The Petrodollar Empire - Rise & Fall
 Empires through the last few thousand years have increasingly
been represented by several factors: they were centralised but
covered a wide geographical area covering many people, races,
colours, creeds, cultures and languages. Traditionally the
empire saw the people under its domain as backward and in need
of civilising. Hence, although there was limited democracy at
the center, the provinces were largely dictated to by the
center. Empire's had the effect of homogenising their captive
audience by eliminating opposing ideas, languages, traditions,
economic systems and culture. Empires were powerful and
projected that power through ideas and military muscle - however
it was the military might that sustained the structure of
Empire. Finally, Empire's were unsustainable in the long term
and always collapsed. This was largely because those at the
center generated great wealth from the lands they conquered. The
wealth turned to arrogance. Pride comes before a fall.
The Roman Empire lasted for as long as it kept growing.
Hundreds of years of growth convinced the Romans that they had
discovered the perfect society and this wisdom was ordained by
their deities. Each nation conquered by Rome footed the bill for
an economic development that was unsustainable. In 167 BCE
Marcus Aurelius eliminated the taxes of Rome by stealing the
contents of the Treasury of Macedonia. When Julius Caesar too
Gaul he returned with so much Gold that it plummeted in value.
Octavia's personal wealth plundered from Egypt relieved
shortages in the state budget. The conquest of Syria yielded
much the same result for Pompey. However a growing budget
deficit finally terminated the policy of expansion. The
Roman Empire became over-extended and could no longer be
administered. Without expansion Taxes had to be raised on the
subjects. Their loyalty strayed and they drifted away from the
influence of Rome. By 410 CE it was all over. Rome could no
longer even repel the weakest of invasions.
 After initial easy gains the resources that drove the
expansion become more costly to acquire. The old solutions no
longer work and more complex ones take their place. The greater
complexity cost more and diminishing returns set in. With
complexity comes fragility. General knowledge is replaced by
specialist know-how and the peoples of the empire become less
resilient to crisis. Collapse is the only conclusion. The end
hastens nearer. The parallels with modern fossil-fuel driven
capitalism is striking. The system grows because of an injection
of more and more fossil fuel. America's domination within this
system (that it promotes) relies upon the conquest of foreign
lands by the power of the Dollar as International Currency. It
is striking how, as the sun starts to set on the Petrodollar
Empire that America has become more aggressive in both its
Political stance on Globalisation and its Military stance of
bring more and more Oil fields within its domain of control. The
writing is on the wall.
What was built in Petrodollar-Globalisation is unsustainable.
It will collapse as Rome did. But now the dangers of that
collapse are far worse than it was in Rome's time. It will be
very difficult for the provinces to slip quietly away from the
clutches of Globalisation and its prescribed Dollar/Oil
addiction. We have all but burnt our bridges. Global population
levels are now far in excess of the carrying-capacity of the
final empire - the solar empire. This energy descent will need
to be carefully managed for a soft landing. Bridges to
sustainability must be rebuilt. Simplicity must replace
complexity. Our future models of energy descent cannot be found
in the US. They will be found in places like Cuba
Local Money
 The Petrodollar will dwindle and die. What will replace it?
Seven hundred years ago Europeans built
fantastic architecture that we still marvel at it today.
Nowadays we build something to last only a few years. Why did we
used to build to last? What changed? Back then there was
simply a different monetary system. Money was issued that had to
be reclaimed by the State at LESS than its face value when the
then Ruler died. Thus it was of no value to keep hold of this
money. So people poured it into property. They built great solid
stones houses that stand until today. The resulting high demand
for labour improved the wages and living conditions for many
ordinary people. A 6 hour day and 90 bank Holidays a year were
common. Local economies thrived. Gold coins with intrinsic value
(worth saving & redeemable at the precious-metal value rather
than face value) did not appear until the 15th century. People
stopped spending. Unemployment appeared and businesses closed as
entrepreneurs realised they could earn more money by charging
interest (for lending out their savings) rather than buying and
selling goods.
"Money-not-worth-keeping" has been tried in local economies
down through the years. A small town in Austria tried it during
the 1930's depression. The Town was, essentially Bankrupt. High
unemployment lead to a lack of Tax Revenue so the enterprising
Mayor sought a loan from a Credit Union to pay Council Staff.
