Alternatives to free-market capitalism (Ron Forthofer, Daily Camera Guest Column)

http://www.dailycamera.com/guestopinion/ci_17786116

An actually free market is one of many alternatives that are much better than this economy.

An economy free of conglomerate derived anticompetitive controls would be responding 

better to the greener parts of social, scientific, and technological, change; which are generally

trending towards smallness, horizontal structures, sustainability, and localized production.

A corporate economy can only be democratic if every worker and consumer has a corporation

(and a think tank, and a lobby, and a "press"),

which also kind of turns the entire original purpose of corporations on it's head.

What we need is to free ourselves from the dominance of immortal fictional persons,

in our legal, political, economic, and social lives, by any means necessary,

so we can have an intelligent discourse on our options.

I think Japan's current dire straits show the need to bring into question

the entire concept of any limited liability at all.

In an ever more rapidly shrinking, dangerous, and "human" controlled, world, 

the only means that can justify actions that are prone to disastrous liabilities,

is a directly democratic one including all the stakeholders on Earth.

"economic growth and the maximization of profit" under our current regime does not create wealth,

it creates concentration of economic and political power.

No one is truly wealthy in a world owned by fictional people.

Monte Letourneau
WIGP Rec. Sec., GPUS NC Alternate,

wigp.org montesite.net necedahharvest.org

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Scott McLarty <scottmclarty@hotmail.com> wrote:

(to natlcomaffairs@green.gpus.org listserv)
Guest column: Alternatives to free-market capitalism

By Ron Forthofer [2002 Green Party candidate for Governor of Colorado, 2000 candidate for Congress]Daily Camera (Boulder, Colorado), April 7, 2011http://www.dailycamera.com/guestopinion/ci_17786116

 Americans have been exposed to so much propaganda about free-market capitalism that few ever think there is any other way of running an economy. However, if they were to examine this system, they would see that its focus is on economic growth and the maximization of profit. In theory, this system would create enough wealth so that everyone would benefit. However, during the last 30 years or so, we have seen changes in the rules that guarantee most of the increases in wealth go to those at the top. During this time, there has been little-to-no concern about the resulting harmful effects of this system on society.

Free-market devotees often quote Adam Smith on the seemingly all-knowing 'invisible hand` as justification for their free-market theology. Somehow these advocates ignore Smith`s warning about the invisible hand. For example, in an 1993 article Noam Chomsky wrote: "The invisible hand, he [Smith] wrote, will destroy the possibility of a decent human existence "unless government takes pains to prevent" this outcome, as must be assured in "every improved and civilized society." It will destroy community, the environment and human values generally -- and even the masters themselves, which is why the business classes have regularly called for state intervention to protect them from market forces." Unfortunately, as the 2008 crisis and the recent attacks on collective bargaining have confirmed, Smith`s concern was well placed.

The economy has yet to recover from the 2008 disaster although Wall Street and the too-big-to-fail banks are continuing to make out like bandits (apologies to bandits). As a result of our political/economic system, the U.S. now is faced with:

almost 44 million (one in seven) people living in poverty;

over 25 million (one in six) workers unemployed or underemployed;

almost 51 million (one in six) people without health insurance;

1 percent of people receiving about 21 percent of the total U.S. income in 2008; and

Shouldn`t our economic approach deliver better results in this, the richest country in the world?

Western European nations have different economic approaches than the U.S. although Britain began the process of moving towards the U.S. model in 1980 under Margaret Thatcher. Western European nations differ slightly in their specific economic approaches, but they have a common theme of creating a humane economy that meets the needs of the people. Western European nations pursue the goal of providing socioeconomic security for their populations while, simultaneously, making economic progress.

Specifically, Western European nations have tighter regulations on corporations. In addition to having strong regulations, many of these nations use a mixture of socialism and capitalism. These nations also have strong labor unions. The combination of these factors has enabled the provision of social benefits to the public, although these benefits are under attack by free marketers today.

According to the International Alliance of Cooperatives, a co-op is an autonomous, voluntary association meeting common economic, social and cultural needs through a jointly owned and democratically controlled enterprise. Many people may be familiar with local ventures such as housing co-ops, credit unions, or co-op groceries, but there are much larger co-ops including Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, REI outdoor stores and Land O`Lakes dairy products. There are over 30,000 co-ops operating in over 73,000 locations in this country and many, many more operating around the world.

The wonderful 1973 book, "Small Is Beautiful: Economics As If People Mattered" by E.F. Schumacher, provides other ideas about alternatives to the free-market approach. If we believe that people matter, we will open our mind to other approaches. Otherwise we will continue the race to the bottom.

 Ron Forthofer lives in Longmont.

Posted via email from geanark's posterous