Category Archives: US Corpocracy

A New World Order: Brought to You by the Global-Industrial Deep State

There are no nations. There are no peoples … There is only IBM and ITT and AT&T, and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable by-laws of business.

Network (1976)

There are those who will tell you that any mention of a New World Order government—a power elite conspiring to rule the world—is the stuff of conspiracy theories.

I am not one of those skeptics.

What’s more, I wholeheartedly believe that one should always mistrust those in power, take alarm at the first encroachment on one’s liberties, and establish powerful constitutional checks against government mischief and abuse.

I can also attest to the fact that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I have studied enough of this country’s history—and world history—to know that governments (the U.S. government being no exception) are at times indistinguishable from the evil they claim to be fighting, whether that evil takes the form of terrorism, torture, drug trafficking, sex trafficking, murder, violence, theft, pornography, scientific experimentations or some other diabolical means of inflicting pain, suffering and servitude on humanity.

And I have lived long enough to see many so-called conspiracy theories turn into cold, hard fact.

Remember, people used to scoff at the notion of a Deep State (a.k.a. Shadow Government), doubt that fascism could ever take hold in America, and sneer at any suggestion that the United States was starting to resemble Nazi Germany in the years leading up to Hitler’s rise to power.

We’re beginning to know better, aren’t we?

The Deep State (“a national-security apparatus that holds sway even over the elected leaders notionally in charge of it”) is real.

We are already experiencing fascism, American-style.

Not with jackboots and salutes, as Robert Kagan of the Brookings Institution notes, “but with a television huckster, a phony billionaire, a textbook egomaniac ‘tapping into’ popular resentments and insecurities, and with an entire national political party — out of ambition or blind party loyalty, or simply out of fear — falling into line behind him.”

And the United States is increasingly following in Nazi Germany’s footsteps, at least in the years leading up to Hitler’s rise to power.

Given all that we know about the U.S. government—that it treats its citizens like faceless statistics and economic units to be bought, sold, bartered, traded, and tracked; that it repeatedly lies, cheats, steals, spies, kills, maims, enslaves, breaks the laws, overreaches its authority, and abuses its power at almost every turn; and that it wages wars for profit, jails its own people for profit, and has no qualms about spreading its reign of terror abroad—it is not a stretch to suggest that the government has been overtaken by global industrialists, a new world order, that do not have our best interests at heart.

Indeed, to anyone who’s been paying attention to the goings-on in the world, it is increasingly obvious that we’re already under a new world order, and it is being brought to you by the Global-Industrial Deep State, a powerful cabal made up of international government agencies and corporations.

It is as yet unclear whether the American Police State answers to the Global-Industrial Deep State, or whether the Global-Industrial Deep State merely empowers the American Police State. However, there is no denying the extent to which they are intricately and symbiotically enmeshed and interlocked.

This marriage of governmental and corporate interests is the very definition of fascism.

Where we go wrong is in underestimating the threat of fascism: it is no longer a national threat but has instead become a global menace.

Consider the extent to which our lives and liberties are impacted by this international convergence of governmental and profit-driven interests in the surveillance state, the military industrial complex, the private prison industry, the intelligence sector, the technology sector, the telecommunications sector, the transportation sector, and the pharmaceutical industry.

All of these sectors are dominated by mega-corporations operating on a global scale and working through government channels to increase their profit margins: Walmart, Alphabet (formerly Google), AT&T, Toyota, Apple, Exxon Mobil, Facebook, Lockheed Martin, Berkshire Hathaway, UnitedHealth Group, Samsung, Amazon, Verizon, Nissan, Boeing, Microsoft, Northrop Grumman, Citigroup… these are just a few of the global corporate giants whose profit-driven policies influence everything from legislative policies to economics to environmental issues to medical care.

The U.S. government’s deep-seated and, in many cases, top secret alliances with foreign nations and global corporations are redrawing the boundaries of our world (and our freedoms) and altering the playing field faster than we can keep up.

Global Surveillance

Spearheaded by the National Security Agency (NSA), which has shown itself to care little for constitutional limits or privacy, the surveillance state has come to dominate our government and our lives.

Yet the government does not operate alone.

It cannot.

It requires an accomplice.

Thus, the increasingly complex security needs of our massive federal government, especially in the areas of defense, surveillance and data management, have been met within the corporate sector, which has shown itself to be a powerful ally that both depends on and feeds the growth of governmental bureaucracy.

Take AT&T, for instance. Through its vast telecommunications network that crisscrosses the globe, AT&T provides the U.S. government with the complex infrastructure it needs for its mass surveillance programs. According to The Intercept:

The NSA considers AT&T to be one of its most trusted partners and has lauded the company’s ‘extreme willingness to help.’  It is a collaboration that dates back decades. Little known, however, is that its scope is not restricted to AT&T’s customers. According to the NSA’s documents, it values AT&T not only because it ‘has access to information that transits the nation,’ but also because it maintains unique relationships with other phone and internet providers. The NSA exploits these relationships for surveillance purposes, commandeering AT&T’s massive infrastructure and using it as a platform to covertly tap into communications processed by other companies.

Now magnify what the U.S. government is doing through AT&T on a global scale, and you have the “14 Eyes Program,” also referred to as the “SIGINT Seniors.” This global spy agency is made up of members from around the world (United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Denmark, France, Netherlands, Norway, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Sweden, Spain, Israel, Singapore, South Korea, Japan, India and all British Overseas Territories).

Surveillance is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to these global alliances, however.

Global War Profiteering

War has become a huge money-making venture, and America, with its vast military empire and its incestuous relationship with a host of international defense contractors, is one of its best buyers and sellers. In fact, as Reuters reports, “[President] Trump has gone further than any of his predecessors to act as a salesman for the U.S. defense industry.”

The American military-industrial complex has erected an empire unsurpassed in history in its breadth and scope, one dedicated to conducting perpetual warfare throughout the earth. For example, while erecting a security surveillance state in the U.S., the military-industrial complex has perpetuated a worldwide military empire with American troops stationed in 177 countries (over 70% of the countries worldwide).

Although the federal government obscures so much about its defense spending that accurate figures are difficult to procure, we do know that since 2001, the U.S. government has spent more than $1.8 trillion in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (that’s $8.3 million per hour). That doesn’t include wars and military exercises waged around the globe, which are expected to push the total bill upwards of $12 trillion by 2053.

The illicit merger of the global armaments industry and the Pentagon that President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us against more than 50 years ago has come to represent perhaps the greatest threat to the nation’s fragile infrastructure today. America’s expanding military empire is bleeding the country dry at a rate of more than $15 billion a month (or $20 million an hour)—and that’s just what the government spends on foreign wars. That does not include the cost of maintaining and staffing the 1000-plus U.S. military bases spread around the globe.

Incredibly, although the U.S. constitutes only 5% of the world’s population, America boasts almost 50% of the world’s total military expenditure, spending more on the military than the next 19 biggest spending nations combined. In fact, the Pentagon spends more on war than all 50 states combined spend on health, education, welfare, and safety. There’s a good reason why “bloated,” “corrupt” and “inefficient” are among the words most commonly applied to the government, especially the Department of Defense and its contractors. Price gouging has become an accepted form of corruption within the American military empire.

It’s not just the American economy that is being gouged, unfortunately.

Driven by a greedy defense sector, the American homeland has been transformed into a battlefield with militarized police and weapons better suited to a war zone. Trump, no different from his predecessors, has continued to expand America’s military empire abroad and domestically, calling on Congress to approve billions more to hire cops, build more prisons and wage more profit-driven war-on-drugs/war-on-terrorism/war-on-crime programs that pander to the powerful money interests (military, corporate and security) that run the Deep State and hold the government in its clutches.

Global Policing

Glance at pictures of international police forces and you will have a hard time distinguishing between American police and those belonging to other nations. There’s a reason they all look alike, garbed in the militarized, weaponized uniform of a standing army.

There’s a reason why they act alike, too, and speak a common language of force.

For example, Israel—one of America’s closest international allies and one of the primary yearly recipients of more than $3 billion in U.S. foreign military aid—has been at the forefront of a little-publicized exchange program aimed at training American police to act as occupying forces in their communities. As The Intercept sums it up, American police are “essentially taking lessons from agencies that enforce military rule rather than civil law.”

Then you have the Strong Cities Network program.  Funded by the State Department, the U.S. government has partnered with the United Nations to fight violent extremism “in all of its forms and manifestations” in cities and communities across the world. Working with the UN, the federal government rolled out programs to train local police agencies across America in how to identify, fight and prevent extremism, as well as address intolerance within their communities, using all of the resources at their disposal. The cities included in the global network include New York City, Atlanta, Denver, Minneapolis, Paris, London, Montreal, Beirut and Oslo.

What this program is really all about, however, is community policing on a global scale.

Community policing, which relies on a “broken windows” theory of policing, calls for police to engage with the community in order to prevent local crime by interrupting or preventing minor offenses before they could snowball into bigger, more serious and perhaps violent crime.

It sounds like a good idea on paper, but the problem with the broken windows approach is that it has led to zero tolerance policing and stop-and-frisk practices among other harsh police tactics.

When applied to the Strong Cities Network program, the objective is ostensibly to prevent violent extremism by targeting its source: racism, bigotry, hatred, intolerance, etc. In other words, police—acting ostensibly as extensions of the United Nations—will identify, monitor and deter individuals who exhibit, express or engage in anything that could be construed as extremist.

