For thousands of years there's been a small class of people controlling governments and other powerful institutions, ensuring that the vast majority of the public does most of the work but rigging economy so that those in power get vast majority of wealth!
This doesn't sound very good; so they've been coming up with increasingly sophisticated propaganda for decades of not hundreds of years to make it seem otherwise. Two of the most famous political advisers or propagandists are Niccolò Machiavelli and Edward Bernays, who did their most famous work centuries or decades ago, and are practically never mentioned by mainstream media, yet they routinely rely on tactics developed by them to manipulate the public and have come up with more modern variations of it that are practically absent from the political discussion, although some alternative media outlets do discuss them occasionally and if people review their tactics they can recognize how they're being used, and perhaps how to stand up to them and expose them.
One of the most famous things that Machiavelli was known for was his claim that it was better to have people fear the Prince than to love him, and in many cases this tactic is still used today; however, more sophisticated propaganda has been used to confuse the public so they don't know who to trust. Another one of his recommendations is that leaders "keep the citizens poor" and "to be so prepared for war as always to be ready to make war," even though it's routinely fought based on lies.
Hermann Göring admitted starting wars based on lies in his jail cell was standard operating procedure over seventy years ago, and it's clear that people controlling governments have known for hundreds of years how to manipulate crowds to turn them against each other all along:
There's been plenty of talk, mostly in alternative media outlets about how the political establishment routinely uses propaganda and demagoguery to scare people into going into these wars based on lies, which Goring, Machiavelli & Bernays as well as most other political operatives for both Parties today all clearly understood. This is important; however, one of the leading reasons, not discussed so often, that many people are so inclined to believe these obvious lies involves their upbringing and whether they're taught critical thinking skills.
Indoctrination of children to believe what they're told often prepares them to blindly obey their leaders later in life which I've gone into numerous times including Does child abuse and bullying lead to more violence?; Eli Roth’s Milgram/Obedience experiment much more extensive than most people realize; and more recently Research On Preventing Violence Absent From National Media which shows that in addition to being more susceptible to propaganda it also leads to more violence later in life, both supporting wars and domestic violence or murder at home. The states still allowing corporal punishment in schools, and presumably more inclined to use them at home had between 22% and 31% higher murder rates than those not allowing it for the past ten years and they're also more likely to support war and send their own children to fight those wars.
Edward Bernays also wrote extensively about how to control the masses without them realizing it often contradicting himself, like many propagandists including when writing in Propaganda (1928), "THE conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country." And going on to say later "If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it?"
This ignores the fundamental principle of democracy that the government should rule with the informed consent of the public, which means that instead of basing their votes on propaganda from a small group of elites, the public needs to have access to educational material from any opposing views including how to expose propaganda being used to manipulate them. Those relying on the traditional media don't have that. A lot of this doesn't fit the strictest definition of conspiracy though, since a lot of the research about this propaganda isn't completely secret; however, it isn't taught in schools, nor is it covered in mainstream media, where they routinely implement these propaganda tactics; therefore, it comes very close and for all practical purposes it might as well be a conspiracy, especially since a lot of their activities really is done in secret, often not being disclosed until years later, which does fit the strictest definition of a conspiracy.
However even the indoctrination tactics that aren't completely secret are very effective since they're repeated over and over again, while most people don't know to look to alternative sources for educational material about how they're being manipulated. For a while I was one of the people that dismissed the possibility that Niccolò Machiavelli could have been directing conspiracies hundreds of years after his death when I heard that his book was published publicly describing his political views.
I wondered How can this be part of a conspiracy if it was public knowledge hundreds of years ago?
It wasn't until much later that I started reading more non-fiction books about the tactics often used to indoctrinate the public and manipulate them psychologically that I began to understand. After reading enough non-fiction books it became clear that many educated people study how to manipulate the masses, often by creating complicated ideologies or dividing the working classes among each other, often along racial lines, some of this may be prejudicial but in many cases those prejudices are often stirred up intentionally mainly because it's the way to turn the working class against each other.
This is also much more effective when a small fraction of the public controls almost all of the media, which they have for decades. One of the most fundamental principles of propaganda is that "A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth," or at least it seems to especially when it's not subject to opposing views. Another one that is among the most effective indoctrination methods is a combination of deception and intimidation, as described by Machiavelli, who famously said "it's better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both."
