, is still advising members of the old and New Consortium. He has recently made advisory trips to China and Russia.

It is unclear whether the Chinese and Russian members of the New Expanded Consortium specifically include Xi Jing Ping and Putin. Those two may or may not be in on this new plan of the New Consortium. They probably are. If they are not, they will be sacrificed and replaced by new leaders that are fully committed to the ideology and goals of the New Expanded Consortium.

The above hypothesis/imagined scenario may be quickly and summarily dismissed by many as “conspiracy theory.” But, please realize that, in Medicine, progress has been made by imagining hypotheses, then testing and discussing them to see if they reflect truth. For example, long ago it was hypothesized that certain diseases could be due to bacterial infection, and this was eventually proven to be true. More recently, other diseases were hypothesized to be due to autoimmune phenomena (i.e. a person’s own immune system mistakenly and detrimentally attacks that person’s own organs or tissues), and this has been proven to be true. Did those medical hypotheses represent annoying and dismissible “conspiracy theories?” Would it not have been intellectually lazy and irresponsible to have dismissed those medical hypotheses as conspiracy theories that did not warrant consideration, study, or discussion? There is a big difference between wild, ridiculous conspiracy theories and plausible hypotheses. The latter should not be lumped with the former.

To those who think this Plan 4 is too diabolical and too conspiratorial to be true, please consider this: Current members of the corporate elite have the power, the money, the networks, the motive, the experience, the criminal record, and the sociopathic mentality to develop and execute such a plan, particularly when advised by people like Henry Kissinger.

Plan 4 will likely be rapidly and fully implemented when the time is right—when there is a global crisis of some sort—like COVID. In the meantime, we are being (and have been) “prepared” to gullibly, uncritically, even gratefully, accept Plan 4.

5. A Bi-Polar Split Global Capitalist Economy—A Split Global Economy, with “the West” (primarily the USA) pitting itself against a China-led Eurasian-African Economy.

Although Henry Kissinger is sufficiently wise to recognize that the uni-polar USA-dominated global capitalist economy (Plan 1) has run its course and must be replaced (his preference being Plan 4), many members of the current USA-dominated Consortium may be unwilling to accept the decline of their preferred uni-polar USA-dominated global capitalist economy and may be willing to fight to the bitter end to preserve it. If these members prevail, this could lead to a bi-polar, split global capitalist economy, with “the West” (primarily the USA and any other countries it can recruit) pitted against a Eurasian-African coalition led by China and Russia. This would split the world into two contentious camps and would lead to continuous chaos and war (mostly initiated and perpetuated by a desperate USA), as these two camps compete for economic domination. This is the most dangerous of all of the plans/scenarios discussed in this essay. It would greatly increase the possibility of a World War III and potential nuclear holocaust.

6. A Collaborative International Network of Unique, Creative, Democratically-Determined, Self-Reliant National Public Economies

All of the above 5 Plans embrace capitalism (either private sector capitalism, state capitalism, or a mixture of both) and, thereby, pose major threats to Humanity and the Earth itself—due to the inherent unhealthiness of the capitalist economic model. It is important to replace Plan 1 and prevent potential Plans 2-5 (particularly Plans 4 and 5) from becoming firmly established. The most effective way to do this is to provide a compelling alternative Global Economic Plan that the vast majority of the world’s people can appreciate and embrace. Plan 6 is offered as such a plan. Plan 6 does not just criticize the status quo, it offers a specific positive and healthy alternative. After thorough global public discussion of all 6 plans (including effective public education about each plan), the world’s people can democratically decide which Plan they prefer. Massive public education, including correction of massive mis-education, will be the key to giving Plan 6 a chance.

Plan 6 would be to create a Collaborative International Network of Unique, Democratically-Determined, Self-Reliant, National Public Economies. What does this mean, and what would this type of Global Economy look like?

This Plan is based on the Academic Pediatrician Economic Model (Economic altruism, or the Public Economy Model) and the conviction that this model can be implemented throughout the general economy of any nation.

