Friday, November 06, 2009
No Binding treaties expected in Copenhagen
We keep putting more CO2 in the atmosphere, and yet, can't get binding treaties.
Binding Treaty No Longer a Realistic Goal for Climate Summit, UN Chief Concedes
by Ben Webster, Environment Editor
A legally binding agreement on cutting greenhouse gas emissions is no longer a realistic goal for next month's Copenhagen summit, the UN Secretary-General says.
According to Ban Ki Moon such an agreement will not be signed next month and the most likely outcome is voluntary targets, which countries could announce but then ignore.
He said that several key countries were not ready to sign up to binding targets and that the best the world could hope for from the summit would be "political commitments". Mr Ban said he hoped that they would be legally binding within a year but would be dependent on each country.
His comments, made in London, marked a significant retreat from the UN's previous plan for a new treaty to be signed at Copenhagen to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. Mr Ban said: "It may be realistic if we think Copenhagen will not be the final word on all these matters. But if we agree on a strong politically binding commitment that will be, I think, a reasonable success. Then the post-Copenhagen negotiations will continue so that we have a legally binding agreement as soon as possible.
"Each and every country has their own domestic constraints when they go back - no country will be totally free, that is the difficulty. It is a very complex process including verification systems, targets and money. It is not an easy task. That is why I am saying Copenhagen is not the final word."
Mr Ban also said that developed nations would have to increase the amount that they paid to poorer countries to help them to adapt to climate change. Asked whether he believed that the European Union's proposal of a fund of up to $50 billion of public money a year would be sufficient, he said: "As we go into the future, I think that should be scaled up."
He said that generous funding needed to be agreed to build trust among developing countries, which have accused richer nations of creating climate change but leaving them to face the consequences. "We should admit that there are some suspicions and distrust, particularly on the part of developing countries."
He also suggested that the global target for limiting the temperature increase to 2C above pre-industrial levels might have to be adjusted because it could still result in sea-level rises inundating many small islands. "These small-island developing countries say that it should be a maximum of 1.5C. For them it's a matter of life and death."
Mr Ban said that he was working closely with members of the US Senate, which is debating proposed legislation on cutting carbon dioxide emissions. He also suggested that President Obama and other world leaders needed to be present at the end of the Copenhagen summit to ensure an ambitious political agreement. "The urgency and importance of the work requires political leadership. I would expect many leaders will come."
Mr Ban was speaking as 50 African countries boycotted UN meetings on climate change in Barcelona. They accused developed nations of settingweak targets for cutting emissions. The African countries said that they would not discuss how developing countries could reduce their emissions until there were more stretching commitments from richer nations. "I don't think we can get to a result in the way we're going now," said Kamel Djemouai, the Algerian negotiator who chairs the Africa group.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that developed countries should reduce emissions by 25 to 40 per cent from 1990 levels by 2020, but the targets announced have fallen short.
Anders Turesson, the chief delegate from Sweden, which holds the EU presidency, said that while EU leaders shared the Africans' concern about the low level of pledges, their tactic of limiting the discussion to emission targets was unproductive.
Thursday, November 05, 2009
The Peace Economy
Published on Saturday, October 31, 2009 by YES! Magazine
David Korten presented the following speech on October 19, 2009 during a keynote lecture at the Economics of Peace Conference in Sonoma, California.
by David Korten
My subject tonight is the Path to a Peace Economy, based on ideas elaborated in my most recent book, Agenda for a New Economy, and the New Economy issue of YES! Magazine.
I start with a basic truth. A persistent pattern of violence against people, community, and nature is inherent in the institutional structure of our existing economy.
You don't treat a cancer with Band-Aids, and we can't resolve our current economic crisis with marginal regulatory adjustments. It is time to rethink and restructure.
Systemic Failure
Our economic institutions have been designed by Wall Street interests to secure personal economic and political power in the hands of members of a small ruling elite. They do it well. Unfortunately, it is the wrong purpose. We need a top to bottom redesign to put in place the institutions of a new economic system, a New Peace Economy, designed to share power and resources in a world that works for all.
So how bad is the failure of our current system? It is public knowledge. A brief review, however, is in order.
Economic Collapse
The Wall Street financial collapse has stripped tens of millions of previously middle class Americans of their jobs, homes, and retirement assets and plunged them into poverty and despair. The federal government and the Federal Reserve have responded by pouring trillions of dollars into the Wall Street financial institutions that created the crisis with minimal conditions and oversight, all in the hope that some of this money would trickle down as loans to the productive economy. The recipient financial institutions used the money instead to fund acquisitions that make "too big to fail" banks even bigger, pay dividends to shareholders who by market rules should have been wiped out in bankruptcy proceedings, award obscene bonuses to criminally culpable executives, and launch new predatory financial scams that create new systemic risks.
Wall Street says we have now weathered the crisis, which basically means the profits and bonuses of its most rapacious financial institutions have been restored. The jobs, homes, and retirement assets of ordinary Americans have not. To the contrary, job losses, bankruptcies, and housing foreclosures continue.
Social Collapse
This, however, is only the tip of the iceberg. In the absence of progressive tax and public service policies, the institutions of the old economy create an ever-growing wealth gap between the profligate few and the desperate many. This obscene injustice is tearing apart the social fabric of family and community essential to a healthy society. The resulting fear, insecurity, and sense of injustice fuel the forces of violence as expressed in terrorism, genocide, political deadlock, and high rates of crime, incarceration, and suicide. All are both consequences and indicators of a failed economic system.
Environmental Collapse
Now we come to the system's ultimate failure: environmental collapse. The rules and institutions of the Old Economy drive endless growth in wasteful and destructive forms of material consumption that deplete soil and water, disrupt climate patterns, and convert Earth's natural capital into toxic garbage, thus reducing Earth's capacity to support life, creating massive human displacement, and intensifying a violent competition for Earth's remaining resources that finds expression in bloated military budgets and wars of occupation.
Start with virtually any dysfunction or injustice in our society and it traces back to a failed economic system. Follow the money, and it leads ultimately to Wall Street.
A Failed Experiment
For some thirty years, we have been engaged as a nation and as a species in a social engineering experiment to test the claims of an extremist economic ideology known as market fundamentalism.
Ideology of the Sociopath
You've heard the sermon preached by its most fanatic true believers:
There is no public interest—only an aggregation of private interests, which are best served when we each pursue our individual greed in a marketplace unfettered by rules and other forms of government interference. Public assets must be privatized to increase their productivity and efficiency by selling them to the highest bidder. The faster we consume, the faster the economy grows and the wealthier we become as a rising tide lifts all boats.
Inequality is essential to social order and prosperity. It provides us with wealthy investors able to bear the risks of investing in the creation of jobs and a working class motivated by economic insecurity to work hard at those jobs at a globally competitive wage. There is no alternative. If a few get rich, instead of condemning them out of envy—which is a mortal sin—celebrate their good fortune, because as the rich get richer, wealth trickles down and we all get richer. In America, anyone can succeed who applies himself. Failure is a sign of a flawed character.
Is this story familiar? It is no mystery why this economic theology leads to ruthless competition, obscene accumulation, and reckless consumption that destroys the environment and tears apart the social fabric. It embodies the moral philosophy of the sociopath.
It is now time to acknowledge the lessons of this disastrous experiment. Markets do have an essential role in a healthy economy, but market extremism does not. It turns out that markets do need rules, there is an essential role for government, we all have more when resources are shared, and Jesus and the other great religious teachers were right. We are members of a community and we all do better when we care for one another and act with mindful consideration of the needs of others.
Wall Street as Operating System
The institutions of the economy determine how, as a society, we allocate whatever resources are available to us. In an earlier time, we organized ourselves into clans and tribes in which we cared for one another and allocated resources to secure the well-being of all. Resource allocation decisions were local and relationships were mediated by bonds of mutual caring and security. Money in the earliest human societies was unknown. In our current society, most relationships on which we depend for the basics of survival, including food, water, shelter, and health care, are mediated by money. This gives enormous power to those who control the creation and allocation of money. In our country, that would be Wall Street.
To use a computer analogy, the Wall Street financial system has become the operating system of the economy and the society. The values and priorities of Wall Street thus become the defining values and priorities of the larger society. Wall Street has one value—money—and one goal: to maximize financial returns to those who control the money system. Social or environmental consequences find no place in Wall Street decision making.
A Choice-Making Species
In a few minutes, I will take up the question of how we can change this. In the meantime, I want to put our situation in its deeper historical, evolutionary, and spiritual context. For the past 5,000 years, we humans have been living in a cultural trance of our own making that alienates us from the land, our true nature, and our place in the cosmos.
So who are we humans? From where did we come? And for what purpose? Here is how I understand the big story based on the data of science, the wisdom of indigenous peoples, and the teachings of Jesus and other mystics.
Hundreds of thousands of years ago, the Great Integral Spirit that expresses itself through what we know as creation embarked on a bold and risky experiment in reflective consciousness: bringing forth a species able to step back and to reflect on creation in awe and wonder and to participate as a conscious co-creator in the continued creative unfolding. We humans are that species.
Our reflective consciousness gives us the capacity to choose our future with conscious collective intent. It was a risky experiment, however, because the capacity for self-awareness gives us an ego that can run out of control if it forgets it exists only as part of a larger whole.
In our earliest days, we humans raised our children collectively in the clan, tribe, or village, initiating them to the ways of life and the need to care for our Earth Mother as she in turn cares for us.
