This book is meant to be studied and freely shared widely with the purpose of helping to restore the US economy and its government of/by/for the people. To reproduce or review any part of this book you must have the same purpose and present your alternative proposals when you negatively critique any part off this book. Otherwise you may not reproduce any part of my original work shown here. Positive reviews with or without proposed improvements may reproduce any part of this book.
a web book
by John C. Dean
12-28-10
I have good news and bad news. I know how to solve America’s problems, only to get support I need for the readers to clear a few hurdles (mental hurdles). You know how a person may have great ideas individually, but if you put all of his ideas together, fewer people will agree with his body of ideas. Well, we have this problem with America. There are quite a few things that need to be fixed and some history rewritten. How to get the reader past the first few ideas is my dilemna.
In math it’s easy to demonstrate the above hypothesis on multiple ideas. If 60% of people like an idea then the probability that some new person will like the idea is .6, the same as the average number who like it. If another 60% like a second idea the probability of being in the group that likes that idea is also .6. The probability of being in both groups for the above two disconnected ideas is the product of the individual probabilities or .6 X .6 = .36 , and if another 60% like a third idea, and so on to ten ideas, then the probability of being in all 10 groups and agreeing with all 10 disconnected ideas is the product of the individual probabilities or
for a series of disconnected ideas, the fellowship behind these 10 ideas is small. If the ideas were platform positions of a given party, then the probability of agreement on all ideas would be much higher because they are related ideas, but still less than 60%. (If the probabilities of the 10 things are each different then the answer is just the product of all of the probabilities). This is why politicians will tend to be swishy on issues. There are only a few people out there who agree with all of their ideas. So they only mention a few here and there. They do not want to alienate any possible voters.
Well I don’t want to alienate any readers, but I have to talk about multiple problems and multiple fixes. So I ask you to lower your guards and travel through my book with the open mind as an explorer. You’re just a disinterested third party living your life and there’s nothing I can say that will change that and you know that you don’t have to agree with anything I say. And there is no test at the end. And my science is mostly intuitive, so I don’t think I’m pushing any envelopes. In economic solutions I find less expensive ways of doing things, or different missions, and it’s obvious how the budgets can shrink in the process. I’m not an economic wizard but I can track dollars rippling through the economy and prove some simple points using my own intuitive models. I know how a “hot trigger” issue like abortion settles it all and pin points the loser; or nuclear war, (Goldwater
1964). I’m full of those. So just sit back and relax and read the words of the “Don Rickles” of science who’s grown a bit crusty in his old age. I will, with schizophrenic ease hop to some pretty pictures I painted or some lousy poetry, or tell a disgusting story, but it’s all for fun and it’s for free.
On the other side of alienation when the people are in favor of something by a huge majority and politics makes the outcome against them, then the government has not represented the wishes of the people. It is not FOR the people. Speaking hypothetically then, some person “OF the people” can get the job to make it
“BY the people”, but his view is so extreme, that when he forces it on us, a huge majority of the people become upset with him. To me this seems like a breech of our constitution, our democracy, and is a government that does not serve or act “FOR the people”. Now the perpetrator might argue that the people don’t know what’s good for them. But it’s pretty clear in today’s world that this politician doesn’t understand insane behavior from sane behavior. You see, we have this huge debt; it grows by a huge deficit every year, aiming us toward bankruptcy & self destruction. Isn’t this insane behavior? We need to develop a surplus in the budget and start paying down the debt, and, instead, we’re going in the opposite direction quicker than ever before. We bailed out the banking and stock market perpetrators, who caused the crash of the economy; is this also possibly insane behavior? And we did it with 700 billion dollars of borrowed money against the credit of the people of the US; insane behavior? (and a big slap in the face of “We the People”?). We’re passing time while surging further into debt and making enemies abroad with our wars; wouldn’t this be considered insane behavior for a peaceful nation? Our wars strengthen oil domination, rather than save us from oil domination and the pollution of the planet, insane behavior? In our economy there’s no balance between the rich and the poor; the rich get richer and the poor get poorer (and have little hope), isn’t this insane behavior for a happy prosperous country? How could a president, a servant of the people, miss these basic truths so badly? I don’t know. If he had made himself known on these issues before the election, would he have been elected? Hhhmmmmm? Wouldn’t it be better to know what they stood for and be able to recall them quickly when they committed such costly errors? And if they’re not working for the people, who are they working for? We’re really stifled in America by the system that’s killing us. It’s like that commercial for mattresses....you’re killing me, Larry! only it’s not funny like the commercial. Couldn’t we use some fixes here?