In the fifteenth century they relied much more on intimidation to force people to submit to their leaders, at a time when democracy was almost unthinkable for the majority of the public. Since then the psychological research into the subject has become much more sophisticated and they're now relying more on deception than the threat of force.
Machiavelli hardly even mentioned the need to prevent the working class from learning how to read but by the nineteenth century this was well understood, especially in the south when they still kept slaves, and they didn't feel the need to hide the fact that they wanted to intentionally suppress education. Now, it would sound absurd to claim that they would intentionally try to suppress education but many sources, including Frederick Douglass wrote about how it was commonly known in the south that they should prevent slaves from learning how to read, especially among male slave owners, although in his case the wife of one of his masters thought it would be a good idea to teach him to learn how to read the Bible, but when her husband found out about it he was outraged as described in the following excerpt from "My Bondage and My Freedom" 1855:
Master Hugh was amazed at the simplicity of his spouse, and, probably for the first time, he unfolded to her the true philosophy of slavery, and the peculiar rules necessary to be observed by masters and mistresses, in the management of their human chattels. Mr. Auld promptly forbade continuance of her instruction; telling her, in the first place, that the thing itself was unlawful; that it was also unsafe, and could only lead to mischief. To use his own words, further, he said, "if you give a nigger an inch, he will take an ell;" "he should know nothing but the will of his master, and learn to obey it." "if you teach that nigger--speaking of myself--how to read the bible, there will be no keeping him;" "it would forever unfit him for the duties of a slave;" and "as to himself, learning would do him no good, but probably, a great deal of harm--making him disconsolate and unhappy." "If you learn him now to read, he'll want to know how to write; and, this accomplished, he'll be running away with himself."
Such was the tenor of Master Hugh's oracular exposition of the true philosophy of training a human chattel; and it must be confessed that he very clearly comprehended the nature and the requirements of the relation of master and slave. His discourse was the first decidedly anti-slavery lecture to which it had been my lot to listen. Mrs. Auld evidently felt the force of his remarks; and, like an obedient wife, began to shape her course in the direction indicated by her husband. The effect of his words, on me, was neither slight nor transitory. His iron sentences--cold and harsh--sunk deep into my heart, and stirred up not only my feelings into a sort of rebellion, but awakened within me a slumbering train of vital thought. It was a new and special revelation, dispelling a painful mystery, against which my youthful understanding had struggled, and struggled in vain, to wit: the white man's power to perpetuate the enslavement of the black man. "Very well," thought I; "knowledge unfits a child to be a slave." I instinctively assented to the proposition; and from that moment I understood the direct pathway from slavery to freedom. This was just what I needed; and I got it at a time, and from a source, whence I least expected it.
I was saddened at the thought of losing the assistance of my kind mistress; but the information, so instantly derived, to some extent compensated me for the loss I had sustained in this direction. Wise as Mr. Auld was, he evidently underrated my comprehension, and had little idea of the use to which I was capable of putting the impressive lesson he was giving to his wife. He wanted me to be a slave; I had already voted against that on the home plantation of Col. Lloyd. That which he most loved I most hated; and the very determination which he expressed to keep me in ignorance, only rendered me the more resolute in seeking intelligence. In learning to read, therefore, I am not sure that I do not owe quite as much to the opposition of my master, as to the kindly assistance of my amiable mistress. I acknowledge the benefit rendered me by the one, and by the other; believing, that but for my mistress, I might have grown up in ignorance. (p.88-9)
Part of the reason Master Hugh underestimated Frederick's ability to understand that intentionally depriving him of his ability to read would keep him in line and prevent him from standing up from their rights may be because he spoke out of anger quickly to his wife; however, part of it was also because they routinely underestimated the intelligence of African American's because of their prejudices, and because they succeeded in suppressing their free will or breaking them most of the time so they didn't think about standing up for their own rights most of the time.
However Frederick Douglass turned out to be a truly exceptional person that was able to motivate himself, which was very rare; Master Hugh might have been able to get away with talking like that in front of almost any other slave, since most of them either didn't have the critical thinking skills they needed to think for themselves or they were beat into submission so bad they didn't dare to speak out for themselves.