Over millennia, as our human consciousness was awakening and our capacities for self-direction grew, we learned to communicate through speech, master fire, domesticate plants and animals, and construct houses of skins, wood, stone, and dried mud. We developed the arts of pottery, painting, weaving, and carving. We undertook vast continental and transcontinental migrations to populate the planet and adapted to vastly different physical topographies and climates. We created complex languages and social codes that allowed for life in larger communities.
Then, some 5,000 years ago, something began to go terribly wrong. We turned from the ways of Earth Community and embraced the ways of Empire. It was a time of separation and forgetting. Community, partnership, and the celebration of life gave way to individualism, domination, and violence.
The few expropriated the wealth of the many. The masculine drove out the feminine. We continued to worship the Sky Father, but turned against our Earth Mother. We came to value the power to kill and destroy more highly than the ability to create and nurture life. Conquest became the measure of greatness. Economies came to be based on servitude and eventually money became the prime arbiter of human relationships.
Consider the dynamics inherent in a dominator system. With a few on the top and the many on the bottom, everyone is placed in competition with everyone else for the favored positions and the bonds of caring and sharing are broken. The creative energy of the species is redirected from securing the well-being of the tribe to advancing the technological instruments of war and the social instruments of domination.
The winners expropriate the available resources to maintain the system of domination. Positions of power are too often claimed by the most ruthless and psychologically damaged members of society. And so it has been for 5,000 years
If this discussion of Empire sounds familiar, it is for good reason. The kings and emperors have been replaced by corporate CEOs and hedge fund managers, but we are still living in the Era of Empire—and the basic dynamics still hold.
In the past 100 years, we humans have achieved technological mastery beyond the imagination of previous generations. Yet, lacking in the wisdom of place and community that is the heritage of indigenous peoples, the cultures we call mainstream have lost their way—forgetting what it means to be human and denying our connection to the web of planetary life. The time has come to rediscover our humanity and bring ourselves back into balance with our living Earth Mother. Creation has presented us with our final examination to determine whether we are a species worthy of survival. We must not, need not, fail.
When Money Rules
At its core, our current economic crisis is a spiritual crisis framed by this well-known scriptural verse from the Sermon on the Mount:
No one can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. Matthew 6:24.
Mammon refers to wealth as an object of worship; the worship of a false god; a form of demonic possession; an evil force in opposition to Life.
Our worship of Mammon is the consequence of an illusion: the illusion that money is wealth and that making money is synonymous with producing wealth. The truth, as Wall Street has so dramatically demonstrated, is very different. Money isn't wealth, and it is quite easy to make lots of money without producing anything of value to the larger society. Money, the most mysterious of human inventions, a magical number of no meaning or existence outside the human mind, has displaced life as our object of sacred veneration and become the ultimate arbiter of human priorities. Money determines the fate of nations and shapes the boom and bust cycles of economic life. It allows some to live in grand opulence in the midst of scarcity, while confining others to death by starvation in the midst of plenty.
This is money as a system of power, a tyranny all the more complete because it is largely invisible to those it enslaves. To liberate ourselves from the tyranny, we must demystify money and recognize that it is a mere number created from nothing with a simple accounting entry when a bank issues a loan. As economist John Kenneth Galbraith once famously observed, the process by which money is created is "so simple it repels the mind."
When you take out a loan from a bank, the bank opens an account in your name and enters the amount of the loan in its ledger. That becomes a liability on the bank's accounts, offset by the corresponding asset of your promise to repay with interest. Two simple accounting entries, and money magically appears from nowhere. This simple fact makes banking a very profitable business and is the key to the ability of the institutions of Wall Street and its global counterparts to rule the world.
Mayer Amschel Rothschild, founder of the Rothschild banking dynasty, once famously said, "Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation and I care not who makes its laws."
That pretty well sums it up. In our current system, this control is centralized in and monopolized by Wall Street institutions that value only money and seek only private accumulation. From a societal perspective it is a devastatingly unwise and destructive arrangement.
Money, particularly money that is created out of nothing without any contribution to the creation of anything of corresponding value, is phantom wealth—it has no substance or intrinsic utility. Creating phantom wealth is a Wall Street specialty. They call it financial innovation. I call it theft.
A Real Wealth Economy
So what is real wealth? We might say it is anything that has a real intrinsic value: land, labor, knowledge, food, education.
Most valuable of all are those forms of wealth that are beyond price: Love, a healthy, happy child, a job that provides a sense of self-worth and contribution, membership in a strong caring community, a healthy vibrant natural environment, peace—none of which find any place on Wall Street balance sheets or in our calculations of GDP.
Pull back the curtain, as the financial crash has done, and the truth is revealed that Wall Street acquires its power by destroying real living wealth to create phantom financial wealth. Wall Street is more than immoral, it is an institutional manifestation of evil.
So what will the New Economy look like, and how will we achieve it?
Living Earth
We begin with a recognition that the old economy is based not only on the illusion that money is wealth, but as well the illusion that we live in a world of open frontiers with endless abundant resources free for the taking. We are only now as a species awakening to the reality that we are passengers on a living spaceship and must learn to live in balanced relationship with our local ecosystems everywhere, working with nature to reuse and recycle everything and to eliminate the release of any substance that nature cannot readily absorb and detoxify.
Spaceship Earth, our Birth Mother, is endowed with a wondrous self-managing, self-regulating life support system that has nourished us as a species through the years of our growing up. As a loving parent, she has absorbed the insults and injuries of our reckless adolescent behavior. Our numbers and the power of our technology, however, now exceed her capacity to absorb.
Defining Principles
We must now restructure our economic institutions to align with three foundational principles: Ecological balance. Shared prosperity. And living democracy. Let's take them one by one.
1. Ecological Balance: It's spaceship management 101. We must bring ourselves into balance with Earth's life support system-the biosphere. This requires something you don't normally hear mentioned at economics conferences. We need to reduce aggregate human consumption, global GDP, starting with the most profligate nations. I'll say more about this later. Follow me closely here: We must simultaneously redesign our human economies to function everywhere as subsystems of the local ecosystems that comprise Earth's biosphere.
2. Shared Prosperity: As we act to reduce aggregate consumption, we need to recognize that Earth's bounty is the shared birthright of all living beings and learn to share it equitably to the benefit of all. The potential benefits of sharing prosperity go far beyond securing our mutual survival. According to a massive body of public health research, people in societies in which wealth and work are equitably shared enjoy greater physical and emotional health, stronger families and communities, less violence, and healthier natural environments than people in more unequal societies. Societies that are more equal are also more democratic and more resilient in the face of crisis.
This has important implications for those of us who live in the United States. UK social epidemiologist Richard Wilkinson observes that among the world's 30 richest countries we in the United States are number one in many things, including homicide rates, teenage pregnancy rates, rates of imprisonment, and numerous other social dysfunctions. We are also number one in the size of the income gap between our richest and poorest members. This is not a coincidence.
The reason is simple. Greater inequality means greater psychological and emotional stress and insecurity for everyone, including for those at the top. Great sharing means less stress and insecurity.
3. Living Democracy means exactly what it says: living democracy as a daily practice of civic engagement. In a living democracy, popular sovereignty is integral to the fabric of community life. Living democracies celebrate and affirm diversity within a framework of individual rights, community responsibility, and mutual accountability. Their political and economic institutions support local decision making within a framework of cooperation and mutually agreed rules.
Ecological Balance, Shared Prosperity, and Living Democracy: three foundational principles of the new living peace economies on which the human future depends.
A Familiar Alternative
Those of us who came of age during the latter part of the twentieth century were taught that we are limited to a choice between two economic models: the model of Wall Street capitalism or the model of Soviet communism. We in the West chose Wall Street capitalism based on the false claim that capitalism is the natural champion of democracy and market choice. Now we see the reality that when Wall Street capitalism has its way, our political choices are limited to politicians who serve Wall Street interests and our market choices are limited to those that generate the greatest Wall Street profits.
Living Market Economies
We're not supposed to notice that both capitalism and communism, as we have known them, are simply alternative models of elite rule.
We have another option that is rarely mentioned, a planetary system of local living market economies that distribute and root decision-making power everywhere in inclusive, democratic, place-based living Earth communities, much in the manner of healthy ecosystems.
Many of the features of this New Economy option are more familiar than we might at first realize. They bear substantial resemblance to the Main Street economies many of us knew as we were growing up in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s.
The America We Once Knew
Although we had not yet dealt as a nation with crucial issues of race, gender, and the environment, the market rules of that day protected the public interest as we then understood it. Strong labor unions secured worker rights and assured a living wage. Our middle class was the envy of the world.
Banks were local and strictly regulated. Anti-trust protected the public from the abuse of corporate monopoly power. Cities and towns had vibrant lively Main Street economies served by local independent businesses that were accountable to the community and honored community values. And imagine this: Many insurance companies, hospitals, and financial institutions were organized as nonprofit cooperatives accountable to their members.
Most manufacturing was domestic, much of our food production was local, and we had a positive trade balance. Few families needed more than one car and per capita energy use was modest by current standards. There was substantial non-market household production and the typical wage for one employed working person was adequate to support a family.
Wall Street Take-Over
From the late 70s onward, Wall Street market fundamentalists mobilized to roll back the rules to unleash a consolidation of corporate power and de-link it from public accountability. Their right-wing social-engineering experiment allowed Wall Street to colonize the Main Street economy, decimated the middle class, undermined democracy and sense of community, reduced our national happiness index, and brought financial, social, and environmental devastation wherever it has reached.
Markets can and do support individual liberty and the public interest, but only when they operate within a framework of appropriate market rules and are complemented and supported by strong, democratically elected governments that enforce these rules and assure the provision of essential public services and infrastructure.