So the way it stands is: the candidate hides his true wishes and acts presidential and we vote him in and are stuck with him for his real unpopular and bad decisions. Or some other president may be real clear during the campaign and then go back on his strongest campaign positions after winning and negate in behavior what he had so strongly supported in the campaign; and, again, we’re still stuck with his turnabout and him for 4 years. Does this seem familiar in recent times with a continuation of the wars, and the continuation of a tax gift to the rich that doesn’t generate jobs, the bail out support to culprits, costing $1.2 trillion extra in
government and it is done within both political parties, or so it seems to me. It sends and keeps people to/at war in response to no provocation. This kills our young adults and strengthens the oil companies, the banks, and the defense industries, which make more money during war. War builds up national debt against the people. War also alienates the nations of the world as our nation acts like a bully, carrying war into other peoples’ countries without being invited. War sacrifices our precious children without real need. This is what it looks like to me when I dispassionately stand back and look at it and try to understand it. Wouldn’t you agree? Of course, TERROR, can make one so fearful that a little negative projection and 22 tent wandering hoodlums with box cutters cause 2 wars and a 200,000 man government department (Homeland Security) to spring up out of nowhere. So tell me, do you think that is the appropriate response? I’ve watched carpet guys work with their carpet knives (which go through carpet like butter), and I’ll bet our 22 carpet guys could take those box cutter guys hands down. So you’ll agree with me here? Our leaders are acting insane and they are killing us (in their insane wars) and bankrupting us, and their negative projection is way overdone, by orders of magnitude (many factors of ten). So, we need to change even quicker while we’re aiming toward national bankruptcy so much quicker. Right? OK thanks. I’m glad we’re still together here.
While I am not at the top of any field of endeavor, I may be the overall best in certain combinations of skills. I know we’re all unique in some way and special/precious, as I see it, cause we’re all human beings, endowed by our creator with those inalienable rights we Americans believe in. In this sense we’re all part of the brotherhood/sisterhood of human kind. So while I am unique, and you are too; neither of us wants to die from terminal uniqueness. One of my talents is that I am able to simplify things sometimes when I know of facts that are irrefutable or so probable, I’d bet my life on it. I do understand that people (and especially attorneys in a tough argument) will try to divert thinking to something less important, try to sway thought with emotional appeal, change the subject, ignore what was said, stack the deck, or use bad logic in trying to sway people to their point. One ploy might be to look at my 10 points that support my argument and bring ridicule or laughter to one of my points in some cute way, and then challenge the voracity of the other 9 points without further ado, by association. Their efforts here are entertaining but they are not logical in any scientific way. Decision making with cuteness and laughter and disregard for 9 out of 10 points is extremely risky. Why not use straight talk, simple logic, deductive logic that clearly traces cause and effect. The process of deductive logic (where a premise is irrefutably linked to the conclusion) is the best way of tracing thought for accuracy
facts. Trace these points of truth and their implications, yourself, and, I believe, you will draw similar conclusions to mine. Be sure to lock in the truths and build a tough truthful skeleton of your understanding to work around for the meat of your solution, always being true to the skeleton and not swayed by smoke and mirrors and paltry side arguments and laughter. This is my scientific approach. A statement like “a person in his position would never pick a patsy for a presidential lone assassin and disregard the physical and testimonial evidence supporting a conspiracy” is not a good premise as it is a qualitative statement of someone’s character and cannot be quantified or proven. Besides we really can’t be assured of what other people would do under different circumstances. We can be confident, but not sure. But what I’m talking about here is as easy as looking at pictures and seeing the truths shown. I’ll show what I think are truths in pictures & I’ll write down what I think are hard facts in purple print. One truth would be ....In business there is conservation of the money if nobody printed or destroyed money within, nor transferred money in or out. Money doesn’t disappear on its own. The numbers have to add up. In the US economy if the poor end needs money to survive, then it is the rich end that must provide it for conservation of the money to be upheld. Where else would it come from?
