Perhaps a simple example will help explain.  Consider that the computer screen remains black when you press the on-button.  What do you do?  Do you initiate an investigation of the internal switching mechanisms?  No, of course not!  Instead of examining the switching assembly and all other internal connections you should first look at the basic source that provides the energy for it to run; you look to see if it is plugged in and also whether the outlet to which it is plugged is ‘hot’.  The most basic, and often the simplest approach, usually offers the best solution, so begin by asking the basic questions.  Don’t get caught up in the all the branches and leaves, until it is necessary.

Simply seek first to understand the root dynamic of the system before placing both attention and effort on what are most likely problematic symptoms.  Attending to the leaves—and they are numerous—before gaining understanding whether the root dynamic is operating as intended will have you twisting and turning in all sorts of ways.  You will waste a lot of time and energy trying to solve a problem you have never taken the time to identify.  The symptom will subside but the problem will remain alive and kicking only to bring forth another symptom in the near future.

Unfortunately many are blocked from following this principle simply because they allow themselves to be deceived by their very own thoughts (which are usually strongly held beliefs).  They tend to be good symptom reducers but not so good problem resolvers.  Believe it or not there are people who actually trust all the thoughts their thinking has produced—as if their way of thinking presents what is true, absent of error and bias.  And how do they know that what they believe is right?  Silly, their thoughts tell them so!

Back To Basics

Let’s return to the issue of Krugman’s article, the seemingly persistent high unemployment rate that is symptomatic of a depressed economy.  So the basic question is, is the root reinforcing cycle of the economy functioning as intended?  That is, is it plugged in to an active energy source and is there a sufficient flow of energy to turn the cycle?

The basic dynamic is the consumption-production cycle.  That is, consumption leads to the need for production, which in turn provides income for people to act on the demand (i.e. unmet or unsatisfied needs and wants) and consume.  As demand increases—which arises from unmet or unsatisfied needs and wants along with the marketing, advertising and sales efforts of business—then the need for more production emerges providing more jobs thus increasing the ability for more people with sufficient disposable income to consume. As money flows the cycle continues.

The question then becomes is consumption sufficient enough to cause adequate production affording enough people disposable income enabling them to meet their needs?  That is to say, is the cycle a positive reinforcing cycle or is extraction happening causing a decrease in money circulating throughout the system?

Causing an Uncertain Future

When the number of people employed is minimized the resultant level of consumption will also move toward a minimum, which will likely not be sufficient to support increased production and additional jobs.  So when business management strives to maximize its short-run gain by minimizing the employee’s gain, they are in effect diminishing the flow of money through the system, a system upon which they depend and thus have a need for it to be strong.  A strong economy means less uncertainty.

However, as more businesses follow suit in squeezing what they can out of people, that in time, the diminished flow of money through the economy will cause a weak and even possibly a depressed economy.  Not understanding having a laser-like focus on short-term self-serving gain often is the cause of future pain, business leaders might wonder why future prospects are not as favorable for them—and any everyone else for that matter—and perhaps place blame on outside factors for this uncertain future.

Currently although productivity has increased—more specifically efficiency, doing more with less—the squeeze on jobs has diminished consumption (demand).  Even though the need to consume is there, the means (income) to fulfill the demand is not.  Money is not circulating.  As metaphor consider the economy as a water balloon where at one end is the owner/capitalist and at the opposite end is labor/general public.  Squeezing the water balloon at the opposite end will cause the owner/capitalist end to expand, leaving no more water to flow from the labor/general public end.

Today we have a squeezed balloon: businesses have laid-off millions of people and have since re-hired very few.  The effect is that money isn’t flowing throughout the system. Corporate profits are up and so too is executive compensation.  Money is accumulating and expanding the upper end of the balloon. Accordingly the flow of money at the opposite end amounts to a few drops and a trickle and a trickle can’t possibly keep things going. Once you drain the well, water can’t flow.

The inequality in realized gains, especially since the 2008 financial crisis, has left a select few with hoards of money and the masses in debt with very little income for consumption.  Corporations have been sitting on a tremendous amount of cash that diminishes the amount of money circulating through the system.  Accumulating and hoarding money—keeping it all for one’s self—is counterproductive to maintaining a growing economy. Essentially the cycle is unplugged; trickle economics is a myth.

Role of Money

A critical role of money is for circulation through the economy, not merely profit accumulation, since it is through the exchange of money that the economy is sustained and accordingly the supply of money increases which is a requirement for economic growth.  Let us not forget that commercial banks add to the supply of money, not by holding and hoarding it as deposits, but by leveraging deposits in lending money to people and businesses for investment—it is this investment that circulates money and strengthens the economy.  The point being that the circulation of money is instrumental to the health of the economy.  If circulation is cut off to a segment of the economy then that segment will die leaving the economy less capable of survival—all segments are needed.

