Hillary Clinton and the Establishment

Sploid -who-owns-all-the-major-brands

When someone suggests that Hillary Clinton is a bad choice because she will work with the establishment? Well, good. I want her to. It is one of the reasons that I want her as President. Here is my logic.

I present a set of graphics (I assume that they are 'approximately' correct) that shows the distribution systems that essentially maintain all of the worlds Urbain areas.  (Sploid -who-owns-all-the-major-brands) If this system crashes, world civilization is down the tubes. It sounds really good to say how the major corporations are evil and they only want one thing and we should dismantle them and throw the ass-holes in jail. I am sure that it feels good to say that as well, but ...

We now have the highest standard of living in the history of humanity. We have the lowest poverty rates that the world has ever seen. We have the lowest levels of violence that the world has ever seen. Shit, one can eat fucking tomatoes in the dead of winter and Kiwis from New Zealand for next to nothing. Oranges are not all the difficult to find in North Dakota in the dead of winter during a snowstorm. Maybe it does not seem that way given peoples desire to hear all about disaster, but the numbers are there to back this up.

So, guys, all this rhetoric about dismantling the evil 'establishment' is a bit, how shall I say? A bit 'silly'. Yes, there are bad apples and crooks that need to be put away, yes there are regulations that need to go away and others that need to be put in place. This is one hell of a complex economic system that we have going here and I *do not want to break it*. It needs adjusting but it is a dynamic system, it always needs adjusting.

The 'establishment' is what we, our culture, has created over several hundred years and it is the 'establishment' that has given the above mentioned successes, by definition. Yes, by definition. It is the 'establishment' that has reduced the violence. It is the 'establishment' that has created the food distribution that feeds virtually everyone in the cities. It is the 'establishment' that has presided over the social order that has allowed for research on disease prevention. I could go on.

OK, lets assume that other causes are the reason for the prosperity that the world now enjoys. Lets assume that the 'establishment' is, in fact, slowing down progress and things would be far better without them. Fine. With this assumption, I dismiss all the anti-establishment rhetoric as frivolous nonsense. Why? Because apparently the 'establishment' is so inept and powerless that they have not even been able to make a dent in the progress that the rest of us are making. Are you better off than your great-great-grandparents? Got more shoes and a larger variety of food? Got more free cash to vacation on the other side of the country which you can get to in hours instead of days? Using the argument that the establishment needs to be dismantled because they are a problem in nonsense. At best they can be ignored. So why all the energy into something that has virtually no effect on the economy or politics?

When someone suggests that Hillary Clinton is a bad choice because she will work with the establishment? Well, good. I want her to. It is the reason that I want her as President. At the very worst, and by the very arguments made by the 'anti-establishment folks', working with the 'establishment' will have no measurable effect on the progress of the economy. Hillary is a great choice for President.