As much as we’d all like the moral credentials of our government servants to increase with the level of their responsibility or authority, it simply is not true, nor an accepted premise. Piling up character witnesses on one side or the other doesn’t solve anything either in terms of the truth of the statement. It remains “not sure”. If physical and testimonial evidence exists that bears upon the issue, then their review and analysis would tend to either support or refute the premise. But what if physical evidence is altered or destroyed or missing or disregarded? If it is altered or destroyed or missing, then someone in the chain of possession has allowed this to happen, by accident or choice, and other evidence must be sought to detail the handling of the original evidence to try to clear up the facts and motives. If it is disregarded then it needs to be looked at for implications of how it would change the case if included, and if significantly, then it would be included and possibly a crime for those neglecting it in the first place. If witnesses are bought by the dozen to lie in unison to support a conclusion, then, we need to beware. Some cases might be big enough to affect outcomes in this way. The voracity of the witnesses is really important. Whatever the case, it seems to become a harder case, and more strung out when we have these problems. And cases involving missing, or distorted, or disregarded evidence invite more suspicion of conspiracy, which should invite more investigation, or so it seems to me. If witnesses die or are killed suddenly under strange circumstances when the investigation proceeds, this suggests a horrific conspiracy to hide the truth, which should invite even more investigation, or, perhaps, create fear to stifle investigation.
In this book, America faces many large problems and an important chunk of history is contested, and I’m offering solutions for all of this. So for me in this book, I need to identify the evidence, source, and go through the logic that I use in determining my position on problems/issues. I invite you along for the trip.
In our economy in recent years the banks and stock markets bundled real estate assets and created shares in those combined assets that forced a knot in the traceability of ownership, which kept the investors from garnishing the original collateral for their investments when markets fell apart. Each share might represent a splinter from each of 100,000 houses so bundled. But splinter parts of houses aren’t worth anything, so the properties should never have been allowed to be bundled in the first place. Nor should there be shares in a trust deed or note, again because the collateral is not divisible for even one house. Insurance against these assets and shares was leveraged by insurance companies who wanted full premium income for the full value of the assets without being able to cover only a fraction of what the assets were worth if they had to pay out. This hodgepodge of irreducible, over margined, under protected assets was doomed to failure from the beginning, and failure was additionally pushed by lenders who put properties in foreclosure within the bundles to precipitate failure, misrepresenting their true value. The properties couldn’t be sold fast enough so prices fell on the real estate. Then a lot of people owed more money on their houses than the properties were worth. This had been enabled by the financing companies because they let the market over inflate. By using comparable sales figures to appraise a property’s value, they created run away inflation (fast rising). To further complicate the problem these house financiers pushed variable rate mortgages to up the mortgage payments despite the fall in values, and despite the client’s credit. This forced people out of their homes because they could no longer afford house payments. Whatever credit they had got worse when they were foreclosed. Now a lot of people believe in “buyer beware” and thrust the responsibility of this on the consumer. But I contend that the lending market over extended itself on purpose (they’re not dummies) and passed the blame onto the buyer, who’s just trying to buy a house of his own to live in. So, many continue to pay exorbitant rates for a loan size twice the value of their property (after the fall). These are the people who are being hurt the worst in this crisis (in my opinion). Very few were able to refinance their loans at a lower size and lower fixed rate. What I don’t understand is how they sell bundles of real estate but continue collecting payments on the bundled home loans. Are they being paid twice for the same thing? They are a force very much larger than a single buyer and very much in control of the deal. The appraisers at the banks are very much responsible for signing off on the fast rise of property values in the first place. The lack of regulation on the loan industry then allowed the run away inflation on house values that cleared out everyone’s bank accounts who bought property during the upswing. Wisdom dictates a crash for this behavior and most investors are not aware of how to play it. Forcing a buyer to put more down on an over-inflated property is the cure for this problem. It may keep lower credit buyers out of the market until it calms down, but that’s a wiser course than to blow these people out of their homes and ruin their credit, just to make a fast buck at the finance office.
