Goal of This Program
The goal of this program can be summarized in three words: Love the Bully.
Be firm; but love the bully. Do not be afraid of the bully; you will only empower the bully. With fear you transfer your energy to the bully.
Love is not a "sentiment" that comes and goes beyond our volition. Love is a steady virtue that, when repressed causes inestimable damage—and when acted upon creates wonders.
History is our guide.
Bullies in Politics
It is an open secret that the political discourse today has been hijacked by extremists, extremists of the right as well as extremists of the left. Bullies, really.
How do we proceed from here?
Locke and Marx
We have to go back in the history of ideas to find the origin of the gaping hole that separates the political factions today, the abyss into which we are all falling. On our path we encounter John Locke. He gave us all immense help, at great risk to himself, we must remember, in freeing us of the absurd conception of the "divine right" of kings. Yet, shutting his ear to what he did not want to hear lest he learn something that contradicted his beliefs, and thus ultimately acting like a bully, he made a major strategic error. He was so enamored with his lame defense of property rights that, perhaps unaware, he diverted the millenarian struggle for economic justice toward the dustbin of history—never to be heard of again. What dominates the air today is social justice, an innately defective conception, a faint memory of the real thing.
No one can claim that Locke’s defense of property rights was watertight. As I have pointed out elsewhere, try as he might, the best Locke could do in defense of property rights was only a prescriptive arrangement. He set three restrictions on the accumulation of property: "in the state of nature" 1) one may only appropriate as much as one can use before it spoils (Two Treatises 2.31), 2) one must leave "enough and as good" for others (2.27), and 3) one may only appropriate property through one's own labor (2.27). Yes, that should happen among honorable gentlemen. Furthermore, since hoarding of money, hoarding of gold, hoarding of wheat flower are not perishable items, hoarding was not a concern to him.
How lame was this defense of property rights? A much stronger defense would have been had by pointing out that a virtuous man can withstand any assault on his moral integrity, if he has untouchable private property as a right assuring him the power to bake his daily bread. Conversely, how many moral fibers are broken because people cannot withstand any threatened addition to their condition of economic insecurity?
Need I specify that Marx used the rhetoric of a bully?
Most people’s minds, in any case, were not satisfied with Locke’s promise of future wealth through protection of property rights. They concentrated their attention on the daily reality of past experience. The observation of the past led them to focus on the fact of history that most property has traditionally been acquired through conquest and pillage. Karl Marx and the Socialists took their marching orders from this reality.
It was thus that the world of political science was split into two irreconcilable factions: Marx vs. Locke positions have crystallized into the fight of Collectivists vs. Individualists, Communists and/or Socialists. vs. Capitalists.
These are not empty words. This split in ideas has caused a well-known succession of revolutions from the left followed by revolutions from the right. Those words reverberate in a thousand political speeches and programs.
Let us give a closer look at modern political words/worlds.
Before we proceed, though. let us give a look back at Marx. Why does he still have a tremendous amount of influence on people’s minds, despite the dismal performance of his ideas? There are, of course, many reasons. The fundamental one is that no one, to my knowledge, has yet pointed out the weakest kink that is present in his formidable armor. No one has yet realized that Karl Marx lost his fight before entering the ring. Once he conceded that labor is a commodity, his mind was captured by all the successors of John Locke and Adam Smith.
Workers and employees are not meat; they are not a commodity. They create wealth. Hence, they ought to be recognized as the owners of the wealth they produce.
Both Libertarians and Socialists, and Social Justice Purveyors as Well, Are Bullies
Libertarians are bullies. Libertarians, pasturing on ideas of Mises, Hayek, and Robarts, are modern defenders of Lockean property rights. Libertarians feed libertines who are bullies. Libertines are those who assert total liberty for themselves and total subservience for everyone else. Libertarians and libertine both believe that the Masters of Mankind are entitled to the ownership of the entire product of the earth, no matter the havoc they cause in other people’s lives, no matter the wreckage they leave in their wake. Bullies they are both. The bully cannot be contradicted. The prestige of libertarians is at stake; their livelihood is at stake; even their professorial cathedra is at stake. They are escaping the duty of speaking truth to power, though!