Instead of allowing the money to be spent elsewhere the Mayor
issued local money as "scrip notes" that could only be redeemed
against National Currency for less than their face value. Hence
nobody had any incentive to trade the notes beyond the Towns
locality. What is more, where they were used as currency there
was a cost of ownership. Anybody who had any saved had to pay a
Tax monthly. Needless to say anyone who came into possession of
the one of these local currency units had no motivation to keep
it. Local Businesses and Shops accepted the notes as payment
because they could pay their Taxes with them.
By all accounts the effects were glorious. The local economy
was reborn. Business boomed and Taxes were paid. There was full
employment again. The Council expanded its infrastructure
investments and employed more staff. What is more the local
Currency remained unaffected by the hyper-inflation then
affecting the Austrian National Currency. News of the success
spread and other towns bought in similar schemes. Inevitably the
Central Bank took out legal proceedings and shut the schemes
down. What was it afraid of? Losing control. There was the same
result in the US where Roosevelt forbade local money in this
fashion. Again, the National Governments fear was not that the
system worked but that it was slipping out of their control and
back to the population. It had to be stopped. Such is the Empire
of Money. This is not without historical precedence - as the US
should remember. In 1751 King George II was requested by the
City of London to prohibit the use of fiat paper currency in the
American Colonies. Benjamin Franklin later wrote that "The
inability of the Colonists to get power to issue their own money
[..] was the PRIME reason for revolutionary war."
Another example of local money came out of Brazil in the
1980's. The Town of Curitiba had a million residents mostly
living in squatter townships. The Council could collect the
rubbish because their trucks couldn't navigate the narrow
streets of the squatter camps. What to do? Well, they could have
bulldozed wider streets but a more novel approach was tried. The
Council placed large recycling bins at the edge of the camps.
Anyone arriving with a pre-sorted bag of recyclables was awarded
with a token for use on the Buses. Pretty soon the neighbourhood
was picked clean by an army of small children living in the
camps. The parents used the tokens to catch the bus to their
jobs outside the shanty town. So successful was the scheme that
tokens for food and school books were also handed out. Slowly
the tokens themselves became money used by two-third of the
residents.
In South Africa townships have started their own local
currencies called the "Talent". This came about through an
enterprise by the South African "New Economics Foundation"
(appropriately called "SANE"). Participants have to use a web
site to create a 'trade record'. It is like EBay without money.
It is more like a system of Barter but the web site allows users
to go into debt or credit so it is more flexible. You trade your
Talents for other people's goods and services. Don't have access
to the Internet? No problem, Community Workers armed with Laptop
Computers solved that problem.
Population
In his book "Capitalism as if the World Mattered" Jonathan
Porritt laments at great length as to how population control has
become an unmentionable topic amongst activists & politicians.
He, quite rightly, points out that the human population
explosion is the root cause of most of the problems with both
planet and mankind's continued existence upon it. However, the
topic has become tainted by Racist objections to immigration and
China's policy of one family-one child. However, population
control is one area where great progress can and is being made.
It is not intractable yet it has become mired in politics to the
point where US funding for Family Planning Clinics was pulled by
the Bush administration because of links to abortions. In
Australia and France couple are paid bounties for having
children whilst the Pope warns Europeans about their declining
birth rate. As we live in growth-obsessed economies then a
falling population is seen bizarrely as a threat! It is ironic
that population growth is one of the few problems the rich
nations seem to have licked even they don't see it that way.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could let population dwindle to the
carrying capacity of the land? With all the wealth and knowledge
shared between fewer people in a sustainable society - this
would be a true golden age for humanity.