Until people are provided the means for which to fulfill their needs and wants, demand can’t be fulfilled.  The consuming public hasn’t the money to exchange for goods and services, to keep money circulating.  Since the public hasn’t the means, then someone else—that’s either government or corporations or both—must step up and invest to increase the flow of money in and through the economy.

Clearly things are not functioning right!  According to Krugman there are many economist advancing the thought that the problem with the economy is structural, not functional.  That there are plenty of jobs but there is a mis-match between the knowledge and skills workers offer and the knowledge and skills jobs require.  Really!

Shifting the Burden

When either experienced skilled people or recently graduated college educated people can’t get a job then we have to begin wondering exactly what kind of work corporations are now performing that they weren’t prior to 2008!  Just what are they doing that work/business-experienced and educated people can’t learn if provided the opportunity?

If the answer is that business now requires different knowledge and skills than it did prior to 2008, then what exactly has fundamentally changed in the work of the business? If the work has fundamentally changed since 2008, how can those who are leading it do so without themselves needing to learn the new business?  If the work of the business has changed so fundamentally why then aren’t the leaders providing the necessary training so that those with education and work experience can learn how to do what is now needed? Why don’t leaders want to invest in the future of their business?

If this is not possible, if the educated and experienced people available can’t learn what is required, then how is it possible that those who led these organizations prior to 2008 today have the knowledge and skill to do so in light such a fundamental change in the work of the business?  When and how did their metamorphosis occur?

Could it be that hiring people will increase costs and moreover hiring and training people will add even more costs?  Could it be that business leaders are simply viewing all costs as an impediment to securing maximum short-term profit for themselves and major shareholders?  Could short sightedness be the cause of the difficulty?  Could it be that the sole intent of the business minded is to make profit, not products and services, and so (to them) profit is profit no matter the means?  Could it be that business leaders seek only to feed off the economy?

Getting the most out of people is not a bad thing but in the extreme it translates into squeezing the life out of them.  As Deming exclaimed, “beat horses and they will run faster—for a while.” Doing more with less implies squeezing more and more out of people until they drop.

When is the extreme pursued?  When the goal is to maximize profit: when corporations squeeze whatever is left to get just that much more profit. From a previous post, according to Ethan Harris, chief economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, “companies are squeezing their labor costs to build profits.”  Moreover, as noted in an interview with the Huffington Post, Kathy Bostjancic, director for macroeconomic analysis at the Conference Board “most of the productivity gains have gone to corporate America and stock prices.”

Our economic system rests on the belief that it is just if those who don’t benefit sacrifice for those who do.  We don’t have to go to China to find evidence of workers sacrificing in service to corporate gain the history of work in U.S. industrial society shows both wages and working conditions were abysmal.  It is only through the efforts of an organized labor movement beginning in the late 1800’s (e.g. Haymarket Square) that humane treatment (e.g. living wages, 8-hour work day, safe working conditions etc) to those laboring to do the work has been realized.

Perhaps today’s corporate overlords are seeking to return to the good ole days for the sake of greater profits.  Consider the following from a previous post

The two-tier wage structure of the Chrysler Corporation (as well as in GM and Ford) wherein labor for their U. S. manufacturing is hired at the rate of $14/hour.  Some might say this creates more jobs, but if the jobs weren’t there already a low hourly rate wouldn’t create them.  That is to say, it doesn’t create jobs it just makes it far more profitable for corporations who have the work to hire people to perform that work.  It appears that it is an issue of where corporations make more with the cash they have on hand, in the financial markets or in the labor market. The guiding premise is if a corporation can get people to work for far less (or nothing) it could make a lot of money!

Gains for Me

The notion that productivity gains drives higher standards of living beneficial to society is only true to the extent that people in society—beyond the shareholders and executives—participate in the gains in productivity. According to an August 17^th 2011 article by Jim Zarroli (a business reporter for NPR), “the U.S. economy may be slowing to a crawl, but a lot of individual companies are richer than ever.” Moreover, a 2011 report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) shows that between 1979 and 2007 income grew by 275% for the top 1% of households, 65% for the next 19% and under 40% for the next 60%, with the bottom 20% of households only realizing an 18% growth.  Clearly the further away from the top the further away are the benefits.

In light of the current higher productivity levels and the greater number of people who are either unemployed or underemployed clearly more are benefiting less.  Why?  To a large extent the corporations are in business solely for their own self-serving purposes—the business of business is profit for top executives and major shareholders. It seems doing more with less translates into a select few realizing most of the benefit.

If, in general, fewer and fewer people directly participate in the benefits from productivity gains then the resultant higher standards of living become society’s burden.  With fewer and fewer sharing the benefits there are more and more moving closer to the edge of poverty.  Society as a whole suffers as the income inequality gap widens, as evidenced by the research of Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett presented in their book, The Spirit Level.