Those preaching the freedom of the market to do anything are supporting the shrewd fast dealing people who like to play the high risk money games against the slow thinkers and take their money (legally). Confuse them with legalese and lower starting rates when they’re moved to the variable rate loan at the last minute? The housing market serves a better purpose to house people than to be subject to the whims of high rolling gamblers and loan sharks with the variable interest rate loans and 18 page trust agreements in small print and legalese (that challenge the best borrowers just to understand them). Again, that’s just my opinion.
So the market crashed in the fall of 2008, and, the government bailed out the perpetrators, against the will of the people (as I understand it). Not being able to trace back the share to a physical equity asset disallowed the share holders from recovering what they paid for, US real estate. I believe the banks and stock market knew their risky practices would lead to a melt down somewhere down the road. They’re not dumb. It is my supposition that a shady plan was set up before the crash, and those who got out with a profit may be those who planned the giant scam and knew exactly when to get out. The bail-out was done so quickly and started by an unpopular departing president, endorsed by enough from both parties to make it pass quickly in congress and bang, $700 Billion dollars was lined up to go out the door (within a month) to bank and market perpetrators. I was shocked to see Democratic party leaders pushing for this gift for treacherous corporate bankers and marketeers. Usually republicans support big business. I also suspect a fraudulent complicity by the previous president and the members of congress and the current president who pushed for the passage of this legislation. I don’t know of anything so large going through congress so fast in our governments history. And there was no oversight on the use of the money. These are very suspicious happenings involving reckless use of the Peoples money and this behavior needs to stop and be retraced for criminal culpability, in my opinion.
The switching sides could be done to confuse the electorate and shift the blame between the two parties so that they may trade control of government, and always please big business (which owns both parties), while the voters are trying to figure
doesn’t allow the anger of the citizens to foment and gel on one party for the blame. I’d say we have a clever and conniving industry control and political party system. The main stream media is owned by a few big corporations with their top executives holding the power to control most of the nation’s news. I’ll bet that they conscientiously dumb down the news, but make it seem exciting with sound bites and dramatic pictures (of Hollywood sex scandals). I assert that on the bail out, they dumbed down the sound of a hornet’s nest.
This book is intended to problem solve America’s biggest problems, with ideas intended to work and to serve the people, all the people. What changes do we need to ensure our government is FOR the people? I have several ideas. Our government is too large, too inefficient, misdirected, self serving, and too expensive. It needs to be pruned a lot and made to respond for the people. I’d like to see a smaller, more efficient, more regulating, less warlike (way more peace like), and way less secretive government that guarantees reasonable medical service for all of its people, while balancing the budget, and paying down the national debt, not to mention forcing a change over to green technologies, that currently continues to get pushed to the back burner. I’d also like to see a better economy for the poor end of America’s citizen population, but not through increased welfare taxes and handouts. I’d rather see the business end and the wealthy business owners create better wages and more jobs capable of buying houses in a normal economy of the day. I will show how the market may be driven by industry to capitalize on the poor end’s high propensity to spend in a way that will make up for their own wages in a more bustling economy. I will explain, with simple intuitive models, market forces that truly drive the economy and those that don’t. I know that we need so many changes to help our nation operate better that I could never expect sufficient support to get it all done. But should I keep quiet? It doesn’t matter whether I have a beautiful mind or not. By sheer numbers of thoughts alone, I’m bound to create a lot of nay-sayers to what I write. The math has already shown that the odds of getting support for a bunch of different ideas are very low. The burden is on me to produce solutions that are right and serving, that are of use, that are logical and understandable, that are good for a lot of
have been a member over the years of each of the two larger political parties in America and I understand their thinking. I now have no affiliation. I am not afraid to tell the truth as I see it, and to continue to help as needed. I do not mean to hurt people with what I say (although I do identify some big suspects). I also understand how people tend to be defensive in support of their pet ideas and feel hurt when they hear opposing views. I don’t mean it personally. I ask for your
the big picture and weigh the importance of your pet ideas in correct proportion to the big ideas we need for a national and world fix. I believe that my ideas will fix our problems and should be acceptable to more than 90% of our people. So I hope to end up just another beautiful mind in America who spoke out at the right time, the assertive guy, and not the guy who didn’t study it, but yelled like crazy for his pet wants (the guy with the big mouth). Please hang in there with me and prove to yourself that you do not have contempt prior to investigation, even in areas you accept as gospel. I probably shouldn’t, but I even go there. In any case, we’re out of sorts so let’s fix the government and economy to serve us. We are the people the Constitution talks about, and the government is supposed to be of us, by us, and for us; but it isn’t. So let’s get to work.