Of course, the concern with the government’s anti-extremism program is that it will, in many cases, be utilized to render otherwise lawful, nonviolent activities as potentially extremist. Keep in mind that the government agencies involved in ferreting out American “extremists” will carry out their objectives—to identify and deter potential extremists—in concert with fusion centers (of which there are 78 nationwide, with partners in the private sector and globally), data collection agencies, behavioral scientists, corporations, social media, and community organizers and by relying on cutting-edge technology for surveillance, facial recognition, predictive policing, biometrics, and behavioral epigenetics (in which life experiences alter one’s genetic makeup).

This is pre-crime on an ideological scale and it’s been a long time coming.

Are you starting to get the picture now?

We’re the sitting ducks in the government’s crosshairs.

On almost every front, whether it’s the war on drugs, or the sale of weapons, or regulating immigration, or establishing prisons, or advancing technology, if there is a profit to be made and power to be amassed, you can bet that the government and its global partners have already struck a deal that puts the American people on the losing end of the bargain.

Unless we can put the brakes on this dramatic expansion, globalization and merger of governmental and corporate powers, we’re not going to recognize this country 20 years from now.

It’s taken less than a generation for our freedoms to be eroded and the police state structure to be erected, expanded and entrenched.

Rest assured that the U.S. government will not save us from the chains of the global police state.

The current or future occupant of the White House will not save us.

For that matter, anarchy, violence and incivility will not save us.

Unfortunately, the government’s divide and conquer tactics are working like a charm.

Despite the laundry list of grievances that should unite “we the people” in common cause against the government, the nation is more divided than ever by politics, by socio-economics, by race, by religion, and by every other distinction that serves to highlight our differences.

The real and manufactured events of recent years—the invasive surveillance, the extremism reports, the civil unrest, the protests, the shootings, the bombings, the military exercises and active shooter drills, the color-coded alerts and threat assessments, the fusion centers, the transformation of local police into extensions of the military, the distribution of military equipment and weapons to local police forces, the government databases containing the names of dissidents and potential troublemakers—have all conjoined to create an environment in which “we the people” are more divided, more distrustful, and fearful of each other.

What we have failed to realize is that in the eyes of the government, we’re all the same.

In other words, when it’s time for the government to crack down—and that time is coming—it won’t matter whether we voted Republican or Democrat, whether we marched on Washington or stayed home, or whether we spoke out against government misconduct and injustice or remained silent.

When the government and its Global-Industrial Deep State partners in the New World Order crack down, we’ll all suffer.

If there is to be any hope of freeing ourselves, it rests—as it always has—at the local level, with you and your fellow citizens taking part in grassroots activism, which takes a trickle-up approach to governmental reform by implementing change at the local level.

One of the most important contributions an individual citizen can make is to become actively involved in local community affairs, politics and legal battles. As the adage goes, “Think globally, act locally.”

America was meant to be primarily a system of local governments, which is a far cry from the colossal federal bureaucracy we have today. Yet if our freedoms are to be restored, understanding what is transpiring practically in your own backyard—in one’s home, neighborhood, school district, town council—and taking action at that local level must be the starting point.

Responding to unmet local needs and reacting to injustices is what grassroots activism is all about. Attend local city council meetings, speak up at town hall meetings, organize protests and letter-writing campaigns, employ “militant nonviolent resistance” and civil disobedience, which Martin Luther King Jr. used to great effect through the use of sit-ins, boycotts and marches.

And then, as I make clear in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, if there is any means left to us for thwarting the government in its relentless march towards outright dictatorship, it may rest with the power of communities and local governments to invalidate governmental laws, tactics and policies that are illegitimate, egregious or blatantly unconstitutional.

Nullification works.

Nullify the court cases. Nullify the laws. Nullify everything the government does that flies in the face of the principles on which this nation was founded.

We could transform this nation if only Americans would work together to harness the power of their discontent.

A Fatal Incompatibilty: Big Business and Human Survival

Dramatic as the title of the article is, it is becoming increasingly clear that this is not hyperbole or hysterics. It is the only logical conclusion one can arrive at if one analyses the facts of our current situation as a species.

Commerce has existed for thousands of years, with private and government-owned companies providing goods and services for sale, largely unregulated for most of that time. Of course, government has always had the capacity to intervene where business practices have been found to be unsafe or unethical, for the protection of society.

As economies have developed beyond a mostly agricultural foundation into a consumer-driven industrial system, corporations have gained increasing economic, social and political influence. Although there is now an enormous quantity of legal regulation in relation to the conducting of business (in the developed world particularly) corporations exert such a huge influence on countries (democratic or otherwise) that we could accurately be described as living in an age of corpocracy. The infiltration of governments by corporate interests is so severe that governments are almost powerless to prevent the wholesale destruction of our environment and huge damage to humanity without causing a worldwide economic collapse.

Most corporations are not owned by one or a few individuals any more. Generally a large number of unknown individuals (shareholders) own them, to whom the directors are solely answerable. In almost all cases, the priority of the shareholders is the maximising of dividends and share prices, which companies achieve by creating as much profit as possible within a given time frame; e.g., per quarter year.

As a result of this priority of creating profits, above all other activities, companies have a long history of ignoring ethical concerns or paying lip-service to such issues in order to avoid any negative impacts on profitability. Considering the continual impact of corporate donations and lobbying on the political process and subsequent regulation, it is clear that corporations have deliberately attempted to prevent or diminish assessment and legislation that might adversely affect them.

There are a multitude of examples of big business attempting to conceal nefarious practices or to prevent any actions to control or end them. It would be easy to write a huge tome on the subject but here I am only going to refer to a few of the most famous and serious examples of corporate irresponsible behaviour.

The production of energy that fueled the industrial revolution, the expansion of commerce, science, technology and the massive growth of human populations is a dirty business. This began with the discovery of coal and its crucial role in the use of steam power. It was clear from the start that coal was at times dangerous to mine, potentially explosive and extremely dirty to burn, as is still the case today. Crude oil and natural gas have long since overtaken coal as energy sources of prime importance, but these too are flammable/explosive and extremely damaging to the environment when burned but particularly so if leaked. Nuclear power, the youngest of the destructive energy industries, likes to portray itself as clean when the reality could not be more different. Apart from well-known polluting disasters such as Three Mile Island, Sellafield, Chernobyl and Fukushima, nuclear power produces huge quantities of troublesome waste that remain radioactive. This waste remains dangerous for centuries or millenia and the industry still has no way to decontaminate it or to guarantee permanent safe storage.

Throughout its history the energy industry has downplayed or dismissed health and environmental concerns in order to continue maximising profits – any changes that have arisen have been fought against and succeeded only due to overriding public pressure. Examples of this are the smog and acid rain from coal burning, lead poisoning due to tetraethyl lead in petrol, radiation leaks in nuclear power stations, oil and gas spills in the marine environment and most recently contamination of land and water from fracking. In each case, despite clear scientific evidence to the contrary, the energy industry has attempted to dismiss dangers, conceal or discredit incriminating data, avoid accepting responsibility and minimising reparations for disastrous incidents.

Even now, when overwhelming scientific evidence proves that these industries are polluting, unsafe and detrimental to all life on Earth, they continue not just to fight for their survival but try to expand and curtail any attempts to contain them. All this is still occurring despite almost universal government and public acknowledgement of the need to gradually close down these industries in order to secure the future of humanity.

The same problem is to be found in a wide variety of other industries. The tobacco industry is one of the most obvious examples – for decades it has fought against regulation despite knowing, all along, that its products are dangerous and entirely detrimental to health. The pharmaceutical industry was most famously scandalised by the Thalidomide catastrophe of the 1950s and 1960s but despite many benefits to humanity this industry is also responsible for repeated cover-ups, creating wide-scale dependency on addictive prescription drugs, over-prescription of antidepressants, causing antibiotic resistance through over-use and environmental pollution, all in the name of profit expansion.

Plastics, an offshoot of the oil industry, seemed like a manufacturing miracle but it has turned out to be a nightmare for humanity and a vast number of the world’s species. Despite increasing evidence of planet wide pollution and damage to huge numbers of species, including humans, the industry continues to fight against change and much needed regulation instead of attempting to transition to bio-plastics and reinvent itself.

Another major offender is the agricultural and food industry, which has been hugely responsible for the degradation of the environment. Apart from continual reckless deforestation, agriculture is responsible for damaging top soil run-off and pollution of rivers and seas with pesticides and fertilizers. In the 1960s DDT famously caused huge numbers of bird, insect and animal deaths as well as dangers to humans leading to it being banned. Despite improvements in regulations, pesticides continue to have a catastrophic effect on the environment (bees in particular) and contamination of our food and water is still occurring all across the globe. Irresponsible farming practices are degrading the environment, increasing desertification, causing water contamination and biodiversity loss; overfishing is depleting the oceans; genetically modified organism of questionable safety are entering the food chain, all of which is despite wide-spread public opposition.

