0 We ignore the absolute basics at our peril.

• Society
• by Adrian Mark Dore
• 21-03-2024

Most people realise there is something wrong with our economy but aren’t sure what. This analogy will help you realise how simple and basic the problem is and how we can rectify it.  Joe and his wife have four children. One they lavish with love, care, attention, and money. The other three they ignore, mistreat and spend little on.  Yet, today, Joe has the ignorance and audacity to tell me he is worried and concerned for his family, which is utterly dysfunctional.  The problem is blindingly obvious to the rest of us, except Joe and his wife.  When you have four equally important members of a family, and you don’t treat them equally with love and attention – expect problems.  This is a basic understanding most of us seem to appreciate – it’s not rocket science.  So, with this innate understanding of the basics of life, why then are we surprised that the most influential aspect affecting our lives – the economy, is as dysfunctional as Joe’s family?  It’s dysfunctional for exactly the same reasons. The economy has four children (or Primary Capitals), namely, Financial, Human, Environmental and Common Capital. All equal contributors to a successful economy.  Like Joe, the economy only looks after one of its children – Financial Capital. The other three are ignored and mistreated in favour of Financial Capital. Their welfare is of little concern to the economy.  As a result, like Joe’s family, our economy is utterly dysfunctional. And like Joe, the remedy is the same. Treat all members of your family with the same care and attention.  Our economy only measures and manages Financial Capital. The other three primary capitals that contribute equally to our economic success are ignored. Human, Environmental and Common Capital (investment in shared infrastructure and services) are ignored.  Until this is fixed – roll on the bad times and the increased dominance of Financial Capital.  The first and most important step in this journey is to replace free market economic policies with social market policies in an attempt to restore some semblance of balance in the care of all Primary Capitals. Free market policies are central to our economic problems as they unashamedly only serve Financial Capital needs. As far as they are concerned, the other primary capitals are irrelevant, and that’s a massive problem for us. You may read other articles by Adrian Dore on Medium at https://medium.com/@adrianmarkdore/

0 Boiling our economic problems down to the bone

• Economy
• by Adrian Mark Dore
• 21-03-2024

Most people know that our economy isn’t working properly and that it serves the needs of a few at the expense of the many. That’s a major problem because, in a democracy, the economy is supposed to serve the majority's needs, not the needs of a few.  This is ECONOMIC APARTHEID, and it’s as bad if not worse than political apartheid, which every government in the world has condemned. Yet they condone Economic Apartheid – really, how stupid! In this article, I boil down all the economic myths and lies to reveal the bare-bone truth about our economy. And as the old witch doctors of the past told us, “The bones show us the truth.” So here are the six bones of truth we are left with after all the myths and lies have been boiled away. We need to serve our four primary capitals equally. We currently serve only one of the four – Financial Capital - at the expense of the other three – Human, Environmental and Common Capital. This is why we have a highly dysfunctional economy.  Free market policies are responsible for our dysfunctional economy as they serve Financial Capital exclusively at the expense of the other three primary capitals.  Free market policies encourage and support the circumvention of laws and regulations. Free market policies call for small governments, thus limiting the government's ability to impose adequate regulations and oversee them properly. This provides the ideal circumstances to circumvent laws and regulations (through the use of top lawyers and accountants.) This practice is so rife it's frightening. Examples of these “legal circumventions” – cheating by another name - are everywhere. They are morally bereft, but what can one expect from a system only concerned with Financial Capital interest?  As an example, take UK sanctions against Russia for their war against Ukraine. The government stopped businesses from exporting goods that could be used in war, but that didn’t stop leading British corporations from circumventing the rules. Exports directly to Russia stopped, but they found other routes to maintain their supply to Russia.  The truth is that business is driven by one objective only – serving Financial Capital needs, period. Therefore, any economic system that allows business too much leeway must expect high levels of exploitation by morally bereft businesses.  Free market policies have led to the growth of the Rentier economy and Globalisation. The development of both these phenomena is detrimental to the majority.  Free market deregulations have led to a dysfunctional financial and investment sector. Both developments are detrimental to the majority.  Free markets do not support or encourage measuring and managing our three other primary capitals. We are left with a warped and false reflection of the true state of our economy. A financial perspective gives us less than a 15% reflection of the state of our economy. Just like the Book Value of a business poorly represents the Market Value of a business – because financial matters only form a small part of the bigger picture. We are in a mess because free market policies have distorted reality. We live in some “noddy world” so far from the truth (or reality) that it’s a joke, except it's too sickening and sad to be called a joke. Conclusion – what the bones tell us.We need to replace our disastrous economic policies with a more balanced approach that gives greater consideration to the other three primary capitals, such as a social market policy. The clue is in the name. A social market policy cares for society (which embraces Human, Environmental and Common Capital) and the markets (Financial Capital.) A balanced approach. When will we end the madness of free market economic policies? Haven’t we learned our lesson by now? Let's hope the reading of the bones – convinces everybody to call for change. You may read other articles by Adrian Dore on Medium at https://medium.com/@adrianmarkdore/