Since many of society’s corporations receive support and advantage from society—extracting from society whatever they can for self-serving purposes—without providing commensurate return, they could be considered parasites rather than partners of society. Progress in society cannot possibly be realized under a system where everyone is in it for him or her self—such a system subverts progress.

Doing More For More (of us)

However if the intent of the business enterprise is improving quality, not maximizing profit, then as Deming’s chain reaction indicates productivity would not only improve, the company would capture the market with better quality and lower prices as well. This enhances its competitive advantage and increases the company’s viability—portending a favorable future—enabling it to provide more jobs.  In this view of business, more and more people win—customers, shareholders, executives, employees, suppliers and society!  Deming learned from his decades of helping companies improve quality, “improvement of quality begets naturally and inevitably improvement of productivity”.

So the fundamental question is whether this society is a society of ‘We’ or of ‘Me’.  That is, whether we are in this society with a commitment to the advancement of our collective wellbeing or with a commitment to advancing one’s self-interest.  If the former then we rise and fall together and if the latter we all fall (eventually) as we each struggle alone, except of course those at the top.  Every person for him or her self is not the way to a better society for all or a sustainable society.

For all of us to realize the benefits from increases in productivity we need to transcend self-interest.  The responsibility of business is not merely the simplistic notion of maximizing profit for the owners and executives. Decisions based solely on what’s in it for me brings disorder to and the dissolution of society—it is just plain suicidal.

Wanted: Leaders for Action

Bostjancic recognized the need for corporations to begin hiring in order for demand to increase leading to the need for the production of more products/services—a growing economy. Bostjancic also notes the difficult decision corporate executives have before them saying “it’s very difficult to stand out like that and to be bold because if no one else is doing it, and you’re proven wrong, you could be penalized.” And Bostjancic continues, “if the economy does turn down, then you’ve over-hired, you’ve over-invested.”  One is frozen against taking action if and only if: a) one fails to understand that having sufficient income enables consumer demand that causes the need for production; b) one doesn’t understand that money is the energy transferring substance in an economy and only if it flows can the economy remain vibrant; and c) one lacks the courage to lead.  Waiting for someone else to make the decision you are unwilling to make is not the way of leadership.

It is time for businesses to be led by those who manage business with a different mind—a caring mind.  Because organizations are reciprocally interdependent with society and the environment, viability any human activity system necessarily requires ethical, social and environmentally responsible action.  The leaders of business we need are not narrowly and superficially fixated on maximizing material self-interest—exploiting whatever they can. The leaders we need critically think about the underlying precepts of our current system and understand how detrimental it is to our collective wellbeing and the viability of a business enterprise to continue following the herd.

If they are in deed leaders then they will cease merely following and erroneously believing that what’s in it for me is all that matters.  They will cease being parasites and have the courage to act as partners to society.

Growing economies are growing not because business executives react to and feed off them, they are growing economies because true leaders proactively contribute to their (continued) viability.  They don’t just extract from others they invest in others.

It’s About Me

As Adam Smith stated in The Wealth of Nations, “every man . . . is much more deeply interested in whatever immediately concerns himself than in what concerns any other.”  Upon acknowledging this fact, if Smith proceeded to fashion constraints to this in his system of political economy then there likely would be a foundation of shared or public morality.  However Smith proceeded to construct his system making use of this self-interest premise.  Accordingly, his system of economics sets for each of us the aim of material self interest maximization.  Recall the familiar assertion by Smith “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.  We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.”  When it is all about ‘me’ getting ‘mine’ there is no shared morality.  It is an egoistic system resting solely on self-interest.

Clearly the notion of self-preservation translates into selfishness, wherein there is no concern for any or all other selves. Each individual in society is to enhance his/her condition materially, thus maximizing his/her own pleasure.  The only thing we share is a concern for our individual freedom to act as unencumbered independent beings.

Though there is shared concern for individual freedom, this concern is quite individualistic—what is shared is a concern for ‘me’.  Since each ‘me’ is different we are not really concerned about the same thing.  So you are on your own, and you best watch out for #1.

It was good ole Adam himself who advocated for individual business to produce and amass wealth at will without hindrance from government or concern for inevitable limits of natural resources—remember he was seeking an alternative to colonialism and the mercantile system practiced in the 18^th century.

The idea that the conduct of business in society is no concern of government is an reductionist idea that emerged from 17^th century Newtonian mechanics way before quantum mechanics in the 20^th century revealed our deep interconnectedness.  In spite of this, we still hold on to the false belief that we each are independent—individualism not interconnectedness remains operative—and so we feel we must act solely out of selfish concern.  So we can see the origins of the lack of concern for the environment and for society by the business-minded among us.  Perhaps it is time people updated their beliefs and understanding of the nature of reality!