This is perhaps the most important factor, controlling education and ideology as they're becoming less inclined to rely on fear of their leaders, although they still rely on appeals to emotion to help with this propaganda and implementing divide and rule tactics. This is a major part of the motivation behind the school reform movement which is mostly being pushed by Wall Street executives, economists, the media politicians, and other wealthy people, but not by the working class teachers or students, although many of them fell for the propaganda from the media, at least for a while. Most teachers are among the most well informed about how disastrous this has been, but research exposing it has spread through the grassroots as well including many well informed parents, despite strong bias in favor of corrupt school reform by the media.
Diane Ravitch and The National Education Policy Center have been doing a great job exposing fraud crom the Charter School industry for years, if not over two decades or longer. I went it it some myself in Is Push For Charter Schools Increasing Murder Rates? which shows statistics that indicate that the greatest concentration of Charter Schools are in the poorest communities which also tend to have the highest rates of violence.
Frederick Douglass also wrote about how slave owners encouraged their slaves to drink during the holidays or fight among themselves about who had the best Master, as if that made them better off. This is part of a divide and rule tactic; and it's far more effective when the slaves are emotionally insecure. Most people, including Frederick Douglass had a hard time understanding why the slaves would do this, since it clearly wasn't in their own best interests. However, modern psychology research shows that early intimidation in childhood has a major impact on long term behavior. In many cases when children are brought up in an abusive manner they learn how to avoid punishment by going along with what they're taught even if it's highly irrational.
This is what they refer to as breaking in the slave which Master Hugh and other southern slave owners understood, at least to some degree although they couldn't understand how much damage it did, or the fact that they were deceiving themselves as much as they deceived the slaves, which Frederick Douglass seemed to understand better than they did. This is a major part of the indoctrination process which also teaches violence, irrational prejudicial beliefs, and suppresses critical thinking skills, often as a result of emotional instability. I went into the explanation more in Dobson’s Indoctrination Machine which explains why children raised in an authoritarian manner are more likely to believe what they're told to believe, even if it doesn't make any sense, and go along with the program, which also makes them more susceptible to deceptive propaganda. Alice Miller also explained this in For Your Own Good
A lot of the psychological background takes a lot of reading of good sources, that are practically never mentioned from the mainstream media, but are available in alternative media or libraries if you know where to look for it, to fully understand it; however there are a few basic fundamental that are easy to understand.
They want to keep the working class ignorant, so they don't learn how to do their own fact checking.
They want to keep the working class poor so they can control all the resources we need and indirectly control us.
And they want us to divide up against each other, instead of blaming them for their rigged economic system; this is far more effective if the public acts on emotions and is emotionally unstable, especially while in a crowd. They understand that most people have to be part of a crowd and are more inclined to go along with the program if the whole crowd is doing it.
Another major problem is that a small fraction of the public control powerful institutions, including Wall Street corporations, media, Schools including colleges, both major political parties, and most non-profit organizations among many other things, and most of them aren't accountable directly to the majority of the public. They use their control of these institutions to drive up the cost of education and rig competition, among many other things. This point is made well in a Tweet by Jenny Li:
The problem w/US capitalism is 75% of innovation is how to control and steal money from the masses, 25% is technology to make our world a better place.
This conclusions isn't based on an scientific study that I know of but it's a reasonable good estimate and there's an enormous amount of evidence to support the general idea, even if the exact percentage isn't perfect. We have at least four large industries, insurance, gambling, advertising, public relations, that are based entirely or almost entirely on fraud designed to rig the economy in favor of the wealthy that control large institutions, and many more, including the media and political science that come close to being almost entirely based on fraud to rig economy for the wealthy.
I don't need a complicated study to prove these entire industries are based on fraud; I can establish that simply by considering the fundamentals of each industry. Both advertising and public relations are essentially propaganda industries designed to control information people that people use to make important decisions, and they try to avoid peer review when ever possible. this is much more effective with an oligarchy system where a small number of corporations control each industry, including the mass media, which works very closely with both public relations and the advertising industry. In fact, the vast majority of financing for commercial media comes from the the advertising industry, since they're funded by selling ads.
