tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-88835868970371514492024-02-19T08:15:46.344-08:00Noise Floor Heresylife, the joys, the struggles, the tangoJoe Hudsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02007274433208167837noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8883586897037151449.post-28024924963801788492017-06-06T23:33:00.000-07:002017-06-08T13:06:41.388-07:00If you're poor, it's probably because you're lazy<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXa4a2itPEtll631UGwimUtG29VfmwaCduyb82x_1vjeG87GJUWfi4D4sIjWlhHHrOj2u4T8Vq4To6yJUhqEo3zCsj-jxflyp2yHpOr6P0hhQm1B17x7va_SB56v_HdReUVRSEs1aV7CCG/s1600/if+you%2527re+poor+it+probably+because+you%2527re+lazy+_+title_h.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="759" data-original-width="1416" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXa4a2itPEtll631UGwimUtG29VfmwaCduyb82x_1vjeG87GJUWfi4D4sIjWlhHHrOj2u4T8Vq4To6yJUhqEo3zCsj-jxflyp2yHpOr6P0hhQm1B17x7va_SB56v_HdReUVRSEs1aV7CCG/s640/if+you%2527re+poor+it+probably+because+you%2527re+lazy+_+title_h.png" width="590" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
TL;DR: It’s a tent-pole belief, that holds up the broad set of Conservative policies and
their voter support, and in general allows the believer to have peace
of mind in the face of growing hardship, inequality and business as
usual. It is though a toxically soothing lie. Get out and vote accordingly on June 8th. This piece is about
understanding why this belief is so important, how it arises, why
it’s false and what to do about it.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<h2 class="western">
Why is this such a significant belief?</h2>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
This is a crucial
believe, because it underpins a whole political and social
disposition. One which forms part of a struggle within modern
civilization that has existed from its beginnings and which continues
to shape the world we live in.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Unsurprisingly in a
market economy (arguably the defining feature of contemporary
civilization), much rests on money and the distribution of wealth;
not least health, education, social opportunities and innumerable
ways to self development and societal contribution. And it is the
attitude we take to that wealth distribution, individually and
collectively, that determines how it and our society evolves.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
“If you’re poor,
it’s probably because you’re lazy.” belongs to a constellation
of beliefs, including: “Society gives everyone a somewhat fair shot
at success.”, “Your fortunes are your own making and your own
responsibility.”, “Because I worked hard and made a ‘success’
of myself, everyone else can too.”, “If you’re poor, it’s
probably because you’re lazy.” Let’s call these beliefs
together the ‘the wealth you get is what you deserve’ cluster.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Looking at “If
you’re poor, it’s probably because you’re lazy.” (or more
generally the ‘the wealth you get is what you deserve’ cluster)
together with the policies of the Conservative party, it could easily
be the party’s motto. Consider how it serves to justify
Conservative positions on various social conditions:</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>F</b><b>act:</b>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
There isn’t
sufficient funding to maintain a world class free health service for
everyone, so people are suffering from equipment, space and staff
shortages.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Rationalization:</b>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
But if everyone
worked harder, they’d be able to afford private health insurance.
And if they took better care of their diet and lifestyle they
wouldn’t get so sick in the first place. Why should I pay for other
people’s laziness or stupidity? So the situation is to be expected
and I’m comfortable with decreased public funding as a fraction of
GDP and lowering taxes.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>F</b><b>act:</b>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Most social security
benefits are dropping in real terms and more stringent means testing
being enforced, meaning many more people are now being denied, who
would previously receive benefits, and those who are receiving them
are finding it harder to make ends meet.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Rationalization:</b>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
This is a good
thing, because it will give people the push they need to be less lazy
and work harder so they can take care of themselves. For those few
cases were people are genuinely very unlucky a smaller benefits
budget would be fine and there are charities that can offer help.
Again, reducing budgets and lower taxes are the way forward.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Fact:</b>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Public sector pay
freezes to well below inflation, including for nurses, teachers, the
fire service and the police, have meant effective pay decreases
relative to inflation for the last 7 years or more.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Rationalization:</b></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
‘We have to live
within our means’ - meaning, there isn’t the tax revenue for much
more of a budget for the public sector and people should be free to
spend their money as they wish without being burdened with more tax.
If employees of the government are not satisfied with their pay, they
are free to find another job and take out a loan for retraining for
another career if they need to. They shouldn’t worry, because
providing they work hard at it, they should succeed.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>The general case:</b></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The rationalization
(following from the ‘the wealth you get is what you deserve’ set
of beliefs) for cutting and privatizing any public service, and of
course lowering taxes, is that almost everyone realistically can and
aught to be responsibly for providing for themselves and their own
families. And so to subsidize that provision is to encourage
dependence and laziness and place a drain on the wealth of the
nation. It’s an instant justification for the whole of austerity
politics.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizXcmfouvOh8kNuiblvb7CO7u6_7aePD4x4d8-V-FBY1E0Y8cXrFwBLaTnq5J_BGibj9uSdUwbwjEERRKv2DJ2VT8Ku7QqbvbJ-tkQqVkJ6A43TL2sWaBt6KBk_SbL7q9s0-hrWiR4j3nh/s1600/the+wealth+you+get+is+what+you+deserve_sml.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="960" data-original-width="960" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizXcmfouvOh8kNuiblvb7CO7u6_7aePD4x4d8-V-FBY1E0Y8cXrFwBLaTnq5J_BGibj9uSdUwbwjEERRKv2DJ2VT8Ku7QqbvbJ-tkQqVkJ6A43TL2sWaBt6KBk_SbL7q9s0-hrWiR4j3nh/s400/the+wealth+you+get+is+what+you+deserve_sml.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The above rationalizations of Conservative government policy
(regardless of softer sounding election time rhetoric) read <i>very</i>
differently depending on whether you subscribe to the ‘the wealth
you get is what you deserve’ belief cluster.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
If you don’t share
those beliefs, they appear thoroughly heartless, self-serving and
blind to the reality lived by the majority of people. But if you do
hold such beliefs, then these rationalizations are not at all
heartless. They are pragmatic, responsibly minded and even
encouraging. Because if you truly believe a person’s dire straights
are mostly due to their unwillingness to pull their thumb out, and
that if they did they’d soon be much better off, then maybe if they
listen to your words they’ll get their act together and take some
responsibility, then everyone will be better for it. They might even
thank you. See how it becomes, still tough love perhaps, but
nevertheless clear headed, positive thinking? That is the power of
such belief.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<h2 class="western">
Why would you start to believe this and why is it
appealing?</h2>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
How do beliefs such
as ‘if you’re poor, it’s probably because you’re lazy’ take
root and come to be so strongly held?</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
An obvious route is
being born into privilege. Most people have an innate sense of
fairness as well as a desire for the good life. So then to avoid
guilt over a lingering sense of injustice and systemic exploitation
when looking at the rest of the world, there is a choice. Either
reject the idea of fairness and suppress your empathy, by embracing
the dog-eat-dog, Malthusian vision of the world, or find a way of
rationalizing your privilege. That could include seeing yourself as
having generally superior traits and abilities to those born less
well off and thus being the best suited for positions of power and
wealth. Where you spend wisely, they would only sit idly and fritter
it away. Such attitudes being the norm in your peer group would make
it hard to think otherwise.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
From such a position
is would be relatively enlightened to think that people were poor
mainly because they were <i>choosing</i> to be lazy, or had
undesirable role models, and not just because they were congenitally
lazy and feckless. And of course these responses to privilege are
seen across society wherever relative privilege is apparent, not
just between the upper social classes and the rest. Also in some
sections of the working or middle classes in regard to immigrants or
the unemployed, or indeed other races for example.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The essential
rationalization is: ‘because that group is less well off than my
group, there must be something inherently or culturally inferior
about them to explain it – because otherwise I’d have to deal
with the realization that my group is being exploitative or
parasitic’. When it comes to relative poverty, the longer
established your relative wealth, the more necessary it is to believe
that those worse off (if not people in general) have an inherent
disposition to idleness and must be forced into work to be productive
members of society. This is, if you are to continue seeing the
disparity in wealth as natural or fair.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Another route to
this belief is having gone from rags to riches yourself, or to see
yourself as well on the way there. If you come from a community where
at least relative poverty is endemic, then you’ll probably have
seen a lot of apathy, low aspirations and maybe the occasional
instance of dodgy attempts to get free money (as so furiously pounced
on by certain media sources owned by billionaires). Without
considering too deeply the socio-economic reasons for such attitudes,
it’s easy to label it simply as laziness, especially in the context
of your own success and hard work.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Whether its selling
houses or having a highly successful shop or trade, what’s to say
everyone else in the community you grew up in couldn’t do the same,
if they just applied themselves? Believing that is preferable to
thinking you were just one of the few lucky ones of the actually far
greater number who do struggle hard to succeed but end up failing. Or
to realizing that apathy, hopelessness or low aspirations (all quite different from laziness) are a fairly natural
response to seeing how the odds of escaping relative poverty are so
slim. No, that would be a miserable perspective. If you’ve achieved
some success, it’s natural to want to enjoy it with a mind at
peace. And to do that, it’s helpful to see your success as existing
within a system that, while not perfect, is at least fair enough to
give everyone a decent shot, if they only applied themselves. And
hence, if you’re poor, it’s probably because you’re lazy.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
A third path to this
belief is essentially blind faith, where you are not comfortably off
yourself, but you’re trying and part of that effort is to adopt the
attitudes and beliefs of those you see as successful. Especially the
romantic vision of fortune being won by hard graft and ingenuity, and
the corollary that the poor are that way because of laziness and
fecklessness. By thinking in the same way you reason, you’ll have
more chance of making it. For this reason you’ll also read from a
selection of right wing newspapers/websites, which ceaselessly repeat
those same mantras. The fact that these media outlets are owned by
billionaires whose financial interests are served best the more poor
people share those beliefs, far from an alarm bell to you, is more
like an act of benevolence, for them to share with you the faith of
the successful.<br />
<br />
It is along that third path that you're likely to think more about benefit claimants, with the impression they're mainly scroungers, popping out kids for cash and frittering it away on fags and bigger TVs than you have. Each of the regular exposés you read reinforce that impression. The actual figures involved probably do not occur to or concern you. But you might be puzzled to learn that the total officially estimated figure for benefit fraud is only 0.7% of the benefits budget, or around <a href="http://www.theweek.co.uk/62461/benefit-fraud-v-tax-evasion-which-costs-more">£1.6bn</a>. This figure compares to a conservative estimate of corporate tax evasion of around £5bn. <a href="http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Documents/PCSTaxGap2014Full.pdf">Tax Research UK estimate</a> £85bn per year in tax evasion though (and a further £19bn in tax avoidance). So even though tax evasion is a between ~ 400% and 5400% bigger problem for the economy than benefit fraud, it shouldn't be a surprise which issue the billionaire owned media prefer to focus on.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Whatever the route
taken to believing that the wealth you end up with (or don’t) is
deserved, because of the psychologically supportive effects of this
and similar beliefs, it becomes natural to view those who challenge
such convictions, in a negative light. Since having the faith
challenged risks undermining the peace of mind afforded by it.
Inconvenient facts are rare exceptions, or being blown out of
proportion by jealous, free loading whingers, who feed off the
success of others and seek to bring them down with their defeatism
and idle entitlement. But you’re a winner and you wont let them do
that to you. Etc.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<h2 class="western">
What if it’s not true? Would you want to know
and how could you tell?</h2>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Does it even matter
if it’s not true? If you’ve carved out a lifestyle for yourself
and a world view that helps you enjoy it, why is the truth so
important?
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
What would it cost
you to see things differently, if you’re a current subscriber to
‘the wealth you get is what you deserve’ belief cluster?
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Would you be able to
enjoy your current lifestyle in the way you currently do?
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Would you be able to
have the same kind of conversations with your friends, or even keep
the same friends if your views changed in this regard?
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
If not further
personal material success, how else would you apply your energies
with a different perspective?
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
What would motivate
and inspire you?
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Could you maintain
economic security, or would you go back to struggling to get by?</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Beyond the
repercussions for you, suppose for a moment you are wrong. With that
belief gone, it wouldn’t take long then to see the gross injustice
and waste in the current distribution of economic opportunity and
outcomes (wealth), if it wasn’t just down to people not really
trying. Would you then want to continue supporting, in how you vote
and spend your money, a government, a set of economic policies and a
world view that is inherently abusive to the majority of society and
depends on the continued squandering and diminishing of that human
potential, and the promotion of conflict, environmental destruction
and greed for its continuation? Would that sit well with you?</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Change is hard work
and often scary, uncomfortable and inconvenient. Which is why many
people choose to carry on believing, regardless.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Please only read on
if you still feel the truth matters.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<h2 class="western">
What else would need to be true?</h2>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
OK, so you decided
you’d prefer the hard truth over comfortable illusion, how could
you tell the true? What evidence could you gather? One approach to
testing this ‘if you’re poor, it’s probably because you’re
lazy’ belief (and similar), is to consider what else in the world
would need to be true to support that belief, and then checking to
see if those other things are true.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Here’s a list to
get you started. If the large majority of poverty and relative
poverty was due to a lack of work ethic, we’d also expect to see:</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<ol>
<li>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Income
reflecting how hard working or at least productive a person is.</div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
There being
opportunities for decently paid work for everyone who wanted it.</div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Inequality
decreasing in times of the greatest economic growth.</div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The wealth
you’re born into having little impact on the wealth you end up
with.</div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The wealth of
most countries per capita being roughly equal.</div>
</li>
</ol>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Let’s go through
those one at a time.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Income reflecting
how hard working or at least productive a person is</b></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
This is a logical
consequence of the belief we’re testing, because if wealth was not
a direct result of hard work and productivity, how could relative
poverty be a result of laziness? So then does a big hedge fund
manager who takes home ~ £1,000,000,000 per year (and this is not
the highest income for such work), work <i>literally</i><i> </i><i>one
hundred thousand</i> times harder than a single mother, juggling
several zero hour contract jobs to make ends meet on ~ £10,000 per
year? Perhaps not.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
And we know it's not
about meaningful productivity since most hedge funds lose money
relative to the market and if the mother stops working it's food for
the children and crucial amenities that are at stake, rather than
that new private jet (made by skilled workers, which according to our
beliefs could easily find work elsewhere if they put their mind to
it). And it's not about intelligence either, since the greatest
artists, scientists, engineers, mathematicians and philosophers are
rarely if ever the best paid.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
But what about a
more middle of the road example? Does a factory production line
manager work 2-3 times harder than the line workers he supervises?
Unlikely. What about an estate agent doing a reasonable business
selling foreclosed houses in a town where the factory recently shut
down, compared to a husband and wife who having lost their jobs there, now have their days filled with running between part time work to
pay the rent, job interviews and looking after the kids? Does the
estate agent work 10 times harder? Hard to believe.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
OK, what if the
relationship between wealth and hard work was just highly non-linear?
Could we still hold our belief? Well, consider this scenario. There
is a call centre employing over a thousand people. The service is
considered essential to the business but the wage labour is a major
expense. Fortunately for the bottom line a new automated system is
installed that replaces 80% of the call operators at a fraction of
the cost. Unfortunately for the now jobless, they live in a town
unable to absorb that many people into other work and so most of them
end up with no or only a little part time work.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Does their drastic
and sustained drop in income reflect a sudden outbreak of laziness?
No. But it does demonstrate that your earnings are less about how
hard you work, and more about whether you can do something that
someone else is willing to pay you for. That willingness is
ultimately about profitability or the hope of it and your eagerness
to work hard only sometimes has much baring on that and even then
only in a highly non-linear way. In other words, if you are poor, in
no way can that be a clear indicator that you are lazy.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>There being
opportunities for decently paid work for everyone who wanted it</b></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
If there were no such opportunities then we could not say that
poorness was down to laziness could we? Discounting occupations such
as drug dealing or prostitution, this should fairly obviously not be
the case, providing we set a reasonable bar for a living wage.
Industries come and go, technology advances and displaces labour over
time, supply chains are subject to unpredictable disturbances, currency exchange rates can drastically affect the profitability of
employing a work force, and stock market crashes in highly financialized economies can lead to deep recessions and mass lay-offs.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
All of the above factors and more mean that very often, large numbers
of people are unable to find work fitting their skills and abilities
(let alone passions), without any change to their willingness to work
hard. What’s more, if there is an increased supply of labour,
without a proportional rise in demand for what they do, then either
unemployment will rise, or wages will fall.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Of course, if a
person is willing to work for whatever pay is offered, then sure,
there is usually something available. But here the supposed
connection between work ethic and wealth again becomes broken.
However many hours you spend as a fruit picker, or a shoe shiner or a
leaflet distributor, you will still be poor. So the conclusion here
must be that there are often not opportunities for the kind of paid
work that would raise a person well out of poverty, however willing
to take that work they may be. And so once again, a person being
poor, is not an indication that they are lazy.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Inequality
decreasing in the times of greatest economic growth</b></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
If wealth is a
result of people working hard, then when an economy is booming that
should be an indication that more people are pulling together and
working hard. And if more people are doing that than before (so
creating the growth) then the profit should be shared amongst that
greater number of people (because wealth is a result of hard work)
and thus inequality should fall.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
In reality, do we
see that? No, we don’t.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Here’s a chart of
the GDP growth rate and various measures of income inequality in the
UK over the last half century. (Click it for clearer, larger view.) </div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmqAhesMqUUxqEVZ75Zg-HRtJbcS67JkdMa7lF1G56i9ixiSw92Ohgj_qTgv-43yvnEMGFvpkXUmByIYyxyDnqoMDJqRZrRPJovesivHDVA5w8obgUnB5zhFZlvosAWrLjdvk-b5Y2i1O5/s1600/inequality+and+GDP+growth+UK.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="672" data-original-width="766" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmqAhesMqUUxqEVZ75Zg-HRtJbcS67JkdMa7lF1G56i9ixiSw92Ohgj_qTgv-43yvnEMGFvpkXUmByIYyxyDnqoMDJqRZrRPJovesivHDVA5w8obgUnB5zhFZlvosAWrLjdvk-b5Y2i1O5/s400/inequality+and+GDP+growth+UK.png" width="590" /></a></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
If the fact that
inequality rises as economies boom puzzles you, consider that while
markets grow as a result of productivity and consumption,
productivity (useful work) is rewarded only as much as it must be rewarded. So then
you can see how globalization, deregulation of financial markets and
erosion of labour protection rights would all reduce how much most
productivity must be rewarded. Hence a rise in inequality, on the
backs of increased productivity.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>The wealth you’re
born into having little impact on the wealth you end up with</b></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
If it’s really true that wealth and poorness are primarily down to
hard work and laziness respectively, then starting off wealthy cannot
give a significant advantage in the long term. Because if it did,
then in a competitive market economy people would be poor who lacked
that advantage, rather than simply because they were lazy or lacking
in some other way.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
There’s a straightforward way to test this one, look at the
statistics. Maybe you can guess the result already now?</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
According to studies by the <a href="https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/bns/bn192.pdf">IFS</a>
and <a href="http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/cp/CASEpaper164.pdf">LSE</a>,
if you have wealthy parents you’re much more likely to succeed in
life in terms of both income and educational outcomes, than someone
with poor parents.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Even without the statistics that prove it, it’s easy to understand
why inherited or early life household wealth is such an advantage.
From having a house with plenty of space to play, with funds for all
the books or educational aids you’d benefit from, to having money
for a healthy diet, to living in an area with a great school and
having a peer group of friends that expect to do well and are
supported in doing so. All those factors help create a strong
foundation for later success. And once you’re ready to join the
world of work, knowing you have a safety net there in your family
means you’d be more willing to take the kind of risks that
successes often require, and you’d have funds to pay for any
further training, or capital investment you might need to get started
in business. What’s more, having wealthy parents and a wealthy peer
group means you’ll have access to people who work for, hire for, or
own successful businesses, which means it’s that much easier to get
the recommendations and interviews.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
It’s also true that being born into wealth would make it easier to
waste money or spend it in a non-financially profitable way. But of
all the people wanting to succeed financially, if you start off with
wealth then you have an undeniably huge advantage. And so once again,
the fable of the poor being that way because they choose to be lazy
is disproved.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>The wealth of
most countries per capita being roughly equal</b></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Unless we want to adopt racist theories about other countries and
cultures, then we’d have to assume that on average people are about
equally able and inclined to generate wealth in one land mass as in
any other (perhaps excluding a few paradise islands). And through
human ingenuity most disparities in natural resources could be
overcome with the ability to offer a variety of products and services
wanted by other countries for trade. So then, if wealth if primarily
a result of hard work, we’d have to expect that per capita wealth
would be roughly equal between most countries wouldn’t we?</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Of course, that’s not the reality at all. Compared to international
wealth inequality, national inequality is often trifling. Reason
being, history is a story of conquests. The desire and sometimes the
desperation for wealth provokes war. It’s not by far the only way countries behave with each other (there’s
a lot of productive cooperation too), but when they do, vast
inequalities result.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
And just like some countries exploit other countries, through
economic, technological or military superiority, in order to further
enrich themselves, some parts of society exploit other parts, to
further enrich themselves, using the advantages they have of wealth,
better education, political and media influence, and the threat of
income insecurity.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<h2 class="western">
And the results are..</h2>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Remember, not only
one, but all of these conditions would need to be met for the belief
to stand up to scrutiny. And none of them are met.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The unavoidable
conclusion then must be that ‘the wealth you get is what you
deserve’ is a soothing and rather toxic lie. The tragedy is it’s
only really the foolish, the misguided and the poor that genuinely
believe it, because it gives them hope. Those that have become rich
with their eyes open will know better, even if they tell themselves
and others this lie of meritocratic wealth and the lazy poor, as some
attempt at moral justification, or simply as a way of ending an
uncomfortable conversation. They know better really, because their
daily profit flows from the contradictions to those beliefs, from the
luck, the exploitation and the cumulative advantages of wealth.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<h2 class="western">
What to do and what not to do</h2>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
If you’ve followed
along and found your mind genuinely changed, first let it sit for a
moment. Then..</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Do not:</b></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<ol>
<li>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Fall back on
the other crutch of the right wing hard core. “OK, the
meritocratic vision of wealth is utter BS PR talk. But people are
all ruled by selfish greed and are opportunistically corrupt anyway,
so there’s no point in trying to be any different. Better carry on
with business as usual.”<br />
<br />
This is just an excuse for
those already behaving in the way they seek to suggest everyone
does, to avoid sorting themselves out. It only takes a moment to
consider all the valuable time, energy and resources given by
parents, friends, mentors and loved ones, and from all the
volunteers for charities or community groups to people they have no
other relationship with. Then all the labours of scientists through
the ages, for the sake of knowledge and contribution to humanity,
often without pay, that have made the world we live in today
possible. Any of these examples show such a reaction to be feeble,
lazy thinking. Yes, people can be
treacherous dogs to each other, but there are other, better choices
that people allow to guide their lives all the time and live happier,
more fulfilled lives because of it.</div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Get
distracted with wanting an exhaustively detailed and water-tight
account of a new paradigm for paradise on earth, before considering
changing your thinking or behaviour.<br />
<br />
That’s just not
how social change happens in reality. It’s a collaborative,
emergent, gradual thing, that you become part of by sharing an
understanding and an intent. This reaction is essentially, ‘sure,
I’ll stop doing this bad thing, as soon as you answer this
impossible question to my satisfaction’.</div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
When
(re)considering your voting choice on the 8<sup>th</sup> June, fall
for the desperate anti-Corbyn headlines, about ‘radical’,
‘unrealistic’ policies or ‘terrorist sympathizing’. These
papers are playing you for a complete fool. Have a look at the
policies of other major, successful European countries such as
Germany, Denmark, Sweden, France and Norway, to see that practically
all of the Labour party manifesto policies (like public ownership of
transport and energy systems and free education and child care and
more funding as a fraction of GDP for a public health service and
higher corporation and top rate taxes) are actually just normal
elsewhere. Then have a look at
what was actually said or done regarding acts of terror and the
context from <a href="http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/9-things-every-voter-needs-to-know.html">other
sources</a>, not just from the right wing rags, and also consider how
much terrorism does selling billions worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia and
other brutal regimes support? And if you think it’s Labour that
can’t be trusted with the economy because of the market crash and
recession, <a href="https://benjaminstudebaker.com/2017/06/06/britain-for-the-love-of-god-please-stop-theresa-may/">read
a little more</a> on the actual impacts of spending and debt on the
economy.</div>
</li>
</ol>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Do:</b></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<ol>
<li>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
If you were
going to vote Conservative (the party essentially held together by
this lie), change your vote to help get them out for the good of the
country. Use a site like <a href="http://www.tactical2017.com/">www.tactical2017.com</a>
to see how best to do that in your constituency.</div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
With an open
mind, learn more about the real effects of and reasons behind
Conservative policies from a news source you might not normally
access, such
as:<br />
<a href="http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/">anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk</a><br />
<a href="https://skwawkbox.org/">skwawkbox.org</a><br />
<a href="http://www.thecanary.co/">www.thecanary.co</a><br />
And
there are of course some more mainstream, marginally left leaning
options, like The Mirror, the Independent, the Guardian. As with any
news source, do your own research to verify claims. But it’s
helpful at least to have some serious countervailing opinions to
those you normally hear (and not just the token left field column of
your usual paper).<br />
You can learn about media bias from reports
such as this from the <a href="https://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/pdf/JeremyCorbyn/Cobyn-Report-FINAL.pdf">LSE</a>.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
One time in
particular where this soothing lie is told frequently is election
time, because otherwise voting Conservative would just feel too much
like being a vassal of darkness. But once you’ve seen clearly
through the lie, can you really keep voting to support it? For that
reason, talk to your Conservative voting friends, especially where
you see them sharing this belief, to help disabuse them of it and
then encourage them to vote differently.
</div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Share this
writing if you think it would help someone change their mind and
their vote.</div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Beyond the
vote on the 8<sup>th</sup> June, make a plan for how you can stay
better informed and help to inform others.</div>
</li>
</ol>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Thanks for reading.</div>
Joe Hudsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02007274433208167837noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8883586897037151449.post-30318873145527735182015-03-06T12:14:00.000-08:002015-03-11T10:42:00.379-07:00The Environment and CapitalismI was invited to represent the Green party at a discussion panel titled 'Capitalism and the Environment' at Southampton University on 26th Feb, organized by the Southampton and District Young Greens, Soton Marxists Society, and Green Action Southampton. In preparing for my presentation I wrote this article:<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="Title">
<b>The </b><span class="T20"><b>Environment and Capitalism</b></span></div>
<div class="P53">
</div>
<div class="Subtitle">
<i><span class="T118">Article</span> for Green <span class="T70">A</span>ction <span class="T71">panel</span>, <span class="T69">26</span><span class="T54">th</span><span class="T69"> Feb 2015</span></i></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="Contents_20_Heading">
<b>Contents</b></div>
<ul style="list-style-type: none;">
<li>
<a href="#what">What are we really evaluating?</a>
</li>
<li>
<ul style="list-style-type: none;">
<li>
<a href="#environment">What do we mean by ‘the environment’?</a>
</li>
<li>
<a href="#capitalism">What do we mean by ‘Capitalism’?</a>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>
<a href="#implications">Implications of Capitalism for the environment</a>
</li>
<li>
<ul style="list-style-type: none;">
<li>
<a href="#technology">Can Technology save us?</a>
</li>
<li>
<a href="#consumption">But will consumption really fall with falling inequality?</a>
</li>
<li>
<a href="#caprecap">Capitalism Recap</a>
</li>
<li>
<a href="#charts">Charting exponential growth and resource extraction</a>
</li>
<li>
<a href="#population">Not a simple population problem</a>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>
<a href="#currentreforms">What we have now and the kinds of reforms it would take</a>
</li>
<li>
<ul style="list-style-type: none;">
<li>
<a href="#tax">Tax reform</a>
</li>
<li>
<a href="#citizensincome">Welfare and Citizens Income</a>
</li>
<li>
<a href="#governance">Legal framework and governance</a>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>
<a href="#intentofreform">The intent of reform and taking the chance</a>
</li>
<li>
<ul style="list-style-type: none;">
<li>
<a href="#istheretime">But is there time?</a>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<h2 class="P87" id="what">
<br />What are we really evaluating?</h2>
<div class="P48">
To have a constructive discussion about the conflicts between Capitalism and the environment we need to be clear what we really mean by ‘Capitalism’ and ‘Environment’. Then, based on a set of values we hold in common we can collectively identify the conflicts and exactly where they lie. We can then say to what extent reform is possible and desirable, and whether any proposed reforms can contribute to a sustainable society, or whether they are in opposition to, or lay the ground for more radical and progressive social change.</div>
<h3 class="Heading_20_3" id="environment">
What do we mean by ‘the environment’?</h3>
<div class="P3">
What has the environment ever done for us? <br />
<br /></div>
<div class="P3">
Silly question right? <span class="T5">It doesn’t take much thought to realize how important clean air and water is, how priceless fertile land which allows our food to grow is, or how vital the fuels we use for heating and production are. Beyond that we can see that different parts of the environment are deeply connected and interdependent. There is the water cycle, where evaporation from oceans leads to rain cloud formation, which provides water for plants and food to grow, eventually cycling back out to the oceans. There are food chains where the health and population of one species depends on another, and that species on another, in a chain of predation. Most minerals also have cycles through nature, including the calcium in our bones.</span></div>
<div class="P4">
<br />
What these simple observations reveal is that disturbance or damage to one part of nature’s cyclical operation will result in disturbance or damage to the other parts as well. <span class="T9">Remembering that we have only one planet, it also becomes obvious that the supply of all resources are limited, and many are either irreplaceable once they are used up (like coal, gas and oil), or unrecoverable once an ecological balance has been tipped far enough (like the breakdown of crustacean shells with rising ocean acidity, or the extinction of species from climate change, pollution or over-hunting.</span></div>
<div class="P5">
<br />
In summary, the environment is a set of interwoven systems that are:</div>
<ul>
<li><div class="P61" style="margin-left: 0cm;">
<b>Formed from and provide <span class="T6"><i>finite</i></span> resources<span class="odfLiEnd"> </span></b></div>
</li>
<li><div class="P61" style="margin-left: 0cm;">
<b>Limited in carrying capacity<span class="odfLiEnd"> </span></b></div>
</li>
<li><div class="P62" style="margin-left: 0cm;">
<b>Cyclical <span class="T10">and interdependent</span><span class="odfLiEnd"> </span></b></div>
</li>
<li><div class="P63" style="margin-left: 0cm;">
<b>Limited in ability to absorb disturbance, over-exploitation or other damage<span class="odfLiEnd"> </span></b></div>
</li>
<li><div class="P64" style="margin-left: 0cm;">
<b>Indispensable to human existence and well-being, <span class="T72">not separate from us</span></b><span class="odfLiEnd"> </span></div>
</li>
</ul>
<h3 class="Heading_20_3" id="capitalism">
What do we mean by ‘Capitalism’?</h3>
<div class="P6">
With Capitalism there are common associated ideologies about how the world is and should be, and there are fundamental organizational institutions. It’s the latter that really defines it, and those are:</div>
<ul>
<li><div class="P70" style="margin-left: 0cm;">
<b><span class="T82">The recognition and protection of private property </span><span class="T83">by the state or equivalent authority</span><span class="T82">.</span><span class="odfLiEnd"> </span></b></div>
</li>
<li><div class="P65" style="margin-left: 0cm;">
<b>Managing and distributing <span class="T89">the </span>resources <span class="T89">of an economy </span>through <span class="T11">trade and </span>markets.</b><span class="odfLiEnd"> </span></div>
</li>
</ul>
<div class="P55">
The origins of these ideas can be traced back to the neolithic age and the agricultural revolution around 12,000 years ago. It was at this time that i<span class="T65">t</span> first became possible for humans to <span class="T21">store material value, or </span>accumulate wealth, at any significant scale, and for large concentrations of people to exist <span class="T12">together</span>.</div>
<div class="P7">
<br />
Under these conditions of wealth concentration being possible and large numbers of people co-existing together, the idea of private property <span class="T13">can </span>extend beyond <span class="T13">the fruit of a person’s own immediate labour, and through trade and wage labour come to envelope the fruits of other people’s work as well. Because of this leveraging potential and a particular characteristic of markets, the division of social classes and the “haves” and “have nots” within a population arises.</span></div>
<div class="P8">
<br />
That property of markets which leads to the enrichment of a few and comparative impoverishment of most, can be understood as <span class="T6"><b><i>cumulative competitive advantage</i></b>.</span> <span class="T14">This begins where, all else being equal, small fluctuations in fortune and circumstance lead to one party of a trade doing better than another. At that point, that additional profit represents a competitive advantage, because it is additional resources to be invested in some way for yet more profit, it is additional security to allow more flexibility for when and how to trade in future, and it is additional volume to allow more competitive pricing compared to those with less. While fortune and circumstances will cause such advantage to fluctuate, it will in aggregate naturally compound, leading to yet more competitive advantage and hence further concentration of wealth.</span></div>
<div class="P9">
<br />
Thus the natural tendency of markets left to themselves is monopoly and feudalistic distribution of economic means <span class="T74">(only where the landlords no longer have to pay taxes to the king)</span>. </div>
<div class="P25">
<br />
This is why all countries with somewhat reasonable average living conditions have things like anti-monopoly laws, taxes, and social safety nets. Because otherwise the market <span class="T63">economy </span>would eat itself, <span class="T15">and the hierarchical social order would collapse (at least in its present form).</span></div>
<h2 class="Heading_20_2" id="implications">
Implications of Capitalism for the environment</h2>
<div class="P27">
So how does all this relate to the environment and existing <span class="T16">harmoniously</span> or otherwise with it?</div>
<br />
<div class="P26">
One major issue is that trade for profit seeks to externalize costs. <span class="T75">W</span>hether that’s the cost of not properly processing industrial waste before disposing of it, or increasing production to a rate that the soil or water or wildlife in a particular area can't sustain, or <span class="T64">using dangerous chemicals in a product to increase profit margin, or lobbying for more oil industry development despite dire consequences for climate change, the environment often ends up paying. Attempts at legislating against such behaviour, though helpful, have proven inadequate. This is partly because of the influence concentrated wealth has over government and the legal system, and partly because whatever laws get put in place the pressure to find new ways around them and externalize costs always remains, so long as an economy is primarily controlled through markets.</span></div>
<div class="P10">
<span class="T63"><br /></span>
<span class="T63">Another key </span>connection comes from realizing that organizing an economy around markets requires perpetual growth. </div>
<div class="P11">
<br />
This follows from the wealth concentrating effect of cumulative competitive advantage. Without growth, wealth and resources either continue to concentrate, leading to <span class="T18">social </span>collapse <span class="T115">from mass impoverishment</span>, or the <span class="T19">rich and </span>powerful have to give increasing amounts of their wealth away – either through increasing taxes or by some voluntary means – <span class="T17">thus undermining the social hierarchy which is the sociological fuel of capitalism. In a steady state economy, large inequality would become increasingly less socially acceptable, because the piles of riches being sat on would grow increasingly conspicuous, so even finding some technical way of maintaining the gap between rich and poor would be less tenable. Thus Capitalism inherently requires perpetual growth (or a totalitarian police state to manage economic decline). This requirement holds true even for a static population size.</span></div>
<div class="P15">
<br />
It <span class="T113">i</span>s also worth noting that the unquenchable hunger for growth is further entrenched and intensified by two <span class="T113">other</span> <span class="T113">intrinsic</span> elements of Capitalism:</div>
<ul>
<li><div class="P71" style="margin-left: 0cm;">
<span class="T100">The idea and use of interest baring debt, and a debt based money system, which accelerates</span><span class="T23"> the arrival of insolvency without growth. Due to wealth concentration, ongoing debt is necessary in order to allow general participation in the market. Having it accrue interest at a certain percentage follows from lenders wanting compensation for the lost access to capital/wealth which would otherwise accumulate in a market (due to cumulative competitive advantage). This ensures that the economic growth required is </span><span class="T7">exponential</span><span class="T23">.</span><span class="odfLiEnd"> </span></div>
</li>
<li><div class="P72" style="margin-left: 0cm;">
<span class="T24">Dependency on wage labour. </span>In order to participate in the market and so take care <span class="T76">of </span>material necessities and pursue any social aspirations, the large majority of people have their labour as their primary source of value to trade. This means they become dependant on employment. Thus not only the rich but also the struggling parts of society <span class="T81">and even some groups concerned with labour rights and social justice</span> become ideologically and literally bound to economic growth – <span class="T81">under Capitalism</span>.<span class="odfLiEnd"> </span></div>
</li>
</ul>
<!--Next 'div' was a 'text:p'.--><br />
<div class="P40">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdwJtrGR0Y160sZ6jvV-txjRcf9_zZ6VuYEIJx03JeBEoqDyHlMe54mZQSpVWFd5pdxmNTxrvnNpMcFN-kQqFh0bBGXzDpEalyCo9UXEwM4OIvO-Jduq5W8b_irVaX12u8xOxEUFJ1G7wL/s1600/wealth+concentration+environmental+degradation.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdwJtrGR0Y160sZ6jvV-txjRcf9_zZ6VuYEIJx03JeBEoqDyHlMe54mZQSpVWFd5pdxmNTxrvnNpMcFN-kQqFh0bBGXzDpEalyCo9UXEwM4OIvO-Jduq5W8b_irVaX12u8xOxEUFJ1G7wL/s1600/wealth+concentration+environmental+degradation.png" width="520" /></a></div>
<div class="P59">
<br /></div>
<div class="P59">
<br /></div>
<div class="P59">
Doesn’t this <span class="T22">built in requirement for endless growth completely disqualify Capitalism from being compatible with a sustainable coexistence with the environment of our finite planet?</span></div>
<h3 class="P82" id="technology">
Can Technology save us?</h3>
<div class="P36">
Those in favour of a market controlled economy (<span class="T25">C</span>apitalism) might argue that technological innovation and the <span class="T26">resulting </span>rise in <span class="T26">resource usage </span>efficiency offers a way for growth to continue even on a finite planet.</div>
<div class="P49">
<br />
The trouble with this theory is that innovation is sporadic and unpredictable, while the structural dependency on growth is constant. So far, our rate of innovation and efficiency improvements have fallen far short of our growing energy and resource usage. Unfortunately another aspect of Capitalism is the threat-focused and narrow minded mentality it engenders, which is an impediment to the kinds of technological and social innovations that would be needed to bring civilization into a sustainable state. Yet another reason why under Capitalism technology isn’t going to save us is violent conflict. As technology advances so does our ability to devastate the environment with increasing ease, and there’s no business like the war business.</div>
<div class="P37">
<br />
Finally there is the inherent conflict between technological development and wage labour, where there are ever fewer tasks a person can do that a machine can’t do more cheaply, now including such things as journalism, software development and medical diagnostics. <span class="T84">The above issues are summarised in the table below</span><span class="T84"></span><span class="T84">.</span></div>
<div class="P37">
<span class="T84"><br /></span></div>
<table border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" class="Table1" style="border: 1px solid #555555;"><colgroup><col width="358"></col><col width="332"></col></colgroup><tbody>
<tr class="Table11"><td class="Table1_A1" style="text-align: left; width: 8.192cm;"><div class="P60">
<b>Technological Innovation</b></div>
</td><td class="Table1_B1" style="text-align: left; width: 7.599cm;"><div class="P60">
<b>Capitalism</b></div>
</td></tr>
<tr class="Table11"><td class="Table1_A2" style="text-align: left; width: 8.192cm;"><div class="P54">
Sporadic, unpredictable</div>
</td><td class="Table1_B2" style="text-align: left; width: 7.599cm;"><div class="P54">
Dependent on constant growth</div>
</td></tr>
<tr class="Table11"><td class="Table1_A2" style="text-align: left; width: 8.192cm;"><div class="P54">
Thrives with collaborative sharing</div>
</td><td class="Table1_B2" style="text-align: left; width: 7.599cm;"><div class="P54">
Engenders a threat-focused, short term mentality</div>
</td></tr>
<tr class="Table11"><td class="Table1_A2" style="text-align: left; width: 8.192cm;"><div class="P54">
Increases capacity for environmental destruction</div>
</td><td class="Table1_B2" style="text-align: left; width: 7.599cm;"><div class="P54">
Thrives on war and armed conflict</div>
</td></tr>
<tr class="Table11"><td class="Table1_A2" style="text-align: left; width: 8.192cm;"><div class="P54">
Leads to increasing redundancy of wage labour</div>
</td><td class="Table1_B2" style="text-align: left; width: 7.599cm;"><div class="P54">
Depends on wage labour</div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="Table" style="text-align: center;">
<i>Conflicting characteristics of technological innovation and Capitalism</i></div>
<h3 class="" id="consumption">
But will consumption really fall with falling inequality?</h3>
<div class="P74">
If high <span class="T121">concentrations of wealth</span> <span class="T121">of the sort we have today</span> (without descending into complete totalitarian control of an increasingly destitute majority), guarantee<span class="T127">s</span> an endless rise in consumption and resource usage, what is to say that total consumption would really fall if <span class="T121">wealth was less concentrated and so </span>more people had more opportunity to consume <span class="T127">in a market economy</span>?</div>
<div class="P75">
<span class="T126"><br /></span>
<span class="T126">F</span>or the last 100 years the <span class="T126">averaged</span> <span class="T126">GDP </span>growth <span class="T123">rate </span>of the richest countries <span class="T123">was</span> a<span class="T123">bout 1% faster</span> during the mid 20<span class="T52">th</span> century <span class="T123">than during the rest. It was during that period</span> when the gap between the rich and poor within each country was <span class="T6">smallest</span> (due <span class="T125">in part </span>to strong labour organization and <span class="T122">much </span>higher top rates of income tax, <span class="T125">and in part to the capital expenses of the two world wars</span>). <span class="T124"> </span></div>
<div class="P76">
<span class="T124"><br /></span>
<span class="T124">What this shows is that consumption certainly can increase with more equal distribution of wealth. But whether and how much it does will depend on the mainstream culture and legal framework around economic activity. The mid 20</span><span class="T55">th</span><span class="T124"> century was when the then new culture of consumerism got into full swing. In the context of reduced economic inequality in addition to a widespread awareness of ecological limitations, strong legal restraints on production based on </span><span class="T124">those limits, and a reduced systemic dependency on wage labour (which reduces requirements for consumption to create the profits to pay the wages), </span><span class="T128">then</span><span class="T124"> there is at least decent scope for substantially reduced resource usage. In the present arrangement of concentrated wealth and power there is no such scope, not without a global cataclysm forcing it on civilization.</span></div>
