By CHRIS FLOYD

Perhaps the most striking fact revealed by the global financial crash -- or rather, by the reaction to it -- is the staggering, astonishing, gargantuan amount of money that the governments of the world have at their command. In just a matter of days, we have seen literally trillions of dollars offered to the financial services sector by national treasuries and central banks across the globe. Britain alone has put $1 trillion at the disposal of the bankers, traders, lenders and speculators; and this has been surpassed by the total package of public money that Washington is shoveling into the financial furnaces of Wall Street and the banks. These radical efforts are being replicated on a slightly smaller scale in France, Germany, Italy, Russia and many other countries.

The effectiveness of this unprecedented transfer of wealth from ordinary citizens to the top tiers of the business world remains to be seen. It will certainly insulate the very rich from the consequences of their own greed and folly and fraud; but it is not at all clear how much these measures will shield the vast majority of people from the catastrophe that has been visited upon them by the elite.

But putting aside for a moment the actual intent, details and results of the global bailout offers, it is their very extent that shocks, and shows -- in a stark, harsh, all-revealing light -- the brutal disdain with which the national governments of the world's "leading democracies" have treated their own citizens for decades.

Beginning with Margaret Thatcher's election in 1979, government after government -- and party after party -- fell to the onslaught of an extremist faith: the narrow, blinkered fundamentalism of the "Chicago School." Epitomized by its patron saint, Milton Friedman, the rigid doctrine held that an unregulated market would always "correct" itself, because its workings are based on entirely rational and quantifiable principles. (See John Cassidy in the NY Review of Books for more.) This was of course an absurdly reductive and savagely ignorant view of history, money and human nature; but because it flattered the rich and powerful, offering an "intellectual" justification for rapacious greed and ever-widening economic and social inequality, it was adopted as holy writ by the elite and promulgated as public policy.

This radical cult -- a kind of Bolshevism from above -- took its strongest hold in the United States and Britain, and was then imposed on many weaker nations through the IMF-led "Washington Consensus" (more aptly named by Naomi Klein as the "Shock Doctrine"), with devastating and deadly results. (As in Yeltsin's Russia, for example, where life expectancy dropped precipitously and millions of people died premature deaths from poverty, illness, and despair.)

According to the cult, not only were markets to be freed from the constraints placed on them after the world-shattering effects of the Great Depression, but all public spending was to be slashed ruthlessly to the bone. (Although exceptions were always made for the Pentagon war machine.) After all, every dollar spent by a public entity on public services and amenities was a dollar taken away from the private wheeler-dealers who could more usefully employ it in increasing the wealth of the elite -- who would then allow some of their vast profits to "trickle down" to the lower orders.

This was the cult that captured the governments of the United States and Britain (among others), as well as the Republican and Democratic parties, and the Conservative and Labour parties as well. And for almost thirty years, its ruthless doctrines have been put into practice. Regulation and oversight of financial markets were systematically stripped away or rendered toothless. Essential public services were sold off, for chump change, to corporate interests. Public spending on anything other than making war, threatening war and profiting from war was pared back or eliminated. Such public spending that did remain was forever under threat and derided, like the remnants of some pagan faith surviving in isolated backwaters.

Year after year, the ordinary citizens were told by their governments: we have no money to spend on your needs, on your communities, on your infrastructure, on your health, on your children, on your environment, on your quality of life. We can't do those kinds of things any more.

Of course, when talking amongst themselves, or with the believers in the think tanks, boardrooms -- and editorial offices -- the cultists would speak more plainly: we don't do those things anymore because we shouldn't do them, we don't want to do them, they are wrong, they are evil, they are outside the faith. But for the hoi polloi, the line was usually something like this: Budgets are tight, we must balance them (for a "balanced budget" is a core doctrine of the cult), we just can't afford all these luxuries.

But now, as the emptiness and falsity of the Chicago cargo cult stands nakedly revealed, even to some of its most faithful and fanatical adherents, we can see that this 30-year mantra by our governments has been a deliberate and outright lie. The money was there -- billions and billions and billions of dollars of it, trillions of dollars of it. We can see it before our very eyes today -- being whisked away from our public treasuries and showered upon the banks and the brokerages.

Let's say it again: The money was there all along.