In 1798 the Reverend Robert Malthus offered his famous
declaration that human population would rise exponentially yet
agricultural product could only growing linearly. For the past
200 years the economists and techno-optimists have scoffed at
this idea and pointed at the so called "green revolution" in
farming production. However, a far more sober view of the last
200 years of history reveals an uncomfortable truth - Malthus
was right. Human Population will be kept in check, finally, by
war, famine and disease. The reason? The green revolution was a
fossil-fuel revolution. It can't last forever. It was a
revolution that burnt its bridges. Fossil-fuel-based Fertiliser,
Pesticides and Herbicides were poured onto the land until it was
sterile and only able to grow the custom hybrids peddled by the
big Agro-Corporations. Initial yield gains would dwindle
requiring more and more fertiliser and other chemicals in order
to keep up. Farms used to be self-sustaining. Now they are
locked into the global corporate system. When the fossil fuels
come too expensive then it pulls the plug on any farm reliant
upon them. Self-reliance has died. All the green revolution gave
us was massive over-population on the precipice of starvation.
It was suicidally short-sighted.
 The traditional view of the population problem (as some of us
were taught is school) was that it was caused by Western
Medicine in the Third World. Were death rates were high the
birth rates were too. When the death rate dropped the birth rate
did not. This familiar litany ignores several obvious facts: it
was not always in the best interest of poor people to keep
having children and they would have stopped if someone just
showed them how. Secondly, studies of indigenous people showed
that their population levels had been steady for thousands of
years. They already had built in mechanisms long before western
influences poisoned their systems. Indeed we should not look
upon high population as a Third World problem. The solutions may
be there but the negative effects upon the planet can be laid at
the door of the developed economies. As their populations
consume so much of the Earth's dwindling natural resources they
carry far more population weight that their low numbers and
birth rate suggest. Unless we want to share what 2 billion
people have in 2008 with 9 billion in 2050 then there has to be
a change of attitude.
Of course, few in Western spheres of power are thinking about
sharing anything. If poor people want their fair share of the
cake then they will have to reduce their 4 billion people down
to a few millions! Even then the rich are not going to give it
away. This kind of observation is a problem for today's
flat-earth economists who preach that the world's problems can
only be solved by more growth and monetary wealth. This
unpalatable. The idea that wealth and growth are the source of
the problem is an inconvenient truth to western politicians.
Without growth - as a panacea - their world will fall down
around them. The truth is they would have to share more of their
wealth.
So, what to do? The current thinking on population control
focuses on the education of women. Studies consistently prove
that birth rates plummet, within a generation, once women are
educated and in the workforce. Yet the path to a low birth rate
need not follow a paradigm of western feminism that assumes some
measure of wealth and sophistication. Kerala (southern India) is
one of the poorest and under-developed region but its birth rate
is similar to western nations. How? They have a system of female
literacy and gender equality established by the local Communist
Government in 1957. Fertility declines as women shed their
inferior status. However there is no link between western-lead
development and the social changes required to enhance the
status of women. Literacy levels in Kerala are higher than they
are in Britain. Female life expectancy is 73 years of age whilst
child mortality is the lowest in India.
This planet can support little more than two billion people -
if we plan the descent in an orderly fashion. If we burn our
bridges, ie, destroy the air we breath and the top soil we grow
our food in, then it could be a lot less. We should plan that
energy descent now. Otherwise the empire builders will perform
the function through war and suffering. Their normal chosen
methods of population control. To do the job properly the true
wealth of this planet must be shared to in a fashion to allow
each of this earth's many peoples to rediscover their local
solutions. With the modern wonders of medicine, education and
family planning, all the people can plan their lives in such a
way that will allow population to drop naturally. Runaway,
Globalised, fossil-fuel-capitalism is not the solution.
Local Control
Humans have short memories. Our minds are full of the
artificial constructs of our environment. We never question our
countries nor their boundaries. In fact the Nation State is a
very modern invention. They are constructed areas created for
jurisdiction over population and their taxation. Prior to the
nation state their were Kingdom's but the King's ability to
project power was largely limited by geography and nature. Those
of us coming from a European background are culturally divorced
from the decentralised social structures of tribal
organisations. Many indigenous people have had no concept of a
remote King until the world succumbed to European Empires a few
hundred years ago.
The middle-east is a good example of an area carved up by
arbitrary boundaries. In this case the carve up is remarkably
recent in having happened within the last one hundred years.
Different peoples were simple lumped together for political
reasons with no recognition of their cultures or heritage.
Subsequent leaders have tried to mould one homogenous nation
around these people on a European model. Meantime the Europeans
tried to eradicate those cultures and people who didn't quite
the fit the racial purity identified at the center. Both
approaches lead to conflict and World Wars. The Nation State is
an unmitigated failure of enormous proportions. It is artificial
and has no place in human civilisation. Still it persists whilst
it suits the purpose of those with power and money.