These are just a few areas that I’ve chosen, but the list is almost endless – in virtually every area of industry and corporate activity attempts have been and are being made to circumvent or decrease regulation, deny responsibility and avoid adopting practices that will affect profitability. Self-regulation and government regulation has almost entirely failed to prevent unchecked growth at the expense of humanity and the environment we depend on. Perhaps the side-effects of industrial society were not so evident decades ago and one can assume businesses generally are not created with the intention to destroy the fabric of life. However, due to decades of solid scientific evidence, no-one can plead ignorance any longer regarding the dire situation humanity has placed itself in.

Short-sighted as it is, governments are so influenced by the corporate sector and by fear of economic instability that they are able to offer little more than token gestures or reforms over such a long timescale that they are too little, too late. Apart from a sudden and catastrophic economic collapse, there is little to indicate that the behemoth of corporate big business is likely to change its destructive practices in any significant way or stop attempting to prevent or diminish restrictions upon it.

So given, that the corporate world is most likely to continue to act against the greater interests of humanity (and ultimately itself) what can we do about the situation? Although we may feel powerless as individuals to effect change in the world, especially when faced with the enormous power of the corpocracy, we do in truth wield massive economic power. In the absence of governments fighting our corner with any sincerity, it is up to us to wield the only weapon we have in the effort to force corporations to change their ways.

The one and hugely powerful weapon we have is our choice as consumers. What corporations want and need most of all is our money; without it they cannot function and without consumers to buy their products they have no reason to exist. While campaigning to governments should not be abandoned, it is of unpredictable worth, with no guarantee of success – another approach is required. Direct action in the form of consuming less or withdrawal of custom has an immediate and severe effect on any business if enough people are prepared to take part.

If we meekly wait for government regulation to kick in and curtail the rampant irresponsibility of the corporate sector, then there is little chance of major change happening before the collapse of human society is unpreventable. If, however, we as concerned consumers, vote with our wallets and also let companies know why we are doing so, then businesses that wish to survive will be forced to change. In a revitalized society where the consumer calls the shots businesses that are able to embrace environmentalism, revolutionize their products and methods will succeed. In the past, when businesses that failed to adapt to new trends or new technology they simply disappeared, sometimes extremely rapidly. That is still the case today. Businesses that fail to adapt to consumer demand for ecologically responsible trade and a move away from putting profit above all else can be forced to change their stance or face extinction.

Personally I would rather suffer the economic effects of irresponsible businesses ceasing to exist than see the continued rapid extinction of species and degradation of our planet. Ultimately we as individuals have the power to change our own behaviour and demand that corporations change theirs. The time available to bring this transition about is not unlimited. In a decade or two it may already be too late; now is the time to turn the tables on big business and force it to change its ways.

The Peoples’ Capitalism

Introduction

America began as a plutocracy and rather quickly evolved into a corpocracy, or an unequal partnership between Corporate America and Government America, with the former controlling the latter. We now call the plutocracy the power elite of the corpocracy, and it is this power elite that is responsible for America’s economy and its capitalistic economic system. Both the economy and the system serve the power elite, obviously, and not the common good. Assuming you are not one of the power elite, you, like me, are on the short end of the stick. How short depends generally on what your socioeconomic status is. The stick is very short for America at large, for it is becoming, if it hasn’t already gotten there, a third world country, which means a substandard living for many of the citizenry.

I once raised the question, “Is America going to Hell in a handbasket?”1 If it is, there are three “isms” why; imperialism, militarism, and capitalism. There is absolutely nothing intrinsically good about the first two isms. There is no good imperialism, no good militarism. Not so the third ism. All America has ever known and used is bad capitalism. But as Parts 1-9 have shown us, there are many visions of a good capitalism. However, there are probably millions of people, especially socialists, who insist there is no good capitalism. Well, they can believe whatever they want to believe.

That being said, what do I have to offer in this last part, Part 10, of the ten-part series on “economic sanity and alternative economic systems”? A “peoples’ capitalism,” a good capitalism, is what I have to offer. It does not stand alone. It stands on the shoulders of the non-economist thinkers who preceded me in Parts 1 through 9.

The Lodestar for The Peoples’ Capitalism

The lodestar tells us what to aim for, the end goal, which is the creation of a fully functioning peoples’ capitalism, and how we know if we get there. The lodestar is nothing more nor anything less than that prescribed in the first 28 Articles of the United Nations Declaration of Universal Human Rights. At first blush some of the articles seem to have nothing or little to do with a nation’s economy and its economic system, yet these 28 rights could never materialize under bad capitalism.

(1) Innate freedom and equality
(2) Ban on discrimination
(3) Right to life
(4) Ban on slavery
(5) Ban on torture
(6) Right to recognition as a person before the law
(7) Equality before the law
(8) Right to effective judiciary
(9) Ban on arbitrary detention
(10) Right to public hearing
(11) Right to the presumption of innocence
(12) Right to privacy
(13) Right to freedom of movement
(14) Right to asylum
(15) Right to a nationality
(16) Right to marriage and family
(17) Right to own property
(18) Right to freedom of thought and religion
(19) Right to freedom of opinion and expression
(20) Right to freedom of assembly and association
(21) Right to take part in government
(22) Right to social security
(23) Right to work
(24) Right to rest
(25) Right to an adequate standard of living
(26) Right to education
(27) Right to participate in cultural life
(28) Right to a social and international order.

Ordinarily, I regard the UN as a worthless entity, a pawn of the world’s power elite, particularly that of America’s corpocracy, but I give the UN credit at least for enunciating the above principles. But I must discredit if for being feckless. No nation can expect UN enforcement of the 28 rights. The UN declaration is like all corporate codes of ethics, paper principles to be preached and never practiced.

The Lodestar’s Lodestar: Article 25

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

All the other articles are represented in one way or another in Article 25. We must look to it for the criteria for determining whether every human being has the essentials for an adequate living and nothing less. If they do, then it is at least partly due to some form of socially responsible capitalism. Adequacy, of course, is the minimum standard. Millions of Americans and billions of other peoples have far less than an adequate standard of living. They have a miserable standard of living.

Developing criteria, or indicators of progress and reaching the goal, used to be among the mainstays of my working career, but no more. I shall turn that responsibility over to a task force of special people to be identified next.

Setting the Stage for True Reform

Let’s assume the following stage setting. My proposal for a U.S. Chamber of Democracy (USCD) has been implemented.2 It has commissioned a task force, peopled by the non-economists highlighted earlier in this series along with Aristotle and Marx in absentia, and charged with developing and publishing under the auspices of the USCD a proposal for a new national economic policy and a new economic system, the peoples’ capitalism. The proposal would include strategic initiatives, a time table for finishing, and indicators of progress.

The task force would also be charged with polling the opinions of middle class Americans, the socioeconomic group essential to any true democracy and viable economy, and then melding the solicited public opinion with the draft proposal.

Additionally, the USCD would implement my proposal for establishing the “democracy’s commandos,” comprising nearly 20 groups of disgruntled or otherwise receptive Americans numbering in the hundreds of thousands to apply pressure on the corpocracy’s power elite, including its corrupt politicians, to implement the proposal or suffer the consequences.3

The task-force’s strategic initiatives are mostly mine. That is, after all, my prerogative since I fathered the task-force! I have written reams of real and virtual paper identifying and explaining the strategic initiatives necessary for ending the corpocracy (including its endless spying and warring) and achieving true economic reform.4  I will spare you the details and the time by listing in no particular order just those 19 initiatives necessary to create the “peoples’ capitalism” and then arbitrarily pick and summarize just one of them. But I guarantee you, all 19 are solid initiatives, and if they were all achieved America would have a new economic system, the peoples’ capitalism.

(a) End Free Market Ballyhoo;
(b) End Fear Mongering Over the National Debt;
(c) End Privatization;
(d) End Economic Disparities and Poverty;
(e) End Trickle-down Economics Hokum and Blaming the Poor for their Poverty;
(f) Move toward “An Acceptable” Level of Employment;
(g) Increase Wages;
(h) Reduce the Costs of Daily Living;
(i) Move toward a Quality American Education;
(j) End Shut-Out Capitalists: So Much Capitalism, so Few Capitalists!
(k) End Wall Street along with Financial Speculation at Home and Away;
(l) Replace Bad with Good Globalization: Localize More, Globalize Less;
(m) Abolish the Unholy Trinity: The WTO, WBO and IMF;
(n) Repeal Existing Trade Agreements;
(o) End Unsustainable Development and Ovidian Growth;
(p) Make Commerce Greener;
(q) Replace Private Banks with Public Banks: Starting with abolishing the FED;
(r) End Elitist Corporate Pay for Socially Irresponsible Performance; and,
(s) Share Democracy’s Cost Fairly.

I will arbitrarily pick the last initiative, “Share Democracy’s Costs Fairly” and summarize it.

The task force would consider all good ideas on how to achieve fair-share taxation, including Barnes’ proposals for common tax credits. Just as importantly. the task force would peer through the corpocracy’s veil and do a “tax-escape” audit” of all forms of corporate welfare, including tax havens, tax cuts for the filthy rich, etc.5 While this exercise is being done, the aforementioned poll would include asking the polled to rate the importance of the UN’s Articles. Finally, democracy’s commandos would be told about the findings and asked if they would be willing to apply their democracy power to end corporate welfare for the sake of the general welfare.

