Since my early twenties I have had issues with the so called "Free Market" Economy that we all participate in.
Why? First, because there is nothing 'free' about it.
How can an economy in which every single major industry is heavily subsidized be considered 'free'? Second, because any responsible economic system balances the needs of the people with corporate profits, unfettered and under-regulated markets always lead to corporate excess and abuse.
Always have, always will.
Third, the very raison d'etre of our economy - the idea that we can and should have continuous growth, without contraction - is faulty and absurd, flying in the face of every single other natural system at work in the universe.
Fourth, the economy is tied too closely to the stock market, so that even if the economy is generally healthy, if there isn't the requisite growth, then the markets will drop.
Furthermore, in under-regulated markets, speculation becomes rampant and the whole market enterprise becomes a crap shoot in which us Average Joes are always the last to get the information (ie) gambling.
Sixth, an unbalanced economic system means growth and prosperity for the few, built on the backs of the poor.
So, it's easy to see why it took me so long to find my way within a system that is profit-based instead of people-based.
My detractors might wonder if I am naive, or an anarchist or a communist.
After all, one can complain about this system, but what's the alternative? Well, that's an easy one.
It's our system, just a much more human-centered version.
It has worked quite well for the Scandinavian countries (though they are not immune from the affects of this deepening global depression).
There is nothing wrong with money and profit, which often come from limitless human creatively and innovation.
But who ever said that a person or group's brilliance entitles them to limitless economic benefit? We have become hamstrung by an economic and social philosophy which too closely correlates success with financial gain.
The nuclear arms race of the 70s and 80s was replaced by the consumption and accumulation race of the 90s and the new millennium.
Now, we pay the price as our collective gluttony comes home to roost.
It is easy to blame the corporations and those who run the financial system.
But none of it would have been possible without the tacit approval and direct participation of all of us.
Meanwhile, this economic meltdown has come at a momentous time - following, some might argue, an ethical and societal meltdown - as the U.
S.
tries to leave behind an era of economic, political and social myopia that tapped into the most cynical aspects of the human experience.
Enter Barack Obama (of whom I have been a supporter).
On the surface, the perfect antidote at the perfect time.
Long have we waited for someone of his apparent caliber to assume the mantle of leadership.
Expectations are incalculable.
Not only do we want this messiah to save us from ourselves, we are going to hold him to an impossible standard.
The reality is that Obama may just be the first in a line of transformative figures that will hopefully help guide humanity to a more evolved state of being.
While some think/believe/hope he is 'the one' - and he is doing great work on the domestic side - his actions to date have shown him to be following a rather conservative approach when it comes to the economy and the two wars.
To many supporters' dismay, he is expanding the campaign in Afghanistan, a place where no foreign occupier has ever succeeded.
The reasons for this are beyond the scope of this article, but it's enough to say that a major oil pipeline is a major part of the equation.
As for Iraq, good luck Mr.
President.
Where one can really see the limits within which Obama operates is in the economic domain, which, of course, trumps all others by a wide margin.
Here, Obama is beholden to the corporation known as America.
All decisions are made through the prism of assumed and continued American global economic hegemony - regardless of the obvious fact that that hegemony is rapidly becoming a remnant of the past.
The Fall of Rome - Redux - is upon us.
In this environment of gradual collapse lies a great opportunity for true change, as always espoused in election campaigns.
Having the backing of the people, a courageous Obama could implement sweeping changes to make the system more equitable and stable.
Large scale change is what he campaigned, and won, on - and what had many people fearing for his life if we went too far (not because he's African-American, which is significant, but because he would do too much boat-rocking to suit those who always benefit from the status quo).
Alas, with his selection of Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary, a stalwart of the policies that are now bringing the greatest economy in the history of humanity to its knees, change is relative indeed.
After all, this administration is overseeing the greatest corporate heist in history, apparently to save the system.
The question is, should the system, as we know it, be saved? Haven't its fatal flaws been exposed in no uncertain terms? Isn't it the perfect time for an overhaul, while those who wield the economic swords are vulnerable? And what are the long-term consequences of not making these changes when we have the chance? Total collapse? Really, there are only so many warnings we can receive, and ignore, before the disease becomes terminal.
Now, it is early days.
During the election campaign we repeatedly witnessed Obama's brilliance in eschewing short term expedience in favor of long-term goals.
This could certainly be the case here.
Maybe years down the road he will be confirmed as a Chess Grandmaster and we will marvel out how he managed to lead us in a new direction, even when it appeared to some that was succumbing to the old game.
Time will tell.