These four industries might not be completely fraudulent if they weren't for profit industries and were required to provide full disclosure of their business practices, or better yet, others without a conflict of interest explained the fundamentals of these industries to the public; and if they were reasonably regulated. However, that's not the way they work in practice. The advertising industry is the easiest one to demonstrate as fraudulent, assuming you haven't already figured it out; do you really think they maximize profits by providing truth in advertising?
They don't maximize profits by telling the truth; they maximize profits by spinning the truth and making appeals to emotion deceiving consumers even Archie Bunker made a great argument for this in All in the Family forty years ago in the episode about "The Commercial" after they decided to call off Edith's acting part in it:
Public relations is essentially another form of advertising to improve the images of people or corporations that are involved in scandals, which also involves spinning the truth in favor of those implicated. If they wanted to do this well they would simply address legitimate concerns; however, for one example the oil companies spend an enormous amount of money on public relations ads telling us how they're fighting to protect the environment even though more credible research from environmental news outlets clearly shows that's not even close to the truth. Mainstream media, which makes a fortune selling these public relations ads routinely drop coverage of many environmental disasters relatively quickly while continuing to sell these ads, clearly showing that financing for profit media is corrupting it and making it unreliable.
The insurance and gambling industries are incredibly obviously flawed sine they both relies on the same logical or mathematical principles of pooled risk or winning. Everyone puts a certain amount of money into the pool or pot then either the winner or the person facing a tragedy in an accident or something takes the money, but first administrative expenses have to be subtracted, which includes profits for those organizing the industry and an enormous amount of deceptive advertising for both industries!
Technically neither the insurance or gambling industry are supposed to be propaganda industries, however neither one of them could thrive without a massive amount of propaganda deceiving the vasts majority of the public and a media establishment, which makes a fortune selling their ads, refusing to cover more rational explanations of the simple fundamentals of these industries! Both these industries contribute to an enormous amount of crime every year, and yet the media and their advertising continue saying that insurance companies provide "protection" for their customers, which is totally false; they don't prevent disasters at all. Instead they supposedly reimburse people after the fact but they can't get a hundred percent reimbursement, although they try to convince people other wise.
And as I've pointed out in numerous other articles including Insurance Executives Profit By Inciting Murder Occasionally Paying Killers there are dozens if not hundreds of people murdered every year partially because of an insurance motive that wouldn't be available with a public safety-net system instead of a for profit insurance industry, and much more insurance fraud is committed on all types of policies eating up a large portion of money collected from premiums; however since politicians, media and insurance companies all get a share of the profits they decline to tell the public about this!
Propaganda is also used to deceive people into overpaying for everything else, or buy an enormous amount of use less crap that people don't need including diamonds and pearls which serve no practical purposes yet thanks to propaganda people pay a fortune for them because of hype and status. Tobacco would never have grown so much in the twentieth century if not for propaganda to convince people it was cool, or socially desirable, even doctors recommended cigarettes.
Edward Bernays wrote, "It might be better to have, instead of propaganda and special pleading, committees of wise men who would choose our rulers, dictate our conduct, private and public, and decide upon the best types of clothes for us to wear and the best kinds of food for us to eat. But we have chosen the opposite method, that of open competition." Propaganda (1928) by Edward Bernays This is based on the implied assumption that people will make rational choices assuming they have access to accurate information to make those decisions. However that isn't what Bernays recommends.
He goes on to write, "Only through the wise use of propaganda will our government, considered as the continuous administrative organ of the people, be able to maintain that intimate relationship with the public which is necessary in a democracy." This is an indication that he thinks if we can't have wise men choose our leaders to make all our decisions for us that we should have wise men control the propaganda that we use to make these decisions.
However his Wikipedia page shows what kind of wise propaganda he thinks should be used to control the decisions many people make including his work for the tobacco industry promoting cigarettes that ultimately made millions of people sick and caused their premature deaths after horrible illnesses; and provided propaganda for the United Fruit company while they were suppressing the rights of their workers and more propaganda for the CIA when they needed help restoring the image of the tyrants they put in power after the coup in Guatemala overthrew the democratically elected government!
This is just a minuscule fraction of the propaganda that's being used to promote wars based on lies, suppress democracy while claiming to promote it, indoctrinate people while claiming to educate them and much more!