 Modern Europe is wracked with debate about national identity.
Fortress Europe has increasingly sought to understand itself
through the exclusion of outsiders. This is a remarkably recent
occurrence. Indeed, Classical Economics teach that Labour should
be mobile whilst it is Capital that should be static and not
pass between nations. The current reversal of these laws is an
abhorrent perversion or recent invention by fossil-fuel
capitalism. Northern Europeans have tried harder and harder to
stoke up the fear of the non-European. Nationalism is a new
religion following closely after consumerism. We are lead to
believe that the world will be a safer place for us if only all
those people that want to harm us became us. Hence we now make
bizarre attempts at reinforcing the idea of "us". We hold
citizenship ceremonies and demand loyalty oaths to our remote
kings and lords. We forge our nations upon the sports fields at
home and the battlefields abroad. We are told to be proud of our
nations achievements. Anyone who less than bedazzled by our
Nation's track record are immediately suspect. Their
'patriotism' is suddenly in doubt.
Our national institutions of government have slowly slipped
from the grip of the people and into the hands of the
lobbyocracy. Policy is set by people not voted into power. Power
is focussed amongst a small clique consisting largely of those
working inside a revolving door policy with large corporations.
It is an "elective oligarchy". Elite rule. We have political
parties but their policies have become indistinguishable and the
electorate disenfranchised. European/American Governmental Power
is now the preserve of personality politics. Government is
centralised. Governments with hold information from the people
under a pretence of national security although, in almost every
case, the secrets are largely a matter of political
embarrassment. Western Governments reject scrutiny or collective
decision making. Each layer and department of Government
distrusts everyone else. The lowest layer of Government
represent thousands of people rather than neighbourhoods or
village communities. Local authorities jealously guard their
powers from the people. A street community in Hull (UK) secretly
grassed its road overnight in 1977. The local authorities ripped
it up and it took another 20 years for the street to get the
grass back through official channels. There is another way.
The Greeks invented Democracy in the age of the City-Nation.
Democratic Units were small. So small that everyone took an
opportunity to be leader for a while in the ancient equivalent
of a lottery. Those who didn't participate in public debate were
given a special name. "Idiots". Maybe it is time to return to
these human-scale democracies.
In India Gandhi rejected European centralised power systems
(as did Thomas Jefferson). Instead a system of "panchyat raj"
was established where local community forms the basic unit of
government. Central Government might identify a region in
particular poverty then supply some money to the local authority
without specifying how it should be spent. Then the villages
decide which individuals are in most need. Village councils
consist of 40 locals and an annually elected headperson. If a
local entrepreneur comes up with a capital investment scheme that
would increase his income he can apply to the village council for
a loan. They can approve or reject the scheme. If approved they
give the entrepreneur the money and he or she repays it with
interest. The money is kept inside the village hence all
government aid accumulates locally. Each Village in the scheme
builds up a Bank Account of funds for the village. It is managed
by the local community for the local community. The principle
works because the higher authority is the servant of the lower
authority. The villages are their own Government.
Responsibilities are devolved and the system is kept in place by
civil-disobedience if necessary.
In Kerala (mentioned elsewhere here under the section on
population control) the Government tried to install house
connections to the public water supply. Nice thought but two out
of three houses so connected found that nothing came out of the
tap. Subsequent politicians made empty election promises to get
the problem fixed but nothing happened. In once hamlet the
panchayat organised protests against the district collector
until the village was allocated funds. When the money was
available a local committee sorted out what had to be done -
locals donated what was required s well as pooling expertise and
labour. Soon all the taps were working. Kerala is a self-reliant
community. The lesson was learnt and the local government
devolved power to the communities. The Communities had proven
they could do a better job themselves with the money. All this
for affordable drinking water. In too many poor countries the
IMF has forced politicians to sell off the water supplies
cheaply to foreign corporations. Hence this natural resource
becomes a Globalised commodity - snatched away from the local
people who can often develop the resources cheaply themselves.