Our collective fingers are crossed.
Why? First, because there is nothing 'free' about it.
How can an economy in which every single major industry is heavily subsidized be considered 'free'? Second, because any responsible economic system balances the needs of the people with corporate profits, unfettered and under-regulated markets always lead to corporate excess and abuse.
Always have, always will.
Third, the very raison d'etre of our economy - the idea that we can and should have continuous growth, without contraction - is faulty and absurd, flying in the face of every single other natural system at work in the universe.
Fourth, the economy is tied too closely to the stock market, so that even if the economy is generally healthy, if there isn't the requisite growth, then the markets will drop.
Furthermore, in under-regulated markets, speculation becomes rampant and the whole market enterprise becomes a crap shoot in which us Average Joes are always the last to get the information (ie) gambling.
Sixth, an unbalanced economic system means growth and prosperity for the few, built on the backs of the poor.
So, it's easy to see why it took me so long to find my way within a system that is profit-based instead of people-based.
My detractors might wonder if I am naive, or an anarchist or a communist.
After all, one can complain about this system, but what's the alternative? Well, that's an easy one.
It's our system, just a much more human-centered version.
It has worked quite well for the Scandinavian countries (though they are not immune from the affects of this deepening global depression).
There is nothing wrong with money and profit, which often come from limitless human creatively and innovation.
But who ever said that a person or group's brilliance entitles them to limitless economic benefit? We have become hamstrung by an economic and social philosophy which too closely correlates success with financial gain.
The nuclear arms race of the 70s and 80s was replaced by the consumption and accumulation race of the 90s and the new millennium.
Now, we pay the price as our collective gluttony comes home to roost.
It is easy to blame the corporations and those who run the financial system.
But none of it would have been possible without the tacit approval and direct participation of all of us.
Meanwhile, this economic meltdown has come at a momentous time - following, some might argue, an ethical and societal meltdown - as the U.
S.
tries to leave behind an era of economic, political and social myopia that tapped into the most cynical aspects of the human experience.
Enter Barack Obama (of whom I have been a supporter).
On the surface, the perfect antidote at the perfect time.
Long have we waited for someone of his apparent caliber to assume the mantle of leadership.
Expectations are incalculable.
Not only do we want this messiah to save us from ourselves, we are going to hold him to an impossible standard.
The reality is that Obama may just be the first in a line of transformative figures that will hopefully help guide humanity to a more evolved state of being.
While some think/believe/hope he is 'the one' - and he is doing great work on the domestic side - his actions to date have shown him to be following a rather conservative approach when it comes to the economy and the two wars.
To many supporters' dismay, he is expanding the campaign in Afghanistan, a place where no foreign occupier has ever succeeded.
The reasons for this are beyond the scope of this article, but it's enough to say that a major oil pipeline is a major part of the equation.
As for Iraq, good luck Mr.
President.
Where one can really see the limits within which Obama operates is in the economic domain, which, of course, trumps all others by a wide margin.
Here, Obama is beholden to the corporation known as America.
All decisions are made through the prism of assumed and continued American global economic hegemony - regardless of the obvious fact that that hegemony is rapidly becoming a remnant of the past.
The Fall of Rome - Redux - is upon us.
In this environment of gradual collapse lies a great opportunity for true change, as always espoused in election campaigns.
Having the backing of the people, a courageous Obama could implement sweeping changes to make the system more equitable and stable.
Large scale change is what he campaigned, and won, on - and what had many people fearing for his life if we went too far (not because he's African-American, which is significant, but because he would do too much boat-rocking to suit those who always benefit from the status quo).
Alas, with his selection of Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary, a stalwart of the policies that are now bringing the greatest economy in the history of humanity to its knees, change is relative indeed.
After all, this administration is overseeing the greatest corporate heist in history, apparently to save the system.
The question is, should the system, as we know it, be saved? Haven't its fatal flaws been exposed in no uncertain terms? Isn't it the perfect time for an overhaul, while those who wield the economic swords are vulnerable? And what are the long-term consequences of not making these changes when we have the chance? Total collapse? Really, there are only so many warnings we can receive, and ignore, before the disease becomes terminal.
Now, it is early days.
During the election campaign we repeatedly witnessed Obama's brilliance in eschewing short term expedience in favor of long-term goals.
This could certainly be the case here.
Maybe years down the road he will be confirmed as a Chess Grandmaster and we will marvel out how he managed to lead us in a new direction, even when it appeared to some that was succumbing to the old game.
Time will tell.
Our collective fingers are crossed.
SHARE