Over the past several hundred years the ruling class has gradually learned to adapt to demands from the working class for equal rights and democracy so that instead of controlling the masses by fear and intimidation they now control the masses by a more complicated system of propaganda and indoctrination, with only a small fraction of the public understanding these methods; and most of those people are part of the ruling class who don't want to educated the public to enable them to recognize their propaganda and stop falling for it. Those that do want to educate the public about these indoctrination tactics can't get any access to mainstream media and are forced to resort to social media slowly educating the public at the grassroots level; however this is made more difficult by the fact that the media has studied how to effectively label them as conspiracy theorists with credibility problems, and they also resort heavily to appeals to emotion so many people are irrationally attached to their beliefs, often for religious or cultural reasons, and because once beliefs are drilled into peoples heads they don't change them quickly especially if they're adopted by a crowd with similar beliefs.
I went into some of this more in Frank Luntz confesses to sabotaging democratic process for clients; War Propaganda and several other previous articles.
This time it’s a Machiavellian mis-quote. 04/10/2012 this article points out that the quote “Never attempt to win by force what can be won by deception,” was almost certainly not made by Niccolò Machiavelli; however the principle may be more important than whether he said it or not. the principle stands on it's own merits regardless of who repeats this quote, and it's easy to recognize that many of our leaders have indicated with their actions that they understand that it's often easier to accomplish their goals through deception than with force. Furthermore, Niccolò Machiavelli made many other statements to glorify honesty and integrity when it suited his purposes, or to justify deception when it suited his purposes.
Many politicians including Machiavelli have clearly indicated with their actions they're more concerned with the illusion of integrity than with the real thing. The same goes for other quotes about propaganda that may not have turned out to be from the source they were attributed to including "A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth," which is routinely attributed to Vladimir Lenin, although he probably never said it; but the principle is clearly recognized as being effective by many propagandists or advertisers, although they prefer to avoid admitting it.
Letter: ‘Lenin never said it’ 11/15/2013 A Lie Told Often Enough Becomes the Truth? In Dr. William Hamilton’s case (from the Sky-Hi News on Nov. 8, 2013), that is definitely true, except that Vladimir Lenin never said it.
Life and Times of Frederick Douglass 1895 complete text
Narrative of the life of Frederick Douglass : an American slave 1845
Douglass, Frederick, 1818-1895: My Bondage and My Freedom 1855
Elizabeth Gillespie McRae "Mothers Of Mass Resistance" 2018
Niccolò Machiavelli "Discourses" it should be the object of every well-governed commonwealth to make the State rich and keep individual citizens poor ..... Here we see that in tranquil times republics are subject to the infirmity of lightly esteeming their worthiest citizens. And this offends these persons for two reasons: first, because they are not given the place they deserve; and second, because they see unworthy men and of abilities inferior to their own, as much or more considered than they. Injustice such as this has caused the ruin of many republics. For citizens who find themselves undeservedly slighted, and perceive the cause to be that the times are tranquil and not troubled, will strive to change the times by stirring up wars hurtful to the public welfare. When I look for remedies for this state of things, I find two: first, to keep the citizens poor, so that wealth without worth shall corrupt neither them nor others; second, to be so prepared for war as always to be ready to make war; for then there will always be a need for worthy citizens, as was the case in Rome in early times.
