The Inheritance Economy"The Inheritance Economy," which follows this introduction could be a guide to building an economy that we can trust and be thankful for... based on what we have been given, rather than what we deserve.The next paragraph was taken from a counterpunch article by Dan Brook, describes a real economy based on love and giving. (...) It was once earnestly asked by Native Americans, "Why do you take by force what you can have by love?" Christopher Columbus reports in his personal diary that when he arrived in the Americas he was amazed. The Taino, with curiosity and joy, came to greet the people coming off the ships from Europe. The Taino (whom Columbus mistakenly thought were Indians) were a peaceful people, by all accounts, willing to share anything they had, offering both emotional kindness and their physical objects. Columbus describes how remarkable these people were. So innocent of weapons and violence, Taino people would initially reach out their hands to feel the strange, shiny objects called swords. The Taino would only "work" for a few hours a day, "spending" the rest of their time relaxing, socializing, and creating their culture in the ways that people most enjoy. Columbus also tells of how the Taino had no "shame", being able to walk around naked or make love whenever they pleased. With the tiny amount of gold on their island, they fashioned jewelry to adorn themselves. As with many other pre-contact indigenous groups, the Taino essentially lived in Utopia. Can Americans be thankful for living in a utopian society? Are we thankful for having destroyed one? Should we be grateful for having so many deadly weapons? For being so greedy for gold, both actual and metaphorical? (...) ******** The Inheritance Economy By considering the history of mechanization and our response to it we can find answers to our economic problems. At first, the mechanization of production caused unemployment. We suffered about one hundred years of unemployment problems before John M. Keynes explained that expectation of demand must precede investment and job creation. Demand stimulus must come from the bottom. No matter how much money a business may have, no business would build a new factory if there were no people with money to buy the output, or if people already had enough of that product. Early consumption of products means they must be replaced more often. Demand must not be satisfied. At last, we had an excuse to replace grandpa's frugality with consumer indulgences. We needed growth in consumption to prevent automation from causing too much unemployment, and there were no limits to our consumption, so we thought. It was great fun. The consumer economy was not designed to make people wealthy; it was designed to make people consume more. If consumption means "use-up" then we could say that our wealth is approximately all that we ever acquired minus all that we ever consumed. The consumer economy had to avoid frugality. Durables became perishables. Waste was encouraged so long as it created jobs and profits. We consumed vast quantities of goods and services, and wasted even more, ending up with little of lasting value. It is becoming apparent that this must end, but how? The way to rethink the system begins with a redefinition of goals. We don't need the quickest, cheapest, most profitable, or even most popular system. We need a system that can reliably provide goods and services over generations. That system will prove to be an economy based on inheritance, which will be the main conveyor of durable wealth. Imagine a fully automated free-market economy in the future. It would need few workers because of its astronomical labor productivity. If a few people owned the world's assets they would get all the profit income, and the few remaining workers would get all the wage income. No matter how income is divided between profit and wages all income would go to those two small groups. The way we're headed most people will have no job or an adequate share of ownership. What are the choices if we continue toward a concentration of wealth and increases in labor productivity? By taxing or borrowing money from those few people with income we will be able to provide income the largest group, unemployed workers. The 'investors' can help the economy best by allowing their surplus income to be taxed. Democratic capitalism requires sharing of profits. Worker control of the workplace does not make capitalism democratic if workers are still wage-dependent, and worker control doesn't address the need to build a low-consumption system. When all people have capital we will become a capitalist society.... the ultimate bail-out. And, without the 'need' to make jobs we can begin to conserve resources, the weakest link in what we should produce. Call it socialism or not, but when wages are finally supplemented by dividends, the unemployment caused by automation could be seen as a blessing. Let's satiate demand wherever possible. That will cut the need to produce new items. Satiation is fostered by extended durability. Luxury with low consumption will become possible if we stop waste (become efficient) and limit population. We do need to build an efficient system, but once it's done we will need to take a vacation. The best economic stimulus is a variable income guarantee for every adult denizen, because that will allow immediate conservation and a functional economy without busy-work and waste. Barry Brooks As Creators We Imagine We Have No Limits Mr Peak Oil 
|