Do Harper and his Tories hate kids? Perhaps not, but there is evidence they don't hold young people in any high regard. Take just two examples: What to do about young offenders, and addressing the nation's daycare needs.
Fuzzy blue sweater notwithstanding, Harper seems to regard young offenders with particular loathing, judging by the penalties he and his party wish to inflict upon them, and the mean, vindictive tone of voice in which he delivers his pronouncements on youth crime.
It is true that there is a small number of violent offenders (of all ages) who must be locked up to protect the public, but in dealing with this small number to the exclusion of almost everything else, the Tories focus on the wrong end of the criminal justice process--on those relatively few young people whose violent behaviour is most often the consequence of any of a number of reasons--violence and abuse inflicted upon them, broken social bonds, poverty, mental and developmental factors, and the lack of practical, consistent, adequate assistance for children and families at risk--or a combination thereof. (The Tories do give a nod to prevention with a paltry $10 million for youth gang prevention, whatever that might be.)
By refusing to address the above conditions which encourage criminal behaviour, and proposing only punishment to deal with young offenders, Harper and his Tories offer the judicial equivalent of snake oil--a slick, misleading presentation of policies which would, if anything, make matters worse, while deteriorating social programs fail to provide the necessary alternatives.
As for the deterrent effect of harsh penalties, Harper is either ignorant of, or willfully neglects, the evidence that most criminals, especially young ones, do not think in a logical manner when committing crimes; they primarily calculate, if they pause to consider the possible unpleasant consequences of their actions at all, their chances of being caught (an exercise which may consist more of discounting the possibility than being deterred by it). The severity of the penalties may make offenders more desperate to avoid capture while not inhibiting their criminal activity in the first place.
The goal of society should be to have as few people as possible pass through the criminal justice system, with incarceration being our last choice, not, as with the Tories, the first. A more fruitful approach would start with ending the war on drugs; a war which skews the criminal justice system in the wrong direction by providing persuasive incentives for everything from minor property theft all the way up to gang warfare. The Tories, however, refuse to even consider this sensible course, wrapped as they are in their self-righteous insistence on inflicting their personal views—and their expensive and dangerous consequences—on the rest of us.
A second, complementary approach to minimizing crime, is to take steps early in people's lives to address the conditions which encourage crime by combining measures to alleviate poverty (a negative income tax and/or other supports of purchasing power); assist parents in improving their parenting skills; and provide early support and treatment for those who suffer from Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, dyslexia, or other difficulties, mental or physical (which so often underlie criminal behaviour); and second, to implement a wide-spread restorative justice system in which young offenders (and older ones) learn how to take responsibility for their actions and make restitution to their victims and communities.
It is instructive to note that, when the Young Offenders Act, with its emphasis on 'justice' instead of the welfare of the young person, came into effect in 1984, Quebec did not follow the other provinces into treating young offenders more harshly, but persisted with a child welfare/rehabilitation model. The result is that Quebec has the lowest rate of youth violence in North America. Ignoring this fact, Harper is determined to put an inferior process in place, regardless of its proven limitations, not only because he believes it will win him votes, but because he is a punitive-minded man who sincerely believes that inflicting pain and hardship on others, somehow makes them easier to get along with.
One of the drawbacks of retributive justice is how often victims feel their needs have not been recognized or met, nor that they have had meaningful participation in the process, victim impact statements notwithstanding. But it is the harm done to the victim, and victim’s needs that is at the centre of restorative justice.
Restorative justice works on a number of principles, of which the following is one of the most central, "Restorative Justice is a process to 'make things as right as possible' which includes: attending to needs created by the offense such as safety and repair of injuries to relationships and physical damage resulting from the offense; and attending to needs related to the cause of the offense (addictions, lack of social or employment skills or resources, lack of moral or ethical base, etc.)." [Restorative Justice - Fundamental Principles by Ron Claassen, Director Center for Peacemaking and Conflict Studies, Fresno Pacific University http://peace.fresno.edu/rjprinc.html ]
To work at its best, restorative justice is labour intensive, and therefore does not come cheap. However, prisons don't come cheap, either, and offer even less chance of success in rehabilitation.
Harper's claim that it is necessary to "...drive home the seriousness of very violent crimes," before rehabilitation can take place, ignores the fact that punishment, instead of helping to focus the miscreant's attention on the pain they've caused others, and how to bring about atonement for it, encourages them to focus on their own pain, and to feel that they are the victim, thereby hindering rehabilitation.
The Tories claim to be tough on crime, but their approach is completely ineffectual in combatting it because they insist on perpetuating the biggest source of criminal activity (and the most expensive failure of public policy ever devised)--the war on drugs. As long as drug use remains a criminal offence, the black market and the gangs who run it, will flourish. But the Harper Tories' implacable denial of this fact endangers us all.
The second example of the Tories disdain for young people is their pathetic excuse for a daycare program--a taxable grant of a measly $100 a month, accompanied by the wishful thinking that businesses would fill the gap in daycare spaces, which (as any business person could have told them) companies will never do in a general way, even with government incentives, because daycare is not their 'core' business. Some firms have daycare for their own employees; the vast majority do not, and never will.
(For all their kowtowing to special business interests, Harper's Tories don't understand that the best conditions for doing business are not low taxes, but reasonable taxes that help fund the government services--from commercial and other legislation, to education, to transportation and communication infrastructure, to police and the courts, to health care and daycare--that business interests cannot function without, and profit from daily. More likely, the Tories and businesspeople know this, but they don’t let on to the Canadian public because they want us to go on paying for these essential services while corporations and their managements enjoy the lion’s share of the benefits, along with generous corporate tax cuts.
Harper's Tories are fond of appearing to give people choices (except for abortion, of course, which they surely will attack again, if they ever gain a majority), but in refusing to provide more daycare spaces, the Tories actually restrict choice. The $100 a month per child that is being frittered away, (not by the recipients, by the government), costs $2 billion a year; money which would be much better spent on funding daycare spaces than on under-funding parents who still cannot find high quality care.
In conclusion, Harper and his Tories may not hate kids, but they believe in a mean, narrow, punishment-driven philosophy that ends up wasting resources, human and financial, and making matters worse. They would rather waste hundreds of millions of tax dollars on the most expensive and least effective means of social control--police, courts, and prisons--than invest in less expensive, more effective programs for early education, treatment for mental and developmental difficulties, daycare, restorative justice, and other methods that work to prevent youth violence before it begins.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Principles of a New, Sustainable Economy
Faced by 'peak oil', global warming, decreasing fish stocks, and other consequences of modern economies, corporate power, and sophisticated technologies, it is clear we must make fundamental changes in the way we go about our business, if we and succeeding generations are to live even moderately well; the most fundamental change of all being to move from a growth-at-all-(externalized)-costs philosophy to an organic, cyclical view (see my previous blog "Economic Heresy"). The following, is based on my book, If Only Things Were Different: A Model for a Sustainable Society.