In Closing

I will close with these short remarks. Yes, neither the USCD nor the democracy commandos exist, but not for my lack of trying for 10,000 or so hours on and off for several years. Yes, it is a wish list of 19 initiatives, but they represent thoroughly studied ideas, and from ideas flow change if opportunities arise. Yes, up against America’s mighty corpocracy, it’s the corpocracy’s ideas that prevail. From those three remarks conclude what you will about the peoples’ capitalism or any other significant reforms in the economic arena ever occurring.

Recapping Parts 1-9

Part 1: Economic Sanity and Alternative Economic Systems introduced this 10-part series on economic sanity and alternative economic systems. I told readers “Never mind that I am not an economist. Instead, please appreciate that I am not an economist.” That led to me trotting out for the umpteenth time my “human equation” for explaining anything involving humans. Getting closer to the subject at hand, I went on to say that “human behavior, even habitual behavior, needs to be motivated. At the heart of human motivation are values, beliefs, attitudes, needs and wants, with the latter two being the most relevant for the topic of this series. Human needs and wants are the bedrock of any economy and any economic system. Money is not the bedrock. It is simply a medium. There was no money when the earliest humans started needing and wanting. Debt, as some economic thinkers think, is not the bedrock. Debt is merely an offshoot of a usually uneven transaction. And since no human, not even a member of a society’s power elite, is self-sufficient, satisfying one’s needs and wants will in one way or another depend on what some other human beings do. So, you see, the psychology of human nature is the bedrock of economics, any economy and any economic system.” While I truly believe what I just wrote, it also gives me passage to writing about economies and economic systems as a psychologist!

Part 2. Economic Insanity Up Close. This article summarizes Roger Terry’s book on “economic insanity.” He is a non-economist and a responsible businessman. Terry contends that the growth-driven capitalism of big, authoritarian, and unaccountable organizations is devouring the American dream. Terry’s features of a new economic system would be a structurally different capitalism, one we’ve never seen before. It would be a “Nation of Owners,” in which there are three levels of ownership: (a) small enterprises, like his own, with the founders and a few partners who share ownership commensurate with their seniority and other factors like start-up funding; (b) larger enterprises, the corporations of today, would be owned collectively by their members, who would elect managers for limited terms of office; and (c) public enterprises, such as utilities, education, defense, and the like, would be created and managed by public boards or local governments. Now that I would add and enthusiastically emphasize would be real economic sanity!

Part 3. Notes on Some Classical Thinking. In this article I “pick the brains” of Aristotle, Adam Smith and Karl Marx. I close by telling readers I’m leaving Smith behind and feel much closer to Aristotle and Marx.

Part 4. The Fringe Economy. Part 4 reviews the book, Short Changed, Life and Debt in the Fringe Economy, written by Howard Karger, who at the time was a professor of social policy.

The fringe economy preys on the poor through seven different medium all controlled by corporations; pawn shops, the credit card industry, alternative financial services such as check cashing and rent-to-own, fringe housing, real estate speculation and foreclosure, the fringe auto industry, and the “getting-out-of-debt” industry such as the multi-billion dollar debt management business. The solution, Karger thinks, is not to eliminate the fringe market because mainstream services are not as accessible physically or as culturally compatible to poor neighborhoods. He suggests numerous solutions, some more plausible than others that would accommodate the realities of these neighborhoods while also eliminating some of the abusive and fraudulent practices of doing business with the people who live in those neighborhoods.

Part 5. Six Economies. This is a review of Riane Eisler’s book, The Real Wealth of Nations. I am not going to summarize it here. She is a genius. You need to read her book.

Part 6. Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution. The authors of Natural Capitalism argue that it is needed to “create the next industrial revolution.” They warn that if we continue to ignore the value of natural capital; i.e., nature’s life-support systems for humankind, there will come a time when there won’t be any more life support. My rejoinder was that “America doesn’t need the next industrial revolution. America needs a new and better capitalism that enfolds industry without its corpocracy.”

Part 7. The Uncommon Commons. This is a review of a book, Capitalism 3.0: A Guide to Reclaiming the Commons, by Peterr Barnes, co-founder, president, or a director of various socially responsible businesses. He wants “capitalism 3.0” to replace “capitalism 2.0,” the existing economic “operating system.” He complains that corporations, with no resistance from “our” government, are privatizing the commons, profiting from it and externalizing the costs. He defines “the commons” as assets we all share by inheriting or creating them together and subdivides them into three sectors, nature, community, and culture. Together they represent our “common wealth” in contrast to our “private wealth.” Barne’s proposals are among the most unique I’ve ever read on capitalism and deserve your attention.

Part 8. Shared Capitalism. Jeff Gates wrote a book jam packed with ideas about what he calls “shared capitalism for the twenty-first century.” He was once counsel to the U.S. Senate Finance Committee (1980-87). In this role, Gates crafted federal law on employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs) and pension plans. In other words, he worked for the corpocracy, and that opened his eyes! Unshared capitalism, he argues, while made to order by the corpocracy, is totally unfit for a democracy. His solution is to make widespread ownership a specific goal of national economic policy. His opinion that people take responsibility for what they own resonates with me, having watched for two decades party-going renters misbehave and scar property in an ocean-side condominium where my wife and I owned and never rented a unit.

Part 9. Spiritual Capitalism. Dana Zohar and Ian Marshall wrote the book, Spiritual Capital: Wealth We Can Live By.  Zohar is broadly trained and thus taps into diverse resources such as classical literature, physics, religion, and psychology. Marshall is a Jungian-oriented psychiatrist and psychotherapist. The authors argue that material capitalism, the kind that predominates in America’s corpocracy, is unsustainable, depleting our natural resources, creating political and social instability, eroding our moral standards, and degrading the very meaning of life in terms of its deepest values and aspirations. Rather than reject this conventional capitalism altogether, however, the authors advocate transforming it into a more positive, sustainable economic system that they call “spiritual capitalism” in the secular, non-religious sense.

It’s defined as the amount of knowledge and expertise available about “meaning, values, and fundamental purposes.” It produces not material wealth that ultimately consumes itself but a self-sustaining wealth “that enriches the deeper aspects of our lives.”

The authors are creative thinkers who forced me repeatedly to think outside my own relatively narrow paradigms. There is much about their views and ideas with which I agree. Yet, the authors’ analysis of the problem and their proposed remedy are too unbalanced and insufficient. Material capitalism is far more than what they call a crisis of motivation. Many other factors contribute to the failings of traditional capitalism. Moreover, relying on a critical mass of business people to shift upwards their spiritual intelligence, as they propose, is naïve and simplistic in my opinion.

Part 10. The Peoples’ Capitalism. You are reading it now.

• Part 1 here; Part 2 here; Part 3 here; Part 4 here; Part 5 here; Part 6 here; Part 7 here; Part 8 here; Part 9 here

  1. Brumback, GB. “Is America Going to Hell in a Handbasket?” The Greanville Post, March 29; Uncommon Thought Journal, April 21; Cyrano’s Journal, April 22, 2013.
  2. See my book, The Devil’s Marriage: Break Up the Corpocracy or Leave Democracy in the Lurch, 2011.
  3. Ibid.
  4. See also my books Corporate Reckoning Ahead, 2015, and America’s Oldest Professions: Warring and Spying, 2015.
  5. Editorial. $100 Billion the Country Could Use. The New York Times Online, March 13, 2009.

Six Economies

By the time we come to the end of this series we will have been swimming in the primordial soup of the seeds for alternative forms of traditional capitalism! As I have long said, there is bad capitalism, the kind we have, and good capitalism, the kind we need

Part 5 is an adaptation of my review of a book about six economies written by Riane Eisler.1 She titled the book “The Real Wealth of Nations,” which to me was a repartee to Adam Smith’s magnum opus. Because she is absolutely one of my favorite authors I must begin by telling you about her.

Escaping with her parents from the Nazis in Germany led her eventually to ponder how there could be a world so cruel, insensitive, and destructive when humans, she believed, have a great capacity for caring, consciousness, and creativity (we should highlight “capacity” for she could not say “habit”). She ultimately concluded that “we have to change present economic systems” for the sake of ourselves, our children, and future generations. Being trained not in economics but in sociology, anthropology, and law was, I’m convinced, an asset for her, not a liability, in doing the research and writing for this book. And I certainly agree with her when she quotes Einstein as having said that solving problems can’t be done with the same thinking that created them, even though I hardly think it takes a genius to know that. In any case, Eisler has done some very creative and constructive thinking.

She was selected as the only woman among twenty great thinkers including Hegel, Adam Smith, Marx, and Toynbee in recognition of the lasting importance of her work.2 Her book, The Chalice and the Blade recounting the transition from earliest egalitarian to later patriarchal societies, was an international best seller and acclaimed by Princeton anthropologist Ashley Montagu as “the most important book since Darwin’s Origin of the Species.”3,4

Karl Marx once said about capitalists, “give them enough rope and they’ll hang themselves” If only that would happen! Eisler isn’t sympathetic to either Marx or Adam Smith. She contends that their theories and their application call for the control of natural resources and the means of production by a male dominated culture and as a consequence neither communism nor capitalism as we know it is capable of solving the chronic problems confronting society. Well, if you remember what I wrote about Marx in the previous part of this series, I would give him some slack here.5

Her focus in her book is on explaining dysfunctional economic structures, rules, and practices, offering an alternative perspective for a new economics along with providing convincing evidence of its superiority, and proposing necessary reforms to change the present system. Whereas Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations focused on the market, she goes beyond it to reexamine economics from a larger perspective that includes the life-supporting activities of households, communities, and nature. “Ultimately,” she says, “the real wealth of a nation lies in the quality of its human and natural capital” and the basic purpose of an economic system should thus be to “promote human welfare and human happiness,” characteristics that are missing from our present economic system. She is obviously more in tune with Aristotle’s thinking about economics than with Smith or Marx.6

A central theme of her book is that since any economic system emerges out of a larger social, cultural, and technological context, a viable system can’t be constructed without taking that broader context into account, and especially not without giving visibility and value to the socially and economically essential work of caring for people and nature. She defines care giving as “actions based on empathy, responsibility, and concern for human welfare and optimal human development.”