Appropriate rules support local ownership, bar private monopolies except within a strong regulatory framework, secure cost internalization and balanced trade among communities and nations, and prohibit monopoly pricing, market manipulation, and financial speculation.
We hear frequent reference these days to a distinction between the Wall Street economy and the Main Street economy. The difference is crucial.
Wall Street is in the business of using money to make money for people who have money without the burden of producing anything of value in return. Wall Street creates money out of nothing, engages in predatory lending at exorbitant interest rates, and uses its control of money to hold the public purse hostage to its demands. It is best understood as a criminal syndicate engaged in counterfeiting, usury, tax evasion, fraud, and extortion rackets—and should be treated accordingly.
Liberating Main Street
The Main Street economy is comprised of local businesses and working people engaged in producing real goods and services to meet real needs and providing meaningful, secure, family wage employment for the people of their communities. It is the logical foundation on which to build a new real wealth economy of green jobs, responsible community-oriented businesses, and sound environmental practices. Although devastated by the predatory intrusions of Wall Street corporations, it is now in revival as communities all across the nation rally to declare their independence from Wall Street and rebuild the community-serving economies they once knew.
No Wall Too Tall
Bringing down Wall Street may seem a daunting challenge to some of you. To get ourselves in the right spirit, I want to share an inspirational song by Raffi that he recorded to celebrate the launch of Agenda for a New Economy at the Trinity Wall Street Episcopal Church last January. It's called "No Wall Too Tall." Get up and dance with me as you listen to the words.
How many of you here grew up on Raffi's music or have children who did? Raffi is currently devoting his life to an initiative he calls Child Honoring based on the simple truth that a world that works for all the children will work for everyone.
A Three Part Strategy
So how can we bring down Wall Street's imperial tyranny?
We the people, as global civil society, are engaging this challenge on three strategic fronts:
1. We are changing the defining stories of the mainstream culture. It is a simple but rarely noted truth that every great transformational social movement begins with a conversation aimed at challenging a prevailing cultural story. The civil rights movement changed the story on race. The environmental movement changed the story about the human relationship to nature. The women's movement changed the story on gender. Our current task is to change the prevailing stories about the nature of wealth, the purpose of the economy, and our human nature. YES! Magazine and my most recent book Agenda for a New Economy are useful tools for organizing the necessary conversations.
2. We are creating a new economic reality from the bottom up as millions of people the world over are working to strengthen locally owned human-scale business and family farms, developing local financial institutions, reclaiming farm and forest lands, changing land use policies to concentrate population in compact communities that reduce automobile dependence, retrofitting their buildings for energy conservation, and otherwise moving toward local self reliance in food, energy, and other basic essentials. The Business Alliance for Local Living Economies (BALLE) is building a national support system for these initiatives.
3. We are changing the rules: Current law and public policy largely favor the Wall Street economy to the exclusion of Main Street economy. We must work together to promote and support political action at local, national, and global levels to change the balance in the favor of Main Street.
A New Economy Agenda
I'm currently focusing my energy on the New Economy Working Group, a partnership between Institute for Policy Studies in Washington DC, YES! Magazine, the Business Alliance for Local Living Economies, and the PCDForum. We are working to articulate a comprehensive New Economy agenda.
Here are five essential elements:
1. Implement Living Wealth Indicators as the basis for evaluating economic performance: Because we get what we measure, we should measure what we want. We currently evaluate economic performance against GDP, which is an indicator of the rate at which the economy is extracting useful resources from nature, converting them to saleable products, and disposing of them as toxic waste into our air, water, and soils—all for the primary purpose of making rich people richer. And this is what we get.
Stock price indices, another favorite indicator, measure the rate at which people who own financial assets are increasing their economic advantage over everyone else.
Imagine how different things would be if we designed and managed the economy to maximize indicators of the health and vitality of our children, families, communities, and natural systems—while simultaneously reducing environmental burdens by redistributing available resources from destructive and non-essential uses to beneficial ones that improve the quality of life for everyone, create meaningful beneficial jobs, and heal the environment.
We can end war and convert to a peace economy; reorganize our infrastructure to eliminate automobile-dependence; curtail advertising and redirect those creative and media resources to education; end financial speculation and redirect investment to productive sustainable enterprises devoted to meeting community needs. This list is just a start. It is about setting sensible priorities.
2. Create a Real Wealth Money System: Last night Don Shaffer spoke of redirecting the flow of money from global to local financial markets and moving from complex, opaque, anonymous, short-term financial relationships to direct, transparent, personal, and long-term financial relationships. This defines our charge for redesigning and restructuring our systems of money creation and allocation.
Our existing Wall Street financial system centralizes the power to create and allocate money in an interlinked institutional system of mega-banks, hedge funds, private equity funds, the Federal Reserve, and captive regulatory bodies operating in secret beyond public oversight and accountability that I earlier described as a criminal syndicate.
The Bush and Obama administrations both pumped literally trillions of dollars of bailout money into the corrupt Wall Street financial institutions responsible for the current economic mess. Note here the essential difference between the bailout money and the Obama stimulus money. Bailout money goes to Wall Street financial institutions in the hope that some of it will trickle down to Main Street in the form of loans. Stimulus money bypasses Wall Street and directly funds the creation of productive jobs to create beneficial goods, services, and public infrastructure projects.
So imagine that instead of a bailout for the corrupt banks that caused the crash, the government had taken them over, broken them up, and spun off the pieces as individual community-based financial institutions—community banks, savings and loans, and credit unions. Some might be organized as private for-profits. Others as nonprofits or cooperatives. Some might be owned by state or local governments. All would function as properly regulated, community accountable public utilities.
Now imagine that the trillions of dollars that went to bailing out Wall Street banks had instead been added to the stimulus package to directly help homeowners facing foreclosure, create new jobs, and to fund education, health care, and public infrastructure. Further, imagine that the recipients of the stimulus money then deposited a portion of it as savings in these community financial institutions to be continuously recycled as low interest or no interest loans to grow local businesses, expand home ownership, and finance public investment. How different things might now be.
Here is a really radical idea: Let's federalize the Federal Reserve and make money supply management and banking oversight transparent and publicly accountable federal functions. Why should the federal government borrow and pay interest on money created with an accounting entry by private banks, thus condemning our children to perpetual debt slavery to private banks and foreign countries, when it is within the means of the government to make the accounting entry itself?
3. Share the Wealth: As noted earlier, we all do better when we share the wealth. So let's do it with:
• Income and employment policies that assure every person who needs employment access to employment that provides a living wage.
• Progressive taxation and public services policies that continuously recycle wealth from those at the top who have more than they need to those at the bottom who have less than they need.
• Land use and regional development policies that limit sprawl and support compact multi-strata development that prevents geographical division by class and race.
• Ownership policies that eliminate the class divide between owners and workers by encouraging every owning person to do productive work and every working person to be an owner.
4. Favor Businesses Organized as Living Enterprises for which the primary business purpose is to serve the community and profit is a means, not an end. Cooperative, worker, and local public ownership models sensibly and appropriately link business interests to community interests. We can and should make them our favored enterprise models.
5. Change the Global Rules to Support Local Control and Regional Self-Reliance: Current global economy rules and institutions that put the economic rights of global financiers and corporations ahead of the economic rights of ordinary people, place-based communities, and even nations. They have it backwards. The rules and institutions of living peace economies properly support democratic self-determination at local, regional, and national levels, keep trade fair and balanced, favor local over global businesses, and facilitate the sharing of information and beneficial technology.
The goal is to shift the economic system's defining value from money to life, its locus of economic decision making from global to local institutions, its favored dynamic from competition to cooperation, and its primary purpose from growing the individual financial fortunes of the few to building living community wealth to secure the health and well-being of everyone. It is ours to so choose and create.
How to Engage
You will find further information on everything I've covered here in Agenda for a New Economy. Buy a copy, download a discussion guide from davidkorten.org, and organize a discussion group to engage your friends, colleagues, and neighbors in an exploration of the new economy alternatives.
People are always asking, "What else can I do?" I recommend YES! Magazine as the place to start. Each issue is filled with stories of possibility and ideas for action. Visit the "Path to a New Economy" section of the YES! website.
*****
Part of growing up human is putting aside the ways of our childhood to embrace the more inclusive values and responsibilities of adulthood. Our time has come to grow up as a species coming of age on a small planet. This is the larger challenge before us. In a very real sense, it is about growing up spiritually to recognize and accept our place within the larger scheme of creation.
As we engage this challenging work in its many dimensions, we must constantly remind ourselves that we are privileged to live at the most dangerous—but also the most exciting—moment of creative opportunity in the whole of the human experience. We have the power to turn this world around for the sake of ourselves, our children for generations to come, and the continued creative unfolding of life on Earth. We are the ones we've been waiting for. Thank you.
David Korten is co-founder and board chair of YES! Magazine. His most recent book is Agenda for a New Economy: From Phantom Wealth to Real Wealth. He presented this speech on October 19, 2009 during a keynote lecture at the Economics of Peace Conference in Sonoma, California.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Al Gore's speech - Democratic National Convention
Thursday, August 28, 2008 at 06:35 PM Central Mountain Time
One of the greatest gifts of our democracy is the opportunity it offers us every four years to change course. It’s not a guarantee; it’s only an opportunity. The question facing us is, simply put, will we seize this opportunity for change? That’s why I came here tonight: to tell you why I feel so strongly that we must seize this opportunity to elect Barack Obama President of the United States.