What I bring to the table is my gift for solving complex problems from a systems point of view (big picture) pretty quickly. I develop my opinions from facts, as I go along. I am a systems engineer, with two degrees in electrical engineering, a veteran, and have about 11 years experience in systems engineering with the government/military. As an officer in the United States Air Force (’69-’72) I became quite knowledgeable in Satellite Communications for the military at UHF and SHF frequencies and developed a proof on how to use residual terminal and satellite assets of the joint services for maximum service to high level national and military users in 1969. I was then transferred to help design, build, and run a control center for scheduling and monitoring these important circuits for high level users with the use of my theory. After the service I ended up at the Naval Ocean Systems Center (NOSC) in San Diego where I joined a team to work on the feasibility of using EHF frequencies for military satellite communications users. I was the assistant project manager and test director and
took our terminal to sea to prove feasibility. From the start I identified the need to control terminal transmit power to fulfill operational objectives. With our better understanding of the problem at the time the Navy chose us as the lead laboratory for this development, instead of the Naval Research Lab in Washington DC. It was a success. Then I was given a project of my own to study the possibility of an optical space communications broadcast system which I did in 3 months for $50K. It was the first system study of its kind using optical technology. A year long industry study followed at the cost of 1 million dollars and it essentially agreed with my paper (EO Concepts for Strategic Communications, SECRET, Dean et al, approx 1977, NOSC Tech Report). I also produced a strategic vulnerability study that gave guidance for future developments with a simple guideline on how to win the cold war (The H----- /SURVSATCOM System Vulnerability Study, SECRET NOFORN) at about the same time. In 1980 I quit engineering to become an artist. Since then I’ve been a self employed artist. I am a man of faith and I am grateful
for many things. It’s ok if you aren’t. I am a family man.
I speak English first, and am semi-fluent in Spanish, second. My wife and I have 9 grown children between us. Seven of our children have partners and the married children have 11 kids altogether so far. We love them all. My wife and I play music together and sing. I play the guitar. We like to travel; we like leisurely fishing by a lake. Check out Lower Twin Lake (my painting at left) in the Mammoth Lakes just below Mammoth Mountain in the Sierras in California, one of our favorite fishing spots. We can play parlor games and some simple video games, and we can
solve puzzles. We have a date together at least once a week. We like to eat out and also cook a bit. I make a terrific mesquite grilled filet on the backyard grill. We
enjoy the movie theater, amusement parks, art shows, walking on the beach etc. I guess we’re just regular people. My philosophy is “live and let live”, let other people have and live by their beliefs, as long as it does not impinge on my or my family’s freedoms or the freedoms of my fellow citizens granted by my country.
My spirit is strong and I want to help my nation and the world. I also expect to paint, tinker with little projects, love my wife and family, hang out with my friends for fun and spiritual growth, travel, and continue to play music and sing, God willing and the creek don’t rise. I see life as an adventure. I celebrate life. I started social security at 62 yrs old in late November, 2007, and started reading. The discoveries I’ve made since that time have driven me to produce this book. Wouldn’t you know; I get into serious study again after I retire. This would be my legacy. I think I may be near the top of my game right now in terms of whatever wisdom I may have gathered in my life, plus my ability to look at and understand new things, and my ability to associate ideas in my thinking, with my use of deductive logic, and in my writing skills. I am producing and publishing this book m