For decades, Academic Pediatricians throughout the world (best exemplified in Canada) have practiced an altruistic Public Economy Model that has greatly benefitted the world’s children, at a bargain price for societies. They have developed a Collaborative International Network of Altruistic Public Children’s Hospitals. This Academic Pediatrics Economic Model is applicable to (can serve as a model for) the general economies of any nation. It serves as an example for development of a Collaborative International Network of Unique National Public Economies, which could ameliorate the suffering of the world’s people and the earth itself.

What is the Academic Pediatrics Economic Model?

The Academic Pediatrics Economic Model is a needs-based model that starts with the question, “What do children need?” For example, children need accessible primary care clinics, pediatric sub-specialists, various levels of hospital care, clinical and basic science research, and an education system to train pediatricians (and nurses, medical technologists, etc.) and share new knowledge.

The next question is “What is the best way to organize the above needs-meeting effort?” One answer has been the development of a large collaborative network of independent-but-closely-linked, geographic/population-based academic pediatric medical centers—consisting of public children’s hospitals affiliated with public medical schools. This is best exemplified in Canada, where it was recognized that each large metropolitan area needed a medical school-affiliated children’s hospital, and it was democratically decided to publicly fund these medical schools and hospitals. In Canada, each children’s hospital is Public and is staffed with sufficient types and numbers of academic pediatricians (and nurses, etc.) to meet the needs of the population of children in that particular geographic area, including surrounding rural areas. All of these public children’s hospital are associated with a public medical school (like the University of Alberta College of Medicine) and are funded by the Provincial governments.

Each Children’s Hospital within the Canadian Collaborative Network of Provincial Public Children’s Hospitals operates according to a cost-based, budget-based, altruistic economic model: There is absolutely no interest in “making money.” That is not the purpose of these hospitals. Their purpose is to meet the needs in their geographic/population area, not to make a profit. The hospitals are guided by moral incentive, not monetary incentive. Each Children’s Hospital is funded according to an appropriate budget presented by the Children’s Hospital to the Provincial government. The leaders of the Children’s Hospital base the budget on actual appropriate costs, including appropriate salaries for physicians, nurses and other employees, who are asked to perform appropriate workloads with appropriate efficiency. The Province trusts that the Hospital leadership is presenting an appropriate budget, and the Hospital leadership is committed to running the hospital with appropriate efficiency—neither skimping too much, nor being too extravagant. The definition of “appropriate” is democratically determined, with input from all concerned, including patients, their families, and the Public at large. The entire network is guided by an altruistic spirit and work ethic, accountability, fairness, and trust. Another term for this economic model would be an “Appropriate Reimbursement Economic Model.”

A key to the success of this network is that exemplary “natural leaders” are asked to assume leadership positions. Physicians who have demonstrated exemplary kindness, altruism, compassion, empathy, trustworthiness, fairness, competence, and natural leadership skills are democratically asked to serve as leaders. Accordingly, the provincial governments can trust the budget requests made by these leaders.

Another key concept is that the public Children’s Hospitals within this national network collaborate and coordinate with one another to improve care for children. There is no cut-throat competition or empire-building. The goal is to help each other become better. Unnecessary duplication of services is avoided. Each center shares its expertise and new knowledge with all other centers. Regular educational conferences are scheduled to share information and experiences. There is no such thing as “intellectual property rights.” The academic pediatricians write articles and gladly share their new research insights freely, via medical journals and conferences. They do not sell their knowledge, nor do the recipients buy it. Health care, medical knowledge, and medical expertise are not considered “commodities” for sale, they are considered public property to which the public has a right to free access. Health care is viewed as an obvious Human Right. A physician’s opportunity and ability to serve is considered to be his/her privilege and honor.