Eight years ago, some said there was not much difference between the nominees of the two major parties and it didn’t really matter who became president. Our nation was enjoying peace and prosperity. Some assumed we would continue both, no matter the outcome. But here we all are in 2008, and I doubt anyone would argue now that election didn’t matter.
Take it from me, if it had ended differently, we would not be bogged down in Iraq, we would have pursued bin Laden until we captured him. We would not be facing a self-inflicted economic crisis; we would be fighting for middle-income families. We would not be showing contempt for the Constitution; we’d be protecting the rights of every American regardless of race, religion, disability, gender or sexual orientation. And we would not be denying the climate crisis; we’d be solving it.
Today, we face essentially the same choice we faced in 2000, though it may be even more obvious now, because John McCain, a man who has earned our respect on many levels, is now openly endorsing the policies of the Bush-Cheney White House and promising to actually continue them. The same policies all over again?
Hey, I believe in recycling, but that’s ridiculous. With John McCain’s support, President Bush and Vice President Cheney have led our nation into one calamity after another because of their indifference to fact; their readiness to sacrifice the long term to the short term, subordinate the general good to the benefit of the few and short-circuit the rule of law.
If you like the Bush-Cheney approach, John McCain’s your man. If you want change, then vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
Barack Obama is telling us exactly what he will do: launch a bold new economic plan to restore America’s greatness; fight for smarter government that trusts the market, but protects us against its excesses; enact policies that are pro-choice, pro-education and pro-family, establish a foreign policy that is smart as well as strong; provide health care for all and solutions for the climate crisis.
So why is this election so close? Well, I know something about close elections, so let me offer you my opinion. I believe this election is close today mainly because the forces of the status quo are desperately afraid of the change Barack Obama represents.
There is no better example than the climate crisis. As I have said for many years throughout this land, we’re borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the future of human civilization. Every bit of that has to change. Oil company profits have soared to record levels, gasoline prices have gone through the roof and we are more dependent than ever on dirty and dangerous fossil fuels.
Many scientists predict that the entire north polar ice cap may be completely gone during summer months in the first term of the next president. Sea levels are rising, fires are raging, storms are stronger. Military experts warn us our national security is threatened by massive waves of climate refugees destabilizing countries around the world, and scientists tell us the very web of life is endangered by unprecedented extinctions.
We are facing a planetary emergency which, if not solved, would exceed anything we’ve ever experienced in the history of humankind. In spite of John McCain’s past record of open mindedness on the climate crisis, he has apparently now allowed his party to browbeat him into abandoning his support of mandatory caps on global warming pollution.
And it just so happens that the climate crisis is intertwined with the other two great challenges facing our nation: reviving our economy and strengthening our national security. The solutions to all three require us to end our dependence on carbon-based fuels.
Instead of letting lobbyists and polluters control our destiny, we need to invest in American innovation. Almost a hundred years ago, Thomas Edison said, “I’d put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don’t have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that.” We already have everything we need to use the sun, the wind, geothermal power, conservation and efficiency to solve the climate crisis—everything, that is, except a president who inspires us to believe, “Yes we can.”
So how did this no-brainer become a brain-twister? Because the carbon fuels industry—big oil and coal—have a 50-year lease on the Republican Party and they are drilling it for everything it’s worth. And this same industry has spent a half a billion dollars this year alone trying to convince the public they are actually solving the problem, when they are in fact making it worse every single day.
This administration and the special interests who control it lock, stock and barrel after barrel, have performed this same sleight-of-hand on issue after issue. Some of the best marketers have the worst products; and this is certainly true of today’s Republican Party. The party itself has on its rolls men and women of great quality. But the last eight years demonstrate that the special interests who have come to control the Republican Party are so powerful that serving them and serving the national well-being are now irreconcilable choices.
So what can we do about it? We can carry Barack Obama’s message of hope and change to every family in America. And pledge that we will be there for Barack Obama—not only in the heat of this election, but in the aftermath as we put his agenda to work for our country.
We can tell Republicans and Independents, as well as Democrats, why our nation needs a change from the approach of Bush, Cheney and McCain. After they wrecked our economy, it is time for a change. After they abandoned the search for the terrorists who attacked us and redeployed the troops to invade a nation that did not attack us, it’s time for a change. After they abandoned the American principle first laid down by General George Washington, when he prohibited the torture of captives because it would bring, in his words, “shame, disgrace and ruin” to our nation, it’s time for a change.
When as many as three Supreme Court justices could be appointed in the first term of the next president, and John McCain promises to appoint more Scalias and Thomases and end a woman’s right to choose, it’s time for a change.
Many people have been waiting for some sign that our country is ready for such change. How will we know when it’s beginning to take hold? I think we might recognize it as a sign of such change, if we saw millions of young people getting involved for the first time in the political process. This election is actually not close at all among younger voters – you are responding in unprecedented numbers to Barack Obama’s message of change and hope.
You recognize that he represents a clean break from the politics of partisanship and bitter division. You understand that the politics of the past are exhausted, and you’re tired of appeals based on fear. You know that America is capable of better than what you have seen in recent years. You are hungry for a new politics based on bipartisan respect for the ageless principles embodied in the United States Constitution.
There are times in the history of our nation when our very way of life depends upon awakening to the challenge of a present danger, shaking off complacency to rise, clear-eyed and alert, to the necessity of embracing change.
A century and a half ago, when America faced our greatest trial, the end of one era gave way to the birth of another. The candidate who emerged victorious in that election is now regarded by most historians as our greatest president. Before he entered the White House, Abraham Lincoln’s experience in elective office consisted of eight years in his state legislature in Springfield, Illinois, and one term in Congress – during which he showed the courage and wisdom to oppose the invasion of another country that was popular when it started but later condemned by history.
The experience Lincoln’s supporters valued most in that race was his powerful ability to inspire hope in the future at a time of impasse. He was known chiefly as a clear thinker and a great orator, with a passion for justice and a determination to heal the deep divisions of our land. He insisted on reaching past partisan and regional divides to exalt our common humanity. In 2008, once again, we find ourselves at the end of an era with a mandate from history to launch another new beginning. And once again, we have a candidate whose experience perfectly matches an extraordinary moment of transition.
Barack Obama had the experience and wisdom to oppose a popular war based on faulty premises. His leadership experience has given him a unique capacity to inspire hope, in the promise of the American dream of a boundless future. His experience has also given him genuine respect for different views and humility, in the face of complex realities that cannot be squeezed into the narrow compartments of ideology. His experience has taught him something that career politicians often overlook: that inconvenient truths must be acknowledged if we are to have wise governance.
The extraordinary strength of his personal character – and that of his wonderful wife, Michelle – is grounded in the strengths of the American community. His vision and his voice represent the best of America. His life experience embodies the essence of our motto – e pluribus unum – out of many, one. That is the linking identity at the other end of all the hyphens that pervade our modern political culture. It is that common American identity – which Barack Obama exemplifies, heart and soul – that enables us as Americans to speak with moral authority to all of the peoples of the world, to inspire hope that we as human beings can transcend our limitations and to redeem the promise of human freedom.
Late this evening, our convention will end with a benediction. As we bow in reverence, remember the words of the old proverb: “when you pray, move your feet.” Then let us leave here tonight and take the message of hope from Denver to every corner of our land, and do everything we can to serve our nation, our world—and most importantly, our children and their future—by electing Barack Obama President of the United States.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
A Meltdown Foretold
A push to increase home ownership along with Wall Street's desire for new securities to trade and a lack of oversight led to a crisis Christopher Whalen says will be the worst since the
Depression.
Posted on Mon, May. 19, 2008
Christopher Whalen
Current job: Newsletter publisher, investment banker, financial analyst
Education: Bachelor's in history from Villanova University
A past you would never guess: Advisor to Mexican presidential candidate Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas
Most recent book read:Fifty Billion Dollars (Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal era), by
Jesse H. Jones
Where you have seen or read about him: Interviews on Bloomberg Television and writings in
Barrons, Insight on the News and The Financial Times
Investment banker, financial analyst and newsletter publisher Christopher Whalen has explored the ins and outs of Washington, Wall Street and Latin America for more than two decades.
Following stints on Capitol Hill, the Federal Reserve of New York and Bear, Stearns & Co., Whalen founded the newsletters The Mexico Report and Washington & Wall Street.
In 2003, he co-founded Institutional Risk Analytics, which offers risk analysis and consulting.
Besides editing the firm's newsletter, The Institutional Risk Analyst, he writes articles,
testifies in Washington and speaks frequently to financial groups.
Whalen, who has worked in New York, London and Washington, frequently looks to economic history to put the present in perspective. He points out that when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office on March 4, 1933, banks in 32 of the 50 states were closed because of panic.
Whalen spoke with The Miami Herald during a visit to South Florida to address the Insurer
Investment Forum, ''The Times They Are A-Changin,'' at the Diplomat Country Club & Spa in
Hallandale Beach.
Q: The U.S. economic picture was much rosier when you founded Institutional Risk Analytics. Are you surprised about the turn of events?
A: We saw that our colleagues had so badly skewed their thinking on risks that we knew eventually there would be a swing back the other way. This one was so severe and everyone was so impetuous; whether you are talking about home buyers -- borrowing 100 percent of their mortgages -- or banks -- people packaging securities up and selling them. It evidenced the mania. We said: ``Wow! Why don't we set up our lemonade stand here and people will come?''
Q: How serious is this financial crisis?
A: We are in the worst financial crisis in this country in 100 years. This is going to make the
savings and loan crisis look like a party.
It won't be as bad as 1930 and 1931 when you had a 30 percent unemployment rate. But it is going to get bad. A lot of value is going to be destroyed.
