COMMENTARY
I read President Obama’s stump speech given on Friday, July 13 at Roanoke, Virginia. I urge you to read it; it’s not too long. It is a kind of manifesto of current left-wing thought in America; it describes almost every policy and concept that leftists support and are working to implement. In general it is wrong, based on a wrong, long discredited philosophy, on wrong and disproven social concepts, on wrong economic ideas, and on mostly wrong facts stated as truths. One could say they were lies, but I think we all understand that this is what politicians do and it is why they are held in such low esteem.
I rarely get hyperbolic, and I don’t intend to start here. So when I say that this speech represents an attack on the philosophy, ideals, and economics that made America great, I don’t think this is stepping over the line, rather it is a statement of fact. Read it yourself and make your own decision and let me know where I am wrong.
I have written recently on the fact that the U.S. is fast becoming indistinguishable from the European model of the social welfare state. That isn’t good for the country that has been entrepreneur to the world. In those mostly socialist countries, business people, especially the successful ones, are admired for their wealth but despised for their success. This is becoming the trend in America. We do have a tradition of individualism and entrepreneurial spirit that comes from an “anyone can make it in America” social model. Achievement is seen as based on individual effort, pluck, intelligence, good judgment, and luck.
So when I see President Obama tearing down these ideals, I don’t chalk it up to mere campaign rhetoric. I think our president means what he says.
He represents the views of the currently ascendant leftists and Progressives. In part of his speech he takes a collectivist view of individualism but it is really a backhanded way of denigrating Mitt Romney, tearing him down because of his success. Here is the excerpt I am referring to:
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something—there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The president goes on to say how government has played a critical role in making people successful.
Think about this statement. He is saying that the secret of our success is because we were all born into a country with an excellent infrastructure and with wonderful government programs to assist us. It has nothing to do with the courage of an individual staking everything on an idea and pursuing it to success. It has nothing to do with great companies hiring hundreds of thousands of people who, without the idea and courage of an individual, wouldn’t be employed. When the president refers to “cooperation”, he isn’t talking about the mechanism of the free market that efficiently and effectively coordinates voluntary human action toward mutual goals. He thinks like the community organizer that he is: if we just all sit down together and work on an idea, great things will happen. The committee theory of social organization has most likely never in history started a great and successful business.
If we pursue the road that President Obama is taking, then we will lose our greatness over time. If anything has been proven, it is that these socialist welfare states can last for a long time. While the government may eventually run out of our money, the U.S. has an enormous reserve of capital that could take generations to dissipate. It is a slow road, one that can survive economic collapse, inflation, new regimes, and wars. It can so survive if the majority of voters believe that government is the source of wealth and power and that businesses are tools of the democratic majority. Eventually welfare states extinguish the initiative and drive for which we Americans are so famous. Look to Europe for proof.
Again, without sounding too dramatic, the president and his advisers remind me of a composite of characters in the novel, Atlas Shrugged, which, unfortunately, is becoming prophetic. I will leave you with some quotes from Atlas Shrugged. You will find the rhetoric too familiar. You can shrug it off or be inspired to take action.
* * * * *
Statement of Dr. Floyd Ferris to a group of cartelized businessmen, including James Taggart (page 540):
“Genius is a superstition, Jim,” said Dr. Ferris slowly, with an odd kind of emphasis, as if knowing that he was naming the unnamed in all their minds. “There’s no such thing as the intellect. A man’s brain is a social product. A sum of influences that he’s picked up from those around him. Nobody invents anything, he merely reflects what’s floating in the social atmosphere. A genius is an intellectual scavenger and a greedy hoarder of the ideas which rightfully belong to society, from which he stole them. All thought is theft. If we do away with private fortunes, we’ll have a fairer distribution of wealth. If we do away with the genius, we’ll have a fairer distribution of ideas.”