Socialists are bullies. Socialists are bullies who feed a bunch of easy lies to the masses of gullible people, people who rely on them to learn the truth about the causes of their clearly abject condition. Lies such as: That the rich are the cause of poverty of the masses (no, it is not the rich who cause poverty, but the wicked); that if we destroy the institution of private property by giving ownership of the tools of production to the "state" all is well (Russia, Mother Russia, tried this solution amidst unspeakable hardship and failed miserably; why try again and again? Remember Einstein’s definition of insanity); that the "government" ought to be a tool for re-distribution of the wealth of others (re-distribution of which wealth? How much? How often? To whom?); one more absurd request: economic equality. Equality when no two snowflakes are alike? What matters if you have more than I have, provided what I have is enough for me? People who frighten other people with the call for economic equality are so in love with their own voice that they do not stop and think about the substance of what they say.
They are purveyors of envy; they are propagators of hate.
Socialists also fail to talk truth to power.
Social Justice Purveyors. Social Justice Purveyors wholeheartedly believe in this policy: "Deny ‘them’ their rights; take their dignity away; give them a warm soup in a cold winter night; and go to sleep in peace." There is no other policy they advocate.
What to say of this debasement of charity? What to say of this debasement of high morality? What to say of this debasement of politics?
There is no knowledge in the spirit of libertarians; there is no knowledge in spirit of socialists. There is not even an attempt to build knowledge about the facts of contemporary life in the purveyors of social justice. Thus, the latter can be taken out of the conversation. Full disclosure: Some purveyors of social justice borrow some ideas some time from Libertarians, at other times some of them borrow ideas from Socialists.
Both Libertarian and Socialists—when they are in or out of power—have to realize that the chance to talk truth to power is a unique one, a volatile one, an ephemeral one. Once you lose the moment of attention that the leader of your own party or the leader of the opposition party might give you, once you lose that teaching moment, who knows how long you have to wait to be offered another chance. People in power, under today’s conditions especially, are mostly bullies. Bullies have no internal peace; they are always busy. So, when you speak to power weigh your words; use only truth. Do not waste your time and the (precious) time of the leader/bully to propose solutions that are not feasible.
Politicians Are Bullies
Underneath the current impasse in the political discourse as well as underneath all subtle academic disquisitions of the day there is a hard reality. The economic world as constructed by the ideological right and the ideological left compels our political representatives to be tragic personalities.
Politicians are compelled to foster policies whose aim is to Rob Peter to Pay Paul (RPPP).
Whether the specifics involve reduction of taxes or raising of taxes, the result is the same. Politicians are compelled to decide which Peter to Rob in order to Pay their preferred Paul.
Politicians are forced to be bullies.
Before we proceed, let us gain a sense of perspective, learning from the past to improve upon the present in order to build a better future for ourselves and our children. Enough of escape into opioids and the world of other material substances for ourselves and our children.
Once upon a time, politicians were not professional politicians. They were citizens who, when called upon, were ready to serve the country—like Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus or George Washington. After performing their duties, they were happy to go back to their gardens.
The world of the future must again largely be like that. Statesmen need to set the rules, within which the market must operate. Once they have inscribed those rules into appropriate legislation, but above all, after having inscribed them in the hearts and minds of all citizens, they can go home to cultivate their gardens.
A piece of legislation that requires continuous retouching and vigilant oversight is not good legislation.
In Concordian economics, for instance, responsibilities balance rights; responsibilities—exercised by me and by you—guard against infractions. We operate in the world of the Common Good.
Reduce legislation, reduce graft.
What do we instead have today? Quite apart from the disillusionment of large swaths of the population, another important result of vain attempts of RPPP policies is to transform much of the media into a compact aggregate of cynics. The reason is not lack of ideas, but the stodgy fact that members of mainstream media—at almost any level—prefer to address the shortcomings of locker room discussion to any analysis of solutions to our dreaded economic problems.
The fault is two-sided. Most reformers are stuck on Marxist proposals for re-distribution of wealth or Lockean blind accumulation of wealth—mainstream media cannot foster that type of discussion; it cannot fight for the equality of poverty; it cannot fight for massive inequality of wealth distribution. These policies are against the personal interests of nearly every member of the media.
Once freed of those Marxist and Lockean non-starters, the media will be happy to discover a whole gamut of proposals that have already been advanced, and many have already been acted upon, though piecemeal, under the aegis of the "New Economy" moniker.
The rights and responsibilities called for by Concordian economics lead to Economic Justice for All. They go beyond Individualism and Collectivism, toward Somism, toward men and women in the social context; toward a world of peace and justice for all (Mother Pelican, November 2014).
