You are on page 1of 23


Political Religious Insidious Charlatan Kleptocracy media inciting Fickle Inherent Bias Ignorant Bliss A curia plural curiae is an assem!ly council or court in which pu!lic o""icial or religious issues are discussed and decisions made. In ancient Rome the entire populace was di#ided into thirty curiae which met in order to con"irm the election o" magistrates witness the installation o" priests the making o" wills and adoptions. $esser curiae e%isted "or other purposes. &he word curia also came to !e applied to meeting places where #arious assem!lies gathered especially the meeting house o" the senate. 'imilar institutions e%isted in other towns and cities o" Italy. In medie#al times a king(s council was "re)uently re"erred to as a curia. &oday the most "amous curia is

the Curia of the Roman Catholic Church
which assists the Roman Ponti"" in conducting the !usiness o" the Church.*+, Political Religious Implicit Complicit -%plicit PRICPolitical Religious Insidious Capitalist -mperors $ike other "inancial empires in history 'mith claims the contemporary model "orms alliances necessary to de#elop and control wealth as peripheral nations remain impo#erished pro#iders o" cheap resources "or the imperial.centers.o". capital.*+, Belloc estimated that during the British -nclosures /perhaps hal" o" the whole population was proletarian/ while roughly the other /hal"/ owned and controlled the means o" production. 0ow under modern Capitalism 1.2. 'mith claims "ewer than 344 people possess more wealth than hal" o" the earth5s population as the wealth o" +/6 o" +.percent o" the 7nited 'tates population roughly e)ual that o" the lower 84. percent. /&hy kingdom come/ 9c Pig 9usical Chairs Puppets in glomming Puppets in :o#ernance 9edia -lusi#es

PI: 9&he re)uest "or :od(s kingdom to come is usually interpreted as a re"erence to the !elie" common at the time that a 9essiah "igure would !ring a!out a Kingdom o" :od. &raditionally the coming o" :od(s Kingdom is seen as a di#ine gi"t to !e prayed "or

not a human achievement.
&his idea is "re)uently challenged !y groups who !elie#e that the Kingdom will come !y the hands o" those "aith"ul to work "or a !etter world. It is !elie#ed !y these indi#iduals that 1esus( commands to "eed the hungry and clothe the needy are the Kingdom to which he was re"erring.

PI: 9-;2
Puppets in :o#ernance 9edia -lusi#es ;pposition 2e! 2e all pay the PR ICE Political Religious Imperialist Corporation -conomics +

A corporation is considered !y the law to e%ist as a legal person.
And the electorate is the epitome o" sel".awareness rationality and sapience eh< -#eryone knows a legal person is !roke===>umans >umans ?known

as >omo sapiens *@,*A, $atin "or /wise man/ or /knowing man/B*3, are the only li#ing species in the >omogenus. Anatomically modern humans originated in A"rica a!out 644 444 years ago reaching "ull !eha#ioral modernity around 34 444 years ago.*C, >umans ha#e a highly de#eloped !rain and are capa!le o" a!stract reasoning language introspection and pro!lem sol#ing. &his mental capa!ility com!ined with an erect !ody carriage that "rees the hands "or manipulating o!Dects has allowed humans to make "ar greater use o" tools than any other li#ing species on -arth. ;ther higher.le#el thought processes o" humans such as

sel".awareness rationality and sapience *E,*F,*8,
are considered to !e de"ining "eatures o" what constitutes a

Facts must ha#e root 6 take root :od coherency /Catch 66/ must ha#e sem!lance 6 catch do: chase tail

And they laugh at lemmings too

6 -conomic democracy From 2ikipedia the "ree encyclopedia 1ump to: na#igation search -conomic democracy is a socioeconomic philosophy that suggests a shi"t in decision.making power "rom a small minority o" corporate shareholders to a larger maDority o" pu!lic stakeholders. &here is no single de"inition or approach "or economic democracy !ut most theories and e%amples challenge the demonstrated tendencies o" modern property relations to e%ternaliHe costs su!ordinate the general well. !eing to pri#ate pro"it and deny economic policy decisions.*+,

the populace majority a democratic voice in

Classical li!erals argue that the power to dispose o" the means o" production belongs to entrepreneurs and capitalists, and can only !e ac)uired !y means o" the consumers( !allot held daily in the marketplace.*6, /&he capitalistic social order/ they claim there"ore /is an economic democracy in the strictest sense o" the word./*@, Critics o" this claim point out that consumers only #ote on the #alue o" the product when they make a purchaseI they are not #oting on who should own the means o" production who can keep its pro"its or the resulting income redistri!ution. Proponents o" economic democracy generally agree there"ore that modern capitalism tends to hinder or pre#ent society "rom earning enough income to purchase its output production. CentraliHed corporate monopoly o" common resources typically "orces conditions o" arti"icial scarcity upon the greater maDority resulting in socio.economic im!alances that restrict workers "rom access to economic opportunity and diminish consumer purchasing power.*A,*3, As either a component o" larger socioeconomic ideologies or as a stand.alone theory some theories o" economic democracy promote uni#ersal access to /common resources/ that are typically pri#atiHed !y corporate capitalism or centraliHed !y state socialism. Assuming "ull political rights cannot !e won without "ull economic rights *+, economic democracy suggests alternati#e models and re"orm agendas "or sol#ing pro!lems o" economic insta!ility and de"iciency o" e""ecti#e demand. As an alternati#e model !oth market and theories o" economic democracy ha#e !een proposed. As a re"orm agenda supporting theories and e%amples range "rom decentraliHation and economic li!eraliHation to democratic cooperati#es "air trade and the regionaliHation o" "ood production and currency. *edit, Je"iciency o" e""ecti#e demand /2orkers spending their wages is one source o" e""ecti#e demand/ claims geographer Ja#id >ar#ey. /But the total wage !ill is always less than the total capital in circulation ?otherwise there would !e no pro"itB so the purchase o" wage goods that sustain daily li"e ?e#en with a su!ur!an li"estyleB is ne#er su""icient "or the pro"ita!le sale o" the total output./ *C, According to many proponents o" economic democracy the most fundamental economic problem is that modern society does not earn enough income to purchase its output production. 2hile !alanced mi%ed economies ha#e e%isted !rie"ly throughout history some analysts agree that command economies tend to dominate listing contemporary e%pressions o" state capitalism as an e%treme e%ample not an e%ception to the rule.


As common resources are monopoliHed !y imperial centers o" wealth and power

conditions of

scarcity are imposed artificially upon the greater maDority
economic im!alance.*3,

resulting in large.scale socio.

In any economic system /wealth/ includes all material things produced !y la!or "or the satis"action o" human desires and ha#ing e%change #alue. $and and la!or are generally considered the two most essential "actors in producing wealth. $and includes all natural opportunities and "orces. $a!or includes all human e%ertion. Capital includes the portion o" wealth de#oted to producing more wealth. 2hile the income o" any indi#idual might include proceeds "rom any com!ination o" these three sources Kland la!or and capital are generally considered mutually e%clusi#e "actors in economic models o" the production and distri!ution o" wealth. According to >enry :eorge /People seek to satis"y their desires with the least e%ertion/.*A, >uman !eings interact with nature to produce goods and ser#ices ?productsB that other human !eings need or desire. &he laws and customs that go#ern the relationships among these entities constitute the economic structure o" a gi#en society. In his !ook A"ter Capitalism Ja#id 'chweickart suggests /&he structure o" a capitalist society consists o" three !asic components: &he !ulk o" the means o" production are pri#ately owned either directly or !y corporations that are themsel#es owned !y pri#ate indi#iduals. Products are e%changed in a /market/I that is to say goods and ser#ices are !ought and sold at prices determined "or the most part !y competition and not !y some go#ernmental pricing authority. Indi#idual enterprises compete with one another in pro#iding goods and ser#ices to consumers each enterprise trying to make a pro"it. &his competition is the primary determinant o" prices. 9ost o" the people who work "or pay in this society work "or other people who own the means o" production. 9ost working people are /wage la!ourers./*E, 2hile supply and demand are generally accepted as market "unctions "or esta!lishing price the present "inancial price system is not sel".li)uidating.*F, Corporate "irms typically endea#or to +B minimiHe the cost o" production and 6B increase sales in order to @B ma%imiHe shareholder #alue. But when consumers cannot !uy all the goods !eing produced /in#estor con"idence/ tends to decline triggering declines in !oth production and employment. According to many analysts such economic insta!ility stems "rom a central contradiction: 2ages are !oth a cost o" production and an essential source o" e""ecti#e demand ?needs or desires !acked with purchasing powerB. 9oreo#er /those who produce the goods and ser#ices o" society are

paid less than their

productive contribution".*E,
*edit, 'a#ings in#estment and unemployment In his +FE8 !ook Progress and Po#erty >enry :eorge argued that a maDority o" wealth created in a /"ree market/ economy is appropriated !y land owners and monopolists through economic rents and that concentration o" such unearned wealth is the root cause o" po#erty.*A, /Behind the a!straction known as A