<h3 class="Heading_20_3" id="caprecap">
Capitalism Recap</h3>
<ul>
<li><div class="P66" style="margin-left: 0cm;">
Requires <span class="T27">perpetual exponential growth due to wealth concentrating nature and thus ever increasing demand on limited natural resources.</span><span class="odfLiEnd"> </span></div>
</li>
<li><div class="P67" style="margin-left: 0cm;">
By locking a host population into wage labour, <span class="T29">the</span> commoditisation of value, <span class="T28">and the protection of social class, </span>corrodes <span class="T85">collective </span>community and empathy.<span class="odfLiEnd"> </span></div>
</li>
<li><div class="P68" style="margin-left: 0cm;">
Depends <span class="T30">on </span>technological innovation to perpetuate growth, <span class="T30">which it also hinders through the threat-focused and short-term mindset it engenders, and which will ultimately make wage labour (a corner stone of social class) redundant.</span><span class="odfLiEnd"> </span></div>
</li>
<li><div class="P69" style="margin-left: 0cm;">
Seeks to externalize costs of production and consumption, frequently leading to the environment taking those costs in the form of destabilisation, pollution and destruction.<span class="odfLiEnd"> </span></div>
</li>
</ul>
<h3 class="Heading_20_3" id="charts">
Charting exponential growth and resource extraction</h3>
<div class="P77">
The <span class="T116">following </span>series of charts show <span class="T116">the largely </span>exponential growth in the use of various types of finite resources.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXQPa6X8xmfEyLGGGul1FhuFMndvRDeUQVON71M8c27R7-kknnUpaqDDMfkJInxYvj83FyooNr_82Oxfn41v_pomrwyhv1BF1xCSpWeaS8_ggQq7YeQCU2aAYoMbMg_m0gdHw6dMdtKM5p/s1600/image.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXQPa6X8xmfEyLGGGul1FhuFMndvRDeUQVON71M8c27R7-kknnUpaqDDMfkJInxYvj83FyooNr_82Oxfn41v_pomrwyhv1BF1xCSpWeaS8_ggQq7YeQCU2aAYoMbMg_m0gdHw6dMdtKM5p/s1600/image.jpg" height="211" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgy-g3f3TuAYoAojDqZHKubUxo6hJDn2ANEHeyNyl8TI5pJontq-PTqqaaJvWKqvlfIeOGLm-6kv5PXZOKObfrLo7QIS0Tydr3XpL2rGGyeBY7FX0C2-WNARwi0GKiWFtv8pAzux0MyRjLW/s1600/figure08.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgy-g3f3TuAYoAojDqZHKubUxo6hJDn2ANEHeyNyl8TI5pJontq-PTqqaaJvWKqvlfIeOGLm-6kv5PXZOKObfrLo7QIS0Tydr3XpL2rGGyeBY7FX0C2-WNARwi0GKiWFtv8pAzux0MyRjLW/s1600/figure08.jpg" height="400" width="386" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Agriculture related resource usage (source FAO, 2003; International Fertilizer Association, 2008; FAOSTAT, 2009)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The intensive farming methods which are reflected in resource usage charted in the previous graph are resulting in massive erosion of top soil, which is already severely impacting food security for millions of people across India, Africa and China. Already tens of millions of people across this region <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/25/lester-brown-vast-dust-bowls-threaten-tens-of-millions-with-hunger">can only afford to eat 5 days a week</a> due to worsening arable land shortage. If the trend continues there will be an unprecedented global food crisis within decades.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYANf3hP07iJCcr9U3v1mv3V7SY-bFJJ2-EmAzah1OkXlzFHD_JbkfwexdDiSj0oh4h5MV8CQp9UdFLfGPwikFXLBnfnQ18XWkrPmDDWqq4UVzel3oj_PKs2_X6hgvkymXqqzKaEj1FUKw/s1600/Map-of-global-soil-degredation-in-the-year-20001.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYANf3hP07iJCcr9U3v1mv3V7SY-bFJJ2-EmAzah1OkXlzFHD_JbkfwexdDiSj0oh4h5MV8CQp9UdFLfGPwikFXLBnfnQ18XWkrPmDDWqq4UVzel3oj_PKs2_X6hgvkymXqqzKaEj1FUKw/s1600/Map-of-global-soil-degredation-in-the-year-20001.gif" width="520" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiny7eG-rh302FwpXRE_MsNiOtLcOx_m6Py0jF9sRnKNvOdMIN1o0XSWlJUF-9wNQdeHvLwhIB1sZT33JvQHGsuhnHvhZ46iUfewKzS4sapSwOseG6A_1R1pL3eC5GBSDaeHV-ucZuN0-vM/s1600/0211-withdrawcons-sector-EN.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiny7eG-rh302FwpXRE_MsNiOtLcOx_m6Py0jF9sRnKNvOdMIN1o0XSWlJUF-9wNQdeHvLwhIB1sZT33JvQHGsuhnHvhZ46iUfewKzS4sapSwOseG6A_1R1pL3eC5GBSDaeHV-ucZuN0-vM/s1600/0211-withdrawcons-sector-EN.jpg" width="520" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Global water usage</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<!--Next 'div' was a 'text:p'.--><br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnrvaXUcJXZFPKJM8OJ1crf_F2MTA1lSE7ZFRRIsXFD1qyFQokL2vE9CQwMx4UiYYtg7danWbQUnwhZ8Bj01jpQYfmAKgoanYFCbFn3bPmi0djsnfBoXqfWjoABCSwdmakNFYmE3jm_LiC/s1600/rare-earth-elements-production-history.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnrvaXUcJXZFPKJM8OJ1crf_F2MTA1lSE7ZFRRIsXFD1qyFQokL2vE9CQwMx4UiYYtg7danWbQUnwhZ8Bj01jpQYfmAKgoanYFCbFn3bPmi0djsnfBoXqfWjoABCSwdmakNFYmE3jm_LiC/s1600/rare-earth-elements-production-history.jpg" height="146" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source: Geology.com</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOOyYJj8I2NbARy4ZIiZAEilsgRtSDfl0y-Iv0Jzs26ZjEtFA_JSfMi-qf6z8l9U0oW_FRi5fQcHOZFJWtSSfzV_7EYNBfPlqCSVZ02raGUicvUBsTzkNQKStXT0EbhMBv87FSPsq6LFgM/s1600/6a00d83451b14d69e200e550b2b9fa8834-800wi.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOOyYJj8I2NbARy4ZIiZAEilsgRtSDfl0y-Iv0Jzs26ZjEtFA_JSfMi-qf6z8l9U0oW_FRi5fQcHOZFJWtSSfzV_7EYNBfPlqCSVZ02raGUicvUBsTzkNQKStXT0EbhMBv87FSPsq6LFgM/s1600/6a00d83451b14d69e200e550b2b9fa8834-800wi.gif" height="272" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0.21cm; margin-top: 0.21cm;">
GDP
is the standard measure of economic growth, which is the driving
force for increasing rates of resource usage.</div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<h3 class="Heading_20_3" id="population">
Not a simple population problem</h3>
<div class="P56">
<span class="T117">Alongside</span> run-away resource usage, the global population continues to rise. <span class="T91">While this does increase demand for resources, the size of the present population is much less an issue for sustainability than the way resource usage and consumption is so highly concentrated amongst a small, wealthy fraction of the global population.</span><br />
<span class="T91"><br /></span>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1oqCbWDNLQrMzRFg2yEHv7pJGYkIWCZtFrjETC2QzjrjirW5QxROHAtHROLKW2Lw41djpYQOPllQYjbD4ErbXeMKRHoTnLe_sUlZi3hdNiVeIt-Dh8vEWgVFieo-QPu6mTMTOG-JZJ_Yx/s1600/World_bank_resource+usage+by+wealth.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1oqCbWDNLQrMzRFg2yEHv7pJGYkIWCZtFrjETC2QzjrjirW5QxROHAtHROLKW2Lw41djpYQOPllQYjbD4ErbXeMKRHoTnLe_sUlZi3hdNiVeIt-Dh8vEWgVFieo-QPu6mTMTOG-JZJ_Yx/s1600/World_bank_resource+usage+by+wealth.jpg" height="231" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source: World Bank, <a href="http://data.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/wdi08.pdf">2008 World Development Index</a>, 4</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span class="T91"><br /></span></div>
<h2 class="P85" id="currentreforms">
What we have now and the kinds of reforms it would take</h2>
<div class="P12">
So it’s not looking t<span class="T31">o</span>o rosy for Capitalism’<span class="T31">s</span> compatibility with the environment. Is there any hope for reforms making it <span class="T32">workable</span>?<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="P12">
Let’s consider the reforms <span class="T32">or tweaks to a market controlled economy that </span>we already have:</div>
<ul>
<li><div class="P73" style="margin-left: 0cm;">
Income and trade based tax system, with a relatively small addition of property based tax.<span class="odfLiEnd"> </span></div>
</li>
<li><div class="P73" style="margin-left: 0cm;">
Means tested welfare system with a still largely free at the point of access health service.<span class="odfLiEnd"> </span></div>
</li>
<li><div class="P73" style="margin-left: 0cm;">
Some legal framework to limit the extend of monopolies developing, damage to the environment, and the amount of privately directed money that directly determines the decisions of government, through 'donations', lobbying, and other means.</div>
</li>
</ul>
<div class="P13">
In addition to these there is the crucial voluntary sector that picks up the short fall of the market to meet the needs of the population, for various kinds of support and caring. <span class="T33">To get just a narrow sense of the value of the volunteering in the UK the total number of hours volunteered to charities and NGOs, valued at the median wage, is over £23,000,000,000 pa (source: </span><a href="http://data.ncvo.org.uk/a/almanac12/how-big-is-the-voluntary-sector-compared-to-the-rest-of-the-economy/"><span class="T33">NCVO</span></a><span class="T33">). </span></div>
<div class="P14">
<br />
Getting <span class="T34">back</span> to this list of current reforms <span class="T67">or social policy interventions</span>, clearly <span class="T67">they are</span> not sufficient, since resource usage and environmental damage continues to increase from a point that was already unsustainable decades ago. </div>
<h3 class="P83" id="tax">
Tax reform</h3>
<div class="P16">
Starting with our tax system, the problem with relying so much on income and transactions as a basis for tax is that it’s relatively straight forward to hide or repackage those things to avoid paying tax. Indeed this is exactly what happens. <span class="T76">M</span>any of the largest businesses in the UK, including Google, Apple,<span class="T93"> Amazon, </span>Vodaphone, Starbucks <span class="T93">and Boots (not to mention the banks) </span>pay almost no tax at all. <span class="T104">E</span>ven without that problem, to begin to stem the power concentrating effect of markets, <span class="T93">income tax</span> must be set at a progressive rate (higher for higher incomes), which sets up ideological conflicts with those who <span class="T36">believe in the myth of self-made fortunes. </span><br />
<span class="T36"><br /></span></div>
<div class="P19">
<span class="T37">In terms of effectively tackling the wealth and power concentration which is forcing the pressure for economic growth, which is destroying the environment, tax based on property value is the most straightforward and robust. It also takes pressure off tax revenue when economic growth slows and total income declines. </span><br />
<br />
<span class="T37">The current Green party policy document proposes the introduction of a land value tax (from EC791) to replace the dysfunctional Council Tax and</span> National Non-Domestic Business Rates. <span class="T38">Such a property tax, providing it is set at a sufficient level, forms one lever in freeing us from the environmental death grip of concentrated power. The Greens also support the principle of introducing a more general wealth tax (</span>EC743<span class="T42">), which could eventually and more efficiently replace income based taxes. </span></div>
<div class="P29">
<br />
In combination with land value tax and reforms of income and corporation tax, the Greens propose phasing out VAT and replacing it with ‘eco taxes’ (<span class="T105">from </span>EC780), environmental damage taxes which directly disincentivize the kinds of consumption and production that are <span class="T111">most damaging</span> our eco-systems and undermining social wellbeing.</div>
<div class="P17">
<br />
Of course, down-scaling production and consumption calls for wage labour <span class="T40">no longer being</span> necessary for subsistence, <span class="T41">since putting the breaks on growth will depress employment. In the short and mid-term, reducing jobs in unsustainable businesses can be off-set with ‘green jobs’, employment based on transitioning to sustainable infrastructure and services, including energy production, transport, materials, construction, education, health, recycling and R&D. But ultimately the reliance on profit turning wage labour and consequently economic growth for livelihood must be removed if we are to have a sustainable and equitable future.</span></div>
<h3 class="Heading_20_3" id="citizensincomes">
Welfare and Citizens Income</h3>
<div class="P18">
<span class="T39">This leads on to</span> the welfare system. <span class="T39">Presently the complex system of means tested aid that we have creates both poverty traps and social stigma. It results in huge wastage of human time and potential, both to administer and to be on the receiving end of. </span></div>
<div class="P78">
<br />
The Greens currently propose to have a Citizens Income, otherwise known as Universal Basic <span class="T99">Income, which is unconditionally paid to everyone, regardless of any other income or employment</span> status or intent. <span class="T130">By making this sufficient to meet bare living requirements, the security this provides creates tremendous opportunity for the a large portion of the population to learn, development themselves and pursue genuinely productive and in some cases innovative work, paid or voluntary. This would be opportunity they don’t currently have with means tested </span><span class="T130">benefits which effectively coerce people into accepting whatever wage labour is available, and so act as a subsidy for concentrated wealth wanting cheap labour. Its unconditionality would also remove the existing poverty trap of having most additional earnings removed by reducing means tested benefit payments (equivalent to a far greater tax on income than the very richest are </span><span class="T102">supposed to pay). And since everyone would receive it, the stigma of social benefits would be lost.</span></div>
<div class="P78">
<br />
While they are <span class="T68">still </span>fleshing through the details, the concept <span class="T131">of an unconditional income for everyone </span>actually has support from both the left and the right of the political sphere. <span class="T43">Some of the right (e.g. Milton Friedman </span><span class="T103">and followers) see it as a way to allow the market to continue even in the face of mass technological</span><span class="T43"> redundancy, while some of the left see it as laying the ground to exit Capitalism and transition to a sharing economy or collaborative commons. How much of each it will be, of course, depends on implementation details and what other political and economic policies accompany it.</span></div>
<div class="P20">
<br />
The <span class="T44">Green </span>policy document for this year is not yet finalised, but I can express my own views on the matter. Previous <a href="https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/research/publications/working-papers/euromod/em17-14.pdf">research</a> <span class="T120">(see also </span><a href="https://policypress.wordpress.com/2015/02/23/would-a-citizens-income-make-some-people-poorer-than-they-are-today/"><span class="T120">this</span></a><span class="T120">) </span>has focused on revenue neutral <span class="T45">implementations </span>and on fairly minor changes to income tax levels. This is understandable <span class="T46">with respect to not affronting too heavily the mainstream way of thinking about economics, in terms of money, and the so called ‘trickling down’ of wealth from the rich. But consequently it severely limits the level of CI so that the initial effect on wealth distribution is negligible, thus leaving the pressures on economic growth and environmental degradation unchanged. Nevertheless, by removing much of the means tested element of the social safety net, it would still be a substantial progressive step from which higher levels of CI could be moved to, which would start to allow a greater economic transition.</span></div>
<div class="P21">
<span class="T99"><br /></span>
<span class="T99">If we look at a Citizens Income as a key tool in a transition to sustainability then it must </span><span class="T101">ultimately</span> be about wealth redistribution and supporting a zero growth economy, or <span class="T48">rather </span>only intensive <span class="T48">growth </span>(coming from <span class="T49">efficiency improving </span>innovation) rather than extensive <span class="T48">growth </span>(coming from using up resou<span class="T47">rc</span>es at a higher rate). <span class="T50">If we can bring ourselves to face that fact then setting taxes and using other funding methods for more progressive levels of CI becomes a little simpler. </span></div>
<div class="P30">
<br />
According to the ONS, the total private household wealth in the UK is £9.5 trillion, of which 44% is owned by the wealthiest 10%, and the least wealthy half of the population <span class="T77">having</span> just 9%. </div>
<div class="P31">
ONS data <span class="T106">also </span>shows that the average (mean) income is £29,600 (2013), with 30,000,000 in some kind of employment. That’s equivalent to £13,875 per person in the UK. </div>
<div class="P32">
<br />
With these figures it’<span class="T111">s</span> not too hard to imagine a combination of wealth and income tax that would allow a Citizens <span class="T94">I</span>ncome at a level that supports a dignified existenc<span class="T77">e. In doing that it would also</span> aid the transitioning to a zero extensive growth, sustainable economy <span class="T77">and</span> foster creativity and innovation, while still allowing some differentiation in income. Naturally, as the amount of paid wage labour decreased, tax funding would have to shift more from income to wealth tax in order to keep money circulating. </div>
<div class="P22">
<span class="T51"><br /></span>
<span class="T51">Regarding income tax, taking an historical perspective, much higher top rates should not be alarming. For much of the 20</span><span class="T53">th</span><span class="T51"> century the top rate was between 70% and 98%. It’s only been </span><span class="T51">since Thatcher that it’s tumbled, with predictable rises in inequality. </span></div>
<div class="P33">
<br />
An additional source of intermediate funding, were it needed to smooth the transition, would be quantitative easing – providing the Citizens Income was set to automatically track any inflation.</div>
<h3 class="Heading_20_3" id="governance">
Legal framework and governance</h3>
<div class="P23">
Regarding the legal framework <span class="T57">that </span>we have to curb the worst excesses of concentrated power, <span class="T56">given the well known revolving door between government and industry, frequent corruption scandals, and distinct lack of big corporations paying much tax, not to mention the prospect of ratifying TTIP, it is rather inadequate. </span></div>
<div class="P34">
<br />
Much of the problem can be tackled with increased transparency, and the devolution of real decision making power to a larger portion of the population. It is the concentration of both economic and political power that forms such a viscous cycle. The entrenchment of a political establishment makes economic reforms much harder and insufficient on their own in securing a sustainable socio-economic system. On this front the Greens have a clear policy <span class="T73">and </span>philosophical basis for de-centralising political power and having a finer grain and more participatory form of government, along with <span class="T77">a genuine</span> power of recall for representatives, and the forming of a politically and socially progressive legal constitution. </div>
<div class="P50">
<br />
As a direct result of such reforms, bringing public services, including energy supply, back into public control would be much easier, <span class="T132">as would be protecting the NHS.</span> <span class="T132">Similarly</span> passing effective environmental policy that reflects the public will, without being subject to the profit making convenience of big business, <span class="T132">would be achievable</span>.</div>
<br />
<div>
Regarding the problem of creating national debt when creating central bank money, and of commercial banks creating the far larger fraction of the money in our economy through the provision of loans far beyond their deposits, the Green policy (from EC660) is to reform this to remove much of the unsustainable growth forcing factor of runaway debt interest (along with other gross social iniquities of the present monetary system), somewhat along the lines of the <a href="http://www.positivemoney.org/">Positive Money</a> proposals.
</div>
<h2 class="P86" id="intentofreform">
The intent of reform and taking the chance</h2>
<div class="P44">
After that summary of <span class="T58">our </span>existing tweaks to Capitalism <span class="T107">(</span>sometimes euphemistically referred to as ‘Social Democracy’<span class="T107">)</span> and brief introduction to<span class="T59"> </span>progressive Green policy, <span class="T60">perhaps you’re getting a sense of the type of reforms it will take to get off the path to collective destitution that we are currently on. This transition calls for:</span></div>
<div class="Text_20_body_20_indent">
<br />
Going from: <i><span class="T6">“</span><span class="T8">R</span><span class="T6">eforms that effectively service and support the continued concentration of power and capital amongst the few, and thus facilitate ongoing environmental degradation, whilst perpetuating a threat-focused short term outlook.”</span></i><br />
<i><span class="T6"><br /></span></i></div>
<div class="Text_20_body_20_indent">
Moving to: <i><span class="T6">“</span><span class="T8">R</span><span class="T6">eforms that actively dismantle or diffuse the forcing factors of markets and property which exploit to destruction both physical and social environments; allowing a progressive, more collaborative socio-economic paradigm to emerge.”</span></i></div>
<div class="P57">
<br />
By making that shift we will simultaneously wind down the manufactured and divisive culture of consumerism, which in itself will free up tremendous amounts of human time and energy for more genuinely enriching pursuits.</div>
<div class="P24">
<span class="T95"><br /></span>
<span class="T95">C</span>learly if we as a social collective were to see through such reforms, we might still for a time have markets, but we would have made a paradigm shift in our sense of value and social and environmental awareness that is clearly outside the bounds of Capitalism, and <span class="T96">which </span>I believe lays the ground for a sharing economy or the collaborative commons.</div>
<h3 class="Heading_20_3" id="istheretime">
But is there time?</h3>
<div class="P24">
It’s true we <span class="T112">a</span>re running out of time to <span class="T61">implement these progressive reforms, and for that reason some groups are advocating a good old violent revolution, or the types of capital repossession that would instigate widespread violence. While the prospect might feel exciting and satisfy frustration and a sense that something big must be done now, the reality of mass violent social upheaval would almost certainly be terrible for everyone and help to create a worse version of what we already have. It would help to create more of the threat-focused, short-term, authoritarian thinking that is already steering us collectively in the wrong direction.</span></div>
<div class="P39">
<br />
Even without <span class="T62">setting the streets alight, there is already a much darker future being prepared for, which would take the perpetuation of concentrated power and market economics on a finite planet to its logical conclusion – diminishing growth along with rapidly diminishing population and civil liberties and increasingly literal economic slavery of the masses, so that as resented as the exploitation and domination is, there is little that can be done about it. </span></div>
<div class="P51">
<br />
As we all now know, the infrastructure of the surveillance state is already in place across much of the world, while the police become ever more militarized and the definition of ‘terrorism’ and ‘national interest’ ever more broad and flexible, resulting in a growing crack-down on peaceful protests. If this dystopian picture seems hyperbolic, consider that the last century saw several such societies establish themselves in a matter of years to threaten world domination, with lesser technologies for mass control than exist today. The longer mass austerity and social injustice continues, the more dangerous the situation becomes.</div>
<div class="P51">
<br />
If we don’t want more of that and believe a better way is at least worth trying for, I’d suggest we can start by rejecting the political parties that have helped lay the ground for such a dark future, and support one that shows a clear understanding of the challenges we face. </div>
<div class="Text_20_body">
<br />
I believe the Greens offer a sensible <span class="T79">and progressive </span>set of <span class="T79">policies</span> that really engage with the realities of our existence in the world, and are something you can actually vote for.<span class="T78"> And while success is not guaranteed, unlike with the other parties on the voting slips that are still enamoured with Capitalism, neither is failure.</span></div>
<div class="P52">
<br />
I hope that we can collaborate together to find a more collectively prosperous and sustainable way forward.</div>
<div class="P35">
<br />
Links: </div>
<div class="Text_20_body">
<a href="http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/">http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/</a><br />
<a href="https://voteforpolicies.org.uk/">https://voteforpolicies.org.uk/</a><br />
<a href="http://joe-hudson.blogspot.co.uk/">http://joe-hudson.blogspot.co.uk/</a></div>
Joe Hudsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02007274433208167837noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8883586897037151449.post-22334933162074764422014-10-03T16:43:00.002-07:002015-03-06T16:04:13.947-08:00Talk for Dangerous Ideas Southampton on Economic reform<div class="separator" style="clear: both; display: none; text-align: center;">
<img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfsHELEOiPAvjbcGzhi_CoyzKLcNaeJQs7qLMLDDR4Rz4RjH-Z78vApYltRq6BrfZj47K0X-tu_3yhLc5sA4dPuD9rftsUb1qRHf90hi3eNpyVjrTc69GFrRirjHWLjPo-MseFnjO19VDP/s1600/mind_the_gap_web_stretch.jpg" height="263" width="320" /></div>
Earlier this week, the <a href="http://dangerousideassouthampton.org.uk/">Dangerous Ideas Southampton</a> group held an event to explore the concept of money and various projects in place around the country aiming either to make it work in a more socially progressive way, or do without it altogether. Graham Woodruff, the technical directory of the <a href="https://bristolpound.org/">Bristol Pound</a> and Frank van Lerven, a researcher from <a href="https://www.positivemoney.org/">Positive Money</a> spoke on how local currencies and non-debt created currency, respectively, helps significantly in that progressive aim.<br />
<br />
I was delighted to also be one of the speakers. I wanted to share some ideas on the inherent trait of markets to concentrate power, and start some conversations around that and its implications, together with briefly presenting some measures besides monetary reform to make markets less collectively damaging while opening space for broad social development. Here is my talk:<br />
<br />
<iframe frameborder="no" height="450" scrolling="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/170381644&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true" width="100%"></iframe>
<br />
<br />
Here is the transcript:<br />
<br />
"Rather than ask what is the problem with our money system, I'll start by asking what is the problem with our economic system and how might our progressive values be more truly and fruitfully reflected.<br />
<br />
Broadly speaking what do I mean by progressive values? I mean valuing equality of opportunity, and the view that it's in everyone's interests to collaborate with and support each other, in our communities and in society as a whole, and that by doing that, quality of life, scientific and cultural development and sustainability all improve.<br />
<br />
Regarding our economic system, my premise is that determining access to and control of resources through a market and the exchange of property is at the heart of the problems we face, because a market economy inherently dis-empowers the large majority and obstructs free collaboration.<br />
<br />
Of course there are people who claim the issue is that markets are corrupted by government connections and big subsidies, and just need to be set free for a better society. On the other hand there are those who claim there is insufficient regulation to make markets work for everyone rather than just the few, that if excesses were better controlled and markets were perhaps a bit less globalized then markets as they are, are a reasonable way to organize an economy.<br />
<br />
I'd like to briefly challenge both those views and offer some ways of steering us towards a better system.<br />
<br />
If markets are set completely 'free' then the state is reduced to its core function of protecting private property, and the process of cumulative competitive advantage takes over. Essentially, small differences in wealth and circumstances get amplified by exchanging property for profit. If you have control over a bit more resources than most of the people you trade with you'll tend to be in a slightly stronger bargaining position. You can better take advantage of economies of scale, you can afford to take more risk for better potential returns, but you also have a bit more flexibility to pick when, how and with whom you trade to reduce your risk. Conversely if you have less control of resources you'll be in a weaker bargaining position because you have less flexibility, choice and scale. Left unchecked the disparity compounds and this 'free market', for-profit trading process inherently ends with a wealthy few effectively controlling everyone else, economically, politically and socially.<br />
<br />
But what about keeping the economy (the management of resources) organized around markets, but with regulation focused on protecting its growth and continuation in a more sustainable way, perhaps as they were before the 1980's and the financial 'big bang'?<br />
<br />
While this kind or protective regulation of markets necessitates some restraint and provision of social safety nets (inc benefits, labour rights and minimum wages, together with tighter control of what can be traded), it does nothing to alter the inherent growth of large economic and social inequality (from which social classes form). It's for that reason of large power disparity, that the kinds of corruption between business and government that we see are inevitable. In other words if we want rid of the corruption and injustice we must massively reduce the inequality of economic and social means, that a market economy brings.<br />
<br />
So then what kinds of reforms or regulations could help bring the most robust progressive change and reduce the destructive power concentration of a market economy?<br />
<br />
Besides monetary reform and reducing debt burden and the exploitation that comes from that, which is extremely important, here are two more reforms that are gathering popular support and which connect with values that everyone can relate to, as well as integrating in a progressive way with the existing market paradigm.<br />
<br />
First up, Unconditional Basic Income, or UBI. This takes the progressive value of caring for each other for the benefit of all to a logical conclusion and makes a dignified existence unconditional on accepting market determined wage labour. Everyone, regardless, of status and wealth, receives the same basic amount, which allows a healthy standard of living. In this way we would have our many intrinsic motivations for learning, making, contributing and collaborating freed from the narrow and corrosive filter of what can be used to concentrate wealth and so justify the existence of a paid job. Nevertheless the market and wage labour would still exist, but the scope for exploitation and wholesale wastage of human potential would be substantially reduced.<br />
<br />
Funding for UBI can be sourced through streamlining existing social safety net schemes, combined with monetary reform and potentially tax reform. The question of how certain jobs get done can be answered simply through a) market mechanisms which find the price at which people are willing to do them, and b) there being more scope for automation since menial wage labour is not depended on for a livelihood. UBI has been tested very successfully in many parts of the world.<br />
<br />
The second innovation I'd like to introduce is tax reform. Currently our tax system is a complete birds nest, riddled with loop holes and large bureaucratic overhead. With income tax bands and inheritance tax it also sets up ideological conflicts which obstruct progressive social development. A far simpler, more effective and just form of tax, which Thomas Piketty has recently helped to gather support for is a flat rate* net financial worth tax. In other words all private property, from savings, to land, to materials and other resources would be taxed, per annum at a flat rate, for everyone. By linking in with insurance provision it would be much harder to evade, and since everyone pays the same rate, much harder to complain about. By making the tax revenue redistributed for the large part evenly (making up all or part of a UBI), inequality is effectively reduced. Also by making ownership of property only worthwhile where it is being put to productive use, money and land hoarding would be largely diminished and markets could find a more socially tenable place in our society – until we're ready to move beyond them."<br />
<br />
<br />
* Actually it seems Piketty proposes a variable rather than flat rate. I currently think that providing distribution of most of the revenue was evenly spread, a flat rate would be more achievable and perfectly sufficient.<br />
<br />
UBI: <a href="http://www.basicincome.org/bien/index.html">http://www.basicincome.org/bien/index.html</a><br />
<br />Joe Hudsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02007274433208167837noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8883586897037151449.post-2866857237574272202014-05-05T20:45:00.001-07:002014-09-18T19:49:36.609-07:00The Work That Work Does<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpTIUjgt0ddiTF4XKReZ_nbdR23l4scFBM2fygXlOnKCsN0GgW6x1j1Yyi8mwA0VKnuBUoh9oQaTfb58wFQfEKxvAjNAwMeprcdl6UChjjshBkRcZJ9XzlZLe-8YsmImNgdqjSD9jQPArE/s1600/00-rat-race-01.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpTIUjgt0ddiTF4XKReZ_nbdR23l4scFBM2fygXlOnKCsN0GgW6x1j1Yyi8mwA0VKnuBUoh9oQaTfb58wFQfEKxvAjNAwMeprcdl6UChjjshBkRcZJ9XzlZLe-8YsmImNgdqjSD9jQPArE/s1600/00-rat-race-01.jpg" height="233" width="320" /></a></div>
When discussing social, economic and political reform, the subject of work, or having work often comes up. It is a contentious subject, with much of the disagreement being about 'jobs', how to create them, how the employed can and should organize, and the relationship between the employed and unemployed. Around these issues are various perspectives or narratives that support the mainstream 'left' and 'right' political positions.<br />
<br />
<h4>
<b>The mainstream political position</b></h4>
<br />
Starting with what those mainstream left and right positions have in common:<br />
<ul>
<li>Jobs are good for people and the economy.</li>
<li>Exchanging work for money (or economic opportunity) is in principle a fair and effective mechanism for stimulating both essential and beneficial economic activity.</li>
<li>Because there is no better way, jobs are necessary.</li>
</ul>
Accompanying those shared beliefs are naturally some common rhetoric, or aims, such how important it is in a recession to 'get people back to work' and for the government and public/private sector to work together to create more jobs, or how the solution to unemployment or low wages is for capital to be invested in reinvigorating our industrial base, services or the technology sector. Offered in support of job creation are observations of how those out of work often suffer a reduction in self-esteem, social engagement and general health.<br />
<br />
There is also a shared belief in and revering of a strong 'work ethic', which is seen as the root of a productive citizen and a productive economy. This connects with the common understanding that if we all pull together and coordinate our efforts then everyone is better off, but if some are lazy this makes it harder for the rest. (It is an understanding that would have been perfectly clear from our long history as nomadic hunter gatherers, where everyone doing their bit and looking after each other was the best way to survive and prosper.)<br />
<br />
Where these two corners of the mainstream political ring differ on the subject of employment (and unemployment) is in their emphasis on public and private control of the enabling resources and thus opportunities for economic participation, and what kind of social safety net should be in place.<br />
<br />
While the gap is narrowing, traditionally the 'left' favour more public (government) control over resources and thus employment, as well as a slightly more substantial social safety net for the unemployed. Similarly the 'right' favour more private control of resources and thus employment, and a more meagre social safety net. From this, then, the left appear to be more collectivist, while the right individualist. However, such a division is not so clear cut.<br />
<br />
Both mainstream left and right are a product and advocate of hierarchical social order through the concept of private property and markets, including the wage labour market. Hence the larger public or state sector involvement of the left is subservient to those power and opportunity concentrating institutions (as well as the power concentration of political class). Similarly the right's common championing of freedom for all is undermined by the very same institutions, which inherently act to distribute freedom in an extremely uneven way.<br />
<br />
In their own ways, the mainstream left and right political approaches are both authoritarian, since they both operate in and propagate established social hierarchies with strong concentrations of power. At the same time they function as a double act, with their back and forth serving to maintain conditions for the majority within a liveable band and so as not to undermine the established social order. For this reason, for all the improvements in living conditions that the left establishment have at times supported, unless thinking is taken beyond jobs and labour rights, people will remain subject to the same opportunity and power concentrating mechanisms of markets and the endless struggle to maintain living conditions in the face of it.<br />
<br />
<h4>
<b>Between work and jobs</b></h4>
<br />
Coming back to jobs, as an exchange of work for money (wage labour) they are simply one component of the market economy paradigm. But work also serves a more immediate and corporeal purpose, of getting stuff that needs doing done.<br />
<br />
This mixing of the two different functions or meanings of 'work' – wage labour, and getting useful stuff done – is how the elements of genuine productivity, utility and human development get mixed up with serving the capital eating machine.<br />
<br />
A common defence of having work be stimulated by the institutionally created need to 'earn', is that it increases productivity and ultimately collective benefit from increased work. Of course in a world where the same economic and political institutions tirelessly concentrate the profits of work and the benefits of capital and where there has long been sufficient methods and technology to ensure everyone's basic needs are well taken care of without the drudgery or squalor that is currently prevalent, such a defence makes little real sense.<br />
<br />
The incentives to do work need no helping hand from a social elite to move people to productive action. The perpetual human needs and drives for sustenance, meaning, understanding, connection, contribution and creativity push us to action all on their own. The extent to which a social elite stimulate and direct work, and thus serve to concentrate power and cement their position, is the extent to which the utility of work is shifted away from collective benefit to the perceived benefit of that elite (within the bounds of dependency of a parasitic relationship).<br />
<br />
Another defence of the market economy paradigm is that money or the flow of capital is simply a liquid mediator for what is generally useful and desired, thus helping the most beneficial work to get done. The idea is that some needs or desires create demand, which stimulates supply, enabled by the flow of capital. But this is very far from an accurate picture, due to the element of profit, power and opportunity accumulation inherent in markets. Those with increasing power and opportunity increasingly get to judge what is useful and desired, and how best to exploit resources (including wage labour), while the rest are increasingly left in a position of having to get with that program. There is also a precariously positioned middle band who are kept on the rat race through status competition and the appeal of perpetually updated creature comforts. Those with less wealth can taste a little of that lifestyle through taking on more debt - another major component in the wealth concentrating machine.<br />
<br />
With the more fundamental idea of what work is, exerting effort to achieve some aim and meet some needs, it's easy to understand the social and economic benefits of it, completely beside the current market economy paradigm. If not used and challenged regularly the mind and body atrophy, becoming weak and sick. Work, in the general sense is the primary means through which the mind and body are engaged. Work is also one of the primary ways through which social bonds and meaningful relationships are formed. Since fundamentally work is about doing something useful, it's hardly surprising that doing it has a big impact on our sense of being useful and making a contribution.<br />
<br />
<h4>
The gatekeepers of work and the impediment to synergistic collaboration</h4>
<br />
In this general sense, work is crucial to human survival and health and carries with it its own intrinsic motivators. The question then is how are people best enabled to work, in this general sense of the word? The obvious answer is through economic and social opportunity. Now, in a society hinged on wage labour, employers and capital holders are gatekeepers for that economic and social opportunity. It's well known that opportunity to start and resource a new business is far from equally distributed and for most people making ends meet necessarily means finding an employer willing to employ them. There's also the fact that many new or old businesses completely depend on having others in a position of needing employment and thus is a weak bargaining position for their wages.<br />
<br />
Since a basic property of markets is to concentrate economic (and thus most other kinds of) power and opportunity, it, together with the most wealthy employers act as a choke on the ability of most people to do useful work, tightening or loosening according to whether some particular work or skill can be of profit to the employer. From this perspective, 'wealth gatekeepers' is a more accurate term than 'wealth creators' for those holding the choke. Untold opportunities for innovation, cultural development and joyful living are lost through the institutions of wage labour and a market economy. If we wanted to find those not only selfishly profiting from but significantly increasing the hard graft of others, in other words parasites, it should be clear where to look.<br />
<br />
But naturally, identifying individuals in that elite position and blaming them for the ills of society is almost as irrational and counter-productive as blaming the poor for not working hard enough. Those at the top may often do their best to stay there, at the expense of others, and have much to answer for from a moral perspective, but they are also a product of the paradigm they are so successful in. If those particular people were not there, there is no shortage of others that would and are in a position to take their place in a heartbeat. And at any level of the pyramid there are many that hold the same faith, ready and willing to perpetuate its pathological culture.<br />
<br />
Due to the concentration of power and opportunity, the effect of the wage labour, market economy paradigm is sadly an epic failure to harness the synergies of equipoised collaboration (our needs are equally important), and a shoehorning of society and economic activity into a threat-focused selfish (my needs are more important than yours, and we're in competition) mode of operation. Of course this is the aggregate outcome, it is not to say that everyone feels exploited by and miserable at work, because there are clearly many exceptions and we find ways of looking on the bright side. It is also not to say that some employers cannot be progressively minded, or that as an employee you cannot sometimes work to empower yourself and others - necessarily, many jobs are also useful work. It is simply a recognition of the general, systemically resulting case of our wage labour and market economy paradigm, which concentrates power and opportunity, a behaviour which our top heavy social and economic hierarchy completely depends on for its existence.<br />
<br />
<h4>
A better way</h4>
<br />
To more fully realize the synergistic potential of collaboration from enabling people's ability to work, the dominant emphasis would need to shift from accumulating profit to more evenly distributing economic opportunity and allocating surplus to sustainable, collective and shared gain, where it will yield the greatest multiplicative power, by enhancing everyone's ability and opportunity to do work. The process for determining that allocation of surplus would be in the same spirit as for enabling work – non-authoritarian, collaborative and equipoised.<br />
<br />
There are various examples of such progressive decision making processes succeeding where they have been trialled, often in hostile environments, over the last century. Online there are countless examples of successfully allocating resources in large projects in the open source world, using far more fluid and collective decision making processes than typical in the corporate or government sectors. Offline, perhaps the biggest example of more egalitarian economic and political organization is the Spanish social revolution in Aragón and Catalonia, during the civil war of 1936-39.<br />
<br />
More recently the concept of participatory democracy (distinct from 'representative' democracy) has taken root in many countries, such as Brazil, where in Porto Alagre over 50,000 people participated in forming the city budget between 1989-1999. The World Bank reported sustained high public engagement throughout the period, large improvements in public services and reduced inequality from the experiment, which has since been extended in other cities around the world. Notable in this experiment, as remarked by former British diplomat Carne Ross, was the drop in divisive partisan politics, and the rise in a more collaborative and inclusive attitude, as people were less boxed into party identification or political class.<br />
<br />
In the UK the Transition Towns movement is spearheading the way to a more collaboratively and sustainably managed economy. The Occupy movement which began in 2011, for all the frustrations some people had with it, has opened up the conversation about such socially progressive decision making and economics, and spurred many people to go on and begin to put those things into practice in their communities. This is clearly not something that is beyond human will or ability to do at scale.<br />
<br />
<h4>
The divisiveness of wage labour and its supporting rhetoric</h4>
<br />
From both mainstream left and right, the rhetoric around wage labour often stirs tensions and conflicts between the most pressured parts of society, whether majorities or minorities. The virtue of having a strong work ethic, for instance, is one common source of divide and conquer rhetoric. Here wanting to apply yourself to useful work is conflated with being willing to compete for available wage labour and accept the going rate, regardless of how liveable it is. In this way those struggling economically are set against themselves, since those unwilling or reluctant to enter into the wealth concentrating market economy paradigm are labelled as having a bad work ethic, or being a drain on others.<br />
<br />
From this divisive and narrow perspective, the victims of cultural and economic poverty traps are blamed for their plight by those either within or on the margins of it, not grasping the larger institutional reasons for their and others hardship. To fuel this self-defeating venting, the tabloids gleefully provide an ongoing parade of extreme outlier cases of where the social safety net leads to tragic excess or abuse, with the bilious invitation to grind your teach over how hard you're working for so little, while they have more without the toil. <br />
<br />
This basic approach to leveraging the common respect for work ethic for the purposes of concentrating power or protecting privilege can be spun in numerous ways. For example, there is a narrative that suggests if you're concerned about added competition for your job from immigration, then you could be a xenophobe, your work ethic is lacking and you aught to just get more competitive. A related narrative is commonly found inciting tensions between native and immigrant workers: "You take a modest wage but you work hard to support your family, and now these foreign workers are coming to undercut you and take your jobs. Your miseries are their doing." This is the 'look over there!' approach, since of course both native and immigrant are in a similar boat, doing the best they can, and the downward pressure on wages is simply a result of market forces. In all cases, the problem of economic hardship ultimately has less to do with work ethic than with the institutionally created pressure to compete for wage labour.<br />
<br />
The ascent of innovation and technology is another area of conflict with wage labour. With wage labour as the gatekeeper of economic opportunity, the more technology advances, the harder it becomes to create jobs that couldn't be better or more profitably automated. You don't have to be a Luddite to be concerned about being displaced, and your livelihood taken by a computer or robot. In this way technology becomes a tool for further power concentration, as much or more than one to better and more broadly empower people. But this is not a conflict between technology and work, because work always remains. It is purely an issue with the wage labour, market economy paradigm and the choke it holds on opportunity for participation and engagement.<br />
<br />
Our relationship with and protection of our environment is a particularly tragic and catastrophic area of conflict with wage labour (but not work). Since our market economy, wage labour paradigm creates an insatiable hunger for extensive growth, and at least a political and social pressure for new jobs, we end up destroying our home to feed our cultural disease. How often do we hear the sickly refrain "Yes, it's sad about the [forest, park, river, mountain, wildlife and pollution, loss of community resource, your children and grandchildren's future] but this development will create jobs. People need jobs. It will be good for the economy. Vote for jobs!"<br />
<br />
War, while not only a huge profit maker (perhaps the biggest) and provider of jobs, also serves to smother awareness of and action towards social reform (although the period immediately following a war can be more conducive to reform). In tandem with economic austerity measures, having an enemy or some desperate situation that needs coping with, keeps you in a state of short-term, threat-focused thinking, in which conflict, competition (for possessions, rather than between ideas) and just getting by, become all that matter. Again, this scenario is a fertile source of divide and conquer rhetoric: "How can you undermine our unity in facing this threat? While you're complaining and talking about vain hopes, the rest are working hard to keep us all secure and fed. The time for talk has passed. Your ideas are dangerous, and you'll keep quiet and get back to work if you know what's good for you." and such like. This is not a conflict with work, which through ongoing and open communication can better adapt and find the best solutions to problems, but with threat-focused social hierarchy which plugs into the idea of wage labour.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Conclusion</h4>
<br />
To conclude, the socially progressive stance is not to create jobs, but to create, or more broadly share, opportunity to do work. The distinction is crucial, because while a strong work ethic is surely a fine thing, to make that subject to employment is to severely constrain its individual and collective utility and to perpetuate the essentially master, servant relationship of the present social order.<br />
<br />
The work that 'work' does, then, is to make work harder, and less rewarding for those doing it. Our independence, personal responsibly and liberty are all better taken care of without a gatekeeper of opportunity. By returning to the core meaning of work, we are liberated to ask, for a given aim, not how can we create some job(s) or private profit opportunity, but what is the best work to meet it? How can we work in the most effective, healthy, respectful and enjoyable way?<br />
<br />
As a progressive alternative to the earlier list of uniting mainstream political assertions, the following is suggested:<br />
<ul>
<li>It is work, distinct from jobs, or wage labour, that is good for people and the economy.</li>
<li>Exchanging work for money (or economic opportunity) is a primary mechanism for ensuring ongoing exploitation and wasted human potential, through the power concentrating property of a market economy.</li>
<li>Useful work provides its own intrinsic motivators, and without the leach of market based profit incentive, the collective and individual utility of work and cooperation can increase.</li>
<li>Because there are better ways, jobs will become unnecessary as those ways are explored and implemented.</li>
</ul>
Joe Hudsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02007274433208167837noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8883586897037151449.post-30356343030871245842014-04-14T15:23:00.001-07:002014-05-05T20:46:31.605-07:00Will The Real Capitalism Please Stand Up<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEho05LPJOuhl_DSaYNMg35FXwun8-KVbyZiUxKLfAywp6oUbPv6FJoUVgGOxwBKuUDKCc0vUydodOrB2ODKh9TK8Jjie1Im6UjPuTnVUW5GaCiQRl5eXAfeCKpxIUUO53zzdah0b17gNTvs/s1600/capitalism.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEho05LPJOuhl_DSaYNMg35FXwun8-KVbyZiUxKLfAywp6oUbPv6FJoUVgGOxwBKuUDKCc0vUydodOrB2ODKh9TK8Jjie1Im6UjPuTnVUW5GaCiQRl5eXAfeCKpxIUUO53zzdah0b17gNTvs/s1600/capitalism.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEho05LPJOuhl_DSaYNMg35FXwun8-KVbyZiUxKLfAywp6oUbPv6FJoUVgGOxwBKuUDKCc0vUydodOrB2ODKh9TK8Jjie1Im6UjPuTnVUW5GaCiQRl5eXAfeCKpxIUUO53zzdah0b17gNTvs/s1600/capitalism.jpg" height="320" width="278" /></a></div>