A little bit more explicitly. At the head of the list of necessities, following the recommendations of Adam Smith, we can easily put this one. The Federal Reserve System and any other central bank has to issue loans only to create real wealth, such as tables and chairs and services; it has to issue loans at cost; it has to issue loans to benefit everybody, by lending only to individual entrepreneurs, to corporations with ESOPs and CSOPs, to co-operatives, and to governmental units with taxing powers, so loans can be repaid.
A most urgent expression of economic justice is the application of the Jubilee Solution to systematically reduce the number of zeros in our financial accounts to manageable proportions over a reasonable amount of time.
With justice peace also comes.
These are not empty promises. They are hard-fought discoveries of fifty years of independent research and publication. These are eminently feasible programs of action. Advocated by many sources, they have already been applied with resounding success in bits and pieces all over the world. What we need now is an organized push, a systematic push, an uproarious push.
The Digital Age, the Age of Plenty, is upon us. Let us not spoil its fruits, as we spoiled those of the Industrial Revolution, by allowing the few to follow this praxis, note well, in Adam Smith’s words: "All for ourselves and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind" (Wealth of Nations, Bk. III, Ch. 4, par. 10).
Economists should have learned by now that it is not wishful thinking that moves the goods off the shelves. "Effective" demand does that. It is fervently to be hoped for that economists will now have the wisdom to teach the demands of Effective Demand to the would-be Masters of Mankind.
This requirement is made absolutely clear in Concordian economics: without Consumption there can be no Production. And Consumption, namely the fair distribution of financial resources among consumers can be achieved only through the most stern application of economic rights and responsibilities. It is these rights and responsibilities that build Effective Demand among al people of the world; these rights and responsibilities—and not the re-distribution of even one cent of other people’s money.
A Revolution from the Center
Clearly, we must go beyond the worlds of both libertarians and socialists.
Long story cut short. We cannot bridge the gap between Individualists and Collectivists, unless we have a cultural revolution from the center.
Essentially, we have to understand that it is not through the study of history or literature, or morality, but through the study of economics that we can ever hope to break the vicious circle of revolutions from the left followed by counterrevolutions from the right. And yet, and yet, we have to realize that without help from history and literature and morality, we can never truly succeed.
What is the core of the evolution we are looking for? As I have pointed out elsewhere, it has always been easy for me to get along with the assumption that politics is "the art of the possible." Let us give a second look at it. What is in this formula, if not a put down; a downgrading, so downgrading, characterization of this noble science? No wonder politics has become the art of bickering; the art of discord; the art of grasping at reeds, while we are drowning in perilous waters.
No wonder, politics in the United States and much around the world has become polarized between two factions that fight for supremacy to the death. Not the death of the political class, but to the psychological and physical death of millions of people—in this country, the richest of the countries, the last best hope for mankind. Let alone the millions overseas.
And there I was some time ago, hearing and seeing the following words written on the screen of CNN, in their documentary on Hillary Clinton: "Politics is not the art of the possible… politics is the art of making the impossible… possible."
Making the impossible possible requires a concentration, not on the periphery of society, but on its center. On the solid foundation of Concordian economics, the economics of concord, on a quest for the Common Good, the Center will find the wisdom to reject the recurring cycles of revolutions and counterrevolutions, in favor of political evolution that leads to a Republican Party of Concord, a Democratic Party of Concord, an Independent Party of Concord, a Green Party of Concord.
Was not this the type of conversation that Senator John McCain and Senator Joe Lieberman entertained in the 2008 presidential campaign, but were dissuaded from pursuing it by the cool heads of political advisors? Think if they had prevailed upon friends and relatives, and they had ultimately been elected that year. Think how much distress they might have spared the country. Think again. Is not this the attempt that President Trump has often been calling for—and systematically rebuffed by the hard right and the hard left?
Hope is the last to die, let us enter again and again into such a road with renewed effort, until we succeed.
To obtain the necessary transformations, we need to foster a new culture. We need not only a solid knowledge of economics, Concordian economics—and Somism—I dare say. We need also to foster at the same time a cultural revolution in which our mindsets pass from the conviction that might-makes-right to the reality that love-makes-right. Lest we forget, if by the fruit you shall know the tree, look at the havoc that the practice of might-makes-right has constantly produced. As Einstein pointed out, to expect a different result from the practice of this maxim is insanity.