0 Our economy is the source of our problems – is there a solution?

• Economy
• by Adrian Mark Dore
• 13-12-2023

All major social, environmental, and economic issues have their roots in the economy. We have to appreciate how central the economy is to our lives if we are going to address these issues.  Our economy is dysfunctional. By that, I mean it does not serve its intended purpose. Hence, this dysfunction causes major social, environmental, and economic problems.  The extent of dysfunction is vast, covering every facet of the economy, resulting in major problems for all.  While economic issues and their interrelationship with society and the environment are complex, the solution to the problem is remarkably simple.  The economy is run following a broad set of rules or policies (known as economic policy.) If these rules are wrong, and by wrong, I mean they don’t serve the intended purpose of the economy, then, understandably, the economy will be dysfunctional.   So, what is the intended purpose of the economy?  To serve majority needs. By inference, to be able to serve majority needs, we also have to serve environmental needs, upon which our existence is predicated. However, this is only part of the picture. To pay for improved social standards (or quality of life), we need a vibrant business sector (or market.) A social market economic policy serves both markets and society equally. Hence, we need social market economic policies to provide crucial balance.  Our current economic policies are based on a mixture of free market (or neoliberal ideas) and social market ideas, with a strong and ever-increasing bias towards free markets. We have lived predominately under the yoke of free markets for over four decades. This imbalanced approach lies at the heart of our problems, which is the simple truth of the matter.  If the basics are wrong, then everything goes wrong. It’s as simple as that.  If the problem is easy to identify, the solution is equally so.  The next part of this article describes how bad free market policies are – just how diabolically bad they are. You don’t have to read this part because the point has already been made that free market policies don’t, and cannot, meet our requirements of a balanced economic policy and must be replaced urgently.  The problems we face today are huge. I don’t need to elaborate; they are all around for you to see. While the problems are obvious to us all, most are unfamiliar with how bad our economy is because it’s purposely hidden from us, but here’s a quick guide.  I start with our economic policy as it sets the overall rules governing our economy. As already stated, it’s predominantly a free market policy.  This policy embodies three basic precepts: 1) Low taxes (particularly on the rich and corporations), 2) Fewer business regulations and 3) Smaller governments. All this is intended to favour financial capital, the owners of which are the rich. Hence, it has justifiably earned itself the alternate names of Economic Apartheid and Neofeudalism. All three precepts are bad for everybody apart from the rich, but two are particularly bad: fewer regulations and small government. With fewer regulations and poorer government oversight (which is typical of small governments), power shifts to the rich to do whatever they wish – to exploit the weak and vulnerable. With lower taxes, they have been able to push their exploitation further and faster into every nook and cranny of the economy.  In its own right, free markets are bad enough, leading to Economic Apartheid, but it has also led to these additional adverse effects. The growth of the Rentier Economy (also known as the Blood Sucker economy as it’s the non-productive economy, earning its income from rent and expanding the Vacuum Up Vacuum Up systems enable the rich to exploit the weakest and most vulnerable in society, vacuuming up every morsel from their meagre table. The growth in Globalisation (also known as Gobbelisation as it gobbles up most domestic manufacturing, vital to a thriving economy. It unduly increases corporations' negotiating powers and leaves countries politically vulnerable.) The corruption of the Banking sector. Fewer regulations and oversight led to the 2008 financial crisis. It’s now a dysfunctional money-making sector for the rich. The corruption of the Investment sector. Our investment sector bears little resemblance to a true investment culture; instead, it’s a short-term trading farce with innumerable disadvantages to society. Again, thanks to limited effective regulation and oversight. The growth in rampant Consumerism. Without a balanced approach to economic development, little regard has been given to environmental and sustainability issues, but rather the importance of driving higher profits through greater consumption. The maintenance of inadequate and misleading measurement standards. Free market policies only focus on financial success, so ensure only financial measures govern business and the economy when we need more balanced and inclusive measures. They don’t want these inclusive measures as they would highlight how badly we are really doing against almost meaningless financial results.  Post World War II, many countries followed a social market policy, but since the 1980s, the cancer of free markets has spread, leaving the majority and their economies weaker. Following the collapse of Germany in 1945, Chancellor Adenauer implemented a social market economic policy which oversaw a “Wirtschaftswunder” – an “economic miracle” that transformed it from post-war devastation into a leading developed nation. The Nordic model has seen the Scandinavian countries enjoy a high quality of life and strong economic growth, but unfortunately, it, too is coming under increasing pressure from free markets. Soon, they too will lose this high quality of life and endure poor economic prospects – for what? So the rich can become richer.  This is what we need – an economic miracle that will snatch us from the crushing stupidity of free markets.  Free market policies, with only the most cursory investigation, show they cannot meet the needs of our economy and never will, but governments keep replicating their mistake in following it year after year.   You may read other articles by Adrian Dore on Medium at https://medium.com/@adrianmarkdore/