(the market( lurks a set o" institutions designed to ma%imiHe the wealth and power o" the most pri#ileged group o" people in the world .. the creditor.rentier class o" the "irst world and their Dunior partners in the third/.*8, According to some modern analysts pri#ate sa#ings are not only unnecessary "or economic growth !ut they are o"ten harm"ul to the o#erall economy.*E, In an ad#anced industrial society !usiness credit is necessary "or a healthy economy. A !usiness that wants to e%pand production needs to command the la!or o" others and money is an e""ecti#e mechanism "or e%ercising this authority.*E, It is o"ten cheaper "or a !usiness to !orrow capital "rom a !ank than to stockpile cash itsel". &his was the purpose o" the state !anking system in the 7.'. prior to the Ci#il 2ar. For an industrial "irm in an age o" continued technological inno#ation a considera!le amount o" earnings must !e retained in order to in#est in "uture impro#ements.*+4, I" pri#ate sa#ings are loaned out to entrepreneurs who use them to !uy raw materials and hire workers then aggregate demand is not reduced.*E, >owe#er when pri#ate sa#ings are not rein#ested the whole economy su""ers recession unemployment and the e#entual disappearance o" e%cess sa#ings.*E, By assuming that producers immediately spend the money they recei#e as the price "or goods and ser#ices 'ay(s $aw o#erlooks the key "act o" retained earnings. -#en i" the retained earnings are deposited in a !ank they will not necessarily result in new spending. For a #ariety o" reasons most nota!ly the necessity o" retained earnings and the inclusion in prices o" the costs o" !orrowing su""icient income is ne#er returned to the producing economy in order "or people to purchase what can !e manu"actured.*+4, In this #iew unemployment is not an a!erration o" capitalism indicating any sort o" systemic mal"unction. Rather unemployment is a necessary structural "eature o" capitalism intended to discipline the work"orce. I" unemployment is too low workers make wage demands that either cuts into pro"its to an e%tent that DeopardiHe "uture in#estment or are passed on to consumers thus generating in"lationary insta!ility. Ja#id 'chweickart suggests /Capitalism cannot !e a "ull.employment economy e%cept in the #ery short term. For unemployment is the

/in#isi!le hand/
.. carrying a stick .. that keeps the work"orce in line./*E, In this #iew Adam 'mith(s /in#isi!le hand/ does not seem relia!le to guide economic "orces on a large scale.*+, Assuming !usiness credit could come "rom pu!lic sources rather than "rom the accumulations o" pri#ate sa#ers some analysts consider interest payments to pri#ate sa#ers !oth undeser#ed and unnecessary "or economic growth. 9oreo#er the personal decision to sa#e rather than consume decreases aggregate demand increases the likelihood o" unemployment and e%acer!ates the tendency toward economic stagnation. 'ince wealthy people tend to sa#e more than poor people the propensity o" an economy to slump !ecause o" e%cess sa#ing !ecomes e#er more acute as a society !ecomes more a""luent.*E, &he research o" Richard 2ilkinson and Kate Pickett suggests that health and social pro!lems are signi"icantly worse in more une)ual wealthy nations.*++, &hey argue that there are "pernicious effects that ine)uality has on societies: eroding trust increasing an%iety and illness ?andB encouraging e%cessi#e consumption/ *+6, *edit, 9onopoly power #ersus purchasing power &he discipline o" economics is largely a study o" scarcity management. /A!sent scarcity and alternati#e uses o" a#aila!le resources there is no economic pro!lem/.*+@, In this regard many theories o" -conomic 3

Jemocracy hold that conditions o" scarcity are arti"icially maintained !y corporate structures that con"ine a!undance to an e%clusi#ely entitled minority. In this #iew socio.economic im!alance stems not "rom a "ailure to manage limited resources in a world o" scarcity !ut "rom mismanagement o" #irtually unlimited a!undance and prosperity.*3, In his !ook $a!or and ;ther Capital ?+FA8B American !usinessman -dward Kellogg ?+E84L+F3FB said that:

"Money po er is not only the most go#erning and in"luential

!ut it is also the

most unjust

and deceitful of all earthly po ers. It entails upon millions e%cessi#e toil
perform any productive labor./*+A,

po#erty and want while it keeps them ignorant o" the cause o" their su""eringsI "or with their tacit consent it silently trans"ers a large share o" their earnings into the hands o" others who ha#e never lifted a finger to

2hile he considers these "unctions a pu!lic wrong Kellogg also asserts it is the responsi!ility o" the pu!lic to "ind and implement a remedy. :enerally considered monopoly power this /pu!lic wrong/ is #iewed !y many as the most in"luential "actor in arti"icial scarcity. In this regard >enry :eorge "urther suggests: /&here is in reality no con"lict !etween la!or and capitalI the true con"lict is !etween la!or and monopoly... A!olish the monopoly that "or!ids men to employ themsel#es and capital could not possi!ly oppress la!or... *R,emo#e the cause o" that inDustice which depri#es the la!orer o" the capital his toil creates and the sharp distinction !etween capitalist and la!orer would in "act cease to e%ist/.*+3, 2hile some consider land to !e the primary source o" wealth others propose the la!or theory o" #alue ?"irst introduced !y 1ohn $ocke de#eloped !y Adam 'mith and later Karl 9ar%B arguing that la!or is the "undamental source o" #alue. In these terms /money is "irst and "oremost a contract against another person5s la!or. -%cept "or wealth produced !y nature #alue is properly a measure o" the time and )uality o" all producti#e la!or spent producing a product or ser#ice. I" the di""erence !etween the payment recei#ed "or producti#e la!or and the price paid !y the consumer "or a product or ser#ice is greater than "air #alue "or e%pediting that trade either the producer was underpaid the "inal consumer was o#ercharged or !oth. 2hen intermediaries underpay producers or o#ercharge consumers they are siphoning a ay the production of the labors o" one or the other or !oth./*+,*+C, For e%ample many analysts consider in#ention a /more or less costless store o" knowledge captured !y monopoly capital and protected in order to make it secret and a (rare and scarce commodity( "or sale at monopoly prices. 'o "ar as in#ention is concerned a price is put on them not !ecause they are scarce !ut in order to make them scarce to those who want to use them./*+E,*+F,*+8, Patent monopolies capitaliHe stock #alues "ar a!o#e tangi!le la!or #alue. &he di""erence !etween la!or.#alue and monopoly.#alue is trans"erred to consumers in the form of higher prices, and collected as /pro"it/ !y

intermediaries ho have contributed nothing to earn it.*+8,
7nder such conditions analysts generally agree that society does not currently earn enough to !uy what the economy produces. &he di""erence !etween earnings

and prices is typically appropriated by industrial and ban!ing centers of capital through monopoly control o" "inance and other

market resources. 'uch e%clusi#e entitlement tends to arti"icially impose conditions o" economic scarcity upon the maDority o" the population.*3, 2hile the accelerating ad#ance o" technology de#eloped and maintained !y la!or tends to generate a #irtually unlimited a!undance this process also dri#es wages down as workers are replaced !y machines ironically minimiHing the purchasing power o" workers in the market.*64, In 1une 644C in#estment !ank :oldman 'achs reported: /&he most important contri!ution to the higher pro"it margins o#er the past "i#e years has !een


decline in "abor#s share of national income."
*edit, -nclosure o" the commons &he term /land/ typically denotes the /uni#erse o" natural opportunities/ or /pu!lic utilities/ generally known as the commons. Arti"icially restricted access o" la!or to common resources is generally considered monopoly or enclosure o" the commons. Jue to the economic im!alance inherently imposed such monopoly structures tend to !e centrally dictated !y imperial law and must !e maintained !y military "orce une)ual trade agreements or !oth.*A, In +8++ American Dournalist Am!rose Bierce de"ined /land/ as: /A part o" the earth(s sur"ace considered as property. &he theory that land is property su!Dect to pri#ate ownership and control is the "oundation o" modern society.... Carried to its logical conclusion it means that some ha#e the right to pre#ent others "rom li#ingI "or the right to own implies the right e%clusi#ely to occupyI and in "act laws o" trespass are enacted where#er property in land is recogniHed. It "ollows that i" the whole area o" terra "irma is owned !y A B and C there will !e no place "or J - F and : to !e !orn or !orn as trespassers to e%ist/.*6+, In &he 'er#ile 'tate ?+8+6B >ilaire Belloc re"erred to the -nclosures 9o#ement when he said