This same needs-based, cost-based, budget-based, altruistic, collaborative, appropriate reimbursement economic model has been practiced by academic pediatricians throughout the world for decades—though not necessarily in as pure and excellent a fashion as in Canada. (For example, in the USA there is now a mix of public and private children’s hospitals and, unfortunately, an increasing amount of cut-throat competition, duplication, profit-making, and empire-building has infected US institutions, at the administrative level.) Generally, though, academic pediatricians from around the world have altruistically worked together to raise the level of knowledge and quality of care. International conferences are held for this purpose. International Pediatric medical journals have been developed, through which the world’s pediatricians freely share their knowledge and research. Physicians from Canada travel to children’s hospitals in other countries to mutually share experiences and knowledge and mutually improve each other. There is no such thing as exploiting money-making opportunities in other countries. Canadian Children’s Hospitals, e.g., have no interest in creating an international empire of children’s hospitals designed to make profits off patients in other countries. Within the international academic pediatrics community there is no counterpart to the transnational corporations, like Exxon-Mobile, General Electric, Apple, etc.

With the Academic Pediatrics Economic Model there is no need for international “free trade” agreements—because nothing is being traded for profit. Knowledge and expertise are “traded” only in the sense of mutually sharing what is needed for the benefit of Humanity.

A good example of the value and efficiency of this collaborative economic model is the progress made in treating childhood leukemia. In the early 1970s pediatric hematologists/oncologists at public children’s hospitals in the USA and Canada pioneered the development of a Multi-Center Collaborative Research Effort to advance progress in treating leukemia. Thanks to this altruistic collaborative publicly funded Public Effort, the mortality rate for Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia (ALL) declined from 90% in the early 1970s to less than 10% today. The knowledge gained has been freely shared with pediatric hematologists throughout the world. Not only has this collaborative Public Activity been extraordinarily successful, it has been a necessary approach to the problem—i.e. such success probably would not have occurred without this Public Effort, at least not as quickly and efficiently. For decades, pediatricians in all specialties have, similarly, freely and selflessly collaborated and shared their research and knowledge with other pediatricians, nationally and internationally,

So, for decades, Academic Pediatricians, particularly in Canada, have demonstrated the feasibility of developing a Collaborative National Network of Altruistic Public Children’s Hospitals, and a Collaborative International Network of National Public Children’s Hospitals. For decades, Children’s Hospitals throughout the world have been practicing a needs-based, cost-based, appropriate budget-based, altruistic economic model. This model has not simply been developed in theory, it has been actually practiced, for decades, and has proven to be of great benefit to the world’s children, at a bargain price for societies. Academic pediatricians, especially in Canada, have already demonstrated the feasibility and value of this model. If the USA and other countries were to better emulate the Canadian Network of Provincial Public Children’s Hospitals, a currently good International Collaborative Network of Public Children’s Hospitals could become even better.

Furthermore, the vast majority of Academic Pediatricians have found this Academic Pediatrics Economic Model to be very meaningful, gratifying, and emancipating. They would not wish to have approached their work in any other way. They like the Public Economy Model, including the opportunity and freedom it provides to enjoy expressing their altruistic capacities. They have enjoyed the freedom to plan and act selflessly. They have treasured this Selfless Freedom. In fact, they have been greatly disturbed by the increasing encroachment of a private corporate business mentality into the administrative workings of pediatric institutions (particularly in the USA). That corporate mentality has been increasingly down-sizing (even punishing) altruism, over-extending physicians, and adversely transforming behaviors within our children’s hospitals, particularly in the USA, particularly at leadership levels. The altruism and Selfless Freedom of pediatricians have been under assault, and children are suffering because of it.

In Canada, the Network of Children’s Hospitals is entirely a public network and, thereby, exemplifies what a Public Economy could look like, if all sectors of the economy were to emulate the Academic Pediatrics Economic Model. In short, the General Public Economy could resemble one giant children’s hospital—regarding philosophy, spirit, behavior, sub-divisions, over-all organization, and logistics.

Development of General Public Economies:

If Canada can develop and successfully practice a pediatric health care system (and a similar system for adults) that is based on a Public Economy model, why can’t Canada develop other industries and a general economy based on the same model? And why can’t this happen in other countries, and globally.

What, exactly, is a “Public Economy,” and what is meant by “vast Public Activity?”