0 Bad economic policies are an enemy of the state.

• Society
• by Adrian Mark Dore
• 06-12-2023

An enemy of the state is a person who commits a political crime against the state, but it can also be a philosophy which directly or indirectly advocates the committing of a political crime. It would also encompass those who execute or adhere to the philosophy.  Such a philosophy could include economic policies like free market policies.  For free market policies to be found guilty of committing a political crime, and thus being an enemy of the state, it has to be proved that it deliberately attempts to pervert the course of democracy.  In a democracy, the economy is supposed to serve majority needs. So, if the policy does not do this, serving other needs instead, it has perverted the course of democracy. It has committed a political crime.  Some may argue that although it may appear to serve other interests, its results prove the opposite, that it does serve majority needs, and thus, it has not perverted the course of democracy.  Therefore, we need to look at the policy's intent and outcomes to see if this is true or if it is really an enemy of the state by working against majority interests.  This article will prove how free market policies have failed in both intent and outcomes to serve majority needs.  No intent to serve majority needs. Milton Friedman is the father of free market policies. He is also the person who proposed Shareholder Theory, which suggests that in business, the interests of shareholders be placed above all others. So, as far as Milton Friedman was concerned, only financial capital is important. The other three primary capitals, namely, human, natural and common capital, are of no concern or interest to him.  Now, if you consider that businesses form the basic building blocks of our economy and that every business follows Shareholder Theory, then businesses and Milton Friedman’s ideologies never had any intention of serving anybody other than financial capital -  the rich.  We know that every business follows Shareholder Theory because every business uses the same measurement standard, which only measures and manages financial capital.  At a business (or micro level), Milton Friedman cared only for the interests of financial capital and continued to apply these beliefs at a macro or economic level. These beliefs are reflected in his free market economic policies.  They involve reducing taxes (particularly) on the rich and corporations, reducing business regulations and the size of government.   How can a reduction in taxes, regulations and the size of government serve the majority's needs? They don’t, they harm them.  Taxes fund common capital, which leads to a higher quality of life for all, including businesses, as it funds infrastructure and services everybody uses and depends upon. It is the foundation stone for a strong and resilient economy. Weaken it, and you weaken your economy over the long term.  Regulations protect the weak from the powerful, leading to a strong economy built on strong foundations and not a weak economy based on exploitation and neglect.  Large governments allow the government to be more proactive in establishing and enforcing appropriate regulations, leading to a balanced, thriving economy where all interests are treated fairly. Without this oversight, exploitation soon creeps in.    The logic screams at you. The reduction of taxes (particularly on the rich and corporations, those who benefit the most and can pay the most), together with the reduction of regulations and a small government, are counterintuitive in serving the majority. It can’t be done.  All these actions favour financial capital (the rich) at the expense of the majority. None of these ideas serve the other three primary capitals; they cause them serious harm.  Human capital: Real decline in incomes, work conditions, job security. Natural capital: Massive environmental degradation, pollution, global warming. Common capital:  Huge reduction in common capital investment resulting in a steep decline in the quality of life for the average person and making trading conditions less favourable for businesses.  Clearly, there was never any intention to serve the majority. The promise they made about favourable outcomes was to hoodwink the majority into believing that it was possible to deliver for all when, in reality, the odds were unfavourably stacked against them.   If a different outcome was difficult to predict at the time (which it was not), it’s certainly not difficult to identify now, after forty years of atrocious economic results.  Outcomes prove free market policies to be a fraud. So, let’s be clear: the genesis of Friedman’s suggestion was that all other capitals forgo any benefits to allow financial capital to grow the economy, from which all will be repaid with interest. Really – how remarkable. If this were the case, I would not be writing this article; we would all be far better off, but the reality is entirely different.  The rich used the benefits of free market policies to make themselves richer and have repeated the process yearly for over forty years.  Look at the state of our three other primary capitals – all, without exception, considerably worse off over the past four decades. This cannot be denied unless you live under a rock in some remote desert.  So, neither in intent nor action has free markets proved that it is remotely capable of performing in the interest of the majority. It is fundamentally inept for the job. Therefore, those who follow and promote this economic policy can be classified as ENEMIES OF THE STATE committing a political crime against the state.  That includes most of our politicians. When they claim cutting taxes (particularly on the rich and corporations) and reducing government spending is in your interests, they are either delusional or an enemy of the state by serving their rich masters instead of the majority.   I appreciate that this simplifies a complex issue, but unless the fundamentals of an economic policy can prove that it serves the majority, what are we doing in following it?   You may read other articles by Adrian Dore on Medium at https://medium.com/@adrianmarkdore/