Speech of industrialist and entrepreneur Hank Rearden, on defending his motives for being successful (page 480):
“… I work for nothing but my own profit—which I make by selling a product they need to men who are will and able to buy it. I do not produce it for their benefit and the expense of mine, and they do not buy it for my benefit at the expense of their; I don’t sacrifice my interests to them nor do they sacrifice their to me; we deal as equals by mutual consent to mutual advantage—and I am proud of every penny that I have earned in this manner. I am rich and I am proud of every penny I own. I have made my money by my own efforts, in free exchange and through eh voluntary consent of every man I dealt with—the voluntary consent of those who employed me when I started, the voluntary consent of those who work for me now, the voluntary consent of those who buy my product. I shall answer all the questions you are afraid to ask me openly. Do I wish to pay my workers more than their services are worth to me? I do not. Do I wish to sell my product for less than my customers are willing to pay me? I do not. Do I wish to sell it at a loss or give it away? I do not. If this is evil, do whatever you please about me, according to whatever standard you hold. These are mine. I am earning my own living, as every honest man must. I refuse to accept as guilt the fact of my own existence and the fact that I must work in order to support it, I refuse to accept as guilt that I am able to do it and to do it well, I refuse to accept as guilt the fact that I am able to do it better than most people—the fact that my work is of greater value than the work of my neighbors and that more men are willing to pay me. I refuse to apologize for my ability—I refuse to apologize for my success—I refuse to apologize for my money. If this is evil, make the most of it. If this is what the public finds harmful to its interest, let the public destroy me. …”
Statement of Wesley Mouch, who has become economic czar, and who is about to impose centralized control of the economy (page 536):
“The picture is now this,” said Wesley Mouch. “The economic condition of the country was better the year before last than it was last year, and last year it was better than it is at present. It’s obvious that we would not be able to survive another year of the same progression. Therefore, our sole objective must now be to hold the line. To stand still in order to catch our stride. To achieve total stability. Freedom has been given a chance and has failed. Therefore, more stringent controls are necessary. Since men are unable and unwilling to solve their problems voluntarily, they must be forced to do it. …”
All quotes are from the 35th anniversary edition of Atlas Shrugged, 1992.
Unfortunately the real shrugging is done by an electorate that acquiesced to a corrupt two party system and chooses to watch ‘reality TV’ over dealing with the reality they are screwed regularly by said system.
We have the finest government K Street can buy.
I watched the clip and…this is me just looking at all sides here…it almost seems as if he is saying “if you own a business, you didn’t build the roads and bridges”. However, given that no one in his administration has made a statement clarifying that I can only believe what he said is in fact what he meant.
That is what it sounds like. But consider this; “business” is closer to “that” than “roads and bridges” which implies it is the antecedent in question. And since “roads and bridges” is a plural, the correct sentence would be “those” not “that”.
Are we suppose to believe that Obama, being so intelligent and a great orator, would make such a fundamental grammatical error?
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
I believe that the “anyone can make it in America” social concept you refer to goes by a much more succinct name in “The American Dream”. I don’t think that the immediate associations with whimsy or fantasy that this more colloquial title implies are at all misleading of it’s character.
Of course not everyone can make it in America even if they wanted to. After all, not everyone can muster the same degree of individual effort, pluck, intelligence, good judgement, and luck. This is especially true when you consider that one’s degree of luck and intelligence (which I admittedly often confuse with educational opportunity) so closely correspond with one’s initial state of affluence.
A democracy that holds that all men are created equal while simultaneously promoting the consolidation of wealth, power and opportunity under an ever shrinking minority segment of the population has some serious soul searching to do.
You might ask how and why did that consolidation come about. It wasn’t capitalism and free markets. The “all men created equal” concept has to do with one’s standing under the law and the state. It has nothing to do with wealth redistribution. I do believe, that with ambition and drive comes success. Just look at the success our recent immigrants have had here. Not all make it, but many do. That’s why they came.
Why should those with the most wealth (accumulated or generated) allow capitalism and free markets to exist if these systems promote competition that would otherwise threaten their dominance in the marketplace?
The idea I was alluding to with my reference to the “all men created equal” concept was that the law and state actually do not consider all men as equals. These days the law only considers those men or corporations who can afford a lawyer and the state is represented by politicians (left and right) whose every policy is manipulated to line the pockets of big business.
I don’t doubt that recent immigrants to America are mostly enjoying economic prosperity compared to what they experienced in their countries of origin. You seem to be suggesting however that if America had no existing wealth this would still be the case.
Even a janitor is better off in a free society than the average worker of today.