"England as already captured by a ealthy oligarchy before the series of great industrial discoveries began". I" you sought the accumulated
wealth preliminary to launching new industry /you had to turn to the class which had already monopoliHed the !ulk o" the means o" production in -ngland. &he rich men alone could "urnish you with those supplies/. 2hen Adam 'mith wrote &he 2ealth o" 0ations in +EEC the dominant "orm o" !usiness was partnership in which regional groups o" co.workers ran co.owned !usinesses. From this perspecti#e many considered the corporate model L stock sold to strangersKinherently

prone to fraud.
2hile numerous scandals historically support this dim #iew o" corporate policy


partnerships could not possibly compete with the aggregate capital generated !y corporate
economies o" scale. According to Peter Barnes author o" Capitalism @.4 the greatest ad#antage o" corporations o#er any other !usiness model is their a!ility to raise capital "rom strangers. In this regard corporations are aided !y laws that limit stockholders5 lia!ility to the amounts they ha#e in#ested.*66, In A Pre"ace &o -conomic Jemocracy Ro!ert A. Jahl suggests that agrarian economy and society in the early 7nited 'tates /underwent a re#olutionary trans"ormation into a new system o" commercial and industrial capitalism that automatically generated #ast ine)ualities o" wealth income status and power./ Jahl claims that such ine)ualities result "rom the /li!erty to accumulate unlimited economic resources and to organiHe economic acti#ity into hierarchically go#erned enterprises./ *6@, *edit, &he rise o" corporations E

&he concept o" the corporation reaches !ack to Roman times. >owe#er according to author :reg 9ac$eod /the modern !usiness corporation e#ol#ed radically "rom its ancient roots into a "orm with little relation to the purpose as understood !y historians o" law./ 1ohn Ja#is a legal historian notes that the precursor o" the !usiness corporation was the "irst monastery esta!lished in the si%th century the purpose o" which was to ser#e society. 9ost !usiness corporations !e"ore +844 de#eloped in Britain where they were esta!lished !y royal charter with the e%pectation o" a contri!ution to society. Incorporation was a pri#ilege granted in return "or ser#ice to the crown or the nation. 9ac$eod goes on to say:

A corporation is considered !y the law to e%ist as a legal person. In the 9iddle Ages
it was called a Mpersona "ictaN. &his is a #ery use"ul way o" looking at a !usiness corporation !ecause it suggests correctly that the corporate person has a certain personality. It has duties and responsi!ilities #ested unto it !y the legitimate go#ernment or society that "ostered it.

$he corporate person receives great benefits from society L and

in return it must e%ercise great responsi!ilities. ;ne o" the most !asic responsi!ilities is Do! creation a "undamental need in any society./ *6A, By the mid.nineteenth century howe#er corporations could li#e "ore#er engage in any legal acti#ity and merge with or ac)uire other corporations. In +FFC the 7.'. 'upreme Court legally recogniHed corporations as MpersonsN entitled under the Fourteenth Amendment to the same protections as li#ing citiHens. 7nlike a#erage citiHens corporations also ha#e large "lows o" money at their disposal. 2ith this money they hire lo!!yists donate copiously to politicians and sway pu!lic opinion.

despite 'upreme Court ruling the modern corporation is not a real person. Rather the pu!licly traded stock corporation is what Barnes terms an /automaton/ e%plicitly designed to ma%imi&e return to an elite minority o" stock owners. A corporation ne#er
But sleeps or slows down. It e%ternaliHes as many costs as possi!le and ne#er reaches an upper limit o" pro"ita!ility !ecause no such limit has yet !een esta!lished. As a result corporations keep getting larger and more power"ul. In +833 sales o" the Fortune 344 accounted "or one.third o" 7.'. gross domestic product. By 644A they commanded two.thirds. In other words these "ew hundred corporations en#eloped not only the commons !ut also millions o" smaller "irms organiHed as partnerships or proprietorships. ;#erall corporations ha#e esta!lished a homogeneous glo!al playing "ield around which they can "reely mo#e raw materials la!or capital "inished products &hus sel".go#ernment and limited lia!ility. By the end o" the twentieth century corporate powerK!oth economic and political L stretched worldwide.

ta%'paying obligations, and pro"its. corporate "ranchise has !ecome a perpetual grant of so#ereignty including immortality

International agreements promoted !y the 7nited 'tates not only lowered tari""s !ut e%tended corporate property rights and reduced the a!ility o" so#ereign nations to regulate corporations di""erently.*66, Ja#id 'chweickart su!mits that such /hypermo!ility o" capital/ generates economic and political insecurity around the glo!e.*E,


/I" the search "or lower wages comes to dominate the mo#ement o" capital the result will !e not only a lowering o" worldwide wage disparities !ut also a lowering o" total glo!al income./ *E, At the domestic le#el ine)uities maintained !y corporate imperialism tend to result in the large.scale de!t unemployment and po#erty characteristics o" economic recession and depression. According to 1ack Rasmus author o" &he 2ar At >ome and &he &rillion Jollar Income 'hi"t income ine)uality in contemporary America is an increasing relati#e share o" income "or corporations and the wealthiest +. percent o" households while shares o" that income stagnate and decline

for ()'percent of

the *nited +tates or!force. A"ter rising steadily "or three decades a"ter 2orld 2ar II
the standard o" li#ing "or most American workers has sharply declined !etween the mid.+8E4s to the present. Rasmus likens the widening income gap in contemporary American society to the decade leading up to the :reat Jepression estimating /well o#er O+.trillion in income is trans"erred annually "rom the roughly 84.million working class "amilies in America to corporations and the wealthiest non.working class households. 2hile a hundred new !illionaires were created since 644+ real weekly earnings "or +44 million workers are less in 644E than in +8F4 when Ronald Reagan took o""ice/. According to Rasmus and other analysts this /)uarter century pay "reeHe/ imposed !y rapidly increasing control of ealth by the very rich, has resulted in innumera!le negati#e e%ternalities:*63, /For the "irst time since the 7.'. go#ernment !egan to collect the data in +8AE wages and salaries no longer constitute more than hal" o" total national income. In contrast corporate pro"its are at their highest le#els since 2orld 2ar II ha#ing risen dou!le digits e#ery )uarter in the last three and a hal" years alone and 6+.@P in the most recent year 6443 according to Jow.1ones (9arket 2atch(. Corporate pro"it margins are higher than they ha#e !een in more than hal" a century according to 9errill $ynch economist Ja#id Rosen!erg. A"ter ta% pro"its are now e)ual to F.3P o" the 7.'. :ross Jomestic Product .. that(s more than a trillion dollars .. and the highest since the end o" 2orld 2ar II in +8A3./*63, *edit, Imperialism :enerally considered the "orce"ul e%tension o" a nation(s authority !y territorial gain or !y the esta!lishment o" economic and/or political dominance o#er other nations some #iew imperialism as an ad#anced stage o" capitalism. &he merging o" !anks and industrial cartels gi#e rise to "inance capital which is then e%ported ?rather than goodsB in pursuit o" greater pro"its than the home market can o""er. Political and "inancial power is di#ided amongst international monopolist "irms and -uropean states coloniHing large parts o" the world in support o" their !usinesses.*6C, According to analyst 9ichael Parenti imperialism is "the process hereby the dominant politico'economic

interests of one nation e%propriate for their o n enrichment the land, labor, ra materials, and mar!ets of another people." *6E, Parenti says
imperialism is older than capitalism. But gi#en its e%pansionist nature capitalism has little inclination to stay home. 2hile he concedes imperialism is not typically recogniHed as a legitimate concept with regard to the 7nited 'tates Parenti goes on to argue: /-mperors and con)uistadors were interested mostly in plunder

and tribute, gold and

glory. Capitalist imperialism di""ers "rom these earlier "orms in the way it systematically
accumulates capital through the organi&ed e%ploitation of labor and the penetration o"
o#erseas markets. Capitalist imperialism in#ests in other countries trans"orming and dominating their 8

economies cultures and political li"e integrating their "inancial and producti#e structures into an international system o" capital accumulation./ *6E, ;n a glo!al scale wealthy de#eloped nations tend to impede

or prohibit the economic and technological advancement of ea!er developing countries through the military force, martial la , and ine,uitable practices of trade that typically
characteriHe colonialism. Rhetorically termed !y some as a /tragedy o" the commons/ /sur#i#al o" the "ittest/ or /might makes right/ proponents o" -conomic Jemocracy generally attri!ute such economic crises to the im!alances imposed !y corporate imperialism.*+, In his !ook -conomic Jemocracy: &he Political 'truggle "or the 6+st Century 1.2. 'mith e%amines the economic !asis "or the history o" imperial ci#iliHation. 1ust as cities in the 9iddle Ages monopoliHed the means o" production !y con)uering and controlling the sources o" raw materials and countryside markets 'mith claims that contemporary centers o" capital now control our present world through pri#ate monopoly o" pu!lic resources sometimes known as /the commons/. &hrough ine)ualities o" trade de#eloping countries are o#ercharged "or import o" manu"actured goods and underpaid "or raw material e%ports as wealth is siphoned "rom the periphery o" empire and hoarded at the imperial.centers.o".capital: /;#er eight.hundred years ago the power"ul o" the city.states o" -urope learned to control the resources and markets o" the countryside !y raiding and destroying others- primitive

industrial capital, thus openly monopoliHing that capital and esta!lishing and maintaining e%treme
ine)uality o" pay. &his low pay siphoned