There are many examples where local people and their
Governments have followed a local path of development that has
suited them the best. Some countries have prospered by not
getting trapped into the IMF/WTO definition of a "supply
region". Back in 1950 Taiwan was a rural economy but in thirty
years it became an Asian Tiger. It could equally have been the
Asian Mozambique. The difference? The Government put in place
policies that, by neocons standards were positively Communist.
They actually distributed land to the peasants and encouraged
landlords to invest in local light-industry. Other policies
included training grants, tariffs, quotas and export subsidies
to protect its fledgling industries. They used know-how gained
form working with the foreign firms that had invested in the
region. Slowly they turned this know-how against the western
corporations and set up in competition with them. They used
their own money to invest in new products. They built a modern
model economy using exactly the same tactic as those used by the
older industrial European Empires and the USA some 100 years
before. Modern trade rules perpetuated by the neo-liberals at
the WTO dictate rules are the opposite to those that are known
to work. This is the point. Poor countries have to remain poor
for the global economy to benefit the rich. Not everyone can
join the rich club. There isn't enough of this cake to go around.
Yet Taiwan is not the only example, Indonesia, Singapore, China, India, South Korea
and Malaysia followed a similar path of development.
Economists have studied how poor nation become rich have
always identified common factors:
- Internal investment on manufacturing infrastructure
- Tariffs and quotes to protect their developing industry
- An independent currency that fluctuates
- Avoidance of only selling basic commodities
- Replacement of imports with indigenous replacement
product
- Economically active sub-regions with combination of city
and rural zones
- Good prices from the city for rural products
This worked for the American Founding Fathers as they
struggled against British Corporations and it led to the 1789
infant industry protection act in the US. Despite the success of
the US and Europe with their single-currency systems there is
some evidence to suggest that multiple local currencies that
float against each other can also be successful as it was for
the Romans at the height of their empire. One currency over a
multi-country region can lead to a centralisation of wealth to
one physical location. Just look at London or Milan - they are
fabulously wealthy whilst the furthest reaches of the country
resides in poverty. The single currency of India may have lead
to the impoverishment of the countryside.
The flip side of the 'vibrant city' argument is that the
modern city, with its sprawling suburban developments, is not
sustainable after peak oil. In our energy descent the future
city will be a much smaller affair and much closer to the size
of the cities of the ancients. They will only survive for as
long as they can be sustained by the agricultural hinter-land.
Only the use of fossil fuels has allowed city-sprawl to grow
their unfeasible sizes that they are today. The suburbs must
return to farm land. Office & Apartment blocks will be replaced
by human-scaled developments less reliant upon electricity and
that modern wonder - the lift. Sure the future 'city' may be a
center for commerce and trade at the local level, but it will be
a much greener, flatter, slower place. People will walk or cycle
to work rather than drive. The days of the megapolis are
numbered. This won't be a bad thing.
Well Being
Ladakh is a region of the Himalayas within India. It has one
of the harshest climates on earth - either baked by the hot sun
in Summer or below freezing for the rest of the year. Resources
are minimal but the communities that live there only import two
commodities: salt and tea. There is no waste. They work hard and
play hard. They keep their own rules and the difference between
work and play is fluid. When it is cold outside they throw
festivals of parties and storytelling. By Western Standard these
people are in poverty - in urgent need of "development".
However, none is required. The Ladakhis are happy. So happy that
western observers couldn't understand why. (One recalls the
words of Tevye - the Jewish milkman in "Fiddler on the Roof" -
who describes his daughter and son-in-law as being "so happy
they don't know how miserable they are".)
The Chilean Economist Manfred Max-Neef has made a career of
studying the poor amongst indigenous communities and suggests
there are nine basic human needs:
- Subsistence - food & shelter
- Protection - security
- Affection - love & family
- Understanding - education
- Participation
- Leisure
- Creation - skills & work
- Identity - a sense of belonging
- Freedom - autonomy, rights, dissent
Most people would be as happy as they could be if all nine
conditions were met or maximised. The UK's New Economics
Foundation found that, despite ever-increasing material wealth
in Britain, all measures of "quality of life" had fallen since
1976. The reasons are clear, money does not appear on the list
of nine. What money can supply effects only four of the nine.