I started with nothing, zero, zip, nada, but I am an American. Today, I own a successful business in the US, and I own one in Europe and employ both Americans and Europeans in both locations.
If you have the drive and are willing to pay the trade offs, anyone can do the same thing in America. Europeans cannot. The state will not allow it.
Wealth is not a sum zero game. If you have billions, that does not mean you hurt me. Freedom and productivity are the source rising incomes.
The vast majority of the poor in America are there because of cultural issues, not economic ones. Politics will not help them.
Wealth is a sum zero game. Wealth is based on property rights and property is finite. The ability to produce wealth only seems infinite to you because you don’t realize that the earth is a finite resource.
If I have a billion dollars and a kid in China can make me a t-shirt for 5 cents, does it hurt you to buy it from me for 10 dollars? Does it hurt the kid in China if I stop paying her to make my t-shirts because the kids in India will do it for 2 cents?
By promoting a society to engage in this kind of economy I am promoting its self-destruction. If a society wishes to combat the incentive for these kinds of transactions by raising taxes on the rich for redistribution to the lower classes I have no moral objection to that.
Well said, Jeff!
Mr. Harding, that was very astute! I’m 64, when I was 21 I read two books that have guided me through out my life. Atlas Shrugged and Non Dare Call it Conspiracy; both Books have proven to be work of great experience and foresight and have helped guide me through this disaster and is helping to guide me through the continuing demise of America. RON PAUL was our only hope, Romney will be just more of the same… it will only appear he is undoing Barry’s socialist/Marxist agenda, but he won’t…. they both work for the New World Order Boys.
I’m still in the USA, but I don’t know for how much longer. I have children that will need an escape route and I have to create it. Time is now getting shorter by the day!
Stick around. It’s worse elsewhere.
None dare call it conspiracy, I have read long ago, Atlas Shrugged, no. I view the rhetoric of today, like what S.I.Hiwakawa once said: “I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I’m not sure that what you heard, is not what I meant”. There was a time in the past, when politicians would rag upon those who were getting food stamps/welfare, saying they could live off that same stipend, yet when they tried, they only lasted a few days, not the 30/31 days of the month. Perhaps each and everyone who subscribe to the present war between those who have, with those who don’t, might take the time to experience what it’s like to go without, i.e., live on say $1500 to provide shelter, food, medical, transportation if you can, all without a job as an income source. Feed your family if you have one, with what’s left over, then perhaps you might see what this country is facing.
Norman, not sure where you are going here. Are you saying we should redistribute more wealth to poor people to alleviate the problem?
I think what Norman’s trying to say here is that he perceives a lack of empathy in American society for the poor. If there was more empathy for the poor they would receive a greater portion of society’s wealth be it distributed, redistributed, or reredistributed.
There was charity, prior to the growth of the welfare system.
That system is broken when pity becomes providence. Legislators have decided to reward failure, no matter what its guise. When that pity becomes law, and the benefits for failure grow (because humans long for dignity as well), we will create a system that provides everything, and incentive is lost for those who might be great.
It’s a tragic social experiment tried a thousand different ways.
I *just* read that section in Atlas Shrugged and thought the same thing. Thanks for providing the eloquence. Great article.
Is a person who loses his job when the economy tanks a failure? How about a high school graduate that works at WalMart because she can’t afford to go to university? And the kid whose dad is an alcoholic, is he a failure too?
I’m sorry, but when you write people off because they got screwed by a system that’s out of their control you’re really just siding with a system that profits from screwing people over.
On a side note. Please let me know who all these great people are that would have rather not been so great had the economic incentive been less?
Stefan, give me a break. You’re wildly missing the point.
Life is full of failure, and there’s no recipe for what makes a man successful. I’ve failed plenty of times, and plenty of kids who had alcoholic dads went on to make lots of money and raise wonderful kids.
The point is, that charity exists and has existed long before it was brought about by force. I am siding with a moral system.
Actually Matt, the point is, that it’s the force of the American people which has compelled their government to become a welfare state so it doesn’t matter what you or I think. (Ain’t democracy a bitch?)
One of the reasons it has failed to materialize more quickly is because of corruption and propaganda funded by the industrial elite who conveniently own controlling shares in all the major media corporations and what not.