If you think of the way your parents lived and think of today, we've gone from people buying a
house and staying there, to people buying houses like baseball cards. People are using credit
cards and their home equity financing and pretending things are going to be OK. But we are
running out of gas.
Q: How did we get in this trouble both in the housing market and with subprime mortgages?
A: Right after the realestate crunch in the early 1990s, the government-sponsored enterprises --
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Housing and Urban Development department, the Federal Housing Authority, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, the Federal Home Loan Banks, the whole cast of characters, they put together this public/private partnership to push for home ownership. The Realtors, mortgage brokers and regulators picked up this theme. Then the banks picked up the theme.
The United States had the highest home ownership rates in the world, 65 percent. They pushed that to 70 percent. Unfortunately, many of these were marginal buyers and they are walking away. If you got into one of the adjustable-rate mortgages and you have no equity in it, there's not a whole lot of incentive to stay.
The Street was looking for something to trade. The banks were looking to securitize stuff. They
all got a fee. But no one took responsibility for the overall outcomes.
The banks are now being forced to write this down. All these loans and securities derived from
the loans have become illiquid.
It's amazing. We have to ask how did we do this? Foreign friends ask me, ``How did we screw up so badly?''
Q: Was no one looking at what was happening?
A: They were actively ignoring it. They were beating up on Brooksley Born [former chairwoman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission] and saying: ''No, no, you are not going to regulate over-the-counter securities.'' They argued competitiveness. But these are not innovation. These are opaque securities that no one can value.
It's also how the dealers could make money. Over-the-counter is 10 times as profitable as the
exchange trade model.
Q: What is your assessment of the government's actions so far and what should be done?
A: The Bush administration has been totally asleep. But there were a lot of people responsible,
including former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. Everybody focuses on his interest-rate policy, holding interest rates down for so long. But the real fault of Greenspan was allowing the banks to get more and more into securities, like mortgage-backed securities, and allowing them to move off balance sheet.
None of this over-the-counter paper was registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
That's why you have about $7 trillion in government-sponsored-enterpris
By election time, I think that the economy will be the only issue. We could be contracting
economically for the next couple of years. That will shock America because Americans are not used to this kind of environment. Whoever wins the White House will be in crisis mode from day one.
We have to have a discussion about market structure; what has to be registered with the
Securities and Exchange Commission and what doesn't. Anything a bank buys and sells or a pension fund buys and sells need to be registered.
We have to remake this marketplace in a much more transparent fashion.
Some thoughts, from an Engineer
The USA faces a crisis that imperils the nation's economy and the planet's ecology. We have
forgotten about efficiency and durability. We have a pervasive irresponsible throw away mentality which ignores the precepts of quality and conservation and a woefully misguided administration.
There must be a change towards efficient and durable products offering quality and longevity.
Prime example. Detroit builds shoddy monstrous plastic gas guzzlers that are, by design and
marketing plan, throw away junk by the last coupon in the payment book. The USA has never
developed a viable diesel automobile. Incredibly, five states prohibit the registration of diesel
automobiles thus politically discouraging diesel imports.
If only one third of the cars on American highways were diesel we would not have to import one
drop of petroleum. That's efficiency. Diesels have service lives measured in millions of miles.
That's durability.
Appliances built to price are short lived energy hogs doomed to an early death from mechanical
failure or rust.
New buildings, both commercial and residential, have design service lives shorter than their
mortgages and are dependant on artificial ventilation and illumination.
Our reliance upon the automobile, truck and airplane is woefully inefficient and wasteful. Fast
and convenient mass transit systems are all but absent in north America. We have no bullet trains let alone passenger trains. We depend upon air and highway transport networks with prohibitively high fuel consumption per seat or ton mile. Why the 3 ton SUV with driver only?
Railroads can lug a ton of freight over 400 miles on a gallon of diesel oil, ships and barges are
even more efficient yet The US killed the railroads and merchant marine with government and
unions after WW2.
Intelligently deployed nuclear power is the only viable technology for present power demands.
Example France.
The severely limited energy densities for solar, wind, wave, and thermal differential energy
technologies preclude practical nationwide application, particularly for urban areas. For an
isolated dwelling, they are feasible but costly to build and maintain. They simply cannot be
scaled upwards to accommodate cities or a power grid.
Of the future energy technologies oil from algae is the most promising. The feedstock is waste,
no arable land is required, the growth rate is explosive, days compared to months, and the yield
per acre potentially 100 times that of any other bio source, the extraction of diesel oil
requires only pressing, and the pulp remaining is fodder, fuel pellets or fertilizer. The Salton
Sea area could supply the nation.
Mature technology exists to address all these issues. Buildings cars and appliances should be a
once in lifetime purchases designed for maximum efficiency and durability rather than throw away life cycles.
Inefficiency, lack of durability, and the throw away mentality exacerbate pollution.
The smallest and most basic measures which could be implemented instantly are overlooked in our aura of waste. In Europe the supermarkets sell shopping bags and they are not inexpensive so most folks carry reusable fabric mesh bags. In the USA plastic bags which are made from petroleum, are, despite $130.00 per barrel oil, still cheaper than biodegradable paper bags, and both are given away. Waste.
Many items are sold in plastic or foil packaging that exceeds the cost of the product within. It
would seem that in such cases regulation requiring the product to equal or exceed the value of
the package would have practical results. The fast food ketchup pouch would fatten to the point
where one pack would take the place of the three or four required to drench an order of fries.
The aptly named clear plastic "clamshell" packs so much a part of retail marketing for their
pegboard product display and theft-reducing bulk could just as easily be paper packed to the joy
of anyone who has fought to open one using scissors or knives.
The empty pack will be with us for eternity.
Recycling of plastics, including synthetic fibers, is mostly energy negative due to the variety
of materials leading to cross contamination. Even the familiar clear beverage containers must
have the cap retainer rings, the label film sleeve or the ink removed prior to shredding.
Plastics are a particular nuisance and curse in this regard as they are very long lived. Landfills of disposable diapers will take centuries, if ever, to degrade.
Fortunately glass, metals, nuclear fuel rods, and paper are energy positive or neutral to
recycle.
Products with combinations of many materials, such as motor vehicles, are hardly worth recycling as the costs to separate the various materials either manually pre-processing or mechanically after shredding tend to be prohibitive. Magnetic separation can pluck out the ferritic alloys but the other metals such as copper and aluminum are more difficult to select and the remaining amalgam of shredded plastics, glass, paint and fiber is valueless bulk.
Dump the politicians and the fruitcake "scientists" with their past failures and future dreams.
Bring on the engineers for real and immediate solutions..
That covers the practical, now to the political.
The oil market is worldwide and highly competitive, fully subject to supply and demand. Big
numbers, certainly. Conspiracies and cartels, no. So who’s making the big money? The countries
that produce crude oil. Crude represents more than half of the cost of each gallon of gasoline
sold. Federal, state and local taxes represent another fifth.
In 1998, a recession in Asia created an oil glut. Prices plunged to historic lows (near $10 a
barrel), and American drivers reaped the benefits, with gas dipping below $1 per gallon. Within
ten years we are facing a tenfold increase in cost, or, conversely and far more accurately a
tenfold devaluation of our currency.
We are bankrupting the nation with terrifying rapidity.
Given an intelligent balance of eco-priorities global warming issues could be ameliorated with
the funds saved by common sense energy policies.
Engineering cannot resolve political problems, revolution could. The blame lies 100% in
Washington.
One Man Stands up to Bush
MAYOR OF SALT LAKE CITY TO BUSH, CONGRESS AND MEDIA 'WE WON'T TAKE IT ANYMORE'
Address by Mayor Ross C. 'Rocky' Anderson
Today, as we come together once again in this great city, we raise our voices in unison to say to
President Bush, to Vice President Cheney, to other members of the Bush Administration (past and present), to a majority of Congress, including Utah's entire congressional delegation, and to
much of the mainstream media: 'You have failed us miserably and we won't take it anymore.'
While we had every reason to expect far more of you, you have been pompous, greedy, cruel, and incompetent as you have led this great nation to a moral, military, and national security abyss.' 'You have breached trust with the American people in the most egregious ways. You have utterly failed in the performance of your jobs. You have undermined our Constitution, permitted the violation of the most fundamental treaty obligations, and betrayed the rule of law.
You have engaged in, or permitted, heinous human rights abuses of the sort never before
countenanced in our nation's history as a matter of official policy. You have sent American men
and women to kill and be killed on the basis of lies, on the basis of shifting justifications,
without competent leadership, and without even a coherent plan for this monumental blunder.
We are here to tell you: We won't take it anymore! You have acted in direct contravention of
values that we, as Americans who love our country, hold dear. You have deceived us in the most
cynical, outrageous ways. You have undermined, or allowed the undermining of, our constitutional system of checks and balances among the three presumed co-equal branches of government. You have helped lead our nation to the brink of fascism, of a dictatorship contemptuous of our nation's treaty obligations, federal statutory law, our Constitution, and the rule of law.
Because of you, and because of your jingoistic false 'patriotism,' our world is far more
dangerous, our nation is far more despised, and the threat of terrorism is far greater than ever
before. It has been absolutely astounding how you have committed the most horrendous acts,
causing such needless tragedy in the lives of millions of people, yet you wear your so-called
religion on your sleeves, asserting your God-is-on-my-side nonsense when what you have done flies in the face of any religious or humanitarian tradition. Your hypocrisy is mind-boggling - and
disgraceful. What part of 'Thou shalt not kill' do you not understand? What part of the 'Golden
rule' do you not understand? What part of 'be honest,' 'be responsible,' and 'be accountable'
don't you understand? What part of 'Blessed are the peacekeepers' do you not understand?