The world seems to be tired of this malpractice. That is why I am ultimately so hopeful these days. The world is ready to experiment with new possibilities. Let us put some muscle behind the construct that right-makes-might or that it is the moral action that makes right—and might.
To operate the shift from might-makes-right to love-makes-right, we need the intervention of all the major bastions of our culture: the universities, the media, the religious organizations, and ultimately, the business organizations to reject hate, and racism, and misogyny, and bullying, and child molestation, and pornography, and the use of money to control other people’s lives.
It is Love that makes the impossible possible.
We are on the cusp of a new age, the Age of Love. The Frontier of the Spirit is now wide open in front of us. We either give it a gentle push over the fence, or we will perish into the hell of hate.
Practice this maxim, dear Reader, in all spheres of your life. You’ll like it. Love-makes-right.
Concord, dear Reader, is the word that encapsulates it all. May indeed concord reign supreme. May the New Age be the Era of Concord—in politics, economics, and even morality.
The message presented here in a hurried fashion is amplified by Andrew Harvey, The Hope: A Guide to Sacred Activism (2009). The tools necessary to effect the paradigm shift from Might-makes-right to Love-makes-right are being presented in scientific language by Deborah Rozman, Howard Martin, and Sheva Carr; see, Your Heart’s Intelligence. The message is offered on an alluring sociological plate by Ivan Illich, Tools for Conviviality (2001). The message is put on a solid philosophical base especially by Jules Evans; see, e.g., his blog Philosoply for Life.For an in-depth understanding of the broad historical trend we live in, see, e.g., John Lukacs, At the End of an Age (2002). Theologically, St. Thérèse de Lisieux reigns supreme. Under her guidance one can assuredly say: Where there is no love there is hate—or at least the possibility, the seed of hate and violence toward oneself and others.
America is poised to act on the side of love. America is called to be good. We must love ourselves, our neighbor, and our God. It is really that simple.
* * *
Secure of its economic stand, the Center—in America and elsewhere in the world—can then move on to an innovative political program, a program that will have to be invented and implemented for the first time in history. This is a program of Redemption of the Bully.
What is the root of all of President Trump’s transgressions, if not his tendency to solve problems applying the methods of the bully? That approach might have worked in his business career, but it is leading to his downfall as President of the United States.
More. Much more. All attempts to muscle his will through to personal success is gradually destroying all the values on which the last and best hope of the world has indeed been built. Our Founding Fathers did all they could to guard against arbitrary and tyrannical political regimes.
We cannot cave in; we must resist; we must restore our precious legacy—and we must be ready to pass it along to our next generations, much improved upon, to the best of our ability.
The President as Bully-In-Chief
Sorry to say, the Office of the President in the United States has devolved into a Bully Pulpit. President Theodore Roosevelt was so honest and clear-minded as to coin this moniker for the presidency. There are even effigies of him as a bull dog.
No. This is not a political screed and it is not going to devolve into one. I am registered as an Independent voter. I treasure this status; it leaves me free to judge in accordance with my beliefs, rather than Party Commands. And I have been so free of partisan politics as to determine that the real political tragedy of the moment is not that both Republicans and Democrats are wrong, but that they are both right. Who can compromise compassion and charity? Who can compromise responsibility and efficiency?
There are, of course, also serious differences about moral issues between the right and the left. The discussion has been polarized, so that no one listens anymore; everyone only talks. I am working on these very complex, very personal issues as well; these are issues that touch our inner soul; they involve an understanding of the purposes of our very existence. I hope to demonstrate that, if we listen, we can see the extent to which there is truth on both the right and the left. No tolerance of immoral practices is required, just a learning of the complexity of the issues.
The first American Presidents governed with such an intense sense of duty that it might seem at least improper to accuse them of being bullies. But if we go down the list of American Presidents after Theodore Roosevelt, we shall find the Opposition Party forcefully claiming of being victimized. As I said, I am not going to take sides, but very few would deny that the attempt of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to "pack" the Supreme Court was the compulsive reaction of a bully. To reduce this topic to bare essentials, who would deny that the use of Executive Orders by President Obama was a capitulation to the temptations of the bully?
Very few would deny that the person who has currently been sworn in to execute the duties of the President of the United States of America is a bully. President Donald Trump is undoubtedly a bully.