the ealth of the countryside to the

imperial'centers'of'capital. $he po erful had learned to plunder'by'
trade and have been refining those s!ills ever since".
$ike other "inancial empires in history 'mith claims the contemporary model "orms alliances necessary to de#elop and control wealth as peripheral nations remain impo#erished pro#iders o" cheap resources "or the imperial.centers.o".capital.*+, Belloc estimated that during the British -nclosures /perhaps hal" o" the whole population was proletarian/ while roughly the other /hal"/ owned and controlled the means o" production. 0ow under modern Capitalism 1.2. 'mith claims fe er than .)) people possess

more ealth than half of the earth-s population, as the wealth o" +/6 o" +.percent o" the 7nited 'tates population roughly e)ual that o" the lo er /)'percent.
According to many analysts the 7nited 'tates has maintained some measure o" sta!ility !y economically dominating o" the rest o" the world as a means o" "illing the gap !etween production and consumption. Beginning with massi#e loans to -uropean com!atants during 2orld 2ar I and continuing through the program o" 2orld 2ar II 7.'. domination o" trade reached its peak through economic reco#ery measures "ollowing those wars. &hough "orming the !asis "or 7.'. prosperity during the +834s and +8C4s 7.' trade domination was e%hausted !y the mid.+8E4s when the 7nited 'tates implemented a policy known as dollar hegemony intended to sta!iliHe the economy.*64, 2ith a consistently negati#e trade !alance o#er the decades since some suggest the 7nited 'tates has compensated "or the gap !etween purchasing power and prices with a wide #ariety o" de!t in all sectors o" the economy. In this process many analysts claim that dollar hegemony has "looded the world with 7.'. currency loans or de!t instruments to support 7.'. "iscal and trade de"icits pay "or e%traordinary le#els o" 7.'. resource utiliHation induce foreign governments to purchase *.+. armaments, +4

ensure the allegiance of foreign governing elites, and maintain "oreign economies in
su!ser#ience through 2orld &rade ;rganiHation and International 9onetary Fund trade and lending policies.*3, *edit, Alternati#e models 2ith regard to closing the gap !etween production and purchasing power Jr. 9artin $uther King 1r. maintains: /&he pro!lem indicates that our emphasis must !e two."old. 2e must create "ull employment or we must create incomes. People must !e made consumers !y one method or the other. ;nce they are placed in this position we need to !e concerned that the potential o" the indi#idual is not wasted. 0ew "orms o" work that enhance the social good will ha#e to !e de#ised "or those "or whom traditional Do!s are not a#aila!le./*6F, But many analysts argue that !oth "ull employment and guaranteed !asic income are impossi!le under the restrictions o" the current economic system "or two primary reasons: First unemployment is an essential "eature o" capitalism not an indication o" systemic "ailure.*E, 'econd while capitalism thri#es under polyarchy it is not compati!le with genuine democracy.*E, 'uggesting that these /democratic de"icits/ signi"icantly impact the management o" !oth workplace and new in#estment *E, some proponents o" -conomic Jemocracy "a#or the creation and implementation of a ne economic

model over reform of the e%isting one.
According to most analysts a serious criti)ue o" any pro!lem cannot !e content to merely note the negati#e "eatures o" the e%isting model. 2e must speci"y precisely not only the de"ining characteristics o" the e%isting model !ut also the structural "eatures o" an alternati#e. 'uch a speci"ication is necessarily complicated since a modern economy is a complicated a""air. /But i" we want to do more than simply denounce the e#ils o" capitalism we must con"ront the claim that (there is no alternati#e( .. !y proposing one./*E, >ungarian historian Karl Polanyi suggests that the dri#e o" market economies should !e su!ordinate to larger societal needs. >e states that human.!eings the source o" la!or do not reproduce "or the sole purpose o" pro#iding the market with workers. In &he :reat &rans"ormation Polanyi says that while modern states and market economies tend to grow under capitalism !oth are mutually interdependent "or "unctional de#elopment. In order "or market economies to !e truly prosperous he claims social constructs must play an essential role. 2ith the term /"ictitious commodities/ Polanyi claimed that land la!or and money are all commodi"ied under capitalism though the inherent purpose o" these items was ne#er intended /"or sale/. >e says natural resources are / money is a !ookkeeping entry #alidated !y law and la!or is a human prerogati#e not a personal o!ligation to market economies. Jr. 9artin $uther King 1r. claims /Communism "orgets that li"e is indi#idual. Capitalism "orgets that li"e is social and the Kingdom o" Brotherhood is "ound neither in the thesis o" Communism nor the antithesis o" Capitalism !ut in a higher synthesis. It is "ound in a higher synthesis that com!ines the truths o" !oth/. *68, &rade unionist and social acti#ist Allan -ngler argues "urther that economic democracy is the working.class alternati#e to capitalism. In his !ook /-conomic Jemocracy/ -ngler states: /2hen economic democracy .. a world o" human e)uality democracy and cooperation .. is the alternati#e capitalism will no longer !e seen as a lesser e#il. 2hen the working class not a re#olutionary party is the agency o" social trans"ormation change will !e !ased on workplace organiHation community mo!iliHations and democratic political action. &he goal will !e to trans"orm capitalism into economic democracy through gains and re"orms that impro#e li#ing conditions while methodically replacing ++

wealth.holders( entitlement with human entitlement capitalist ownership with community ownership and master.ser#ant relations with workplace democracy./ *@4, Assuming that /democracy is not Dust a political #alue !ut one with pro"ound economic implications/ Ja#id 'chweickart suggests /the pro!lem is not to choose !etween plan and market !ut to integrate these institutions into a democratic "ramework/.*@+, According to 'chweickart economic democracy like capitalism can !e de"ined in terms o" three !asic "eatures: 2orker 'el".9anagement: -ach producti#e enterprise is controlled democratically !y its workers. 'ocial Control o" In#estment: Funds "or new in#estment are generated !y a capital assets ta% and are returned to the economy through a network o" pu!lic in#estment !anks./*E, &he 9arket: &hese enterprises interact with one another and with consumers in an en#ironment largely "ree o" go#ernmental price controls. Raw materials instruments o" production and consumer goods are all !ought and sold at prices largely determined !y the "orces o" supply and demand. In practice 'chweickart concedes economic democracy will !e more complicated and less /pure/ than his a!stract model. >owe#er to grasp the nature o" the system and to understand its essential dynamic it is important to ha#e a clear picture o" the !asic structure. Capitalism is characteriHed !y pri#ate ownership o" producti#e resources the market and wage la!or. &he 'o#iet economic model a!olished pri#ate ownership o" producti#e resources ?!y collecti#iHing all "arms and "actoriesB and the market ?!y instituting central planningB !ut retained wage la!or. Proposed models "or economic democracy generally !egin with a!olishing wage la!or. 'chweickart(s model goes "urther to a!olish pri#ate ownership o" producti#e resources. *E, ;ther proposals recommend abolishing the mar!et, as well. *edit, 2orker sel".management In his !ook /&he Jemocratic Firm/ #eteran -conomic Ad#isor "or the 2orld Bank Ja#id P. -llerman states: /In the world today the main "orm o" enterprise is !ased on renting human !eings ?pri#ately or pu!liclyB. ;ur task is to construct the alternati#e. In the alternati#e type o" "irm employment !y the "irm is replaced with mem!ership in the "irm. -conomic democracy re)uires the a!olition o" the employment relation not the a!olition o" pri#ate property. Jemocracy can !e married with pri#ate property in the workplaceI the result o" the union is the democratic worker.owned "irm./ *@6, -llerman maintains that the contract to !uy and sell la!or ser#ices is inherently in#alid !ecause la!or in the sense o" responsi!le human action is de "acto non.trans"era!le. &he rights to the positi#e and negati#e "ruits o" one5s la!or are thus inaliena!le rights. In )uestions o" go#ernance ?as opposed to productionB the emphasis is on decision.making ?as opposed to responsi!ilityB. But the !asic "acts are the same. Jecision. making capacity is de "acto inaliena!le. A person cannot in "act alienate his or her decision.making capacity Dust as he or she cannot alienate de "acto responsi!ility. (Jeciding to do as one is told( is only another way o" deciding what to do. &hus -llerman concludes it is not pri#ate property that needs to !e a!olished !ut the employment contract. In other words /a "irm can !e socialiHed and yet remain (pri#ate( in the sense o" not !eing go#ernment.owned./ *@6, In the proposals o" !oth -llerman and 'chweickart each producti#e enterprise is controlled !y those who work there. 2orkers are responsi!le "or the operation o" the "acility including organiHation discipline production techni)ues and the nature price and distri!ution o" products. Jecisions concerning proceeds distri!ution are made democratically. Pro!lems o" authority delegation are sol#ed !y democratic representation. 9anagement is not appointed !y the 'tate nor elected !y the community at large nor selected !y a !oard o" directors elected !y stockholders. 2hate#er internal structures are put in place ultimate authority rests with the enterprise(s workers one.person one.#ote. In Ja#id 'chweickart5s model howe#er workers control the workplace !ut they do not /own/ the means o" production. Producti#e resources are regarded as the collecti#e property o" the society. 2orkers ha#e +6