What some would simply call 'Capitalism', others would call crony-capitalism, state-sponsored capitalism, 'free market' capitalism, or 'really existing capitalism'. Where does this contention come from?<br />
<br />
Capitalism is an approach to economics which applies the concepts of private ownership, and private profit through trade to all forms of economic activity which they can be readily applied to. Central characteristics of Capitalism include capital accumulation, private control of the means of production and wage labour. Central to the conceptual basis of Capitalism are the ideas of a competitive market and 'free trade'.<br />
<br />
It is those ideas of competitive markets and free trade that are usually the cause of disagreement over what counts as 'Capitalism'. Take for instance the comment:<br />
<br />
“How unequally economic opportunity is distributed and how much corporate and government corruption is found in society today, and what great waste and suffering that results in! That's Capitalism for you.”<br />
<br />
Some would respond to that with “Well, the problem isn't really with Capitalism, it's the government interfering with and over-regulating the market and getting in bed with big business. So what we have now is crony-capitalism. What we need is more free and competitive markets.”<br />
<br />
Others would respond in practically the opposite way “Well the problem is with unchecked free markets and insufficient regulation. What we need is more responsible state management of capital and markets, to ensure more competition and opportunity, and thus a more equitable form of Capitalism.”<br />
<br />
To resolve the contradiction it is helpful to be clearer on what a market is and the conditions necessary to sustain one on a large scale. A market is a space which facilitates and aggregates trading activity – the exchange of goods, services and assets. Implicit in this is a transfer of control or ownership between parties in a trade; markets imply private property and the exchange of it.<br />
<br />
Once such a space for the exchange of private property is established, an inherent characteristic of markets begins to manifest; the concentration of power and private wealth. This happens through cumulative competitive advantage, where small differences in economic wealth become amplified over multiple trades, leading to ever greater inequality. (While this is more acutely and quickly felt with economic retraction or non-expansion, it remains true even with economic growth.)<br />
<br />
Because of this wealth concentrating characteristic, markets present an increasingly unhappy situation for the majority of people influenced by them. Thus for markets to persist they must be protected (from said majority) and regulated to keep general conditions within manageable bounds. Without such protection of property and regulation, markets would simply break down, hence these are necessary conditions for markets to persist. Since a market is fundamental to Capitalism, regulation of markets and protection of property 'rights' are also necessary conditions of Capitalism. It is generally a government that performs that market maintaining role. Indeed some institution with the same sort of powers as government, whatever name it took, would need to exist to perform this essential oversight and protection of markets.<br />
<br />
It is easier to maintain a market, and thus Capitalism, in a growing economy, because the growth offsets to a degree, or at least delays the biting point of market led wealth concentration. This is one of the reasons why there is such mainstream focus on keeping the economy growing. How bound to that task a government is, is a simple measure of how aligned they are with Capitalism. In fact, in an economy without <i>extensive</i> growth, Capitalism along with the market would soon fall apart, tending to revert to some form of feudalism from which the modern form evolved, along with more extreme violence.<br />
<br />
Following the above through, the very idea of 'free trade' is problematic. At face value it simply means people being at liberty to trade what they want, without coercion. However, as wealth concentrates through cumulative competitive advantage, economic opportunity and thus freedom to trade and bargain shrinks for the majority (as they find themselves between a rock and a hard place) in line with that wealth concentration. Hence, 'free trade' is made a contradiction in terms by fundamental market operations. No imagined 'revolutionary' reset of wealth distribution will change that – so long as the market-economy paradigm remains intact, the same conditions will re-emerge.<br />
<br />
This exploration of markets and 'free trade' also explains how markets naturally become less competitive over time (without extra-market disruption or oversight). As power concentrates there is less leverage and opportunity, under standard market operations, for others to compete for that enlarging concentration of economic wealth. Beyond this basic market characteristic, taking the profit incentive (or addiction), it makes perfect sense for concentrated power to lobby for legislation and subsidies which protect and enhance that power and thus the established social order. Where individual financial profit and capital accumulation are the dominant objectives, it makes sense to seek 'free trade' for the self, but much less sense to seek it for others.<br />
<br />
Consequently it is simply a logical move to reduce resistance to further profit and power, for government and business to become largely the same thing, at a certain level. Any system predicated on the accumulation of profit, markets and private ownership – that is Capitalism – will arrive at the same logical conclusion, that for concentrated wealth to continue and grow, it must become intertwined with (or otherwise act as) government, either overtly through a State controlled economy, or through networks of lobbyists, friends in high places and preferential treatment of them. Similarly, the use of military force to secure and protect resources, or market friendly conditions, foreign or domestic, can be rationalized as simply taking necessary and reasonable steps to protect business interests, which happily coincide with 'national interests'.<br />
<br />
In such an environment vigorous competition may still take place. But for the most part, even where the public/private entwining has not advanced much, this competition happens within economic strata – a few actors at the top heavy distribution and most in the long thin tail – and in the context of as much inequality as the bulk of individuals making up the market can bare. (The possibility to substantially increase individual economic wealth is always there, but is increasingly marginal, in line with inequality of opportunity.) So, even though a sense of dog-eat-dog competition for scraps may be pervasive, in terms of how large concentrations of economic power get used, there is little competition, due to the high concentration of wealth into few hands.<br />
<br />
Competition is often mentioned in relation to innovation; finding better and cheaper ways to do and make things to help meet people's needs and desires. However, the kind of environment most conducive to innovation, where people have time and space to develop ideas, explore and experiment with possibilities, and where <i>information is shared freely</i>, is precisely the kind of environment that a market controlled economy tramples on, replacing it with high stress, short-term, threat-focused thinking, and competition for possessions more than between ideas. Therefore, when evaluating innovation, competition and Capitalism together it is important to distinguish the sort of competition that Capitalism engenders.<br />
<br />
While the degree and type of competition and how 'free' a market is, may be idealogical facets or aims of a proponent of Capitalism, they are not defining features of Capitalism, there is and can be no particular non-arbitrary qualifying measurement. The extent or lack of economic competition and 'free trade' in a society is simply a measure of how far a market controlled economy has been made to run on, without some intervention to rebalance economic opportunity. To say 'true Capitalism' exists only in some specific and early stage of market economy development is to make Capitalism an arbitrary, perpetually lost fantasy of an aspiration, immune to criticism. If Capitalism is taken as something that can exist, then it must be defined at least by concepts that can evidently be in dominant operation in society - in this case, markets and private property.<br />
<br />
In summary, where there is an economy that is predominantly controlled by market forces (exchange and concentration of property), and where private property is protected by some form of government, Capitalism is in effect – however many or few people there are enjoying the benefits of 'free trade'. This is true whatever system of social safety net is in place, so long as that welfare arrangement remains a support system for continued market operation, and does not undermine the narratives (relating to wage labour, wealth creation and the profit incentive) which justify and aid its continuation. It is also true even if the form of government <i>attempts</i> to have a more anarchic than hierarchical flavour.<br />
<br />
It follows then that what may pass as Socialism, or socialist policy can itself be a crucial support system for Capitalism, serving to sustain social conditions at a level which allow a market-economy to continue. Social struggle itself can thus serve the same master (even where it also leads to better living conditions) if it operates within its supporting narratives, such 'a fair day's pay for a fair day's labour' (accepting the authority of markets and that people aught to earn to live), and in general where that struggle validates or reinforces social hierarchies.<br />
<br />
In conclusion, providing those conditions of a largely market controlled economy are met, there is no crony-capitalism, there is just Capitalism. And corporate capitalism, state controlled capitalism, 'social democratic market-economies', neoliberalism, or somewhat more laissez faire capitalism, are all variations on what is fundamentally the same thing – private profit seeking and capital accumulation through markets.<br />
<br />
Disputes over the level of market regulation and property protection (and even what counts as private property), or the tax and welfare system, simply determine the rapacity or stage of power accumulation, and do not fundamentally make a different system, providing an economy (and thus society) remains predominantly controlled by market operations. Having said that, regulation, and social and economic legislation which springs from a different paradigm - one outside of but not immediately contradictory to a market economy - does have the potential to strengthen the support and build the conditions for radical and progressive social change, to a place beyond Capitalism. Two examples of such reforms are:<br />
* Transitioning the tax system away from trade or income tax to an almost wholly property tax based one.<br />
* Introducing an unconditional basic income to more widely spread economic opportunity and thus economic and social participation.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>More on markets and progressive economic policies:</b><br />
<br />
http://joe-hudson.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/markets-and-non-aggression-principle.html<br />
http://joe-hudson.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/what-counts-as-progressive-change.html<br />
http://joe-hudson.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/two-powerful-mechanisms-for-stimulating.html<br />
<br />
Money as Debt http://www.moneyasdebt.net/<br />
Positive Money http://www.positivemoney.org/<br />
Equality Trust http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/<br />
Basic Income http://www.basicincome.org/Joe Hudsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02007274433208167837noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8883586897037151449.post-6574669470129944972014-01-02T22:43:00.003-08:002014-02-05T21:15:19.992-08:00Markets and the Non-Aggression Principle<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8t6pW9c45tWKRlvmLhyHnuNp7xAml-bXjO0eoH9tBvA9Jnsdc1lJ3IiTsG90MeG5g_3PouuHTFAj4pGvjLoPuw6EdW1zQ-avHa2wBUcc7d-jdChw03d2GsnfUJq65_DB-GlKHJLGeC5lx/s1600/LW389-MC-Escher-Relativity-19531.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8t6pW9c45tWKRlvmLhyHnuNp7xAml-bXjO0eoH9tBvA9Jnsdc1lJ3IiTsG90MeG5g_3PouuHTFAj4pGvjLoPuw6EdW1zQ-avHa2wBUcc7d-jdChw03d2GsnfUJq65_DB-GlKHJLGeC5lx/s320/LW389-MC-Escher-Relativity-19531.jpg" height="303" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Markets rule the world. But whether they are the most equitable,efficient and sustainable way to manage economic activity is questioned by a growing number of people.<br />
<br />
A market is a space or system for facilitating the exchange of goods and services (trade), and in various forms they (or collectively 'the market') control and influence most economic activity around the world.<br />
<br />
One of the moral and utilitarian defences of market based economies offered by those who favour them is known as the Non-Aggression Principle, which it is suggested is compatible with and helpful for markets. NAP in essence is the idea that the initiation of force against any individual (or by extension their legitimate property) except in self-defence, is an affront to freedom and reason. To initiate aggression or violence, in trade or any other conduct, would undermine morality and the prospect of society and progress. NAP is grounded variously in:<br />
<ul>
<li><div>
Nature and instinct: there is generally a natural inclination to peaceful relations where possible, since it opens opportunities for synergy, and there is often a high cost or risk to violence. That is, NAP is generally in the self-interest of individuals. </div>
</li>
<li><div>
Utilitarianism: The best results or highest utility is almost always reached by avoiding the initiation of force or aggression, or following NAP. </div>
</li>
<li>Objectivism: A school of thought developed by a figurehead for free-market supporters and neoliberalism, Ayn Rand, places the ability to reason as our means of survival and progress and recognizes violence as antithetical to reason. NAP derives from the primacy of reason. </li>
</ul>
Historically NAP can be found or trivially derived from the thinking of many ancient cultures. It is, for instance, a direct consequence of the Golden Rule (in its negative form): 'Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you'.<br />
<br />
While there are some tricky scenarios for NAP, it is a fairly well supported concept across the political spectrum. Free-market advocates like it most where it explicitly incorporates a concept of private property, and because it speaks to the universal values of freedom, security and peace. It appears to create a moral foundation for the accumulation of private wealth, and the right of that not being interfered with by anyone else. You, and everyone else, can be free, pursue your self-interest in the form of amassing private property, and be morally sound at the same time. What's not to like?<br />
<br />
<b>The problem</b><br />
<br />
Problems form around the concept of private property and how as it grows and concentrates it impinges on the freedom of others. If economic activity is largely marketized and commodified, so that most resources are privately owned, then those with less property have less freedom, and in proportion to their lack of wealth specifically tend to be at the mercy of those with more property.<br />
<br />
Friedrick Heyak one of the most influential thinkers relating to neoliberalism wrote in "The Road to Serfdom":<br />
<i><br />"Economic control is not merely control of a sector of human life which can be separated from the rest; it is the control of the means for all our ends."</i><br />
<br />
Milton Freidman, former economic adviser to the US government and a pioneer of neoliberalism and free-market ideology said:<br />
<i><br />"The problem in this world is to avoid concentration of power - we must have a dispersal of power."</i><br />
<br />
A fundamental value of neoliberals (the modern mainstream face of Capitalism) or supporters of free markets is that of not being controlled by anyone else, and, through NAP, to extend that state of being to everyone else. But, at the same time, the nature of markets,through the mechanisms of private property and competition, is to concentrate wealth and power, by cumulative competitive advantage.The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.<br />
<br />
Any country that has any anti-monopoly regulations, or a welfare system, or any kind of tax and publicly funded spending recognizes that power concentrating nature of markets and private property. Anyone who has played the game of Monopoly knows it.<br />
<br />
The concentration of power and the resulting loss of freedom can be understood as <i>structural</i> violence, committed through the economic system by those with more wealth, against those with less. This structural or systemic violence need not be conscious or premeditated, and may be rationalized in many ways, with various well felt intentions and be largely culturally inculcated. However, in terms of often great physical and mental harm, and stunting of opportunity and freedom, this violence is being done through the hierarchy of the economic social order, in which the most rich benefit the most in terms of financial gain from it. It is a collective participation in violence, which is one reason why it can be hard to identify our personal involvement with it.<br />
<br />
To be clear, the suggestion is not 'rich people are bad'. It is that almost anyone, well intentioned as they may be, were they to become rich relative to those around them would through their choices, rationalizations of privilege and participatory actions, end up contributing to the structural violence of a market controlled economy – such as is championed by neoliberalism and Capitalism in general. Still without neglecting the cultural influence it is also true that having and being in a position of superior socioeconomic class, leads to an increase in unethical and antisocial behaviour, as the research of Paul Piff et al shows. A key reason for this is that the cues and opportunities that stimulate and maintain the development of empathy between people, break down and thin out as social class arises – which is clearly bad news for NAP.<br />
<br />
Thus there is a fundamental contradiction in the basis of neoliberalism or market led economics that notionally support NAP:<br />
<br />
The means of resource allocation and cooperation that is supposed to honour and imbibe freedom, is the means by which freedom (and peace and security) is taken away.<br />
<br />
This internal contradiction between the nature of markets and the universal value of individual freedom is disputed by neoliberals free-market supporters in various ways, for instance:<br />
<ul>
<li><div>
If a trade is agreed freely without force and according to the law then there is no violence, there are simply two or more parties exercising their free (as in uncoerced) will. This is the meaning of free-trade. </div>
</li>
<li><div>
If all regulation is removed with the state serving only to protect property rights the market will regulate itself. The market is efficient. </div>
</li>
<li>Wages will settle to a point that sustains the market and thus the people participating in it, and people are free to compete. </li>
</ul>
The 'if trade is willing, there is no violence' argument works fine, so long as there is a freedom from asymmetric dependence between those trading. However, there very often is such a dependence. Wherever you need something more from who you're trading with, than they need something from you, and circumstances present little alternative, you are less free than they are, regardless whether you agree to the trade. The more desperate a situation someone is in, the more potential there is to exploit them in trade.There are an estimated 30 million slaves in the world today. Perhaps most of them at some point signed an agreement for a loan or contract of work. Does that make their exploitation non-violent? The violence if not always direct, is systemic and stems from large imbalances of economic power and opportunity. The fact that something is done willingly does not address any inherent injustice or violence in the situation.<br />
<br />
The idea of efficient markets usually refers to the price of a stock very quickly taking into account all information. If one company announces an offer for another company, the stock price reacts accordingly. If there is a drought, the price of grain goes up, and so on. The result is the price of any product or service quickly tends to the value of what those in a position to trade attribute to it, given all new information. This is taken as a reflection of fairness, because the price is settled independently by demand and supply. However, this line of reasoning does not account for the nature of markets to concentrate economic power, resulting in large numbers of people often not being in a position to trade and increasingly being excluded from economic activity. Also the more that economic power concentrates the less independent prices become,as that power develops the ability to control supply and thus scarcity and price. In terms of development and use of human potential, markets are very far from efficient, because of how they concentrate economic opportunity and narrow the focus on making money, where the allocation of wealth depends to a large extent on luck.<br />
<br />
Wages will indeed be controlled by supply and demand, and it would not make sense for a market to drive down wages to a point where sufficient consumption to maintain the economy and distribution of wealth could not continue. Obviously what makes sense and what actually happens aren't always the same thing, and the mechanism of debt allows a way for wages to fall further while, at least for a time, consumption is maintained. In any case, however equal the opportunity to compete is made (and in practice the deck is inevitably very stacked against the majority), the power concentrating nature of markets remains, and thus too the structural violence of market based economics.<br />
<br />
Of course many other defences of market led economics are offered, but these move away from claiming compatibility or alignment with NAP. They are often of the form 'these results are just nature at work, and markets are simply an expression of that', or take a more compromising position of 'it is dreadful, but look at the benefits' while seeking to claim human progress as a result of the development of market economics, with greed being revered as the prime motivator of innovation and cooperation. While such positions are similarly conflicted, or only half the tale, we'll stick with discussing NAP issues here.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Making freedom and security the essential values</b><br />
<br />
If ultimately freedom and security are the most important values for supporters of market based economics, especially for neoliberals and anarcho-capitalists, and NAP is seen as a result of self-interest and reason and the basis of morality for which there is a natural inclination, then surely NAP would be realized even more with the free organization of people without the necessity or imposition of trade, or the enforcement of extended property rights arising from a market model? If NAP is so firmly grounded in self-interest, reason, morality and natural inclination then surely the degree of intervention, control and protection of concentrated wealth by a state (itself a concentration of power) is a measure of how much the market has gone against NAP and failed society?<br />
<br />
Anarcho-capitalists (the extreme position of 'markets know best')believe that the protection of private property can be provided as a service by the market itself, and that all economic activity is best and most fairly managed by the market, without any presence of a state. But the power concentrating, and thus freedom taking nature of markets is not recognized. In a sense this shouldn't be a problem for anarcho-capitalists, because without any controlling authority people could manage resources as they like, with trade or using a sharing or gift based paradigm. Even the concept of trade and property would be free to morph into something more inclusive and collectively orientated. That is, anarchism is fundamentally not constrained to any particular predefined economic model.<br />
<br />
Neoliberals on the other hand, believe that markets present the best and most efficient way of managing an economy and spurring progress, but that the conditions to maintain markets must been forced. They believe that a strong state, independent from the market is necessary to protect property, enforce law and act in those few cases where markets may fail, with the absolute minimum of regulation, for instance to break up monopoly or to lessen information asymmetry (some economic actors being considerably better informed than others) that leads to further concentration of power.<br />
<br />
Neoliberalism is interesting in that it recognizes more of the nature of markets to concentrate power, and how that is counter to NAP, but maintains that there is no better alternative. While aligning itself in principle with NAP it is generally averse to the state enacting socially orientated policy that would impinge market activity, seeing that restriction of freedom as the greater transgression of NAP than the structural violence of a market based economy. Of course, as a direct result of having a market controlled economy, neoliberalism (or any other political system that tries) is unable to keep the state and government independent from the market and those with the most power in it, or to effectively break up monopolies (or monopolistic groups and cartels) or address information asymmetry or other market failures.The systemic result is imperialism and mass exploitation as opportunities for it arise.<br />
<br />
As a direct consequence of having markets dominate economic activity, everything else which depends on the economy, that is everything, including the government, the state and its policies,ends up being largely controlled by markets. This leads to the conclusion that the state itself, including its various redistributive policies in the form of taxes, regulations and welfare, is a convenient institution for the concentrated powers of markets. Thus where the state moves to interact with 'the market' and the wider sphere of public life, it does so with the overriding rule of protecting the overall concentration of economic power it shares a mutual dependence with. In other words, the state, as it exists in a neoliberal political system (such as in the UK and US), does exactly the opposite of what Milton Friedman, the pioneer of neoliberalism, says must be done to address the 'the problem of the world' - the concentration of power.<br />
<br />
To avoid facing and truly tackling these conflicts of reason at the heart of pursing both individual and collective freedom together with a market controlled economy, it is necessary to restrict how we think and our access to information. Avoidance of joined-up thinking is the main one, achieved through culture, eduction and media and the natural aversion to cognitive dissonance. But there are various common responses to help avoid stepping outside the neoliberal paradigm, such as the catch-all pragmatism of 'yes there are problems, and it is terrible, but there is just no better alternative', with grim totalitarian rule wearing a 'socialism' t-shirt, or a return to direct feudalism being the alternatives in mind. The tragedy is that from within the threat-focused mindset that leads to and comes from adopting market and private property based economics, those really are the alternatives and neoliberalism about the best that can be hoped for. The overlap of all these approaches can be appreciated to some extent from the filmed meeting of Nixon with Khrushchev in Moscow, 1959. What is called for is a paradigm shift.<br />
<br />
In summary, due to the very nature of markets to concentrate power and economic opportunity, and thus impinge on the basic liberty and well-being of an increasing number of people, markets, as a primary way of managing an economy, are not compatible with NAP. Similarly,where markets have a controlling stake in an economy, the state cannot realistically be independent, and thus under such circumstances nor is it compatible with NAP. Even where the institution of the state is dominant, and it makes some attempt at more equitable distribution of economic opportunity, to whatever extent power remains systemically concentrated we can expect NAP to be violated, through the effects of social hierarchy or class.<br />
<br />
All of this is not to say markets and the state must be abandoned tomorrow. They've been with us for at least ten millenia and are rather ingrained into our culture. There are, however, some policy tools that integrate with the current political and economic institutions which would facilitate a broader distribution of economic opportunity and thus progressive social change, even utilizing some aspects of markets. These include a shift away from taxing profits more towards taxing property, and implementing an unconditional basic income, funded from the tax base [a]. These specific methods stand out because they provide a clear and gradual path, through what level they are implemented at, towards eventual freedom from markets and concentrated power.<br />
<br />
The logical conclusions of a market dominated economy [b,c], and how a paradigm shift might begin [d], are discussed in the links below.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>References</b><br />
<br />
Non-Aggression Principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle<br />
Milton Freidman: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_T0WF-uCWg from 1:18<br />
The Golden Rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule<br />
30 million slaves today http://www.globalslaveryindex.org/<br />
Nixon, Khrushchev meeting https://archive.org/details/Nixon-KhrushchevMoscowDebatejuly251959<br />
Piff, Paul K. et al. 2012 "Higher social class predictsincreased unethical behavior" PNAS 2012 109 (11) 4086-4091<br />
<br />
<b>Further discussion</b><br />
<br />
[a]http://joe-hudson.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/two-powerful-mechanisms-for-stimulating.html<br />
[b]http://joe-hudson.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-22-tenets-of-religion-of-more.html<br />
[c] http://joe-hudson.blogspot.com/2013/12/dangerous-thinking.html<br />
[d]http://joe-hudson.blogspot.com/2013/12/what-counts-as-progressive-change.html<br />
<br />
<br />
* Illustration by Escher, 'Relativity' 1953Joe Hudsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02007274433208167837noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8883586897037151449.post-38640431363325512202013-12-16T03:01:00.003-08:002013-12-16T17:53:30.117-08:00What counts as progressive change?<div class="western" lang="en-GB">
“<span lang="en-GB"><i>That is true
culture which helps us to work for the social betterment of all.”</i></span><span lang="en-GB">
- Henry Ward Beecher</span><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB">
<span lang="en-GB">If there is to be
some change in how we live together on this </span><span lang="en-GB">planet,
what could be generally accepted as being an improvement?</span><span lang="en-GB">
Discussions on this subject often jump straight to strategies or
policies, whether they call for reform or revolution, without being
explicit about what those steps are really aiming to achieve, or why
some stated ideals are to be pursued, or just assume that it is
already clear. This sets up confusions and challenges in uniting
over common causes. If a more fundamental and specific idea of
</span><span lang="en-GB">collective 'progress' can be agreed on,
then that creates a foundation</span><span lang="en-GB"> from which
principles, strategies and momentum can be built. It may also give us
an insight into how some of our collective problems have arisen.</span></div>
<div class="western">
<br />
A typical dictionary definition of progress is
along the lines of: “development towards an improved or more
advanced condition”. From a human perspective then, an improved or
more advanced condition is one with greater well-being and
fulfilment. It could be said that what leads to well-being and
fulfilment is where our needs are met. So then we can say that
progressive social change is created by finding more efficient,
effective and sustainable ways of meeting people's needs within a
social collective.</div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB">
<br />
<span lang="en-GB">But what exactly
counts as a 'need'? Needs can be variously categorised, but
essentially they are a resource, a value, or a state of being or
relating, with which life is enriched or made possible, </span><span lang="en-GB">and
without which life is impoverished or made impossible. A need</span><span lang="en-GB">
is distinct from a desire, or a strategy for satisfying an underlying
need. For instance you might </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>want</i></span><span lang="en-GB">
a shiny car or platinum credit card, when your </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>need</i></span><span lang="en-GB">
is for freedom, respect and joy. Or you may </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>want</i></span><span lang="en-GB">
a hot fudge cake or extra pork pie when your </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>need</i></span><span lang="en-GB">
is for nurture, food, warmth or affection. There are infinite wants
and potential strategies that can be rooted in a need, and naturally
some of those strategies do a better or longer lasting job than
others at meeting the underlying need(s). It has been shown by
Max-Neef (1989), Rosenberg (2003), Tay & Diener (2011) and others
that people of all cultures have a common pool of needs. While the
exact terms and emphases may differ between researchers and cultures,
that shared pool of human needs spans such interrelated and
non-exhaustive categories as:</span><br />
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB">
<span lang="en-GB"><b>Subsistence</b></span><span lang="en-GB">
(physical health, rest, food, shelter), </span>
</div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB">
<span lang="en-GB"><b>Safety</b></span><span lang="en-GB">
(protection, security, stability), </span>
</div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB">
<span lang="en-GB"><b>Affection</b></span><span lang="en-GB">
(connection, love, intimacy, touch), </span>
</div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB">
<span lang="en-GB"><b>Nurture</b></span><span lang="en-GB">
(care, support, giving), </span>
</div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB">
<span lang="en-GB"><b>Identity</b></span><span lang="en-GB">
(sense of place, respect, integrity, authenticity, self-expression),</span></div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB">
<span lang="en-GB"><b>Purpose</b></span><span lang="en-GB">
(significance, contribution, meaning), </span>
</div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB">
<span lang="en-GB"><b>Participation</b></span><span lang="en-GB">
(belonging, fellowship, appreciation), </span>
</div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB">
<span lang="en-GB"><b>Leisure</b></span><span lang="en-GB">
(relaxation, peace, calm, harmony), </span>
</div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB">
<span lang="en-GB"><b>Understanding</b></span><span lang="en-GB">
(clarity, certainty, trust, knowledge, mastery), </span>
</div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB">
<span lang="en-GB"><b>Change</b></span><span lang="en-GB">
(creation, variety, adventure, challenge, growth),</span></div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB">
<span lang="en-GB"><b>Freedom</b></span><span lang="en-GB">
(choice, independence), </span>
</div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB">
<span lang="en-GB"><b>Joy</b></span><span lang="en-GB">
(play, humour, celebration).</span></div>
<div class="western">
<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="western">
Were a way to live together found, that helped to
more efficiently, effectively and sustainably meet such needs, then
that way would be described as 'progressive social change' (and were
it to be to the general detriment of such needs, then it would be
'regressive social change').
</div>
<div class="western">
<br />
This particular clarification of the concept of
'progress' does three things. It includes everyone equally, while
avoiding any argument of political ideology (apart from those that
explicitly don't include everyone). It includes through many of the
needs listed, key qualities of relationships, which as social animals
are crucial to our greater well-being and fulfilment. It offers a way
to measure success and identity specific areas for improvement.</div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB">
<br />
<span lang="en-GB">Some recent
metrics of progress or development such as the HDI (Human Development
Inde</span><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-GB">x</span></span><span lang="en-GB">),
HPI (Happy Planet Index) and SLI (Satisfaction with Life Index),
integrate non-economic growth measures to varying degrees, including
elements like life expectancy, education, inequality, child
mortality, and carbon footprint. The HPI and SLI also account for
well-being, which relates obviously to the common pool of human
needs. Gallup produce detailed global metrics on experienced
well-being, used in the HPI. You can explore how different countries
rank on various development related metrics using a tool on the
</span><span style="color: #0047ff;"><u><span style="background: transparent;"><a class="western" href="http://hdr.undp.org/en/data/build/"><span lang="en-GB">United
Nations Development Program website</span></a></span></u></span><span lang="en-GB">.</span></div>
<div class="western">
<br />
But it is the financial measure of GDP (Gross
Domestic Product), or the similar GNP, that is still used by most
countries today as the prime measure of progress. GDP is the total
market value of all goods and services produced in an economy in one
year. If the GDP is growing at somewhere around 3% then politicians
and industry are happy, but otherwise no mountain is too big to move
(or remove) to get the economy back on track and growing again.</div>
<div class="western">
<br />
There are many problems with this picture of
progress. It is not inherently inclusive, and in fact, market
mechanisms mean that it is rather exclusive, it does not directly
relate to the quality of relationships and connected human needs, and
it is fundamentally unsustainable on a finite planet.
</div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB">
<br />
<span lang="en-GB">A growing body of
research, see for instance Easterlin (2003), Dutt & Radcliff
(2009), Easterbrook (2005), in the field of 'happiness economics'
shows that after secure subsistence level is reached, increased GDP
per capita produces </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>exponentially
diminishing benefits</i></span><span lang="en-GB"> in life
satisfaction, at best. The </span><span style="color: #0047ff;"><u><span style="background: transparent;"><a class="western" href="http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/"><span lang="en-GB">Equality
Trust</span></a></span></u></span><span lang="en-GB"> have also shown
that higher inequality in income within a population results in
diminished well-being, health and safety for everyone in that
population,</span><span lang="en-GB"> </span><span lang="en-GB">poor
and rich – even where basic material needs were satisfied.
Inequality also reduces the potential for innovation. In other words,
</span><span lang="en-GB"><i>inequality is measurably anti-progress</i></span><span lang="en-GB">.
Now when an economy grows, and GDP increases, </span><span lang="en-GB">those
already with the most wealth tend to get most of that growth,</span><span lang="en-GB">
</span><span lang="en-GB">because private property creates cumulative
competitive advantage.</span><span lang="en-GB"> Therefore,
inequality will tend to increase along with the GDP, if left to
market mechanisms alone.</span></div>
<div class="western">
Robert F. Kennedy said it well in 1968:</div>
<div class="western">
<br />
“<i>Gross National Product counts air pollution
and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of
carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for the
people who break them. It counts the destruction of the redwood and
the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm
and counts nuclear warheads and armored cars for the police to fight
the riots in our cities. It counts Whitman's rifle and Speck's knife,
and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell
toys to our children. Yet the gross national product does not allow
for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the
joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or
the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate
or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit
nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our
compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in
short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it can tell us
everything about America except why we are proud that we are
Americans.”</i></div>
<div class="western">
<br />
So if the growing market-economy picture of
progress and human development is so obviously flawed, why is GDP
growth such a paramount and pressing goal of government and media
pundits?</div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB">
<br />
<span lang="en-GB">Just letting that
question sit for a moment leads to a morbid realization. That the
governments of the world, those institutions in charge of maintaining
our ways of co-existing and protecting the public interest have, for
a </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>very</i></span><span lang="en-GB">
long time, for a large part been pursuing a policy starkly at odds
with progressive social change. </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>That
makes them part of the problem. </i></span>
</div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB">
<br />
<span lang="en-GB">But not that the
problem stops with government, or that this is a criticism of all
those who work in government with good civic intent, or of the
essential administrative and planning services it provides. It is a
criticism though of the strong, entrenched and arguably fundamental
alignment government has as an institution with the regressive
ideology of pursuing market-economy growth (and the protection of
concentrated wealth) above practically all else. Even in the planned
economies of 20</span><sup><span lang="en-GB">th</span></sup><span lang="en-GB">
century totalitarian 'socialist' states, a similar reverence for
market economics was seen. In fact, despite vast human cost,
inequality and chronic inefficiencies, due to heavy industrialization
and cheap labour the rate of GDP growth for the USSR, between 1929
and 1973 significantly outstripped that of the USA and most of Europe
(Broadberry & Klein 2011). </span>
</div>
<div class="western">
<br />
What could possibly be maintaining this program
then? There must be some needs that are met by the market-economy
growth picture of progress. Indeed there are, and having more money
does make it somewhat easier to meet them. Defenders of this
predominant program would also argue that ultimately it is about
better meeting needs, such as giving people more freedom, choice and
opportunities, better health and all the rest. In fact, the United
Nations Development Program describe their aim as 'to contribute
towards the expansion of opportunities, choice and freedom'.
</div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB">
<br />
<span lang="en-GB">The trouble is
with the </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>strategies</i></span><span lang="en-GB">
used to pursue our common needs, and the supporting myths that have
built up around those strategies. It is those that lead to the
insatiable pursuit of GDP. The core strategy is market-economics –
the trade, recognition and protection of private property as the
primary means of cooperative production and service provision. The
myths are numerous, covering skewed interpretations of natural
selection, rationalising entitlement, poverty and war, claiming
credit for spurring human innovation, talk of the efficiency of
markets, making a case for systematic coercion, pinning it all on the
base nature of man, and asserting that of a set of bad options, this
is the least bad. These and more are addressed specifically in a
later section. </span>
</div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB">
<br />
<span lang="en-GB">Underpinning both
strategy and myth is a certain way of thinking and relating to the
</span><span lang="en-GB">world, characterized by a strong emphasis
on competition, securing</span><span lang="en-GB"> and controlling
physical resources, elevated stress or aggression and short-term
planning. This could be summed up as </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>'threat-focused'</i></span><span lang="en-GB">
thinking. Although a useful part of our nature, due to </span><span lang="en-GB">recent
developments in human history, the threat-focused mentality</span><span lang="en-GB">
has grown out of balance with other elements of our nature. </span>
</div>
<div class="western">
<br />
As a species we are still struggling to adjust to
our ability to amass wealth. Before the innovation of agriculture at
least 10,000 years ago (Wadley & Martin 1993), it was not
possible to do this on a large scale. After this pivotal invention
came cities and the accelerated development of technology and
language. Along with that, social class and slavery, landlords,
conquerors, kings, emperors and associated entourage,
institutionalized religion, banking and eventually modern forms of
government emerged and spread, all enabled by extending the concept
of private property beyond direct personal production, and backed up
by force. Due to the potential spoils and resource requirements in
higher population densities, and the related vulnerabilities of being
in a settled location, warfare spread alongside economic growth. Thus
empire building, whether through battleships and bombs or
extortionate IMF loans, is also associated with the establishment
picture of 'progress'.</div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB">
<br />
<span lang="en-GB">The ability to
amass and concentrate wealth certainly bought with it great benefits,
but also the metastasizing of greed. The ability to accumulate wealth
amplifies competitive advantage, </span><span lang="en-GB">creates
and reinforces hierarchy</span><span lang="en-GB"> and assists in
meeting all the basic physical needs, as well as tying in with those
connected to freedom, security, identity and leisure. </span><span lang="en-GB">So
there are some clear incentives. </span><span lang="en-GB">It is </span><span lang="en-GB">also
</span><span lang="en-GB">widely thought by historians that the
health, nutrition, work-to-leisure ratio and longevity of most people
under agricultural civilization was actually </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>inferior</i></span><span lang="en-GB">
to their hunter-gatherer brethren, until well into the 20</span><sup><span lang="en-GB">th</span></sup><span lang="en-GB">
century (Hayden 1990, Cohen 1977, 1989, Lee & Devore 1968, Gurven
& Kaplan 2007) – so around 10,000 years of being worse off for
the majority, </span><span lang="en-GB">and when it comes to
work-to-leisure and nutrition, still counting</span><span lang="en-GB">.
</span><span lang="en-GB">All of w</span><span lang="en-GB">hich is
convenient, because if you have managed to accumulate some wealth it
can put you in a position of being able to charitably help those in
need, gaining you a warm feeling and additional status. Thus, all in
all there are strong drives for accumulating ever more wealth </span><span lang="en-GB">–
which requires ever more resources, regardless of how well our common
needs might be met minus the acquisitive urge. This is why the
threat-focused picture of progress is so at odds with the ecological
balance of our planet.</span></div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB">
<br />
<span lang="en-GB">To a degree,
social codes and a common instinct for sharing will act to keep
personal accumulation in check. But there comes a point where the
power of the wealth (supported by a common acceptance of the idea of
</span><span lang="en-GB">private property), in its struggle, begins
to outweigh the power of those social regulatory elements.</span><span lang="en-GB">
It becomes clear then that to protect and advance the personal
benefits of amassed wealth a </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>continual</i></span><span lang="en-GB">
competition and controlled </span><span lang="en-GB">cooperation must
be engaged in – alongside whatever compromises</span><span lang="en-GB">
are necessary to maintain favourable conditions for keeping that
private wealth. In other words amassing wealth is an exercise in
managing and avoiding threat, and so the threat-focused way of
thinking becomes engrained as the norm. From this point 'progress'
becomes bound to the acquisitive, controlling and conflict prone
drive. In that respect, no part of society is left behind, from the
individual's sense of identity and self-worth relating to what they
'own' or 'earn', to the violence saturated media that is presented as
entertainment, to rigidly hierarchical family relationships, to the
division of social class and the – to this day still popular and
practised – sin of </span><span style="color: #0047ff;"><u><span style="background: transparent;"><a class="western" href="http://www.globalslaveryindex.org/"><span lang="en-GB">human
slavery</span></a></span></u></span><span lang="en-GB">. In this way
we</span><span lang="en-GB"> have lost the more empathic, egalitarian
and by necessity collaborative culture,</span><span lang="en-GB">
characteristic of our longer nomadic hunter-gatherer history.</span></div>
<div class="western">
<br />
From a habituated threat-focused outlook naturally
develops a certain kind of narrative, one marked by dichotomies.
These may serve a purpose in dealing with an immanent and grave
threat, but when applied to everyday life, as the emergency-measure
plan making apparatus they are, serve us poorly and lead us to bring
about our own prejudgements of the world. It is a narrative of
friends and enemies, 'good guys' and 'bad guys', “if you're not
with us you're against us”, “it's the market or mud huts”,
selfishness verses altruism, freedom verses security, and prosperity
as being largely a zero-sum game. These are false dichotomies, but
they take on a reality through our believing and acting on them. From
that world-view the recognition and protection of private property is
the very foundation of civilization, and the winning of profit the
surest sign of progress. Furthermore, great inequality is inevitable
and desirable as it is a driver of aspiration and productive
competition. And most of all, there is and can be 'no other way'.
</div>
<div class="western">
<br />
So you can see how the current mainstream concept
of progress might be hard to shift. Of course, it is not quite that
black and white, because that large part of human nature outside the
domain of threat-focused thinking and greed, is still very much with
us, if slightly pushed into a corner. People generally do care about
their friends, family and strangers, are happy to work as equals with
others, are often willing to share to help others in need, do
commonly invest time and energy in activities without financial
reward which benefit their communities. They are also often
interested in finding more peaceful and equitable ways of
co-existing, of more effectively and sustainably utilizing resources
and spreading the benefits of technology more widely. This part of
human nature and outlook, lets call it 'collaboration-focused' is why
there is any hope at all. But it is also why a threat-focus dominated
socioeconomic system can even exist, because without the free
services our natural collaboration-focused behaviour provides, such a
system would soon collapse.
</div>
<div class="western">
<br />
The human mind being the flexible thing that it is
though can hold these two diverging outlooks and accompanying
narratives together, operate according to both and find ways of
avoiding the cognitive dissonance. But it is getting harder to
maintain the incongruence because information and progressive ideas
are spreading faster, which is also why there is hope.</div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB">
<br />
<span lang="en-GB">The beginning of
this section set out to get to the root of the idea of 'progress' and
associated aims. The establishment (mainstream 'left' or 'right'
politics) picture of progress as economic growth and the perpetuation
of the market economy at the heart of society is certainly connected
to meeting underlying human needs. But it is also intrinsically bound
to the threat-focused element of our nature and the protection of
concentrated private wealth. That picture and its pursuit has been
shown to be an obstructing force against a more comprehensive and
widely enjoyed meeting of shared human needs. There are some
encouraging signs of change within elected </span><span lang="en-GB">government,
including greater transparency and public involvement</span><span lang="en-GB">
in decision making. Indeed the bare admission of a vote is a sign of
progress in itself. But it is a constant battle and essentially the
core establishment program remains intact throughout the world. </span>
</div>
<div class="western">
<br />
Some people have taken more strident steps.
Bergmann (2013) presents a fascinating history of the trials and
tribulations of the forming of a new 'crowd sourced' constitution for
Iceland – the country that let the banks go bust following the
financial collapse in 2008. The new highly progressive constitution
approved by the public with a two thirds majority in 2012 still
awaits ratification by parliament. The left wing government at the
time dragged its feet particularly over the clause of making natural
resources publicly owned. Now more recent right wing government
manoeuvrings have put in place laws that make the popular
constitution's official adoption rather unlikely. This recent history
is a clear example of the nature of government as a protector of
privately controlled wealth above the common will. But it also shows
through the subsequent election of a party who were against the new
constitution from the beginning, how some part of the public share
similar establishment values and beliefs about 'progress'.