What is a 'sustainable economy'? There are many definitions; mine is: "One which provides present and future generations with a reasonably comfortable living while operating in harmony with the natural world." A 'reasonably comfortable living' includes clean air, water, and soil, good health, meaningful work, the beauty of the natural world, the provocation and solace of the arts, and the leisure to appreciate and enjoy it all--along with a moderate number of material goodies, many of which are locally made.
Some might consider my present lifestyle a model for a sustainable economy. My capital assets are limited--omputer, printer, radio, telephone, toaster-oven, and microwave--and my purchases few. At present, I can live comfortably on relatively little money because I live in a rich society. My landlord is financially secure (and generous) enough to charge a low rent for a furnished cottage; beautiful clothing is recycled through various charities, food is plentiful and cheap--but if many people lived the way I do, we would all be a good deal poorer, and I likely would have been forced to have had a job much more often, and for much longer period of time than has been the case, in order to enjoy the same standard of living I enjoy now.
The point is not my virtue in living thus, but my vice in not making a greater monetary contribution to the economy--a point I make in order to illustrate a further point, that simply cutting back on consumption, necessary as that is, is not sufficient to establish a sustainable economy. Poverty is not a means of conservation. On the contrary, poverty exacts a great toll on the environment, from the depletion of forests for firewood, to the pollution of drinking water, to erosion-causing farming methods (although, out of necessity, poor people are often consummate recyclers).
We need enough economic activity that almost everyone can make a living, whether through a job, or self-employment, while those who are unable to, or cannot find, work (whether temporarily or permanently) are decently supported. Questions abound: How can we have enough economic activity to provide this comfortable living, without getting caught in the current mad rush again? What shall we consume, and how much, and in what manner shall we consume it, and how shall we take care of our wastes?
The answers to these questions depend upon our values and principles. For a sustainable economy a fundamental principle is that the purpose of the economy is to serve human needs, short and long term, and not, as now, that people should serve the needs of the economy. Other principles are: That work has intrinsic value, whether paid or not; that beauty is an essential component of a sustainable society; that the economy is organic and cyclical in nature; and that everything connects.
Purpose of a Sustainable Economy
The first principle of a sustainable economy is that its purpose is to serve people’s needs, both individual and collective, short- and long-term. This may seem self-evident until one remembers how often the safety and livelihoods of workers, and the health, financial and otherwise, of consumers or communities have been sacrificed on the altar of 'maximizing profits' and 'increasing shareholder value'. In a civilized, sustainable society, these would no longer be moral goals. Profit would still have a role to play, but not maximizing it at the expense of all else, and the success of the economy, instead of being measured solely by criteria such as the Gross Domestic Product, or the strength of the dollar, would be assessed primarily in terms of the well-being of all within society, with the criteria including a slower pace of life, and the health of our environment (as measured by the Genuine Progress Index, for example).
Instead of guiding our economic activities by such limited values as profits, costs, and market share, we should give preference to those human values which underlie all civilized behaviour--personal values of honesty, patience, compassion, and good humour; aesthetic values of perspective, proportion and harmony; social values of health, education, and community; and political values of equality and democracy. The standard of economic success should be, not how much money we make, but how well we make it.
Work
A second principle is that work is an essential element not only of a sustainable economy, but of a fulfilled life. Not work in the abstract sense of labour, regarded as an unfortunate necessity and a cost of production, but work as an activity with intrinsic value for the worker. The distinction is between a job--any activity undertaken solely for money--and work, which is done as much for its own sake as for the money it earns. In a sustainable economy there would be much more work, and many fewer jobs, than now.
Assembly lines and sweatshops provide a lavish supply of products--weapons, washing machines, TVs, designer jeans--a supply so lavish we are in danger of asphyxiating, or poisoning, or blowing ourselves up in our excessive technological exuberance. We are a greedy society because too many of us have jobs which numb the mind and sour the spirit, and too few have work which challenges and fulfills us. We try to ease our craving for creative endeavour by buying more food, clothing, gadgets, travel, and entertainment than we really need, pleasures as fleet as candy on the tongue, leaving us perpetually dissatisfied, and perpetually consuming. Advertising, of course, is aimed precisely at this sore point, continually irritating it. To free ourselves, we need to become more like artists and scientists in how we make our living, not necessarily by becoming poets or biologists (although that, too), but by earning our living doing something that calls forth the best we have to offer, and brings us joy.
Beauty
The third principle is that beauty, of both the natural and the built world, is an integral part of a sustainable society and a healthy environment. Of course, beauty lies in the eye of the beholder, and the ideal is not that there should be a single standard of 'artistic excellence' as determined by academic or other arbitrary criteria; the ideal is that we care about beauty; that we ensure it is incorporated into public spaces and public life as well as into our own lives; that we respect the work of artists because we know something about it; and that we can create beauty ourselves. Achieving these goals entails taking the arts seriously, educating ourselves about them from an early age, both as participants and audience, and respecting artisanship of all kinds as valid career choices. All too often, artists, especially the avant garde, are appreciated more at a distance than in the bosom of the family.
Organic Nature of the Economy
A fourth principle is that the economy is an organic, not a mechanical, system. The relevant economic model is not the present one of foisting unwanted by-products onto society at large by dumping them into our air, water, or land, but instead, in addition to creating less waste from less consumption, to incorporate our wastes into further useful roles in the economy, just as forests, fields, oceans and rivers recycle their components--atoms of nitrogen, carbon, potassium, potash, oxygen, and other elements combining into plants and animals, breaking down through digestion, death, and decay, re-combining in new plants and animals, or becoming part of the cycles of water and air.
A sustainable economy requires both holistic and linear thinking, simultaneously. Thinking holistically means to see one action or set of actions in relation to and with other actions and reactions; thinking linearly means to follow the trail of consequences, external and internal, intended and unintended, wanted and unwanted, from production through use, and re-use, to breakdown and re-production. Taken together, we will be better able to minimize the downside of any policy or action (there always is one, however minor; it's part of the balance of the universe, as the yin/yang symbol illustrates), and to improve the up-side (without trying to maximize it). Good intentions (a worthy goal) are not enough; bad means (and good means carried too far), corrupt good intentions and worthy goals.
In a sustainable, recycling economy, manufacturers of products would be responsible for their entire life cycle--production, breakdown, and recombination. That is, products would be designed to be deconstructed when their original useful life is over, and their components either rebuilt into new copies of the same item, incorporated into the manufacture of some other item, or further broken down, or composted. Naturally, costs would be incurred, but, rather than being deterrents to establishing a recycling economy these costs indicate the amount of useful work/jobs being generated.
All costs are someone else's prices. Business people want their prices to go up, and their costs to go down, but since, in the aggregate, they are opposite sides of the same coin, prices and costs necessarily rise and fall together, although their impact differs, as different people are involved on each side of the exchange. From a sustainable society's point of view, both costs and prices should be respected, but should not be the dominant consideration in the political decisions required to establish a sustainable, recycling economy. A fully recyclable computer might cost more than a current model (or not) but in either case, we would be buying a greener way of living as well, making it a better bargain over the long run.