the right to run the enterprise to use its capital assets as they see "it and to distri!ute among themsel#es the whole o" the net pro"it "rom production. In 'chweickart(s model societal /ownership/ o" the enterprise mani"ests itsel" in two ways: All "irms must pay a ta% on their capital assets which goes into society(s in#estment "und. In e""ect workers rent their capital assets "rom society. Firms are re)uired to preser#e the #alue o" the capital stock entrusted to them. &his means that a depreciation "und must !e maintained. 9oney must !e set aside to repair or replace e%isting capital stock. &his money may !e spent on whate#er capital replacements or impro#ements the "irm deems "it !ut it may not !e used to supplement workers( incomes. I" a "irm is una!le to generate e#en the nationally.speci"ied minimum per.capita income then it must declare !ankruptcy. 9o#a!le capital will !e sold o"" to pay creditors. &he workers must seek employment elsewhere. In such economic di""iculty workers are "ree to reorganiHe the "acility or to lea#e and seek work elsewhere. &hey are not "ree to sell o"" their capital stocks and use the proceeds as income. A "irm can sell o"" capital stocks and use the proceeds to !uy additional capital goods. ;r i" the "irm wishes to contract its capital !ase so as to reduce its ta% and depreciation o!ligations it can sell o"" some o" its assets !ut in this case proceeds "rom the sale go into the national in#estment "und not to the workers since these assets !elong to society as a whole.*E, *edit, 'ocial control o" in#estment 7nder 'chweickart5s model o" -conomic Jemocracy a "lat.rate ta% on the capital assets o" all producti#e enterprises replaces all other !usiness ta%es. &his /capital assets ta%/ is collected !y the central go#ernment then in#ested !ack into the economy assisting those "irms needing "unds "or purposes o" producti#e in#estment. &hese "unds are dispersed throughout society "irst to regions and communities on a per capita !asis then to pu!lic !anks in accordance with past per"ormance then to those "irms with pro"ita!le proDect proposals. Pro"ita!le proDects that promise increased employment are "a#ored o#er those that do not. At each le#el national regional and local legislatures decide what portion o" the in#estment "und coming to them is to !e set aside "or pu!lic capital e%penditures then send down the remainder to the ne%t lower le#el. Associated with most !anks are entrepreneurial di#isions which promote "irm e%pansion and new "irm creation. For large ?regional or nationalB enterprises that need access to additional capital it would !e appropriate "or the network o" local in#estment !anks to !e supplemented !y regional and national in#estment !anks. &hese too would !e pu!lic institutions that recei#e their "unds "rom the national in#estment "und. -conomic Jemocracy does not depend on pri#ate sa#ings or pri#ate in#estment "or its economic de#elopment. In 'chweickart(s model !anks are pu!lic not pri#ate institutions that make grants not loans to !usiness enterprises. According to 'chweickart these grants do not represent /"ree money/ since an in#estment grant counts as an addition to the capital assets o" the enterprise upon which the capital.asset ta% must !e paid. &hus the capital assets ta% "unctions as an interest rate. A !ank grant is essentially a loan re)uiring interest payments !ut no repayment o" principal.*E, 2hile an economy o" worker.sel".managed enterprises might tend toward lower unemployment than under capitalism 'chweickart says it does not guarantee "ull employment. 'ocial control o" in#estment under this model o" -conomic Jemocracy ser#es to mitigate this de"ect. I" the market sector o" the economy does not pro#ide su""icient employment the pu!lic sector will pro#ide all !ut the most se#erely disa!led with the opportunity to engage in producti#e la!or. &he original "ormulation o" the 7.'. >umphrey.>awkins Act o" +8EF suggests that "ull employment can !e assured in a market economy only i" the go#ernment "unctions as the employer.o".last.resort. In -conomic Jemocracy the go#ernment assumes this role something a capitalist go#ernment cannot do. &hus social control o" in#estment also ser#es to !lock patterns o" cyclical recessionary unemployment typical o" capitalism.*E, *edit, &he market According to Ja#id 'chweickart -conomic Jemocracy is a market economy at least inso"ar as the allocation o" consumer and capital goods is concerned. Firms !uy raw materials and machinery "rom other "irms and sell their products to other enterprises or consumers. /Prices are largely unregulated e%cept !y +@

supply and demand although in some cases price controls or price supports might !e in order .. as they are deemed in order in most "orms o" capitalism./*E, 2ithout a price mechanism sensiti#e to supply and demand it is e%tremely di""icult "or a producer or planner to know what and how much to produce and which production and marketing methods are the most e""icient. It is also e%tremely di""icult in the a!sence o" a market to design a set o" incenti#es that will moti#ate producers to !e !oth e""icient and inno#ati#e. 9arket competition resol#es these pro!lems to a signi"icant i" incomplete degree in a non.authoritarian non.!ureaucratic "ashion. In 'chweikart(s #iew centraliHed planning is inherently "lawed and schemes "or decentraliHed non. market planning are unworka!le. As theory predicts and the historical record con"irms central planning is !oth ine""icient and conduci#e to an authoritarian concentration o" power. &his is one o" the great lessons to !e drawn "rom the 'o#iet e%perience. 'ince enterprises in -conomic Jemocracy !uy and sell on the market they stri#e to make a pro"it. >owe#er the /pro"it/ in a "irm is not the same as capitalist pro"it. It is calculated di""erently. In a market economy "irms whether capitalist or worker.sel".managed stri#e to ma%imiHe the di""erence !etween total sales and total costs. But "or a capitalist "irm la!or is counted as a cost. For a enterprise it is not. In -conomic Jemocracy la!or is not another /"actor o" production/ technically on par with land and capital. $a!or is the residual claimant. 2orkers get all that remains once!or costs including depreciation set asides and the capital assets ta% ha#e !een paid.*E, Because o" the way workplaces and the in#estment mechanism are structured 'chweickart(s model aims to "acilitate "air trade not "ree trade !etween nations. 7nder -conomic Jemocracy there would !e #irtually no cross.!order capital "lows. -nterprises themsel#es will not relocate a!road since they are democratically controlled !y their own workers. Finance capital will also stay mostly at home since "unds "or in#estment are pu!licly generated and are mandated !y law to !e rein#ested domestically. /Capital doesn(t "low into the country either since there are no stocks nor corporate !onds nor !usinesses to !uy. &he capital assets o" the country are collecti#ely owned .. and hence not "or sale./*E, According to 9ichael >oward /in preser#ing commodity e%change a market socialism has greater continuity with the society it displaces than does nonmarket socialism and thus it is more likely to emerge "rom capitalism as a result o" tendencies generated within it./ But >oward also suggests /one argument against the market in socialist society has !een that it !locks progress toward "ull communism or e#en leads !ack to capitalism/.*@@, &hus nonmarket #ersions o" economic democracy ha#e also !een proposed. *edit, Inclusi#e democracy 9ain article: Inclusi#e democracy -conomic democracy is descri!ed as an integral component o" an inclusi#e democracy in &owards An Inclusi#e Jemocracy as a stateless moneyless and marketless economy that precludes pri#ate accumulation o" wealth and the institutionaliHation o" pri#ileges "or some sections o" society without relying on a mythical post'scarcity state of abundance, or sacri"icing "reedom o" choice. &he proposed system aims to meet the !asic needs o" all citiHens ?macro.economic decisionsB and secure "reedom o" choice ?micro.economic decisionsB. &here"ore the system consists o" two !asic elements: ?+B democratic planning which in#ol#es a "eed!ack process !etween workplace assem!lies demotic assem!lies and the con"ederal assem!ly and ?6B an arti"icial market using personal #ouchers which ensures "reedom o" choice !ut a#oids the ad#erse e""ects o" real markets. Although some ha#e called this system Ma "orm o" money !ased on the la!our theory o" #alueN *@A, it is not a money model since #ouchers cannot !e used as a general medium o" e%change and store o" wealth. Another distinguishing "eature o" inclusi#e democracy is its distinction !etween !asic and non.!asic needs. Remuneration is according to need "or !asic needs and according to e""ort "or non.!asic needs. Inclusi#e democracy is !ased on the principle that meeting !asic needs is a "undamental human right which is guaranteed to all who are in a physical condition to o""er a minimal amount o" work. By contrast participatory economics guarantees that !asic needs are satis"ied only to the e%tent they are characteriHed pu!lic goods or are co#ered !y compassion and !y a guaranteed !asic income "or the unemployed and +A