Of course, once the rich have been reeled in by a more burdensome tax distribution, all incentive for diligent and hard-working entrepreneurial folk such as yourself will be lost and you will have no choice but to fall in line behind the democratic majority like the rest of us.
Try not to worry about it too much though. China will soon takes it’s rightful place as world super power and give all you free-wheeling gun-slinging capitalists one more kick at the can.
(Hopefully “The Chinese Dream” rolls better off the tongue in Mandarin than it does in English.)
Actually, it’s not as simple as blaming it on business. I sort of don’t want to get into this with you because I can smell where you’re coming from, but FDR and Linden Johnson have more to answer for the welfare state than any “industrial elite”, and we are a federal republic, not a democracy.
BTW using words like “industrial elite” is kind of a dead give away. Try subtle next time.
I’m sorry but I don’t have much use for subtlety. If I’m going to convince anyone to change their beliefs I would prefer it to be by the expression of my honest opinion. After all I expect the same courtesy from anyone else. I hope that I don’t come across as too proud to have my opinion swayed by reason.
As to your first comment I never meant to blame business exclusively (after all I did say “one of the reasons”.) The core american value at fault here is greed. The business world is not the only place where greed exists. Greed exists on Wall Street, K Street, Main Street and in the dumpster behind my house. Politicians know that greed exists. That’s why they campaign on tax cuts. And it’s because government caters to this greed that a false sense of entitlement has found a home in American society at every level.
The reason that I pick on the wealthy more than the middle class or poor when I hear talk about economic reform is because quite simply it’s the wealthy who have benefited the most from the culture of greed that we live with today and therefore it should be the wealthy who shoulder the greatest responsibility for making things right.
Does that sound unreasonable to you?
I should clarify. When I say the wealthy should shoulder the greatest responsibility I mean the greatest economic responsibility. In a democracy or federal republic or whatever you want to call it, all citizens ultimately have the same moral responsibility.
RON PAUL was our only hope, Romney will be just more of the same…
This is so absolutely true – our ONCE GREAT country being destroyed from within and with compliant sheep called electorate – boy will they be mad when they REALIZE how stupid they were – of course by then it will be to late and likely is NOW
I believe that the “American Dream” has been lost to ordinary americans for more than Twenty Years. Thanks in very large measure to efforts of the BUSH CLINTON BUSH crime family,incessantly bludgeoned by Federal Bureacrats reams of interpretations, of Federal Regulations and the Congress’s never ending streams of new legislation drowning, nearly stangled in red tape,the murder of the final generation of american entrepeneurs by President Obama is SIMPLY a mercy killing.
The Dream is Over.
In the BUSHCLINTONBUSH new world order no man shall ever have the right to dream. No man shall be permitted to hope.
the Bush/Clinton/Bush era differs little from previous presidents’ tenures.
the 60s entitlement period followed by the closure of the gold window is the culprit. that was what enabled the current state of affairs, which is annihilating the middle class. the American dream for the middle class ended in 1971, we just didn’t know it yet. as Jeff pointed out, these things have very long tails. it takes forever.
i wasn’t alive so i certainly don’t remember it, and i believe that gives me a better perspective, i didn’t see it happen thus have no bias or preconceived notions. ancecdotal evidence is about as useful a bicycle in prison.
just the facts, ma’am.
dd
I do remember it because I lived thru it and for thirty years from 1971 until 2001 many of us fought the good fight as Robert Ringer described it in his book “Restoring the American Dream” but we were to few and the parasite majority in American politics were too many. Now they own the country. TANSTAFL
Jim, i agree. but again, the parasitic majority would not have had the ability to be too many had we remained on the gold standard.
impossible.
As pointed out in Atlas Shrugged, the United States is the only country in the world where you can make money. This is an entirely revolutionary concept and is the true American Dream. For thousands of years, wealth was obtained by a few through battles, birthright and land-ownership. Everyone else as a servent, serf or slave to the aristocracy.
Government does not create jobs or opportunities. Individuals create businesses, jobs, trade and wealth. The governmental only taxes it citizens that produce at the highest rates thus looting the produces just as investors (Bain Capital, for instance) only loot to provide Corporate Welfare based on need and not ability.
