| | Trying to Learn from the Past, Part 2 After the fall of the Soviet Union and its Communist satellites, many of us believed that a time of peace and prosperity was at hand. Although peace in Europe was quite general, there were wars elsewhere, and it seemed that a deep and abiding love of peace, was not as strong as the tendency to settle disagreements by force. The Middle East was in turmoil, and the United States invaded and then occupied Iraq, allegedly to protect America’s allies from Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi dictator, at enormous costs in lives and money. Not only was peace spotty around the world, but in the well-to-do Western countries there was also a sharp turn towards unfettered capitalism, with President Reagan claiming that “Government is the Problem” and his friend Lady Thatcher, when she was the British Prime Minister, claiming that there was no such thing as “Society.” One by one, progressive measures taken to make life better for all those who were not rich, were weakened or abandoned. And then came “Free Trade” which had worked splendidly in Europe after World War II. This concept provided for the removal of tariffs, considerable specialization by each country, and the resulting greater efficiency and prosperity. Now it was applied to countries like China and India and caused large transfers of jobs from the U.S.A., Canada and Western Europe. Wages were, in the case of China, less than one tenth of those paid in countries exporting the jobs and importing an ever-increasing number of goods and services. Since the imports from China, for example, caused prices for all kinds of goods to fall here, the general public was quite pleased, except for those losing their jobs or finding themselves in work that paid less and was less secure. Anybody who pointed out that the system of Free Trade was successful among countries which were more or less economically equal, and that the great difference in wages and salaries was leading to insupportable imbalances of trade, was immediately shouted down. The experts told us that all we had to do, was to work better, smarter and more creatively. This was really the answer for a small minority of working people. There was another group of employees who were “anchored” in the developed countries because they were plumbers, surveyors, carpenters electricians, police officers, teachers, fire fighters, garbage collectors, lawyers, judges, actors and so on. The rest? Who cares really? When was the last time you read anything about the Common Welfare? As a society, in the United State and Canada we have elevated “The Bottom Line” to a legitimate goal and a proper standard of evaluation for economic and other activities. To cite an example, several museums in the U.S. now charge admission prices which discourage visitors who have modest incomes. In Montreal we have four large universities, two predominantly French, and two predominantly English. There is now a fifth one from out-of-town trying to get a foothold. Is it going to offer any different courses or approaches? No, but the province will pay it a substantial amount for each student enrolled. When it comes to health care, the U.S. is famous for spending more per capita than any other country, but lagging behind in infant mortality and life span numbers. Much health care money is spent processing claims for medical expenses from different insurers, both not-for profit and profit-making organisations. By last count there were forty million persons in the United States without health insurance. When these people get sick, they usually quickly run out of money. There is a Federal /State program for these patients called “Medicaid” but in some States they are not eligible unless they are “medically indigent.” This means they must sell their homes, and all other assets, as if they were bankrupt, and use the proceeds for their medical expenses first. We have inherited from the 20th century remarkably open and honest stock exchanges which protect investors. But the investors have largely become speculators who buy shares without knowing much about the companies which issued them, and are ready to sell the shares at any time for short term gains, or if they have not increased in value in a 90-day period. In this way, any relationship between companies and their shareholders has become minimal and share prices swing widely. In 1985 there were 13 billionaires in the U.S. but now there are more than a thousand. A number of these super rich people are creative and have started enterprises, employing large numbers of employees. A small number have quit making money and poured their energies into helping others, but the majority are gambling types, and act if they were playing “Monopoly.” Their families and descendants will never be able to spend their immense fortunes sensibly. The Bottom Line approach supports lots of meetings and discussions regarding the environment and how it can be saved, as long as the plans do not tamper with the Bottom Line. We now know that much of the existing environmental damage cannot be repaired, and that prevention of further damage will require major sacrifice and a change in life styles. Is the future for us, our children and grandchildren really as bleak as many now believe? Even worse, if we continue to behave as we have. The United States for one, can lead no longer, if it plays the role of a sole global policeman. But if it turned its vast human, technical and financial resources to the struggle to eradicate poverty and disease, the result would be spectacular. We now know so much more than we did, what the needs are, and what works. Much of this information comes from NGOs and was gathered “on the ground” with hard work, even some loss of life, but always with respect. In Canada and the United States we must realize that the spectacular failure of state socialism is not an excuse for the creation of a capitalism with an ugly face. The co-existence of a thousand billionaires in the U.S. with thousands of homeless people is grotesque. In Canada the state of the Common Welfare is not much better. Finally, it comes down to values. The triumph of the Bottom Line as the sole measure of all endeavor, means that human beings come last, and that the ethical messages of our greatest prophets such as Buddha and Jesus are ignored. But it need not be that way – there are other and better choices. Jeffrey Sachs, a scholar who wrote the book The End of Poverty proved by extensive study that ending poverty world wide would be expensive, but by no means ruinous. So far, no one has challenged his methods or conclusions. He wrote recently. “Ours is the generation that can end extreme poverty, turn the tide against climate change that can, and must, solve the unresolved conundrum of combining economic well-being with environmental sustainability." | | |