those who cannot work.*@3, Although many ad#ocates o" participatory economics and Participism ha#e contested this. 2ithin the inclusi#e democracy proDect economic democracy is the authority o" demos ?communityB in the economic sphere K which re)uires e)ual distri!ution o" economic power. &here"ore all (macro( economic decisions namely decisions concerning the running o" the economy as a whole ?o#erall le#el o" production consumption and in#estment amounts o" work and leisure implied technologies to !e used etc.B are made !y the citiHen !ody collecti#ely and without representation. >owe#er /micro/ economic decisions at the workplace or the household le#els are made !y the indi#idual production or consumption unit through a proposed system o" #ouchers. As with the case o" direct democracy economic democracy today is only "easi!le at the le#el o" the con"ederated demoi. It in#ol#es the ownership and control o" the means o" production !y the demos. &his is radically di""erent "rom the two main "orms o" concentration o" economic power : capitalist and (socialist( growth economy. It is also di""erent "rom the #arious types o" collecti#ist capitalism such as workers( control and milder #ersions suggested !y post.Keynesian social democrats. &he demos there"ore !ecomes the authentic unit o" economic li"e. For economic democracy to !e "easi!le proponents o" inclusi#e democracy suggest three preconditions must !e satis"ied: Jemotic sel".reliance demotic ownership o" the means o" production and con"ederal allocation o" resources. Jemotic sel".reliance is meant in terms o" radical decentraliHation and sel".reliance rather than o" sel". su""iciency. Jemotic ownership o" producti#e resources is a kind o" ownership which leads to the politiciHation o" the economy the real synthesis o" economy and polity. &his is so !ecause economic decision making is carried out !y the entire community through the demotic assem!lies where people make the "undamental macro.economic decisions which a""ect the whole community as citiHens rather than as #ocationally oriented groups ?e.g. workers as e.g. in participatory economics *@C,B. At the same time workers apart "rom participating in the demotic decisions a!out the o#erall planning targets would also participate ?in the a!o#e !road sense o" #ocationally oriented groupsB in their respecti#e workplace assem!lies in a process o" modi"ying/implementing the Jemocratic Plan and in running their own workplace. Con"ederal allocation o" resources is re)uired !ecause although sel".reliance allows many decisions to !e made at the community le#el much remains to !e decided at the regional/national/supra.national le#el. >owe#er it is delegates ?rather than representati#esB with speci"ic mandates "rom the demotic assem!lies who are in#ol#ed in a con"ederal demotic planning process which in com!ination with the proposed system o" #ouchers e""ects the allocation o" resources in a con"ederal inclusi#e democracy. *edit, Re"orm agendas Assuming the most !asic re)uirement "or societal prosperity is a healthy educated and enterprising population *@E, -conomic Jemocracy seeks to close the growing gap !etween purchasing power and producti#e output. 2hile re"orm agendas tend to criti)ue the e%isting system and recommend correcti#e measures they do not necessarily suggest alternati#e models to replace the "undamental structures o" capitalismI pri#ate ownership o" producti#e resources the market and wage la!or. *edit, 'ocial Credit 9ain article: 'ocial Credit Rather than an economic short"all many analysts consider the gap !etween production and purchasing power a social di#idend. In this #iew credit is a pu!lic utility rather than de!t to "inancial centers. ;nce rein#ested in human producti#e potential the surplus o" societal output could actually increase :ross Jomestic Product rather than throttling it resulting in a more e""icient economy o#erall.*3, 'ocial Credit is an economic re"orm mo#ement that originates "rom theories de#eloped !y 'cottish engineer 9aDor C. >. Jouglas. >is aim to make societal impro#ement the goal o" monetary systems is re"lected in the term /'ocial Credit/ and pu!lished in his !ook entitled -conomic Jemocracy. In this #iew the term /economic democracy/ does not mean worker control o" industry.*@F, 2hile technological ad#ancement tends to increase unemployment along with producti#ity Jouglas suggests that our perspecti#e will determine whether this pro!lem is a /catastrophe/ or a /magni"icent achie#ement/: +3

/&he so.called unemployment pro!lem is really a pro!lem o" leisure. &he pro!lem really is a pro!lem "irst o" the distri!ution o" purchasing power to those who are not re)uired and will decreasingly !e re)uired in the industrial system and secondly o" ensuring that the total purchasing distri!uted shall always !e enough to pay "or the goods and ser#ices "or sale./*@8, A national di#idend and a compensated price mechanism are the two most essential components o" the 'ocial Credit program proposed !y C.>. Jouglas to sta!iliHe purchasing power "or a democracy o" consumers on a national and glo!al scale. 2hile these measure ha#e ne#er !een implemented in their purest "orm they ha#e pro#ided a "oundation "or 'ocial Credit policital parties in many countries and "or re"orm agendas that retain the title /economic democracy/. *edit, Credit as a pu!lic utility 7tiliHing the ideas o" 9aDor C.>. Jouglas and a monetary re"orm program !ased on direct go#ernment spending set "orth !y groups like the American 9onetary Institute #eteran ProDect 9anager "or the 7.'. &reasury Jepartment Richard C. Cook proposes two general measures which together he terms /economic democracy/:*A4, Credit as a pu!lic utility: /2e should spend su""icient credit into e%istence to supply the !asic operating e%penses o" go#ernment at all le#els without recourse to either ta%es or !orrowing. At least ninety percent o" all ta%es could !e eliminated. &he only ta%es that should !e retained would !e those in the "orm o" user "ees "or in"rastructure operations and maintenance and those le#ied only "or dire emergencies. Capital e%penses "or in"rastructure construction at the "ederal state and local le#els should !e "inanced through a sel".capitaliHed national in"rastructure !ank lending at Hero.interest. ;perating on a national scale such a !ank could !egin to re!uild our Do! !ase starting at the state and local le#els. A pu!lic program o" direct go#ernment e%penditures as descri!ed herein would !e as e""ecti#e as timely "ar less in"lationary and much cheaper than creating new pu!lic de!t !y !orrowing credit created #out of thin air# by

the ban!ing system." *A+,

:AP Chart "rom 2e >old &hese &ruths. A national di#idend: /&he endemic gap !etween prices and purchasing power in an ad#anced economic system in reality is the Mleisure di#idendN that we ne#er recei#ed "rom our amaHing producing economy. &hat gap should now !e "illed !y a non.ta%a!le national di#idend o" two types. ;ne would !e a cash stipend paid to all citiHens which would also ser#e the purpose of eliminating poverty !y pro#iding e#eryone with a !asic income guarantee. &he remainder o" the national di#idend would consist o" an o#erall pricing su!sidy where!y a designated proportion o" all purchases including home !uilding e%penses would !e re!ated to consumers. &he a#erage national di#idend per person would pro!a!ly e%ceed O+6 444 per year under today5s economic conditions. It would !e a calculated #alue charged +C

against a go#ernment ledger !ut would !e o"".!udget with no need to "inance it with ta%ation or !orrowing./ *A+, 2hile some analysts suggest an economic crisis might !e necessary to dri#e a mo#ement toward large. scale economic democracy. *+,*66, Richard C. Cook argues that /most economic re"orm programs address symptoms not causes/:*3, /9onetary re"orm em!races the enormous producti#ity o" modern industrial methods with appro#al and hope. But it identi"ies "actors in the nature o" industrial production at the le#el o" the corporation as creating a chronic state o" insta!ility/.*3, /&he top priority o" the re"orm program would !e to use pu!lic credit to re!uild the producing economy which has !een wrecked !y the phony ideology of #mar!et# economics and the inept and self'serving manipulation of the money supply !y the Federal Reser#e and the