It’s About We

Since morality (and its partner ethics) have to do with an expanded concern for the other and all others, an economic system not having concern for anyone other than ‘me’ has no inherent moral requirements.  Moreover such a system has little relevance in a deeply interconnected world.  Tacitly perhaps we believe the invisible hand—which is a kind of imaginary friend—will somehow ensure our self-serving actions will add up to a positive for society as a whole.  Who ‘me’ worry about what the impact of my actions on others might be!  That’s what the invisible hands are for!  I guess the imaginary helping hands were all tied up during the years leading up to 2008!

Being independent means one doesn’t affect the other; that is everyone benefits from his/her own actions and no one suffers from the actions of others.  If we were in deed independent beings—as our economic system has us believe—the effects of our actions would be purely and simply summative—just actions, no interactions.  In this case acting without the possibility of impacting others would result in greater wealth in sum total.

Unfortunately this is not what happens: It’s a nice neat theory but nasty and messy when put into practice because it is a flawed theory—one that clearly requires the influence of imaginary helping hands.

Morality Is About Broadening Our Concern

Robert Reich concludes his argument for the need for public morality “It’s time once again to save capitalism from its own excesses — and to base a new era of reform on public morality and common sense.”  On the first point, given that capitalism is absent of morality by design is it really capitalism that must be saved?  This is like advocating for maintaining the incidence of criminal activity because it keeps the police and the courts busy and industrious.

However we do need a new era of reform on morality.  To this end we should cease complaining about the lack of morality and ethics while at the same time holding in reverence and thus defending one of the chief causes, capitalism. Since we are inextricably interdependent and deeply connected—not independent—we mustn’t continue following a system that is flawed in its basic premise.

It is time to save our selves from committing suicide by our adherence to an egoistic economic system.  It is time to envision an entirely different way of conducting business.

As for the second point, common sense, it is just as imaginary as the invisible hands. If it was common then we wouldn’t complain so much about its general absence: Really no one seems to have it except the one complaining about the other’s lack of it.  Perhaps common sense is not so common after all!

According to Milton Friedman societal concerns are government’s responsibility.  As Friedman stated “there is one and only one social responsibility of business–to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.” This line of thinking, in light of the influence that corporate self-interest has on formulating law—the very rules of the game they are to stay within—has tragic consequences for everyone.

The focus of concern is so limited that it’s as if business operates only in markets and not in society—society is merely on the side.  I suppose in this sense it is market failure because the market does not reflect the societal cost of business decisions, and accordingly the business enterprise does not incur these costs.

Business Operates In Society Not On Society

Kochan asserts “what’s good for individual U.S. companies is no longer automatically good for business nationwide, for U.S. workers, or for the economy.”  As if it ever truly was!  When was this ever really the case? This growing disconnect is not so much about a failing market as it is about a system of orientation, a mindset destined to fail.  That is, what we believe about ourselves and the purpose of business are at the root of what we are now experiencing.

Kochan does acknowledge the alignment of needs between the U.S. business community and the U.S. economy, seemingly suggesting that these institutions have things in common.  He identifies a few characteristics of our current situation that collectively amount to (as he stated) a “perfect recipe for decline and a terrible legacy to leave to our children and grandchildren”:

• K-12 student performance that’s failing fast relative to that of comparable countries
• Companies invest far less than they used to in worker training
• Many jobs go unfilled because companies say they can’t find workers with the skills they need
• A large and growing population of people who have been unemployed for so long that they no longer look for work
• Wages have been stagnant for three decades, except in the case of the top 1%
• The gap between top earners and all others is greater than at any time since the 1920’s
• Unions are attacked as part of the problem, not (as they could be) part of the solution to these challenges.

These are not because of market failure but rather because the system of orientation (the mindset) of leaders in business and government—their beliefs and the way they think—doesn’t reflect an understanding of systems.  Seemingly those in authority are oblivious to the fact that everything is connected to everything else and so they decide and act as if things are independent.  Thus the unit of survival to them is them and their corporation.  However this does not negate the fact that nothing is just individually separate and independent, even though we structure life in society as if things were—this is the root of many of our socio-economic crises.

So what we have are decision-makers whose decisions have influence on life in society yet they have: limited scope of concern; a view of the future as a linear sum of short-terms; and a relationship to people as objects having only instrumental value in service to their self-interest.  We have business management with a myopic focus on results, especially those in the short-term, and correspondingly a preference for divesting not investing, coupled with decisions by elected government officials guided (if not directed) by their pursuit of their material self-interest.  Thus there is collusion between moneyed interests of private business and political parties—it is a fixed system—that in effect diminishes if not disregards concern for the collective ‘we’ of society (except of course in election years).  So what does this get us?  Kochan’s list (above) is a short list but an important list of observations emerging from the system we’ve created.