Everything Connects
The final principle is that everything connects, everything influences everything else, for good or ill, and benign as well as vicious circles can be established. For example, part of lowering health care costs lies in cleaning up the air, thereby reducing the incidence and severity of asthma and other respiratory diseases. Cleaning up the air requires cutting back on our use of private vehicles, which also lowers the incidence of expensive accidents and injuries. Changing our driving habits in turn depends on providing an attractive public transit system, and support for other alternatives, such as walking and biking. The use of these alternatives would increase if we evolved a more leisurely way of living and working. A more leisurely life-style would in turn reduce stress, and the illnesses which it causes or exacerbates, bringing us back once more to lower health care costs.
Conclusion
In order to deal effectively with global warming and other environmental ills, we must evolve a new economy, one that is not dependent on the cancerous spread of transnational corporations. It's time to start breaking up international conglomerates into smaller businesses so that a true free market (which, as originally described by Adam Smith, consisted of many small firms, none of which could control their prices) can exist. At present, too few companies dominate too many economic sectors. They may trumpet the virtues of the free market, while doing everything they can to maintain and extend their oligopolistic control.
Any market, when driven by the cancerous, greedy philosophy of never-ending growth, and without proper government oversight and regulation, inevitably becomes an oligopoly (if not a monopoly), in which the few large companies left don't have to engage in overt collusion to set prices.
Take gas prices, for example. The managements of the few big oil companies all observe the same markets, think the same way, have the same goals, and adjust their prices accordingly. Gas prices at different stations go up and down more or less together because (in addition to simply checking each other’s posted prices), oil industry executives all have the same mind-set; they don’t have to risk expressly agreeing to set prices at the same level; they act alike because they think alike.
There are some who say that there can be no compromise with capitalism, without saying what they would put in its place. But we only have two real choices--violent revolution (which is immoral, and usually futile ( 'revolution' generally means nothing more than replacing one political gang with another); or a slower, evolutionary process which begins with where we are now, and learns as it goes along how to apply the values needed to guide us in a more planet-friendly direction--a sustainable, recycling economy focused on the well-being of all of us (human and non-human, including plants) in all our communities.
Addendum
While researching for this opinion piece, I came across a most educational article at http://www.pcdf.org/corprule/assault.htm, called “The Betrayal of Adam Smith”, which is an excerpt from When Corporations Rule the World, 2nd Edition, by David C. Korten.
Statements such as:
"It is ironic that corporate libertarians regularly pay homage to Adam Smith as their intellectual patron saint, since it is obvious to even the most casual reader of his epic work The Wealth of Nations that Smith would have vigorously opposed most of their claims and policy positions";
"The theory of market economics, in contrast to free-market ideology, specifies a number of basic conditions needed for a market to set prices efficiently in the public interest. The greater the deviation from these conditions, the less socially efficient the market system becomes"; and
"Market theory also specifies that for a market to allocate efficiently, the full costs of each product must be born by the producer and be included in the selling price. Economists call it cost internalization. Externalizing some part of a product's cost to others not a party to
the transaction is a form of subsidy that encourages excessive production and use of the product at the expense of others."
indicate why I think this article, and others on the site are well worth reading.
Most important is the distinction Korten makes between 'market theory', which calls for, ". . . an end to corporate welfare, the breakup of corporate monopolies, the equitable distribution of property ownership, the internalization of social and environmental costs, local ownership, a living wage for working people, rooted capital, and a progressive tax system", and 'free market ideology', which abuses the concepts of Adam Smith to support positions that would be anathema to Smith himself.
What is a 'sustainable economy'? There are many definitions; mine is: "One which provides present and future generations with a reasonably comfortable living while operating in harmony with the natural world." A 'reasonably comfortable living' includes clean air, water, and soil, good health, meaningful work, the beauty of the natural world, the provocation and solace of the arts, and the leisure to appreciate and enjoy it all--along with a moderate number of material goodies, many of which are locally made.
Some might consider my present lifestyle a model for a sustainable economy. My capital assets are limited--omputer, printer, radio, telephone, toaster-oven, and microwave--and my purchases few. At present, I can live comfortably on relatively little money because I live in a rich society. My landlord is financially secure (and generous) enough to charge a low rent for a furnished cottage; beautiful clothing is recycled through various charities, food is plentiful and cheap--but if many people lived the way I do, we would all be a good deal poorer, and I likely would have been forced to have had a job much more often, and for much longer period of time than has been the case, in order to enjoy the same standard of living I enjoy now.
The point is not my virtue in living thus, but my vice in not making a greater monetary contribution to the economy--a point I make in order to illustrate a further point, that simply cutting back on consumption, necessary as that is, is not sufficient to establish a sustainable economy. Poverty is not a means of conservation. On the contrary, poverty exacts a great toll on the environment, from the depletion of forests for firewood, to the pollution of drinking water, to erosion-causing farming methods (although, out of necessity, poor people are often consummate recyclers).
We need enough economic activity that almost everyone can make a living, whether through a job, or self-employment, while those who are unable to, or cannot find, work (whether temporarily or permanently) are decently supported. Questions abound: How can we have enough economic activity to provide this comfortable living, without getting caught in the current mad rush again? What shall we consume, and how much, and in what manner shall we consume it, and how shall we take care of our wastes?
The answers to these questions depend upon our values and principles. For a sustainable economy a fundamental principle is that the purpose of the economy is to serve human needs, short and long term, and not, as now, that people should serve the needs of the economy. Other principles are: That work has intrinsic value, whether paid or not; that beauty is an essential component of a sustainable society; that the economy is organic and cyclical in nature; and that everything connects.
Purpose of a Sustainable Economy
The first principle of a sustainable economy is that its purpose is to serve people’s needs, both individual and collective, short- and long-term. This may seem self-evident until one remembers how often the safety and livelihoods of workers, and the health, financial and otherwise, of consumers or communities have been sacrificed on the altar of 'maximizing profits' and 'increasing shareholder value'. In a civilized, sustainable society, these would no longer be moral goals. Profit would still have a role to play, but not maximizing it at the expense of all else, and the success of the economy, instead of being measured solely by criteria such as the Gross Domestic Product, or the strength of the dollar, would be assessed primarily in terms of the well-being of all within society, with the criteria including a slower pace of life, and the health of our environment (as measured by the Genuine Progress Index, for example).
Instead of guiding our economic activities by such limited values as profits, costs, and market share, we should give preference to those human values which underlie all civilized behaviour--personal values of honesty, patience, compassion, and good humour; aesthetic values of perspective, proportion and harmony; social values of health, education, and community; and political values of equality and democracy. The standard of economic success should be, not how much money we make, but how well we make it.
Work
A second principle is that work is an essential element not only of a sustainable economy, but of a fulfilled life. Not work in the abstract sense of labour, regarded as an unfortunate necessity and a cost of production, but work as an activity with intrinsic value for the worker. The distinction is between a job--any activity undertaken solely for money--and work, which is done as much for its own sake as for the money it earns. In a sustainable economy there would be much more work, and many fewer jobs, than now.