Because of you, hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, many thousands of people have suffered horrendous lifetime injuries, and millions have been run off from their homes. For the sake of our nation, for the sake of our children, and for the sake of our brothers and sisters
around the world, we are morally compelled to say, as loudly as we can, 'We won't take it
anymore!' As United States agents kidnap, disappear, and torture human beings around the world, you justify, you deceive, and you cover up. We find what you have done to men, women and children, and to the good name and reputation of the United States, so appalling, so
unconscionable, and so outrageous as to compel us to call upon you to step aside and allow other
men and women who are competent, true to our nation's values, and with high moral principles to stand in your places for the good of our nation, for the good of our children, and for the good
of our world.
In the case of the President and Vice President, this means impeachment and removal from office, without any further delay from a complacent, complicit Congress, the Democratic majority of which cares more about political gain in 2008 than it does about the vindication of our Constitution, the rule of law, and democratic accountability. It means the election of people as President and Vice President who, unlike most of the presidential candidates from both major parties, have not aided and abetted in the perpetration of the illegal, tragic, devastating invasion and occupation of Iraq. And it means the election of people as President and Vice President who will commit to return our nation to the moral and strategic imperative of refraining from torturing human beings. In the case of the majority of Congress, it means electing people who are diligent enough to learn the facts, including reading available National Intelligence Estimates, before voting to go to war. It means electing to Congress men and women who will jealously guard Congress's sole prerogative to declare war. It means electing to Congress men and women who will not submit like vapid lap dogs to presidential requests for blank checks to engage in so-called preemptive wars, for legislation permitting warrant-less wiretapping of communications involving US citizens, and for dangerous, irresponsible, saber-rattling legislation like the recent Kyl- Lieberman amendment.
We must avoid the trap of focusing the blame solely upon President Bush and Vice-President
Cheney. This is not just about a few people who have wronged our country - and the world. They
were enabled by members of both parties in Congress, they were enabled by the pathetic mainstream news media, and, ultimately, they have been enabled by the American people--40% of whom are so ill-informed they still think Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks a people who know and care more about baseball statistics and which drunken starlets are not wearing underwear than they know and care about the atrocities being committed every single day in our name by a government for which we need to take responsibility.
As loyal Americans, without regard to political partisanship as veterans, as teachers, as
religious leaders, as working men and women, as students, as professionals, as businesspeople, as
public servants, as retirees, as people of all ages, races, ethnic origins, sexual orientations,
and faiths we are here to say to the Bush administration, to the majority of Congress, and to the
mainstream media: 'You have violated your solemn responsibilities. You have undermined our
democracy, spat upon our Constitution, and engaged in outrageous, despicable acts. You have
brought our nation to a point of immorality, inhumanity, and illegality of immense, tragic,
unprecedented proportions.'
But we will live up to our responsibilities as citizens, as brothers and sisters of those who
have suffered as a result of the imperial bullying of the United States government, and as moral
actors who must take a stand: And we will, and must, mean it when we say 'We won't take it
anymore.' If we want principled, courageous elected officials, we need to be principled,
courageous, and tenacious ourselves. History has demonstrated that our elected officials are not
the leaders the leadership has to come from us. If we don't insist, if we don't persist, then we
are not living up to our responsibilities as citizens in a democracy and our responsibilities as
moral human beings. If we remain silent, we signal to Congress and the Bush administration and to candidates running for office and to the world that we support the status quo.
Silence is complicity. Only by standing up for what's right and never letting down can we say we
are doing our part. Our government, on the basis of a campaign we now know was entirely
fraudulent, attacked and militarily occupied a nation that posed no danger to the United States.
Our government, acting in our name, has caused immense, unjustified death and destruction. It all started five years ago, yet where have we, the American people, been? At this point, we are
responsible. We get together once in a while at demonstrations and complain about Bush and
Cheney, about Congress, and about the pathetic news media. We point fingers and yell a lot. Then most people politely go away until another demonstration a few months later.
How many people can honestly say they have spent as much time learning about and opposing the outrages of the Bush administration as they have spent watching sports or mindless television programs during the past five years? Escapist, time-sapping sports and insipid entertainment have indeed become the opiate of the masses. Why is this country so sound-asleep? Why do we abide what is happening to our nation, to our Constitution, to the cause of peace and international law and order? Why are we not doing all in our power to put an end to this madness? We should be in the streets regularly and students should be raising hell on our campuses. We should be making it clear in every way possible that apologies or convoluted, disingenuous explanations just don't cut it when presidential candidates and so many others voted to authorize George Bush and his neo-con buddies to send American men and women to attack and occupy Iraq.
Let's awaken, and wake up the country by committing here and now to do all each of us can to take our nation back. Let them hear us across the country, as we ask others to join us: 'We won't take it anymore!' I implore you: Draw a line. Figure out exactly where your own moral breaking point is. How much will you put up with before you say 'No more' and mean it?
I have drawn my line as a matter of simple personal morality: I cannot, and will not, support any
candidate who has voted to fund the atrocities in Iraq. I cannot, and will not, support any
candidate who will not commit to remove all US troops, as soon as possible, from Iraq. I cannot,
and will not, support any candidate who has supported legislation that takes us one step closer
to attacking Iran. I cannot, and will not, support any candidate who has not fought to stop the
kidnapping, disappearances, and torture being carried on in our name.
If we expect our nation's elected officials to take us seriously, let us send a powerful message
they cannot misunderstand. Let them know we really do have our moral breaking point. Let them know we have drawn a bright line. Let them know they cannot take our support for granted that, regardless of their party and regardless of other political considerations, they will not have our support if they cannot provide, and have not provided, principled leadership.
The people of this nation may have been far too quiet for five years, but let us pledge that we
won't let it go on one more day that we will do all we can to put an end to the illegalities, the
moral degradation, and the disintegration of our nation's reputation in the world.
Let us be unified in drawing the line in declaring that we do have a moral breaking point. Let us
insist, together, in supporting our troops and in gratitude for the freedoms for which our
veterans gave so much that we bring our troops home from Iraq , that we return our government to a constitutional democracy, and that we commit to honoring the fundamental principles of human rights.
In defense of our country, in defense of our Constitution, in defense of our shared values as
Americans and as moral human beings we declare today that we will fight in every way possible to stop the insanity, stop the continued military occupation of Iraq, and stop the moral depravity
reflected by the kidnapping, disappearing, and torture of people around the world.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Living Within our Means
LIVING WITHIN OUR ENVIRONMENTAL MEANS:
Natural Resources and an Optimum Human Population
Excerpt from Rachel F. Preiser’s article in http://dieoff.org/page50.htm
In his report, "Natural Resources and an Optimum Human Population," Cornell University professor Dr. David Pimentel has presented some sobering statistics indicating the insufficiency of world resources to sustain a rapidly-expanding human population. Dr. Pimentel indicated that even if humans succeed in using rapidly diminishing resources more efficiently, the planet can sustain a "quality" standard of living for only two billion people while still maintaining environmental integrity. The report also concluded, "For Americans to continue to enjoy a high standard of living and for Society to be self-sustaining in renewable energy and food and forestry products, given U.S. land, water, and biological resources, the optimum U.S. population is about 200 million." See graph of history of world population and fossil fuel availability on http://dieoff.org/ .
Land and Water Supply
In order for people to live in "relative prosperity," the world population—currently 5.6 billion and growing at a rate of 1.7 percent—will have to be reduced to 2 billion. The magnitude of this problem becomes apparent when one considers that the world population is expected to double in the next 41 years. According to Dr. Pimentel's statistics, the U.S. population— now 260 million—would have to be reduced by about 60 million people, even though actual trends suggest that the U.S. population will double over the next 63 years.
If the U.S. population continues to use cropland, water, and fossil energy at present rates while permitting population growth along current trends, shortages of essential goods and services will be experienced across the entire population. Technological development has enabled humans to push productivity from our land, water, energy resources almost to its environmental limits. However, expanding production to environmental capacity has its price in increasing the environmental degradation that ultimately makes this level of production and the population growth it has encouraged unsustainable.
The world food supply comes almost entirely (98 percent) from the land: food and fiber crops are grown on 12 percent of the earth's total land area, while the remaining 24 percent of the land is used as pasture to graze livestock that provide meat and milk products. Forests cover an additional 31 percent of the earth's land area, while the remaining 34 percent is too cold, dry, stony or steep to be suitable for agriculture or grazing. Efforts to compensate for the deficiency of land resources by redistributing limited resources can and will continue to be felt in the decreasing availability of food and other products on which our present standard of living depends.
The increase in human population and the demands on agricultural production to sustain world population growth not only create a strain on the earth's limited arable land resources, but also produce a tremendous draw on its water resources. While 24 percent of reservoir water is depleted yearly due to evaporation alone, 87 percent of the world's fresh water supply—and 85 percent of the U.S. fresh water supply—is consumed by agricultural production.
In addition to the human population's indirect demands on the water supply to fulfill its growing agricultural needs, an individual requires three liters (1 liter is about 1.06 quarts) per day of fresh water for drinking and a minimum of 90 liters per day for cooking, washing, and other domestic needs. Because, like topsoil, groundwater resources are renewed at an extremely slow rate of about one percent per year, the largest threat to the surface and ground water supply is the inequality between consumption of fresh water and its replacement by the environment. This problem is further compounded by pollution due to sewage, pesticides, and chemical wastes, which makes some portion of this limited resource unsuitable for human drinking and agricultural use. Under such circumstances, the average U.S. citizen uses about 400 liters of water per day, or more than four times as much water as Europeans use.
