Many have heard it said--or even say it--The Rich Get Richer, and The Poor Get Poorer! Anyone further notices recently: That the economy arranged on that basis clearly doesn't seem to work very well, even if at all. The estimate of sub-prime loans internationally is now put at over $5.0 tril. by IMF, with $1.0 tril. actually already exposed. The extent of the bail-outs and stimulus spending--already legislated--is variously put at $9.0 tril. $10.0 tril. So what are the national and international economies to do?! In America, CNBC brought this up for about 40 seconds, maybe two, or maybe three months ago. Essentially it will be business as usual! The more Presbyterian concept of free market economies--happy indigenous aboriginies, allowed laizzez-faire, creating wealth and abundance for all--fails at understanding the more important concept, apparently: That the big fish invariably eat the little fish! Put another way, anyone knows that "fish" are in the "schools," since the beginning of fishdom. Humans banding together, in lore and fiction--have apparently noticed this. Humans are known to need to eat! Anyone sees, however, that under "business as usual," that actually no one has learned anything at all! Between, "The Rich Get Richer, and The Poor Get Poorer," and "The Big fish eat the little fish," there some nature of culture clash--when applied to human beings. Teachers, it is known, draw pay on scheduled basis at any rate. They in fact get fixed percentage computed pay raises on scheduled basis at any rate. Anyone knows that the critters in the schools, the victims of it all: Are creatures, called offspring, from the various lairs around! The less Presbyterian concept of economies variously not market regulated, but centrally regulated--has in common with the Presbyterian, aborigine, laizzez-faire: That the critters from the litters of the lairs need a school. How else can these "educated," and "intellectual," adults be expected to eat? The Soviet Eastern Bloc would variously raise incomes, across nations, a fixed percentage across-the-board. The Chinese have regional fixed percentage COLAs, even now. The United States, similar to the various nations, has Social Security--and other types of programs: Raising incomes a fixed percentage across-the-board. The nations with the other programs have that in common, also. Anyone might in fact suggest a certain source problem of it all--If only anyone would learn! And so we have proof that basis: "Learning" is not at athe rationale for "School:" Which has the other rationale certain. "School" is actually a part of the food chain, even in everyday human life. Liberals tend to be dismayed, should anyone describe the nappy-headed little. . . .Well, Children of The Obamas, sent daily to their daily best at the pricey places instead. Liberals aside, it also known that even Al Sharpton wanted everyone to know about where his own little girls were on the team. Liberals likely want a more "inclusive" kind of concept than was otherwise available even then. That seems like only yesterday, current events. "Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!" (What's love, but a seconds-helping, tummy-growl!"