Assembly lines and sweatshops provide a lavish supply of products--weapons, washing machines, TVs, designer jeans--a supply so lavish we are in danger of asphyxiating, or poisoning, or blowing ourselves up in our excessive technological exuberance. We are a greedy society because too many of us have jobs which numb the mind and sour the spirit, and too few have work which challenges and fulfills us. We try to ease our craving for creative endeavour by buying more food, clothing, gadgets, travel, and entertainment than we really need, pleasures as fleet as candy on the tongue, leaving us perpetually dissatisfied, and perpetually consuming. Advertising, of course, is aimed precisely at this sore point, continually irritating it. To free ourselves, we need to become more like artists and scientists in how we make our living, not necessarily by becoming poets or biologists (although that, too), but by earning our living doing something that calls forth the best we have to offer, and brings us joy.
Beauty
The third principle is that beauty, of both the natural and the built world, is an integral part of a sustainable society and a healthy environment. Of course, beauty lies in the eye of the beholder, and the ideal is not that there should be a single standard of 'artistic excellence' as determined by academic or other arbitrary criteria; the ideal is that we care about beauty; that we ensure it is incorporated into public spaces and public life as well as into our own lives; that we respect the work of artists because we know something about it; and that we can create beauty ourselves. Achieving these goals entails taking the arts seriously, educating ourselves about them from an early age, both as participants and audience, and respecting artisanship of all kinds as valid career choices. All too often, artists, especially the avant garde, are appreciated more at a distance than in the bosom of the family.
Organic Nature of the Economy
A fourth principle is that the economy is an organic, not a mechanical, system. The relevant economic model is not the present one of foisting unwanted by-products onto society at large by dumping them into our air, water, or land, but instead, in addition to creating less waste from less consumption, to incorporate our wastes into further useful roles in the economy, just as forests, fields, oceans and rivers recycle their components--atoms of nitrogen, carbon, potassium, potash, oxygen, and other elements combining into plants and animals, breaking down through digestion, death, and decay, re-combining in new plants and animals, or becoming part of the cycles of water and air.
A sustainable economy requires both holistic and linear thinking, simultaneously. Thinking holistically means to see one action or set of actions in relation to and with other actions and reactions; thinking linearly means to follow the trail of consequences, external and internal, intended and unintended, wanted and unwanted, from production through use, and re-use, to breakdown and re-production. Taken together, we will be better able to minimize the downside of any policy or action (there always is one, however minor; it's part of the balance of the universe, as the yin/yang symbol illustrates), and to improve the up-side (without trying to maximize it). Good intentions (a worthy goal) are not enough; bad means (and good means carried too far), corrupt good intentions and worthy goals.
In a sustainable, recycling economy, manufacturers of products would be responsible for their entire life cycle--production, breakdown, and recombination. That is, products would be designed to be deconstructed when their original useful life is over, and their components either rebuilt into new copies of the same item, incorporated into the manufacture of some other item, or further broken down, or composted. Naturally, costs would be incurred, but, rather than being deterrents to establishing a recycling economy these costs indicate the amount of useful work/jobs being generated.
All costs are someone else's prices. Business people want their prices to go up, and their costs to go down, but since, in the aggregate, they are opposite sides of the same coin, prices and costs necessarily rise and fall together, although their impact differs, as different people are involved on each side of the exchange. From a sustainable society's point of view, both costs and prices should be respected, but should not be the dominant consideration in the political decisions required to establish a sustainable, recycling economy. A fully recyclable computer might cost more than a current model (or not) but in either case, we would be buying a greener way of living as well, making it a better bargain over the long run.
Everything Connects
The final principle is that everything connects, everything influences everything else, for good or ill, and benign as well as vicious circles can be established. For example, part of lowering health care costs lies in cleaning up the air, thereby reducing the incidence and severity of asthma and other respiratory diseases. Cleaning up the air requires cutting back on our use of private vehicles, which also lowers the incidence of expensive accidents and injuries. Changing our driving habits in turn depends on providing an attractive public transit system, and support for other alternatives, such as walking and biking. The use of these alternatives would increase if we evolved a more leisurely way of living and working. A more leisurely life-style would in turn reduce stress, and the illnesses which it causes or exacerbates, bringing us back once more to lower health care costs.
Conclusion
In order to deal effectively with global warming and other environmental ills, we must evolve a new economy, one that is not dependent on the cancerous spread of transnational corporations. It's time to start breaking up international conglomerates into smaller businesses so that a true free market (which, as originally described by Adam Smith, consisted of many small firms, none of which could control their prices) can exist. At present, too few companies dominate too many economic sectors. They may trumpet the virtues of the free market, while doing everything they can to maintain and extend their oligopolistic control.
Any market, when driven by the cancerous, greedy philosophy of never-ending growth, and without proper government oversight and regulation, inevitably becomes an oligopoly (if not a monopoly), in which the few large companies left don't have to engage in overt collusion to set prices.
Take gas prices, for example. The managements of the few big oil companies all observe the same markets, think the same way, have the same goals, and adjust their prices accordingly. Gas prices at different stations go up and down more or less together because (in addition to simply checking each other’s posted prices), oil industry executives all have the same mind-set; they don’t have to risk expressly agreeing to set prices at the same level; they act alike because they think alike.
There are some who say that there can be no compromise with capitalism, without saying what they would put in its place. But we only have two real choices--violent revolution (which is immoral, and usually futile ( 'revolution' generally means nothing more than replacing one political gang with another); or a slower, evolutionary process which begins with where we are now, and learns as it goes along how to apply the values needed to guide us in a more planet-friendly direction--a sustainable, recycling economy focused on the well-being of all of us (human and non-human, including plants) in all our communities.
Addendum
While researching for this opinion piece, I came across a most educational article at http://www.pcdf.org/corprule/assault.htm, called “The Betrayal of Adam Smith”, which is an excerpt from When Corporations Rule the World, 2nd Edition, by David C. Korten.
Statements such as:
"It is ironic that corporate libertarians regularly pay homage to Adam Smith as their intellectual patron saint, since it is obvious to even the most casual reader of his epic work The Wealth of Nations that Smith would have vigorously opposed most of their claims and policy positions";
"The theory of market economics, in contrast to free-market ideology, specifies a number of basic conditions needed for a market to set prices efficiently in the public interest. The greater the deviation from these conditions, the less socially efficient the market system becomes"; and
"Market theory also specifies that for a market to allocate efficiently, the full costs of each product must be born by the producer and be included in the selling price. Economists call it cost internalization. Externalizing some part of a product's cost to others not a party to
the transaction is a form of subsidy that encourages excessive production and use of the product at the expense of others."
indicate why I think this article, and others on the site are well worth reading.
Most important is the distinction Korten makes between 'market theory', which calls for, ". . . an end to corporate welfare, the breakup of corporate monopolies, the equitable distribution of property ownership, the internalization of social and environmental costs, local ownership, a living wage for working people, rooted capital, and a progressive tax system", and 'free market ideology', which abuses the concepts of Adam Smith to support positions that would be anathema to Smith himself.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Is Harper Organized Crime's Best Friend?