Cook(s criti)ue o" "inance capitalism a#oids any proposal o" collecti#ist solutions as a diagnosis o" underlying "inancial issues. Rather he a""irms the #alue o" /democratic capitalism / com!ined with a shi"t to more pu!lic control o" credit and suggests a new approach to achie#ing worldwide prosperity starting with economic reco#ery in the 7nited 'tates. Cook(s argument stems "rom prior success in the 7nited 'tates with credit as a pu!lic utility including colonial paper currencies which allowed an emerging American society to monetiHe the #alue o" its own goods and ser#ices the :reen!acks issued !y President $incoln during the American ci#il war and the Reconstruction Finance Corporation ?RFCB which mo#ed to recapitaliHe "ailing non.Federal Reser#e state !anks in rural areas and small towns during the :reat Jepression. 2hile >er!ert >oo#er(s e""orts are not remem!ered as the most popular in 7.'. history Cook credits RFC programs with pro#iding low interest loans to the railroad industry "armers e%porters state and local go#ernments and wartime industries o#er a period o" at least 64.years.*A@, *edit, 0ational di#idend Richard C. Cook(s proposed national di#idend sometimes known as a Basic Income :uarantee or /BI:/ has pre#iously !een ad#ocated in the 7nited 'tates !y economists politicians and re"ormers including &homas Paine 9ilton Friedman Jr. 9artin $uther King 1r. and 1ohn Kenneth :al!raith. Friedman originally proposed a negati#e income ta% to support this system !ut then opposed the !ill !ecause its re#ised implementation would ha#e merely supplemented e%isting ta%.structures rather than replacing them. Cook "urther suggests that racism might ha#e !een at the root o" BI:(s demise in the late +8C4s as /many !ene"iciaries o" the program would ha#e !een A"rican.American/.*AA, But in 644C the !asic income guarantee was again proposed on the national le#el !y 'tate Representati#e Bo! Filner ?J.CAB as >.R. 363E supported !y author 9atthew Rothschild.*A3, According to the 7.'. Basic Income :uarantee 0etwork: /&he !asic income guarantee ?BI:B is a go#ernment insured guarantee that no citiHen(s income will "all !elow some minimal le#el "or any reason. All citiHens would recei#e a BI: without means test or work re)uirement. BI: is an e""icient and e""ecti#e solution to po#erty that preser#es indi#idual autonomy and work incenti#es while simpli"ying go#ernment social policy. 'ome researchers estimate that a small BI: su""icient to cut the po#erty rate in hal" could !e "inanced without an increase in ta%es !y redirecting "unds "rom spending programs and ta% deductions aimed at maintaining incomes./*AC, 9oreo#er Richard C. Cook suggests e%isting surplus in 7nited 'tates :ross Jomestic Product ?:JPB could support such a system as :JP o" O+6.8F.trillion minus O8.6+.trillion in purchasing power ?/wages/B e)uals a di""erence o" O@.EE.trillion. Jistri!uted e)ually amongst 7nited 'tates citiHens Cook estimates a /0ational Ji#idend/ o" appro%imately O+6 C44 could !e pro#ided annually to e#ery 7.'. citiHen. A primary "unction o" monetary re"orm is to /pro#ide su""icient indi#idual income/ .. not merely /create Do!s/ .. "or American workers displaced !y technological ad#ancement outsourcing and other economic in"luences !eyond their control. Funding o" the 0ational Ji#idend would !e drawn "rom a national credit account which would include all "actors that generate production costs and create new capital assets. &he national credit account could also !e used "or price su!sidies to discourage manu"acturers "rom cutting costs !y shipping Do!s o#erseas. +E

Rather than Federal Reser#e 0otes circulated only through de!t paya!le to a !ank with interest the 0ational Ji#idend would !e /real money/ !ased on the producti#e capacity o" the economy e%pressed as :JP. Cook says /it(s important to realiHe that 'ocial Credit is not a socialist system. Rather it is (democratic capitalism ( in contrast to the ("inance capitalism( that has !ecome so damaging/.*AE, Rooted in the ideals o" 'ocial Credit proposed !y C.>. Jouglas in the +864s Cook e%plains: /&he di""erence !etween a 0ational Ji#idend and a !asic income guarantee is that the di#idend is tied to production and consumption data and may #ary "rom year to year. Juring years that the di#idend "alls !elow a designated threshold the !alance o" a !asic income guarantee could !e pro#ided "rom ta% re#enues. But in a highly.automated economy such as that o" the 7.'. the 0ational Ji#idend would normally !e su""icient/.*64, In his !ook Capitalism @.4 Peter Barnes likens a /0ational Ji#idend/ to the game o" 9onopoly where all players start with a "air distri!ution o" "inancial opportunity to succeed and try to pri#atiHe as much as they can as they mo#e around /the commons/. Jistinguishing the !oard game o" 9onopoly "rom contemporary !usiness Barnes claims that /the top 3 percent o" the population owns more property than the remaining 83 percent/ pro#iding the smaller minority with an un"air ad#antage o" appro%imately /O3.trillion/ annually at the !eginning o" the game. Contrasting /redistri!ution/ o" income ?or propertyB with /predistri!ution/ Barnes argues "or /propertiHing/ ?without corporately pri#atiHingB /the commons/ to spread ownership uni#ersally without taking wealth "rom some and gi#ing it to others. >is suggested mechanism to this end is the esta!lishment o" a /Commons 'ector/ ensuring payment "rom the Corporate 'ector "or /the commons/ they utiliHe and e)uita!ly distri!uting the proceeds "or the !ene"it o" contemporary and "uture generations o" society. ;ne e%ample o" such re"orm is in the 7.'. 'tate o" Alaska where each citiHen recei#es an annual share o" the state(s oil re#enues called /Alaska Permanent Fund Ji#idend/. Barnes suggests this model could e%tend to other states and nations !ecause /we Dointly own many #alua!le assets/. As corporate pollution o" common assets increase the permits "or such pollution would !ecome more scarce dri#ing prices "or those permits up. /$ess pollution would e)ual more re#enue/ and o#er time /trillions o" dollars could "low into an American Permanent Fund/.*66, >owe#er none o" these proposals aspire to the mandates recommended !y Jr. 9artin $uther King 1r.: &wo conditions are indispensa!le i" we are to ensure that the guaranteed income operates as a consistently progressi#e measure. First it must !e pegged to the median income o" society not the lowest le#els o" income. &o guarantee an income at the "loor would simply perpetuate wel"are standards and "reeHe into the society po#erty conditions. 'econd the guaranteed income must !e dynamicI it must automatically increase as the total social income grows. 2ere it permitted to remain static under growth conditions the recipients would su""er a relati#e decline. I" periodic re#iews disclose that the whole national income has risen then the guaranteed income would ha#e to !e adDusted upward !y the same percentage. 2ithout these sa"eguards a creeping retrogression would occur nulli"ying the gains o" security and sta!ility.*6F, 9oreo#er proponents o" -conomic Jemocracy generally deem any such re"orm unlikely under the dominance o" contemporary command economies. 2hile &homas Paine originally recommended a 0ational Ji#idend to compensate for the brutality of 0ritish Enclosures, no such large.scale dis!ursement has materialiHed in o#er 644.years since.*66, *edit, 9onopoly power #ersus pu!lic utility 9ain article: 1. 2. 'mith Rather than super"icially compensating "or legaliHed ine)uities many analysts recommend the /enclosures/ themsel#esKproperty rights lawsKshould !e either a!olished or rede"ined with particular respect "or /the commons/.*+, According to 1.2. 'mith e%clusi#e title to natural resources and technologies should !e con#erted to inclusi#e conditional titles L. the condition !eing that society should collect rental #alues on all natural resources.*AF, 'mith suggests the !asic principles o" monopoliHation under "eudalism were ne#er a!andoned and residues o" e%clusi#e "eudal property rights restrict the potential e""iciency o" capitalism in 2estern cultures.*AF, -stimating roughly C4.percent o" American capital is little more than capitaliHed #alues o" unearned wealth 'mith suggests elimination o" these +F

monopoly #alues would dou!le economic e""iciency maintain )uality o" li"e and reduce working hours !y hal".*AF, 2aste"ul monetary "lows can !e stopped only !y eliminating all methods o" monopoliHation typical in 2estern economies.*AF,*A8, 1.2. 'mith di#ides /primary ?"eudalB monopoly/ into "our general categoriesI !anking land technology and communications. >e lists three general categories o" /secondary ?modernB monopoly/I insurance law health care.*AF, 'mith "urther claims that con#erting these e%clusi#e entitlements to inclusi#e human rights would minimiHe !attles "or market share there!y eliminating most o""ices and sta"" needed to maintain monopoly structures and stop the wars generated to protect them. Jissol#ing roughly hal" the economic acti#ity o" a monopoly system would reduce the costs o" common resources !y roughly hal" and signi"icantly minimiHe the most in"luential "actors o" po#erty.*AF,*A8, In 'mith(s #iew most ta%es should !e eliminated *AF, and producti#e enterprise should !e pri#ately owned and managed.*AF, In#entors should !e paid well and all technology placed in the pu!lic domain. *AF, Crucial ser#ices currently monopoliHed through licensing should !e legislated as human rights.*AF, *A8, 'mith en#isions a !alanced economy under a socially.owned !anking commons within an inclusi#e society with "ull and e)ual rights "or all.*AF, Federated regions collect resource rents on land and technology to a social "und to operate go#ernments and care "or social needs.*AF, 'ocially.owned !anks pro#ide "inance capital !y creating de!t."ree money "or social in"rastructure and industry.*AF, Rental #alues return to society through e%penditure on pu!lic in"rastructures. $ocal la!or is trained and employed to !uild and maintain water systems sewers roads communication systems railroads ports airports post o""ices and education systems.*AF, Purchasing power circulates regionally as la!or spends wages in consumption and go#ernments spend resource rent and !anking pro"its to maintain essential ser#ices.*AF, *A8, According to 'mith all monetary systems including money markets should "unction within "ractional. reser#e !anking.*AF, Financial capital should !e the total sa#ings o" all citiHens !alanced !y primary. created money to "ill any short"all or its destruction through increased reser#e re)uirements to eliminate any surplus.*AF, AdDustments o" re)uired reser#es should "acilitate the !alance !etween !uilding with socially.created money or sa#ings. Any shortage o" sa#ings within a socially.owned !anking system should !e alle#iated !y simply printing it.*AF,*A8, *edit, Jemocratic cooperati#es 9ain article: Cooperati#e 'ometimes re"erred to as a /Co.;p !usiness/ or /Co.;p/ a cooperati#e is a limited lia!ility entity organiHed either ""it or not.""it that di""ers "rom a corporation in that its producing mem!ers rather than non.producing shareholders comprise decision.making authority. Classi"ied as either consumer cooperati#es or worker cooperati#es the cooperati#e !usiness model is "undamental to the interests o" economic democracy. According to the International Cooperati#e Alliance(s 'tatement on the Cooperati#e Identity /cooperati#es are democratic organiHations controlled !y their mem!ers who acti#ely participate in setting their policies and making decisions. 9en and women ser#ing as elected representati#es are accounta!le to the mem!ership. In primary cooperati#es mem!ers ha#e e)ual #oting rights ?one mem!er one #oteB and cooperati#es at other le#els are also organiHed in a democratic manner./*34, Cooperati#es play an essential role in all models o" -conomic Jemocracy pro#iding "or the needs o" workers consumers and communities. As an alternati#e to glo!aliHed economy domination !y large corporations and neoli!eral economic policies -conomic Jemocracy emphasiHes large.scale economic withdrawal "rom corporate imperialism to more regionally organiHed producer and consumer cooperati#es thus restoring socio.economic sta!ility on a !roader scale. *edit, 2orker cooperati#es 9ain article: 2orker cooperati#e According to the 7nited 'tates Federation o" 2orker Cooperati#es /a worker cooperati#e is a !usiness entity that is owned and controlled !y the people who work in it/. 2orkers own the !usiness together usually in#esting with a ! amount o" money when they !egin working. At the end o" each year +8