It’s a Tragedy

A few points on the list, when looked at together, suggests a deeper underlying dynamic.  For example, companies investing far less than they used to in worker training, many jobs going unfilled because companies say they can’t find workers with the skills they need and unions are attacked as part of the problem together indicate a shifting the burden dynamic is likely operative.  In a Huffington Post article on skills mismatch Andrew Sum (Northeastern University Economics professor), concluded from his analysis of data from The Bureau of Labor Statistics there is no “credible evidence of anything approaching a shortage in manufacturing workers anywhere in the country.”  In the same article Paul Osterman, professor of management at MIT stated “firms are always interested in shifting the costs of training to the public sector.”  So what we have is moneyed self-interest trumping collective interest in the interest of maximizing self-interest—a real tragedy of commons.

A tragedy of commons is not merely the fact that we share a common tragedy.  If the current situation was in deed just a common tragedy, then the institutions simply getting together—as Kochan suggests—to alleviate the common problem might be all that is needed.  Unfortunately given the root cause of the situation, what getting together absent of proper guidance would do is provide opportunity for more collusion.  This would lead to short-term symptomatic relief to appease the collective ‘we’ of society while (hidden from view) the select group of individuals (persons and corporations) would continue advancing their self-interests ensuring the underlying dynamic remains operative.

But we aren’t suffering from a common tragedy, what we have is a tragedy of commons where decision-makers see themselves as individual actors and fail to understand how deeply interrelated we are—concern is self concern not universal concern.  What is not included in the decision-making is what we have in common: our humanity, our environment, and life itself.

Seeing Wholes Is Critical

We are deeply and inextricably holarchically related, which means we shouldn’t act as if we are independent entities each seeking to maximize (our) self-interests.  We can’t proceed as if we aren’t highly interdependent and still maintain our viability.  For example if we are team of people then the team is comprised of a network of helping relationships and if we do things that destroy these relationships then we in effect will destroy the team.  In other words, we can’t forsake our constituent parts—which are systems as well—and expect to continue to exist.  We exist as living systems within living systems—wholes within greater wholes—and therefore we must think and act with this in mind.

An industry or a corporation that defiles or debases its environments as it pursues maximum monetary return cannot survive over the long term. So when we think about the unit of survival, we discover that it is not our little corner of the world, it is not our corporation or our industry, but rather the system and its relationship with other interdependent systems.  Holding this perspective, those in authority of an industry or a corporation would not consider itself the unit of survival but rather it is the industry or corporation plus its energy providing environments (which includes not only the natural environment but also society and the system of humankind). Polluting one’s source of life’s energy is not the way to sustainability and viability.

Until we change our system of orientation—the assumptions and beliefs we hold in mind that direct our decisions and behavior—we will not extricate ourselves from the situation we have created.  Like a boomerang the problems will keep coming back.  Paraphrasing Einstein, we can’t solve problems with the same level of thinking that created them.

What we are experiencing is the effect of the confluence of egoism, materialism and reductionism circumscribed in a mechanistic world-view—systems thinking is nowhere to be found in either development programs or education.

Therefore, what we (first) have is a meta-problem; an inability to correctly understand the problem because our system of orientation renders the underlying issue imperceptible. So we end up offering a solution to a symptom—treating symptoms—not the problem.  No wonder our problems recur, although with possibly different players but it’s the same problem nonetheless!   Ours is a problem of mindset not markets.

Accordingly a free (unregulated) market is the answer to everything, since it is the mechanism affording unfettered self-interested action that makes for the invisible hands to do their work.  What’s the solution to our economic crisis? Allow the self-interest of those with the most—the winners—to be enacted without constraint and in so doing it will help the rest of us be winners—ah the wonders of the invisible hand doing their trickle-down thing.  What’s the solution to our educational problems?  Enable profit-seeking organizations to provide an educational experience to society’s children.  What’s the solution to our healthcare system problem?  Put healthcare in the hands of profit maximizing insurance and pharmaceutical companies.  In general what’s the answer to how to provide society’s services (apart from national defense) to its citizens?  Privatize, because the business minded can solve it all!  That is except for the many recurring problems in business they themselves create and can’t quite resolve.

Only the foolish seriously expect to realize improvement by intensifying commitment and effort toward the very same thing that created or caused the current situation.  Doubling down on a losing hand is losing strategy—it is sure way to accelerate loss.  Or as the tribal wisdom of the Dakota Indians asserts, “when you discover you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount.” For example (staying with the Dakota Indian analogy) in business we get a stronger whip by raising standards, holding people accountable and exhorting others to get better results.  Since we are seeking to turn educating children into a business we employ the same but stronger whip—we double down.  We even go further and hire outside firms to ride the horse (we put education in the hands of profit-maximizing organizations).  Not surprisingly, with our market-based solutions to education we see no real lasting improved system of education.