The fault for his election is not exclusively his: His was a faulty judgment about himself—and his own interests. We the People—and our institutions—made other mistakes. If we did not express much concern with the behavior of Donald Trump as a businessman, we should have realized in larger numbers than we did that he does not have the mettle to be president. We did not heed the wise recommendation born of a deep intuition by Stephen Dinan that we had to defeat Donald Trump for his own good.
We should have not elected Donald Trump, not only for our good but for his good as well. Do you recall the end to which Mussolini and Hitler, both bullies really, fell and to which extremes did they push their countries? America is not Italy! America is not Germany! But we had better err on the side of safety. We do not want that horrible destiny to befall Donald Trump and the United States of America.
Donald Trump was riding—and is still riding— a wave of deep despair in the country. For quite a few years now, no promises of the political establishment have ultimately been fulfilled. Things for the middle class, the lower middle class, and the poor have grown progressively worse. Donald Trump promised to accomplish things by sheer force of his will (do you not still exalt Nietzsche?), and he has, and he will, undoubtedly accomplish a few things he wants.
But for the long run, we should have realized and we must realize now that he did not, and does not, have the means to keep all his promises, hence not only will his enemies fight him tooth and nails, gradually his old friends and then his new friends will abandon him.
The point is this: Donald Trump does not have a program to change any of the horrible conditions of absurd income inequality, joblessness, and economic insecurity in which the country has plunged of late. He offers only bluster and threats of use of violence. Violence will not solve any real problem. Undoubtedly with many variations on the theme, violence will only recreate the disastrous conditions that led to World War II. The next world war will be more devastating than that.
Yes, unless he changes, we cannot keep Donald Trump in a position of power for much longer. A president who is a bully is immeasurably more dangerous than a school boy who is a bully. President Trump is hurting not only the lives of those who live within the United States or try to enter the United States, but even lives of people living abroad, especially those living under authoritarian regimes.
Members of the media—who have powerfully contributed to "making" him—have a tremendous responsibility. They ought to make these social dynamics very clear by a relentless remembrance of history. Instant gratification currently pursued by the media is just that. The long record of history is there to be comprehensively scrutinized. The social media have to convince President Trump’s followers that President Trump’s policies—or lack of—are not good for him, and ultimately not good for them.
Do bullies among the crowds supporting President Trump really want to continue in actions that are despicable and leave them empty and angrier at any torque? The bully alone cannot control himself (or herself!), because pride makes bullies "fools" who "despise wisdom and instruction."
The victim alone cannot control the bully because s/he is too enfeebled by the process.
To coin a phrase, it takes a village to subdue a bully.
We the People, assisted by an alert media, must henceforth demand that President Trump should—at least—sit still, his audience should sit still, and watch and listen to a recording of Senator McCain’s funeral, followed, at other rallies by movies on Washington, Lincoln, Kennedy(s), and Reagan. There are many powerful characters in American history.
With ostracism, the Greek Solution for dealing with obnoxious citizens, not written in the United States Constitution, impeachment is the only remedy. The mechanics of the 25th Amendment appear to be a subset of the Impeachment Clause. But impeachment is an adversarial proceeding that leaves a bitter taste in the vanquished party. So, they will pledge revenge, and a new cycle of hostilities is immediately put in motion.
South Africa, under the wise leadership of President Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Desmond Tutu, guided by the spirit of Gandhi, set in motion mechanisms of reconciliation between abusers and abused. A Program of Reconciliation subtly announces that one party was wronged, but is going to be so magnanimous as to forgive the offender. The program is still yielding highly positive results. America might be the second nation on earth to set up such a mechanism before bullying cases involving this President reach their deep horrific ends.
We might also want to experiment with a variation on the theme, a Program of Redemption that would start from the premise that both parties recognize to be at fault at one moment or another. If there is internal repentance all should be forgiven; we should leave ultimate judgments to God and/or history.
Bullying should not be tolerated any longer. Donald Trump should be the first human being to publicly acknowledge the fault of his ways. It would be good for him; it would be splendid for our beloved country.
Thus, President Trump should offer some measure of public repentance; perhaps he should ask for a public moral spanking from the nation, even the world. And if he does not ask for it, the nation should be ready to spank him psychologically.