Money to build and generously equip thousands and thousands of new schools, with well-paid, exquisitely trained teachers, small teacher-pupil ratios, a full range of enriching and inspiring programs.

Money to revitalize the nation's crumbling inner cities, making them safe and vibrant places for businesses and families and communities to grow.

Money to provide decent, affordable and accessible health care to every citizen, to provide dignity and comfort to the elderly, and protection and humane treatment for the mentally ill.

Money to provide affordable higher education to everyone who wanted it and could qualify for it. Money to help establish and sustain local businesses and family farms, centered in and on the local community, driven by the needs and knowledge of the people in the area, and not by the dictates of distant corporations.

Money to strengthen crumbling infrastructure, to repair bridges, shore up levies, maintain roads and electric grids and sewage systems.

Money for affordable, workable public transport systems, for the pursuit of alternative sources of energy, for sustainable, sensible development, for environmental restoration.

Money to support free inquiry in science, technology, health and other areas -- research unfettered from the war machine and the drive for corporate profit, and instead devoted to the betterment of human life.

Money to support culture, learning, continuing education, libraries, theater, music and the endless manifestations of the human quest to gain more meaning, more understanding, more enlightenment, a deeper, spiritually richer life.

The money for all of this -- and much, much more -- was there, all along. When they said we couldn't have these things, they were lying -- or else allowing themselves to be profitably duped by the high priests of the market cult. When they wanted a trillion dollars -- or three trillion dollars -- to wage a war of aggression in Iraq, they found it. Now, when they want trillions of dollars to save the speculators, fraudsters and profiteers of greed in the global market, they suddenly have it.

Who then can believe that these governments could not have found the money for good schools, health care, and all the rest, that they could not have enhanced the well-being and livelihood of millions of ordinary citizens, and helped create a more just and equitable and stable world -- if they had wanted to?

This is one of the main facts that ordinary citizens around the world should take away from this crisis: the money to maintain, secure and improve the lives of their families and communities was always there -- but their governments, and their political parties, made a deliberate, unforced choice not to use it for the common good. Instead, they subjugated the well-being of the world to the dictates of an extremist cult. A cult of greed and privilege, that preached iron discipline to the poor and the middle-class, but released the rich and powerful from all restrictions, and all responsibility for their actions.

This should be a constant -- and galvanizing -- thought in the minds of the public in the months and years to come. Remember what you could have had, and how it was denied you by the lies and delusions of a powerful elite and their bought-off factotums in government. Remember the trillions of dollars that suddenly appeared when the wheeler-dealers needed money to cover their own greed and stupidity.

Let these thoughts guide you as you weigh the promises and actions of politicians and candidates, and as you assess the "expert analysis" on economic and domestic policy offered by the corporate media and the corporate-bankrolled think tanks and academics.

And above all, let these thoughts be foremost in your mind when you hear -- as you certainly will hear, when (and if) the markets are finally stabilized (at whatever gigantic cost in human suffering) -- the adherents of the market cult emerge once more and call for "deregulation" and "untying the hands of business" and all the other ritual incantations of their false and savage fundamentalist faith.

For although the market cult has suffered a cataclysmic defeat in the last few weeks, it is by no means dead. It has 30 years of entrenchment in power to fall back on. And the leader of every major political party in the West has spent their entire political career within the cult's confines. It has been the atmosphere they breathed, it has been the sole ladder by which they have climbed to prominence. They will be loath to abandon it, once the immediate crisis is past; most will not be able to.

So remember well the lessons of this new October crash: The money to make a better life, to serve the common good, has always been there. But it has been kept from you by deceit, by dogma, by greed, and by the ambition of those who have sold their souls, and betrayed their brothers and sisters, their fellow human creatures, for the sake of privilege and power.

Chris Floyd is an American journalist and frequent contributor to CounterPunch. His blog, "Empire Burlesque," can be found at www.chris-floyd.com.

When reading my morning news at WashingtonPost.com, I am now forced to see large pop-out advertisements from Boeing showing their latest line of military helicopters. They aren't selling anything to WashingtonPost.com readers, and they don't want me to know more about their business. This ad didn't even have an outbound link to Boeing's website or product line for more details. They just want to encode my brain with the image of their military helicopter alongside their brand name. Consider that done. I will henceforth associate the Boeing brand with death. I hope that was worth whatever the ad cost them.