Our economic system is dysfunctional she contends because it, like its larger context, depends on what she calls the domination model. It has four core components; a rigid top-down social structure, much abuse and violence, a male superiority premise, and beliefs that perpetuate domination and violence. This system, where people are either dominating or being dominated rests on several erroneous assumptions such as people being inherently untrustworthy, that fear of pain (as a psychologist, I disagree with this as a source of motivation) and scarcity are the main motivators for work, and that caring and care giving are impediments to productivity or at best irrelevant to economics. For example, with regard to the last misassumption, she points out that care giving isn’t, but should be, included as a positive value in economic indicators such as the GNP, which, manifesting a domination system as it does, misleadingly includes war-related expenditures as positive values. She cites a Swiss survey and a UN report, the first, showing that the value of unpaid, care giving work accounts for 70 percent of the reported Swiss GDP, and the second, estimating in 1985 that the value of women’s unpaid work amount worldwide and annually to 11 trillion dollars. Those are amazing findings!

A functional economic system along with its larger context would be one she posits that depends on what she calls the partnership model of mutually respectful and caring relations. She leaves no stone unturned, no relevant field of inquiry unexplored in showing in various ways how this model is far superior to the other one. For example, she documents studies demonstrating that in business “it pays to care-in dollars and cents.” Organizational psychologists like me would be familiar with the evidence presented that caring and empowering corporations do indeed give a positive return on investment in their human capital. She shows how the Nordic countries, the only ones coming close to her partnership model, are faring well economically and socially.

Having a national capacity and resources for providing optimal human development is clearly necessary for having a healthy economy, and she persuasively links the domination form of child rearing (and thus suboptimal human development) to adverse consequences later in life that show up in the kinds of leaders and followers our society has, in our belligerent relationships with other countries, and in our diminished capacity for a functional and healthy economy. She presents neuroscientific evidence of how care giving rather than selfishness produces the most powerful reactions in the brain circuitry associated with pleasurable sensations. Finally, she shows how disastrous it could be if the domination model is played out with new and risky technological developments on the horizon.

Her perspective and understanding are so broad that she conceptualizes not one but six economic sectors. The first sector, the core one, is the household economy from which the rest of the sectors spring because productivity depends so much on human activity, which starts at birth and is markedly shaped by what kinds of experiences there are throughout human upbringing. Her core economy is clearly reminiscent of Aristotle’s thinking.7 The second is the unpaid economy made up mostly of volunteers. The third is the conventional market economy. The fourth is the illegal economy like illegal arms trade (and I suppose she would include Karger’s fringe economy summarized earlier in this series).8 The fifth is the government economy that includes not just the large population of government workers but also the laws, rules, and policies that (should) govern the market economy. The sixth, the natural economy, is as basic as the first in that our environment produces natural resources used and misused by the market economy.

The sectors are inextricably intertwined, and all must be taken into account in order to transform our economic system, our institutions, and our culture from the domination into the partnership model. The greatest challenge, she contends, is to develop economic models, measures, and rules where the first, second, and sixth sectors are recognized and highly valued. Our beliefs about what we value are largely unconscious, she continues, having been inherited from earlier times when anything associated with the female half of humanity, such as caring and care giving was devalued. If you scoff at this, you should read her book because I can’t do it real justice here other than to say I know of no other living scholar that has evolved a new theory of economics after having spent 30 years of research combing the data from over 20 thousand or more years of history collected by herself and others from myriad fields of inquiry.

Her book is much more than just theoretically significant, as would be expected from a social activist. She proceeds smoothly and logically from her theorizing to advocacy and conclusion. She makes a number of practical suggestions about what needs to be done on Wall Street (e.g. stiff tax on short-term speculations), in government (e.g., massive investment in child care and human development), by business leaders (e.g., changing from top-down to empowering corporations), and among social activist citizens (e.g., mounting a global movement to change laws and customs-she describes how she wrote an amicus brief that helped women legally gain equal rights). She summarizes the progress being made that she believes represents a “caring revolution.”

The only quibble I have with her summary is her assessment that “hundreds of thousands of nongovernmental organizations” are all working she says toward the “common goal of shifting to a more caring economic and social system.” I seriously doubt that claim. I’ve studied about 150 prominent NGOs in the U.S. My conclusion is that they are first and foremost compromised by the corpocracy, and secondly, represent a very fragmented activity, where even NGOs with similar missions and initiatives don’t communicate with each other let alone coordinate or collaborate in their work. Moreover, I once contacted the leadership of 176 NGOs proposing a super coalition of NGOs under the auspices of, let’s say, a U.S. Chamber of Democracy that is a counterpoint to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the advocate and lobbyist for big business that typifies the domination model. That proposal fell flat. Only five endorsed it; 32 said no; and 139 didn’t even respond.9

Conclusion

Eisler’s conclusion is my conclusion, “we have to change present economic systems” for the sake of ourselves, our children, and future generations.

I had originally intended to pair this Part 5 with Part 6 to shorten an otherwise lengthy chain of articles. But her book is so seminal, so profound, so unique that it absolutely deserves to stand alone! Furthermore, I am revising my “pantheon of brilliant, radical and humane thinkers.”10 I am telling Aristotle he must share the top spot with Eisler!

• Read Part 1 here; Part 2 here; Part 3 here; Part 4 here;

  1. Brumback, GB. Review in the Book Review Section of Personnel Psychology (2009, Vol 62, #1, 179-183) of The Real Wealth of Nations: Creating a Caring Economics, 2007, by Riane Eisler.
  2. Galtung, J.& Inayatullah S. Macrohistory and Macrohistorians: Perspectives on Individual, Social, and Civilizational Change, 1997.
  3. Eisler, R. The Chalice & the Blade: Our history, our Future, 1987.
  4. Eisler, R. Wikipedia. wikipedia.org/wiki/Riane Eisler.
  5. Brumback, GB. “Notes on Some Classical Thinking” (Part 3 of 10 Part Series) “Economic Sanity and Alternative Economic Systems”, Dissident Voice, May 20; OpEdNews, May 21, 2018.
  6. Ibid.
  7. Ibid. Part 3
  8. Ibid. Part 4.
  9. Brumback, GB. Tyranny’s Hush Money, OpEdNews 9/28/2013, The Greanville Post, September 29, 2013.
  10. Op. Cit. Footnote 5.

Fringe Economy

Fringe, adj. not part of the mainstream; unconventional, peripheral. When this definition is applied to the economy it becomes the title of a book, Short Changed: Life and Debt in the Fringe Economy, written by Howard Karger, who at the time was a professor of social policy.1 Part 4 is a review of that book.

Do you have any idea what the “historical neighborhood banker” is? I didn’t until I read his book. It’s the pawnshop says Karger. Most likely not in your neighborhood, though. Indebted people have been pawning their belongings as long ago as 1000 BC. If your image of today’s American pawnshop is of a storefront operation owned and operated by a shady character, you’ll be as surprised as I was to learn that many of those storefronts have been gobbled up by five publicly traded corporations (e.g., EZ Pawn) raking in 100’s of millions of dollars yearly from pawnshop loans and with boards of directors lavishly paying their CEOs. Even the shrinking population of go-it-alone pawn shop brokers gets loans to set up their operations from big banks. Well, why not? No banksters worthy of the name will miss out on grabbing other people’s money.

Karger defines the fringe economy as “corporations and business practices [that pray on the poor] by charging excessive interest rates or fees, or exorbitant prices for goods and services.” He divides this economy into seven sectors and gives a chapter to each. Besides a storefront loan sector that includes pawnshop businesses, the other sectors are the credit card industry, alternative financial services such as check cashing and rent-to-own, fringe housing, real estate speculation and foreclosure, the fringe auto industry, and the “getting-out-of-debt” industry such as the multibillion dollar debt management business. Large corporations operate in each of these sectors, and some, like EZ Pawn, may not be household names, while other large corporations that operate in both the fringe and mainstream economies surely are, such as the really big banksters, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Verizon, and then the telecommunications giant, AT & T, that depended on the banksters at the outset.

Karger fills his book with a lot of facts about his subject, so much so that he warns early on that reading them “may be tedious” yet necessary because the “devil is in the details.” He compensates nicely for them, though, by fleshing out the facts with many anecdotes. I couldn’t help but think how Charles Dickens might have novelized them into a modern classic, absent the debtor’s prison (see the next paragraph) in “David Copperfield.