A Public Economy is an economy that is truly of the people, by the people, and, most importantly, for the people—as opposed to an economy that is designed, primarily, to benefit private business people. It is a democratically determined economy. The people decide what their priority needs are and how the Public Economy can meet those needs in a kind, efficient, non-profiteering manner. In a Public Economy people’s needs are met by publicly owned and operated industries—i.e. through vast Public Activity.  For example, a public pharmaceutical industry (as opposed to private BigPharma) would develop and provide all of the pharmaceutical products that people need; a comprehensive public health care system, free of private sector profiteering, would provide comprehensive health care for all; a public computer and phone industry would provide the computers and phone services that people need, at non-profiteering prices; a public energy industry would provide the electricity, gas, and oil needed; a public transportation industry would build electric cars, buses, trains, light rail, planes, and bicycles; public construction outfits would build the infrastructure and buildings (government contracts with private profiteering construction companies would cease); and even a public hygiene industry would provide the everyday hygiene products that people need (low-priced soap, deodorant, tooth paste, tooth brushes, razor blades, etc., as opposed to the exorbitantly high priced products currently provided by private corporations, like Proctor and Gamble and Gillette). And, a Public Bank, uninterested in profit, would provide the funds needed to develop the above Public Activity. There would be no need for private banks, and Usury would be eliminated, as has been wisely suggested (for centuries) by Islamic teachings.

In contrast to the private corporations who are currently providing the above products and services at predatory profiteering prices, the publicly owned and operated industries would not be seeking profit. Their goal would be to meet a democratically determined need and meet it in a most responsible and affordable way. A Public Economy would practice “cost-based pricing,” not “price-based costing.” That is, in a Public Economy, the price the buyer pays is based on the true cost of producing the product; whereas in a capitalist economy the price is based on “whatever the market will bear” and not on the true cost of production. In a Public Economy the price for the most essential and healthy goods might actually be set below costs, through subsidization, to assure that all people can afford basic necessities. For example, the healthiest foods (vegetables and fruits) would be subsidized to encourage healthy eating.

The goal of a Public Economy is to provide healthy goods and services that people need and democratically request, and to provide those goods and services at a fair, affordable price, with subsidization if necessary. It is a needs-based economy, not a profit-making economy. Exploitation and cut-throat competition have no place in a Public Economy. Advertising is not needed in a Public Economy.

A Public Economy’s only interest in international trade is to exchange expertise for mutual benefit and to trade goods/resources when it is not possible for countries to provide such goods/resources on their own. There would be no place for international profiteering or exploitation in an International Public Economy. In fact, the possibility of internationalizing natural resources (like oil) would be strongly considered. After all, why should an individual country become excessively wealthy just because oil has been found under its territory? Why does that oil not belong to the entire global community, and why should it not be developed (or left in place) for the benefit of the entire global community. Perhaps we should strongly consider not just nationalizing natural resources, but internationalizing them, so that all can fairly and equitably benefit from them and protect them. Instead, the capitalist model, absurdly, privatizes these natural resources, and allows the extractors to rape the environment and displace indigenous peoples.

The leaders in a Public Economy would be natural leaders who are asked to assume positions of leadership because of their demonstrated kindness, competence, fairness, honesty, integrity, wisdom, collaborative spirit, and altruism. Unlike in a capitalist economy, people whose behaviors are at the selfish/sociopathic end of the spectrum would not ascend to positions of leadership in a Public Economy; instead, they would be deliberately marginalized so that society could be protected from them, not ruled by them. In a Public Economy, people at the altruistic end of the behavioral spectrum would be asked to provide leadership. The natural leaders in a Public Economy would increasingly promote Public Activity, designed simply and only to look after people, as opposed to exploiting them, manipulating them, indebting them, and making money off them. A Public Economy is designed to give free expression and practice to the best of our human capacities—not to the worst of our capacities.