Yes, because he believes in perpetuating the 'war on drugs', even though it supports a lucrative black market, and increases the likelihood of young people being tempted to experiment with drugs.
Harper portrays himself as being tough on crime. But the brand of toughness he advocates is not the answer; it is a major part of the problem. For over 70 years, the "Get Tough on Crime" mantra has been rolled out again and again as the way to address drug use, with the sorry results we see today: Organized crime flourishes as never before, and new and more dangerous recreational drugs like crystal meth have been invented and marketed. These are only two of the undesirable consequences resulting from the combination of bad laws with bad habits. Without the bad laws, the bad habits would be fewer and much easier to treat because black markets do not flourish where there are legal alternatives.
Our MPs are not elected to be our mommies and daddies, they are not empowered to act in loco parentis, but are sent to Parliament to be our servants. It is none of their business which recreational drugs adult Canadians use as long as we do so in a peaceful and orderly fashion. And that peace and order are to be obtained, not through the disastrous policy of criminalization, but through legalization, licensing, and regulation. The Harper Government has made an exceedingly bad choice in continuing to use the Criminal Code to deal with a minor health problem.
Minor? Yes, minor. The worst effects of addiction--disease, homelessness, theft, gang profits and gang wars--arise directly out of the illegality of drug use. Addiction is not desirable; it can have ill effects upon the body, but it only becomes a wide-scale social menace when it is made a crime. (And why is addiction the only medical condition for which jail is the first choice of treatment? The Government should be charged with practising medicine without a licence for usurping the physician's role.)
The single cheapest and most effective move against organized crime is to eliminate its black market, by legalizing all drug use, and using licensing provisions and other regulations to control their production and sale, as we do with tobacco and alcohol. This does not mean that all drugs would be easily available; for some, prescriptions would be required--what it does mean is that anyone who manages to become an addict (more about this in a moment), could go to their family doctor and be treated, including maintenance doses, if required, for both the addiction and the underlying causes which promoted their use of drugs. The police and the courts are not only not required to deal with drug use, their involvement creates the unacceptable conditions we must cope with today--people with addiction and mental health problems languishing in jail or on the streets, a dearth of funds for treatment, and hundreds of millions of dollars wasted annually trying to enforce the unenforceable, while criminal gangs rake in enormous profits.
But don't we have to draw the line somewhere? Shouldn't we discourage drug use by any means we can?
Yes, we should draw a line--between those acts which intentionally (or by willful negligence) cause direct harm to others, and those which do not. Impaired driving, whether due to drugs, alcohol, or fatigue, is properly deemed a crime, because it directly endangers others; the responsible use of, and trade in, marijuana cannot properly be deemed a crime because it directly endangers no one. (This is not to claim that there are never any negative effects from drug use; of course there are; any substance can be abused, some more easily than others. But such negative effects not only lack the direct, intentional damage of true crimes such as theft and murder, but are also much more difficult to deal with, if they are criminalized.)
As for discouraging drug use, take, for example, the control of a legal, although dangerous drug, tobacco. Smoking tobacco (an addiction which, by all accounts is at least as hard to break as heroin use) has successfully and increasingly been reduced among all age groups, through public pressure, and civil laws regulating where smokers can smoke, how cigarettes can be displayed and advertised, and so forth, along with a wide array of methods and products to aid in quitting smoking. Criminal sanctions have not only been unnecessary, but making tobacco use illegal (as a few have suggested) would create a money-spinning new commodity for the black market, and a potent incentive to encourage young people to start smoking (being illegal would make it seem glamorous and 'cool'). Criminalizing drugs does not decrease the danger of young people using them; it increases it.
If drugs were legalized and regulated, it would be much more difficult for young people to get hold of them because no one is going to bother bootlegging drugs when their prospective customers can more easily obtain their products from licensed outlets. Of course, minors can obtain alcohol and tobacco now, and it's also true, especially as taxes on them climb, that some black market activity in cigarettes takes place, but neither occur on the scale they would if the possession and use of alcohol and tobacco were criminal offences. The difference between drug use being a minor medical problem, and being a major social one, lies in the application of appropriate laws; the Criminal Code is not an appropriate law for dealing with either a medical or a social problem.
Because the Harper Tories would rather impose their private morality on the rest of us than recognize the right of adult Canadians to make up our own minds about which recreational drugs to use (why do the Tories only believe in less government when it comes to private businesses; why not less in our private lives?), criminal gangs are assured of a continuing flood of cash with which to finance their moves into legitimate businesses, and their wars amongst themselves. The police and the Government want to continue the hopeless battle, even though, like the Hydra of Greek myth, the more gang leaders are cut down, the more spring up to take their place--the illicit drug trade is simply too profitable for criminals to ignore.
Harper and his Tories believe harsh penalties deter criminals. However, the evidence shows that real deterrence is based more on the perception of the likelihood of being caught, than on the penalty for the crime. Penalties can come into play when criminals are trying to avoid capture, and directly face the prospect of long prison sentences; but this will tend to make them more dangerous, not more law-abiding.
Unfortunately, Harper's Government, wraps itself in the tattered flag of moral self-righteousness, continuing the war, not because it is effective (it is not; even police admit they catch only about 10% of the drug dealing going on), and regardless of the great harm it causes (go to http://www.elizabethrhettwoods.ca/beyond_the_pale.cfm, "Why criminal sanctions against recreation drug use are unconstitutional" and "A Citizen's Response" for discussions of some of the many and various harms arising from the war on drugs), but because they don't want to appear to condone drug use. To maintain a pretence of morality, a Tory Government would rather continue an immoral policy (one which creates the very ills it purports to address), than admit that criminalizing drug use has always been a losing proposition.
The fact is that adult Canadians wish to engage in various activities which others refer to as 'vices'. Making any such activity illegal drives it underground, to the great profit of criminal gangs. The Government is not competent to decide which 'vice' it will approve, and which it will not; that is not its proper function. The Government's proper function is to provide the legal framework within which adult Canadians can enjoy the 'vices' of our choice in a peaceful, orderly, and responsible manner. The Government should, for example, ensure that recreational drugs are pure, accurately measured, correctly labelled (including appropriate warnings, if any), and sold through licensed outlets, including, in some cases, by prescription; that games of chance are honest, and gaming houses do not encourage problem gamblers; that brothels are small, quiet, medically responsible, and co-operatively owned and operated by adults; and that all who profit from 'vice' pay their fair share of taxes.
Under this regimen, the hundreds of millions of dollars saved from no longer trying to enforce bad, counter-productive laws, would be available for education and treatment, and young people would face far less temptation to experiment with drugs.
Is Harper organized crime's best friend? Yes, because the other leaders, while somewhat cowardly on this issue, are potentially persuadable to at least begin to establish a reasonable drug policy by legalizing marijuana. But Harper is a man of convictions, and will never abandon his 'get tough on crime' stance, no matter how ineffective it is, because he believes in it. He believes that using drugs is wrong, and that wrong-doers should be punished. If punishment doesn't 'cure' them, then that's their fault, not Harper's. Therefore, as long as the Tories form Government, they will continue to befriend criminal gangs by continuing, through the 'war on drugs', to support the source of the gangs' wealth, to the detriment of the rest of us. Armoured in self-righteousness, Harper prefers to act as Big Daddy to citizens, and sugar daddy to criminals.