0 Why do they lie to us about taxes?

• Economy
• by Adrian Mark Dore
• 29-11-2023

“Taxes are a burden from which you receive little or no benefit” is the popular notion promoted by the rich and their puppets, the politicians. This is nothing more than a bare-faced lie intended to promote their free market agenda of cutting taxes, particularly on the rich and corporations.  Governments collect taxes to invest them wisely for the benefit of the majority. They invest them in what we broadly refer to as Common Capital – the wealth we all share. It is used to provide infrastructure and services to all citizens and businesses.  Common Capital investment distinguishes developed from developing economies. Life is easier and better for citizens and businesses in a developed economy rather than a developing economy because of this investment.  Think how badly off you would be without roads, hospitals, schools, universities, social security, services, police, judiciary, defence, and everything else. All the things taxes fund – in other words,  our Common (Shared) Capital.  As taxes fund Common Capital, we weaken society and the economy to everybody's detriment if taxes are reduced, particularly on the rich and corporations (those who benefit the most from the economy and can contribute the most).   To escape paying higher taxes, the rich proposed an alternate solution. They claimed that reducing taxes on them and corporations and minimising trading restrictions would allow them to invest more in our economy and grow government revenues. From this increased economic base, we would all benefit.  This is what they promised but have never delivered on.  Consequently, Common Capital has declined significantly, and as a result, so has the quality of life of the majority plummeted as it’s directly linked to Common Capital investment. We are moving backwards and are now more representative of a developing rather than a developed economy.  The promise of the rich, through their hare-brained free market policies, has not delivered and never will. Read my article  Free market policies — the broken agreement. | by Adrian Mark Dore | Medium. Consequently, we need to revert to high personal tax rates on the rich, alleviating the burden placed on the hard-pressed middle class while also pushing corporate taxes up much higher.  This will allow the government to reinvest in Common Capital and establish the correct growth base. There’s a simple principle at play here. When you have a strong society, you have a strong, resilient economic base with inbuilt stabilisers. There is a direct correlation between societal well-being and that of a strong economy, which free marketeers want to hide and mislead you about. That is why tax is not a burden because the government is making wise investments to improve the quality of life for all by investing in – infrastructure, health, education, security, social support, policing, defence – the list goes on and on.  Here’s a question for you – when it comes to taxing the rich and corporations, would you tax them now, using high tax rates with the certainty of high tax revenues, or rather wait on the vague promise of higher revenues made by people who have yet to deliver against this promise?  Of course, this is a stupid question because the answer is obvious. Who in their right mind can trust the self-serving rich and corporations to serve anybody other than themselves? People who have proved their promises are worthless.  