Irreplaceable Biodiversity
In addition to crop and livestock species on which we depend for food and other essential products, humans depend in more subtle, yet equally vital ways on a rich reservoir of other species in our ecosystems. There are no technologies to substitute for many of the services that wild biota provide, including pollination of crops and wild plants, recycling of manure and other organic wastes, degrading of chemical pollutants, and purification of water and soil. Bees, for example, play an essential and irreplaceable role in the pollination of nearly $30 billion worth of U.S. crops annually.
Yet worldwide approximately 150 species of plants and animals are lost per day due to deforestation, pesticide use, and pollution. To preserve essential natural biological diversity, about one-third of the terrestrial ecosystem would need to be set aside to provide food, shelter, and protection for these valuable species, an allotment made impossible by the demands annual worldwide population growth continues to make on land and water resources.
Energy
Dr. Pimentel's report suggests that, by cutting energy use in half while exercising strict control over population growth, the U.S. would have sufficient fossil energy reserves (particularly of coal) to make the necessary transition to a renewable energy economy over the next 100 years—if we start now. Unfortunately, the shortage of uranium and the problems of nuclear waste disposal prevent nuclear energy from being a suitable "renewable" replacement for disappearing fossil fuel supplies.
What Can We Do?
While humans can attempt to compensate for shortages in some prime resources (like arable land) by manipulating the distribution of other prime resources (like water), the overall possibility of such supplementation is restricted by environmental degradation due to the demands of an increasing population and unsustainable agricultural practices. This report indicates the necessity of developing alternative strategies for living within our environmental means.
According to Dr. Pimentel, significant quantities of fossil energy might be conserved if as a part of our move to greater reliance on renewable energy sources, we make better use of manure instead of fossil-based fertilizers to enhance our agricultural soils while also reducing use of fossil-based pesticides. Along with these revisions of agricultural techniques, Dr. Pimentel suggests that a return to crop rotation in growing crops like corn would stem soil erosion and conserve soil and water resources as well. While saving energy these changes would also promote a more sustainable agricultural use of the environment.
Nevertheless, even the most diligent conservation efforts will be effective only if they are accompanied by stopping population growth. If returned to a self-sustaining renewable energy system, the earth will be able to support a population of approximately two billion people living in relative prosperity. At current growth rates, the earth's population could reach an environmentally impossible 12 to 15 billion in the year 2100. In order to prevent the disastrous worldwide poverty and privation that such a population increase would produce, the report recommends profound revisions in our relationship to the environment and an end to population growth.
A Warning and Promise
"Decision making tends to be based on crises; decisions are not made until catastrophe strikes. Thus, decisions are ad hoc, designed to protect or promote a particular aspect of human well-being instead of examining the problem in a holistic manner. Based on past experience, we expect that leaders will continue to postpone decisions concerning human carrying capacity of the world, maintenance of a standard of living, conservation of resources, and the preservation of the environment until the situation becomes intolerable, or worse still, irreversible.
Starting to deal with the imbalance of the population-resource equation before it reaches crisis level is the only way to avert a real tragedy for our children's children. With equitable population control that respects basic individual rights, sound resource management policies, support of science and technology to enhance energy supplies and the environment, and with all people working together, an optimum population can be achieved. With such cooperative efforts we would fulfill fundamental obligations to generations that follow—to ensure that individuals will be free from poverty and starvation in an environment that will sustain human life with dignity."
Dr. Pimentel’s complete article can be found at: : http://www-geology.ucdavis.edu/~GEL134/pimental_et_al_1994.pdf
Monday, June 11, 2007
Self-sufficiency and Sustainability
By Mónica Pérez Nevarez, as published in Business Puerto Rico
Regardless of its Status, Puerto Rico is neither self-sufficient nor self-sustaining at present. What needs to be done to attain a larger measure of both?
In order to become self-sufficient, Puerto Rico has to address several problems: creating jobs in the private sector, balancing a structural fiscal imbalance, promoting agriculture to fill the needs of local consumption, and dealing with federal transfers that currently work as a disincentive to employment, and are but a symptom of the malaise created by the unilateral nature of the relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States (Congress controls federal transfers and trade, and locals have no representation in any federal elections). And within a larger framework, in order to address sustainability, all future policies should begin from a position of environmental consciousness as well as of global competition.
Employment
For the last 50 years, the government has focused on attracting foreign investment in order to generate jobs. That same kind of focus and dedication is needed to cultivate local entrepreneurs now. Small businesses account for over 80% of the US labor force. The new businesses would add to Gross Domestic Product, and once the island reached full employment, overall per capita income would increase by 50%.
The shortfall in employment is daunting: full employment requires at least 1.8 million jobs; currently the government employs 300,000, and the private sector 500,000, so one million jobs need to be created in the private sector, mostly locally owned, so profits remain on the island and collateral businesses have a chance to sprout up.
But what makes a person become an entrepreneur? Necessity. That exists. Education. Currently 28% of all local undergraduate students are studying Business Management (GDB figures, see chart http://www.gdbpr.com/economia/prcifras/documents/PRCifras05.pdf , pg.39,).Experience.Studies show that most entrepreneurs have either worked for their own family’s business or in other small family-owned businesses. Since there are so few local businesses, an incentive program must be devised so internships can be created without unduly burdening the small business owner’s finances. Funding. There are extensive resources for helping people become entrepreneurs, but few resources to finance those endeavors. Instead of developing a few targeted businesses, the Government Development Bank should focus on helping wide swaths of neophyte entrepreneurs fund their businesses. Predisposition. It takes a certain kind of person to become an entrepreneur, and not everyone has what it takes to become one. But the current state of joblessness goes a long way in helping breed entrepreneurs, as seen in the vibrant underground economy, which by some estimates ranges from 28% to 33% of GNP, and in the 1.7 million chronically unemployed on the island, so the predisposition exists.
But what is most sorely lacking is a positive business environment. According to Steven J. Davis and Luis A. Rivera-Batiz, in their contribution to Restoring Growth in Puerto Rico (2006) titled ‘The Climate for Business Development and Employment Growth’, “the strikingly underdeveloped state of the Puerto Rican private sector supports the view that Puerto Rico suffers from an inhospitable business climate.” They go on to explain that “the industry structure is misaligned with the human capital mix of its population…the Puerto Rican economy has for decades failed to generate jobs that matched the educational qualifications of the population. The missing jobs are concentrated in labor-intensive industries that rely heavily on less-educated workers. This testifies to a profound failure of industrial and employment policy.” Now, with the competition from China, manufacturing jobs that would have helped fill the gap have disappeared, and the government should focus on incubating entrepreneurs and their small businesses.
One of their suggestions is getting rid of all tax incentives for special interests and imposing a low tax across the board on all businesses and individuals. Davis and Rivera-Batiz go on to say that in Puerto Rico the tax incentives have not been evaluated as to their efficiency within the local economy, and that a similar case in Indonesia, when efficiency studies were performed, showed that incentives were not as important as other factors to foreign investors (such as low tax rates, growth potential, stable government and positive business environment), and that low taxes generally attracted more investment, as well as boosting the local economy. Any time the government gives incentives to some companies but not others, those that are not included degrade or disappear.
Davis and Rivera-Batiz list the following as being contributing factors to the underdeveloped private sector: 1) federal government transfer payment that undermine work incentives; 2) minimum wage laws that discourage hiring less skilled workers; 3) large proportion of public sector employment that discourages the emergence of new private sector businesses; 4) Section 936 of the Federal Tax Code created an industry structure that is not aligned with the type of job opportunities needed by the population (“at best, section 936 provided for a modest number of jobs at enormous cost to the US Treasury”); 5) Puerto Rico’s own tax code benefits special interests at the expense of the general welfare; 6) Puerto Rico’s regulatory environment deters business entry, hampers job creation, and erodes competitive pressures; and 7) the permitting process (construction, real estate development, professional licensing) suffers from serious problems that raise the cost of doing business, undercut the drive for employment growth, and retard economic progress. All of them have to be addressed in order for real improvements to occur.
Fiscal Policy
“…no habia ni nunca ha habido una planificación de la actividad economica” (there was not and there never has been any planning of economic activity…) Eliézer Curet Cuevas, El Desarrollo Económico de Puerto Rico, 1940 – 1972; 1976
“From 1952 to the mid-1980’s, there were no fundamental changes of direction in development policy, only variations on the theme of industrialization dependent on U.S. markets, inputs, technology, financing, and ownership…the local government’s function as a collective capitalist, entrepreneur, and social planner directly involved in the development process [came] to an end with the initiation of Operation Bootstrap [in the 1940’s] and its reliance on external sources of capital and entrepreneurship… Despite an outward semblance of planning and the existence of a planning board and planning laws, there actually has been a surprising lack of instrumental planning for the domestic economy…. Fomento has done planning, of course, but of the sort designed to get results that appeal to U.S. investors... [Economic] planning has revolved around the issue of what is necessary to attract external capital to the island rather than around the issue of Puerto Rico’s needs.” James L. Dietz, Economic History of Puerto Rico, Institutional Change and Capitalist Development, 1986
James Alm, in his contribution to Restoring Growth to Puerto Rico titled ‘Assessing Puerto Rico’s Fiscal Policies’, addresses fiscal deficits and public expenditure, and emphasizes “extensive tax evasion, shrinking tax base, weak tax administration, an unnecessarily complex tax system [creating inefficiencies] and overuse of tax incentives” as the most obvious obstacles to economic growth in Puerto Rico. It is evident that a government that relies on tax income to fund its policies cannot undercut its own income stream by awarding tax incentives for businesses and antediluvian real estate exemptions.