Nevertheless, the extensive involvement of the public in the process
of forming the draft constitution is a significant precedent.</div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB">
<br />
<span lang="en-GB">Another
encouraging indication of a collaboration-focused shift in the
concept of progress is the forthcoming </span><span style="color: #0047ff;"><u><span style="background: transparent;"><a class="western" href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/04/us-swiss-pay-idUSBRE9930O620131004"><span lang="en-GB">Swiss
vote on an unconditional basic income</span></a></span></u></span><span lang="en-GB">,
not for bare subsistence, but for a figure more in line with median
income. There is a related ongoing initiative to develop the idea of
</span><span style="color: #0047ff;"><u><span style="background: transparent;"><a class="western" href="http://one-europe.info/initiative/european-citizens-initiative-on-unconditional-basic-income"><span lang="en-GB">unconditional
basic income through the European Union</span></a></span></u></span><span lang="en-GB">.</span></div>
<div class="western">
<br />
In more fraught circumstances are the popular
uprisings in the Middle East, against the totalitarian regimes in
power there, in response to oppression, common human rights
violations and increasing economic struggle for the majority. Since
2010, the rulers of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen have been forced
from power, with uprisings and major protests in other countries
throughout the region. This is an example of how widespread access to
instant communication can enable popular movements to grow and affect
change despite the efforts of authorities to suppress them.</div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB">
<br />
<span lang="en-GB">From the business
world, even though the incidence of psychopathy</span><span lang="en-GB">
amongst CEOs is estimated to be 4 times greater than in the </span><span lang="en-GB">general
population (Ronson 2011), there are also encouraging shifts</span><span lang="en-GB">
in the concept of progress. Notwithstanding the nature of business
being to make a profit, an increasing number of corporations are
exploring giving more autonomy to employees, reframing management as
a facilitating rather than commanding role, focusing on increasing
intrinsic motivators of work and personal development for employees
over the extrinsic motivator of money, and taking somewhat seriously
the idea of social responsibility. The International Institute of
Management is even hosting a </span><span style="color: #0047ff;"><u><span style="background: transparent;"><a class="western" href="http://www.iim-edu.org/polls/grossnationalhappinesssurvey.htm"><span lang="en-GB">survey
of 'Gross National Happiness'</span></a></span></u></span><span lang="en-GB">
(based on the measure used by Bhutan), and offering entrants a chance
to win a free ticket to their conference in Las Vegas. Of course,
there is a very long way to go.</span></div>
<div class="western">
<br />
Without getting into the specifics of some ideas
for progressive change just yet, or the challenges and possible
strategies involved in making a transition, it is clear that a more
collaborative, less threat-focused way of co-existing is called for.
The longer it takes us to escape the threat-focused miasma, the
darker our future becomes.</div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB">
<br />
<span lang="en-GB">By focusing more
on a collective, shared-needs based understanding</span><span lang="en-GB">
of progress, 'progress' will really mean progress for everyone, and
the collaboration-focused element of our nature may again flourish,
with potentially staggering benefits.</span></div>
<div class="western">
<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="western">
<b>References:</b></div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB">
<span style="font-family: Berthold Baskerville Book, Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-GB">Bergmann,
E. (2013) Reconstituting Iceland – constitutional reform caught in
a new critical order in the wake of crisis </span></span></span><i><span style="font-family: Berthold Baskerville Book, Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-GB">Political
Legitimacy and the Paradox of Regulation</span></span></span></i></div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB">
<span style="font-family: Berthold Baskerville Book, Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-GB">Broadberry,
S. & Klein, A. (2012) Aggregate and per capita GDP in Europe,
1870-2000: continental, regional and national data with changing
boundaries </span></span></span><i><span style="font-family: Berthold Baskerville Book, Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-GB">Scandinavian
Economic History Review</span></span></span></i><span style="font-family: Berthold Baskerville Book, Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-GB"><i>,
60</i></span></span></span><span style="font-family: Berthold Baskerville Book, Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-GB">,
79-107 </span></span></span>
</div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB">
<span style="font-family: Berthold Baskerville Book, Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-GB">Cohen
& N., M. (1977) Reed; A., C. </span></span></span><span style="font-family: Berthold Baskerville Book, Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-GB"><i>(Eds.)
</i></span></span></span><span style="font-family: Berthold Baskerville Book, Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-GB">Population
pressure and the origins of agriculture: an archaeological example
from the coast of Peru, </span></span></span><i><span style="font-family: Berthold Baskerville Book, Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-GB">The
origins of agriculture, Mouton</span></span></span></i><span style="font-family: Berthold Baskerville Book, Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-GB">,
135-177 </span></span></span>
</div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB">
<span style="font-family: Berthold Baskerville Book, Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-GB">Cohen
& N., M. (1989) Health and the rise of civilization </span></span></span><i><span style="font-family: Berthold Baskerville Book, Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-GB">Yale
University Press</span></span></span></i></div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB">
<span style="font-family: Berthold Baskerville Book, Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-GB">Dutt,
A. K. & Radcliff, B. (2009) Happiness, Economics And Politics -
Towards a Multi-Disciplinary Approach </span></span></span><i><span style="font-family: Berthold Baskerville Book, Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-GB">Edward
Elgar Publishing</span></span></span></i></div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB">
<span style="font-family: Berthold Baskerville Book, Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-GB">Easterbrook,
G. (2005 Jan)</span></span></span><span style="font-family: Berthold Baskerville Book, Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-GB"><i>
</i></span></span></span><span style="font-family: Berthold Baskerville Book, Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-GB">Money:
The Real Truth About Money</span></span></span><span style="font-family: Berthold Baskerville Book, Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-GB"><b>,
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-family: Berthold Baskerville Book, Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-GB"><i>TIMES
Magazine</i></span></span></span><span style="font-family: Berthold Baskerville Book, Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-GB">
</span></span></span>
</div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB">
<span style="font-family: Berthold Baskerville Book, Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-GB">Easterlin,
R. A. (2003) Explaining happiness </span></span></span><i><span style="font-family: Berthold Baskerville Book, Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-GB">Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences</span></span></span></i><span style="font-family: Berthold Baskerville Book, Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-GB"><i>,
100</i></span></span></span><span style="font-family: Berthold Baskerville Book, Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-GB">,
11176-11183 </span></span></span>
</div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB">
<span style="font-family: Berthold Baskerville Book, Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-GB">Gurven,
M. & Kaplan, H. S. (2007) Longevity Among Hunter- Gatherers: A
Cross-Cultural Examination</span></span></span><i><span style="font-family: Berthold Baskerville Book, Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-GB">Population
and Development Review</span></span></span></i><span style="font-family: Berthold Baskerville Book, Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-GB"><i>,
33</i></span></span></span><span style="font-family: Berthold Baskerville Book, Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-GB">,
321-365 </span></span></span>
</div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Hayden,
B. (1990) Nimrods, Piscators, Pluckers, and Planters: The Emergence
of Food Production. <i>Journal of Anthropological Archaeology </i>9/1:
31-69</span></div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB">
<span style="font-family: Berthold Baskerville Book, Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-GB">Lee,
R. B. & Devore, I. (1968) Problems in the study of hunters and
gatherers, in Man the Hunter </span></span></span><i><span style="font-family: Berthold Baskerville Book, Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-GB">Chicago:
Aldine</span></span></span></i><span style="font-family: Berthold Baskerville Book, Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-GB">,
pp. 3-12 </span></span></span>
</div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB">
<span style="font-family: Berthold Baskerville Book, Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-GB">Max-Neef,
M. (1989) Human scale development: conception, application and
further reflections </span></span></span><i><span style="font-family: Berthold Baskerville Book, Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-GB">Apex
Press</span></span></span></i><span style="font-family: Berthold Baskerville Book, Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-GB">,
18 </span></span></span>
</div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB">
<span style="font-family: Berthold Baskerville Book, Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-GB">Ronson,
J. (2011) The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through the Madness Industry
</span></span></span><i><span style="font-family: Berthold Baskerville Book, Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-GB">Picador</span></span></span></i></div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB">
<i><span style="font-family: Berthold Baskerville Book, Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-GB"><span style="font-style: normal;">Rosenberg,
M. (2003) Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life </span></span></span></span></i><i><span style="font-family: Berthold Baskerville Book, Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-GB">PuddleDancer
Press</span></span></span></i></div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB">
<i><span style="font-family: Berthold Baskerville Book, Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-GB"><span style="font-style: normal;">Stevenson,
B. & Wolfers, J. (2008) Economic Growth and Subjective
Well-Being: Reassessing the Easterlin Paradox </span></span></span></span></i><i><span style="font-family: Berthold Baskerville Book, Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-GB">National
Bureau of Economic Research </span></span></span></i>
</div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB">
<i><span style="font-family: Berthold Baskerville Book, Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-GB"><span style="font-style: normal;">Tay,
L. & Diener, E. (2011) Needs and Subjective Well-Being Around the
World</span></span></span></span></i><i><span style="font-family: Berthold Baskerville Book, Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-GB">Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology</span></span></span></i><i><span style="font-family: Berthold Baskerville Book, Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-GB">,
2</span></span></span></i><i><span style="font-family: Berthold Baskerville Book, Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-GB"><span style="font-style: normal;">,
354-365 </span></span></span></span></i>
</div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB">
<span style="font-family: Berthold Baskerville Book, Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-GB">Wadley,
G. & Martin, A. (1993) The origins of agriculture: a biological
perspective and a new hypothesis </span></span></span><i><span style="font-family: Berthold Baskerville Book, Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-GB">Authralian
Biologist</span></span></span></i><span style="font-family: Berthold Baskerville Book, Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-GB"><i>,
6</i></span></span></span><span style="font-family: Berthold Baskerville Book, Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="en-GB">,
96-105</span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB">
<br />
<br /></div>
Joe Hudsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02007274433208167837noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8883586897037151449.post-37954689858990692132013-12-16T02:59:00.003-08:002014-01-30T18:01:33.781-08:00Dangerous Thinking and Violence<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;">
<img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMNmNZgriUiqQkrdsnkVzh4vYNTZjwjoGWdaY7fDQs8UTOBPoDl4ICw8wKS7VY0TNDq9i2qH-17mg7acrsxDZmoHlGd75BxLUaRPzVUzSm9TafBRj2qJgwFCj9HF0fMMzXVzGxI9lDwUT5/s320/Greed_by_Liol.jpg" height="315" width="320" /></div>
<br />
What it is that makes certain kinds of
thinking dangerous, if not that it leads to some form of violence or
threat of harm? <br />
<br />
For an individual dangerous thinking could lead
to injury or scarcity. Between individuals it could lead to violent conflict, or to the breakdown of a valuable and supportive relationship.<br />
<br />
Regarding
community, local or extended, dangerous thinking may conceivably result
in harm through a loss of cohesion and effective cooperation, without
immediate violence. But where trust, social bonds, and the empathy that
goes with it diminish, so the chances of violence increase. Also without
the presence or threat of violence, there is a common (although not
universal) inclination towards cooperation. <br />
<br />
Hence dangerous
thinking, on an individual scale through to the extended community of a
nation, is considered in terms of its relationship with violence. Here
violence is taken as any act which is destructive and leads to
suffering.<br />
<br />
It goes without saying that not all danger, suffering
or conflict can be avoided, and it is sometimes necessary to accept one
danger in order to overcome a bigger danger, and thus not all 'dangerous
thinking' is to be avoided. Nevertheless it is a common warning or
accusation, particularly towards those interested in social reform who
would rock the boat. It is useful then, for those cases where advocating
or agitating for change turns out to be the lesser danger than staying
on course, to understand in more detail how the idea of dangerous
thinking and of violence is evoked, framed and influenced.<br />
<br />
For the same
reason of avoiding the bigger danger, it is useful to understand these the various dimensions and routes to dangerous thinking, for those cases where powerful movement
for change fails to accurately comprehend both what is to be changed
from and what is to be changed to, thus potentially itself representing the
bigger danger.<br />
<br />
Can some forms of violence be net reducers of dangerous thinking?
Certain forms of mutual play, art or sport may have a violent and dangerous
nature, but do they necessarily result in more harm than what would come
without them. Perhaps qualifying activities would be those where
violence is integrated into a narrative that also emphasizes respect,
peace and honor, and is congruent with actual behaviour, and where
violence is used in a controlled form to some extent to overcome its
broader hold, and avoid it in worse forms? The study of many martial
arts, for instance, would appear to fit such conditions. <br />
<br />
This idea of dangerous thinking might be expanded into the violence related categories:<br />
<ul>
<li>Thinking about acts of violence.</li>
<li>Thinking which justifies acts of violence.</li>
<li>Thinking which directly incites violence. </li>
<li>Thinking which is not itself of a violent nature but which is met with violence.</li>
<li>Thinking which leads to violence, but which does not require reflection on that fact.</li>
</ul>
<br />
Let's
consider each of these types of dangerous thinking, what drives them
and how our acceptance of and inclination to violence is influenced
through them:<br />
<br />
<b>Thinking about acts of violence</b><br />
<br />
In
itself, just thinking about something violent happening isn't
necessarily dangerous, it might even help you avoid danger, where you
pre-empt it. Where it gets dangerous is where it becomes habituated, and
begins to saturate large parts of our mental and emotional space. The
route to that happening is naturally the mainstream media (including the
political discourse of the main parties) and entertainment industries.
Whether from high-volume violent content we react more with elevated
fear or aggression, or become desensitized, the result is often an
increased affinity for violence, or an acceptance of it as the
inevitable norm. The exact nature of the violent content in the
mainstream media and entertainment industries could be connected to any
one or more of the above types of dangerous thinking, from gratuitously
violent video games, to championing aggressive foreign policies, to
reinforcing cultural or social prejudices which contribute to violent
discrimination. Consequently, thinking about acts of violence, through
the volume and tone of such content, acts as a bedrock for violence in
society.<br />
<br />
There is an argument sometimes offered, that the media
and entertainment industry, and some would extend that to politics too,
is primarily a mirror of the dominant culture (with various niches for
those who wish to consume niche content) and that it does not
significantly steer or shape that culture, or influence our thinking,
choices and actions. <br />
<br />
This idea of minor influence is not convincing in the face of the vast sums of money spent on
content production with the precise aim of influencing opinions and
behaviour. There is in fact a well recognised influence of media coverage on everything
from election outcomes, to product sales, box office success and celebrity popularity. If
people get the bulk of their information about what is happening in the
world from the media (or from friends who have seen or heard something
in the media), it would be reasonable to expect that any bias or
assumptions presented through either emphasis or omission would be
reflected in the public opinion, discourse and behaviour. The connection
becomes pretty obvious during times of war and associated propaganda, but is no less real at all
other times.<br />
<br />
Similarly, it is fairly common for role models to be
characters in a book, film or computer game. Even without their being an
identified role model, where an entertainment product appeals to our
taste, those appealing qualities are often attached to a certain
narrative, ideology or set of interpretations of how the world is or
should be. Just as showing young attractive people drinking Cola Cola
seems to have an impact on behaviour to increase sales (since it's such a
long running ad strategy), we could expect having those qualities in an
entertainment product that appeal to our taste, being linked with
certain ideologies or views of the world would, to some extent, over
time, influence our affinity with those views and ideologies. Also the
choice and presentation of products available will itself have an
influence on what tastes develop, as well as tastes influencing what is
made available.<br />
<br />
This capacity for influence from the media and
entertainment industries will be exercised essentially whenever there is
profit in doing so, which given the market based operation of our economy, is all the time. From a profit seeking perspective, violence is simply one powerful emotional lever to stimulate demand with, through fear, relief or arousal, or to secure general compliance with various measures that protect and enhance profit for a tiny group of people.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Thinking which justifies acts of violence</b><br />
<br />
Moving
forward from simply contemplating some act of violence, is a train of
thought which in some way justifies that violence, whether it has
already been committed, is about to be, or could be at some future
point. The justification of violence is generally related to a real or
perceived threat, or an opportunity for gain. <br />
<br />
The nature of the
threat may be, for instance, to the body, the identity, or the integrity
of a group, its social code or its hierarchy. Besides the
neutralization of danger or scarcity, the gain from violence may be the
expansion of already substantial wealth, or some entertainment value.
Clearly the perception of the situation and the set of beliefs and
values held are critical in having a sense of danger and in justifying
violence to resolve that danger, or to acquire the benefit being considered.<br />
<br />
As an example, supposing someone sees a group of travelers enter their town and set up camp. The town is under some economic pressure and public services are already near capacity. If that person's culture and outlook is one that welcomes such visitors and seeks to share knowledge and strengths then they may still perceive some challenges but focus on how to create good relations for cooperation or develop a peaceful understanding with them of the limits of local resources. But if that person's culture and outlook is more threat-focused and they believe such travelers can't be cooperated, trusted or reasoned with, then a strong sense of danger to the self and the town, at least in terms of identity and economy may develop and violence begin to be justified. <br />
<br />
So
one route to justifying violence is by having or creating the
perception of necessity for self-defence or group defence. Here, what
the self and group is defined by, in terms of body, identity, property,
social code and class, determines what kind of situations may be
considered threatening and possibly justifying violence. As already
discussed, some part of what we, in general, take to define us and our
place in the world, is served up by the media and entertainment
industries and the culture which comes from and feeds into that. <br />
<br />
Once
a threat to self or group is perceived, the possible response of
violence must be considered as the only way, the normal way, or the best
of all options, for violence to then by justified.<br />
<br />
Again, our
culture, as influenced by mainstream media and entertainment, will
affect where we see violence as an appropriate or necessary response,
given some threat. For instance if patriotism, along with proactive
military strength is held highly within the culture, then any perceived
or possible threat to a nation may be understood individually as a
justification for violence.<br />
<br />
Another route to justifying violence,
is for the significance of violence itself to diminish, and either to
become so common as to be 'normal' or through a particular cultural
landscape to become associated with entertainment. For most of
post-agricultural history, violence has been a popular form of
entertainment, for a certain part of the population.<br />
<br />
The
attraction to, acceptance of and justification for violence is evoked in
media and entertainment, not just through its association with fear,
power, status and sex, but also through such qualities as humour, hope
and kindness. In action films highly graphic scenes of violence can be
made light of, not only by their familiarity, but by adding an element
of humour. Where violence is portrayed in a noble light, as the only
path to freedom and justice, and thus the source of hope for those who
are threatened and struggling (within the ideology and social constructs
of the story) then it becomes justified. When violence is cast as the
humane expression of tough love, to teach a valuable lesson through
punishment, then violence may become justified.<br />
<br />
Coming back to
the framing of dangerous thinking as thinking that leads to or increases
the chances of violence, all of the above avenues for thought to
justify violence can be understood as dangerous thinking. In the case of
justification three types have been identified:<br />
<br />
<i>Threat + violence is best or only option = justification. </i><br />
<i>Not much threat + violence is trivial, entertaining or in the form of play = justification. </i><br />
<i>Acceptable repercussions + sufficient benefits = justification.</i><br />
<br />
The
last type of justification above, requires that the doer of violence
feels superior to the target, where violence is simply an expedient
method for getting what is wanted. Such a sense of superiority develops
most easily with a lack of empathy. Mental illness can certainly account
for some of this, but one powerful, systematic way of creating a sense
of superiority and a loss of empathy is political, economic and social
hierarchy, or class. Thus a hierarchical approach to co-existence can be
seen as an engine of violence and dangerous thinking, as much as it may
appear from certain points within its own paradigm as a model of
stability and order.<br />
<br />
What makes that association between
justifying violence and dangerous thinking seem odd, is where, within
our beliefs, values and social codes, the violence (real or imagined)
really is justified or unavoidable. At this point there seems to be no
sense in considering the thinking of it 'dangerous', it is simply what
is called for.<br />
<br />
For any of the avenues to dangerous thinking
above, examples could easily be found that by most reasonable and
moderate standards, violence really would appear justified. But at least
as many if not far more examples could be imagined where violence is
only accepted or adopted because beliefs, values and desires have been
manipulated to make violence feel justified or entertaining. The scope
for such manipulation is arguably far greater in the presence of
hierarchy, whether sectarian or non-sectarian, especially where access
to and presentation of information is substantially controlled and
filtered through the small head of that hierarchy.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Thinking which directly incites violence</b><br />
<br />
Beyond justifying violence in theory or practice, is thinking which directly calls for it.<br />
It
may be down to desperation over scarcity or threat to safety, or a
threat to power, which may itself be perceived as a type of scarcity of
whatever circumstances are required to maintain an identity that has
become bound to a position of power. Or it may simply come from an
addiction to violence.<br />
<br />
Where the violence is real there is
generally a natural instinct to avoid it if possible. This means,
especially where the violence is being incited from a hierarchical
structure, the use of language is instrumental in bringing people to the
point of doing violence. Euphemism and dehumanisation, where there are
'good guys' and 'bad guys', are common approaches. For instance, on the
side of law and/or national interest, violence may be used in the name
of liberty, security and peace. Where it is used outside of the agenda
of the state and major stake holders, violence is the mark of
terrorists. Similarly, within an abusive relationship, the abuser may
use violence as a means of discipline and maintaining order. But where
the abused tries to resist violently, it is a mark of disrespect and
irrationality. The conceptual framework is key to allowing the violence
to feel justified and to perpetuate.<br />
<br />
When faced with desperate
circumstances of scarcity or other threat, there quickly comes the time
where action is imperative. While that might entail an unavoidable risk
or need of violence, what increases the chances of it is where
communication ceases or is severely degraded. If the sentiment 'the time
for discussion is over' signals to stop considering or sharing
information, perspectives and different strategies, while action is
being made, then the violence fuelling characteristics of social
hierarchies start to apply. Where there is a plan and a representative
or leader of it, to which people are obedient, then the moral
disengagement of 'just following orders' kicks in. The hierarchy need
not be explicit, so long as the sharing of information and ideas is
broadly shaped in the same way as under one, then the same follies are
invited. <br />
<br />
Where there is a fixed plan being followed and the
bigger picture is held only by a few authoritative figures, then through
the social disengagement and narrowing of perspective, violence becomes
easier to incite. This effect is starkly proven by the Milgram
experiment, where there is an authority figure and a set of rules and
about two thirds of people are prepared to voluntarily kill a person who
has done no harm that they know of, providing they are not in the same
room, and without even being in a situation of extreme threat.<br />
<br />
Another
type of thinking that tends to spark violence is the type that seizes
on the nearest possible scape goat to try and alleviate a danger. It is a
natural enough response under the circumstances of elevated stress,
anxiety and threat-focused competition, that most people in our dominant
culture find themselves in. It is made more likely from a scarcity of
sound information and rational discourse, and a strategy known as
'divide and conquer'. <br />
<br />
It is not that those wishing to maintain
privilege and power have to do that much to apply divide and conquer,
because general circumstances lead to a narrowing and increasing
immediacy of focus that makes finding a nearby person or group to blame
and vent frustration and anger on more likely. If mainstream media for
the most part avoid grappling with the bigger picture and fuel the fire
of resentment of minority groups with divisive and sensationalized news
coverage that is enough. What happens then is that the parts of society
that might represent the biggest threat to establishment if they were
organized and thinking in a joined-up way end up focusing on fighting each other and various minority
groups. Thus by dividing the threat, is it conquered. <br />
<br />
Some common examples of desperate blame seeking and divide and conquer are:<br />
Immigrants vs. native blue collar workers.<br />
'Hard working people' vs. benefit claimants. <br />
Pitting pubic sector workers and their compensation against private
sector workers and their compensation, indicating that one is suffering
due to the privileges of the other.<br />
<br />
In all these cases, real
tensions and hardship exists. But it's by failing to pause, learn some
facts and understand the bigger picture, that shows how these
circumstances arise, that what may feel like a fight for freedom and
security becomes tragically a fight which contributes most to the ongoing
exploitation of everyone involved. Some vague idea of bigger injustices
may be there, but they seem out of reach and hard to understand in a way
that connects them to the immediate problems of a community. Better to
leave understanding those things to someone else, and just taking a
stand where you can, with your friends who see things the same way
because they have the same problems. In this way a community ends up
dividing itself and contributing to the systemic violence of the broader culture it belongs to.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Thinking which is not itself of a violent nature but which is met with violence</b><br />
<br />
Thinking
that either doesn't see an existing risk, or through its disruptive
force, creates a risk, may be dangerous to all those influenced by it.
If you think that you only need to look left when crossing any road,
then you create the danger for yourself and others of violent outcomes. <br />
<br />
More
to the point of social order, where ideas are developed to peacefully
transition to a different paradigm and those ideas begin to catch on,
this presents various threats. If the new paradigm is non-hierarchical
and the existing one is, or the new one otherwise puts them out of
favour, then there is a threat to identity, power and social order, and
through the means discussed violence may then be justified to neutralize
the threat. <br />
<br />
Of course such ideas which lie outside the
mainstream are first dismissed as fringe nonsense or simply a joke. It
is only where they gather substantial momentum and cohesive power that
they represent a threat, and at that point there are often not directly
violent ways of smothering or dividing the development, which are more
effective than direct violence. Often competitively amplified economic
pressure does the job of the establishment, dividing people between what
has a broader social value and what must be done to make ends meet.
Then there is infiltration (a well documented and used strategy of the
police and intelligence agencies), bribery, blackmail, propaganda and
smear campaigns.<br />
<br />
On the other side, were a regime change (or annulment) carried
out, there is the question of what comes after, and what dangers await
in making that transition. If you and your tribe peacefully find your
way out of a forest where you felt trapped and endangered, you might
feel great being outside, but you wont last long unless you've prepared
to live in the new environment. You may then be forced back into the
forest, and find a new spot where you might find you're subject to new
or greater dangers than you were before you left. In such a case, the
violence you are met with is as much a result of a lack of preparation,
as it is of the regime you return to and through your actions helped to
create.<br />
<br />
Another form of thinking that can be dangerous is the kind that starts with 'all we need is love and kindness' and 'you cannot change the world, you can only change yourself' and then goes nowhere. This is not because it is usually directly met with violence but because, on its own, it is fairly ineffectual at reducing ongoing systemic cultural violence. On its own, without building it into joined-up thinking and social organization, it merely serves as a personal pressure valve, a form of escapism, or a New Age equivalent to confessing sins. On its own it's easy for everyone to agree with, or at least nod sympathetically with, and then go about their usual business.<br />
<br />
For this reason when public figures, such as the new Pope Francis Bergoglio, speak out against Capitalism or the dominant social, political and economic paradigm, media pundits often criticize their branching out from reciting doctrine or just talking in vague terms of love and forgiveness. The objection typically involves the claim that such people should restrict themselves to their allotted partition of public presence or celebrity; that if you're not a recognized expert on a subject then you have no business talking about it, or what you say carries no weight. It is the 'experts only' objection. In this way attempts to join the dots between numerous social issues and contribute to a wider conversation based on joined-up thinking are discouraged and suppressed.<br />
<br />
Augmenting the 'all we need is love' and the 'experts only' thought silos, is the line of thinking: 'All that is ill in the world is simply a result of human nature. Besides what the authorities are trying to do to weed out the bad apples, and increasing punishment, control and surveillance, there is nothing than can be done. We just have to rely on evolution to slowly improve people.' What this does is effectively close off general public discourse relating to the large region of social structure and our economic and political institutions.<br />
<br />
The structures we've made relating to social cooperation, managing resources and making collective decisions, that is our social, economic and political institutions, and the assumptions around them, are commonly regarded as facts of nature. They are less often regarded as fairly recent human inventions which have a very significant influence on behaviour and on which bits of our nature get developed more, and which bits remain relatively undeveloped. It is easily missed of minimized then, that the details of our dominant social, economic and political institutions have a huge impact on just about any social issue imaginable, not least violence.<br />
<br />
This three-point ward of 'all we need is love, 'experts only' and 'it is just human nature' creates a gigantic cognitive blind-spot, which deflects attempts at joined-up thinking, or even seeing the need for it. In this way, these ostensibly non-violent habits of thinking contribute to the ongoing collective violence and danger arising from our present dominant paradigm of co-existence, because they obstruct or diffuse the kind of thinking that would be required to progress beyond that paradigm.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Thinking which leads to violence, but which does not require reflection on that fact</b><br />
<br />
Returning
to the influence of mainstream media, entertainment and politics, where
certain narratives and ideologies are accepted from it, there may be no
explicit awareness of doing anything out of the ordinary, but that very
acceptance and agreement opens a channel through which violence flows.
It's this kind of ideology buy-in (at least enough not to create mass
resistance) that is relied upon for empire building activities and the
persecution of chosen enemies within or outside of a society. <br />
<br />
Where
violence in terms of systemic exploitation and oppression of the
disadvantaged occurs, supported by the authority structure, myths and
values of a culture, this can be thought of as structural violence.
Where those values and beliefs are accepted, structural violence creates
little awareness or reflection, even where someone is directly
participating in the violence themselves, because it exists within the
scope of normality and what is justified. <br />
<br />
Violence is more
easily done where is some form of physical or social separation which
impedes empathy, and physical and social separation is precisely what
hierarchy leads to. But there is a particular form of violence, neglect,
which is perhaps the most common form of structural violence.<br />
<br />
As
discussed in the first division of dangerous thinking, there are many
ways that simply thinking of violence to the extent that our culture is
saturated by it, increases the use of violence. Now here are some (there
are many more) specific beliefs, trains of thought or narratives which
lead to structural violence and are generally a part of a market lead
democracy culture, and which do not need much reflection by those whose
thinking is aligned with them:<br />
<ul>
<li>Free-trade is good for everyone</li>
<li>The rule of the majority should be respected by all</li>
<li>The lawful amassing of private property reflects merit, and the absence of such wealth is equally deserved</li>
<li>Though freedom is the highest value, enshrined in free-market ideology, people must be ruled by government</li>
<li>For the majority, freedom must be traded for security, and security could always be better</li>
</ul>
<br />
The points on markets and private property are addressed in these notes:<br />
http://joe-hudson.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/two-powerful-mechanisms-for-stimulating.html<br />
http://joe-hudson.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/the-22-tenets-of-religion-of-more.html<br />
<br />
On
the point of democracy and the rule of the majority, John Adams, the
second president of the United States, coined the term 'tyranny of the
majority' to highlight the dangers of it, and defend the value of a bill
of rights. The Greeks also recognized the problem, where a vote may
legitimize mob rule. Essentially a vote makes the minority subject to
the majority. It is a form of domination and as such is a type of
violence. It is certainly less unjust than autocracy or monarchy rule,
and setting a higher majority requirement or having a strong
constitution may lesson the consequences, but this doesn't fundamentally
alter the oppressive aspect of majority rule. Of course what we think
of as democracy, or representative democracy is very far from even
majority rule, where at every stage, and from the very beginning, money
talks loudest. But all of this can be accepted and given little thought
if we accept representative democracy and majority rule as the best of a
set of bad options.<br />
<br />
Taking the core of the democratic principle
as the balanced distribution of power, from the Greek dēmokratía “rule
of the people” or “people power”, there is no explicit requirement for
majority rule or voting. Majority rule is simple one early stab at a
democratic system, which while improving on having a great dictatorship,
is still fairly poor and subject to much of the same systemic potential
for corruption and violence. By continuing to pursue the core meaning
of democracy we might discover a truer and less violent implementation
of it.<br />
<br />
On the point of people requiring a leader, in the sense of
such a leader whose authority is backed up by force, this is simply a
rationalization for present dominant forms of 'democracy', as well as
any other form of hierarchy. What can make it seem sensible, and so not
worth much examination or reflection, is observing how violence can
spike during times of government or rulership instability, and how it is
always there in various forms of crime and exploitation. The conclusion
is then that there has to be some strong body to keep a lid on all the
violence that seems to naturally spring from people's hearts. But this
conclusion is a result of mistaking the map for the territory. As
discussed there are many ways for the institutions within culture,
controlled by those with the greatest privilege and wealth, to inculcate
and habituate violence. And so, without necessarily realizing they are
doing it, the leaders end of largely creating the justification for
their own existence. And where that justification is infused into the
culture, and so supported by people from all levels of privilege and
wealth, there is no quick or easy way of overcoming it.<br />
<br />
On the
point of freedom being a necessary trade for security for the majority,
in a sense this is true, but only so long as faith in the market lead
democracy paradigm is maintained. The centrality of social hierarchy
creates continuous threat, because people generally want to be free, and
the system also inculcates the desire to climb the hierarchy. The
leadership must continually defend itself, both as an institution and
from those who would install themselves in the leader position. Thus the
reduction in freedom for the majority, or more specifically the careful
control of it at a diminished level, naturally leads to increased
security for the ruling class. It also leads to greater leverage of
power for the ruling class to defend itself from other hierarchical
groups. As a by product of this, and within this environment, a kind of
stability may be enjoyed by the majority within the more powerful social
hierarchies. Although, since the threat and competition never ends, and
it is always the least privileged and least wealthy that die first when war
is periodically deemed necessary, the trade of liberty for security is
doubly questionable. <br />
<br />
Of course the inevitable outbreaks of
violence, pre-emptive or retaliatory, ideological or pragmatic, are used
to justify the trade of freedom for security. In the larger powers it
is done with the call to fight terrorism. According to official
statistics, even during 2001 (the year of the twin towers attack, where
approximately 3000 people died) in the US, you'd be over 150 times more
likely to die from heart disease than a terrorist attack. In a typical
year, including US citizens all over the world, you'd be around 10,000
more likely to die from preventable heart disease. In terms of money
spent on dealing with it, 50,000 times more gets spent on anti-terrorism
measures than on any other cause of death. But, it is given relatively
little thought, and naturally the 'anti-terrorism' measures very often
involve a good bit of violence themselves.<br />
<br />
-----------------<br />
<b>The establishment view of dangerous thinking</b><br />
<br />
To
the establishment, that is the present body of concentrated power and
wealth and its various representative institutions of government, big
business and the military, 'dangerous thinking' is any thinking that
might upset that social order or inhibit its accumulation and holding of
power. The kind of violence perceived is to the identity and enjoyment
of power the control of the establishment. The fear is that these things
will be forcefully taken from them, and perhaps that they will be
punished for having taken what they rationalize as being entitled too. <br />
<br />
For
thinking to be truly dangerous to the establishment it must be
persistent and highly contagious. Any other kind will get smothered by
mainstream commercial culture which largely reflects the values and
beliefs of the establishment.<br />
<br />
Thinking that is genuinely
dangerous to the establishment is by extension and at certain stages of
development also dangerous for those thinking it, and especially those
helping most to spread it. This is simply because the function of the
establishment is to maintain the power and social order of the group,
corporation or country they have command of, and violence is an
intrinsic part of maintaining a social hierarchy. The extend of violence
that will be used is decided by the force at the establishment's
disposal and the expediency of using it, given the threat.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>The post-establishment risk of dangerous thinking</b><br />
<br />
While
the biggest individual risk of thinking dangerous to the establishment
may be persecution, or exclusion, the biggest collective risk is
succeeding in reclaiming power from the establishment, but (perhaps
unknowingly) carrying on its values and beliefs with different rhetoric.
The reason why this is so dangerous is exemplified by soviet era
Russia, leaders of which distorted the ideas of socialism to implement a
back breaking program of rapid industrialisation and suppression of the
great majority. It may be an extreme example, but it does show how
socially progressive thinking can be and often is co-opted into
recreating a worse version of the usual establishment. Another more
recent, smaller scale example of how revolution can be highjacked is
Srdja Popovic, a world renowned political activist, now known to have links with a
corporate intelligence agency:<br />
http://www.occupy.com/article/exposed-globally-renowned-activist-collaborated-intelligence-firm-stratfor<br />
<br />
The co-opting or corrupting process of a progressive movement happens for various reasons, such as:<br />
<ul>
<li>Lack
of forward thinking, or switching to 'the time for conversation has
past' mode, increasing a vulnerability for slipping back into old
habits, without help, or by creating an opening for someone else to
steer the way.</li>
<li>Lack of understanding the root problems of the
establishment model, thinking that with some relatively small tweaks and
different people in charge it would work out better.</li>
<li>Faith in
one of the core elements of the establishment market lead democracy (the
market, representative government with or without rule of majority, and
a strong military) and failing to see how one also implies the others.</li>
<li>Avoidance
of joined-up thinking, focusing solely on small chunks of what is going on
(such as a debt based money system, or lobbyists), that may be extremely important, but in isolation result in not seeing (or serve not wanting to see) the bigger picture.</li>
<li>Resort to violence without
first exhausting all other options, meaning that the conflict falls into
territory the establishment are most practised in handling, and which
provides fuel for creating division within the movement.</li>
<li>Charismatic
leaders, who put their social status above the strength and
effectiveness of the group, by, for instance, hoarding information,
giving commands rather than facilitating, and pitting one part against
another.</li>
<li>Infiltration, by a charismatic leader, expert or various interests taking advantage of any of the first five points above.</li>
</ul>
<br />
Failure
in this way is also dangerous because it is exhausting and demoralizing
for those who are genuinely interested in and dedicated to progressive
social change, which then weakens the cause, possibly for a generation
or more.<br />
<br />
The obvious way to avoid such failure is to focus on the
inherent strengths of a well-organized but non-hierarchical collective,
where ideas are freely exchanges and leadership is purely a function of
skill in a particular area and facilitative ability, not something that
is taken and backed up with force or power over others. These kinds of
collectives can be far more agile and robust than hierarchical ones.
This approach to cooperation allows rapid development and re-development
of ideas and strategies, at the same time as action is being made and
work done. <br />
<br />
The emphasis on sharing and giving feedback on key
ideas amongst the whole group creates and brings out a strong foundation
of common understanding and direction where it is possible, and
promotes the social investment that comes from empathy and respect. The
attitude of having a specific job to do without much sense of or
engagement in the bigger picture, builds in vulnerability to a group and
invites hierarchy. When the time for discussion has passed, so too has
the chance of much genuinely progressive change. <br />
<br />
If we get so
far as to build a robust general understanding of progressive change,
then there is that other danger to consider; what is a drug addict
prepared to do, to secure their fix? Or, what are those holding onto
power prepared to do to keep it? It would seem, just about anything. My
hope comes from seeing our capacity for learning. On balance the
establishment way of thinking and the culture than comes with it is by
far more dangerous and violence prone than just about any serious
proposal to distribute economic and social opportunity more evenly.
Fortunately, there are some signs that collectively we are beginning to
understand the threat to our species survival is the hierarchy, is the
system of exploitation, is the preoccupation with competition (between
people, not ideas). If that is true, then those hoarding power may
finally be cured of this cultural disease along with everyone else. Not
that it will be easy.<br />
<br />
<br />
* Picture link: http://liol.deviantart.com/art/Greed-108458360<br />
<br />Joe Hudsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02007274433208167837noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8883586897037151449.post-14644640126191411572013-12-05T09:55:00.001-08:002013-12-16T17:53:30.109-08:00Two Powerful Mechanisms for Stimulating Economic Activity<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjW0BFn7EruGAzUR0mWAFgq287b2TOSVs0lS88iLvd1CblEIQg9DFb4cqz291lRCSJ3s01ZPwQ4lOJrl5gSMDQPw5cn8-jpbpBtf8vSojJ59hqfuI3ctX1tvFNil9XF57AnhcFTLtNeSoO7/s1600/Gleicharmige_Waage.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjW0BFn7EruGAzUR0mWAFgq287b2TOSVs0lS88iLvd1CblEIQg9DFb4cqz291lRCSJ3s01ZPwQ4lOJrl5gSMDQPw5cn8-jpbpBtf8vSojJ59hqfuI3ctX1tvFNil9XF57AnhcFTLtNeSoO7/s1600/Gleicharmige_Waage.png" height="249" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="western">
In an economy largely determined by market
operations, trade can be stimulated in various ways with the aim to
meet resource requirements for general prosperity and well-being.<br />
<br />
Trade; the exchange, through money or otherwise, of goods, property
rights and services, is the primary way of meeting resource
requirements and distributing opportunity for further development
within a market-economy. So in that context there is already a sturdy
incentive for trade; survival depends on it. Why then would it need
to be further stimulated?</div>
<div class="western">
<br /></div>
<div class="western">
The reason that extra stimulation is required for
economic activity in a market-economy, can be understood purely from
examining the properties of markets.</div>
<div class="western">
<br /></div>
<div class="western">
Markets, left to their own devices (but protected
by some official body, such as the State), tend towards increasingly
unequal distribution of private wealth and thus resources. This
happens due to cumulative competitive advantage, where small
differences in wealth will tend to be amplified over time. </div>
<div class="western">
<br /></div>
<div class="western">
Regardless of mutual gain, in a trade between two
parties with unequal wealth, the richer will tend (in proportion to
the wealth disparity) to have a stronger bargaining position and
greater opportunities to capitalize on the outcome of trade. If
you've ever spent much time playing Monopoly you'll know that while
luck, and to a degree skill, plays a large part, the more money and
property a player has, the more chances they have of amassing more
and winning the game. Essentially, the rich get richer and the poor
get poorer. That is a fundamental and well recognized property of
markets, even in an expanding economy. This means, if the ability to
acquire resources is determined by the tradable assets an individual
possesses, there will be a growing number of people unable to
participate in economic activity. Hence, without some extra
stimulation or fuel for trade, the economy – and the population –
will shrink into oblivion.</div>
<div class="western">
<br /></div>
<div class="western">
There is naturally a high risk that as
circumstances become more dire for more people, the rules break down
and instead of everyone starving, the market blows up, to either be
reformed with a fresh distribution of wealth – what usually happens
– or for some alternative to be attempted – what usually doesn't
last long. There are obviously market restraining (and simultaneously
protecting) measures, such as income taxes, regulations and social
welfare, but without some extra boost to trade, the vast majority of
people would end up being dependant on a subsistence social safety
net for survival.</div>
<div class="western">
<br /></div>
<div class="western">
The predominant approach to prevent a
market-economy from eating itself out of existence, or blowing up, is
debt, and especially creating money from the creation of debt
(whether backed, or 'securitized' by some physical resource, or
otherwise). The global financial system and market-economy is built
on this model and is contrasted below with an alternative approach to
stimulating economic activity, within a market paradigm.</div>
<div class="western">
<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="western">
<b>Money as Debt</b></div>
<div class="western">
The essential feature of debt which allows
economic activity to continue beyond the point it would otherwise be
forced to stop in a market-economy, is that it extends the lower end
of the scale of wealth, from zero or not enough, to (minus) infinity.
If you don't have enough to trade for what you need, you can borrow.