It is nearing the end of September now, Beijing's best season. The air is cool and crisp - and everything feels fresher than the summer months.

A man is walking through the neighborhood announcing his visit with a deep resonating voice. "Yeeooooooaa...... Yeeooooooaa.....", he repeats in a long chant. When I first heard this sound, I thought it belonged to someone deeply religious who was meditating. I've since learned that he is simply saying "pijiu" (beer)... and wishes to refill empty beer bottles.

From sunrise until late night a constant chatter of voices can be heard from my apartment window. Unlike the States where everyone keeps their affairs as private as possible, here everything is done in the open. New mothers of the neighborhood gather together with their babies at the same spot each day to share latest developments. The click-clack of grandmas and grandpas playing mahjong on an old wooden table is a distinct sound and can be heard from long distances. They play from afternoon until late at night. (You can tell who the dedicated mahjong players are from the numerous mosquito welts on their limbs.) The local bike repairman can be heard tapping away at a piece of scrap metal. Here the equivalent to an auto-body shop is a stool, a cardboard box of old tools and a few spare bicycle parts set on the sidewalk. No sign required. In the middle of everyone's activities, young boys are giggling and chasing each other in the pursuit of a soccer ball. The remnants of a ping pong table lay in the middle of their field.

I noticed that China's cities have very little graffiti. At least not in the traditional form of gang names, love notes and ubiquitous obscenities. Instead you'll find phone numbers. Someone trying to sell fake IDs, diplomas or other such documents helpful in getting a job.

I'd like to make a statement for the record. Banking institutions are ridiculously absurd. In 2006, banks collected $80 billion in service fees. For most, a "service" means helping or doing work for someone, but banks define "service" as any mistake you make that doesn't cost them anything to fix... surcharges, maintenance fees, courtesy services, setup costs, and of course the notorious overdraft fee.

But I'm not most upset about the fact banks are making as much money as they can off the poor. What bothers me the most is that banks are not good at the one thing we ask of them. I could put my money under a mattress somewhere, but then I couldn't access my money from other places in the world. I could carry all my money everywhere I go, but this would be a security risk and is entirely impractical. This is the only reason we need banks... and I have become increasingly aware that banks are not good at giving me my money.

Why, in today's modern world of Internet communication and global alliances, am I not able to walk into a billion dollar bank (in any country) and ask them to give me some of my money? If it isn't my bank, they can charge me a small "service fee" for the trouble of communicating with my bank and performing a "wire-transfer" (or whatever they want to call it). This fee would makes sense since they are not holding my money and cannot otherwise profit from it.

I won't go into the boring details. Instead, I'll just say by now I should have at least a banking associates degree for all the research and study I've put myself through.

"...I would have to say, however, that a caveat to the ideal of nurturing the world as a whole is that I would do anything to defend my country. The two may not be mutually exclusive..." -- C A S

Point 1: Nurturing the world is a critical component of our country's defense

I understand the feeling of pride for ones homeland, and I find it an admirable quality to be willing to defend ones home and way of life. I feel it is certainly not mutually exclusive to taking care of others' homes and homelands. In fact, I think it is mutually inclusive in the respect that one must see to their neighbor's well being or at least economic balance if they don't want to end up fighting with them. Which is the truer meaning of "defense"? It is usually far less expensive to proact than react - in geopolitical as well as monetary terms. Imagine how far $580,444,463,284 (budget for Iraq war to date) would go towards education or any pro-active initiative, especially when spent in countries where a few dollars can save someone's life.

Point 2: The conviction of defending one's country is dangerous, easily manipulated and generally less virtuous than other beliefs

I fear that many of our citizens are full of pride and willingness to fight, but do not have such strong feelings about other more important virtues. It is very easy to manipulate such pride as most do not know what exactly their values are or how these values differ from other regions in the world. Not to mention it is all to easy for governments to contort facts and take its people to war for false reasons. This feeling of pride is also more instinct than intellect... and carries with it another dangerous quality. Once pride is leveraged and the fighting engine is in motion, there is little one can do to stop it. Even with newly revealed facts, pride will make a lasting emotional bond that continues to shape how one sees such facts. Consider religious wars that last thousands of years and show no sign of ceasing. Individuals on each side are almost identical in their pride and willingness to fight for what they believe - but yet they are unable to pull back the war and re-evaluate their beliefs.