Over half the factors cannot be met by rising income. Any
imbalance between the nine and misery results. An affluent
society with no community participation leads to social
exclusion and crime. Lack of affection or loss of identity
amongst the very wealthy can lead to depression and suicide.
Consumerism doesn't make you happy. Most if the measurable index
of happiness relates to grass-root developments and cannot be
imposed from the outside. It is one of the reasons why
well-intentioned development imposed by Western outsider
has so often failed to help the third world.
Bhutan is small kingdom in a similar position to Ladakh. It
has become a well known example of just how happy a population
can be without western "development". Why the fame? Because on a
measurable scale of human happiness they rank at the top.
Compare the US, it is 150th out of 178. The UK is 108th. Yet
Bhutan is also in the top ten of the United Nation's list of
least developed nations. However, Bhutan has no hunger, the
people are well clothed, there are no slums. Maybe, by way of
explanation for this extraordinary phenomena, it is worth
mentioning that, until recently, its borders were closed.
Although a Monarchy the National Assembly can force the King to
abdicate by two-thirds majority vote. However the National
Assembly has largely devolved its responsibilities to the
regions. In turn each region has delegated power to the villages.
These delegated powers include control over their budgets. It
actively works to keep its people happy. These may be utterly
extraordinary to Western concepts as to how an economy is meant
to work. Surely they should be maximising Gross National Product
in monetary terms? The answer is no.
Every decision in this tiny kingdom is tested against their
effect upon the people and environment. Timber used to be
exported but its loss was eroding the hillsides so it was
stopped. Sure the GNP of the country would fall but the people
were happier knowing the mountains wouldn't crush them as they
slept. Surely a good trade? Plastic bags are forbidden because of
concerns over dioxins when they are burnt. People use paper bags
made from local bushes, not the trees. All Bhutanese build their
own home. There is no commercial company building homes in
Bhutan. They are all self built. Houses are made of mud and
wood. They are not made to last. Without care they will
quickly turn to soil from whence they came.
Western attitudes to measuring human well-being in only
monetary terms seems and absurdity to the Bhutanese. As we noted
above most of the factors that make people happy have no
economic value. Taking time of work to care for a baby can be
life affirming but leads to a drop in GNP due to lack of
earnings. Detonating a bomb on an Underground Train leads to
increased GNP as the Emergency services become busier. The
system is built around competition rather than collaboration.
The NEF (New Economics Foundation) measures human wellbeing
through the "Happy Planet Index" (HPI). It measures the
efficiency in which an economy uses natural resources to deliver
human wellbeing. It includes measures for life satisfaction,
life expectancy and ecological footprint.
Thomas Hobbes was a 17th Century Philosopher who gave us a
very unpleasant legacy. He planted the seeds of an idea that has
refused to go away despite all the evidence to the contrary. He
gave us the idea that "pre-civilised" humanity lead a brutal and
nasty existence. We see this view today still perpetuated in our
movies and books. Reality is starkly different. Studies of
African Bushmen showed they spent between three and five hours a
day looking for food. Over the last few hundred years
"civilised" man has regarded such hunter-gatherers as being in
the way or in need of clothing, houses, plumbing and other
facets of modern life. Despite being forced onto marginal land
as they "got in the way" these bushmen lived a long and rich
existence. Nature was good to them and they lived in balance
with it. Such a pastoralists make the best use of natural
resources and are as much as ten times more productive that
mechanized commercial farming or ranching. Their areas have far
higher biodiversity and the unploughed land retains its role as
a carbon sink not source.
Such indigenous peoples also have a rich tradition of
cooperation. Their societies are egalitarian and consensus
based. With such little time devoted to finding food most of
their time is spent resting, telling stories, playing music,
dancing, setting the world to rights, playing with their
children and so on. Who in our "civilised" world enjoys this
amount of freedom and personal time away from work? The adivasi
indigenous people of Gudalur (southern India) of a forest
dwelling people with no need or concept of land ownership. Water
and air were commonly owned and available for all. Such
attitudes wee irrelevant to the British Empire who simply sold
the land under the impression that it was empty and somehow
going to waste. Tea corporations stripped out the forest and
planted their crops forcing the adivasis to the margins. The
only way to secure their rights were to plant crops but the
forest rangers intervened to destroy both crops and adivasis
homes.