Without doubt, borrowing is an indispensable activity in a
market-economy, not only for the poor or those of modest wealth, but
also for those who wish to leverage their assets and multiply their
profits. So debt allows the wheels to keep turning.</div>
<div class="western">
<br /></div>
<div class="western">
There are, however, some properties to debt,
besides its ability to extend economic activity, that also exacerbate
the anti-economic trajectory of pure markets. Accepting debt, in the
form of a loan, is itself a trade, with the lender receiving a
promise to repay with some additional interest. So the broad economic
utility of debt is still dependant on lenders being willing to lend,
which is not always the case. The lender naturally wants to ensure a
profitable outcome of the trade, which means the borrower
successfully repaying the loan plus the interest, which depends on
the borrower being able to make sufficient profitable trades
(including giving labour for wages) elsewhere. As a trade, a loan is
just another market operation which facilitates the market behaviour
of concentrating wealth and thus increasing economic inequality, but
with the additional pressuring factor of interest payment.</div>
<div class="western">
<br /></div>
<div class="western">
<div align="LEFT" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
With a money system based on debt, having interest
outstanding in a market-economy mathematically requires more money to
be created to cover the interest. That then leads to more money being
required to cover the debt associated with that money, and so on. <span style="font-size: small;">On
the one hand this provides a pressure for economic growth, but on the
other it also creates inflation (rising cost of goods and services
through the falling purchasing power of a given sum of currency), by
increasing the pool of (debt based) money in the economy. This
continuous kind of inflation is generally not completely counteracted
by lower cost production technology, and through a number of
channels, increases the economic wealth gap between rich and poor.</span></div>
<div class="western">
<br /></div>
<div class="western">
It is true that inflation can erode savings, but
by definition only savings which gain interest at less than the rate
of inflation; two examples being keeping your money under the
mattress, and the large majority of pension funds (which constitute
most of the savings for the least wealthy majority), which
under-perform inflation in the long term. For those with substantial
wealth there are far better opportunities for investment.</div>
</div>
<div class="western">
<br /></div>
<div class="western">
Since resources, demand for goods and services,
and employment opportunities are all limited, there will always be a
certain part of a population who simply cannot make sufficient
profitable trades to repay loans for resources they need. There will
also be those who are hit by unforeseen circumstances, or who decide
to cheat. That is, loans will not always be offered when needed, and
will not always be repaid.</div>
<div class="western">
<br /></div>
<div class="western">
To avoid market breakdown due to lack of credit
(availability of debt) or ability to repay, the total pool of wealth
within an economy and consequent opportunity for trade and profit
must continually grow. If growth stops, debt may provide a short
buffer, but as the market concentrates wealth, the prospects of debt
being repaid diminish, and so credit will dry up. In support of the
debt approach to stimulating economic activity, it is argued that the
social impact of being in debt, and having interest to work off,
motivates people to work harder, thus creating the economic growth
required.</div>
<div class="western">
<br /></div>
<div class="western">
As already mentioned, there are certain intrinsic
motivations for economic activity, the sustaining and development of
life and well-being, and markets in their pure form concentrate
economic opportunity into ever fewer hands. While debt can keep a
market-economy rolling, because it also reinforces economic
inequality it will alter the character of motivation and economic
activity (and consequently much non-economic activity) for much of
the population.</div>
<div class="western">
<br /></div>
<div class="western">
When working to repay debt, or just managing to
service the interest, while granted much better than starving or
going without shelter, there is a tendency for the mind to narrow,
especially where economic freedom is low and the debt payments take
a significant chunk of the income. In this state (compared to having
adequate wealth to avoid debt or keep it to a small and easily
managed level) there is less time to listen to our various human
needs beside the matter at hand of paying the debt, along with the
other bills and covering the basics. Less time to pursue interests,
even where they would not require much additional resources. Less
time to think, learn, create, connect and innovate. Less time or
mental space to relax and enjoy. When in debt there is also less
opportunity to be selective about what work to accept, and more
pressure simply to take what will pay, to service the debt.</div>
<div class="western">
<br /></div>
<div class="western">
This narrowing of the mind and restriction of
broader individual development presents a significant opportunity
cost to society, through the quality of culture and innovation that
might have been created, through a more widespread, fuller
development of human potential. In short, the debt approach offers a
choice between going hungry or varying degrees of servitude to
concentrated wealth, while in so doing creating a high opportunity
cost for society. The global research of the Equality Trust clearly
shows that substantial inequality is indeed harmful not just to the
poor, but in a variety of ways to everyone in society.</div>
<div class="western">
<br /></div>
<div class="western">
There is also the minor issue of the debt approach
requirement for indefinite geometric growth, on a finite planet. A
minor issue which is fast casting its shadow across the globe. To
clarify, in an economy with ten acres of land and ten blocks of gold,
the GDP (total sum of all trade) can vary according to how much trade
is made, which can increase through new services and technological
innovation to allow more to be done with less. This is known as
<i>intensive</i> economic growth. However, there is a limit to how
much and how fast those factors can grow an economy, especially where
a large number of people have relatively low economic opportunity,
and ultimately the wealth concentrating property of markets will
force (regardless of other factors which may do the same) new land
and new gold and other resources to be acquired. This is known as
<i>extensive</i> economic growth, and is the kind that bumps up
against the hard limit of a finite planet.</div>
<div class="western">
<br /></div>
<div class="western">
It is almost certain that so long as a market
paradigm is used for economic management, debt will be a necessary
evil. Were the base currency not linked with the creation of national
debt (as is invariably the case with central banks now), such as
proposed by Positive Money and others, the overall debt burden would
be reduced. But the availability of individual loans would most probably still
be a necessary buffer or enabler of opportunity for some of the
population. The negative impacts and extent of debt may be further
reduced though, through various redistributive economic measures.</div>
<div class="western">
<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="western">
<b>Tax on Property</b></div>
<div class="western">
A tax on property amounts to a redistributive
approach to stimulating economic activity (as in principle most taxes
are), whether the tax revenue is redistributed directly, or via
government spending. It is not directly concerned with the creation
of money or the use of debt. When used in combination with a
particular debt approach, providing redistribution is either direct,
or effectively managed, it will reduce the need for individual debt. </div>
<div class="western">
<br /></div>
<div class="western">
The idea presented here is a particular form of
property tax, where all private wealth is taxed, periodically, not
when it is traded, but while it is owned, and redistributed largely
in a direct form. It would include real-estate, land, food,
materials, industrial equipment, stocks, patents, interest baring
bank accounts, every kind of owned economic asset. Hence a more
descriptive name for it could be 'Universal, Recurring, Directly
Redistributive Tax'. The tax would principally be financial, but
could also be in the form of produce. Through national or local
government the tax (or a large majority portion of it) would then be
evenly distributed to the population.</div>
<div class="western">
<br /></div>
<div class="western">
The rationale of such a tax on property is to
encourage the profitable use of resources, where they are privately
owned. It would only make sense to hold property, for those with more
than average wealth, if it was creating profit above the rate of tax.
If an individual's amount of property was below the average they
would receive more tax revenue than they give, and vice versa.</div>
<div class="western">
<br /></div>
<div class="western">
This kind of tax on property is quite distinct
from income tax, corporation tax, or tax on trade (stamp duty, VAT,
import). These other types of taxes essentially tax profits or
economic activity itself, which creates understandable resistance and
can be avoided in various clever ways. A property tax is not
concerned with profits, and encourages trade. It is also relatively
simple to calculate; if something is owned, it gets taxed. But like
with most taxes, it may also allow for deferrals and exemptions under
special circumstances, and have potentially different rates for
different types of asset. </div>
<div class="western">
<br /></div>
<div class="western">
Other forms of property tax exist, such as council
tax and inheritance tax. These forms are either much more limited in
the scope of property they apply to, or apply once per generation
(providing loopholes are not exploited), rather than on a rolling
annual or quarterly basis. Stamp duty is also a property tax, but
applies only when trade occurs. The type of property tax being
discussed here is a comprehensive, recurring tax, designed to have a
redistributive force strong enough to sufficiently counteract the
anti-economic, wealth concentrating characteristic of markets, thus
allowing more collectively prosperous economic opportunities and
development. The virtue of making redistribution primarily in direct
form, rather than managed through government programs, is to ensure
that economic freedom and opportunity is widely distributed.</div>
<div class="western">
<br /></div>
<div class="western">
Besides the practical economic benefits, the
ideological basis of it is that the government provides a service of
protecting private property and the safe, stable operation of the
market, with the opportunity for profit that comes with it. And in
return for that valuable service and the resources required to render
it, the government on behalf of the public interest requires a
percentage, which it distributes to the public. Each member of the
public is given an equal share, simply by being part of the economy
from which profit can be made, and recognising the value in giving
everyone a more equal chance to contribute, through a more equal
economic opportunity. (There is no need to adopt a false doctrine of
absolute economic equality.) If someone is a successful wealth
accumulator, whether through innovation of business acumen, they can
carry on doing that and profiting. But the idea of the tax is that it
strongly deters anyone from simply sitting on accumulated wealth, or
letting it appreciate through unproductive uses, which is harmful to
the rest of society.</div>
<div class="western">
<br /></div>
<div class="western">
Let's consider the example of a home. What happens
when someone retires from business and the tax on their property,
which includes the house they live in, comes around? If the owner's
total wealth including the value of the home is less than the
average, they would have nothing to pay, because their contribution
would be less than the dividend they receive. If the owner's total
wealth is more than the average, then tax would be due in proportion
to their additional wealth. So if someone wants to live in a 20
bedroom mansion, that's fine, but they would need to figure out a way
of making their total wealth continue to be economically productive,
and thus hopefully useful to society, to cover the tax. (Or, less
probably, to have had so much wealth accumulated that they can carry
on paying the tax without it affecting their chosen lifestyle.) The
idea is to shift distribution towards human needs and provision of
opportunity, and away from human greed. Greed, to put it simply, is
supported only so far as it provides a measurable net benefit for the
rest of society, otherwise it is collectively detrimental.</div>
<div class="western">
<br /></div>
<div class="western">
Even though it may be simpler to calculate and
more difficult to evade, a tax on property, like any other tax, would
still be subject to some people and corporations not wanting to pay
it. One reason to expect more honesty than with other taxes on
profits or trade, is insurance. Particularly valuable property is
often insured, to cover loss or damage. But if such property is not
declared and counted in tax contributions, then no legal insurance
claim could be made. With a property tax, there would be no need for
income tax, corporation tax, or trade tax. So to replace three types
of taxes with one, which is more favourable to trade, would surely
aid its popular acceptance. </div>
<div class="western">
<br /></div>
<div class="western">
One obvious exemption to the tax, that might
enhance the sharing and development of practical skills, would be the
value added from a person's direct labour. So if for example someone
builds an extension to (or the whole of) their own house, the value
added to the property embodied in that labour would be tax
deductible.</div>
<div class="western">
<br /></div>
<div class="western">
A tax on property not only encourages economic
activity by providing additional incentive for property owners to
turn a profit on that property, but also through its redistributive
function, which directly creates more economic opportunity for most
of the population. In turn that more widespread economic opportunity
fosters technological and social innovation. A tax on property is one
way of providing a Basic Income. But as a stimulator of economic
<i>activity</i> it does not create a pressure for perpetual, geometric,
<i>extensive growth</i> of the economy, as debt does. It keeps the wheels
turning, but without requiring an ever bigger cart.</div>
<div class="western">
<br /></div>
<div class="western">
Shifting to a redistributive method of stimulating
economic activity, would help spread a deeper understanding of the
practical benefits of peaceful collaboration with equal respect of
each others needs.</div>
<div class="western">
<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="western">
<b>References</b></div>
<div class="western">
Money as Debt <a href="http://www.moneyasdebt.net/">http://www.moneyasdebt.net/</a></div>
<div class="western">
Positive Money <a href="http://www.positivemoney.org/">http://www.positivemoney.org/</a></div>
<div class="western">
Equality Trust <a href="http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/">http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/</a></div>
<div class="western">
Basic Income <a href="http://www.basicincome.org/">http://www.basicincome.org/</a></div>
Joe Hudsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02007274433208167837noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8883586897037151449.post-32093710287187336552013-12-04T19:07:00.001-08:002013-12-16T17:53:30.111-08:00Rising Foreign Aid - The Injustice and the Scope of Debate<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1_KBU5KnEZtA6KN6Ze2BcSlIYh6VWGIhVkBApMR1rrCbCjqFTmLTjromeMEOWjULNrxiYCUoN2EGdcA63t8Adzi6d8DcW3ehMpqaDN3Ri4aSrgDBqYhelM2hLd_M8SmEiRfjF6oG_6Ji3/s1600/Peter_Paul_Rubens_-_Cimon_and_Pero_(Roman_Charity)_-_WGA20420.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="263" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1_KBU5KnEZtA6KN6Ze2BcSlIYh6VWGIhVkBApMR1rrCbCjqFTmLTjromeMEOWjULNrxiYCUoN2EGdcA63t8Adzi6d8DcW3ehMpqaDN3Ri4aSrgDBqYhelM2hLd_M8SmEiRfjF6oG_6Ji3/s320/Peter_Paul_Rubens_-_Cimon_and_Pero_(Roman_Charity)_-_WGA20420.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
The UK government recently announced a £1
billion rise in foreign aid over 5 years, amidst ongoing economic
austerity. The Express and Daily Mail covered the story yesterday, with
all the expected outrage.<br />
<br />
Of course there is huge corruption
and waste when it comes to foreign aid, and charity in general. As if to
fuel the resentment, it's ultimately the most disadvantaged that are
paying for it, whether through tax revenue (however much of that money
is first delivered in profits to the top income percentiles, through
their leveraging of the work of the bottom percentiles, and then a
fraction paid back out through income tax) or donation.<br /><br />So then
there is the question, which the tabloids and more right leaning
broadsheets delight in posing: "Why should the poor be helping out the
poor in other countries, or just funding corrupt and inefficient aid
programs over there, when there are lots of people struggling here, and
those countries have things like space programs?" Obviously there is a
lot of injustice in the scenario, which calls for firm measures to
address it. <br /><br />But to address the injustices involved in foreign
aid (and much large charity programs) most effectively, it's important
to look at a broader context; the context of the global market-economy
system, which encompasses the military and propaganda apparatus of war
and economic exploitation, and the bought 'democracies' that promote and
support it. Not only are the people with the least economic freedom and
opportunity the ones who fight and die in wars, though they do not call
for war, and provide the grunt in systemic mass exploitation, though
many do not wish for exploitation, but they are then left to pay for
repairing the mess, just enough for the whole travesty to carry on for
another round.<br /><br />So the question "Why should we pay to help them,
when we need help too, and maybe they could help themselves?" may have
some merit. But it doesn't dig deep enough (as the papers that push it
well know) to help question the paradigm that leads to such messes in
the first place. In fact, the question is most relevant to the leaders
of the establishment, who seek to find the best cost/benefit ratio for
maintaining the status quo, while at the same time undermining sympathy
for the plight and exploitation of other countries which may contribute
to profit. To stoke popular bitterness, even where a good bit of that is
directed to the government - diffused somewhat by contributing to an
image of it being caring (even over-caring) and progressive -
comparisons are made between the aid fund and cuts to services and
rising unemployment. As if a choice is, should and could only be made
between those things. As if it's all a zero sum game between the
disadvantaged.<br /><br />On the one hand, the intention and effort of
giving to those in need, even where we're in hard times too, is a mark
of empathy, and if there is one human virtue that can change the system
for the better, it's empathy. On the other hand this empathy is being
contained and exploited. It's our willingness to help each other out,
combined with our obedience that is keeping the parasite monster of
Monopoly-made-real, breathing, where otherwise it would soon just eat
itself out of existence (admittedly along with most of us). Is the
answer to be less empathetic, less willing to help those in need? I
don't think so. I think that would put us in a worse place. But if we
can find the bravery to be less obedient, and more willing to <i>learn</i>, then there is much more hope.<br /><br />The
more pertinent question relating to aid, stepping beyond the mainstream
prescribed scope of debate, then, would be "Why is it, that despite our
knowledge and technology, there are still people in poverty and
hunger?" And not to stop at the lazy answer of "Oh, it's just our
nature" but to go on and examine what it is about the social, economic
and political institutions in our society that are nurturing and
emphasizing those potential traits to abuse, dominate and exploit other
people? What it is about them that fosters mass obedience? What
assumptions do they make about freedom, security and progress? When we
start to get a clearer picture of that, then we can begin to see
practical ways forward. It's ultimately not that complex, but it does
require sustained effort.<br /><br />Besides the bravery, we have to keep
our minds engaged and continue to share and develop our understanding.
Otherwise it's very easy to let the anger spill over into violence,
where there are always voices there to encourage it, in the most
'revolutionary' rhetoric. The point where violence is embraced is
exactly the point where we can sure of either losing or of creating
something much the same as what we wanted to go beyond, and that's not
going to help anyone.<br />
<br /><br />* painting: "Cimon and Pero" - Peter Paul Rubens<br />Joe Hudsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02007274433208167837noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8883586897037151449.post-63844034926909391052013-11-25T12:03:00.000-08:002013-12-29T20:37:07.736-08:00The 22 Tenets of the religion of MORE (Market OverRun Economy)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3NdRye2C8rfhFrX8oGPimLfDUv204BuYyhFT-4ZR3lO6_Hl4BrhEUMLYKTJ1HJL4NwEbCrMyNpc7cjmnc8SPAbrQ1-MVjsNxdoEKuRn-Odg1qDn3bWFKXH6KP2_tI-cipLlny0Y5sPwwx/s1600/520px-The_worship_of_Mammon.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3NdRye2C8rfhFrX8oGPimLfDUv204BuYyhFT-4ZR3lO6_Hl4BrhEUMLYKTJ1HJL4NwEbCrMyNpc7cjmnc8SPAbrQ1-MVjsNxdoEKuRn-Odg1qDn3bWFKXH6KP2_tI-cipLlny0Y5sPwwx/s320/520px-The_worship_of_Mammon.jpg" width="277" /></a></div>
Supporting the way we work together as a society, revolving around a
market controlled economy, is a certain web of beliefs. These beliefs
can be thought of as the tenets of a religion; the religion of MORE
(Market OverRun Economy). While they may appear to be stated in a hyperbolic fashion here, I
believe the following 22 tenets, in essence accurately portray the true character,
values and belief system of our present dominant economic, political and
social paradigm.<br />
<br />
The tenets are not held by everyone, and where they are they are not always fully realized, or are held is some kind of balance with a more humanistic perspective. But nevertheless they reflect to a large extent the shape and course of our society, from
casual conversation about current affairs and common attitudes to social
issues, to media coverage and bias and the form of our entertainment industry, to the scope of local
community, business and charity, to the spectacle of national politics and our behaviour as a nation state, to our role as part
of a global economy.<br />
<br />
<b>The 22 tenets of MORE</b> <br />
<br />
1. To
be the well armed gatekeepers of resources and thus production is to be
the giver of their benefits. For which perpetual gratitude and
servitude is due.<br />
<br />
2. To not extinguish free expression, culture and innovation, but to funnel, filter and exploit them through wealth allocation, is to be the creators and benefactors of them.<br />
<br />
3.
For however many intrinsic motivators there are for productive work,
cooperation and innovation, the extrinsic motivator of money rules them
all. And thus greed is good.<br />
<br />
4. Wealth is meritocratic, thus the poor have only themselves to blame, and the rich to thank for putting bread on their tables. Without their firm benediction, the feckless masses would be helpless and moribund.<br />
<br />
5.
Since the market-economy brings marginal order to the rule of the
jungle, it is a progressive evolution and not a cultural disease, as it
may first appear to the neophyte.<br />
<br />
6. If there is war, poverty
and famine is it either an aberration and result of heretical thinking,
or due to base human nature pushing through the benevolent operation of
the market. It is not a natural element of MORE.<br />
<br />
7. MORE brings
plenty, through peace, facilitated by necessary violence and oppression,
and other sacrifices for the sake of the future.<br />
<br />
8. If heretical forms of co-existence are attempted they must be stamped out with a fearful, righteous rage. For perpetual interest on debt, concentrated wealth and inequality are the great keepers of order and the engines of progress.<br />
<br />
9. Since there are no successful alternative forms of co-existence, that have not been purged or subsumed, MORE must be the best and most efficient.<br />
<br />
10. There was, is and can be no other way, except something worse. Historical research that speaks against this truth is false and sacrilege.<br />
<br />
11. All good comes from having MORE, and to protect MORE by any means is the highest virtue.<br />
<br />
12. The ignorant enemies of MORE are legion, and in MORE as in war all is fair and information is king.<br />
<br />
13. Thus, to lie, misinform and distract is to tell the greater truth of MORE and to express the highest virtue.<br />
<br />
14. MORE supports democracy, indeed it demands to have the best that money can buy, as it has done from the very beginning.<br />
<br />
15.
The highest form of freedom is that of the market, for it brings with
it, through the amassing of private wealth, the freedom to control our fellow brothers and sisters. All hail the glory of the free-market!<br />
<br />
16. MORE is fair, for all may, indeed must, compete in the race, from whichever point fortune lands them.<br />
<br />
* The final 6 tenets are considered the esoteric truths of MORE, and usually require a longer period of worship to comprehend.<br />
<br />
17.
The inconceivable and divine paradox of MORE, which transcends mundane
logic: the natural destination and goal of MORE and its most strong and
devout followers is monopoly, yet the highest and most worshipful form
of co-existence is competition.<br />
<br />
18. To honour the divine
paradox, a second paradox was created, that of market regulation, taxes
and welfare, which together form the trinity of necessary restraint. The
trinity is simultaneously our enemy, for it inhibits the outcome of
competition and limits the spoils to the most worthy, and our friend and
savior, for it sustains the conditions which protect concentrated
wealth.<br />
<br />
19. The process through which wealth is distributed may
be conceived by way of the blood flow through a giant, benevolent squid.
The squid gives out its own blood to the needy in reach of its
tentacles and countless arms; by being pricked from the three prongs of
necessary restraint, through wages, and through most magnanimous charity
to cover the shortfall. And the squid receives the blood of the needy;
directly through the wars they die in, its proceeds and their tax
revenues that go to fund it, through their labour and innovation, and
not least through their financial support in the form of debt and the
interest and securities that it bares, and in the form of rent.<br />
<br />
20.
Where the squid of MORE wealth distribution takes more blood than it
gives, it can grow, representing the expansion of concentrated wealth.
Simultaneously it must then also return more blood to maintain the
greater number of needy needed. Behold the blessed symbiotic
relationship. But if the squid takes less than it gives then it will
grow hungry and violent, even moving to eat part of itself. All good
keepers of MORE must hence strive, like the farmer with their crop, to
feed the needy only what they must have to be maintained in good order,
so as to avoid waste and potential ruin. Sometimes a few of the needy
merge into the flesh of the squid, and so social mobility is born. A
small amount is necessary, but as with the trinity, this must be kept to
a minimum, so that the flesh is not corrupted.<br />
<br />
21. The squid of
MORE wealth distribution, that is also known by the name of Mammon, has 2 heads and 3 primary tentacles, each with
111 strong suckers. Each tentacle represents one of the three entwined
pillars of wealth distribution and expansion, the market itself,
government, and the military and police forces. Each head represents a
side of the divine paradox (tenet 17), effectively imbuing each tentacle
with two warring spirits, meaning that the key agents of wealth
distribution number 666. This is the holy number of MORE, and where a follower sees it marked, they shall know that they are amongst friends.<br />
<br />
22.
Proper thought comprises two fields. The first is concerned with the
trivialities of consumer culture, including the cult of personality, and
is a salve to the weary mind. The second is concerned with the tenets
of MORE, with the most lofty matters of the divine paradox, the trinity
of necessary restraint (the second paradox), and faithfully telling the
allegories of the benevolent squid of wealth distribution and expansion,
together representing the pinnacle of political and social commentary. Let the faithful not stray from proper thought, and help those that do back on to the purifying path of elevation. To those afflicted with hardship or guilt, a follower of proper thought
may lament about the squalor of human nature and the institutions it has
build, to then council that MORE is the best that can possibly be hoped
for from a set of bad options, and our one true hope for progress<br />
<br />
<br />
------------------------<br />
<br />
MORE also offers guidance on talking with dissenters or disbelievers:<br />
<br />
i.
When engaging in discussion with a dissenter, we must first disregard
any argument, however seemingly pertinent, and insist on giving thanks
to our lord of MORE, Mammon, for the apocryphal benefits of our ongoing
mass exploitation.<br />
<br />
ii. If a dissenter fails to accept your
guidance, or give due homage to MORE, while continuing to avoid engaging
with heretical ideas, it is best to remind them of how much worse
things could be, and counsel that they be simply grateful. Gratitude is after-all the secret to happiness.<br />
<br />
iii.
If a heretical discussion is already under way, try to change the
subject, and restrict the parameters and scope of debate to an area
compatible with the tenets of MORE. <br />
<br />
iv. To push people away from
an aberrant discussion, for their own good, be belligerent and
provocative, arcane in your language, and waste time with tenuously
related anecdotes and references, as necessary.<br />
<br />
v. While it is
helpful to push an apparently peaceful discussion, showing signs of
heresy towards polemical argument, no matter how soundly your line of
attack is defeated, never concede the point. This will help maintain
your morale while depleting the reserves of the dissenter. On this point
a short memory is an asset.<br />
<br />
vi. If somehow through their silver
tongue, you find yourself momentarily drawn to the words of a dissenter,
you may experience an unpleasant cognitive dissonance, disorientation
or flashback. This is a natural protective response to guard you from
painful awareness. Retreat into ad hominem if you feel pressured and
repeat out loud the tenets, until you feel better.<br />
<br />
vii. To
dissuade others, who may be corrupted by the words of the dissenter, try
to discredit their ideas with accusations of naivety, romantic
idealism, bitterness and jealousy, extremism, or as inviting a brutal
totalitarian regime under the co-opt'ed flag of socialism. If struggling
when challenged to back such accusations up, simply be vague and
condescending, suggesting that it should be obvious, or that to do so
would be a waste of time.<br />
<br />
viii. Where the above guidance does not prevail, it is best to ignore the dissenter who is beyond salvation, lest they lead to your own corruption. Where your valiant attempts to show and teach the proper thought of MORE fail, a final attempt at unity may be made by collective confession of how base human nature is, and how, since it is the dominant paradigm, MORE, with all its difficulties, is surely the best that can possibly be hoped for from a set of bad options.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
------------------------<br />
<br />
<b>The MORE prophecy of end times</b> <br />
Knowledge
of this prophecy is dangerous in the wrong hands, and must be
restricted to MORE PSYCHO (Profit Snake Yocto-Compassion Heinous
Oligarch) priests.<br />
<br />
The battle between the
supremacy of man and nature runs on, and though the dominance of man is
righteous, nature is the mother which cannot be killed or be rid of. Her
veins are drying from our drinking, her body poisoned from our hacking
and crapping in her already wounds flesh, as was our right. In her tormented,
desperate sorrow she will end us. A time will come when the brilliant
light of the age of MORE will be covered, either in complete darkness
and destruction, or by an age of antithetical consciousness, born of a
new understanding of freedom and self, to our eyes darker than the
darkness. So upside-down will this age be, that they will see ours as
the one of disease. That will be the new truth. We may choose only
between those two darknesses, of destruction, or of this new age. Let us
choose wisely.<br />
<br />
The beginning of the end times will be marked by 3 signs. A crisis of nature, a crisis of technology and a crisis of faith.<br />
<br />
The
crisis of faith will be known by a growing inability to comprehend the
higher reason of MORE. Masses will agitate for change, even where they
know not too or how. Stronger voices of dissent will emerge through
relation to the other crises. Many amongst our highest order of
followers will also lose their faith, corrupted by the new truth. These
last two ranks will be our most dangerous enemies. The MORE faithful
will unite to caste them into the purifying flames of ridicule and
smear, and shame them for their pro-terrorist thinking. But in this
righteous cause, we have a heavy disadvantage. For in our glorious
crusade to bring even logic and truth under the rule of our peerless
will, we have grown to regard our own artifice as the very truth it
replaces, and thus we are blinded to the power of logic our dissenters
use against us. Nonetheless, with our superior vigor, we may bring the
world down, to at least achieve the lesser darkness for our posterity.
With a mere handful of the finest MORE PSYCHO priests and a good stock
of young virgin females, preserved in ice and ox-blood, we can rebuilt
the world from its own ashes. We must learn to use the language of the
dissenter against them, to fill it with the seeds of our will and the
same knots that confound us now. We must seek out the ignorant and
glorify their ignorance, give token support for their struggle, then
feed them lies to spread amongst their friends. We must fight as if our
souls, blessed by the holy number of 666, depended on it.<br />
<br />
The
crisis of technology will be known by the technological breakdown of
the hierarchical apparatus. There will be instant, unlimited and secure
communication, allowing the free flow of information. Dissenters will
push to make this technology accessible to all. The industrial practices
which are both creating genuine scarcity and maintaining false
scarcity, which both serve to protect concentrated wealth and power,
will be challenged by new or suppressed technology and processes. The
march of technology, partly through the drive to increase profits, will
increasingly displace labour, which will be unable to compete on cost,
efficiency or volume. If the masses have no work, and thus no money,
many will question the very paradigm of MORE. The hands of MORE
administrators will be forced, to either manage a steep decline in the
population as the needy perish and eat themselves, contained in
charitable labour camps, and culled through wars; or to capitulate and
allow the masses to live in a state without wage labour, of moderate
comfort and freedom. If it reaches that fearful stage, the battle is not
yet lost, so long as there is sufficient media, educational and reproductive control.
In this way, MORE may extend its lifespan. However, the free flow of
information, sweeping away with it the totems of copyright and patent, will eventually win out and the holy hierarchy of MORE will
fall.<br />
<br />
The crisis of nature will be known by mass ecological
collapse, in the oceans and on land, and violent climate instability.
While this will lead an increase in scarcity, it will be on such an
unprecedented scale when combined with increasing demand that only the
strongest, most devout and worthy followers of MORE will profit from it,
and many will perish. This alone could be viewed as an entirely natural
process of the market, a cruel but necessary process to ensure
progress. But danger lies in its global scale, which will prompt many to
question their faith, and to rise up against the forces of MORE. When
these times come we must unite to drive the message through, that MORE
is the one true way of progress, and to help the masses find peace in
the lesser darkness of destruction, knowing that they sacrifice
themselves for our future. The needy must be told that when we strike
our mother, and the earth succumbs to the might of our industry, we do
it for their sake, so that they may have bread on their table. Indeed in
countless ways their hands are together with ours as the knife falls,
and may that be their dying thought, so that they do not think to
revolt. But eventually revolt will come, and we must be ready for it.<br />
<br />
<br />
* painting: "The Worship of Mammon" 1909 Evelyn de MorganJoe Hudsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02007274433208167837noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8883586897037151449.post-6712091616454756252011-06-29T14:51:00.000-07:002012-04-25T18:59:50.298-07:00Growth without growth - a journey down the rabbit hole. Part 3If you're beginning with this post, know that the following will make more sense if you've already read <a href="http://joe-hudson.blogspot.com/2011/06/growth-without-growth-journey-down.html">part 1</a> and <a href="http://joe-hudson.blogspot.com/2011/06/growth-without-growth-journey-down_22.html">part 2</a>.<br />
<br />
Previously
we explored how the global money system works. We've seen how in this
system all money is created from debt and 'normal' economic function
quite literally depends on the majority of people getting and staying in
debt, and thus the system, by its nature, maintains unequal
distribution of material wealth.<br />
<br />
Now finally it's time to talk
about economic growth. Why is the mainstream view that it's a 'good
thing', and what really drives it?<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-large;">What <i>Is</i></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"><i> </i></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-large;">Economic Growth?</span><br />
<br />
When
an economy grows, the overall amount of 'wealth' grows - in terms of
how much stuff is produced and purchased. Economic growth happens when a
combination of conditions coalesce. Broadly speaking, things of <i>new value</i> that
are tradable or financially exploitable are created. This could be
through new technology, acquiring more material resources, or developing
more efficient or cheaper processes to produce products, for instance.
Then, there must be <i>demand</i> for an increased total value of trade (from higher volume or higher price) of the new products or services.<br />
<br />
Economic
growth equates to increases in inflation adjusted GDP (Gross Domestic
Product). That is, when the sum market value of all final products and
services traded increases, after adjusting for inflation (the decrease
in buying power of a single unit of currency), then economic growth is
said to have occurred.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">Why Is It Thought To Be A 'Good Thing'?</span><br />
<br />
There
are several related points in support of the idea that economic growth
is a good thing for everyone. Here are the main ones, as far as I can
gather:<br />
<ol>
<li>The overall increase in wealth within the economy not only benefits
the business owners and banks who provided the finance, but also
benefits anyone who sell products and services to these and other
parties. *</li>
<li>Through the trickle down effect, the increased wealth of the more
successful businesses owners, investors and banks, is spread further
through society. So over time as the total wealth in an economy grows,
there is more for everyone. *</li>
<li>When the wealth that comes from growth spreads widely through
society, society becomes more peaceful. The more growth there is, the
more wealth there is to go around.</li>
<li>When an economy is growing there are also more opportunities for
wealth creation for more people, since loans are more easily available.
And in times of growth, there are more usually opportunities for trade
to be able to repay debt. *</li>
<li>The availability of loans in times of growth, means more people can
buy what they need, when they need it, which improves quality of life,
and allows further growth to occur. *</li>
<li>The improvements in production methods and new technology that lead
to economic growth also lead to an improved quality of life. They do
this through effectively <i>cheaper</i> products and services, and through the availability of <i>better</i>
products and services, e.g. better health care, better access to
education, or better tools needed for various businesses, as well as
more and better variety of consumables for entertainment and leisure
usage.</li>
<li>The increased wealth from economic growth allows more money and time
to be invested directly in science, technology and the arts, for the
betterment of all humankind.</li>
<li>There may be a point in the future where, through the driver of
growth, technology advances to a point where it can take care of most of
our basic needs, like food, water, shelter, security, clothing,
transport, healthcare, etc. As a result, people will not need to work as
much and will have more leisure time.</li>
</ol>
Actually, the above list mixes together points which are really
about just economic growth alone, with points that are about economic
growth in <i>combination</i> with the current money-as-debt system.
These latter points end with a '*'. As we'll see later, economic growth
in terms of increased total wealth, is not dependent on this system. But
for now, I'd like to address each of the above points briefly, before
moving on to look more deeply at economic growth as it currently works,
what leads to it and what the implications of it really are.<br />
A response to the previous list:<br />
<ol>
<li>True, there is a kind of wealth distribution with economic growth, so long as it's understood that the money system <i>ensures inequality in wealth distribution</i> (see <a href="http://joe-hudson.blogspot.com/2011/06/growth-without-growth-journey-down_22.html">part 2</a> for why that is), which has <a href="http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence">profound effects</a> on the well-being of not just the least wealthy, but the whole of society.</li>
<li>It's true that wealth is spread through an economy, however the
'trickle down effect' is just that, a relatively tiny trickle, while the
real 'wealth geysers' - cumulative debt interest from money lending, ownership of
stocks and land - deliver the large bulk of their riches to a tiny
minority, where it tends to stay. In the UK for example, according to <a href="http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_economy/wealth-assets-2006-2008/Wealth_in_GB_2006_2008.pdf">official statistics</a>,
50% of the whole population have only 9% of the country's wealth. And
the wealth gap continues to widen, since this effect is built into the
system.</li>
<li>It's true, more financially equal societies are more peaceful. They
are also more healthy, innovative, trusting and happier, according to
peer reviewed research by the <a href="http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence">Equality Trust</a>. However, as already discussed, the existing method of economic growth ensures ongoing and increasing wealth <i>inequality</i>.</li>
<li>The availability of loans does allow businesses to start up sooner
than if no funding were available, and sometimes a loan can save a
business from closing. However, in aggregate, as already discussed, <i>debt creates disadvantage</i>
through the burden of interest repayments on top of the loan capital.
The normality of debt can also have a cultural effect where people
become conditioned to living beyond their means and become trapped in
debt as a result. In times of growth, good trade will allow <i>some</i>
debts to be repaid. However, the money to facilitate increased trade and
demand - in the present system - is created from debt in the first
place. Thus the debt effectively gets deferred or passed onto someone
else. The problem of debt does not really go away. The
impossible pursuit of perpetual growth merely delays facing it.</li>
<li>Offering commercial bank loans are <i>one</i> way to allow people to
buy things they need, when they need them. Where certain goods are
urgently required, gifts, swaps, or very low interest/interest free
loans are all other possibilities, in contrast to the standard profit
maximizing approach to extending credit. It's worth remembering too,
that when someone (or even a whole country), is desperate they are most
vulnerable to accepting extortionate loan terms. Thus, what may appear
to be 'relief aid' in the short term, can soon turn out to be economic
enslavement.</li>
<li>Innovation and new technology may lead to economic growth and in
some cases improved quality of life, but that doesn't make economic
growth a dependency for such improvements. In fact if an innovation
happens to lead to significant quality of life benefits, then that fact
may lead to increased demand and thus economic growth - rather than the
other way around. Economic growth is not responsible for the benefit,
but economic factors may be responsible for <i>denying</i> access to
innovation, where insufficient profit potential is seen. Furthermore
cheaper and better products provide only a small part of the quality of
life picture, and are a facet with diminishing returns once basic needs
are taken care of. More subtly, in this point there is the assumption
that individual needs are sovereign to collective needs, and that <i>ownership</i> should be preferable to ready <i>access</i>.
Given that we are fundamentally social animals very capable of sharing,
who live in a world of dwindling finite resources, that assumption
seems highly flawed.</li>
<li>We've already mentioned how innovation is not dependent on economic
growth (and will explore that major point further on). Part of this
point is the tying of economic growth together with improved quality of
life and the betterment of humankind. We explore this idea and how it
falls down shortly, but investment of time, energy and expertise in the
arts and sciences merely depends to a large extent on the flow on money <i>in the current system</i>. But money is only acting as <i>gatekeeper</i> for these real resources, it is not an intrinsic dependency.</li>
<li>The question is not whether technology could lead to this utopian
scenario (some say we've already had the required technology for
decades), but whether the existing global socioeconomic system could
ever lead us there. Given the entrapping nature of debt and how debt is a
fundamental part of the existing system, surely one form of labour will
be replaced with another? From manual labour, to an unlimited array of
'services'. For as long as one person's time and energy is valuable to
another, then debt can be used to harvest it. Since the financial cost
of any material good can be defined through controlling the supply of
money (as the banking system is designed to) - and making sure access to
that good requires money - then debt can be maintained indefinitely,
regardless of the level of technology.</li>
</ol>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><br /><span style="font-size: x-large;">Quality of Life And Economic Growth - The Gaping Chasm</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The first list in </span></span>'Why
Is It Thought To Be A 'Good Thing'?' above, shows some of the
connections people make with economic growth and quality of life.
Indeed, for a long time GDP (or the similar GNP) was treated as an
almost direct indicator of the typical quality of life in a society,
although now <a href="http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/english/beyond/global/glossary.html#30">even the World Bank is acknowledging the disparity</a>.<br />
<br />
Late
American Senator, Robert F. Kennedy, eloquently described the measuring
of the economy's size (GNP), in 1968 while running for president (just a
few months before his assassination):<br />
<i><br />
</i><i>"Our Gross National Product, now, is over $800 billion dollars a
year, but that Gross National Product - if we judge the United States of
America by that - that Gross National Product counts air pollution and
cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage.
It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for the people who
break them. It counts the destruction of the redwood and the loss of
our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and counts
nuclear warheads and armored cars for the police to fight the riots in
our cities. It counts Whitman's rifle and Speck's knife, and the
television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our
children. Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health
of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their
play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of
our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of
our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage,
neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our
devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that
which makes life worthwhile."</i><br />
<br />
Just to hammer the
point home, let's consider some more awkward facts for the idea that
economic growth is a good indicator of quality of life. Imagine an
otherwise normally functioning society has an outbreak of some virus,
that has various unpleasant effects (e.g. itchy skin, a cough, achy
muscles or joints, maybe some minor sexual dysfunction too) but which
doesn't significantly affect productivity for the vast majority of
workers. Now this society has practically the same GDP, but a definite
drop in quality of life. Actually, the demand for a cure leads to new
economic growth, as pharmaceutical companies develop and sell
treatments. But of course, treating the symptoms is often more
profitable than actually making a cure. So then with the sale of ongoing
treatment, the economy maintains an increased size, while quality of
life remains at a decreased level - the exact opposite relation!<br />
<br />
Taking
a more serious health issue, cancer, supposing you're the CEO of
a pharmaceutical company and by some miracle that company has just
discovered two revolutionary treatments for cancer. Each come in pill
form, have similar health risks while on the medication, and the cost
per pill to manufacture is in the same ball park. But the first is a
cure requiring a short course, while the second is an ongoing course of
treatment to keep the cancer suppressed and allow an otherwise normal
life. Remember, under corporate law you are bound to act for the maximum
profit of the shareholders. What treatment are you going to market? Of
course, the ongoing treatment will produce more profits for the company
and shareholders and thus more economic growth, even though that
treatment will cost patients vastly more than the cure and leave them
dependent on medication, with its ongoing side-effects. Here we can see
that the current money system has no moral compass. (Indeed since
exploitation, control and the creation of scarcity often nets big
profits, it could be said to be inherently immoral.)<br />
<br />
And
we haven't even considered war yet, perhaps the largest money spinner
of all. Increased demand for arms to be produced and sold, a willingness
to take on debt to buy those arms and other supplies (remember debt is
profit for the loaners), and then massive business to be done rebuilding
infrastructure and housing from the wreckage; war is <i>very</i> big
business. With that business comes massive economic growth - for those
doing the selling - while those ultimately paying the public debt with
their labour and taxes, experience a marked drop in quality of life. Not
forgetting those receiving the bombs, who pay the ultimate price. And
so, <b>the</b> <b>concept of economic growth is in fact largely decoupled from quality of life, and sometimes in direct opposition.</b><br />
<br />
How
much your quality of life is likely to improve as a result of economic
growth depends first on how much (or little) or that new wealth has
reached you, and second on how effectively more financial wealth will
help to meet your needs anyway. If you're lacking the basic material
resources such as secure shelter and food which in our system money can
get you access to, then you're likely to be nearer the bottom of the
wealth pile, which gets the least financial benefit from economic growth
anyway. So this potentially large benefit is severely dampened by the
highly skewed nature of the wealth distribution. If you're near the top
of the wealth pile, which financially benefits most from economic
growth, then added <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/100/19/11176.full.pdf">wealth nets diminishing returns for your quality of life and happiness</a>.
The relationship between happiness and money soon becomes logarithmic,
i.e. to double your happiness you need to get ten times as much money as
you had before, and even then there's really no guarantee.<br />
<br />
The
only connection between growth and quality of life that looks like it
may be vaguely sensible after a cursory inspection is the increase in
production efficiency - and thus the lowering of costs for produce -
that is one path to economic growth. When essential goods are cheaper to
produce there is the potential for them to become more easily
attainable (not considering for the moment the creation of artificial scarcity), and
thus the quality of life of those who were lacking those goods before,
increases to the extent that those goods allow. We'll look more deeply
at that idea further on.<br />
<br />
Here's an <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/01/business/worldbusiness/01iht-gdp.4.15791492.html">article from the New York Times</a>
that explores the sprawling list of limitations of the GDP/GNP as a
quality of life indicator. It's worth noting that some of the
alternatives being investigated do look at activities and factors more
closely related to human contentment and happiness, but then attempt to
put a dollar value on them, to be added up with the GNP. The grim (and
flawed) implication of that approach is that anything that makes life
worth living can be given a price tag and in those terms be interchanged
with any other financial activity.<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">The 'freedom' and 'efficiency' of markets</span><br />
<br />
The
same thinking that firmly associates economic growth with improvements
in quality of life, often celebrates the idea of 'free markets' as the
most fair and efficient means for allocating resources.<br />
<br />
First
let's explore the idea of a 'free market'. What would define a free
market? Presumably one without constraints over what could be sold or
how it could be sold, where people are free to trade what they like,
when they like, how they like. But if that were the case, there would be
no place for a legal framework to ensure the safety of a market or of
the people in it, or sales taxes, since this would impose constraints on
trade. For example, all drugs would be freely traded, people would be
traded, including the labour of children (as used to be the case about
100 years ago in England, and is still the case in many parts of the
world), as would all manner of weapons, and foods and medicines with
unregulated content. There would be no consumer protection, neither
would the law step in to stop physical force acting as a medium of
exchange or price negotiation, since that would interfere with
individual choices for how to maximize profit. In fact the law itself
would be - at least more openly than it currently is - written by the
richest. There certainly wouldn't be any regulation limiting the influx
of immigrant labour from poorer countries, which would allow the market
to minimize labour costs in its pursuit to maximize profits. Similarly
democracy would be for sale, through the selling of votes and government
jobs, again, more openly than it currently is. (What are votes for
anyway, if not for people to decide how to allocate various resources to
meeting their needs? If that's the case and the market allocates
resources efficiently for the greater good, then shouldn't the people
with the most money have the most say? If so, then there's really no
need for a vote in the first place, as the free market will decide all.)<br />
<br />
The fact is, for a market to function in anything like
a safe, sustainable and orderly fashion, and without totally consuming
the rest of society, there must be limits on exchange and how profit may
be gained. Thus there is really <b>no such thing as a 'free market'</b>,
only different sets of rules and regulations that suit some people more
than others (which is to be expected where not everyone has a equal say
in what the rules and regulations are). When someone talks about the
virtue of free markets, what they're really talking about, I think, is a
set of market rules and regulations with minimal impedance to, and
support for, <i>their</i> kind of business.<br />
<br />
As a market
becomes less and less constrained, the more the underlying divide
between making money and serving human needs in a mutual fashion is
revealed. Sometimes the two ends can happily occur together, but they
are still fundamentally <i>different</i> ends.<br />
<br />
Is an
ever evolving set of regulations to tame the market a credible approach
to improving the benefit for more people in society? Regulations can
certainly help make things safer, more sustainable and fairer, but they
are anathema to the drive to accumulate personal wealth, ingrained in
our culture and the money system. Thus for as long as the system remains
there will be a continual battle against regulation from the market
(wherever regulation threatens profit potential) and attempts at
subverting it. The resources spent on this battle from both sides might
be more fruitfully spent if we had a different system altogether, one
less fixated on the accumulation of money.<br />
<br />
Now, are
markets efficient at allocating resources? That depends on how you
measure efficiency. If you take efficient as the distribution of
resources to maximize financial profit within an economy, under the
constraints of short-term, (personal) risk averse outlook, then I'd
agree, markets can be efficient. But if you take efficient as the
allocation of resources to maximize human benefit in a sustainable way
then markets are certainly not efficient, and there is tremendous
wastage, pollution and exploitation. The reason for this is that markets
which operate as part of the money system, with each party trying to
increase their growth (profits), are subject to the same essential
disconnect between economic growth and human benefit as previously
discussed.<br />
<br />
Lastly, are our somewhat 'liberalized'
markets of work and trade 'fair'? From the above it appears the answer
is 'no', but again, it depends on what you take to mean 'fair'. Some
would say the fact that everyone has a chance to enter the market and
make as much money as they can, makes it fair. If you take that view,
however, it's important to realize a couple of things: One, not everyone
starts with the <i>same</i> chance, which depends to a large degree on
where you are born, the wealth of your parents, the quality of your
education,your gender and the colour of your skin (for some startling
figures see <a href="http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/28344/1/CASEreport60.pdf">An Anatomy of Economic Inequality in the UK, LSE</a> p131, <a href="http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v64n4/v64n4p1.html">US figures here for race</a>).