An initial Bill of Redemption of the Bully can be easily drafted. It may assume this form:
"The President of the United States is forbidden from
- using vulgar language;
- using demeaning language;
- using hate language;
- executing policies, without specifying their expected long-term effects;
- executing policies that divide the country or the nations of the world;
- taking intellectual positions that are contrary to the values of Truth, Beauty, and Goodness on which this country was founded."
First recourse should be the President’s public resolution to avoid future repetition of any such offensive language—and actions. Failing that, voluntary resignation might be accepted. Last resort ought to be forced resignation.
This proposal will not be moved forward if it is endorsed only by this writer and a few moderate liberals; it needs the active support of moderate Republicans and most Evangelicals to have any chance of being implemented.
Dear Reader, let us present this petition to House Speaker Paul Ryan at House Speaker Paul Ryan. Please, Speaker Ryan, hold President Trump accountable to minimum standards of decency.
We have perhaps reached rock bottom in too many fields. Would it not be wonderful if this presentation were used as the catalyst for new life in our country? This is my country, too; even though I belong to the zero generation of immigrants.
The United States has been a beacon to the world ever since its creation. Under the guardianship of President Trump, to the dismay of the entire world, our country is gradually losing its inner values.
The Greeks used ostracism to deal with obnoxious politicians; can we invent a Program of Redemption in which the bully is led to love himself or herself and thus ceases from being a bully any longer?
For President Trump the necessary prerequisites are almost all there. He believes he is the only person to make "America Great Again." His followers call him The Donald and The Beloved Donald. His enemies will tolerate his idiosyncrasies, provided he stops using vulgar language and demeaning language.
The President is Teacher-in-Chief. We cannot tolerate that our children are exposed to vulgar and demeaning language. President Trump must submit to this reality.
If he is assured of remaining president, he will make the effort to curb his instincts, at least in public.
Mr. Trump has forever had this general idea that he should work with both political parties. He can now renew his efforts. And the moderate leaders of both parties will oblige, if they become convinced that their extant ways are the long-term cause of the problems that have erupted lately.
Concordian economic policies can turn the country from discord to concord.
* * *
What I am suggesting is not that difficult. Trees do it. Peter Wohlleben, a forester, discovered: "Why are trees such social beings? Why do they share food with their own species and sometimes even go so far as to nourish their competitors? The reasons are the same as for human communities: there are advantages to working together. A tree is not a forest. On its own, a tree cannot establish a consistent local climate. It is at the mercy of wind and weather. But together, many trees create an ecosystem that moderates extremes of heat and cold, stores a great deal of water, and generates a great deal of humidity. And in this protected environment, trees can live to be very old."
It is not my intention to make predictions. The future, as the ancients used to say, is in the lap of the Gods. I can only say, "If this… then (likely) that."
Remember, a bully is a person overcome by hate. If we love this person, if we make this person loved, if we make this person lovable, and if this person makes a sincere effort to succeed (four indispensable ifs), then the entire world changes.
If, through Concordian economic policies, we transform the nation into an integrated set of beloved communities, one after another, one into the other, just like matryoshka dolls, then economic justice is going to prevail in the country. And with justice come peace and prosperity.
If President Trump is impeached, then violence—as already called upon by him—is very likely going to follow.
If President Trump submits himself—or he is submitted—to the rigors of Redemption Proceedings, a long period of peace and prosperity is going to bless our country.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Carmine Gorga -- see Wikipedia and Google Scholar. In 1965, after a Summer of intellectual struggle with the General Theory, Dr. Gorga changed one equation in Keynes’ model of the economic system, and found himself in a completely new intellectual world. This turned out to be a continuation of the world of economic justice initiated by Moses, codified by Aristotle, synthesized by Jesus, and validated by St. Thomas Aquinas - and interrupted by Adam Smith. A book outlining this transition, titled "The Economic Process," was published in 2002 by the University Press of America and annotated in the December 2002 issue of the Journal of Economic Literature (p. 1306). The third edition of this book has been annotated - again - by the Journal of Economic Literature in December 2017 (p. 1642). Professor Franco Modigliani assisted in the development of this work for 27 years. A brief essay, titled "Concordian Economics: An Overall View," can be found at http://econintersect.com/a/blogs/blog1.php/concordian-economics-an-overall-view. For a full understanding of Concordian economics, Gorga has gradually realized that we need to go beyond Individualism and Collectivism, toward Somism (men and women in the social context) - see www.somistinstitute.org - and then we need to pass from Rationalism to Relationalism: see www.relationalism.org.