The toughness needed now is the courage to admit the failure of 'the war on drugs', to stand up to the United States, and the inevitable outcry from those who wish to tell everyone else what to do, and to bring in a civil regime of licensing and regulating recreational drug use.
Harper portrays himself as being tough on crime. But the brand of toughness he advocates is not the answer; it is a major part of the problem. For over 70 years, the "Get Tough on Crime" mantra has been rolled out again and again as the way to address drug use, with the sorry results we see today: Organized crime flourishes as never before, and new and more dangerous recreational drugs like crystal meth have been invented and marketed. These are only two of the undesirable consequences resulting from the combination of bad laws with bad habits. Without the bad laws, the bad habits would be fewer and much easier to treat because black markets do not flourish where there are legal alternatives.
Our MPs are not elected to be our mommies and daddies, they are not empowered to act in loco parentis, but are sent to Parliament to be our servants. It is none of their business which recreational drugs adult Canadians use as long as we do so in a peaceful and orderly fashion. And that peace and order are to be obtained, not through the disastrous policy of criminalization, but through legalization, licensing, and regulation. The Harper Government has made an exceedingly bad choice in continuing to use the Criminal Code to deal with a minor health problem.
Minor? Yes, minor. The worst effects of addiction--disease, homelessness, theft, gang profits and gang wars--arise directly out of the illegality of drug use. Addiction is not desirable; it can have ill effects upon the body, but it only becomes a wide-scale social menace when it is made a crime. (And why is addiction the only medical condition for which jail is the first choice of treatment? The Government should be charged with practising medicine without a licence for usurping the physician's role.)
The single cheapest and most effective move against organized crime is to eliminate its black market, by legalizing all drug use, and using licensing provisions and other regulations to control their production and sale, as we do with tobacco and alcohol. This does not mean that all drugs would be easily available; for some, prescriptions would be required--what it does mean is that anyone who manages to become an addict (more about this in a moment), could go to their family doctor and be treated, including maintenance doses, if required, for both the addiction and the underlying causes which promoted their use of drugs. The police and the courts are not only not required to deal with drug use, their involvement creates the unacceptable conditions we must cope with today--people with addiction and mental health problems languishing in jail or on the streets, a dearth of funds for treatment, and hundreds of millions of dollars wasted annually trying to enforce the unenforceable, while criminal gangs rake in enormous profits.
But don't we have to draw the line somewhere? Shouldn't we discourage drug use by any means we can?
Yes, we should draw a line--between those acts which intentionally (or by willful negligence) cause direct harm to others, and those which do not. Impaired driving, whether due to drugs, alcohol, or fatigue, is properly deemed a crime, because it directly endangers others; the responsible use of, and trade in, marijuana cannot properly be deemed a crime because it directly endangers no one. (This is not to claim that there are never any negative effects from drug use; of course there are; any substance can be abused, some more easily than others. But such negative effects not only lack the direct, intentional damage of true crimes such as theft and murder, but are also much more difficult to deal with, if they are criminalized.)
As for discouraging drug use, take, for example, the control of a legal, although dangerous drug, tobacco. Smoking tobacco (an addiction which, by all accounts is at least as hard to break as heroin use) has successfully and increasingly been reduced among all age groups, through public pressure, and civil laws regulating where smokers can smoke, how cigarettes can be displayed and advertised, and so forth, along with a wide array of methods and products to aid in quitting smoking. Criminal sanctions have not only been unnecessary, but making tobacco use illegal (as a few have suggested) would create a money-spinning new commodity for the black market, and a potent incentive to encourage young people to start smoking (being illegal would make it seem glamorous and 'cool'). Criminalizing drugs does not decrease the danger of young people using them; it increases it.
If drugs were legalized and regulated, it would be much more difficult for young people to get hold of them because no one is going to bother bootlegging drugs when their prospective customers can more easily obtain their products from licensed outlets. Of course, minors can obtain alcohol and tobacco now, and it's also true, especially as taxes on them climb, that some black market activity in cigarettes takes place, but neither occur on the scale they would if the possession and use of alcohol and tobacco were criminal offences. The difference between drug use being a minor medical problem, and being a major social one, lies in the application of appropriate laws; the Criminal Code is not an appropriate law for dealing with either a medical or a social problem.
Because the Harper Tories would rather impose their private morality on the rest of us than recognize the right of adult Canadians to make up our own minds about which recreational drugs to use (why do the Tories only believe in less government when it comes to private businesses; why not less in our private lives?), criminal gangs are assured of a continuing flood of cash with which to finance their moves into legitimate businesses, and their wars amongst themselves. The police and the Government want to continue the hopeless battle, even though, like the Hydra of Greek myth, the more gang leaders are cut down, the more spring up to take their place--the illicit drug trade is simply too profitable for criminals to ignore.
Harper and his Tories believe harsh penalties deter criminals. However, the evidence shows that real deterrence is based more on the perception of the likelihood of being caught, than on the penalty for the crime. Penalties can come into play when criminals are trying to avoid capture, and directly face the prospect of long prison sentences; but this will tend to make them more dangerous, not more law-abiding.
Unfortunately, Harper's Government, wraps itself in the tattered flag of moral self-righteousness, continuing the war, not because it is effective (it is not; even police admit they catch only about 10% of the drug dealing going on), and regardless of the great harm it causes (go to http://www.elizabethrhettwoods.ca/beyond_the_pale.cfm, "Why criminal sanctions against recreation drug use are unconstitutional" and "A Citizen's Response" for discussions of some of the many and various harms arising from the war on drugs), but because they don't want to appear to condone drug use. To maintain a pretence of morality, a Tory Government would rather continue an immoral policy (one which creates the very ills it purports to address), than admit that criminalizing drug use has always been a losing proposition.
The fact is that adult Canadians wish to engage in various activities which others refer to as 'vices'. Making any such activity illegal drives it underground, to the great profit of criminal gangs. The Government is not competent to decide which 'vice' it will approve, and which it will not; that is not its proper function. The Government's proper function is to provide the legal framework within which adult Canadians can enjoy the 'vices' of our choice in a peaceful, orderly, and responsible manner. The Government should, for example, ensure that recreational drugs are pure, accurately measured, correctly labelled (including appropriate warnings, if any), and sold through licensed outlets, including, in some cases, by prescription; that games of chance are honest, and gaming houses do not encourage problem gamblers; that brothels are small, quiet, medically responsible, and co-operatively owned and operated by adults; and that all who profit from 'vice' pay their fair share of taxes.
Under this regimen, the hundreds of millions of dollars saved from no longer trying to enforce bad, counter-productive laws, would be available for education and treatment, and young people would face far less temptation to experiment with drugs.