In summary, a Public Economy is an economy that is devoted to selflessly serving the Public, is based on Social Truth, encourages vast Public Activity, is designed to create Social Beauty and Social Justice, and is democratically managed by citizens who serve as Social Clinicians and monitor the Public Economy in the Social Clinic. A Public Economy encourages Economic Altruism, Economic Democracy, national self-reliance, and horizontal collaboration with other nations. There is no profiteering, no exploitation. It encourages and gives practice to the very best capacities of Human Nature—not the worst capacities. It creates and protects Selfless Freedom. It is led by “Natural Leaders,” who have demonstrated exemplary kindness, altruism, Social Insight, and competence, and have been asked to lead. In short, a General Public Economy resembles one giant children’s hospital—regarding philosophy, spirit, behavior, sub-divisions, over-all organization, and logistics.

Compare the two economic models—the capitalist model and the Public Economy model: The Public Economy is democratic (with decisions being made by the public), needs-based, cost-based, non-profiteering, non-exploitative, collaborative, altruistic, compassionate, efficient, creative, responsible, accountable, motivated by moral incentive (not monetary incentive), and promotes health and high spirit. It is led by exemplary altruistic natural public leaders. It affordably and kindly meets the needs of all the people; protects the environment; up-regulates individual and collective human kindness; and promotes and protects Selfless Freedom. The Capitalistic Economy is undemocratic (with corporate powers determining what needs will be met and what prices will be charged), profit-based, price-based, exploitative (even predatory), non-collaborative, self-serving, elitist, supremacist, grotesquely competitive, aggressively individualistic, promotes the profit motive, and is based on an abusive, negative, incomplete understanding of Human Nature. It is led by and promotes people at the selfish/sociopathic end of the behavioral spectrum; heartlessly makes essential needs unaffordable for most people; focuses, instead, on protecting the freedom of the wealthy to increase their wealth via unlimited exploitation of others; destroys the environment; is uncaring (or employs disingenuous caring, fake caring, as a business strategy), wasteful, inefficient, and irresponsible; up-regulates the worst of our human capacities; promotes unhealthy activity and consumption; and demoralizes an indebted, dis-empowered public. The Public Economy creates Social Beauty; Capitalism creates the opposite.

And, yet, we are told that capitalism, realistically, is the best possible economic model, and that a Public Economy would be impractical, dangerous, and would rob us of our freedoms. Astonishingly, capitalism has been accepted, largely unchallenged! But we should not be surprised. After all, an abusive male is often able to convince his female victim that he is great and she is totally unworthy; that she is the problem, not him. Such is the power and twisted logic of people at the sociopathic end of the spectrum.

True freedom does not come from the individualism espoused by capitalism.  It comes from participating in collective public efforts to genuinely look after others. The most important and precious freedom is the freedom to enjoy widespread up-regulated expression of the human capacity for kindness—up-regulation both in oneself and in the larger society. A Public Economy provides that opportunity; Capitalism does not.

We don’t really need capitalism, do we? We do not need to accept the abusive, negative view of Human Nature it preaches, do we? We are better than what capitalism declares about us, aren’t we? There is a far better model: the Public Economy Model—a model that has been exemplified by Academic Pediatricians, who have proven, long ago, that it can work.

Academic Pediatricians are not unique. Most people are like pediatricians (and pediatric nurses, school teachers, most clergy, and most workers, for that matter). Most people care deeply about Humanity and meeting the needs of their fellow human beings. They are altruistic, and they want to be helpful—in fact they crave the meaningfulness and emancipation that comes with being truly helpful. The natural inclinations and behaviors of the vast majority of the world’s people fall along the altruistic half of the spectrum of kindness—and the choice of economic models can make this either increasingly or decreasingly so. Most people are desperately needing and wishing for more Social Beauty, Social Justice, Social Truth, and Social Health. Most people would love the freedom to participate in vast, vibrant, meaningful Public Activity. Most would like to participate in the Social Clinic, and most would be good Social Clinicians. Most people are fed up with the callous profiteering and predatory exploitation of a disrespectful Capitalist Economic Model, which abuses us by belittling the existence of Human Goodness and constantly preaching its negative view of Human Nature. The earth itself is fed up with the Capitalist Economic Model and is pushing back with a vengeance. The Capitalist Model is a malignant model that empowers and is run by people at the non-altruistic end of the behavioral spectrum. As with most malignancies, its behaviors inherently and inexorably get worse.