Two, in the present system there will always be far more losers than
winners in terms of wealth distribution, regardless of how hard people
try to succeed.<br />
<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-large;">Paths to Economic Growth</span><br />
<br />
In order to better understand the nature of economic growth let's look at some ways it can happen:<br />
<ul>
<li><b>Cheaper production:</b> The Acme Widget company discovers a way
of making widgets with half the production costs. The company is now
making more profit from each widget sold. The company may also be able
to stimulate demand by reducing the price of widgets slightly, and still
make a higher profit per sale than before but on a higher volume of
sales too. If that happens then economic growth occurs, because the
total value of products produced is increasing. However, if demand for
widgets stays the same, then the Ache Widget company still make more
profit due to their cheaper production process. That means the share
holders (and maybe some of the employees) have more money to spend.
Where this results in increased demand for other products, economic
growth will again occur. Economic growth that results from increased
production efficiency is often referred to as 'intensive economic
growth'.</li>
<li><b>Acquiring exploitable material resources:</b> The Acme Widget
company opens a new mine or drills a new well. This allows it to provide
the raw materials to expand production capacity, or to sell those
materials on to other companies for profit. With expanded production
capacity the company has the potential to make more sales thus
contributing to economic growth. The more useful processing is done to
the raw materials (e.g. the chemical process of refining crude oil into
petrol, or turning wheat into bread), the more value can be added, and
thus more can charged for the end result. Economic growth that results
from exploiting more material
resources (including labour) is often referred to as 'extensive economic
growth'. Any kind of business (and in general society) that consumes
any kind of material resource, from agricultural produce to electricity,
must manage its usage according to how quickly, and if, it is possible
to renew that resource,. In the case of <i>non-renewable resources</i>
such as rainforest, oil (and everything that is made from
petrochemicals, such as plastic, polyester, many fertilizers and
pesticides), coal, silicon, water and air, the <i>total supply</i> puts a limit on how much stuff can be produced from it. In the case of <i>renewable resources</i>, such as fish stock, rainfall, sunlight, wind, and top-soil, the <i>rate</i>
at which that resource is replenished puts a limit on the rate of
production. Renewable resources form complex interconnected systems,
which ultimately depend on energy from the sun, but which can also be
very fragile. If the limit of renewal is exceeded (where that's
possible, such as in fishing) then the <i>capacity</i> of the resource to be
renewed and utilized can be reduced, either for many years or
permanently. <br /><br />Because the total supply or renewal capacity of
many
resources seem like
big numbers and economic behavior is often short-sighted, the limits of
resource usage are often ignored until dire consequences are inevitable.
Many past civilizations (such as the Mayan, Mesopotamian, and
Polynesian civilizations) are a testament to this. Of course now that
civilization is global, and the present socioeconomic system is using at
least <a href="http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/newsletter/det/human_demand_outstripping_natures_regenerative_capacity_at_an_alarming_rate">1.5 times the sustainable resource usage of the earth</a>, continuing our
behavior is going to have ever greater and sadder consequences.</li>
<li><b>Stimulating demand:</b> Marketing campaigns are to consumer society
(and the interdependent money system), what coffee, invigorating scalp
massage and other stimulants are to an overworked member of that
society; neither would be able to carry on without the
stimulants. Through the use of mass media and online marketing
campaigns, people become more willing to buy certain products, in the
hope that those products will in some way enhance their life. Naturally
the products can't be too successful at doing that, otherwise the cycle
would wind down and demand would dwindle with everyone being content
with what they already had.</li>
<li><b>New markets:</b> New technology is a major way for new markets to
be created. Sometimes though new markets can be created without new
technology, by clever marketing. For instance, the female smoker market
expanded massively at the hands of the masterful marketeer Edward
Bernays, nephew of Sigmund Freud in the 1930's. Female smoking as a
strictly taboo habit was seen as a daring act of defiance and subversion
of patriarchal society at least as far back as 1851. But it was Bernays
calculated invention of the marketing slogan "Torches of Freedom" that
helped to take female smoking from a tiny and stagnant market to very
big business. Through a publicity stunt in 1929 launching this slogan,
which used actors to associate smoking to the female emancipation
movement and frame women smoking as socially progressive, he gained
global attention overnight and the market ballooned. (<a href="http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/9/1/3.full.pdf">From social taboo to 'Torch of Freedom'</a>)
Might it have
happened anyway at some point? No doubt, but Bernays certainly seemed to
have precipitated this market, and profited handsomely in the process.
In fact Bernays is credited with fathering the modern approach to
marketing, inspired by Freud's ideas on human drives, where owning a
product is systematically associated with satisfying one or more of
those drives, such as sex, recognition, status, health and popularity.
This powerful approach, while wearyingly familiar now, was very new at
the time.</li>
<li><b>People working harder, better or longer:</b> If a set of
employees have the option of working harder, more efficiently, or longer
and getting paid extra for the increased productivity, they may take
that option (whether it's a preference to earn more money, or simply to
keep their job). Providing there is sufficient demand for the expanded
production, the result is economic growth, since the total value of
products produced and sold has increased. Since the physical capacity of
a person has clear limits, this puts a limit on how much growth can be
gained this way. A more open ended route is to focus on increasing
knowledge and skill sets of people, in amenable industries, so that work
can become more efficient and effective. This is limited by the ability
for people to gain sufficient education or training, the amount of such
work available, and the motivation for doing it (more skilled people
tend to have more choice in how they work).</li>
<li><b>Population growth:</b> When the number of people in a population
increases then both the productive capacity and demand for products also
increases, thus economic growth occurs. Since this in and of itself
clearly doesn't lead to increased material wealth per capita, economic
growth is often expressed as GDP growth <i>per capita,</i> when talking about standards of living.</li>
<li><b>Inflation:</b> We've already said that when measuring economic growth, inflation
is typically adjusted for, so that if the price of common goods has
risen by X percent, then that X percent is taken off any measure of
GDP growth. However, even when GDP grows chiefly as as result of
inflation, there are still certain parts of society that effectively
experience real economic growth, aided by that inflation. <br /><br />Since
wealth is not distributed evenly, the part 'A' of a society which is
accumulating money <i>faster</i> than the rate of inflation devalues that
money is still winning in terms of financial wealth. While the part
'B' of that society which is accumulating money (through pay rises,
bonuses, or other business) <i>slower</i> than the rate of inflation
devalues that money, is losing. B finds it progressively more
challenging to cover expenses and make new investments, the relative
costs of which are rising. This gives 'A' a competitive advantage over
'B' in terms of buying power and financial security, opening up more
commercial opportunities and avenues to further profit. In this way
economic growth for 'A' is facilitated by the effects of inflation.
</li>
</ul>
<br />
With all of the above routes to economic growth, there must be increased <i>demand</i> somewhere in the process for the growth to be actualized.<br />
<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">Demand + Increased Money Supply = More Economic Growth</span><br />
<br />
With
increased demand for products and services there is also increased
demand for money to buy those products and services with and also to
invest with and compete in the market. This leads to the banks creating
more money through loans (<a href="http://joe-hudson.blogspot.com/2011/06/growth-without-growth-journey-down_22.html">see part 2</a>
for exactly how that works). This in turn creates more opportunity,
incentive and indeed pressure for further economic growth, in order to
repay the debt interest.<br />
<br />
With more money in
circulation, more people can buy, sell and manufacture. Incidentally, it
can also work the other way - where if people have more access to
credit facilities, then demand for products and services increases. This
happens as a result of several factors. One being social conditioning -
the idea that material wealth is seen as a route to happiness, being
continually promoted and reinforced. Another being competition and not
wanting to be seen as inferior ("keeping up with the Jones's"). This is
also to some extent a form of social or cultural conditioning, where
through continual exposure to marketing (and the consequential pier
pressure), we become more materially competitive than we would otherwise
be.<br />
<br />
Thus economic growth can be debt propelled. A credit
fueled increase in spending power leads to increased demand, which leads to
increased production and sales. The obvious problem with this path to
growth is how to cover the mounting debt. If the money borrowed is spent on wise
productivity boosting investments, you might have a chance of increasing
your profits enough to cover the capital plus interest. But often
that's not the case. One approach to addressing this problem, popular
with governments, corporations and individuals alike, is simply to worry
about it later, and later still, then to try and raise the debt
ceiling, and then to try and get someone else to bail you out - on terms
either favorable or very unfavorable to yourself, depending on your
political clout.<br />
<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">Economic Growth and Employment</span><br />
<br />
Some
routes to economic growth can be double edged swords. Take, for
instance, technological innovation. New technology may reduce production
and other costs, but it may also make a workforce redundant. The
overall effect on the whole economy may initially be slight, where what
the laid-off employees would have been paid then just goes to a smaller
group of better paid employees who can spent it as they like. However,
the effect on the local economy of the area those jobless employees live
in could be drastic. Also, if those employees claim state benefits,
then the wider economy may have reduced growth where government spending
in other productive areas is reduced as a result.<br />
<br />
Actually,
there are wider, longer term economic implications for laying off
workforces, in terms of human capital. Where work would have provided
training and development opportunities, which increases the likelihood
of those employees doing more valuable work in future, getting paid more
and spending more, if they lose their jobs the economy's chances of <i>future</i>
growth will decrease. Ultimately all financial wealth is built using
human capital, via technology or not, so just from an economics
perspective it's worth protecting that capital.<br />
<br />
In a
world with rapidly advancing technology and mechanization, work forces
are inevitably becoming more services and knowledge based, in economies
with access to the technological forefront. Whether employment in
aggregate increases or decreases depends on the rate at which jobs in
the the service and knowledge sectors are created, and the ability of
the existing workforce to fill them. In many G7 countries in recent
years there have been 'economic recoveries' (a return to growth), while
unemployment has continued to rise [<a href="http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/fulltext/9096181e.pdf?expires=1322360227&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=51E78A831D4C88CC64078D2CE898C08D">Pianta,
Mario, Rinaldo Evangelista and Giulio Perani (1996). “The Dynamics
ofInnovation and Employment: An International Comparison.”
ScienceTechnology Industry Review 18: 67-93</a>].<br />
<br />
<b><i>How many travel agents, sales assistants and restaurant staff does society need? </i></b><br />
<br />
The
service industry is obviously an important and growing sector of just
about any large economy and society today. The question is really, how
much further can this sector grow? The scale of the service industry
still ultimately depends of the scale of production of the various
products which underpin the services being offered. Travel agents
require airplanes and IT systems to be built and sold, sales assistants
need whatever it is they're selling to be made, restaurant staff require
all the items in a restaurant, including the food, to be produced.<br />
<br />
As
already mentioned, as technology develops, alongside growth in the
service industries, is a shift to a more knowledge driven economy, where
is it the development of the know-how for making, transporting and
selling products more effectively and efficiently that drives growth. In
other words, technology feeds its own development. Nonetheless, for
this source of growth, there is still dependence on the capacity of the
means of production (and ultimately material resources) growing - even
when it's no longer people that are doing the making.<br />
<br />
There
may come a point in the not too distant future, where efficiency gains
in the technology of production, distribution and sales lead to <i>long term</i>
mass redundancy. Even if the increasingly automated means of production
could expand to materially accommodate full employment through a larger
services sector, where would the
money come from to buy all the products and services which then pay for the wages of all the
people working in that expanded sector? Businesses like restaurants,
retail, travel agencies, cleaners, etc, depend on having a considerably
larger number of customers than employees. That is, as a whole the
people working in them are not sufficient to sustain the businesses that
employ them. Thus there is a point beyond which having more people
employed in the services industries is not sustainable, even if
production <i>capacity</i> can accommodate it. There must be capital and demand for increased production and services.<br />
<br />
One
way of trying to cope with this bleak outcome, in the face of ever
advancing technology, is for wages to fall closer to bare subsistence
level. But this only draws out the end game, it doesn't change it. Of
course, tourism and export allow for more service industry expansion in a
particular economy, but then zooming out to the global picture it is
clear the conundrum remains. How can mass redundancy from advancing
technology - which is a (or the) major driver of economic growth - be
avoided, without creating ever greater numbers of people existing on
bare subsistence income?<br />
<br />
Obviously, debt has been a
popular quick fix,
for governments as much as individuals. By living beyond your means, you
can forget about the economic facts for a while, but the facts remain.
Another idea is the introduction of new types of services which utilize
human labor but require less additional material resources. Taking a
cynical view, judging by the growth of the pornography industry (one <a href="http://www.familysafemedia.com/pornography_statistics.html">2006 estimate</a>
puts its global revenue at around $100 billion), there is plenty of
potential for expansion in the sex business. Then there is counseling
(for instance, currently around <a href="http://www.clinical-depression.co.uk/dlp/depression-information/major-depression-facts/">1 in 5 people indicate symptoms of major depression</a>
and at the rate of increase, it will be the 2nd most disabling
condition in the world by 2020, behind heart disease), or teaching
(there is a <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/datablog/2011/oct/07/un-estimate-teachers-shortage-worldwide">global shortage</a>, although of course teaching often requires teaching materials and tools).<br />
<br />
Technology may form part of the answer. Efficiency gains lead to lower costs of production, which <i>can</i>
translate into lower purchase costs for products, meaning people need
less money - and so potentially less employment - to get by. However,
unless this potential source of price cuts is able to counteract
inflation across the range of products required, those with incomes
rising less than the rate of inflation (at least half of the UK*) will
still find it increasingly hard to get by. The sustained price hike of
staple foods in recent years due to rising oil prices highlights how
inflation can be the least of concerns for those on a low income.<br />
<br />
* <a href="http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/MIS-2010-report_0.pdf">"A minimum income standard for the UK in 2010" Joseph Rowntree Foundation</a> p13 shows MISPI, RPI and CPI for the years 2000-10. <a href="http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ashe/patterns-of-pay/1997---2010-ashe-results/patterns-of-pay-article-2010.pdf">Patterns of pay: results of the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings 1997 to 2010</a>
ONS, p16 shows median weekly incomes for the same period. The median
rose from £360 to £500, 39%, for full time workers, while the percentage
of people working part time and earning less rose slightly, and those
without employment rose from 5% to 8%. The Minimum Income Standards
Price Index (MISPI) rose by 39% over the same 10 year period. This
indicates that for a majority of the workforce, income went up less than
the price of a broad basket of products considered to be the minimum
required for a healthy level of subsistence, went up. That is, the
majority of people got poorer, relative to this measure of inflation. In
the US, according to <a href="http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/people/2010/P05AR_2010.xls">this Census data</a> the situation has been slightly worse for the majority of the workforce over this recent decade.<br />
<br />
The
above considerations lead to the question: Is it economically
advantageous for the present pushers of economic growth (the owners of
industry and the financial system), or for that matter society as it is
presently organized, to allow mass redundancy or growing poverty, if it
means embracing more efficient technology? I think, even if it means a
growing number of people surviving on state benefits (for those
countries that have them), the answer is yes. For those who profit,
innovations in efficiency lead to bigger profits, and so long as there's
a market that's the way of the system.<br />
<br />
In the UK, if
one third, say, of the entire workforce were handed out £7000 a year to
survive on, that would total £73 billion a year, that's a little under
two thirds of the current NHS budget. The UK's GDP is currently around
£2.2 trillion, and the government bonds (national debt) <i>interest</i>
payments is due to hit £73 billion a year also, in 2014/15. The mean
income is £26,000pa in the UK which has a workforce of approximately 30
million people, which equates to around £780 billion in annual wages. So
mass redundancy would be costly to the tax payer, but compared to the
utter havoc of
having 10 million people rioting because they have no money, quite
possibly worth it. Let's no forget though that the companies that were
employing that third of the workforce would no longer be paying out
those wages. If we assume an average of the median income, ~ £21,000pa,
for those made redundant, that gives an annual saving of £209 billion
for those companies (minus the cost of any technological replacement for
the labor)!<br />
<br />
To explore this idea of accepting mass redundancy further, here's a thought experiment:<br />
<br />
<b>Redundancy Land</b><br />
<br />
Suppose in a population with
a workforce of 1000 people we have full employment. £10 million is paid
annually in wages to the workforce, and the economy is self contained,
i.e. imports and exports do not figure significantly.<br />
<br />
Then
innovation happens, which means x% of the population can no longer
offer competitive labor, and so they get fired. (In reality a certain
percentage of these people might be able to find other, generally lower
paying, jobs. But in this simple experiment we start with full
employment and there are no other jobs available, so they're out of
luck.) These people get handed £5000 to live on for the year, enough to
survive.<br />
<br />
Now what happens to the economy? If the productive capacity is unchanged, then demand will change according to the <i>reduction</i> of spending power of the x%, and the <i>increase</i>
in spending power of the businesses from the cost savings they made
from downsizing x%. There will also be a reduction of spending power
(and thus demand) due to the taxes required to cover the £5000 handout
to the x%. For the sake of this experiment suppose x% were earning the
median income, £7500, which is 75% of the mean (£10000). The businesses
save 1000*x*£7500 minus the costs of the new technology. Let's say it
has an amortized cost of half the replaced labor cost (so those jobs are
gone forever), so the total increase in spending power is
1000*x*0.5*£7500 for the businesses who downsized. The loss in spending
power of the x% is 1000*x*£2500, since their income have gone from £7500
to £5000. The loss of spending power (spread over the rest of the
population) due to the taxes to cover the £5000 handout is
1000*x*£5000.<br />
<br />
This would appear to give a net loss of
spending power, but then since the economy is self-contained, the cost
of the technology (1000*x*0.5*£7500) is another business's increased
revenue. This leads to a net change in spending power in the economy of
zero. There is the same amount of money available to be spent (and the
same productive capacity) only now it is in few people's hands. The
buyers and sellers of the new technological innovation are the economic
winners, everyone else is the loser.<br />
<br />
Does it matter
whether x is 10% or 90%? Essentially no, providing the technology for
manufacture, distribution, sales, or other services, can take the place
of the labour to that degree. The level of redundancy merely changes how
much wealth moves from the lower ends of society towards the top - even
with subsistence level social welfare in place.<br />
<br />
As the
distribution of wealth becomes more skewed the types and relative
volumes of various products would change accordingly. Now if the
replacement for labour can be driven harder, or further refined to
improve performance, economic growth can still occur, even with growing
redundancy. There would come a point though, where so much buying power
was concentrated in so few hands that demand for ever more luxury
products to sustain the lopsided economy would wane, perhaps. The
example of 'Redundancy Land' considers only economic impact, without
social or cultural effects. Neither does it factor in the risks of
having an increasingly small pool of people who are in a position to
contribute economically, or towards further technological advancement.
It does however indicate that if relatively short term - i.e. a
generation or two - or narrow focused, financial gains are of prime
concern, mass unemployment is not necessarily a barrier to economic
growth.<br />
<br />
<br />
The conclusion of this section is
really not that technology is the bringer of unemployment and the
resulting poverty, but that the predominant socioeconomic system, which
harnesses technology as it does, inevitably leads to a growing number of
'have nots', as efficiency gains are monetized. <i>Under this system</i> technology effectively expedites transfer of wealth. On the bright side, the advancement of technology does indicate that <i>potentially</i>,
a lot more human time and energy could be freed up to be spent on
activities that more directly and effectively enrich our life
experience.<br />
<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-large;">Innovation And Economic Growth</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-large;">
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;"> </span><br />What Is Innovation?</span><br />
To know what leads to innovation, first we need to be
clear about what we mean by 'innovation'. Some economists or business
people may define it as 'the deliberate process of turning invention
into money'. Since this kind of innovation is invariably supported by
funding, which is typically more available in times of growth, the easy
conclusion is that innovation depends on (as well as supporting)
economic growth.<br />
<br />
But wait, is that narrow, internal
definition of innovation really what we mean when we consider the
development of the following:<br />
<table cellpadding="10" style="font-size: 0.9em; width: 80%;"><tbody>
<tr valign="top"><td><br />
the wheel,<br />
man-made fire,<br />
hunting tools,<br />
language,<br />
agriculture,<br />
sewage systems,<br />
mathematics,<br />
sound methods of construction <br />
and strong building materials,<br />
the theory of gravity,<br />
electric power,</td> <td><br />
the steam and combustion engines,<br />
the light bulb,<br />
penicillin and other medicines,<br />
the declaration of human rights,<br />
computers,<br />
the transistor,<br />
social welfare and healthcare systems,<br />
mobile communication devices,<br />
the internet,<br />
open source software</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
A cursory look over some of the above
listed human innovations shows that there's a lot of real value there
that isn't accounted for by the idea of 'turning invention into money'.
Remember that money is only a limited abstraction of value; everything
that is valuable cannot be accounted for by the price in money that
someone is willing to pay. Perhaps the following will better suffice as a
working definition:<br />
<br />
<i>Innovation: The creation of new technology, processes or systems that lead to tangible material or social value for people.</i><br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">Where Does Innovation Come From?</span><br />
<br />
Looking
at innovation as 'the creation of new technology, processes or systems
that lead to tangible material or social value for people' we can see
that it is driven by some <i>desire</i> and can come from many avenues. These include the desire to:<br />
<ul>
<li>Understand the world, create, and experience the joy of discovery.</li>
<li>Better meet a basic need, such as health, nutrition or shelter.</li>
<li>Contribute to others.</li>
<li>Be significant, impress, compete, or win favour.</li>
<li>Communicate more effectively.</li>
<li>Be more free.</li>
<li>Make use of freedom.</li>
</ul>
The kind of environments and organizational structures that facilitate innovation are thus those that <i>help</i> people pursue the above natural desires, rather than act as <i>barriers</i> to them.<br />
<br />
So
what structures and environments help? In his book "Where Good Ideas
Come From", popular author Steven Johnson describes how major
innovations throughout history tend to come from 'the collision of
smaller hunches' from various people. So then environments (or networks)
where ideas can easily mingle and be swapped to evolve and create new
forms, are the kind of environments that are fertile for innovation. The
presence of supportive and open-minded peers makes inspiration flow
more readily. It is collaboration that accelerates the process of
innovation.<br />
<br />
There is a cultural fashion of attaching
great inventions to lone geniuses, which in part reflects a belief that
success in life comes from individual achievement and distinguishing
yourself from everyone else. There is an underlying emphasis on
competition and individuality. But invariably such accomplished
historical figures - <i>even if they seem heretical or highly outspoken by the mainstream of the time</i>
- derive inspiration from their peers and mentors, and are enabled by
the support of assistants. Furthermore innovations tend to be built on
top of the the innovations of the past, i.e. knowledge and inspiration
passed between generations as well as across the current one.<br />
<br />
Take Archimedes,
for instance. Although not a huge amount is known about him, given his
contributions to science, mathematics and technology, it seems clear
that he <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes#Biography">conversed with peers and contemporaries</a>
while his work developed. Famous amongst other things for his
revolutionary machines and mechanisms, Archimedes built an astoundingly
intricate mechanical, computational device for modelling the path of
heavenly bodies, similar to but pre-dating the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism">Antikythera mechanism</a>.
However, according to historical accounts, while his design did make
major innovations, it was itself a development on older devices which
had been produced by several of the great minds of the preceding
generations and centuries. The famous Archimedes screw may also have
been a development on <a href="http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/technology_and_culture/toc/tech44.1.html">designs from the Hanging Gardens of Babylon</a>.<br />
<br />
Thomas
Edison is another example, a man with 1093 US patents to his name, and
credited with the invention of the phonograph, the video camera and with
developing to a point of mass production the incandescent bulb, amongst
many other things. Edison, a man with incredible drive, ingenuity and
vision, nonetheless had mentors, peers, collaborators and many
assistants over the course of his life. Reading <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Edison">his history</a>, these relationships and influences seem inseparable from the course of his life and his inventions.<br />
<br />
It
is common knowledge that many innovations originate from universities.
This is largely because they are places intended to help people learn
from each other and develop ideas together. Typically much more than in
the business world, collaboration is facilitated. (Although there is
often a lot of competition here too.) In fact Steven Johnson
demonstrates in his book that the vast majority of major innovations
since the 17th century have come from outside the 'free market' – from
universities and other environments where profit wasn't the overwhelming
motivation.<br />
<br />
Naturally innovation <i>can</i> be spurred on by
rivalry or competition. However, if such competition substantially
blocks the sharing of ideas and knowledge, or leads to prolonged
psychological stress, then innovation is far less likely to happen. A broader context of collaborative is the key.<br />
<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">Can Innovation Be Pressured Or Bought Into Existence?</span><br />
<br />
The
question here is can extrinsic rewards, coercion or punishments -
essentially 'carrots and sticks' - be used to bring about innovation?
Let's first consider pressure to 'be productive'. Can knowing that if
you don't do certain tasks or solve certain problems that there will be
some adverse consequences, help you achieve those objectives? It's
certainly possible, but it depends very much on the kind of pressure,
and the duration. If there is a clear objective and the pressure is
congruent with a person's own needs and values, then pressure can be
effective, for a certain time (with increased risk of burn-out for
longer periods).<br />
<br />
One well known example of pressure to
innovate seeming to work is the space race - the race of the 1960's to
be the first to put a man on the moon. The stakes (national security and
pride) were high and lots of innovation took place. Another example
would be the development of the <a href="http://opensourceecology.org/">Open Source Ecology</a>
machines, by Marcin Jakubowski and collaborators. Here the pressures
included a need to gain independence, have essential farming and
construction machines that didn't break down so often - and were
user serviceable when they did, and to do something to address the
growing global issue of sustainable living. As a result of that
pressure, rapid innovation and progress is taking place, with is leading
to more people contributing to the project. Some examples from India
are showcased by an ongoing exhibition by the National Innovation
Foundation. In it <a href="http://www.rediff.com/business/slide-show/slide-show-1-amazing-innovations-from-rural-india/20110316.htm">24 examples of rural innovation are shown</a>,
from a mechanical loom 25-50 times faster than previous designs, many
improved farming machines, floating soap (useful if you're washing in a
river), safer electric power supplies, non-toxic dyes and many more. In
each case, there was a pressing problem that needed to be solved.<br />
<br />
In
all the above examples (and countless more), while money may have
played an incidental role in motivation, the prime source of pressure to
solve the problem at hand was the problem itself, or the project it was
a part of. As a result, those doing the innovating could engage
themselves more fully and directly in the work.<br />
<br />
On the
other hand, if the pressure to create something is not very well
connected to a person's own needs and values (e.g. 'we need to appease
the shareholders!'), or is, but in a way that involves being controlled
by someone else and evokes fear or anxiety (e.g. 'solve this problem or
lose your job!'), then innovation tends to be inhibited. This latter
kind of pressure, though, can be effective at getting more productivity
where the tasks are more mechanical and require less free thinking or
creativity.<br />
<br />
Motivation expert <a href="http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html">Deniel Pink talks cogently on what makes innovation more likely</a>.
The conclusion is: Don't try to make money the incentive - because it
interferes with creative, lateral problem solving. Do facilitate
autonomy, mastery and purpose through the work itself. In this way <i>the innovation is its own reward</i>. Actually, the ineffectiveness of financial reward to lead to innovation is clearly indicated by <a href="http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/wp/wp2005/wp0511.pdf">research sponsored by the Federal Reserve</a>, <i>and</i> the <a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/j7u29n800wp13748/">London School of Economics</a>.<br />
<br />
Even though the <a href="http://gaounion.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/196801-02-hbr-herzberg-article-on-motivation.pdf">research findings on intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivators</a>
has been stacking up for well over half a century now, it is still by
far the norm for businesses and governments to use contingent financial
rewards to try and encourage more and better work. But bonuses and pay
for performance schemes, while potentially effective for <i>simple</i> tasks, inhibit innovation and can actually <a href="http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/wp/wp2005/wp0511.pdf">lead to bigger mistakes in work</a>.<br />
<br />
Using
an extrinsic motivator such as money has other downsides. Besides it
being expensive for the employers, the fact that reward itself is not <i>intrinsically</i>
connected to the work or the result desired by the employer leads to
undesired effects. The more money is the prime motivator the more
tendency there is for the employee just to look for the quickest or
easiest way of getting the work accepted - so they can receive payment.
In many cases that could involve cutting corners, rushing work or
overworking if the pay is high, or finding the minimum effort acceptable
if the pay is low, or otherwise trying to <i>cheat the system</i>. The
result is much time and resources being spend on monitoring workers and
further restricting freedoms (which further reduces the likelihood of
any innovation occurring). It's a very inefficient situation.<br />
<br />
So
here's the big question: Given the well established evidence regarding
motivation and innovation, and that it is innovation that helps
everyone's quality of life to improve, why does industry and business - <i>and thus economic growth</i> - by and large operate in a way that inhibits innovation?<br />
<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">Why Are The Businesses That Create Economic Growth Making It Hard For Innovation To Happen?</span><br />
<br />
Various reasons have been <a href="http://pure.au.dk/portal-asb-student/files/36141704/Final_bachelor.pdf">suggested</a>,
part culture, part assumption that profitable approaches of the past
will continue to succeed in the future, part simplicity of the
reward/punishment method, and part necessity.<br />
<br />
In many technology and knowledge based companies there is a growing progressive consciousness about innovation. <a href="http://www-935.ibm.com/services/us/cio/pdf/new-collaboration-white-paper.pdf">IBM in a 2008 white paper</a> put it this way:<br />
<br />
<i>"How
does collaboration yield results? By fostering innovation. In fact,
true innovation is virtually impossible without collaboration. And
innovation is indispensable to success."</i><br />
<br />
But a
company such as IBM, as large as it is, is not representative of a whole
economy, and because it is as large as it is, many parts of it may not
be as enlightened as its vision setters.<br />
<br />
So how does
innovation ever manage to happen across industry and business (or
government for that matter)? It happens when the conditions previously
discussed come about; having an environment or culture which supports
and encourages autonomy, mastery and personal growth, and collaboration
with open sharing and critique of ideas. Sometimes it also happens by
luck. In either case, it doesn't happen that often.<br />
<br />
From
the moment a company is formed, until such time that it manages to
become a market leader in its field(s), it is subject to <i>commercial pressure</i>. It must cover it's costs and make a profit, or soon go out of business. This pressure makes it hard to innovate, because:<br />
<ul>
<li>The pressure on the company can easily manifest to employees at
the counter-productive kind of pressures; a pointy stick to make them
work harder, longer, better to save their jobs, or a sweet carrot of
bonuses for innovating (which makes them think about the extrinsic
reward of money over the task at hand, or 'what's the easiest, fasted
way for me to satisfy the boss so I get this money?').</li>
<li>The company is less at liberty to support work which has zero
guarantee of being profitable - since innovation is unpredictable and
often slow. Under commercial pressure, the more predictable, steady
results of carrying on as before (or making small refinements) are
preferred, since business must continue and expenses must be paid.</li>
<li>Under continual commercial pressure, mistakes are more costly and
less likely to be tolerated. A culture of fearing making mistakes
results, which is squarely at odds with the experimental process of
trial and error required to innovate.</li>
<li>If there is competition within the company between employees, either
to keep jobs or to secure the biggest bonuses, then the kind of open
idea sharing and collaboration that leads to innovation is unlikely to
develop well, or to remain if it was there at the beginning.</li>
<li>If there is commercially sensitive knowledge central to the company
then even employees expected to innovate may only have knowledge of a
small component of a system. Thus it becomes harder for ideas to mix and
evolve within the company, between people with fresh perspectives, and
for more major innovations to happen.</li>
<li>At the company level, a continual pressure to turn a profit acts as a
distraction from actually providing the best service or goods which the
company was formed to provide. This diffusion of focus and energy can
negatively affect morale and emotional engagement, making it harder to
innovate.</li>
</ul>
So if a business is to innovate the best times are:<br />
A) At
the very beginning when the partners have sufficient resources and time
to explore and develop ideas to then build a business around.<br />
B)
At end of the long climb, when the business is at the top of the pile
and has enough cash to pay for time and resources that may or may not
result in further profitable innovation.<br />
<br />
If a company's prime business <i>is</i>
to innovate (e.g. Research and Development, and Intellectual Property
companies), then the picture is a little different, but for the large
majority of players in an economy, the lion share of their life is spent
in conditions not conducive to innovation - because of commercial
pressures. When business-as-usual lead innovation does occur it will
generally be in the form of small refinements to existing processes and
systems.<br />
<br />
The conclusion is that at any one time, only a
tiny fraction of businesses are in a position favourable for innovation
to happen, the rest don't have the freedom to take the risks required. <i>This outcome is ensured by commercial pressure.</i> Only
start-ups and those companies most successful at competing in the 'free
market' have the luxury of creating the kind of environment and
supporting the kind of networks where innovation can flourish. It is of
course the money system itself that creates the commercial pressure and
thus these adverse conditions - which are naturally compounded where a
business starts out in debt.<br />
<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-large;">Progress, Evolution And The Money System</span><br />
<br />
Speaking
of competition, the obvious analogy to make with the wealth
distribution, is nature and natural selection - survival of the fittest.
Babies are given some nurture, then they have to fend for themselves.
It's a struggle for everyone else, unless they're at the top of the pile
where they get most of the riches. Sounds about right, right?<br />
<br />
A
common idea of conservative and right wing political thought is that
inequality in society reflects the law of nature and natural selection
weeding out the weak for the good of the species. With the competition
of 'free markets' we become better adapted and thus progress occurs.
However,
the analogy so far misses a critical aspect of evolution and innovation;
<i>collaboration</i>. Quite often in nature, survival depends more on
individuals working well together as a group to hunt, forage or build,
rather than competing against each other. As previously discussed, human
innovation happens much more readily in the context of collaboration.<br />
<br />
The money as debt system,
through its guarantee of unequal wealth distribution, its emphasis on
personal ownership and accumulation of property, and the social and
power stratification that results, engineers competition (and threat-focused thinking) into society. It does this at the <i>expense</i> of collaboration<i> </i>(and collaborative thinking). The result is less innovation and less progress - regardless of economic growth.<br />
<br />
Also,
the fact that more threat-focused thinking is a natural consequence of a
system which ensures continual competition, helps to explain why reward
and punishment approaches to 'motivating' people to do work are as
prevalent as they are; they are a natural conclusion of that type of
thinking. Frederick Herzberg, author of the landmark book ''<a href="http://www.facilitif.eu/user_files/file/herzburg_article.pdf">One More Time: How Do you Motivate Employees?</a>"
describes the ongoing battle between this approach, which he neatly
encapsulates as KITA - Kick In The Ass, with more progressive and person
centred approaches like 'job enrichment'. Alas, because the ethos of
the, various and subtle, Kick In the Ass approaches to getting people to
do work is most in harmony with the ethos of the underlying money
system, this is a battle that KITA is bound to dominate, for the bulk of
the workforce.<br />
<br />
If person-centred motivation is
fighting a losing battle, what about person-centred innovation? When an
innovation is adopted through business, remember it <i>must be commercially profitable</i>.
This means it need only be tangentially related to a human need, so
long as it sells. The people involved in the company may happen to be
genuinely passionate about helping to meet real needs in a substantial
way, but this is not a requirement for commercial success. The aggregate
result is the consumer machine, that swallows not just mind blowing
amounts of dwindling natural resources, but also great chunks of human
creative capital, first through the creation of endless products, then
through the huge effort to endlessly market those products to get them
to sell, then finally through the consumption of those products. This is creative capital that is not then available to be spent
on more directly and deeply meeting human needs. Again, the net result
is less real progress.<br />
<br />
How can a product be in high demand, if it doesn't meet human needs? Simply by people <i>thinking</i>
that it does, or will meet those needs, or by meeting them somewhat,
with various downsides that lead to bigger problems later. This is where clever marketing comes into its own. Competition
is often slow (or immobile) to offer a better solution if a market for a
type of product is profitable, because in the present system the
competition is for the money, not for the meeting of needs (see the
difference between extrinsic and intrinsic motivators).<br />
<br />
But
once any major, real value creating innovation happens to occur,
providing there is a short to medium term profitable path to
commercialization, of course our money system is eager to assimilate it,
and thus create economic growth.<br />
<br />
Let's take a back step here and address the question that may already have been burning your lips:<br />
"But if it wasn't for this socioeconomic system, how many of the great human accomplishments would have been made?"<br />
<br />
Some questions related to that one include:<br />
<ul>
<li>Without effectively coerced labour and the perpetuation of social
and political hierarchy, how many of the great buildings and
infrastructure could have been built?</li>
<li>Without the money system and the hierarchies it creates and
protects, how would the large and complex institutions of science,
education, health care, industry and government hold together?</li>
<li>If people weren't forced to work by the money system, surely most people would just sit around and not produce anything useful?</li>
<li>How would people find a purpose if not through paid work?</li>
<li>Wouldn't society just fall into chaos if it wasn't for the all the
constraints and stimulations that the socioeconomic system puts in
place?</li>
</ul>
The underlying questions running through the above list seem to be:<br />
<ol>
<li>Can people be trusted to act with care and consideration for the
interests and well-being of others, as well as themselves, without being
pressured into cooperating with others by the money system, and
constrained by the legal structures build up around it?</li>
<li>Can there be effective, higher level cooperation and coordination
between people, without an enforced hierarchy and coerced labour?</li>
<li>Who would do the hard and laborious work, which is nonetheless
crucial to the functioning of society, if there wasn't a need to earn
money?</li>
<li>Would people find motivation and meaning to apply themselves in various forms of work, without financial incentive?</li>
</ol>
Let's address each of those questions in turn:<br />
<ol>
<li>This questions actually cuts to the core of the system, which is
built around a belief that the answer is 'no'. The reasons for that
belief are explored later, but the fact is, people can and do act with
care and consideration for the interests and well-being of others,
besides themselves, without the need for the powers, pressures or
constraints of money and private ownership (Elenor Ostrom who received a
Nobel prize in Economics, reveals many examples in "<a href="http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=9739">Rules, Games and Common Pool Resources</a>"). Empathy and looking after each other is a <i>key survival tool </i>not
just for humans but many other animals too. This innate ability and
attitude is what enables groups of people to be stronger than the sum of
their members alone, and it is also what makes true collaboration -
that catalyst of innovation - possible. This empathic, collaborative
state of being, is the preferred, peaceful and optimal state for human
beings. However, when circumstances are very desperate or when people
feel powerless, or are pressured or oppressed by others, then it is also
natural for them to switch to a threat-focused state of mind. When
predominantly in a threat-focused state, people tend to behave more like
the self-maximizing 'economics man', who acts in the interests of
personal gain above all else. And so while the present system to some
extent is self-sustaining (until we run out of resources in the not too
distant future) and self-justifying, there is another path that could be
traveled.</li>
<li>When people have their basic needs met, it is natural to then focus
on better meeting other needs, helping each other, developing
relationships, understanding and being understood, and generally
exploring what is possible. It is having and recognizing common or
compatible needs that bring people together in collaboration. (The money
system is just one narrow way of engineering a common need, with
various troubling side-effects, as discussed.) Since there is a large
pool of needs which people have in common, and since we possess
remarkable ingenuity and capacity for collaboration, it would not be at
all surprising to see examples of people effectively working together in
a coordinated way on a large scale, without no systemic inequality
required. <br />
The Open Source software movement is an obvious example, with global
projects involving many thousands of people, like Firefox, LibreOffice,
Wikipedia and more. Then there is the wider voluntary sector which makes
a tremendous difference to human and environmental well-being across
the planet. Of course, because these initiatives exist in a world
dominated by the money system, they too are (to varying degrees) also
reliant on money for their operations. It's crucial to understand though
that these initiatives do not exist for money, and often they are
started without any. Furthermore is is human resources that they depend
on, <i>which people are moved to give freely</i> where possible. Money is merely inserted as a proxy to some of those resources.</li>
<li>Money is not the only force to move people to unpalatable or
laborious work. Indeed money is really only an engineered need, because
it is accepted as good for exchange with many of the items and services people
really need. It is only when those items and services are scarce that
the real pain begins. Without the money system, nature does not go away.
If no-one takes care of sanitation, people get sick and start dying. If
no-one farms, people starve. Thus it is inherently in everyone's
interest to make sure such things get done. Obviously if such jobs were
neglected there would soon be no shortage of volunteers as the value of
those jobs would become that much clearer to everyone. But, with the
willingness to share another's burden that tends to be present with a
collaborative frame of mind, the harder, less pleasant jobs could be
shared between several people (instead of any one person having to do it
full-time or for years on end, for some agreed compensation), even
before society is forced into action. This very act of sharing hard work
would increase social bonding, mutual respect and trust, and thus
genuinely enrich the quality of life of the people involved. Of course,
from the threat-focused perspective prevalent in a money-as-debt-system
culture, this seems like a utopian vision. However, without the built in
pressures of the money system, and sub-cultures that built up around
it, people would far more easily re-discover their innate <a href="http://joe-hudson.blogspot.com/2011/06/growth-without-growth-journey-down.html#collaborative-mode">collaborative mode of thinking</a>.</li>
<li>As already shown in the previous answers, there would certainly be
motivation and meaning for people to do various kinds of work, without
any money incentive. What's more, without the overriding drive to
compete and allay commercial pressure, more people would be in a more
fertile environment for innovation to happen; through collaboration -
and also some naturally arising competition. Wherever there is a desire
or unmet need, there is a drive for work and innovation. It's easy to
think that without paid employment people would just sit around and do
nothing, since that's what so many people currently do when they finish a
day's work at a job they don't enjoy or find stressful or otherwise
exhausting. It's a draining, motivation sapping experience, day after
day. So naturally 'vegging out' or consuming escapism fantasies on TV or
on-line, is a popular option. However, this is a <i>reaction</i> to the
effects of the money system and what they must do to survive in it.