A deep appreciation that people are much the same across the world would probably bear larger fruit. Many Americans have been convinced that everyone we are fighting overseas hates us and hates our way of life -- that we are fighting pure evil. This is the danger of talking about the fight rather than learning more about the world we live in. Taking up arms to defend our country should be recognized as a last resort and a failure on many counts.

Point 3: All people have pride and a willingness to fight - but wealthy countries have greater responsibility and world duties...

The wealthier one is, the greater his circle of influence and subsequently his responsibility to those around him. The richest country should not profit from lesser fortunate countries without taking careful effort to ensure the exchange is mutually beneficial. The real question is how to balanced the benefits. A wealthy man who gives 1 million to a charity may be seen as generous - even if it was only 0.0001 percent of his worth. If I were to design a system to pacify the poor and allocate a majority to the rich, it would still come in the form of nurturing the world. Any outbreak of military action against another country would be counterproductive.

Our country is the most powerful but we are also one of the smaller populations, the youngest and least experienced culture -- a tiny minority in many regards. The notion that we can build up our country, spend a majority on military forces each year and fend off outside forces to protect it is, to be quite blunt, old world thinking. We now live in a world where everything we purchase comes from somewhere else. Cross investing, multinational corporations, and Internet communications have tied us all closely together. It seems that there have always been millions of people starving in Africa -- flies buzzing overhead -- but it's just a charity advertisement to us. In the past, such crisis could remain comfortably across the ocean from us. (The ocean serves as our countries biggest defense.) This is still true today -- but far less true -- as we require more and more from these countries to maintain our way of life.

I fear that we are focused too much on securing our fortress with walls and bomb scanning devices. I believe it is an impotent distraction from fighting the war on the front lines... poverty and joblessness. Most of the people we are fighting with guns are only fighting because they have no other means for feeding themselves or their family. And it takes more than being fed, of course. "Idle minds are the devil's playing ground." Someone who has a job, a home and a family is a lot less likely to join a militia and fight against the most powerful army the world has seen. But even then, he may be filled with country pride and compelled to defend his country -- especially if the army is led by someone who is talking about fighting "pure evil".

I prefer that we run our country as a place where religious persecution and conquests are left at the door. That should be obvious (though it clearly isn't to some). What's less obvious is how we can maintain appropriate levels of governance on multi-national corporate entities who don't/can't have a conscience or soul. Our laws and systems can only do so much to keep peace... we do still end up relying on people's individual and collective conscience to do much of the work. Unfortunately, when it comes to corporations, only the natural laws of capitalism are in force. If it isn't profitable, it isn't done. It is hard, but a most necessary challenge, to make education itself a sound investment (or profitable enterprise at worst) and thus extensible to the platform of capitalism. It is my belief that capitalism can only succeed in the long run if core social and environmental systems are inherently recognized as critical to any individual's or organization's success. One specific difficulty with this is the time horizon... companies rarely look or invest 50 years into the future... nor do people for that matter.

...skipping ahead...

I wouldn't say America is broken... for many reasons, this is not true and not the point. I would say that world problems are accelerating at an alarming rate. The gap between rich and poor is increasing every year. Our dependency upon limited natural resources is growing every year. And I would say that the few people in this world who are wealthy enough to afford education are of the same demographic that is heavily targeted by advertising - whose job it is to play upon people's weaknesses. This ends up creating a culture of materialism, unsustainable living, generally poor education and highly detached apathetic people in the richest parts of the world who have the most resources and obligation to help nurture the world as a whole. The few who know better feel the weight of futility and have turned their focus inward - to their own lives - which on outward appearance looks much the same as their neighbors (and consequently supports the belief that the status quo is perfectly appropriate).

I think we are facing systemic problems on a huge scale. The rise of multi-national corporations and the Internet is entirely new... our historical experiences do not directly relate. I also think it is easy for anyone to have the view that the world is improving in many underdeveloped areas... which gives rise to a debate about whether the world is getting better or worse. I'm certain this debate is not worthy of one's focus.