In 1984 some 2000 adivasis families clubbed together for
their rights. They organised protests and launched their own
business plan. They created their own Tea Plantation with a loan
from a German Community. Profits were ploughed back into the
whole community. Individuals refused to profit. They simply
could not see themselves as individuals. Without the whole
community they were nothing. If there was great disparity of
wealth between rich and poor they believed their community would
disintegrate. The adivasis did not regard themselves as poor.
They simply didn't have a lot of money. During exchange visits
to Europe the adivasis were stunned at the appalling social
problems they saw. In Scotland they saw areas where every home
had luxuries inconceivable to them, yet few men had jobs and
alcoholism & depression were common. In Germany they try to
grapple with the idea of an old people's home. The idea of
children sending their parents or grandparents away to live
alone was alien to them. They were horrified. The adivasis have
security in their community and surroundings. They look after
it, it looks after them.
In 1948 José Figueres, president of Cost Rica, disbanded the
Army. Instead its budget was handed over to schools,
universities and hospitals. The utilities were nationalised as
were the banks. A wealth Tax followed alongside other social
reforms such as expanding the voting population to include women
and Caribbean immigrants. Needless to say such Communist
nonsense would not be tolerated by the US in its own 'backyard'.
Like Cuba and Venezuela - Costa Rica was too good and example to
the rest of South and Central America. It had to be stopped.
They attempted to assassinate him - twice, but failed. There was
a failed US-backed coup in 1950. However, it survives as a
stunning example o this day. It is free of US bases and has
never been invaded. So much for the use of an Army!
Cost Rica is a democracy and within the top 50 countries in
the UN's Human Development Index. The population are well
educated making it a popular place for foreign investment. The
population are also far from stupid. Recent privatisations
forced on the country by the IMF caused widespread rioting! One
former President described Costa Ricans as having "...cultivated
a civilised spirit antithetical to militarisation and violence,
capable of finding peaceful solutions to conflicts and
respectful of the rights of others. Today, people [..] have
become fully convinced that a country that organises an army
becomes its own jailer." Maybe all of the rich world's concerns
about 'security' and 'defence' is just an excuse to have a
military force that can keep the poor people at bay...
America is so detached from a model of human development that
almost ANY example is better. Consider Japan. The big money
media paint a picture of the US Economy as being "robust" and
"dynamic" whereas Japan's is considered "stagnant" and
"failing". Why is this when nothing could be further from the
truth? We confuse the money-driven instincts of inernational
capital markets for the reality on the ground. The Japanese is
to be envied in so many ways. It is the most egalitarian of all
developed countries and the Japanese people have high incomes,
more savings, longer lives and better health than Americans.
Accoridng to Margaret Legum's "It Doesn't Have to be Like This"
(2002) the Japanese work LESS hard than Americans to achieve
greater benefit. They pay lower taxes (12% versus 16%) but get
more services. Healthcare is universal and practically free. The
Japanese are worldy-wise and take their holidays abroad in great
numbers unlike the US (where 92% don't own a passport).
Americans spend more than they earn but in Japan they save 13%
of their earnings.
No wonder the Americans complain about the Japanese - they
clearly are not spending enough to consume American goods and
services! Every Japanese house has a TV, 90% a microwave, 85% a
car, 40% a PC and 39% a set of Golf Clubs. The heart attack rate
is one third of that in the US. They get divorced half as much
whilst crime is one third and murder one sixth that in the US.
More Japanese 18 year olds go to college than do Americans. The
Japanese read twice as many books. Whilst there are 700,000
homeles in America they ae hardly any in Japan. The entire world
would be better off for being just a little more Japanese and
just a little less American. All they need is Hollywood and the
model would be complete with its own propaganda machine. As it
is our western lives are filled with American propaganda that
suggest that the Japanese are inscrutable aliens who just aren't
quite human because they have social structures less driven
towards individualism. Japanese industry is far more energy
dense, ie, far less energy inefficient, than the US. They simply
make far more with far less. They had to. Japan has no domestic
oil, gas or coal. Yet they came to dominate the post-war world
through their exports. What extraordinary human capital!
Great Links
|