Karger’s name for the last sector, the “getting-out-of debt” industry surely has to be tongue-in-cheek, for as he describes and explains it, this industry can only be a multi-billion dollar business because its customers never get out of debt. Businesses in the other sectors, as he amply shows, are no different in that they all seek to sink already indebted people further into debt by escalating the interest fees levied on them, amounting in some cases to nearly a 500% APR! It would not be profitable to put these people in debtors’ prisons. Indeed, the entire sub-prime and predatory lending businesses of the fringe economy are built on the backs of persistently indebted customers.

Obviously, it would it not be profitable either to drive indebted people into bankruptcy, an escape hatch of last resort so to speak. This explains why corporations, especially in the credit card industry lobbied heavily to get the draconian Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act passed by a captive Congress. Known pejoratively but aptly as the “loan shark law,” Karger notes that it “intensifies the economic war on the poor and credit-challenged.”

If you are thinking loan sharks might starve if people stopped spending beyond their means you would be giving, in Karger’s opinion, too much credence to what he calls the “over consumption” argument. While he agrees that such “affluenza” (see De Graaf et al., 2002) is a contributing factor, he maintains that the argument fails to address a major cause of indebtedness, “the high cost of living in a privatized society.”2 He notes that the rising cost of necessities amounted then to 75% of a family’s two-person income, leaving little left for luxuries for the “functionally poor.” Moreover, consumer spending is less than it was a decade ago then. The argument, he believes, lets lawmakers fault debtors “for an economic reality they can’t control.”

Besides its loan shark law, the government has boosted the fringe economy in various other ways. For example, what Karger means by a “privatized society” is that stricter federal and state public assistance policies more quickly than before throw former recipients into jobs with no benefits and with pay suppressed by the miserly minimum wage law that has been frozen at that time by conservative politicians since 1997. Another example is public policy on homeownership along with sub-prime mortgage lenders and their low teaser rates that lure unqualified customers to buy homes eventually foreclosed. And not to leave out the judiciary’s role, Karger cites a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allows national banks to charge the highest rate allowable in their home states to borrowers living elsewhere.

What, you might ask, is the difference between the two types of lending, sub-prime and predatory? Is the first legal and the second not? No. Illegalities exist in both. Moreover, state usury laws vary, so what may be illegal loans in one state are legal in another. Ethical considerations certainly don’t differentiate the two types of lending. Unscrupulous but legal practices abound in both types. The difference between them Karger says is blurry, offering his own blurry view that the first is generally “beneficial” and the second is “destructive.” In my opinion the only difference may be in how excessively customers are gouged. It seems to me, moreover, that sub-prime loans can’t be beneficial because the effects of being gouged benefit only the gouger.

The profitability of the fringe market has been too tempting for mainstream financial institutions not to enter it. Some observers, Karger says, believe this development will help to counteract unscrupulous lending practices. Not a chance! Anyone who tracks big financial institutions and corporations in general should know that the profit to be made and the pressure to make it every quarter will compromise the means to make it. Karger is not “optimistic” either and offers some corroborating evidence by citing some very prominent corporations that entered the fringe market. Customers of this market represent what I would call our own undeveloped “sub-country,” so why should we expect it to be any less exploited than are undeveloped countries by multi-national corporations?

The solution, Karger thinks, is not to eliminate the fringe market, as if that were even a remote possibility! He also thinks it would not be desirable because compared to fringe services the mainstream ones are not as accessible physically or as culturally compatible to poor neighborhoods.

At the end of each sector’s chapter and in the concluding chapter, therefore, he suggests numerous solutions, some more plausible than others, that would accommodate the realities of these neighborhoods while also eliminating some of the abusive and fraudulent practices of doing business with the people who live in those neighborhoods. Many of the solutions, like lending “only to borrowers who have the income or liquid assets to repay the debt” (how plausible, though, is that for some borrowers?) could be voluntarily adopted by lenders. But business being what it is, whether in the fringe or mainstream economy, socially and genuinely responsible behavior is rarely volunteered. So Karger adds some legislative recommendations. In this sense his book is very timely. As I wrote the review, for instance, Congress was considering legislation to curb the excesses of the sub-prime mortgage business. But whatever Congress passes is academic. Anything Congress does is not done without the heavy hand of large corporations in the mix.

In Closing

Were it only true that the corpocracy and its capitalism were relegated to the fringe economy and then made to vanish to never-never land!

  1. Brumback, GB. “Review of the book Short Changed: Life and Debt in the Fringe Economy by Howard Karger in the book review section of Personnel Psychology 60″, 2007, pp. 787-790.
  2. John De Graaf, J. et al. Affluenza: The All-Consuming Epidemic, 2002.

Notes on Some Classical Thinking

Notice the “notes” in the title. Part 3 is no textbook. Part 3 is a miniscule “Cliff Notes.” Notice, too, that the title reads “classical” thinking, not “early” thinking. There’s a difference. Since I regard human transactions as the bedrock of any economy and economic system, were I to choose the latter over the former qualifier I would have a lot of ground to cover, namely, that of early humans and their thinking as deduced from artifacts. An impossible task for me.

It’s not at all impossible for me, however, to skim the thinking of three classicists, Aristotle (384-322 BC), Adam Smith (1723-1790) and Karl Marx (1813-1883). Of the three, Marx came the closest to being a quasi-economist. He wrote about his vision of socialism 19 years before he wrote his Das Kapital, yet he began his career as a radical journalist that got him expelled by the governments of three countries. The same experience might have befallen me had I not kept my mouth mostly shut during my career.

Aristotle’s Thinking

Aristotle (384-322 BC) may just be the premium thinker of all time. And he thought a lot about the economies of his era. It behooves me, therefore, to “consult” with him through his writings and their interpretations since great minds (his, certainly not mine) live on.

In his day the Greek word for economy meant “household management” within the context of the community. Today in the USA economy means banksters and Wall Street.

Economic activity in his view consisted of individuals doing things necessary for survival and for the good life, which to him meant a moral life of virtue that leads to happiness. He criticized money-making as a way of gaining wealth, thought it was unnatural for people to use money to make more money — the essence of capitalism-and considered usury, or predatory lending, to be the most immoral form of economic activity. Seeking wealth is justifiable, Aristotle thought, only if it amounted to no more than an accumulation of material goods sufficient for the household.

While there were banks in his day, there is a running debate by scholars over whether or the extent to which lending was done productively, that is, with the intent of making money from the loans. I can’t imagine, though, any banking business done then as criminally as it is done today.

It’s interesting to note that a totally free market was not the custom in ancient Greece. For instance, public officials monitored measurements, levied taxes on various transactions, and even fixed retail prices! Ancient Greece survived without a free market, America’s corpocracy couldn’t survive with it! Ancient Greece had a fair market. America has an unfair market.

I feel a special bonding with Aristotle. Why? To him human action was the fulcrum of an economy. That is precisely my thinking! Please recall that in Part 1 I wrote this: “Economics, any economy, and any economic system such as capitalism are not what orthodox thinkers in general and economists particularly think they are. They are first and foremost human inventions and human actions—.”1 And, if I may be so smug, I thought of it before doing some additional reading on Aristotle where I read that: “Aristotle then goes on to derive a number of economic ideas from axiomatic concepts including the necessity of human action (emphasis mine).2  And, if I may be so smug one more time, my pal Aristotle and I are unorthodox thinkers (actually, throughout my career I was regarded as an “iconoclastic” organizational psychologist)!

Adam Smith’s Thinking

Dialogue from the Netherworld

Democracy requires unfettered capitalism.
— Milton Friedman (1912-2006)

No, it’s your corpocracy that requires it.
— Adam Smith (1723–1790)

I begin this by imagining a dialogue “overheard” from somewhere between the putative father of capitalism, Adam Smith, and the Nobel laureate in economics and guru of free-market capitalism, Milton Friedman. The views of the two gentlemen have little in common, and I can imagine a lively debate.

Adam Smith’s espousal of a free market has been far overblown. He made only a passing reference to “the invisible hand” in his Wealth of Nations and never once in it used the term “capitalism.”3 He would have recoiled at today’s corpocracy and its capitalism, for he thought the emerging corporations of his time posed threats emanating from their unlimited life span; unlimited size; unlimited power; and unlimited license. Look familiar, don’t they? He foresaw corpocratic capitalism. I foreswore it.4

But Smith and I part company when it comes to his view of the human nature underlying capitalism.  It is, in my opinion, an immoral view even though, ironically, he is known as a moral philosopher.

Read this passage of his and see if you agree with me:

[M]an has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and shew them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, . . . It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.5

Since self-love and selfish behavior are at odds with what I know to be the universal moral values found (usually more in words than deeds) throughout time and place, I am leaving Smith quickly to move to the next classical thinker.6

Karl Marx

I have never been, or will I ever be a communist or a socialist because of their downsides, such as centralized or state planning and the diminution of individualism. But I feel a special affinity to Karl Marx and would place him far above Adam Smith in my pantheon of brilliant, radical and humane thinkers. I feel this way about him because his primary objective in life was “to integrate extensive knowledge of the past and present with a moral imperative in order to provide a goad and a guide for contemporary action to create a more humane and equitable culture—he had the dream of people making their own history as individuals creating a community.”7 Marx, in other words, was heads and shoulders above Smith when it comes to propounding economic and political ideas that if implemented would lead to a more humane way of life.

In at least one respect, Marx is like all other human beings. What he thought and wrote was influenced by events of his era, with the most significant being the industrial revolution that was enslaving workers in dehumanizing factories with deplorable working conditions and paltry wages. The industrial revolution had a significant impact on his thinking and writing.

