And further down he characterizes social consequences of such human behavior.
“…the Ownership Society doesn't even try to spread the risks and rewards of the new economy among all Americans. Instead, it simply magnifies the uneven risks and rewards of today's winner-take-all economy. If you are healthy or wealthy or just plain lucky, then you will become more so. If you are poor or sick or catch a bad break, you will have nobody to look to for help. That's not a recipe for sustained economic growth or the maintenance of the strong American middle class. It's certainly not a recipe for social cohesion. It runs counter to those values that say we have a stake in each other's success.
That is certainly not who we are as people”
However, let’s come back to the subject of how money influence politics. Further on, Obama describes his relationship with unions and their leaders, that also financially supported his campaigns through the course of his political career. Here is his conclusion:
«So I owe those unions. When their leaders call, I do my best to call them back right away. I don’t consider this corrupting in any way. I don’t mind dealing obligated toward home health-care workers who clean bedpans every day for little more than the minimum wage, or toward teachers in some of the toughest schools in the country, many of whom have to dip into their own pockets at the beginning of every school year to buy crayons and books for their students. I got into politics to fight for these folks and I’m glad a union is around to remind me of their struggles.
But I also understand that there will be times when these obligations collide with other obligations – the obligation to children not yet born whom we are saddling with debt.” (p.118).
So this is to say that problems of upbringing, teaching kids diligence and maintaining fairness are connected from the point of view of Barack Obama and his voters. And although these issues are broadly discussed in public, very little is done in real politics in order to enforce those values, which only brings problems both for Americans and the USA as a state. Obama writes that upon his initiative was passed a bill protecting Americans from loosing their jobs to immigrants, willing to work for smaller wages. And then he cites a part of conversation he had with one of his colleagues:
“ – My small business guys are still going to hire immigrants,” he said. :All your amendment does is make them pay more for their help.”
“But why would they hire immigrants over U.S. workers if they cost the same?” I asked him.
He smiled. “’Cause let’s face it, Barack. These Mexicans are just willing to work harder than Americans do.” (p. 266)
For Russian “elite” however, the question is different: “How can we make or trick people to work for our own prosperity in conditions when we deliberately impose injustice?” This problem has no solution and all attempts to solve it, as history shows, have only led to political suicide of some “elite” representative and of “elite” as a social class.
2.3. Top secret: mentality of state power in the USA and in Russia
In the works of the Concept of Social Security concerning global historical process from the point of view of Sufficiently Universal Theory of Ruling, as early as in 1991 we defined hierarchy of instruments for ruling social systems in the continuity of generations (from most to least powerful):
1. Information of worldview nature, or methodology, which, once adopted, allows men to project – individually and socially – their “standard automations” of identification with regard to particular processes within the completeness and integrity of the World, and to define in their individual perception the hierarchic order of these processes in their mutual interconnection. This information lays foundation for the culture of thinking and for the completeness of ruling activities including also intra-social absolute power both on regional and global levels.
2. Information of annalistic, chronological nature, in all do-mains of Culture and all domains of Knowledge. It allows seeing, in which direction the processes are developing, and to correlate particular domains of Culture as a whole and of branches of Knowledge. To those, whose worldview is based on the sense of proportion and is conformable to the World, this information allows identifying particular processes while sieving the “chaotic” flow of facts and phenomena through the worldview “sieve” – subjective human measure of identification. (Within the present context the culture means all information, which is not transferred genetically in the succession of generations).
3. Information of fact-descriptive nature: description of particular processes and their interconnections constitutes the substance of information of the third priority, which includes the faith-teachings of religious cults, secular ideologies, technologies and facts of all domains of science.
4. Economic processes, as an instrument of influence subordinated to purely informational instruments of influence through finances (money), which embody a totally generalized type of information of economic nature.
5. Genocide practices, affecting not only those who live today but also the generations to come, eliminating the genetically determined potential for learning and for development by them of the cultural heredity of ancestors: nuclear blackmail-threat of use; alcohol, tobacco and other kinds of narcotic drugs genocide, food additives, all ecological pollutants, some medicines-real use; “gene engineering” and “biotechnologies” – potential danger.
6. Other instruments of influence mainly by force – weapons in traditional sense of this word; killing and crippling human beings; destructing and exterminating material and technical objects of civilization, cultural monuments and bearers of their spirit.
Although there are no evident distinctions between the instruments of influence because many of them, by their capacities, could be related to different priorities, their classification in hierarchical order, as presented above, allows nonetheless to identify the dominating factors of influence that may be used as instruments of ruling, and in particular, as instruments of suppression and elimination of those phenomena in the social life that are conceptually inadequate in the sense of ruling.
Although there’s no certain differentiation between named instruments of influence, because many of them hold qualities allowing us to classify them to different priorities, but this hierarchically organized classification allows to define dominating factors of influence, which can be used as instrument of ruling, particularly for suppression and elimination of conceptually unacceptable events in the life of society.
This set of instruments when used inside a social system is just a general way to manage it. However when used by one social system towards another and provided that their concepts of ruling are the generalized weapons, meaning warfare in its widest definition; or those are the means to maintain self-ruling in another social system, provided that there is not conceptual incompatibility between their systems.
Above mentioned order defines priorities of names classes of instruments of influence on a society, because any change in the condition of society, caused by the instruments of the highest priorities, will have much worse consequences than those, caused by the instruments of lowest priority. Therefore
In long historical intervals efficiency of instruments grows from the top to the bottom, and irreversibility of the consequences of their use (predominantly defining how effectively states goals were reached – meaning once and for all) – declines from the first to sixth. The same is fair in majority of cases and how noticeable they are.