Yeah, governments invested in roads but where did they get the money? The didn’t create it, it was created by the engineers, designers, laborers and equipment operators who were taxed on their productivity. The money came from the very people who created the roads & bridges, not any government.
Great comment!
Don’t forget that the government can borrow money from parties that are external to the state to fund infrastructure for it’s citizens. If the government didn’t borrow money the economy would probably collapse because it has grown dependent on a level of consumption than it can increasingly not afford.
How do you guys reconcile the “USA Number 1 in Entrepreneuralism” concept against the fact that America’s industrial success was all predicated on cheap energy that has now pretty much dried up, not to mention neo-colonialism?
Naomi: Costs of energy are important but play a small part of the overall cost of getting goods to consumers. Industrial success is based on entrepreneurship and the availability of capital. See the comment by Thomas on “make money.”
Energy costs play a small part until cheap energy is depleted or the costs of using energy are “artificially” raised.
Industrial success is based on keeping the costs of production lower than the price the consumer will pay for the product. This is more easily accomplished in a disparate global market place where industry can benefit from cheaper labour markets and more pliable governments than our own. Since transportation is still so cheap it is possible to have apples produced on another continent and shipped across the ocean and still be cheaper than domestically grown apples in many situations.
Hurray for free trade and capitalism!
Isn’t the major problem the Central Bank has been implemented again? I read something in Mises Daily that talked of Hamiltoniansim ” Free choice impoverishes us; sales taxes make us wealthy. Of course, they never use the term “free choice.” That would reveal their real target to stamp out. So, they use the term “free trade.”
This is the Cronyism between the Government and say—-Jeffrey Immelt that I understand.
That Speech was truly frightening and what was more frightening was the Liberal response of, “He’s not saying that, he’s saying you need help, and the Government is there to help the people!”
Really, and I am sure the Government will have me fill out my forms in triplicate to “help” my Business
Atlas Shrugged Part 2 will be in theaters Oct 12, 2012.
You people make me laugh
Our great country – before the ’60′s?
really. WW II , the depression, The robber baron era.
What History have you been reading.
The wealth is redistributed alright – upward. The people go in debt for a business or a decent house, necessary for survival or car and then banks and huge conglomerates proceed to make debt slaves out of them collecting very penny they earn in interest on money created form nothing. And you say wealth is redistribute , right. And you begrudge a few dollars for the poor. Really – think about what you are saying and I’ll know you’ll have a smart well-crafted retort but even as you do you should think about your sour attitude toward the poor.
The middle class continued to c=screwed a the behest of the new robber barons – now all easily identified as robber baron. Small businesses like myself pay taxes they have dozens of phantom corporations to avoid paying them. This great country has always been rigged. The poor account for about 10% of our total budget. 60& goes to a bloated fat defense corrupt industry. If your small business is threat to any mega entity they just buy you. This has always been rigged, just the faces and methods change and improve, and the ink wasn’t dry on the articles of confederation or declaration of independence before the devious bankers were at work trying to take over the county. Don’t be so naive. It doesn’t look good on otherwise intelligent people. Sounds more like people opposing Obama are trying to clear their guilty conscious.
What history are you reading? You may wish to ask yourself why these things happen. Why do we have poverty? What mechanisms frustrate economic growth? Government has proven that it cannot alleviate poverty; that is fact. The only thing that will help poor people is allowing entrepreneurs to create wealth. While you denigrate the wealthy, you don’t seem to appreciate their role in society of creating wealth. I would agree with some of what you say, but the middle class isn’t being screwed by robber barons, they are screwed by government policies that create booms and busts. You can thank the Fed for that.
Wow, that original comment actually reads like someone was keyword stuffing for a “We are the 99%” blog.
Let’s see if I can sum it up for a tag cloud:
“robber baron”, “begrudge”, “the poor”, “necessary for survival”, “huge conglomerates”, “debt slaves”, “phantom corporations”, “mega entity”, devious bankers”, “guilty conscience”, and lastly, “bloated fat defense corrupt industry” <– very targeted, nicely done.
The main mechanism that frustrates economic growth is reality.
You cannot have economic growth unless the demand for the consumption of production is increased. If you refuse to train the poor to support themselves (which would likely require significant investment by those who are not poor) and if the wages of the middle class in America are levelling off, where exactly do you suppose that this increase in demand is going to come from? Population growth? Probably mostly from the developing world outside of the western world.