I will give you here my succinct interpretation of his magnum opus, Das Kapital. I will zero in on just two of his ideas, the nature of the worker and the work day, because his ideas vibrate within my very being.

The worker, like any human being, has needs to be met as best as possible; security needs, social needs, leisure needs, etc. Given capitalism, to Marx (and to me) the worker becomes an entity, not a human being, commodified by the capitalist.

As for the work day, if the worker takes some time off to attend his mother’s funeral, the capitalist sees it as the worker stealing value from the capitalist, and Marx and I see it as a thieving capitalist. I am reminded of a major war contractor giving a 10-year employee a layoff notice the very day the employee returned from bereavement leave following the death of the employee’s young son.8

In Closing

Three classical thinkers all thinking on the same topic, economies and economic systems. Of the three, one will mostly be cast aside as we continue through this series, Adam Smith.

As you can probably tell, I’m a Marxist without being a communist or a socialist. If Marx were alive today and read my writings he surely would agree with all of them and might not mind being called a “Brumbackist” if he could forgive my shunning communism and socialism. Maybe he could even accept a theme of this series, namely, that there’s bad capitalism everywhere, but there could also be good capitalism.

Read Part 1 here; Part 2 here;

  1. Brumback, GB. “Economic Sanity and Alternative Economic Systems”, Part 1. Introduction to the Series. OpEdNews, May 16; Dissident Voice, May 17, 2018.
  2. Younkin, EW. “Aristotle and Economics”, quebecoislibre.org, September 15, 2005 paper number 158.
  3. Smith, A. The Wealth of Nations, 1776.
  4. See my books, The Devil’s Marriage: Break Up the Corpocracy or Leave it in the Lurch; and Corporate Reckoning Ahead.
  5. Smith, A. Op. Cit., p. 638.
  6. See Josephson, M. Teaching Ethical Decision Making and Principled Reasoning. Ethics: Easier Said than Done. 1988, 1, pp. 27-33.
  7. Williams, AW. “The Legacy of Karl Marx: Or, the Inheritance We Dare Not Squander”, A talk presented at a symposium marking the one-hundredth anniversary of Marx’s death, Oregon State University, 1983.
  8. Brumback, GB. America’s Oldest Professions: Warring and Spying, 2015, p. 117.

Economic Insanity Close Up

Capitalism as it is practiced is economically insane, and it is devouring the American dream. So says the author of one of the books I have reviewed.1 Part 2 of this series adapts and adds to that review.

Roger Terry wrote a book in 1995 on “economic insanity” (no, it isn’t a “mis”fortune telling of the insane economic meltdown of 2008 thirteen years later). He’s certainly not a mainstream economist nor do I think even a maverick one. Rather, I assume business management is his professional field because he mentions once having students in his management classes in the Marriott School of Management at Brigham Young University. He is the co-founder of the “funcompany,” which is in the publishing and stationary business. His company gives him an opportunity to practice some of what he preaches.

Terry contends that the growth-driven capitalism of big, authoritarian, and unaccountable organizations is devouring the American dream. As proof he points to the erosion of the good life of being happy; how we have become a nation not of citizens but of consumers of “life-style enhancing” things, yet in actuality we produce more (in waste) than we consume in products and services; how seeking limitless economic progress is both illusory and self-destructive; how we live in a capitalistic society, but most of us are dependent wage earners, not independent capitalists; and how the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer-an inevitable result of capitalism.

I could not agree more with his aspersion toward “big, authoritarian, and unaccountable organizations.” My very first book not only railed against them, but better still, offered a model of an organization that was the direct antithesis of today’s behemoth hierarchical organizations.2

Note his reference to “independent capitalists.” We shall encounter that idea more than once as we proceed through the series.

In the first part of his book, Terry questions three underlying assumptions of our current capitalistic system that he contends are so inherently wrong that the system can’t be fixed; 1) limitless, perpetual economic growth is an imperative good, 2) increasing productivity is a cure-all for an ailing economy, and 3) maintaining a good life depends on continuous technological advances. I could add some more underlying inherently wrong assumptions, like that of assuming that debt is the basis of our economy.3

The growth imperative, he argues, is illogical, immoral, misguiding, and destructive. It’s illogical because we consumers buy products we don’t really need (e.g., personal computer upgrades) from companies that are fearful of not making and selling new products lest their competitors do so and grab more of the market share. It’s immoral because it lets companies rationalize wrongdoing for the sake of survival.  It’s misguiding because companies are diverted from what should be their true purpose, to serve society in useful ways. It’s destructive because our planet and our pocketbooks are being irretrievably depleted by a growth-driven, consumer-oriented economy. I agree with him completely, and as a side note, I have reviewed another book that propounds the opposite, “double-digit” growth.4

He argues that productivity increases, contrary to the prevailing assumption, don’t make the economy grow and thereby don’t improve our standard of living. He observes that while productivity has gone up over the last 25 years, real wages haven’t. Productivity increases, instead, are siphoned into the pockets of the rich, into pay for support people (e.g., consultants) who don’t produce anything, and into payments on un-forgiving huge debts fueled by the growth imperative. Not to mention, I would add, the unconscionable hiatus between the haves and have nots that are reflected not only in individual incomes but also in misery, insufferably poor living conditions and health, and sometimes death from failing health.

Technological advances, he claims, are “inherently self-destructive” because they are “quickly bankrupting us.” Only a few select companies and the more affluent among us can afford the technology race. The rest go out of business or into deeper debt.

In Terry’s opinion, the assumptions are so inherently wrong that the system can’t be fixed, so in the second part of his book he offers ideas for a new kind of capitalism. In that sense, Terry’s ideas are very much at home with this series (obviously, or I wouldn’t have included him).

In the second part of his book, Terry outlines the features of a new economic system. It would be a structurally different capitalism, one we’ve never seen before. It would be a “Nation of Owners,” in which there are three levels of ownership: (a) small enterprises, like his own, with the founders and a few partners who share ownership commensurate with their seniority and other factors like start-up funding; (b) larger enterprises, the corporations of today, would be owned collectively by their members, who would elect managers for limited terms of office; and (c) public enterprises, such as utilities, education, defense, and the like, would be created and managed by public boards or local governments. Now that, I would add and enthusiastically emphasize, would be real economic sanity!

Here is a sketch of what he says life would be like under this different capitalism. It would be a “truer form” of capitalism because anyone able-bodied and “even minimally motivated would own capital and in reasonably equal portions,” thus guaranteeing freedom of opportunity and markedly reducing inequality of income. There would no longer be a Wall Street since absentee owners; i.e., shareholders, would gradually be replaced by working owners, which in turn would eliminate the motive of short-term profits and its immoral consequences. Our government would be much different — it wouldn’t be controlled by a corpocracy. Our economy would be developing better rather than growing bigger. Businesses would be motivated to serve society instead of serving themselves. There would be no more drudgery at work, exploitation of workers, cutthroat competition, takeovers, downsizings, wholesale firings, ballooning personal and collective debt, frivolous products, superfluous support structures, or any other ills you might associate with the present system. Sounds like utopia, doesn’t it? Unless you’re a fat-cat CEO or you can’t wait for the next computer upgrade.

But he obviously wasn’t writing for the fat-cat CEOs or the impatient PC owners; no, he was writing instead for people “who will inhabit America’s future and dream the American Dream” and “leaders—among us (who) have yet to find their voices.”

Terry forged this book out of what he calls “a disjointed pile of half-baked, angry ideas.” His purpose in this less angry final product is “to identify a new way of looking at our organizational and individual lives through rejecting certain assumptions that drive our economic system.” Some of it is indeed a new way for me and maybe for you, too.

In Closing

Roger Terry has given us an innovative alternative form of capitalism. Terrific! But there’s more! Wait until you see the rest of this series!

An Internet friend of mine who is also an editor and writer wrote not long ago that capitalism is intrinsically a despicable economic system that has caused the U.S. to be the scourge of humanity, so to speak.5 I posted this response to his article:

Capitalism, on the other hand, is not intrinsically the curse of humanity as you suggest. In two of my books, The Devil’s Marriage: Break Up the Corpocracy or Leave Democracy in the Lurch; and, Corporate Reckoning Ahead, I present six viable, alternative forms of capitalism, none of which resemble the present form. And I laid out a way to put the latter in the dustbin of history. Of course, Americans have been duped by the corpocracy to accept the present form of capitalism as the only form, and unless they wise up and rise up America and the rest of the world will continue to suffer until the bitter end, which will also sweep away the power elite but not soon enough.

That commentary of mine underlies this series. By its end you will have come to your own conclusion if not way before.

• Read Part 1 here;

  1. Terry, R. Economic Insanity: How Growth-Driven Capitalism is Devouring the American Dream, 1995.
  2. Brumback, GB. Tall Performance from Short Organizations Through We/Me Power, 2004.
  3. Brumback, GB. “Economic Sanity and Alternative Economic Systems: Part 1. Introduction to the Series“, OpEdNews, May 16; Dissident Voice, May 17, 2018.
  4. Michael Treacy. “Double-Digit Growth: How Great Companies Achieve It-No Matter What”, New York: Portfolio, 2003.
  5. Pear, DW. “On U.S. Imperialism, Capitalism and Fascism”, OpEdNews, May 12, 2018.

