The Free Market Problem

Paul Ryan and his supporters are trying to sell their spending cut and lower tax program and they’re getting booed at town hall meetings.  They’re finally cutting into people’s pockets who can’t defend themselves.  They thought they were doing what their constituency wanted and must be baffled at this negative response. Okay, this might get a bit complicated, but not really.  It just requires a shift in perspective away from the definition of capitalism we’ve been being sold since Reagan to something that is more descriptive of what actually happens.  Theory is all well and good and can be very useful in specific instances, but a one-size-fits-all approach to something as basic as resources is destined to fail. Oh, I’m sorry, let me back up a sec there—fail if your stated goal is to float all boats, to raise the general standard of living, to provide jobs and resources sufficient to sustain a viable community at a decent level.  If, on the other hand, your goal is to feed a machine that generates larger and larger bank accounts for fewer and fewer people at the expense of communities, then by all means keep doing what we’ve been doing. Here’s the basic problem.  People think that the free market and capitalism are one and the same thing.  They are not.  THEY ARE CLOSELY RELATED and both thrive in the presence of the other, but they are not the same thing. But before all that we have to understand one thing---there is no such thing as a Free Market.  None.  Someone always dominates it, controls it, and usually to the detriment of someone else. How is it a free market when one of the most salient features of it is the ability of a small group to determine who will be allowed to participate and at what level?  I’m not talking about the government here, I’m talking about big business, which as standard practice does all it can to eliminate competitors through any means it can get away with and that includes market manipulations that can devalue smaller companies and make them ripe for take-over or force them into bankruptcy.

Continue ReadingThe Free Market Problem

Two ways to prevent one from doing something

There are two ways to keep a person from doing X.

A) Make it impossible to do X. Make it illegal or expensive or impractical, for instance; or B) Fill up a person's life with dozens of other obligations such that he or she no longer has any time to do X.
I'm dealing with B) at the moment. I have a dozen writing projects I've been working on, but I can't get to them because I'm feeling exhausted with all the other things going on in my life. These "distractions" I've been doing for the past two weeks are important things that I want to do or I need to do (e.g., spending time with my children and tending to crushing duties at work, such as arguing appeals, writing a brief that was just filed with the United States Supreme Court and reconstructing my workstation at the law office after my hard drive died). No one is telling me to stop writing, but the result is the same because of all of these other obligations. There are only so many hours in a week. I have only so much energy and focus, and I find that in order to do original writing I absolutely need blocks of several contiguous hours, at a minimum. Those chunks of quality time have disappeared lately. I'm frustrated, because I very much want to follow up on some articles and write some new ones. On the other hand, my life is full and good. I shouldn't have any complaints, other than I have this urge to try to figure things out, and I do this much better when I write. In moments like these I'm so glad that I decided to make this website a community of writers, an intersection. But there are also other reasons I chose to make this a community, especially the increased interactions with the other authors--an opportunity to learn from each other. Bottom line, I'm sending trackbacks here and there to let readers know that I'm still alive, and I hope to be more active at this site soon.

Continue ReadingTwo ways to prevent one from doing something

How We Got Here: Conclusion

In an earlier post on this topic I made the claim that the thing which changed everything in this country was the rise of capitalism as the dominant economic model. It’s time to make good on that claim. Firstly, we need to understand, once and for all, just what Capitalism is and how it is misunderstood in these sorts of discussions. Capitalism is an umbrella term used to describe a variety of practices under one general heading, practices like mercantilism, industrialization, and interest-based lending. But to be precise, all these different practices overlap but are not themselves capitalism. Capitalism is the strategic use of money to determine the value of money and thereby transfer latent wealth from one sector of an economy to another. This simple distinction does much to explain the animosity throughout the 19th Century toward any kind of centralized bank, including the Jacksonian war on the United States Bank, and Jeffersonian suspicion of corporate power. It is nothing less than the ability of a small group to determine the value of local currency and the buying power of a community, all through the manipulation of currency exchange markets (like Wall Street), regardless of intrinsic values of manufactures and production. But we have so conflated this with all other aspects of our much-vaunted “free” enterprise system that to criticize capitalism is seen as an attack on the American Way of Life. It is not. Although many Left attacks on it become hopelessly mired in broad attacks on wealth, it is not so much an attack on wealth per se—that is, wealth based on the prosperity of a community—but wealth derived at the expense of the community. Which is what we are seeing take place today. Which has taken place often in our history. The difficulty is, this has been one of the most successful economic systems ever for creating prosperity, especially for the individual who understands it and works it, and, if properly regulated, has been the foundation of American achievement, at least materially. So any critique can be made to seem like a critique of America itself. This fact has been useful to plutocrats defending their practices against attempts to rein in and control abuses. The coupling of what in extremes are parasitic practices of economic pillage with grass roots patriotism has been the most difficult combination to deal with in our history. In its contemporary guise, it couches itself in an argument that socially responsible community-based efforts to address economic and resource inequality are Socialist and therefore fundamentally un-American. This is historically inaccurate and strategically manipulative, but the bounds between the anti-federalist sentiments that began even before the revolution and became quasi-religious among certain groups in the aftermath of the Civil War are many and strange and need teasing apart to understand. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingHow We Got Here: Conclusion

It’s incredible how different we all are . . .

Here's how photographer Timothy Allen sums up his two year trip to the far corners of the world in order to capture images for the BBC series Human Planet:

It's incredible how different we all are, but yet we share roughly the same hopes and dreams for life. We're essentially looking for a roof over our head, looking to find a mate in life and feeding ourselves and looking after our offspring, and that's about it, really.

Allen's quote brings to mind Donald Brown's work on the incredible sameness of all human animals. But, as Allen points out, our cultures are also dramatically different from one another. Now please do yourself the supreme favor of clicking on this link to view a sampling of Allen's exquisite photography for Human Planet. His slide show includes some of the most memorable photos I've ever seen. You can read through the live chat that the show's team had earlier tonight, and please do consider a visit to Allen's own site. And here's a bit of video from the series, a segment dealing with the "last free people on the planet."

Continue ReadingIt’s incredible how different we all are . . .

Sustainability means forever

There is much talk of "sustainability" these days, but I don't think very many people have considered what that truly means. "Sustainable" has become synonymous with "green", which in our hyper-consumerist American society has transformed into "buy something". Understandable, perhaps, but it's deadly wrong. The World English dictionary defines "sustainable" as "2. (of economic development, energy sources, etc) capable of being maintained at a steady level without exhausting natural resources or causing severe ecological damage", which seems to me to be a pretty good definition of what the word really means, as opposed to what people think it means.

Continue ReadingSustainability means forever