All of Humanity, all of the world’s non-human living things, and the earth itself would benefit from Public Economies, particularly a Collaborative International Network of Unique, Creative, Self-determined, Democratically-determined, Self-reliant National Public Economies. Public Economies have the capacity to create desperately needed Social Beauty, Social Health, and Social Freedom, while also protecting the environment and its natural beauty.

So, why have we not developed Public Economies—locally, nationally, and internationally? Because the people in power insist on continuation of a Capitalist Economic Model, globally, and use their extreme power and mis-education to maintain it. They do not want Public Economies (if they are able to imagine such), and they have convinced people that no good alternative to the Capitalist Economic Model exists. They do not think like pediatricians, nurses, school teachers, and most of the population. They have different inclinations and goals. And we have allowed them to prevail.

But, there is no reason why the Public (in all nations), following the lead of Academic Pediatricians, cannot insist on replacement of the current Capitalist Economic Model with the Public Economy Model. Each nation could develop its own unique, creative version of a Public Economy, based on its unique circumstances—resulting in a rich diversity of national Public Economies. In each nation, the Public can do this by serving as Social Clinicians, by bringing problems before the Social Clinic, and by participating in peaceful mass public education that exposes the Capitalist Model for what it is, explains the Public Economy Model, compares the two, and proposes a peaceful (but not too slow) democratic transition from one Economic Model to the other. If pediatricians (throughout the world) can develop and practice a Public Economy Model, so can the general Public in nations throughout the world—resulting in a Collaborative International Network of Unique National Public Economies.

It is totally unrealistic, impractical, and absolutely Pollyannish to think that the world’s present illness can be treated successfully by continuing the current prevailing Capitalist Economic Model (Plan 1)—even with a much “kinder, gentler,” “more inclusive,” version of global capitalism (Plan 2). At best, a currently vicious malignant model could be transformed into a milder, gentler malignancy. But, why should we vote for malignancy of any kind—not a fascist malignancy; not a totalitarian communist malignancy; not a kinder, gentler Capitalist malignancy; not a state capitalism malignancy “with Chinese characteristics.”

The most realistic, practical, pragmatic way to make the world healthy is to consider, through extensive Public Dialogue, implementation of the Public Economy model, preferably in all nations. Development of a Collaborative International Network of Unique National Public Economies would give us the best chance to transform societies in the direction of Social Beauty.

It is proposed, therefore, that the capitalist economic model be replaced (in all nations) by a Public Economy model, as exemplified by the Academic Pediatrics Economic Model —a model that has been practiced, very successfully, for decades, by Academic Pediatricians throughout the world—an altruistic economic model that has enormously benefitted the world’s children, at a bargain price for societies.

Replacement of the capitalist model with the Academic Pediatrics Economic Model (i.e. a Public Economy) could bring peace and the most important of freedoms to People across the globe, and the Earth and its people would have a fighting chance to become healthy again.


Plan 1 has been disastrous for most of the world’s people and for the earth itself. Plan 2 is better than Plan 1, but, too, will be disastrous for the earth, and will perpetuate other problems associated with capitalism. Plan 3 would be a Chinese version of Plan 1 or 2. Plan 4, which may well be in process, may improve the material standard of living for Asian peoples, but would be frighteningly un-democratic and would likely do more harm to Humanity and the Earth than plans 1-3. Plan 5 would be the most likely to result in World War III and would be the most disastrous of all. Plan 6 offers the greatest opportunity for Humanity and the Earth.




1 Much of the information in this section (Plan 1) comes from the recent book written by Peter Phillips—Giants: The Global Power Elite (Seven Stories Press).

Figure X: The Board Room of the US Dominated Uni-polar Consortium of Transnational Corporate Capitalists (CTCC). The agenda is shown on the pale blue board room table. The most powerful members of the CTCC are in pale blue (slightly larger) type, the second most powerful are in yellow, and the third most powerful in white.