Then again, consider how much time and energy is currently spent at work
producing, distributing or selling something which delivers the lion
share of benefits to so few, and often harms a great many later on, or
further down the supply chain (for instance, much of the disposable
output of the consumer society machine, most of the arms industry and a
fair chunk of the pharmaceutical industry). Given that, even if half the
population did little but sit on their arses all day contemplating
their navels, as a society we might still be in a better position than
we are now.</li>
</ol>
In 'The Wealth of Nations' Adam Smith said
"The act of competition creates incentive which motivates people to
persevere." But surely it is the other way around: people persevere
because they have incentive, and that perseverance <i>sometimes</i>
leads to competition, where resources are limited. It seems to me that
by breaking our bonds with the money system, and the threat-focused,
competition-centric mentality at its heart, we can free up our potential
for progress, and cultural, social and individual evolution.<br />
<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-large;">Money Is A Religion</span><br />
<br />
"Man must have no idol and the amassing of wealth is one of the worst
species of idolatry! No idol is more debasing than the worship of
money!" -- Andrew Carnegie, once the richest man in the world.<br />
<br />
<div>
(Carnegie
went on to say: "Whatever I engage in I must push inordinately;
therefore should I be careful to choose that life which will be the most
elevating in its character. To continue much longer overwhelmed by
business cares and with most of my thoughts wholly upon the way to make
more money in the shortest time, must degrade me beyond hope of
permanent recovery.")<br />
<div>
<br />
If it seems to be an
overstatement to claim our relationship with money is a religion for
many people, let's quickly review the evidence.<br />
<br />
<i>Faith:</i> Whatever
the economy related societal ill, the cure lies in correct monetary and
fiscal policy (possibly coupled with regulations as required). The 'free
market' is the most efficient and fare means of allocating resources,
and the competition it creates leads to innovation, economic growth and
the advancement of mankind. Happiness for one and all is attained
through the sufficient accumulation of money. <br />
<br />
<i>Ideology:</i>
Everything worth creating or doing, or currently in existence, has a
monetary value. Everything from the earth's ecosystems, biodiversity and
climate stability, to volunteering to help without pay care for a
family member in need, to sexual intimacy, to your time in 'gainful
employment' and of course all the things you can walk into a shop and
buy. Whatever can be given a money value can then be weight up against
anything else with a money value, traded and further exploited for its
intrinsic or economic value. In essence, the value of something is the
price someone is willing to pay for it. Reducing our environment, work
and relationships in this way naturally leads to the most comprehensive,
efficient and fair use of resources. Consequently if someone has a high
money value, in cash or assets, they <i>are</i> valuable, and if
someone possesses a low money value, all other factors being equal, they
are less valuable. Thus to become more valuable the surest path is to
accumulate ever more money.<br />
<br />
<i>Worship and ritual:</i> The
church of the money worshiper, just like money itself, is an
abstraction. It is anywhere which accepts or makes payment. And this is
the central ritual, the buying and selling of things, with the aim of
taking in more from sales than what you spend. Even (and especially) if
you don't perform this ritual well, it is still important to perform it
nonetheless, for the sake of the greater economy, and thus the greater
good. Of course spending money is performed often as a rejuvenating or
cleansing ritual, as evidenced by 'retail therapy' (through which it is
believed happiness will eventually be found) and to a lesser extent
through charitable giving. Other forms of worship include obsessively
focusing on things you would like to buy but can't afford, counting your
money, and through the use of mantra-like internal dialogues
associating your own self-worth with your net money value.<br />
<br />
<i>Priesthood:</i>
Like most organized religions, money worshipers have their priesthood,
the bankers and financiers, with their acolyte scholars the economists
and business analysts. Today as in times past, also like with most
organized religions, many people have a conflict of faith. They are not
as sure about efficiency or the fairness of 'free markets', or the elusive
contentment bought by financial wealth. What's more they see corruption
in the priesthood, who are supposed to serve as conduits of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand">The Invisible Hand</a>,
allocating money for the greatest profit in order to
eventually benefit all. But instead they are perceived as simply
collecting the greatest profit for themselves and keeping it. Yet still
the teachings of the priesthood remain unchanged: 'the economy must
grow', 'growth for
jobs', 'spend; do your civic duty', 'the market will self-correct',
'there is no better or fairer way'.<br />
<br />
Although the above
framing of money as a religion can be read as slightly tongue in cheek, I
believe the parallels drawn stand up to the light. A follower of money,
as we all are to varying extends, may be conservative or liberal in
their outlook, but will be united by a central tenet of this religion:
private ownership. <br />
John Locke, author of the 'Two Treatises of Government ' stated that '<i>civil society was created for the</i> <i>protection of property</i>'.
That is, the whole of society is built on the concept that material
things can be owned and that owners have a right to withhold and protect
those things from others, with the assistance of government. This was a
way to address the threat of land and other material resources being
commandeered, as might well happen in times of scarcity or war. As John
Locke also recognized in the 17th century, one trouble with this
foundation stone of society, designed to protect us from each other, is
when it's combined with the use of money, which leads to the <i>limitless
potential for the accumulation of property and wealth, by the individual</i>. Unfortunately he
did not offer a solution. <br />
<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-large;">Sticks and Carrots - The Real Drivers of Economic Growth</span><br />
<br />
What ultimately enables any kind of growth is society, economic growth included, is <i>people doing work</i>.
Labour, of various kinds and sophistication, is what creates new
material or social value. Only where this value exists and can be traded
can economic growth occur. To really understand how economic growth is
driven then, we must answer the question: What drives people to work?<br />
<br />
Money
obviously plays a big role for most people, so let's look more closely
at financial incentives. As far as financial motivations go, for a few
it's the desire to accumulate ever more material wealth and power, for
others it's the desire to keep up with their peers and live a
comfortable life, for many it's the desire to pay off their debt, for
still others it's the desire to survive. If you've read <a href="http://joe-hudson.blogspot.com/2011/06/growth-without-growth-journey-down.html">part 1</a>
you'll know that those latter camps vastly outnumber the former. That
is to say there is a tiny sector of society that amasses the bulk of
wealth, followed by a long tail filled mainly with those possessing very
little wealth and the indebted.<br />
<br />
How many people are there whose <i>primary</i>
reason for engaging in work that contributes to economic growth, is the
enjoyment of that work? That is, they have choice in selecting their
job, and they choose their job not for the financial reward or the
relief of pressure, good status or lifestyle that it offers, but for the
enjoyment and satisfaction they get from the work itself. Based on
figures from this <a href="http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/ewco/reports/TN0608TR01/TN0608TR01.pdf">comprehensive survey of national surveys</a> on 'work satisfaction', the percentage is perhaps as high as 20%, or 1 in 5, in Europe.<br />
<br />
Considering the whole world - where almost half of all people live in poverty according to <a href="http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/povDuplic.html">World Bank figures</a>, with
the standard $2 per day international poverty line - the percentage of
people who work mainly for the pleasure of their work is likely to be
under 10%. (In the Appendix the idea of working because you enjoy it is
explored in more depth.) This means that <i>over 90% of the jobs done by people in the whole world are done because of financial incentive</i> - to repay debt, through pressure to fund a certain life-style, or just to make ends meet and survive.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Since
it is ultimately the work of people that allows growth in an economy,
and it is money that is driving the large majority of work, this leads
to the conclusion that in a 'money as debt' based system, <b>economic growth is driven largely by financial pressure, obligation or desperation</b>.
So mainly sticks, with the hope for a carrot, and actual delivery of
carrots to the tiny fraction who make up the unusually successful.<br />
<br />
But wait! If money drives work and work is required to
create technological innovation, then surely the money system is to
thank for the advancements in technology which benefit all? No, this
does not follow, because it is predominantly work that comes from
certain needs and a certain kind of environment that leads to
innovation. The competition fostering effect of money and the desire
first to be free from debt then to increase financial wealth is
effective at getting more productivity from people for simple,
mechanical tasks. But the research indicates that financial incentive is
counter-productive at helping people to be more creative and
inventive.<br />
<br />
As far as the money system being responsible
for the creation of the kind of environments conducive to innovation
(and therefore to be given credit for such innovation), it is more
accurate I think to understand money as a gatekeeper of such
environments being created. Just about every school or university was
created with the exchange of money for work. But without money, the same
human needs to understand, create and improve our quality of life would
remain. Therefore it is reasonable to believe other ways of creating
effective environments and conditions for innovation might be found,
without the intermediary of money in conjunction with the legal
framework of private ownership.<br />
<br />
Looking at a higher
organizational scale, of say a city or a town, when a useful project is
proposed that would benefit a great many people, one of the first
questions asked is "How much money will it cost?" But if the proposal
was actually evaluated in terms of the real human benefits and the
resources available for achieving it (along with other objectives) then
the question should simply be "Do we have the <i>resources</i>?" In this way the money system can put a wedge between the needs of people, and their ability to meet those needs.<br />
<br />
Imagine
a city (and its supporting rural areas) where somehow all the money has
been stolen, and the electronic banking system is malfunctioning.
Essentially they are without money. Now all the same human and material
resources remain in that city, along with all the same human needs for
various kinds of work to be done and services to be provided. But now
there is no money to pay for it. Since all the same resources remain
that were allowing the work to be done before, in <i>theory</i>, most
things could carry on as before. But because the societal system is
money based, pandemonium would likely ensure (long before any import
dependencies kick in). Now apart from this extreme scenario you can
imagine there might be many cases (through accumulation of debt or lack
of monetisation) where human and physical resources are available for
doing some work which would benefit many people, but insufficient money,
and so the work doesn't get done. Such cases clearly show an
inefficient allocation of resources, disconnected with underlying human needs.<br />
<br />
On a national and international scale, suppose that
all the corporations at the forefront of energy, transport, medical and
other technologies suddenly forget about protecting their patents and
maximizing financial profit, and spend a year openly sharing ideas and
pooling their resources in collaboration, purely to maximize human
benefit, in an environmentally sustainable way. Imagine what genuine
progress could be made without the diversions of jealously guarding
secrets, litigating, and feeding the consumer machine through endless
marketing, building in obsolescence and figuring out how to externalize
as many costs as possible. There would surely be a global renaissance.<br />
<br />
Without
the constraining framework of carrots and sticks and economic growth,
there is surely larger scope for growth in human development.<br />
<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">Working With Congruent Motivation</span><br />
<br />
Let's
talk briefly about the kinds of enjoyment that can motivate work. What
non-financially associated needs can be satisfied through work? There
are many, including: a sense of contribution, learning, inspiration,
excitement, play and personal development. Where there's a social element
intrinsic to the work, then needs for sharing connection, compassion,
affection, support, nurture or humour may also be met. (If you mainly
like work because that's where your friends are, then the work itself
isn't primarily the source of enjoyment, and could in theory be
substituted with other work, or even play, so long as your friends were
there.)<br />
<br />
If your motivation for working in intrinsic
(the motivation is the work itself),
then your thoughts and actions relating to that work will be more
congruent, you will apply yourself more and thus be more productive.
Extrinsic motivation leads to divided attention and narrowed thinking.<br />
<br />
But
what about the benefits of extrinsic motivation through money and
competition for and within work? Accomplishment and recognition, winning
against the odds, distinguishing yourself, one-up-manship, personal
power. All of these satisfying outcomes can motivate some people to
apply themselves to their work. While money promotes these satisfactions
to the pinnacle of achievement, it does not own them. Where work and
its outcomes provide reward enough in themselves, a tremendous sense of
accomplishment and recognition can be felt. The motivating power of
money as a status symbol and gateway to resources is certainly a
cultural factor. But this power cannot compare to the power of intrinsic
and congruent motivation, when it comes to productivity and
innovation.<br />
<br />
Of course when the whole purpose of your work
is simply to make money, your motivation is perfectly congruent.
Although most people are either not corporations or not working in the
financial industry.<br />
<br />
The implication of this section
then is that to lead to more and better work being done by the people in
a society, there must be more emphasis on helping each other to connect
with intrinsic motivators, and much less faith in and emphasis on
extrinsic motivators to prompt efficient, non-trivial work. Due to the
inevitable disenfranchising, inequality generating and cost
externalizing effects of the present money system, I see no way of
realizing this outcome without some major changes to that money system.<br />
<br />
It is people who can do so now, working with congruent motivation
that will continue to add pressure for these required changes, which
will then help more people work in ways that fulfill them more deeply
and thus serve a greater good than someone's bottom line.<br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Key Points Raised About Economic Growth</span><br />
<br />
In
the context of the present money system economic growth is merely a
means for and consequence of some people making more money. Any quality
of life benefits are tangential, with diminishing returns, and unevenly
distributed so that those whose quality of life would most benefit from
increased financial wealth tend to get the least of it.<br />
<br />
Often
(e.g. war, environmental degradation, cure vs. on-going medication
medical treatment, consumer machine marketing) there are clear conflicts
between economic growth and human interest.<br />
<br />
There is no one tide of wealth which raises all boats; in
this system, the foundations of which adhere to classic game theory
which pits one person <i>against </i>another, we are practically compelled to
built our own little islands, piles of essential and non-essential
stuff. If we want a substantially bigger pile we must leverage the work,
land or resources of others (in present or future generations). If
there is any tide, it is a tide of debt which periodically sweeps away
those working at the bottom of the pile.<br />
<br />
There is no such thing as a 'free market', only markets with
varying types and levels of constraints, including property rights along
with human rights. The drive to maximize profits creates pressure for
economic parties to either change the constraints to give them a
competitive advantage, or find ways of bending or breaking the rules
without being found out. Thus regulations or state intervention does not
disable or enable economic growth per say, more precisely it alters
which parties can most easily enjoy economic growth and how.<br />
<br />
While
innovation fuels economic growth, the predominant culture
and threat-focused, competition heavy mentality which arises from a
society founded on the idea of making perpetual profit, is harmful to
the birth of innovation (as well as to ourselves). Thus there is often a
parasitic relationship
between economic growth and the pockets of innovation that occur.
Financial wealth being a gate keeper for resources which help innovation
to happen should not be conflated with it being responsible for that
innovation.<br />
<br />
When harnessed by 'free market' forces for economic
growth, new technology and innovation accelerates the rising inequality
in wealth distribution, even though it can sometimes lead to an improved
baseline of wealth, through passed on cost savings in production or distribution.<br />
<br />
Economic growth does not necessarily mean more jobs, particularly where the growth is technology driven.<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Looking Ahead to Solutions, and a Sad Narrative</span><br />
<br />
So
here we are again at the end of the (rather lengthy) blog, and still
not much in the way of clear, systematic suggestions for a 'better way'.
I think at this stage I'm about ready to start thinking along those
lines though, so I hope to have some ideas to share with you in the next
post. As part 1 may have indicated, my thinking is gravitating towards
getting back to 'needs'. I'm also interested in what Elenor Ostrom (Nobel prize winner in economics) has
to say on the subject of sustainable and efficient common pooled
resource management.<br />
<br />
I believe that part of any robust
improvement to how we organize our society is having and helping to
spread a clear understanding of how we currently operate, and what the
issues with that really are.<br />
<br />
I'd like to leave you with a thought, relating to the concept of a
'ruling class'. Without sinking into conspiracy theory land, it's clear
that our socioeconomic system protects, favours and ensures the existence of
people with vast sums of capital. Specifically, it inevitably leads to an
on-going redistribution of wealth (despite the tax system) upward.<br />
<br />
So
much value and power is placed on money. Beyond physical resources for the mass-production of food, shelter and other goods,
money controls the media through private ownership of outlets, selling
of programming or advertising space and other less direct methods where money talks. Money
to a large degree also controls politics through campaign funding,
lobbying and various cozy yet unseemly relationships between those in
the political and corporate worlds. Taking all those facts into account
it appears thoroughly reasonable to say there is in fact a 'ruling
class', whose power stems from money, and that there has been for quite a
few centuries, or rather millennia.<br />
<br />
To understand how we ended up with
the society we have now, it may
be instructive to consider the origins and values of this ruling class.
Although I've focused a lot on the modern socioeconomic system of money, the origins of the ruling class can be traced back to the development of agriculture.<br />
<br />
[storing of value, money and debt natural evolutions from technology of agriculture] <br />
<br />
The more or less current money system and supporting legal framework
in Europe came about at a time of relative chaos, hardship and violence. A time
where political power was more routinely asserted with physical force,
where light, heat and sometimes food were luxuries, and education was
for the rich few.<br />
<br />
The money system then, which aided trade and the accumulation of
capital, could be seen as a reaction to protect vulnerable and rare
privileges, a way of securing hard won safety and comfort for those few
that had it. Beyond the drive for self-protection of course, the trappings of power which come with wealth are highly seductive, conveying high status and sex appeal. Naturally enough these trappings provide further motivation for those with power to act to protect and consolidate it. For the rest of society, the system acted as a yoke, to keep things
in check and maintain a kind of order, with carrots and sticks. It
harnessed labor to do what needed to be done for profit, which included
improvements to infrastructure that over time brought benefits or means of support to many
people. In short, the current system was a refinement of what came before it from the dawn of the agricultural age, with the same principles of concentrated power in operation.<br />
<br />
In summary the development of the money system (and its precursors) imposed control over
chaos and threat, by controlling most people, while empowering a few.
This strategy for meeting the needs of the ruling class forms a
narrative about the way in which order must be maintained and how
progress is made. This narrative is built from a mistrust in people,
especially those less well off, a preference for control or domination over others and
threat-management over collaboration, a belief that material self-interest is the prime motivator, and a faith in money as the
bringer of a better world.<br />
<br />
This culturally ubiquitous narrative of the ruling class is
<i>reinforced</i> by popular inclination to vilify that ruling class. Which is
exactly why doing so is counter productive. It does not lead to lasting
change, only sometimes new faces. Even while freedom may be the goal, fueling and engaging in conflict between one group or class of people and another is <i>part</i> of the predominant narrative; it lives squarely in a threat-focused mindset.<br />
<br />
Sadly this is a
narrative which has persisted through many generations, despite the
technological and social backdrop of our civilization
doing away with many of the original more desperate conditions which
gave birth to the narrative. But a threat-focused state of mind can be
addictive and self reinforcing, and when accustomed to wealth our
baseline of
what is 'enough' or 'normal' shifts.<br />
<br />
If a new ruling
class were to develop today without any ties to the
old guard, if somehow all the present ruling class left for another
planet to leave a clean slate, would the new ruling class vision of what
must be done to bring about 'a better world' be much different from the
old - would the narrative change? I think if the same financial
institutions, banking system, economic policies and law which make up
the 'money system', were present, then the answer is no. The reason is
that the money system encapsulates and institutionalizes the ruling
class narrative, or mind set. It would be hard for anyone who was bought
to power by that system to be very ideologically contrary to it. Thus
for the narrative to change, the system must change, not merely the
people.<br />
<br />
Incidentally, the ruling class narrative, now
ingrained in our culture, naturally spans the mainstream political
spectrum. Traditionally on the right is an emphasis on 'free market'
economics, and the virtue of competition. On the left is an emphasis on
social engineering, on battening down our ruling avarice, and enforcing
rules and regulations, for the protection of the weak from the strong
and themselves, as well as a broad acceptance in the money system as a
power for good. On both sides there runs the underlying idea that people
must be controlled (they can't be trusted), either through money and
its harnessing of their greed for good, or through more direct political
power to guide them along the right way.<br />
<br />
So the
thought I'd like to end with until part 4 is: Maybe we can all be part
of the 'ruling class', by asserting authority over ourselves, as we
search for a different narrative?
Accepting that some of us are between a rock and a hard place, how much
power are we giving away only because we believe in the old story?<br />
<br /></div>
</div>Joe Hudsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02007274433208167837noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8883586897037151449.post-55972600465867481132011-06-22T17:47:00.000-07:002015-03-02T12:24:19.331-08:00Growth without growth - a journey down the rabbit hole. Part 2The following will probably make more sense if you've already read <a href="http://joe-hudson.blogspot.com/2011/06/growth-without-growth-journey-down.html">part 1</a>, in which I talked about ways that people approach meeting their needs, some pressing issues in the world and the state of wealth inequality.<br />
<br />
Now let's talk about the 'money system', that component of the global socioeconomic system that I suggested lies at the heart of many of the worlds ills. I'd like to be clear that this really is about the predominant <i>implementation</i> of money in the world and the particular way it spreads through an economy, rather than 'money in general'.<br />
<br />
As before, there are a few details to get through, and subjects like banking and economics are ones often euphemistically described as 'dry'. But if you consider how many days of your life are determined by the need to work within these systems, then isn't it worth spending a fraction of one day learning how they really operate? Beside the direct benefit to you, it might be argued that as a responsible citizen it's your duty to understand how these incredibly powerful components of your country work.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">What Is Money?</span><br />
<br />
First, it's probably helpful to get clear on that question. The merriam-webster dictionary defines money as: "something generally accepted as a medium of exchange, a measure of value, or a means of payment". So, money is a token of 'value' that can be exchanged for goods that are needed or desired. In the case of paper money, the token has negligible direct value, you cannot eat it or build a house from it, for example. It's value comes only from it being accepted as a medium of exchange. This applies even more so to electronic money.<br />
<br />
In an economic system with predominantly one legal tender and where money has negligible intrinsic value, the <i>effective</i> value of a given amount of money can be easily controlled through its supply. This is the system currently in effect in most of the economically developed world.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">The Value of Money - Inflation and Deflation</span><br />
<br />
What does 'effective value of money' mean? If money becomes widely hard to acquire (jobs are hard to get, or wages get lower, not much loans available) and you depend on it to meet your basic needs, then your quality of life drops sharply. A given amount of money M is now relatively very valuable compared to what it was before. But when money becomes easy to acquire (plenty of jobs, better pay, or loans readily available), then your quality of life - at least in terms of meeting your basic needs and affording material luxuries - rises. That same quantity of money M as before is now relatively much less valuable, as now you have plenty of it.<br />
<br />
There is a natural mechanism which somewhat balances the contracting or expanding availability of money. When money is scarce, the prices of goods tend to drop, so that trade is able to continue. This is called 'deflation'. When money is plentiful the prices of goods tend to rise, to maximize profits, or simply to preserve the relative wealth of the seller - so that they don't become poor, relative to the increasing wealth of others. This is called 'inflation'. A characteristic of deflation is decreasing trade, and a characteristic of inflation is increasing trade.<br />
<br />
In any economic system where there is a significant divide between the financial wealth of one portion of the population from another, the process of inflation or deflation does little to protect the poorer portion. This is because in a free market, prices will tend to settle around what the market - as a whole - can bare, in order to maximize profits and protect relative wealth. That will tend to leave those with less than average wealth feeling the brunt of any price changes. The wealth gap between rich and poor tends to widen most in times of inflation. Theoretically it could happen that technology and commoditization lead to essential goods always remaining affordable, regardless of the wealth gap. However, in countries like the UK, USA and most if not all of the OECD, benefit systems, food stamps and tax credits are necessary to stop many millions of people from starving.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">Money Is Debt - Debt Is Money</span><br />
<br />
So far, so simple. But where does money come from? Sure, a tiny fraction of it is printed by the mint, but in general who decides how much money is created, who owns the money originally, and who is the money first given to?<br />
<br />
Here's where things get a little strange. What I've learnt from my research is relatively straightforward to grasp, providing you pay attention to the details. As they say 'the devil is in the details'. The dominant method for money creation in the global socioeconomic system is debt. In this system, when money is created an equal amount of debt is created at the same time. How does that work? The following is part of the mainstream economics theory (Keynesian economics, and the money multiplier theory).<br />
<br />
Let's start at the 'Central Bank' (Bank of England, or BoE in the UK, Federal Reserve, or the Fed, in the USA, and many variations of that theme in other countries).<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">The Central Bank</span><br />
<br />
The Central Bank issues new money. But it doesn't give it away, it merely <i>lends</i> it - with <i>interest</i>. This is where money begins. Economists refer to this money as M0. Paper money is printed on the order of the Central Bank. Electronic money (the bulk of money these days) is also created by the Central Bank, simply by wiring it to its destination, as an entry in a database. For reasons we'll discover later, M0, the money the central bank creates, is also referred to as 'high-powered money', and whenever this central bank money is created, since 1694, an equal amount of national debt is created at the same time.<br />
<br />
Once the Central Bank has created the money it lends it to commercial banks and to the government (where it requires more money than provided by taxes). The government gives the Central Bank 'government bonds' (promises to repay the money, with interest) and spends the new money as governments do. The commercial banks give the Central Bank IOUs and then lend their new money out to individuals and businesses, or use it to cover their shortfall and balance their books. Businesses pay wages, trade is facilitated with the flow of money and so the money makes its way around the economy, going in and out of banks and returning through the tax system. The large majority of money in the economy is created by commercial banks when they issue new loans, not by the central bank.<br />
<br />
Generally the Central Bank is a corporation. In the UK it is a chartered corporation, founded in 1694 in order to fund a war against the French. It's an interesting story, and the BoE is a model for other Central Banks, so here's a little of the history.<br />
<br />
In 1694 a group of <i>private bankers and businessmen</i> lead by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Paterson_(banker)">William Paterson</a>, offered the government a loan of £1.2 million of gold to finance the war, in return for the incorporation of The Bank of England, which they would own.<br />
<br />
One part of the deal was that just the loan <i>interest</i> would be paid off (£100,000 per year), for an 11 year period, at which point the original capital (£1.2m) could be repaid, or the bank's royal charter renewed and the loan continued. You can <a href="http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/legislation/1694charter.pdf">read a partial form of the 1694 charter here</a>. William Paterson referred to the Bank of England as "the fund for perpetual interest" (<a href="http://www.dmo.gov.uk/index.aspx?page=About/BOE_history">source</a>). This is where the UK's 'national debt' began.<br />
<br />
The other part of the deal was that the new BoE, would have the right to issue currency notes to anyone who wanted to borrow money, <i>backed by the new national debt of £1.2 million</i>, and charge interest on that as well. <b>They were effectively lending the same money twice - at the same time;</b> once to the government directly, then at the same time to the public in the form of tradeable IOU notes (paper money), which were backed up by the government's promise to eventually repay their debt in gold. Crafty, no?<br />
<br />
The BoE's history, like many Central Banks, includes several failures due to it lending more paper money than it had in gold (the currency was originally 'gold backed') and leading to it being rescued by the government, or bigger banks, when people realized they couldn't get their gold back.<br />
<br />
In 1815, at the conclusion of the Battle of Waterloo, there was an effective takeover by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family">Rothschild banking dynasty</a>. At the time, Rothschild had been funding both sides of the expensive war (a common practice of banks, continued to this day, in which they guarantee big profits no matter the outcome). Their superior communications network was able to deliver news of the Duke of Wellington's victory back to Nathan Rothschild (the head of the UK branch of the family) before anyone else knew what had happened. Nathan then encouraged rumours of England's defeat and began to sell Bank of England stock and government bonds (i.e. government debt). When the prices had crashed through the floor, his agents bought back up the government debt and stock.<br />
<br />
As each BoE charter was renewed over the centuries, the BoE became more embedded and powerful within the UK economy and beyond.<br />
<br />
So that should give you a picture of the roots and leading personalities of one of the oldest and most influential central banks. In 1946 though, in what might appear a significant change, the BoE was nationalised. What did that mean?<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">Did You Expect Nationalization To Make Much Difference?</span><br />
<br />
Well, you can read the <a href="http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/legislation/1946act.pdf">Bank of England Act 1946 here</a>, but essentially the government took ownership of the corporation. All the BoE shares were transferred to a representative of the Treasury, and the prior share holders <i>given the equivalent in government bonds</i>. These bonds would pay interest annually and be redeemable after 20 years (i.e. 20 years of guaranteed interest, with the option for the government to then pay the original capital of the bond to cancel the debt, or renew the charter and continue paying interest). So it appears in terms of the BoE being a "fund for perpetual interest" for private businessmen, nothing much had changed, even though the government now owned the BoE. In 1997 the BoE, while remaining a public owned company, gained independence from parliament to set interest rates, and to determine monetary policy (including the issuing of new money).<br />
<br />
Now, since the BoE is owned by the people that means new money can be created without creating pubic debt right? You'd have thought so, but actually no, when the BoE generates money it does it by purchasing government bonds (and since 2009 also about <a href="http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/markets/apf/results.htm">50p in every £100 of new cash in select corporate bonds</a>). The BoE purchasing a government bond involves it literally writing the money onto the government balance sheet, in return for the government's promise to repay it, with interest. Strange, but true. New money is created by increasing the national debt with the flick of a pen (or a few key strokes).<br />
<br />
But, surely, if the government now own the BoE, they can just take the bond debts that they owe to themselves and write them off, thus getting rid of the national debt? Again, you would have thought so, but actually no, because the bonds are sold on to private investors, companies, banks and pensions funds. You can <a href="http://www.dmo.gov.uk/documentview.aspx?docname=publications/quarterly/gilt-holdings-data-historical.xls&page=publications/quarterly">see how the debt ownership is distributed here</a> (XLS file), but some of the big holders in 2010 are pension funds and insurance companies with a combined 29%, and foreign investors with around 32% (amounting to £309 billion in 2010). The Central Bank takes the money from those sales. Some of that money goes back to the Treasury (25% profits, in the case of the BoE, post tax, see the 1946 charter) - effectively reducing the national debt interest rate - while the rest gets re-loaned, as stipulated in the original 1694 charter. Thus the government still accumulates debt with the creation of money and so, as from the very beginning, the national debt continues to be a fund for perpetual interest for private businessmen.<br />
<br />
As for how the <a href="http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/corepurposes/index.htm">BoE states its purpose</a> today, this is described in terms of 'stability' - maintaining stable prices and currency and a stable financial system. (Stable prices, means stable at the target of 2% annual inflation).<br />
<br />
The story of the Federal Reserve is also very interesting, but I'll save that for another time.<br />
<br />
It's also worth noting that the 20th century saw the creation of an international banking system, made up of the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) from 1930, the World Bank from 1944 and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) from 1945. These institutions were designed to spread the availability of loans (to finance development) and facilitate international trade. Mainly in the case of BIS, the purpose was also to provide a central bank for the national central banks. The existence of these institutions don't really change the mechanisms of the system, they just add another layer on the top.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">The Commercial Banks</span><br />
<br />
The story gets stranger once you follow the money to the commercial banks (i.e. all the banks which rely on the central bank for their money supply, and for being their 'lender of last resort' in case of failure).<br />
<br />
People and businesses pay money into banks for safe keeping and to gain interest. The interest comes from the bank taking that same money and lending as much of it as possible to other parties at a higher rate of interest, and giving the depositor a fraction of the profit. But, as already mentioned, banks can and do also borrow money from the central bank and other market sources to help cover their operational requirements, and also to be able to lend it on, at a higher rate of interest.<br />
<br />
When you deposit money at a commercial bank you are effectively lending them money, and they count it as a <i>liability</i> - something they are liable for and need to pay back with interest. When you borrow from a commercial bank they count your loan as their <i>asset</i>, because for them the interest payments are their source of income.<br />
<br />
Commercial banks are essential to the smooth operation of any economy with a debt based money system. This is because they provide the credit that fuels the economy, as well as enabling the easy flow of money from one point to another.<br />
<br />
The vast majority of money in the economy is created by the commercial banks in the form of new loans (a large portion of that being morgages). <br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">The Magic Money Multiplier</span><br />
<br />
So let's just look at what's happening there in commercial banks in a bit more detail with a simple example:<br />
<br />
Fred walks into Bank One with £100 in his pocket and wishes to deposit it. Bank One takes the cash and credits it to his account. With £100 added to its books the bank then lends Sam, who wants to borrow some money, that £100. But this time rather than give Sam cash directly, the bank just credits Sam's account with the loan. Sam takes his debit card and buys some groceries and a few plastic shiny things from Charlie's shop, for the sum of £100. Charlie's account, which also happens to be at Bank One, gets duly credited with £100 pounds.<br />
<br />
Here's where the banking magic happens. As a result of Fred's original deposit, Bank One now counts <i>two</i> deposits of £100 (Fred's and Charlie's), and one loan of £100 (Sam's). The bank now loans Charlie's deposit to Bob. Now the bank is earning <i>two sets of interest</i> on £100 from Sam and Bob (and also paying two sets of lower interest to the two depositors Fred and Charlie). If Bob now spends his loan at some other business, or even gives it away to a friend, also with a Bank One account, that £100 then get's counted as yet <i>another</i> deposit, which can then be lent out again, perhaps to a business or another person, and so on.<br />
<br />
In the above way, in this system, starting from a single deposit the bank can <i>multiply money</i> indefinitely, and charge interest from each new loan it makes from the 'multiplied money'. Looking at the whole economy, of course, there is also Bank Two and Bank Three and so on, and deposits and loans can be distributed and transferred between them. This simply means that the money multiplying mechanism is distributed amongst the commercial banks - the overall effect is the same.<br />
<br />
As a result of the commercial banks ability to massively expand the supply of money through loans or shrink the supply of money by making loans less available (or less affordable), they have a potentially huge control of inflation or deflation.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">Cash Shortage And The Different Types Of Money</span><br />
<br />
But what about the cash, surely there wouldn't be enough to go around and cover all the loans and deposits, if all this money is just created on a balance sheet? That's right, there <i>isn't</i> enough cash to cover it all, but since cash transactions account for a much smaller sum in terms of total value, than chequebook or electronic transactions the system operates smoothly, under 'normal' conditions. The bank keeps enough cash around to cover normal operational requirements and keep the ATM machines full and the rest gets loaned on and multiplied. It's only when you get a 'run on the bank' and everyone wants their cash at the same time that problems arise. (Although the risk of bank runs are mitigated now to some extent by the central bank's 'lender of last resort' status, which promises to protect customers deposits - up to a certain amount.)<br />
<br />
In practice, some cash and electronic money is kept out of bank accounts which can be loaned on, some money goes overseas or is destroyed, and some loans default. From the example above, when (or if) Sam and Bob find the money to pay their loans plus interest back, then that 'multiplied money' or 'chequebook money' ceases to exist somewhere in the system. Or rather, it gets cancelled out until the banks finds someone else to lend the money (which is someone else's deposit) to. Also banks generally have either a <i>fractional reserve</i> requirement (by law they need to keep a fraction of all deposits as reserves) or a <i>capital reserve</i> requirement (they need to keep a certain sum of money handy). All of this prevents the original M0 money supply being multiplied to infinity.<br />
<br />
But nonetheless the money supply is multiplied and economists refer to the phenomenon as the 'multiplier effect'. The resulting pool of money being traded is referred to as M2 in the USA and M4 in the UK. According to <a href="http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_economy/ETSupp2006.pdf">this National Statistics report (p266)</a> in the UK M4 has swollen from around 4 times the size of M0 in 1969 to over 28 times the size of M0 in 2005 (in 2006 the BoE stopped publishing figures for M0). In the USA in 2010, M2 was around 10 times the size of M0. There is a <i>lot</i> of loaning going on.<br />
<br />
So, money is classified according to how it is created. M0 is the 'base money', the total amount created by the central bank. It is also referred to as 'high-powered money', because it can be multiplied via the commercial banks. M2 and above includes M0 together with all the 'chequebook money' created by the commercial banks. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply">Read more about the types of money here</a>.<br />
<br />
The bigger question is, how does all the <i>interest</i> on those loans ever get paid?<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">Paying Back the Interest</span><br />
<br />
Let's go back to our earlier example of Fred, Sam, Charlie and Bob, where Fred's initial deposit of £100 through just a few transactions leads to there being an additional £200 on the bank's books and in the economy, and two loans of £100 for the bank, each earning it interest. The question is, how can all that interest ever be paid off? Let's explore some options for Sam and Bob to repay their debt to the bank:<br />
<br />
<b>Earning more money:</b> They could, for instance, get promoted, work more hours or take a second job, or start a new successful trade, and in that way pay their debt back.<br />
<b>Spending less of their income and saving:</b> They could make sacrifices and spend less of their income on other things in order to have the money available to make the repayments.<br />
<b>Becoming lenders (or loan-sharks) themselves:</b> They could also start lending other people more needy than themselves money - at a higher rate of interest than their own debts. Then, providing they got their payments, they'd be able to repay their debts from the debts of other people.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
In any case the fact remains, they must find <i>more money than they originally took out</i> in the loan - because of the interest charged. What happens if you apply that fact to the whole economy and all the loans underpinning economic activity?<br />
<br />
Remember when money is created by the Central Bank, debt is created at the same time. As a consequence, debt spreads throughout the economic system, as commercial banks borrow from various sources of money and lend it on at a higher rate of interest. Looking at national debt now (alongside the sum of personal debt), some taxes go to paying it off - currently about 10% of all tax revenue in the UK goes to <i>just paying the interest off</i>, which amounts to about 50% of the entire UK education budget, every year. Also public spending can be cut to a point. But in the end there's no escaping the fact that:<br />
<br />
<i>£money supply + accruing interest > £money supply</i><br />
<br />
Commercial banks only multiply money by lending it multiple times, thus creating more debt, and more interest to eventually be paid, so they cannot invent the money to pay off debt. Ultimately the only ways of addressing this - in the present system - are threefold:<br />
<ul>
<li><b>Create more money.</b> Obviously this isn't really a solution. New government bonds can be created to generate cash to cover the interest payment, but this just defers the problem and makes it bigger too. Beside the fact that the debt increases, there is also runaway inflation to worry about, so the rate at which new money is created has to be carefully regulated.</li>
<li><b>The lenders at the top of the lending chain spending their money.</b> Where the financial system has a certain fraction of pre-existing debt free money (which if you remember the story of how the BoE was created in 1694, will be roughly equal to M0), then those in possession of that money -starting with those that buy government bonds in large quantities - can spend some of it back out into the economy. Here it gets passed around for products, paid as wages and so on. Through the trickle down effect (see <a href="http://joe-hudson.blogspot.com/2011/06/growth-without-growth-journey-down.html">part 1</a>) it spreads out and can eventually work it's way through the tax and banking systems and get paid back as interest payments for both personal and national debt. (Almost like free money.) This is an ongoing, continual process, i.e. because of the interest there's never enough money for everyone in debt to pay it all back in one go, instead work must be exchanged for money which is used to pay taxes and the earned interest of the bond holders re-spent into the economy <i>multiple times</i> for the debt to be whittled down.</li>
<li><b>The indebted giving up real assets.</b> This is where those in debt give up more of their real assets such as time, labour, land, property and other material resources, in order to cancel their debt. This giving up of assets could result in earning more money to pay off debt (or at least the interest). Or where they can't earn money and have to default on the loan, then they can simply give up whatever asset they used to secure the debt (if it was a secured loan, like a mortgage), for instance their family home. Incidentally in 2008/09 there were over <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN00263.pdf">86,000 home repossessions</a> in the UK, that's about 5 repossessions every hour around the clock, every day, over those 2 years. That's a lot of assets!</li>
</ul>
Oh, there's also the possibility of raising taxes, but that's never popular. What ends up happening for the most part is a combination of all three above options. Through the 2nd option, where those at the top of the lending chain spend at least their received interest payments back into the economy, it's <i>potentially</i> possible for overall debt to be reduced, or even eliminated. However, while the debt in an economy may sometimes shrink, in the current global socioeconomic system it's <i>not practically possible for this debt to be eliminated</i>.<br />
<br />
This <a href="https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html">CIA fact book list</a> shows 132 countries that all have national debt. (The international tax haven Monaco isn't on the list, but if it was it would be no 1, with a national debt of almost 2000% GDP.)<br />
<br />
To show how national debt mounts up, here are two charts of national debt as a fraction of GDP, for the UK and USA. (Gross Domestic Product is the market value of all final goods and services produced within a country within a certain period.)<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg80AtUVHy1QjWxbHt5PNGcUcwsiw9p5PsUDovKLxcYAbZAXo59DvBxHb7Wu2EomAl5RCkR7eXBPnXNlKOupJp1zLHFZYTnGz5PWoo7YF-mm1iOVspafMe_UhNmnCkEUzsdRpnvBnape3ap/s1600/ukgs_line_national_debt_gdp_history.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg80AtUVHy1QjWxbHt5PNGcUcwsiw9p5PsUDovKLxcYAbZAXo59DvBxHb7Wu2EomAl5RCkR7eXBPnXNlKOupJp1zLHFZYTnGz5PWoo7YF-mm1iOVspafMe_UhNmnCkEUzsdRpnvBnape3ap/s1600/ukgs_line_national_debt_gdp_history.png" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkTtCveE0JCssARI5NsvGLUn2hEFq1e1t3Q5JxOGkEK44xWa3G0yEi773LMjtHZAu85CddliSP2gmD42BIMY32RMhmqN0IkICk2t3H-mvvW-jBDlTZAqJwCwSMDheH0hv7MSamwQPFcBQp/s1600/usgs_line_national_debt_history.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkTtCveE0JCssARI5NsvGLUn2hEFq1e1t3Q5JxOGkEK44xWa3G0yEi773LMjtHZAu85CddliSP2gmD42BIMY32RMhmqN0IkICk2t3H-mvvW-jBDlTZAqJwCwSMDheH0hv7MSamwQPFcBQp/s1600/usgs_line_national_debt_history.png" /></a></div>
<br />
Notice how wars and (currently) to a lesser extent financial crisis, rack the debt right up. Notice also that the only time America has been free of national debt in the above chart is around 1835, when President Andrew Jackson managed in his career long battle to 'kill the central bank'. A quote by former former Governor of the Federal Reserve, Marriner Eccles, sums the current situation up: "If there were no debts in our money system, there wouldn't be any money."<br />
<br />
That's a little about national debt, but now let's return to the personal debt of individuals and businesses.<br />
<br />
Going back to the example of Fred, Sam, Charlie and Bob, what would happen if somehow Sam and and Bob were able to pay their debts off? Now Bank One has Charlie and Fred's deposits of £100 it needs to pay interest on, but Sam and Bob are no longer paying for that (plus profit), because they've paid their loans off. The bank is now losing money on those deposits.<br />
<br />
Now supposing, by some miracle, that everyone in the economy is able to pay all their debts, mortgages n'all, off and no-one else wants to borrow money. Now the banks are really in trouble, right? Well, with no-one to loan to, they'd have to stop paying customers interest, obviously. But where does that money to pay the debt off come from? It has to come from the M2 money supply, i.e. M0 plus the multiplied chequebook money. Effectively - once the limited cash supply has been used to cover some of the debts - for every debt that's paid off, there is a deposit of equal value somewhere that is removed from a bank account. E.g. Charlie writes Sam a cheque for £100 to paint the shop, and Sam adds £10 from his other earnings to that to pay his debt off, including the interest. That extraction of deposits by Charlie and the debt payment by Sam results in cancelling of that money. Neither Charlie, Sam or the bank have it any more; it no longer exists. This means M2 shrinks by £100.<br />
<br />
<b>The end result is that if all the debt in the economy is paid off, then the M2 money supply would shrink to M0 - the money originally created by the Central Bank.</b> What do you think that would do to the economy? For starters, trade and industry would collapse, only a fraction of people would have money to buy food. Bad news. But wait, what about the capital debt plus interest on M0? Remember there's a government bond to account for every pound of that money.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">What Would It Take To Pay Back Everything?</span><br />