It’s Heresy

Those who question capitalism—those who think critically about it and want to improve it—are heretics, heathens and worse socialists.  Unless you fall in line, you fall out of favor! If you can’t credibly argue the veracity of your belief—if you haven’t facts to support your argument—then the only recourse is to disparage those who bring it into question. Thus name-calling is clearly a reactive response in defense of an unsupportable position.

Who are the ones disparaging those who seek a better way?  Usually it is those who benefit (most) from the way things are.  So it is a good idea to challenge the real motive of those calling people who ask ‘what if questions’ heretics.

Be a Heretic

Yet because of the power of and propaganda from those benefiting from the way things are and not critically thinking about the why of things, our past continues to overtake our future. The habits of thought we’ve been following are no longer serving our collective interest—they are not serving society as a whole.  We must acknowledge that the fundamental set of beliefs and practices that we have embraced are no longer helpful toward guiding behavior and structuring life in society.   If we wish a better reality, then we need to enact a better belief system.

Where is it proven as an immutable fact that people are at base selfish?  If this was so, how do you explain people risking their life to save others—doesn’t this smack right up against self-interest? Where is it proven to be an immutable fact that markets require short-term profit maximization as the dominant motive? We can only change what is by changing how we think about ourselves. If we wish to experience a better reality, then we need to enact a better belief system.  Its time we change our errant ways.

Our economic system has no (explicit) concern for ‘we’ in its design, it is all about ‘me’ getting what I can for ‘myself’—it is best labeled an egoistic economic system.  The pursuit of material self-interest is the guiding principle for all action.

It promotes (and requires) a belief system about what being human means that is narrow and thus limiting.  That is, it rests upon people believing they are at base individualistic, selfish, materialistic and competitive.

As discussed in It’s the EconoMe, Stupid, society to the egoist is “nothing but the sum of the actions of each individual; it is nothing apart from what each individual separately contributes to it” and what one can extract from others.

Making Society In Service

While most acknowledge that democracy is of, for and by the people, it’s objective is also to afford individual freedom in life in the pursuit of liberty and happiness. Since democracy is about having a society of free individuals it is rather easy to mold it into a system in service to egoistic economics.  That is, given the focus on individual freedom and without a similar compelling vision of a collective ‘we’—everyone’s responsibility to each other, to community—democracy is easily hijacked by self-interest.  Everyone believing in self-interest is not the same as people having a shared common interest.

Happiness when viewed through the lens of egoistic economics becomes the egotistical ‘Me’ having ultimate freedom to maximize ‘My’ profit. The story is that if you do what is expected, if you work hard in striving to maximize your material self-interest then you too will realize happiness.  If you don’t realize happiness then it is your fault, after all as the story goes we are all independent individuals each seeking our own gain. You’re on your own and should be lovin it! (That is if you are among the few who can win.) While this is an alluring story, it is also a foolish story to believe.

Think Again, Critically

Just a little inquisitiveness and critical analysis with an open mind would reveal that no one ever got what they have without the cooperation and help of others.  Each individual would be lost without the support and help of  ‘We’.

Thus we understand that life in society is not simply a collection of independent individuals bumping into each other as each exercises their notion of individual liberty to have it all for ‘Me’. The fact is that we need each other for more than the satisfaction of our material desires. We are not simply instrumental to each other’s needs. While our economic system would have us believe this for the sake of maximizing our self-interested desire to consume we are not mere cogs in this machinery.

It is a fact that each is an individual whole person and just as factual each is part of the whole of human society. That is, while you and I are different individual ‘I’s’ we are not separate ‘Me’s’.  This ‘I’ that I am and the ‘I’ that you are are deeply connected. And by acknowledging and acting on this connection we can become a ‘We’.  In our society we can sustain the unity implied by us being in this particular society.

Accordingly, we each must recognize our I-We nature and the dual responsibility that this implies.  Forsaking either one we forsake our self.  We have a very deep interpenetrating responsibility to each other’s unfolding, and therefore each of us is incomplete without each other.  As noted by Amitai Etzioni “the I’s need We to be” (The Moral Dimension). To treat anything collective with contempt is to disdain human society itself; the same can be said about the individual.  Moreover, with morality and ethics requiring a concern for ‘we’ a society of individuals where ‘me and mine’ is what’s important would find it impossible to avoid becoming an unethical society.

To hear people speak disparagingly about ‘those people who rely on society’s assistance’—you know the poor who have not gotten ahead on their own—you would think that they themselves took no help from society whatsoever.  They seem unable to understand that if not for society—especially the government policies written to favor their interests—the current gains they enjoy would not exist.  They wouldn’t have so much to love about ‘your on your own economics’ if the politicians they paid for hadn’t helped them to make the vast majority of gains derived from society their gain.