As the preceding quotes reveal, Puerto Rico’s economy needs overhauling. Gilbert Rist, professor at the Institut Universitaire d'Etudes du Développement (Graduate Institute of Development Studies) in Geneva, in the 2002 english edition of his 1987 book The History of Development, writes “The aim [of development] must be to promote ‘sustainable human development’ that favors the poor, nature, women, children and long-term perspectives”. Puerto Rico's policies need to be aligned with sentiments of self-sufficiency such as these, instead of frantically trying to attract foreign businesses to the island.
Rist concludes that one economic model may not be adaptable to all situations, and that imposing one economic model on all economies might not be efficient. According to Rist, current global economic strategy tries to “make reality conform to a simplified model or turns the results of possible observation into the basis of general ‘laws’ which supposedly explain all social practices relating to the use of goods. It is as if, having seen one black swan or one white horse, one were to decree that all others should be the same. There is no doubt that, under the pressure of resource limitation, people sometimes make choices to achieve certain objectives rather than others. What is much less clear, however, is that this represents a paradigm for all possible situations” nor all possible cultures. (Gilbert Rist, The History of Development, from Western Origins to Global Faith, English second edition 2002)
So it is at this crucial juncture in the Puerto Rico’s history that two forces are colliding: first, the undeniable need to fix Puerto Rico’s finances and economic structure; and second, at precisely this point in time, when global warming, Peak Oil and the internet have become facts of life, the whole world has had to realize that the old way of doing business no longer makes any sense.
And there are plenty of innovative ideas and fresh paradigms being carried out by pioneering entrepreneurs around the globe. Some books that shed light on the subject include William McDonough’s and Michael Braungart’s seminal book, Cradle to Cradle, Remaking the Way we Make Things, Paul Hawken’s, Amory Lovins’, and L. Hunter Lovins’ Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution, Lester Brown’s Eco-Economy, Building an Economy for the Earth, Marc Benioff’s and Karen Southwick’s Compassionate Capitalism: How Corporations can Make Doing Good an Integral Part of Doing Well, and Brian Nattrass’and Mary Altomare’s The Natural Step for Business: Wealth, Ecology and the Evolutionary Corporation, among many others.
These authors contend that up to now, economies were based upon a linear model whereby natural resources were consumed and the remnants discarded. They propose a closed circuit model of reusing or upcycling all resources, mimicking the natural cycles of the earth (one man’s waste is another man’s treasure). In addition, present economic accounting places no value on the environmental extraction cost or the clean up cost of some industries, or the collateral harm that they do to the environment. Classical economics does not place a monetary value on the natural processes that help sustain life on the planet. For example, a recent study suggests that if corporations were to be in charge of producing all the oxygen and absorbing all the carbon that the Amazon forest produces and sequesters respectively, the cost would be over one trillion dollars, and yet we enjoy it for free.
Which brings all of the above mentioned authors to plead for a new way of accounting: Natural Accounting or Green Accounting. Gilbert Rist explained it this way: “Since it is all about counting, why not count everything? If production is to be totaled up, why not include the destruction which is part and parcel of it, and which would challenge the mechanistic paradigm of economics and its blindness to the irreversibility of time? …Processing activities actually involve numerous costs that the market price fails to reflect. It is time to get out – to move from the realization of failure to an act of rejection, from illusion to reality, from reassuring dreams to serious questions, from high-minded utopias to scandalous truths. The first is that ‘development’ will never exist because it presupposes infinite growth that is in reality impossible. Because in any competitive situation the winners cannot fail to realize that their success is also creating losers.” Not to mention the obvious fact that the earth itself is a finite entity. But out of this conundrum, some visionaries have found a way out. This type of thinking has spawned incredible opportunities for new ways of doing business.
And in the larger context of environmental sustainability, “Economic growth alone has been found to be neither necessary nor sufficient for development to take place, and in some cases it actually appears to have been a hindrance to the process.” (Dietz,Economic History of Puerto Rico). So it is the perfect time for a totally new economic reality to take form in Puerto Rico.
Agriculture
Malthus stated in his An Essay on the Principle of Population, (1798) that “It is an obvious truth… that population must always be kept down to the level of the means of subsistence” (http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/malthus/malthus.0.html ) It therefore follows that agriculture is a keystone to a society’s foundation, self-sufficiency and sustainability. The just under 700,000 cuerdas presently under cultivation could feed about 1.8 million people, but a large portion of current production is for export, and 90% of what Puerto Ricans consume is imported. So the island needs to increase agricultural production and focus its agricultural product mix on nutritious staples to be consumed locally. Agricultural incentives, independence from factory farms, and inspired urban planning round out the list of things that need to be done.
And yet, agencies in charge of helping local farmers are themselves under economic siege: in her article The Truth about Agriculture, (El Nuevo Día, 3 junio 2007), Marian González writes: “…the Asociación de Agricultores (ASDA, the Farmers Association) will have to use the $56 million destined to pay subsidies and incentives to fund their payroll” instead of reaching its intended recipients, the local farmers, because their budget has been slashed to 10% of its original amount during the past two years. [italics mine]
There is also the added problem of the finite amount of land suitable for farming on the island. According to Population Action International, the minimum arable land required to feed one person is 0.38 cuerdas, which translates to 1,520, 000 cuerdas needed in order to feed four million inhabitants (4,000,000 x .38). [My original figure of 0.50 cuerdas per person stems from older numbers, so I stand corrected.] Puerto Rico has only 2.1 million cuerdas in toto, divided, according to the Junta de Planificación’s Preliminary Land Use Plan, as follows:
Developed land (in cuerdas): 269,910 13%
Developed at-risk* areas 16,004 0.7%
Agricultural 1,042,975 46% 4% protected
Natural Resource Land** 701,992 31% 10% protected
Rural at-risk* areas 94,581 4%
Total 2,125,462 cuerdas
*at risk means areas known to flood, susceptible to landslides and liquefaction or are polluted (brownfields)
**these include hydrologic resource areas, conservation priority areas, cultural value areas, and Public Domaine areas
(http://jpops02.jp.gobierno.pr/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PAGINASINICIO/PUTPR/DOCANEJ/JP%20-%20PUTPR%20ENGLISH_0.PDF )
So my original statement holds true: there is not enough land available to feed 4 million people; the 1 million cuerdas available can feed only about 2.5 million people. And if global warming creates the expected sea level rise within the next three or four generations, 110,585 developed and rural at-risk areas will be lost, adding pressure to an already tight land use program.
(Map of Puerto Rico that shows all lands at risk from sea level rise. Produced by Harry Justiniano, UPR)In the past 24 years we have lost 30% of our agricultural lands. Of that figure 60% was lost between 1998 and 2002. The most endangered lands, those in most need of protection, include la Reserva Agrícola del Sur (the Southern Agricultural Reserve); la Reserva Agrícola del Llano Sur (the Southern Plain); the Lajas Valley; the Karst region; and the red clay areas between Vega Baja and Manati. It is imperative that what remains of the islands’ agricultural land be preserved if the island is to become self-reliant. It is just as important that the island set aside at least 25% of its remaining lands as forest preserves or nature preserves as well, in order to safeguard biodiversity and put a reasonable cap on developable land, as suggested by a panel of University of Puerto Rico professors during a May 8, 2007 roundtable called Enfrentando las Consecuencias del Cambio Climático en Puerto Rico (Facing the Consequences of Climate Change in Puerto Rico.
Federal Transfers and Social Justice
In 1952, Gov. Luis Muñoz Marin was faced with a population of 2.2 million (http://topuertorico.org/reference/censuscomparison.shtml ), with only 596,000 jobs available (http://www.american-democracy.org/taxes.html ) which means 27% of the population had employment, as opposed to 20% of the population today [800,000 / 4,000,000 = 20%]. In the last 55 years, Puerto Rico has lost ground in terms of percentage of the population employed. As federal transfers increased as a percentage of per capita income, so have jobs declined: in 1952, total transfer payments from the federal and local governments represented 8.2% of personal income. In 2003 federal transfers had increased to 32.8% of personal income (http://www.american-democracy.org/taxes.html).
The good intentions proffered by mainland food, housing, disability and welfare payments had a negative impact on the economy, creating a “Rich Uncle” situation, whereby U.S. based transfers made up a much larger percentage of local income, acting as a disincentive to work, and which has now molded two generations of Puerto Ricans into a staggering non-participation rate of 56% of the population chronically unemployed (1.7 million chronically unemployed divided by 3 million working age population). And because all transfers are controlled by Congress, local government is unable to do anything to change it.
On the surface, it seems impossible to think of cutting back on federal transfers. Half the population of the island is on welfare. 60% receive food subsidies. There is 37% more disability insurance paid out here than in the mainland. 60,000 people are part of the Section 8 home subsidy that would be left homeless without it. Asking Congress to cut down federal spending is political suicide. And yet, until the population is weaned off the federal tit, it will not feel the need to fend for itself. Remember the old saying: Give a man a fish; he will eat for one day. Teach the man to fish; he will eat the rest of his life.
For too long Puerto Ricans have counted on the benefaction and largesse of American federal transfers. Given that there has always been egregiously low employment opportunities, concomitant low wages structures, and a deep pocket blindly trying to help us out of the conundrum, it is time for stocktaking, and deciding to go for the right goal, that of self-sufficiency and sustainability.