<br />
Here's where it gets really crazy. Taking our hypothetical situation, where everyone has paid their personal and business financial debts off and all that's left is M0 in the economy (along with general pandemonium), the only way for M0 to get paid off (without creating more debt) would be for everyone to be taxed of <i>all</i> their money which would then be given to the government bond owners, every last penny of it. Yes, the only people with any money at all in the economy, if absolutely all debt was to be paid off, would be the government bond holders*.<br />
<br />
What are the implications for the above thought experiment? One important understanding of the system is that <b>as debt is paid off, money concentrates in fewer and fewer hands</b>. (In terms of balance sheet wealth it's better to be debt free than in debt, but if you're only way of living, or continuing business, is on credit, then that's an issue for you.) The natural companion to that understanding is that when money is in demand and loans readily available, those who acquire debt can get by through being sufficiently 'productive' (working harder, longer, better) or by giving up other assets to the lenders. In this way <b>power accumulates in the hands of the lenders</b>. In other words, debt as the foundation of money creates inequality; especially where interest accrues on that debt.<br />
<br />
From what has been discussed so far, the conclusion seems inescapable: The current economic system literally <i>depends</i> on people getting and staying in debt (which, in the system, is how money is multiplied into existence to facilitate normal economic activity) Continual debt ensures inequality. Wealth is merely lent to the large majority, but it must always be returned, and with interest.<br />
<br />
Put differently, it could <i>never be possible</i> for material wealth to be evenly accessible and enjoyed, because the current system is literally built on a perpetual chain of debt.<br />
<br />
Casting your mind back to <a href="http://joe-hudson.blogspot.com/2011/06/growth-without-growth-journey-down.html">part 1</a>, where do the underpinnings of this system sit in those two approaches to meeting needs? While there can be tremendous innovation and collaboration in industry and trade, the very heart of the money system, which ensures the continuation of inequality through debt, seems to me as firmly planted in the 'threat-focused' camp as anything possibly could be. I believe a result of that 'poisoned core' is that this mode of thinking permeates out through much of society, and the fact that many people struggle, while great wealth is hoarded by others, simply helps to perpetuate it. This is why I think piling blame or hatred on 'the rich', the bankers or the industrialists is ultimately <i>not</i> helpful. A paradigm shift is required to create a broader paradigm shift. But more on that later.<br />
<br />
Note that today the system requires no evil banking empire to maintain, nor <a href="http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/">Bilderberg</a> or lizard related conspiracy theories**. The mechanisms of debt based economy are now globally institutionalized, enshrined in law, and taught as the gospel of 'progress'; they are now part of a machine that needs no master. For instance, let's say you or I were to do well in business or finance and build a small fortune of perhaps £1 million. We could then live out the rest of our lives quite comfortably by just living on the interest payments of that money, deposited in savings accounts or invested in high quality bonds, e.g. government bonds (provided we left enough of the interest accruing to keep up with inflation). We would then be in, qualitatively, the same position as the big bankers; someone else's labour would from then on be paying for our income. If we manage to be one of the few that can be in that position, then the economy literally works for us.<br />
<br />
Having said that, there's still room for a ruling class, to ensure legislation and politics stays favourable to the 'money machine', by controlling the flow of money, inflation and deflation, or by kicking off conflicts to increase debt. But I'm not sure it's necessary. Every relatively wealthy person who believes in the system as a 'good thing' (and also some that aren't wealthy, but still believe) and votes, donates or lobbies accordingly, or exchanges a few words at the golf club, helps to maintain that system. It's true that, in the majority of the world's countries where this system is adopted, income tends to be very unevenly distributed (perhaps roughly in proportion to M2/M0, I wonder), with a small percentage taking the lion's share of wealth. But in total numbers of people that's still a lot of rich folk; and money talks.<br />
<br />
I'll wrap up this section with a quote attributed to a former director of the Bank of England, Josiah Stamp:<br />
<i>"Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take away from them the power to create money and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money."</i><br />
<br />
The title of this piece says 'growth without growth'. So where does the idea of growth come into the story? The mainstream economists and bankers 'solution' to giving more wealth to more people and reducing the <i>effective burden</i> of debt is called economic growth. What is it, and how is it supposed to help the population as a whole?<br />
<br />
Here's a hint: Debt obligations spur on 'productivity' - more work being done, and occasionally technological innovation happens that potentially benefits everyone.<br />
<br />
* <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">Actually, since 2009, the BoE has backed a tiny (0.5%) amount of new money with corporate bonds. Other Central Banks do similarly. So, if all debt were to be paid back, a fraction of the money would end up with those corporate bond owners.</span><br />
** <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">A recurring theme of the author David Icke.</span><br />
<br />
<b>To be continued</b><br />
<br />
-- I know I promised solutions in part 2, but then I didn't expect to be writing so much. So, <a href="http://joe-hudson.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/growth-without-growth-journey-down_29.html">part 3</a> will explore what economic growth really means, where the drive for it comes from, and what some alternatives look like. In the mean time I'd love to hear your thoughts on the above!Joe Hudsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02007274433208167837noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8883586897037151449.post-10967815194426484342011-06-16T19:58:00.000-07:002011-07-25T10:14:15.058-07:00Growth without growth - a journey down the rabbit hole. Part 1There has been a collection of ideas brewing in my mind for some time, but I've been at a loss for a way to share them that was simple and didn't make me look like a raving conspiracy theorist. Now I think I'll just record my thoughts and see what happens.<br />
<br />
This is about many things, money, being trapped, finding hope, control, freedom, wising up, how to live life truly to the fullest, and more. It's hard to know where to begin.<br />
<br />
Before I get stuck in, I'd like to say that if you're completely content in your life, in your relationships and your role in the world, and you see no cause for there being change in how the society you are a part of operates, then you'll likely have little interest in the following ideas. Enjoy your day. Otherwise I look forward to sharing some ideas and hopefully hearing your thoughts.<br />
<br />
Firstly, just to be clear, my intent it to explore how things are currently operating, and how they can work better. It is not to blame, or demonize any one individual or group, since to do so would not be very constructive.<br />
<br />
Underpinning much of what I have on my mind are two outlooks, or modes of thinking, together with a fairly straightforward view of what drives us. While it might seem like an curious psychological tangent, the ideas are simple at heart and we'll be making use of them later on. The two outlooks:<br />
<ol><li>'Threat-focus': In any situation where there is some difficulty in meeting your needs, you focus on improving your situation in terms of neutralizing threat. People can become obstacles, and violence or manipulation options. In this outlook, it's 'you against them'. Winning, securing, or protecting is the goal, to the exclusion of all else. It's a zero-sum game. In this mode of thinking cooperation may take place, but it's the kind of cooperation that lacks a sense of freedom or joy, and it's usually in the wider context on competition against some other person or group. It's very hard to feel at peace in this mode.</li>
<li id="collaborative-mode">'Collaborative': In any situation where there is some difficulty in meeting your needs, you focus on how you can work together with everyone involved in the situation to find a solution that meets everyone's needs. The aim of working together with respect, gaining deeper understanding and seeking an outcome that genuinely works well for everyone takes precedence over 'looking after number one'. Strong collective benefit is seen as coming from taking this attitude. It's easier to find a sense of freedom and joy in working together in this mode.<br />
</li>
</ol>Both threat-focus and collaborative modes of thinking are <i>natural</i> and serve a useful purpose. However, threat-focus tends to be a high-stress state, most suitable as an 'emergency backup mode' for when the shit hits the fan, you're in serious trouble, and all else fails. Most people have a switch-over point for when it becomes so hard to meet their own needs (physical or emotional) that they lose the will to collaborate - work together to produce mutual gain, valuing everyone's needs as equal - and simply fighting to meet their own needs takes centre stage. Sometimes, due to our environment, lifestyle or conditioning, we can get stuck in a threat-focused way of thinking.<br />
<br />
These two modes of thinking can be active on different scales as we expand our empathy beyond ourselves to our family, partners and friends, then out to our community, nation, race, all people, all living creatures and the planet at large. It's possible to have different modes of thinking on different scales. I believe all conflict is dealt with in one (or a combination) of these two modes. So then it's not that people are inherently selfish or violent, but they can certainly be conditioned into thinking and behaving largely in that way. Luckily, adaptive creatures that we are, it's possible to unlearn such conditioning.<br />
<br />
As for the view on what drives our behaviour, the idea is simply that everything we do, we do to meet certain underlying, natural needs.<br />
<br />
We may not be explicitly aware of a particular need when we act, and it may be wrapped in many different strategies, habits, customs and beliefs - of varying degrees of effectiveness. But nonetheless, what gives our beliefs and our approaches to any objective <i>meaning</i>, is that these things are orientated towards satisfying those underlying needs. A basic example would be: "I'd like to spend the afternoon in the park with you". Here the strategy is being in the park with that person, while the underlying needs may be companionship, affection, play, etc.<br />
<div><br />
</div><div>There is a common pool of needs that everyone shares regardless of culture, background, or sex. These include: freedom, support, identity, purpose, nurture, affection, joy, play, security, understanding - as well as the basic needs for food and shelter. These needs unite us. (For those interested, I go into more detail about dealing with conflict and getting in touch with needs in my book <a href="http://www.healthylovingrelationships.com/">"Healthy Loving Relationships"</a>)</div><div><br />
</div><div>With that foundation laid, let's now look at some of the issues present in the world:<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">(warning: you may find it a little 'heavy' from here on. There are also some statistics to digest. But please be assured, there is light at the end of the tunnel.)</span></div><div><ul><li>Rising total level of material wealth, but increasing numbers of people either in or close to poverty.</li>
<li>Dwindling natural resources, polluted environments, damaged eco-systems and man-made climate change.</li>
<li>Inertia in existing political system, relatively little sign of changing track to stop the practice of economic slavery or to avoid further catastrophic pollution, over-exploitation of natural resources and climate change.</li>
</ul><div>So this gives rise to 3 questions worth exploring: </div><div>What is the connection between the rising gap between a minority of rich and a majority of poor, and the source of their wealth?</div><div>What are the effects of this wealth generation on our environment and other living systems?</div><div>Why is there such a lack of movement in government to effectively redress the situation?</div></div><div><br />
</div><div>I think the 2nd question about the effect on the natural environment has been well treated and the answer is relatively widely known (for some background and perspectives on it a <a href="http://joe-hudson.blogspot.com/2009/09/climate-change-and-modern-society.html">previous blog</a> I wrote). I'd like to focus more here on the other questions.<br />
<br />
On the subject of wealth distribution here's a graph from a recent <a href="http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_economy/wealth-assets-2006-2008/Wealth_in_GB_2006_2008.pdf">report by the Office of National Statistics, for wealth in the UK 2006-08</a>.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4uP0vI0P_uyD5xSND0sqvQ1MzdgXIntBgsciBy1zwdILNUDbLGjK-PZwGy4SLBf-H0b_6YCUx74CQkIPKCkoFnR_c6qmLVcg6-UrZ2bBNM8J0-mJtOSxq4JevVQrtjwN7QRlyQd0wUFii/s1600/distrib_aggr_wealth_2006_08.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4uP0vI0P_uyD5xSND0sqvQ1MzdgXIntBgsciBy1zwdILNUDbLGjK-PZwGy4SLBf-H0b_6YCUx74CQkIPKCkoFnR_c6qmLVcg6-UrZ2bBNM8J0-mJtOSxq4JevVQrtjwN7QRlyQd0wUFii/s1600/distrib_aggr_wealth_2006_08.png" /></a></div><div><br />
</div><div>From this graph it's clear just how little wealth the large majority of the population have in comparison to the top deciles. According to the official report, the poorest 50% of the population's households have just 9% of the country's wealth, while the richest 50% have the other 91%. Actually the bottom 10% are an average of £20,000 in debt, excluding mortgages.<br />
<br />
[For anyone who's not familiar with the terminology of the graph, you can think of the vertical wealth axis, as a 'wealth cake' representing all the financial wealth in the country. The markings divide it into 10 equal slices. The horizontal households axis as a queue comprising all the households in the country. The queue is arrange in wealth order, the poorest people down at position zero, getting richer towards the 100% mark. So then to find out how much wealth the top 10% have, for instance, you subtract the wealth value at the 90% (~55% of the wealth cake) mark from the 100% mark (100% of the wealth cake) and be left with 45%. If wealth were distributed equally then it would follow the straight diagonal line.]<br />
<br />
We'll talk much more about debt in Part 2. But very briefly looking at mortgages, as at April 2011 personal mortgage debt in the UK stood at £1.24 trillion, or £1,241,000,000,000. In the USA in 2007 mortgage debt for single family homes stood at $14.5 trillion, which, amazingly, gives a 10% compound annual growth rate in mortgage debt since 1955! Like the wealth gap, personal financial debt is something that is continually expanding.</div><div><br />
</div><div>The gap between rich and poor in the UK, USA and the majority of the 34 OECD countries is wider now than ever, since records began (See <a href="http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/20/47723414.pdf">this report</a> for figures covering the last 30 years). Thus the idea of the 'trickle down effect' of wealth is fine, so long as you realize it really is a little trickle, while the main pipelines of wealth creation flow directly to the wealthiest and, to a great extent, stay in those small circles.</div><div><br />
</div><div>Naturally, the rich can only be so rich because the poor are so poor; there is a limited amount of material resources to go around, and so vast wealth for a few <i>depends</i> on vast numbers of poor. The more people there are on a finite planet, the more stark the situation becomes.<br />
<br />
Of course, technology can improve the efficient use of resources, health care and other things, but in terms of access to and use of land, raw materials and political power, here there is increasing disparity. Also the limited access to technology can help to <i>maintain</i> these vast divides in wealth. Not only this, but it is the labour of the poor that creates much of the wealth of the rich and allows it to be spent. This is not intended as a political statement, merely an observation, and one that many have made in the past. And for the record, I do not consider myself a Communist, or even a Labour party supporter.</div><div><br />
</div><div>With the above graph, and similar stats for economically developed countries, it's important to realize that the bottom of the graph doesn't really end there. The practically flat line for the poorest 10% in the UK actually continues a long way backward, getting ever closer to zero wealth, as you trace the supply chains back to the countries where many of the products we consume come from. In parts of India, China, Indonesia, Mexico, Brazil and many others - and sometimes much closer to home in exploited groups of illegal immigrants - that bottom 50% would look at many of the poorest UK citizens and see a rather comfortable, maybe even lavish living. This is the system we live in. </div><div><br />
When talking about uneven wealth distribution, it's fairly common to hear - even from those near the bottom of the distribution - a response along the lines of: "If you don't have the wealth you'd like, you just need to work harder and smarter, it's your responsibility. Everyone has a chance to be rich."<br />
<br />
It's vital to separate the truths from the assumptions with this kind of response. Working harder and smarter <i>does</i> tend to lead to more material wealth, and everyone does have <i>a</i> chance. However, firstly, realistic opportunities for material wealth vary very widely through most societies, with factors including quality of education, upbringing, gender, accent, part of the country you reside and social circle - alongside any factors of real aptitude. So the chance is there, but it is not the same chance. Secondly, although the current system, in terms of how 'success' is measured out, isn't exactly a zero-sum game, it's not that far from it (in fact for many it's arguably a negative sum game). As we'll discover, it's not even remotely possible for there to be a level playing field and broadly even access to resources with the current system.<br />
<br />
</div><div>Considering the whole picture, looking at the level of government policy, established economic and business strategies, law and technologies, the problems are rather complex and evidently hard to tackle.</div><div><br />
</div><div>There is, however, one aspect of 'the system' that I believe can unravel most if not all of the issues mentioned so far. </div><div><br />
</div><div>In nature, infinitely complex forms in everything from clouds and rock faces, to shells and leaves can be accurately modelled with simple formulae (fractals). I believe a similar level of understanding of the current global socioeconomic system can be gained by looking at one aspect of it: the money system. </div><div><br />
</div><div>By understanding how the money system works, in combination with the concepts of 'threat-focus' and 'collaborative' thinking previously introduced, the seemingly unstoppable juggernaut of expanding calamity that is the global socioeconomic system can be understood, and knowledge for how to apply the breaks gained.</div><div><br />
</div><div>Tune in next time when we really take a dive down the rabbit hole, exploring the, strangely mysterious, 'money system', and some practical changes that could lead to a better future for the vast majority of the planet. (Btw, this future does not involve living in huts and wearing grass pants - unless you want it to.) </div><div><br />
</div><div>In this journey we will discover where the drive for perpetual economic growth <i>really</i> comes from (no, it's not jobs and prosperity for all), what some saner alternatives might look like, and how money is literally created from nothing - and interest earned on it (sorry, you have to be a bank to pull that one off), and maybe more...</div><div><br />
</div>Joe Hudsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02007274433208167837noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8883586897037151449.post-5682195205341692242011-04-15T19:03:00.000-07:002011-04-16T15:30:30.212-07:00The Royal Wedding of William & Kate - my thoughtsPrince William and Catherine Middleton are to be married on 29th April 2011. I doubt that fact has escaped many in the UK by this point. According to Google, many millions of people have searched for info on the royal wedding just in the last few weeks, and the wedding has almost as much following in numerous other countries as it does in the UK. It's quite a phenomenon.<br />
<br />
What do I think about it? I've never followed much of royal events, only catching the occasional 'dramatisations' on the tabloid covers. But I see this wedding as an opportunity, for William and Kate of course, but also for their providing an example of what a loving partnership can be. It's inevitable that many will study how they are together and see them as role models. So, I hope that their love can shine through and endure. I wish them well and good luck.<br />
<br />
I've decided to send them a gift of my book <a href="http://www.healthylovingrelationships.com/">"Healthy Loving Relationships"</a>. I have no evidence that they need such guidance, it's simply a token of my hope that they live together in good health and love. And if there is a time where the ideas or guidance in the book prove useful to them (even amongst the plentiful sources of support I imagine they have available), I'd of course be delighted.<br />
<br />
One thing I write about in the book is how different relationships are often connected and how the pressure of expectations can deeply affect our ability to be happy in a relationship (and what to do about that). I can only imagine how strongly this truth is felt for people so much in the public eye. I believe that all people share a common set of underlying values, or 'needs', and feelings. In that sense, at our core we are so much alike, despite how different our station, diction or way of comprehension may be. So I hope that William and Kate are able to meet their needs in the fullest way together, despite the pressures of being public figures. I equally hope that their compassion for each other is extended to everyone they touch, by being public figures, and that they seize the opportunities they have to make the world a better place.<br />
<br />
Even despite the current pressures so many people are facing to their livelihoods and the general need to count the pennies, which I'm definitely feeling too (the bankers quest to own the world is relentless), there's something about the grandness and opulence of a royal wedding I find pleasing. It's a splendid and impressive spectacle, a chance to celebrate and perhaps picture ourselves in another reality for a moment. So their celebration can become ours.<br />
<br />
By the way, if you've read this and are curious about the book I'm sending to Prince William and Kate for their wedding, you can find out more and even read some free chapters at: <a href="http://www.healthylovingrelationships.com/">www.healthylovingrelationships.com</a><br />
<br />
[It's funny, I'm sending them this book, and the first thing I think of after writing this blog is teaching them both to dance (Argentine) tango...]Joe Hudsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02007274433208167837noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8883586897037151449.post-24575578306177018152011-04-02T16:05:00.000-07:002011-04-02T16:16:38.629-07:00Tango dance Joint Venture in SouthamptonHere's the idea in a nutshell: If you can get together a group of 6 or more people who are willing to learn, and you have a room available*, then I will come and give you a <b>free,</b> hands-on introduction to tango dancing.<br />
<br />
If you don't already know, tango is a dance like no other, where you learn to move in complete connection with your partner, expressing the music with creativity, elegance and emotion. It has many benefits from general health, fitness and well-being, to listening and leadership skills. Of course, it's also a lot of fun!<br />
<br />
(To find out more about tango and who I am see <a href="http://www.tangolingua.com/">www.tangolingua.com</a>)<br />
<br />
<b>What you get:</b><br />
<ul><li>A chance to introduce your friends or colleagues to the benefits of tango, at no cost.</li>
<li>Appreciation and credit for doing the above.</li>
<li>A fun and educational experience for you, your friends or colleagues, which you or they may wish to take further.</li>
</ul><b>What I get:</b><br />
<ul><li>A chance to share tango with people who might not otherwise discover it.</li>
<li>Free publicity and the chance of gaining some future students from those who wish to learn more.</li>
</ul><div><b>Requirements:</b></div><div><ul><li>Groups of 6 or more people willing to learn and have some fun (maximum group size 30).</li>
<li>A clear space with enough room for everyone to stand arms out without touching each other. (*I can arrange a hall if required, but will have to charge for hire to cover my costs)</li>
<li>The venue must be in Southampton</li>
</ul><div>Participants do <i>not</i> need to come with partners (but can do), and if you have two left feet that's no problem - many people feel the same before they start! The free introduction will be suitable to complete beginners and 'non-dancers' and will last approximately 45 minutes.</div><div><br />
</div><div>To find out more about what I do see: <a href="http://www.tangolingua.com/">www.tangolingua.com</a></div></div><div><br />
</div><div>So, if you like the sound of the above and can get the people together, just email: contact@tangolingua.com or fill in the contact form here <a href="http://www.tangolingua.com/contact">www.tangolingua.com/contact</a></div><div><br />
</div>Joe Hudsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02007274433208167837noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8883586897037151449.post-82446641697960066032011-03-10T15:57:00.000-08:002011-03-10T17:02:27.428-08:00stories of peace and oppression, inspired by a talk by Moazzam BeggThis evening I went to a talk by Moazzam Begg held at Southampton University. Moazzam is a survivor of the Guantanamo prison camp in the United States, where he was held for 3 years without crime, charge, or any evidence being given for a crime. He is also a peace campaigner, and author of the book "Enemy Combatant: My Imprisonment at Guantanamo, Bagram, and Kandahar". I found the talk very inspiring and illuminating. As someone who knows practically nill about Islam, accept the general media slant on it, I was alarmed to hear about the level of suspicion and animosity many Islamic communities are apparently facing, not just from the usual suspects but from establishment too. I was also surprised to learn about the kind of hatred and violence the Jewish community faced in England and other countries, beyond Germany, during the lead up to WWII. Moazzam made a saddening comparison to the status quo. There were lots of interesting facts in the talk relating to how 'flexible' media and government can be. For instance, Nelson Mandela, perhaps one of the most widely respected and revered people on earth, is actually a convicted communist terrorist. Fancy that.<br />
<br />
While I was very touched by Moazzam's personal stories of how borders could be crossed and bridges to peace and compassion built, I was also slightly disappointed at the polemic style the debate took sometimes. I would have liked even more focus on collaborative approaches to conflict resolution, and practical steps that everyone can take. I would have liked less engagement with threat-focused thinking, 'us and them', blame, etc. that some questions from the audience steered towards.<br />
<br />
It's of course true that the more threat someone, or a group of people, perceives then the harder it becomes for them to resist focusing on the threat and becoming defensive (or potentially aggressive) in their thinking and action. The harder it becomes to retain a firm focus on working together to bridge gaps of understanding and rediscover our common humanity that underlies even strong cultural and religious differences. Therefore the <i>more important</i> it is to try and keep that more constructive approach, when threat raises its head.<br />
<br />
As Martin Luther King put it "Peace is not some distant goal we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal." When Moazzam spoke of making peace with the soldiers that had beaten and tortured him, and even bringing them into his house for dinner, I felt his message was very much aligned with that philosophy. In one of his true stories he described how he'd developed a rapport with a young soldier at Guantanamo Bay. One day the soldier broke down in front of Moazzam's 8ft by 8ft cell, dropping to his knees and also dropping the food he'd bought with him. The soldier had committed adultery, had been found out and that day ordered to phone his wife and explain what he'd done. The soldier said to Moazzam, who spent everyday in that cell: "Do you ever have one of those days where you feel like everything is going wrong?" It was a funny story, but Moazzam becoming an 'agony uncle' to this young soldier showed how behind the roles we accept in life, people are just people. In another story he described how former torturers had wept down the phone to him in apology and later became dedicated proponents for peace.<br />
<br />
Moazzam showed through his stories how engaging with 'the other', reaching out and learning about them, that conflict naturally gives way to peace. It's the kind of steps that he has taken that lead to profound inner change in people and that change spreading to others. But in the face of such entrenched and widespread 'them and us' thinking, or at least media coverage, it takes a lot of effort and sacrifice to get the message through to a critical mass.<br />
<br />
As Moazzam pointed out, the English language bears the fruit of different cultures. Therefore by rejecting those cultures we also reject a part of our own identity. And surely it goes deeper than language? If we see someone and immediately judge according to a cultural or visual association, are we not also closing the door to our own virtues? How can we be compassionate or loving if we let our preconceptions rule us? To offer compassion or love to someone, we must first 'see' them. I think, then, that when we judge in this way we become smaller and more alone in the world.<br />
<br />
On that note, I noticed myself making judgements about Moazzam even before he started speaking. I didn't have a clue who he was before the talk. All I'd been told in the invite was that it was about a guy who'd promoted education in Afghanistan and Iraq and that it had something to do with Islam. Since I have some interest in education and am starting to learn more about global affairs, I went along. I was sitting there, the talk was due to start 10 minutes ago, and a large man in a suite, who may have been Turkish, wearing a taqiyah (skullcap) entered the hall. Lots of people greeted him. I assumed that was the guy. Minutes passed and he sat down. All the while there was a small Indian man, in casual dress standing around the podium area. He didn't seem like he was setting anything up, so I wondered what he was doing there. It just didn't occur to me that he could be the speaker. Funny how the mind works.<br />
<br />
If you get a chance to hear Moazzam speak I highly recommend it.Joe Hudsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02007274433208167837noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8883586897037151449.post-8984187769066559102011-03-05T19:25:00.000-08:002011-03-05T19:25:47.682-08:00Thanks for the support these last yearsThese last two and a bit years, on the whole I've been more focused and worked harder than I can ever ever before in my life. It's been wonderful in many ways, but pretty tough in others. I really couldn't have done it without support from my friends and the many kind people in my life. Thank you.<br />
<br />
Just committing to taking as much time to write a book as is needed would seem insane to some, a practical impossibility to many, and a dream to others. Having been through it I can now say at times I did feel I was losing my grip on sanity and finishing it did seem like an impossibility. But the dream remained strong enough. Every time someone asked me how the writing was going, offered encouragement, or offered their own perspectives on what I was writing about, it really helped. Those personal connections reminded me of the worth of what I was doing, especially when I was at risk of accepting defeat.<br />
<br />
Some people, you know who you are, really went out of their way to offer advice, feedback on chapters, or boundless encouragement. Hopefully I've not missed anyone out in the acknowledgements section of the book. But once again, thank you! (They'll be some copies in the post to a few of you shortly)<br />
<br />
I may write a post another time on the details of my book creation and release process from writing, to layout, typography and cover design, on to pdf and e-book creation and finally the all important step of choosing how to print and distribute the book. All on the lowest possible budget, using open source, free software (except the fonts) and resulting in a global distribution through the world's biggest book distributor Ingram, while keeping almost 50% of the cover price per sale, including printing costs (in contrast the the usual 5-7%!). Yes, it's possible, providing you're prepared to do a hefty bit of work yourself and you can make the time for it. If you have a message to share that you have a strong faith in, it's no longer necessary to pin your hopes on the traditional publishing process, there are new, smarter ways.<br />
<br />
Ok, I can't resist giving a few details just briefly. For anyone who's just about to look into printing and distribution, checkout 'Lightning Source' thoroughly. On the software front, here's a short list: LibreOffice, Scribus, Inkscape, Calibre, Sigil. For print fonts, there are many options, but for that classic 'book look', Baskerville Book is a very well used professional choice, and worth the investment IMO. On the free font side, there is 'Crimson Text' which is shaping up nicely and 'Apparatus SIL' which I used in the e-book and Google books version. While working on the layout, compare frequently to books you think look great and which are on a similar subject, and do print tests, don't just rely on how it looks on the screen.<br />
<br />
What now? Now I'm preparing the website for show time. Making an effective website is a whole other art in itself - luckily one I have a fair bit of experience in. Like creating a book, there are countless little details to figure out and refine, all of which can take an age. But it's almost there. "Healthy Loving Relationships" has been available on Amazon and high street book shops since mid February now, but I anticipate the launch proper to start in a week or so, when the website is up to scratch. Then I'll be testing out all the marketing and promotion strategies I've been studying for the last year. I'm pretty excited about it and look forward to posting about the results.<br />
<br />
Tango has been one of the sacrifices I've made, especially over the last year. Even though I've recently set up my own tango school 'Tango Lingua', which is starting out really well, I've just not been dancing much for myself and with the many followers I so love to dance with. For this I can only apologise and hope for their understanding. As soon as my finances 'deficit heavy', I'll be back to my old travelling tanguero ways.<br />
<br />
I've been saying it for weeks, if not months, that I really need to take a week out and 'do nothing'. Soon...Joe Hudsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02007274433208167837noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8883586897037151449.post-84572613934253060022010-10-24T14:46:00.000-07:002010-10-24T14:47:57.137-07:00mangoAh, that's what I needed. 4 days of uninterrupted tango. I am thankful for the <a href="http://www.tangoindevon.co.uk/tangomango.html">Tango Mango</a> and all the people I spent time with there. So much joy, learning, expression, focus. It's not just the dancing, but the people, the late night conversations about everything from politics. economics and science to silly tango fashion, favourite jackass episodes and general good humour. Then there's the fresh air, and the generosity and community spirit people seem to have in the tango community (in my experience). I'm still on a high. I was chuckling to myself on the train back to Southampton, remembering some of the many great moments, between deep focus on new tango creations unfolding in my mind.<br />
<br />
More interest in 'the book', which is firmly in the very final stages now (yes, I tire of writing that), and also some in my tango teaching, without making any effort to promote it, which I take encouragement from.<br />
<br />
Despite sleeping very little (it's always the way for me at the Mangos) I feel spiritually refreshed.<br />
<br />
I had originally planned to spend only two days at the Mango and two days walking in Dartmoor, but my walking partner found a compelling distraction (in the form in a 'nice young Russian lady'), so I stayed longer. All is as it is meant to be. But I do look forward to exploring Dartmoor more before long.Joe Hudsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02007274433208167837noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8883586897037151449.post-39455662485284776192010-10-09T18:37:00.000-07:002010-10-09T18:37:19.433-07:00safe and relaxed tango in confined spaces - practica session notes11th Oct practica plan<br />
<br />
theme: Safe and relaxed tango in confined spaces<br />
<br />
<br />
Question: How do you help each other relax in a busy milonga?<br />
<br />
Shrinking dance floor. Continually reduce allowed floor area during practica.<br />
<br />
Avoiding collisions: side steps and turns.<br />
Dancing expressively in minature: small giros, favouring the open side. slow steps, fuller body communication, the richness in comunication is only between the two of you.<br />
<br />
Game: take half a song without a single full step, projection and balance changes allowed. Try with different partners.<br />
<br />
Game: use line of chairs to make a narrow corridor (could use people if enough) to practice following line of dance. Two couples going through at once. Do ochos and giros along line. Can you do your favourite figure?<br />
<br />
Dancing within a circle of people (2 couples to make circle, 1 couple in the middle).<br />
<br />
Blind folded tango within protective circle. Practice feeling for safe space.<br />
<br />
Go from dancing in small circle back to a 'normal' small floor, compare level of relaxation.<br />
<div><br />
</div>Joe Hudsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02007274433208167837noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8883586897037151449.post-19688666339851786332010-10-06T09:47:00.000-07:002010-10-06T09:47:05.015-07:00Beginner/refresher tango course - session notesAfter several years of pondering teaching tango professionally, now seems the time to do it. I've already dipped my toes in with the guided practicas I've started running, I have a lovely local venue and hopefully a lot of potential to grow the local scene. Also a little extra money would be very handy right now.<br />
<br />
I put together some rough notes for a 4 week course of 4, 90 minute sessions. I'd be very interested to hear any feedback from people who have some experience teaching tango. What ideas or activities work well for you with a new group of beginners? Does the below seem too ambitious for only 4 sessions? Any advice welcome!<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b>Session 1:</b> What is tango? Spirit, origin, music, culture, addiction. Two people connecting through touch and music, a timeless human activity. The embrace (hugging, the frame circle, listening), walking back and forth with connection and rhythm. Walk like this animal game: prowling cat, nervous mouse. Demonstrate the musical richness of ‘just walking’.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b>Session 2:</b> More on attitude, patience and respect. Getting more balance and comfort in the walk: head above shoulders, above hips, rolling weight, angle of foot, ‘finding the ground’. Role-play in walking: ‘impatient rusher’, ‘indecisive worrier’, ‘seducer’, ‘peaceful zen monk’. ‘There is no wrong foot’ concept. Getting around corners. Rock-step for musical expression and changing direction (also tests frame and connection). Obstacle course game, use rock-step or a simple pivot to ‘steer’.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b>Session 3</b>: The axis and your core. Ochos, a walk with a zig-zag. Break it down into different shapes or ‘stances’ for leader and follower. Step through the stances and correct posture. Practice drills against a wall. Find your axis between each step. Practice in pairs. Milonga etiquette, line of dance, safe distance. The responsibilities of leading and following. Line of dance and collision avoidance game. Playing with step size. How small can you step?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b>Session 4:</b> The free leg and following the direction of lead. The cross. ‘A move’ vs. ‘Free leg, following the lead’. Putting the cross into the dance. Show some variations. Refresh ochos, rock-step and pivoting. Introduce the giro: stepping around the corners of a square, disassociation. Balloon exercise. Couple has to keep the balloon between their chests as they do the giro. </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">I've also thought ahead to future courses. 'core skills 1' below is essentially what I've been teaching in the practicas so far. Had great feedback on it so far.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b>Tango core skills 1, 4 week course:</b></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">Session 1: 3 elements to walking as one (including work on double time and intro to close embrace)</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">Session 2: stepping with intent.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">Session 3: density and dynamics.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">Session 4: safe and relaxed tango in confined spaces (more on close embrace).</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b>Tango core skills 2 (requires core skills 1) , 4 week course:</b></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">Session 1: free leg, leg wraps, planeos, linear boleos, circular boleos</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">Session 2: leg invasions, ganchos and secardas</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">Session 3: shared axis, volcardas and colgadas</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">Session 4: playing with symmetry and asymmetry in form and timing (including breaking the embrace)</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b>Further tango skills, 4 week course:</b></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">Session 1: Enrosques, turning and spinning.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">Session 2: Back secardas and over-turned secardas.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">Session 3: Gancho and secarda chains. </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">Session 4: Aerial movements.</div>Joe Hudsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02007274433208167837noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8883586897037151449.post-73279116891962935952010-10-01T15:42:00.000-07:002010-10-01T15:46:03.026-07:00Stepping with intent - practica session notes4th Oct practica plan<br />
<br />
'Stepping with intent'<br />
<br />
Sub-themes: trust (as comes from patience and respect)<br />
<br />
How can leader and follower step with confidence and precision?<br />
What makes steps: indecisive, disconnected with leader or follower, uncomfortable, rushed, etc.?<br />
<br />
Lack of technique, respect, patience and trust. Other ideas?<br />
<br />
<b>A recipe for more confident and precise steps..</b><br />
<br />
Follower:<br />
Always listen for direction.<br />
Aim for smooth resistance while transferring weight.<br />
Trust that the space is safe.<br />
<br />
Leader:<br />
Be clear about direction but do not force it.<br />
Aim for smooth lead energy while transferring weight.<br />
Make sure the space is safe.<br />
<br />
<b>Walking exercise -</b><br />
striding out, big smooth steps. how can you stay connected? (revise ideas from '3 elements to walking as one', e.g. grip floor, role weight)<br />
<br />
<b>Exercise with ochos -</b><br />
Question: what angle are the steps of an ocho?<br />
How long is a piece of string? It depends on the lead.<br />
Try varying forward and backward ochos from a walk with a slight zigzag to large over-rotation going in the opposite direction to normal? Leaders and followers try to apply the above recipe.<br />
For leaders, try leading a forward ocho, while you are in cross basic, so that the follower is stepping deep into your space, brushing your leg with each step. (Demonstrate)<br />
(Typically some followers will be hesitant to follower the actual direction and strength of the lead, either increasing the angle of the step, or cutting it short. Both of which diminish the connection. Some leaders will respond to that by being ever more forceful, or giving up and dancing with less interest.)<br />
Help everyone feel the difference the recipe makes for this stylish and sensual step. Strategy for leaders to encourage followers to make such steps: gentle confidence, and building up from very slow movements. Strategy for followers: trust, but with discretion.<br />
<br />
Demonstrate a change of embrace that relies on giving clear direction and listening for it.<br />
<br />
Questions?<br />
<br />
Give 5 minutes of play to find a new or unusual way of using the recipe.Joe Hudsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02007274433208167837noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8883586897037151449.post-30445926280438281912010-09-25T15:43:00.000-07:002010-09-28T13:56:39.171-07:00fun with density and dynamics - practica session notes27th Sept practica plan<br />
<br />
fun with density and dymanics<br />
<br />
Objective: share some ideas that may help you to maintain connection while changing speed, resistance and direction. to have fun with it.<br />
<br />
sub-themes: patience, respect<br />
<br />
<br />
1. density<br />
what is it? level of resistence.<br />
altering density adds an expressive dimension and allows greater connection at higher or lower speeds of movement and for changes in direction. changing density <i>creates</i> dynamics in a dance.<br />
when changes in density are unintentional or incongruous with the music then connection is diminished.<br />
how can you lead it? followers, how do you understand when it's being led, what do you feel?<br />
compression to increase density. leader adds compression to frame. follower holds their frame and translates the tension into legs to create more resistence. keep shoulders back and down. channel resistence into floor, not shoulders.<br />
relaxation to decrease density.<br />
exercise: transition from normal to slow walk. try with and without change in density.<br />
question: what does changing density (as an option that can be chosen sometimes) add to the experience?<br />
talk about what happens with above idea with a lack of patience or respect. e.g. scenario: supposing follower doesn't understand about the frame, or leader or follower does not wait for the other?<br />
<br />
2. dynamics<br />
change in speed and force. change in density makes expressing dynamics in the music easier.<br />
musical example: slow and fast passages. demonstrate clearer connection and expressiveness through changing density.<br />
game: stop the leader. follower increases densisty quickly to mark a beat of pause, causing the leader to stop. it's a bold and playful movement that adds excitement and new sensitivity to a dance. it can also remind a leader that tango is a dialogue, not a monologue. some leaders can get confused or take offense. best used with good rapport and as an occational surprise. speaking of dynamics this action from the follower can really alter the emotional dynamics in a dance and spark fresh creativity from the leader. the stop the leader idea can be used sublty to great effect, it is also especially nice in close embrace.<br />
talk about what happens without respect from leader or follower with above idea.<br />
breaking the embrace is one example of reducing density to nill (show example). stopping the leader is an example of dialing it up to 11.<br />
<br />
any questions?<br />
<br />
what observations or discoveries have you made playing with these ideas?<br />
<div><br />
</div>Joe Hudsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02007274433208167837noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8883586897037151449.post-2840446699545651302010-09-25T15:11:00.000-07:002010-09-25T15:13:05.872-07:003 elements to walking as one - practica session notesThis the first posting of my session notes for the guided practica I've started giving at Povey's dance studio in Southampton. (Essentially for the first hour I work around a theme and share related ideas, principles, examples and exercises to help people develop their tango.) They're fairly rough, as notes go, but I hope someone might get some use out of them. Eventually they may all get distilled into a new book on tango next year. This first session I over planned slightly and only ended up getting 2/3s of the way through.<br />
<br />
'3 elements to walking as one.' given on 20th Sept:<br />
<br />
<br />
Objective: share some ideas that may help you to connect more deeply and consistently in your tango, which will improve confidence and creative potential. The elements are: smoothness, opposition and density.<br />
<br />
participation - question: what can you do with these principles that you couldn't without them?<br />
<br />
sub-themes: patience, respect<br />
<br />
1. smoothness<br />
forget about the step. frame.<br />
contrast with stepping as an autonomous action<br />
"what do you need to do to make it smooth?"<br />
tips: rolling weight from foot to foot. gripping the floor. quick movement of trailing leg. (straight back leg for style and avoiding leg clashes)<br />
<br />
2. opposition (or resistence) in every direction<br />
exercise: two forward steps followed by two back steps. play with level of oposition<br />
ideas: mirroring, frame, innertia. (respond to push with push, pull with pull, like moving through water, it resists in all directions of movement)<br />
application: secarda chain - try with and without opposition. (with, typically feels much nicer for everyone, no rush, more controlled and flowing)<br />
question: how does it feel for leaders? how does it feel for followers?<br />
<br />
3. density - level of opposition<br />
dynamics.<br />
intentional change in opposition or resistence. adds expressive dimension.<br />
question: how can you lead it? followers, how do you understand when it's being led, what do you feel?<br />
compression to increase density: leader adds compression to frame. follower holds their frame and translates the tension into legs to create more resistence. keep shoulders back and down. channel resistence into floor, not shoulders.<br />
relaxation to decrease density.<br />
game: stop the leader<br />
<br />
any questions?<br />
<br />
what observations or discoveries have you made playing with these ideas?<br />
<div><br />
</div>Joe Hudsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02007274433208167837noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8883586897037151449.post-21344831576477009282010-09-23T15:47:00.000-07:002010-09-25T14:36:08.582-07:00hiatus and open-source tangoIt's been a while. I've thought about blogging, but just not made the time in recent months. The main reason for breaking the hiatus is my starting to run a guided practica and wanting to share my session plans. My reason for doing that is partly because I'm interested in the input of other teachers and dancers, I enjoy sharing ideas and partly because posting them online will encourage me to make the notes more readable. Next year I plan a book on tango, which these notes may grow into part of. Two session plans will follow in the next day or so.<br />
<div><br />
<div>I'm pretty excited about beginning to teach tango 'officially'. I know that it will enhance my own learning as well as that of others. The practicas are currently held at the Povey's dance studio in Southampton, 159 Shirley road, every monday, 8-11pm. They are open to all and cost £3 per person to cover hall costs.</div><div><br />
</div><div>Other news. The revised edition of 'Healthy Loving Relationships' is very nearly finished. What was a 133 page book is now 280. Yep, it's become quite a fat little pocket book. But so much improved over the original. It's now a 2 year project over all. Committing myself for the last year to re-working it, without income, has been a struggle. One I wouldn't swap for anything else though. The sense of inspiration, contribution and deepening understanding I've gained is truly priceless. All that remains now is to gather a little more feedback and proof readers (so get in touch if you'd like to be a part of this project). I feel confident about getting it out there before the end of Oct, but we shall see.</div><div><br />
</div><div>One recent development that helped spur me on was the generous offering of feedback from a number of experts in the field of conflict resolution, on the section of my book covering conflicts in relationships and how to resolve them in a way that maximizes everyone's benefit. I'm very excited about that.</div><div><br />
</div><div>Well that's it for now. </div><div><br />
</div><div>Accept to mention my new fitness obsession: Kettlebells. Essentially solid iron cannon balls with handles that you lift and swing. I'm quite smitten with mine. It's just so simple and effective. There's a lot of skill involved in using it as well as strength (please don't start using one without at least studying a instructional book on it. Serious injuries await you, otherwise). It requires full concentration and delivers a lot of rewards for the effort. Three 20 minutes sessions a week is all you need. I admit, with pride, mine lives at the bottom of my bed. On that thought, I'll say good night.</div><div><br />
</div></div>Joe Hudsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02007274433208167837noreply@blogger.com0