The collusion among moneyed interests and government—private business and political parties—is tantamount to injecting steroids into self-interested behavior.  It is nothing short of pure greed.  But in the context of egoistic economic society greed is good; the 1987 movie character, Gordon Gekko, and his 21^st century real life incarnates on Wall Street tell us it is so.  It is because of greed that the drive for getting and having goes forever unsatisfied ensuring a consuming and acquisitive society.  This has transformed what could have been a society of equals in regards to political power into a system for maximizing gain for a select group.

With money equating to speech, those with the most money overwhelmingly have the most say; the converse being those with the least money have the least say.  When money matters the people with money matter more!

It Can Be Better

In a culture that’s all about me getting it all for me, it is a bit naive to believe that those who rigged the system to serve their material self-interest will actually change things for the benefit of everyone.  You see the system is not at all broken, it is working just fine doing what it is rigged to do.  It is not that those in authority don’t know what to do to right the ship: It is that they haven’t the will to do what is right for the benefit of all.  We mustn’t forget that universal care and compassion is anathema to the greedy.

What we are facing is a self-imposed crisis of will.  We participate in the creation of our reality by acting on what we believe about our selves.  Having the will to change enables our ability to change. Where there is a will there is (always) a way also implies where there is no will there is no way.

Preserving What Is

In a self-interest based culture most people’s concern is a narrow (self-interest) concern.  Appealing to the general narrowness of concern among the citizens political parties readily gain support from various self-interest groups by creating fear among the people that their interest is at risk.  Such a strategy tends to be divisive (it creates an ‘us versus them’ mentality) which is exactly what those seeking to control the thinking of their audience requires.  If I can get you to think other citizens are detrimental to your interest and that I am on your side then you will support me, which is in my interest—after all my interest is what I really care about.  Facts must not get in the way of ‘me’ getting ‘mine’.

Political campaigns have devolved into medicine shows where each seeking election is selling his/her brand of snake oil while at the same time casting opponents and their supporters as the enemy as they play upon the fears of the audience’s narrow self-interest.  So election after election, congressional session after congressional session nothing fundamentally really changes.   It is the same wine in a different bottle.

So the assumption of egoistic economics (which guides the functioning of American society) that if you attend first and foremost to your self-interest—in the extreme holding supreme your liberty to do as your self-interest desires—then eventually and unintentionally everyone will benefit is at best clearly false and at worst destructive to society.  If America is the United States, then what is it that they are united about?  What is it that unites them?

The Root of It All

So what’s the problem with American democracy?  Egoistic economics is the problem! Self-interest can’t possibly unite!  Having only concern for me and mine is not the way to a well functioning sustainable human society—it is more the making of an unruly unethical collection of divisive groups.  Each seeking self gain does not lead to a unified effort toward a future better than the present.

Organizations that are sustainable are not designed and managed this way, so why would anyone believe society without a unifying vision that binds people together would have a chance of sustaining itself?  A wise businessperson would not even try to design and manage an organization wherein everyone is out for him or herself and where no one has concern for and commitment to the collective known as the organization.

It should be quite clear that a functioning viable society must advocate equally for individual and community—for the ‘I’s’ and ‘We’—since they are complimentary (and necessary) components of a wholesome society.

For more than 30 years there has been a downward trend in the household income of the vast majority of people (yes the 99%) while the income of the remaining 1% trended upward.  Fortunately for the remaining 1% benefiting from this widening income gap, the gradual decline (i.e. year-to-year incremental change) in real income among the majority of citizens went largely undetected—people didn’t realize how hot the water is getting.

Gradualism Abruptly Ended

However the greed among the 1% who created the mortgage-based casino game to feed their addiction to ever increasing monetary gain led to the disastrous 2008 financial collapse.  It punctuated what had been an insidious trend.  Accordingly what had been previously tolerated and/or unnoticed was now brought to the conscious awareness of a sizable portion of the 99%–all of a sudden it got a lot hotter.

Because of capitalism’s grounding in material self-interest maximization, this situation and situations like this are inevitable.  The insatiability of material gain—one can never have enough—and the auto-correlative nature of competition—winners are most likely to win next time—make for the perfect storm.  This is especially the case in a society wherein the wealthy has the greater voice.

Since the 1% really needs the cooperation of the 99% for their game playing to continue, it is now up to the frog.  Does the frog continue in the same body of water—continue cooperating in the same system—with only the promise from those—the 1% winners—in control of the temperature that they won’t do it again? Does the frog demand that those in control of the temperature be constrained in the changes that can be made to the temperature?  Does the frog demand that the control of the temperature be taken out of the hands of the 1%?  Does the frog demand that a different body of water—a different system—be provided that would ensure a livable environment for all to enjoy?

To continue saying that it is broken suggests that all that is needed is a little repair when in fact what is needed is critical thinking: It is a fundamentally flawed system that has infiltrated the very workings of democracy.