Is Harper organized crime's best friend? Yes, because the other leaders, while somewhat cowardly on this issue, are potentially persuadable to at least begin to establish a reasonable drug policy by legalizing marijuana. But Harper is a man of convictions, and will never abandon his 'get tough on crime' stance, no matter how ineffective it is, because he believes in it. He believes that using drugs is wrong, and that wrong-doers should be punished. If punishment doesn't 'cure' them, then that's their fault, not Harper's. Therefore, as long as the Tories form Government, they will continue to befriend criminal gangs by continuing, through the 'war on drugs', to support the source of the gangs' wealth, to the detriment of the rest of us. Armoured in self-righteousness, Harper prefers to act as Big Daddy to citizens, and sugar daddy to criminals.
The toughness needed now is the courage to admit the failure of 'the war on drugs', to stand up to the United States, and the inevitable outcry from those who wish to tell everyone else what to do, and to bring in a civil regime of licensing and regulating recreational drug use.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Economic heresy
Many of us know that over-consumption is one of the most significant factors driving current North American economic behaviour, and that we must learn to consume less, in order to begin restoring some balance in relations between humans and the non-human world we inhabit and dominate, destroy and nurture. Below is an adaptation of one of the chapters in my book If Only Things Were Different: A Model for a Sustainable Society. I expect that, for different reasons, it will be rejected by those on both the left and the right.
Economic Heresy: An Alternative to a Constantly-Growing Economy
To deal effectively with global warming and other planetary ills, we must evolve more sustainable ways of doing business, which in turn, requires a fundamental shift in our concept of what constitutes a healthy economy. Despite all the concern expressed about the many and varied perils besieging our environment, nothing has fundamentally changed where business is concerned. The ideal economy (and the goal of businesses and governments everywhere), remains that of a constantly growing Gross National Product (GNP) driven by the need of corporate managements to increase shareholder wealth every year. Like cancer (the symbolic disease of our time), this model is one which will eventually devour the body politic, and economic, altogether.
However, it is possible to envision a healthy economy that is not based on constant growth, but on adapting to the natural ebb and flow of the business cycle (instead of perpetually trying to straighten it out, as is now the case).
Extrapolating from conventional business wisdom, the ideal economy is one in which the GNP keeps rising in a straight line to infinity. Governments and central banks are enjoined to achieve and maintain this state of constant expansion by means of fiscal and monetary measures. However, since the standing pattern of the universe is not a straight line, but a sine wave (the cyclical rise and fall of energy and form arising from the complementary interplay of opposites), attempts to control the business cycle, whatever good they may do the GNP, inflict a great deal of damage on those who must contend with the personal economic crises which so often accompany such actions, unemployment being the most grievous.
The proponents of laissez-faire are partly right--let the economy look after itself. But it is only when we, through our governments, have enabled ourselves to take advantage of each and every phase of the business cycle, that we will, in fact, be in a position to choose as freely as free market theory assumes, and only then, that we will all benefit from laissez-faire.
Therefore, it is not the economy per se which should be governments' concern, but those who suffer because of events beyond their control, and who need assistance in maintaining, or regaining, their economic equilibrium. With government programs such as a form of guaranteed annual income, investments in co-op and other affordable housing, daycare, and homecare; better access to education and training; cheap and accessible public transit, and investments in the arts and sciences--we would be able to generate far more, and far more useful, economic activity than by monkeying about with the business cycle using interest rates and taxes.
Following the classic scenario, this is how we might adapt during one complete turn of a business cycle, beginning arbitrarily in the early phase of an inflation. Most people would be working hard, making money and buying everything from housing to pre-cooked and restaurant meals and cleaning services, to cabs, cars, and transit, to computers, and cell phones, to recreational pursuits and works of art. We take pleasure in spending money on high-quality goods, understanding that we are doing our part in keeping the money-making going. The more we all spend, the more we all make, and the heady sensation of fresh cash affects us like oxygen in the economic bloodstream, spurring us to even greater effort.
As long as there is unused capacity from the preceding deflation, prices will remain relatively low and stable, despite this increase in spending, but once the slack has been taken up, prices rise to cover the costs of new production to meet renewed demand. At first, rising prices stimulate even more buying, but as the inflation matures, we begin to change our mix of products from immediate needs and desires to long-term necessities, laying up stocks of food, clothing, electronics, raw materials, seeds, tools, and other supplies with which to enjoy the expected deflation. We may not yet know exactly when it will occur, but we now assume it will be sooner rather than later.
As preparations for the deflation are completed, and as interest rates steepen, we gradually cut back on all but the most essential spending. The mortgage is reduced, other debts are paid off, and cash reserves are invested to take advantage of high interest rates. These actions are taken by a populace that understands two interacting factors: 1) the most direct and effective cure for inflation is to stop buying; and 2) taking such action is part of a self-fulfilling prophecy; that is, by behaving as if a deflation is imminent, we will help to bring it on.
The timing of the decision to spend less is made individually, and by only a few people at first, but it spreads wider and faster the higher prices rise. At the same time, high interest rates discourage borrowing by businesses and consumers alike, which causes retail sales to drop, orders to warehouses, factories, and suppliers of raw materials to be curtailed, and staff and overhead to be reduced; a deflation has begun.
However, instead of being a period of privation and suffering, deflations are welcomed as times of recreation and renewal, the form of which can be as varied as travelling, going back to school, having or adopting a baby, writing a book, changing careers, or just plain loafing, assured of security of income from a variety of sources, including (but not limited to) a guaranteed annual income or other supports of purchasing power, to scholarships, awards, grants, and loans, to part-time and freelance work, to co-op dividends, and savings.
For a while we enjoy less work and more leisure, spending time rather than money; even those who are still fully employed, work at a slower pace. Eventually, as prices bottom out and our reserves diminish, we take advantage of bargains and easing credit to start spending again, recognizing that in doing so, we are helping to start the economy expanding again. Once more, the timing of this increase is an individual/family one, depending on people's particular circumstances.
Business life quickens, sales pick up, and factories and offices re-open or expand; more and more people return to working full time, rested, refreshed, and looking forward to the coming boom; another inflation has begun.
Of course, nothing in real life operates quite as smoothly as depicted here, and fortunately, it doesn't have to. Instead of requiring uniform behaviour, adapting to the business cycle works best when many options are available. At any one time, most people would still be employed (even in the depths of the Depression, 75% had jobs), while certain sectors--the arts, education, recreation, tourism, etc.--would tend to be counter-cyclical, increasing during a contraction and decreasing during an expansion.
The advantage of adapting to the business cycle rather than trying to flatten it into submission is that it meets two human, and environmental, needs: The need to grow, and the need to rest from growing, without succumbing to either, while also providing a way to evolve a new economy, one which is not dependent on the over-consumption of material goods to survive.
Adapting to the business cycle is only one part of establishing a sustainable society; other parts include consuming fewer, but higher-quality, goods that have been made to last, by workers paid fair wages using environment-friendly processes; and in developing technologies which enable us to recycle the materials we use in ways which mimic or adopt nature's own cycles of growth, death, and restoration, along with legislation which requires producers to take responsibility for finally disposing of their product in environmentally-appropriate ways.