CHAPTER XXIV.--_That, commonly, Fortresses do much more Harm than Good_
He who is made Prince by the favour of the nobles, has greater difficulty to maintain himself than he who comes to the Princedom by aid of the people, since he finds many about him who think themselves as good as he, and whom, on that account, he cannot guide or govern as he would. But he who reaches the Princedom by the popular support, finds himself alone, with none, or but a very few about him who are not ready to obey. Moreover, the demands of the nobles cannot be satisfied with credit to the Prince, nor without injury to others, while those of the people well may, the aim of the people being more honourable than that of the nobles, the latter seeking to oppress, the former not to be oppressed. Add to this, that a Prince can never secure himself against a disaffected people, their number being too great, while he may against a disaffected nobility, since their number is small. The worst that a Prince need fear from a disaffected people is, that they may desert him, whereas when the nobles are his enemies he has to fear not only that they may desert him, but also that they may turn against him; because, as they have greater craft and foresight, they always choose their time to suit their safety, and seek favour with the side they think will win. Again, a Prince must always live with the same people, but need not always live with the same nobles, being able to make and unmake these from day to day, and give and take away their authority at his pleasure. 2
But to make this part of the matter clearer, I say that as regards the nobles there is this first distinction to be made. They either so govern their conduct as to bind themselves wholly to your fortunes, or they do not. Those who so bind themselves, and who are not grasping, should be loved and honoured. As to those who do not so bind themselves, there is this further distinction. For the most part they are held back by pusillanimity and a natural defect of courage, in which case you should make use of them, and of those among them more especially who are prudent, for they will do you honour in prosperity, and in adversity give you no cause for fear. But where they abstain from attaching themselves to you of set purpose and for ambitious ends, it is a sign that they are thinking more of themselves than of you, and against such men a Prince should be on his guard, and treat them as though they were declared enemies, for in his adversity they will always help to ruin him. 3
He who becomes a Prince through the favour of the people should always keep on good terms with them; which it is easy for him to do, since all they ask is not to be oppressed. But he who against the will of the people is made a Prince by the favour of the nobles, must, above all things, seek to conciliate the people, which he readily may by taking them under his protection. For since men who are well treated by one whom they expected to treat them ill, feel the more beholden to their benefactor, the people will at once become better disposed to such a Prince when he protects them, than if he owed his Princedom to them. 4
Niccolò Machiavelli "The Prince" A prince does not spend much on colonies, for with little or no expense he can send them out and keep them there, and he offends a minority only of the citizens from whom he takes lands and houses to give them to the new inhabitants; and those whom he offends, remaining poor and scattered, are never able to injure him; whilst the rest being uninjured are easily kept quiet, and at the same time are anxious not to err for fear it should happen to them as it has to those who have been despoiled. In conclusion, I say that these colonies are not costly, they are more faithful, they injure less, and the injured, as has been said, being poor and scattered, cannot hurt. Upon this, one has to remark that men ought either to be well treated or crushed, because they can avenge themselves of lighter injuries, of more serious ones they cannot; therefore the injury that is to be done to a man ought to be of such a kind that one does not stand in fear of revenge.
And if any one should say: Caesar obtained empire by liberality, and many others have reached the highest positions by having been liberal, and by being considered so, I answer: Either you are a prince in fact, or in a way to become one. In the first case this liberality is dangerous, in the second it is very necessary to be considered liberal; and Caesar was one of those who wished to become pre-eminent in Rome; but if he had survived after becoming so, and had not moderated his expenses, he would have destroyed his government. And if any one should reply: Many have been princes, and have done great things with armies, who have been considered very liberal, I reply: Either a prince spends that which is his own or his subjects' or else that of others. In the first case he ought to be sparing, in the second he ought not to neglect any opportunity for liberality. And to the prince who goes forth with his army, supporting it by pillage, sack, and extortion, handling that which belongs to others, this liberality is necessary, otherwise he would not be followed by soldiers. And of that which is neither yours nor your subjects' you can be a ready giver, as were Cyrus, Caesar, and Alexander; because it does not take away your reputation if you squander that of others, but adds to it; it is only squandering your own that injures you.
And there is nothing wastes so rapidly as liberality, for even whilst you exercise it you lose the power to do so, and so become either poor or despised, or else, in avoiding poverty, rapacious and hated. And a prince should guard himself, above all things, against being despised and hated; and liberality leads you to both. Therefore it is wiser to have a reputation for meanness which brings reproach without hatred, than to be compelled through seeking a reputation for liberality to incur a name for rapacity which begets reproach with hatred.
Niccolò Machiavelli Quotes It is undoubtedly necessary for the ambassador occasionally to mask his game; but it should be done so as not to awaken suspicion and he ought also to be prepared with an answer in case of discovery.
(Roughly) Daily Posts Tagged ‘propaganda’
The prince of leadership: Nicolo Machiavelli 02/22/2016 The leader should know how to enter into evil when necessity commands.
Union-Buster: Why We Need To Stop Using The Term Modern day union busting propagandists are often trying to rewrite history and convince workers that their bosses are now looking out for their best interests. This article implies that unions were violent with police protecting corporations; however a close look at history clearly shows the union busters hired by corporations were often much more violence & police often acted on their behalf with more violence. If their claim that they're trying to ensure that unions weren't necessary were true then we wouldn't have nearly as much income inequality!