In the existing system our choices range between unfairness and fraud, from a little greed to a lot of greed.  Greed won’t allow itself to be regulated: Such an idea runs counter to its very essence!

Thus, if the Occupy movement allows itself to be colonized by a political party—beware of the demagogues—then it will render itself ineffective toward calling for and facilitating fundamental change.

If we are to have a serious conversation, then that conversation can’t begin with the aim of fixing a broken system, it must begin with the intent of revolutionizing the system.  What is required is a majority that continually challenges the status quo by asking what if things don’t have to be as they are.

You see no matter how corrupt the system, it does require the cooperation of the people adversely impacted for the system to continue as it is.  So squelching or disparaging protesters increases the likelihood that cooperation will continue.  However, once a critical mass stops going along with the way things are, then what can be becomes probable.  Hence the power of non-violent movements!

However the price one pays for his/her education should be commensurate with the ability that his/her education provides him/her to pay for it while at the same time affording the necessities of a healthy life.  But the value of learning is not solely for the money it affords.  Learning is far more fundamental and essential to the human condition than that! That is to say, we shouldn’t educate people for the sole purpose of providing labor to feed the economic system we must educate to develop human beings—if we intend to have a humanly productive society.

Which brings us to the issue of improving the quality of education.  The many solutions offered thus far are grossly off the mark!  Union busting is likely a tactic in support of the desire to privatize the system, to enable profiteering.  This will not ensure quality any more than it has ensured the quality of the products and services we purchase from private corporations.  Also blaming teachers (i.e. the worker) for poor quality, a common practice of American management, will not result in improved quality.

Of course teachers change student’s lives, but so too does everyone else and everything they interact with—like parents, society and community culture. The way to a value-added system of education is not through union busting or accountability for results or any other such reductionist tactic.  The way to an improved system is through an unwavering commitment to quality—period.

A ‘what if question’ is the key to unlocking and opening one’s mind to other possibilities.  So those participating in Occupy Wall Street are calling for new thinking that will lead to a better future for all, and not just a select few.

There are people who benefit from the way things are, so ideas that require change will always have resistors.  Consequently there are those who can’t think anew, who can’t or won’t entertain the possibilities of what thinking anew might bring.  Why?  Likely they can’t bear the thought of giving up what they gain from the way things are, even if the new idea will benefit everyone in the long run.  So they pursue thoughts of why we can’t change what is, thus diminishing the likelihood of things changing.  Further, those who are really consumed by fear disparage and demonize those calling for change in an effort gain support for their resistance.

This is often experienced in organizations.  Many never even recognize the need to change because those in authority become so attached to the idea of what they’ve been that they can’t think (imagine) about being anything else.  For example Kodak, the leader in film photograph, could not think anew so now it is an icon of an outdated idea, film photography.

Invariably, what if questions challenge assumptions and beliefs underlying the generally accepted reality of the way things are.  But reality is not something out there, it has its beginning in the mind of people.  If this were not the case then the United States would not have emerged and organizations that seem inextricably part of life in our society would not exist.  That is, reality is not something we merely react to it is something that we actually participate in creating and sustaining.  Simply put, reality requires our cooperation!

For example, our elected officials require people to elect them: why else would big business and other special interest groups invest so much in a candidate in the election process?  In effect we don’t choose whom we would like as our elected officials, our choices are restricted to whom the money backers want.  We can’t expect those who control and benefit from what is to change what is.  Evidence of this is seen in the inability of politicians to even limit contributions to political campaigns. Just think: What if there was an election and nobody showed up to elect them?

What’s the implication?  If you don’t like the reality you have then cease your cooperation with the system that it rests upon!  If you don’t like the reality of your experiences then act according to new beliefs that will provide different experiences.

As discussed in a previous article, if we want a different reality then we must actually enact it. Reality won’t change if first we don’t change our thinking about our selves! Wanting change is not sufficient; we must change our mind—changing the ideas and beliefs we hold—in order to embody the change (in reality) we desire.

At base the intent of a protest is to communicate the need to change what is by raising the awareness of the need and building a critical mass of people for the change. As long as people do not challenge what is assumed unchangeable then what is will remain as it is.  In short, our past will be our future! Why should anyone or any group be given the power to require this to be so?  So there must always be what if’s and we must seriously engage with those who raise them!

What if our system of government was a democracy and not a plutocracy? What if we’ve been structuring society and (our) life according to a fallacy?  What if we aren’t as materially driven as the system of economics has led us to believe and live? What if maximizing your material self-interest was not the way to joy in life?  What if your job was a joy?  What if flow of money throughout society meant something other than trickledown from the wealthy elite?   What if the way things are didn’t have to be as they are?  What if those in authority didn’t recoil against challenging ideas?  What if we all were critical thinkers?  What if you actually gave serious focused attention to these questions?