But the most significant aspect of adapting to the business cycle, or any other proffered solution to global warming and other environmental ills, lies in recognizing that humans, especially those of us in North America, can no longer continue to try to consume ourselves into happiness, but must make a basic change in attitude, from that of the spendthrift to that of the steward, from measuring success in monetary and material terms, to measuring it in terms of satisfying human relationships, leisure, participation in the arts, sciences, and sports, and the well-being of the natural world, and the preservation of wilderness.
At the moment, our planet and its life forms are suffering from a cancerous economic ideaology; adapting to the business cycle can be part of the cure.
Economic Heresy: An Alternative to a Constantly-Growing Economy
To deal effectively with global warming and other planetary ills, we must evolve more sustainable ways of doing business, which in turn, requires a fundamental shift in our concept of what constitutes a healthy economy. Despite all the concern expressed about the many and varied perils besieging our environment, nothing has fundamentally changed where business is concerned. The ideal economy (and the goal of businesses and governments everywhere), remains that of a constantly growing Gross National Product (GNP) driven by the need of corporate managements to increase shareholder wealth every year. Like cancer (the symbolic disease of our time), this model is one which will eventually devour the body politic, and economic, altogether.
However, it is possible to envision a healthy economy that is not based on constant growth, but on adapting to the natural ebb and flow of the business cycle (instead of perpetually trying to straighten it out, as is now the case).
Extrapolating from conventional business wisdom, the ideal economy is one in which the GNP keeps rising in a straight line to infinity. Governments and central banks are enjoined to achieve and maintain this state of constant expansion by means of fiscal and monetary measures. However, since the standing pattern of the universe is not a straight line, but a sine wave (the cyclical rise and fall of energy and form arising from the complementary interplay of opposites), attempts to control the business cycle, whatever good they may do the GNP, inflict a great deal of damage on those who must contend with the personal economic crises which so often accompany such actions, unemployment being the most grievous.
The proponents of laissez-faire are partly right--let the economy look after itself. But it is only when we, through our governments, have enabled ourselves to take advantage of each and every phase of the business cycle, that we will, in fact, be in a position to choose as freely as free market theory assumes, and only then, that we will all benefit from laissez-faire.
Therefore, it is not the economy per se which should be governments' concern, but those who suffer because of events beyond their control, and who need assistance in maintaining, or regaining, their economic equilibrium. With government programs such as a form of guaranteed annual income, investments in co-op and other affordable housing, daycare, and homecare; better access to education and training; cheap and accessible public transit, and investments in the arts and sciences--we would be able to generate far more, and far more useful, economic activity than by monkeying about with the business cycle using interest rates and taxes.
Following the classic scenario, this is how we might adapt during one complete turn of a business cycle, beginning arbitrarily in the early phase of an inflation. Most people would be working hard, making money and buying everything from housing to pre-cooked and restaurant meals and cleaning services, to cabs, cars, and transit, to computers, and cell phones, to recreational pursuits and works of art. We take pleasure in spending money on high-quality goods, understanding that we are doing our part in keeping the money-making going. The more we all spend, the more we all make, and the heady sensation of fresh cash affects us like oxygen in the economic bloodstream, spurring us to even greater effort.
As long as there is unused capacity from the preceding deflation, prices will remain relatively low and stable, despite this increase in spending, but once the slack has been taken up, prices rise to cover the costs of new production to meet renewed demand. At first, rising prices stimulate even more buying, but as the inflation matures, we begin to change our mix of products from immediate needs and desires to long-term necessities, laying up stocks of food, clothing, electronics, raw materials, seeds, tools, and other supplies with which to enjoy the expected deflation. We may not yet know exactly when it will occur, but we now assume it will be sooner rather than later.
As preparations for the deflation are completed, and as interest rates steepen, we gradually cut back on all but the most essential spending. The mortgage is reduced, other debts are paid off, and cash reserves are invested to take advantage of high interest rates. These actions are taken by a populace that understands two interacting factors: 1) the most direct and effective cure for inflation is to stop buying; and 2) taking such action is part of a self-fulfilling prophecy; that is, by behaving as if a deflation is imminent, we will help to bring it on.
The timing of the decision to spend less is made individually, and by only a few people at first, but it spreads wider and faster the higher prices rise. At the same time, high interest rates discourage borrowing by businesses and consumers alike, which causes retail sales to drop, orders to warehouses, factories, and suppliers of raw materials to be curtailed, and staff and overhead to be reduced; a deflation has begun.
However, instead of being a period of privation and suffering, deflations are welcomed as times of recreation and renewal, the form of which can be as varied as travelling, going back to school, having or adopting a baby, writing a book, changing careers, or just plain loafing, assured of security of income from a variety of sources, including (but not limited to) a guaranteed annual income or other supports of purchasing power, to scholarships, awards, grants, and loans, to part-time and freelance work, to co-op dividends, and savings.
For a while we enjoy less work and more leisure, spending time rather than money; even those who are still fully employed, work at a slower pace. Eventually, as prices bottom out and our reserves diminish, we take advantage of bargains and easing credit to start spending again, recognizing that in doing so, we are helping to start the economy expanding again. Once more, the timing of this increase is an individual/family one, depending on people's particular circumstances.
Business life quickens, sales pick up, and factories and offices re-open or expand; more and more people return to working full time, rested, refreshed, and looking forward to the coming boom; another inflation has begun.
Of course, nothing in real life operates quite as smoothly as depicted here, and fortunately, it doesn't have to. Instead of requiring uniform behaviour, adapting to the business cycle works best when many options are available. At any one time, most people would still be employed (even in the depths of the Depression, 75% had jobs), while certain sectors--the arts, education, recreation, tourism, etc.--would tend to be counter-cyclical, increasing during a contraction and decreasing during an expansion.
The advantage of adapting to the business cycle rather than trying to flatten it into submission is that it meets two human, and environmental, needs: The need to grow, and the need to rest from growing, without succumbing to either, while also providing a way to evolve a new economy, one which is not dependent on the over-consumption of material goods to survive.
Adapting to the business cycle is only one part of establishing a sustainable society; other parts include consuming fewer, but higher-quality, goods that have been made to last, by workers paid fair wages using environment-friendly processes; and in developing technologies which enable us to recycle the materials we use in ways which mimic or adopt nature's own cycles of growth, death, and restoration, along with legislation which requires producers to take responsibility for finally disposing of their product in environmentally-appropriate ways.
But the most significant aspect of adapting to the business cycle, or any other proffered solution to global warming and other environmental ills, lies in recognizing that humans, especially those of us in North America, can no longer continue to try to consume ourselves into happiness, but must make a basic change in attitude, from that of the spendthrift to that of the steward, from measuring success in monetary and material terms, to measuring it in terms of satisfying human relationships, leisure, participation in the arts, sciences, and sports, and the well-being of the natural world, and the preservation of wilderness.
At the moment, our planet and its life forms are suffering from a cancerous economic ideaology; adapting to the business cycle can be part of the cure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)