Has it occurred to you that the reason the wages in the middle class have peaked is because they’re level of consumption is already higher than they can afford? The reason that their wages have peaked is because people in the developing world are increasingly willing and able to do the work of Americans for less. But who in their right mind would work for less unless their level of consumption was also less?
The problem here is that entrepreneurs require the economic growth of non entrepreneurs but non entrepreneurs do not have the means or incentive to generate economic growth. What you are really asking for by suggesting that Obama should not pursue a policy of increased state welfare is that the culture of consumerism in America should be restrained.
Jeff Harding I think you and I are starting to agree.
Please forgive my rampant grammatical errors.
It just occurred to me that what you may alternatively be asking for is a voluntary increase in the proportion of Americans who endeavor to gain wealth through the consumption of the developing world in which case we will only be courting the same economic collapse for the entire world that western society is experiencing now. I for one don’t think that should be encouraged.
On the other hand I think investing in the developing world could result in a more equitable distribution of wealth for the world’s citizens. The tricky part of this whole equation is balancing global consumption with the fact that earth only has a finite amount of property to distribute. We also have to be on guard against those undemocratic forces who would try to keep the wealth for themselves by the capitalistic means of armed force.
Sorry again. That was a low blow. Capitalism does not equate to armed force, but it is true that the powerful are far more likely to use armed force than the weak and in the west, power is associated to those those who influence popular opinion or corrupt the government.
One last thing to add:
If a capitalistic society benefits from labourers in a market external to itself but does not recognize the rights of those labourers to join said society than that society is essentially acting undemocratically.
This is absurdly overheated rhetoric.
Obama made the point that businesses cannot prosper without government assistance, provided through means such as free education, road construction and maintenance, court systems to enforce the rule of law, defense of national security, etc. How is this “restatement of the obvious” an attack on the philosophy, ideals, and economics that made America great? Are you suggesting that government should have no role in educating its citizens? Defending its borders? Building and maintaining infrastructure?
I understand criticism that government is doing to much in one or more of these arenas. But I do not understand the hyperventilation that leads to your melodramatic version of current events or Obama’s motives. Except that it sells to conspiracy theorists. Don’t be that person.
What is overheated? You miss the point. All of us benefited from the infrastructure. So, why aren’t we all entrepreneurs? The point is that these unique people are what drive the economy and society. They create wealth and by doing so, pull the rest of us upward. What Obama is really saying is a collectivist concept of “it takes a village” and that no one really made it on their own. That is entirely wrong. I think this diversion from his written speech is quite telling of his true feelings and that those feelings are the hallmarks of the Progressive movement which denigrates individual effort and strives to make us more dependent on the state.
I’m not an entrepreneur because generating wealth doesn’t interest me. I happen to agree that those “unique” people who do care about generating wealth are mostly responsible for driving the economy (by “driving” I literally mean are in the driver’s seat.)
I think it’s regrettable that American society is so deeply defined by it’s consumerism and I greatly resent that you would credit someone with the character of Hank Rearden with adding anything of real value to society (by “real” I mean not economic.)
I’m curious what force you attribute to the power behind the progressive movement. I assume you don’t take it to be a genuine popular movement by the people.
I have to wonder what would be happening to all those people whose jobs evaporated due to progress in automation had the government not picked up the slack with deficit spending. It seems like the only jobs left for the unskilled are in low paying services. Even the educated young have trouble finding jobs. My sons hire recently admitted attorneys from time to time. A hundred or so with no experience will apply within a couple days for a position paying $2000 a month. After the approaching singularity (when a machine becomes capable of designing and building a better machine ) what purpose will labor serve? Just the owners of machines have the income – the 1%. Society is evolving rapidly. My wife vacationed in Greece a while back. Her guide was educated as an electrical engineer but could not find a job without leaving Greece. How many electrical engineers can the world effectively make use of in design of the products being consumed? Obviously, there are enough already. It only takes a single genius to come up with a new way that spreads around the world. We all know about E=MC^2
There exists in man a capacity for tremendously powerful acts of altruism. When we focus on ourselves and what we do not have as individuals our true potential for greatness is lost.