Normally, when somebody breaks a promise, you become wary of them. You find out what they have been getting up to. To discover they are not reinvesting in our productive economy as promised but rather in the rentier economy and globalisation, which is harmful to the majority. You learn they have done so because this offers them greater returns. They are not remotely interested in acting on behalf of the majority; they are hurting them. Then, as a wise and responsible government, you repeat your mistake of trusting them year after year for over forty years. This is stupidity personified.  Tax cuts on the rich and corporations are unjustified no matter which way you look at it. Tax rates on both must be raised significantly and immediately.  Of course, the rich will squeal like fat little piglets, but that should not concern us. Our corrupted politicians (puppets of the rich) naturally tell us differently. They will tell you that corporations will relocate if we don’t offer attractive tax rates. This is true; corporations do revert to strongarm tactics (blackmail), which politicians pander to. Free market policies, in the form of globalisation, have given corporations negotiating strength (one of the many disadvantages of globalisation.)  However, corporations don’t hold the upper hand; governments do because they control access to their markets. Access to these markets is of paramount importance to corporations. If they threaten to relocate, they cannot access our markets on the same terms as if they resided here. You can’t expect access to a market if you don’t contribute to its upkeep. Hence, access must be linked to a comparable tax contribution in whatever form that takes. As business people are keen to sprout, “There’s no such thing as a free lunch”, is an idiom which aptly applies here.  The spineless politicians will respond that this is against free market trade agreements. These are the same ridiculous agreements they agreed to, which destroy our domestic manufacturing and leave us vulnerable to corporate blackmail, where they do not contribute adequately to the maintenance of our Common Capital. Politicians got us into this pickle, so now they can get us out by breaking these agreements.  To stop the downward cycle in quality of life for the majority, our spineless politicians must increase the reduction in Common Capital investment by taxing the rich and corporations heavily.  Paying tax isn’t something we welcome, but try and see it in a different light,  not as an unnecessary burden but as something that protects and helps you live a fuller life. Try and see taxes as insurance and investment for you and your family because that’s precisely what they are.  You hold these negative perceptions of tax by design. The rich minority promote the idea of taxes as a burden because it’s part of their free market economic policies, which call for lower taxes. By getting the majority on their side by thinking high taxes, particularly on the rich and corporations, are wrong, they succeed in swaying government support for their flawed ideas.  Like most free market ideas, they are fundamentally wrong, hurting the majority.  When you see taxes in a different light of protecting you and helping you live a fuller life, you appreciate why cutting taxes, particularly on the rich and corporations, is seriously wrong. You may read other articles by Adrian Dore on Medium at https://medium.com/@adrianmarkdore/