Counter Punching the Corpocracy?

America’s corpocracy, or what I call the Devil’s marriage between dominant corporate and subordinate government America, is a vast domain of thousands of colluding corporations and government agencies.1 While the corpocracy’s rampant and successful wrongdoing is what makes the corpocracy so powerful, it still must depend on customers to survive and thrive. Customers? Let’s make that more often “victims,” people harmed by the corpocracy’s wrongdoing in some way or another from trivial to irrevocable, like death.

Ironically, one of the corpocracy’s victims is itself, as when the Department of War is exploited by the war industry.2 This article is not about how the corpocracy can protect itself from itself. Why would I ever want to offer self help to the corpocracy? Better that it self-destructs! No, this article is a review of the literature on ways in which Americans victimized by the corpocracy can fight back, if they should be plucky enough or sure enough.

Why, you may well ask, do I even bother to write this article since the counter-puncher is invariably outpunched, sometimes more than once? Since Corporate America tells Government America what to do and not to do, if there is no redress from the former, there is unlikely to be any from the latter either. Since Government America is a corporate service, not a public service, “the public be Damned” is more likely to be the outcome of any follow-up counter-punching. Nevertheless, being an informed customer surely is preferable to being an uninformed customer, particularly at the beginning when the options are to buy or not to buy a suspect product or service.

Not writing the article, moreover, would be defeatist, a response to be avoided. Moreover, writing a good article requires good second-hand research only fingertips away from the keyboard and the Internet that just might yield some practical insights and revelations.

But before getting to the types of counterpunches available to those wronged, let’s quickly scan the land of wrongdoers to remind us of who they are and what they do to their customers. Excluded will be the greatest wrongdoers of history, the U.S. war (and gun) industry and the U.S. Department of War.3 Their customers and non-customer victims are well known and fall outside the present topic.

A Few Examples of Wrongdoers and Their Wrongdoing

Since knowledgeable readers of the alternative media already know what they know about the subject at hand and are also victimized customers themselves, only a few examples are given for the three more harmful industries.4 A few examples are also given for the retail industry simply because of the sheer volume of their customers.

Pharmaceutical Industry. Diluted cancer drugs to boost profits. Successfully lobbies to keep drug prices high. Sells pills that kill about 100,000 Americans annually. Markets a drug that is more expensive than alternative drugs and deadly among adults and children.

Agriculture/Chemical Industries. Sued a farmer claiming he was using the company’s patented seeds. Causes billions of dollars to be spent yearly for healthcare, subsidies, environmental damage, and more from producing and consuming foods laced with pesticides, antibiotics and GMOs.

Financial Services Industry. Created and marketed fantasy financial products plummeting U.S. into its 2nd greatest depression. Soaks credit card holders with excessive rates. Constantly raises deductibles while shrinking coverage. Hem haws in honoring insurance claims and short changes legitimate claims.

Retail Industry. A dozen or so large corporations monopolize this industry. Its predominate victims are their employees who work for pittance and are bullied along the way, bullied suppliers, and small communities that lose their small retailers when a mammoth retailer arrives on the scene. An illustrative retailer is Walmart, referred to as “the beast from Bentonville,” by the author of an incriminating expose. 5

Its other victims are customers in the ordinary sense.  Exploiting them is rife in this industry  Sometimes customers don’t even know they are being exploited. Here is an example of stealth marketing: a few extremely pricey items are prominently displayed to lure bargain hunters into buying two of the less pricey items displayed nearby.6 Other examples of exploitation include making false claims, baiting and switching, reneging on deals, using small print and lengthy terms and conditions to discourage their being read or understood, and requiring prospective buyers to waive their Constitutional right to sue in court for any damages from the product after its purchase and use.

Counter Punches

  • Complaining
  • Boycotting
  • Lobbying
  • Suing

Complaining

To whom do the complainers submit a complaint? Let’s briefly review the three options: business complaint departments, independent complaint resources, and the government’s myriad complaint resources.

Business Complaint Departments. They are, to put it simply, a farce. Companies with the worst customer service that “people hate calling” reportedly are Comcast, Time Warner Cable, AT&T, Wells Fargo, and Dish Network.7 Mind you, they are simply the five worst, which leaves a lot of room for hundreds of other despised customer complaint departments.

Private Complaint Resources. Probably the most familiar is the Better Business Bureau to which consumers can submit complaints and get ratings for better businesses to patronize. BBB is a useless resource and has been criticized for allegedly giving higher ratings to businesses that pay a membership fee.8 Then there are websites on the internet that air complaints without resolving them such as the “Complaints Board” that bills itself as “the most trusted and popular consumer website.”

Regulatory Agencies.  The Bureau of Labor Statistics lists, if I counted correctly, 115 industries in the U.S. but a U.S. government website lists only six federal regulatory agencies by product type where consumer complaints can be filed, and two of the unlisted types are two of the most harmful industries I highlighted above, the pharmaceutical and agriculture/chemical industries. Such bureaucratic nonsense is to be expected. But it really doesn’t matter, anyway. All the federal regulatory agencies were captured by Corporate America long ago. Suppose you were permanently impaired by eating a GMO product engineered by “MonSatan.” Don’t bother contacting FDA, the federal agency supposedly regulating the safety of food. FDA has given “Monsanto a pass” that amounts to “playing with genetic fire” whenever we eat.9

Boycotting

Boycotts have minimal effect. Corporations can afford them. A few years ago, corporations were listed that were boycotted by various groups for one reason or another.10 As far as I can tell the corporations on the list are still thriving, although a large percent of customers dissatisfied with a given brand switched to a different brand and are likely to tell friends about their negative experience and may even post a negative review online.11 Kudos to them!

Lobbying

Lobbying, you ask incredulously, when corporate America is the summa cum laude of lobbying for their self-interests? Well, any approach, I reason, is worth considering when the corpocracy has us hanging onto the ropes by our fingertips. Consider consumers of eggs and animal rights activists, for instance, who have been lobbying against the cruel treatment of hens by industrial farm factories. Despite a few isolated reforms, “severe abuses throughout the industry remain commonplace.”12 Let’s not dismiss this form of counterpunching altogether, however. I learned, for instance, of a success story, one in which the “largest and most powerful lobbying group for the processed food industry” has been brought “to the breaking point” by organized consumer groups.13

Suing

The scold of corporate America, Ralph Nader, has exhorted us to “sue for justice” because our “lawsuits are good for America.”14 His exhortation is most quixotic. He contends that “tort law is seriously underused,” and finishes the sentence with the reason why, namely, “primarily because it is not easy to hire attorneys to litigate against wealthy commercial firms.” Tort lawyers, an appendage of the corpocracy, and legislators, have all but guaranteed through tort “reform” legislation the futility of winning a lawsuit against corporate wrongdoing except for truly egregious and indisputable cases. Moreover, even if there were a customer-friendly tort law, proving the plaintiff’s case probably would take a Houdini lawyer because no corporation is going to go down without an interminable and nasty fight. Furthermore, wily corporations put clauses into contracts for big ticket items replacing the customer’s right to sue with arbitration agreements skewed in favor of guess who?

Conclusion

This article’s title is written as a question implying uncertainty over the usefulness of counterpunching the corpocracy. It is mostly a rhetorical question. Except in rare instances involving indisputable cases of bodily harm or wrongful death, we can be almost certain that the corpocracy will win the fight.

  1. Brumback, GB. The Devil’s Marriage: Break Up the Corpocracy or Leave Democracy in the Lurch, 2011.
  2. See Brumback, GB. “Inside the War Industry“, OpEdNews, April 6; Dissident Voice, April 10; Uncommon Thought Journal, April 15, 2018.
  3. Brumback, GB. America’s Oldest Professions: Waring and Spying, 2015.
  4. See Brumback, GB. “An Evil Root“, OpEdNews, March 8; Dissident Voice, March 15; The Greanville Post, March 20; Uncommon Thought Journal, March 21, 2017.
  5. Hightower, J. “How Wal-Mart Is Remaking Our World: Bullying people from your town to China”, April 26, 2002.
  6. Poundstone, W. Priceless: The Myth of Fair Value and How to Take Advantage of It, 2010.
  7. Oswald, E. “Worst Customer Service: 5 Companies People Hate Calling”, CheatSheet.com., July 14, 2017.
  8. Reference Designer. “Better Business Bureau – A Useless Institution?” Reference Designer, September 21st, 2009.
  9. Todhunter, C. “Genetic Engineering and the GMO Industry: Corporate Hijacking of Food and Agriculture”, Global Research, January 1, 2013.
  10. Ethical Consumer. “List of Consumer Boycotts”, May 2016.
  11. Llopis, G. “Consumers Are No Longer Brand Loyal”, Forbes, December 10, 2014.
  12. Greenwald, G. Consumers Are Revolting Against Animal Cruelty — So the Poultry Industry Is Lobbying for Laws to Force Stores to Sell Their Eggs”, The Intercept, March 2, 2018.
  13. Mercola, J. “Lobbying Group for Processed Food Industry Teeters on Brink of Extinction — Will Its Science Propaganda Arm Follow Suit?” Organic Consumers Association, February 27, 2018.
  14. Nader, R. Suing for Justice. Your lawsuits are good for America,” Harper’s, April 2016.