worker.owners are paid a portion o" the money the !usiness makes a"ter e%penses.*3+, In cases where the company is also owned !y employees there are no outside or consumer owners. ;nly employees own shares o" the !usiness which represent "ractions o" the market #alue o" the cooperati#e. ;nly one mem!ership share may !e issued to each mem!er and one mem!ership share pro#ides its owner with one #ote in company decision.making. 2hile mem!ership is not a re)uirement o" employment only employees can !ecome mem!ers.*36,*3@, 2orker cooperati#es generally employ an industrial model called 2orkplace democracy which reDects the /master.ser#ant relationship/ implicit in the traditional employment contract. &his term is o"ten used synonymously with industrial democracy. Companies like 'emco JaQita :oogle Freys >otels and $inden $a!s ma%imiHe employee participation and engagement in this regard as the 0ew 7nionism mo#ement #iews workplace democracy as a necessary link !etween production and economic democracy. 'ome analysts suggest sel".go#erning enterprises should not !e con"used with other systems they might #aguely or closely resem!le. According to Ro!ert A. Jahl: /'el".go#erning enterprises only remotely resem!le psuedodemocratic *sic<, schemes o" employee consultation !y managementI schemes o" limited employee participation that lea#e all critical decisions with a management elected !y stockholdersI or -mployee 'tock ;wnership Plans ?-';PsB that are created only or primarily to pro#ide corporations with low.interest loans lower corporate income ta%es greater cash "low employee pension plans or a market "or their stock without howe#er any signi"icant changes in control./*6@, Jecisions in a worker cooperati#e are made democratically !y the people who do the work rather than !y one person or group o" people that holds all the power. &his process usually adheres to the principle o" /one worker one #ote/. 2orker.control can take many "orms depending on the siHe and type o" the !usiness. 'ome ways to make decisions democratically include: an elected !oard o" directors elected managers management Do! roles no management at all decisions made !y consensus decisions made !y maDority #ote or any com!ination o" the a!o#e. -ach worker.owned !usiness creates the structure !est suited to its needs.*3+, -)ual participation in decision.making !ecomes the responsi!ility and pri#ilege o" each mem!er pro#iding a democratic alternati#e to the centraliHation o" power typical in corporate hierarchies.*3A, 9any !usinesses controlled !y workers and/or sharing pro"its among them are not "ormally considered worker cooperati#es. In general these are called democratic workplaces. Across the 7nited 'tates democratic workplaces occupy many di""erent sectors and industries with greatest concentrations in the 0ortheast the 2est Coast and the 7pper 9idwest. 2hile a "ew worker cooperati#es in the 7nited 'tates are nota!le larger enterprises most are small !usinesses. &here are an estimated @44 democratic workplaces in the 7nited 'tates employing o#er @ 344 people and generating o#er OA44 million in annual re#enues. :rowing steadily o#er the past 64 years the num!er o" worker cooperati#es includes !oth well. esta!lished !usinesses and new ones with the "ields o" technology and health care showing most o" the recent increase. In many ways the operations o" worker cooperati#es are )uite similar to con#entional !usinesses. &hey de#elop products or ser#ices and o""er them "or sale to the pu!lic with the goal o" generating enough income to support the !usiness and its owners. &hey incorporate with the state get !usiness licenses pay state and "ederal ta%es ha#e payroll and !ene"its and so on. But there are also some "undamental di""erences !etween worker cooperati#es and traditional !usinesses. In con#entional !usinesses net income is called pro"it which tends to !e distri!uted primarily amongst non.producing shareholders. In worker cooperati#es this income is called surplus which is distri!uted amongst worker.owners !ased on hours worked seniority or other criteria. In a worker cooperati#e workers own their Do!s and there"ore ha#e a direct stake in the local en#ironment and the power to conduct !usiness in ways that !ene"it the community rather than destroying it. 'ome worker cooperati#es maintain what is known as a Mmultiple !ottom lineN e#aluating success not merely in terms o" net income !ut also !y "actors like their sustaina!ility as a !usiness their contri!ution to the community and the happiness and longe#ity o" their workers.*3+, 64

According to &im Cal#ert a "ounding mem!er o" the worker.owned Portland ;regon cooperati#e City Bikes /the marks o" a worker co.op are an emphasis on cooperati#e working "or collecti#e success a democratic structure "or decision making with each mem!er ha#ing an e)ual #ote a collecti#e determination o" how net income or net losses are allocated an e)ual contri!ution to and !ene"it "rom the co.op(s cash and an e)ual sharing o" the risks and !ene"its o" working at and owning a !usiness/.*33, But since there is no inade)uate legislation regarding worker cooperati#es in the 7nited 'tates most worker cooperati#es tend to utiliHe consumer cooperati#e law "or their purposes.*3C, 2hile Cal#ert !elie#es a genuine worker cooperati#e should !e specially incorporated as owned solely and e)ually !y employees he also o!ser#es that CityBikes is one o" the "ew that strictly adheres to the principles o" a properly incorporated worker.owned cooperati#e. Instead many worker.cooperati#es choose to incorporate as $imited $ia!ility Corporations !ecause +B there is less paperwork in#ol#ed and 6B protection "rom personal lawsuit is a paramount concern.*3E, *edit, Consumer cooperati#es 9ain article: Consumer cooperati#e A consumers( cooperati#e is a cooperati#e !usiness owned !y its customers "or their mutual !ene"it. ;riented toward ser#ice rather than pecuniary pro"it consumers o" goods and ser#ices are o"ten also the indi#iduals who ha#e pro#ided capital to launch or purchase such "ree enterprise. Consumers( cooperati#es di""er "rom other "orms o" !usiness in their directi#e to pro#ide )uality goods and ser#ices to consumer/owners at the lowest cost rather than to sell goods and ser#ices at the highest price a!o#e cost that the consumer is willing to pay. In practice consumers( cooperati#es price goods and ser#ices at competiti#e market rates. &he di""erence is that where a ""it enterprise will treat the di""erence !etween cost ?including la!or etc.B and selling price as "inancial gain the consumer owned enterprise returns this sum to the consumer/owner as an o#er.payment. $arge consumers( co.ops run much like any other !usiness re)uiring workers managers clerks products and customers to keep the !usiness running. In smaller cooperati#es consumer/owners are o"ten workers as well. Consumers( cooperati#es can di""er greatly in start up and also in how the co.op is run !ut to !e true to the consumers( cooperati#e "orm o" !usiness the enterprise should "ollow the Rochdale Principles. Consumers( cooperati#es may in turn "orm Co.operati#e Federations. &hese may take the "orm o" co. operati#e wholesale societies through which Consumers( Co.operati#es collecti#ely purchase goods at wholesale prices and in some cases own "actories. Alternati#ely they may !e mem!ers o" Co.operati#e unions. Consumer cooperati#es are #ery di""erent "rom pri#ately owned /discount clu!s / which charge annual "ees in e%change "or a discount on purchases. &he /clu!/ is not owned or go#erned !y the /mem!ers/ and the pro"its o" the !usiness go to the in#estors not to mem!ers. In a cooperati#e the mem!ers own the !usiness and the pro"its !elong to the community o" mem!ers.*3F, *edit, Food cooperati#es 9ost "ood co.ops are consumer cooperati#es which means that all our retail co.ops are owned !y the people who shop at the stores. 9em!ers e%ercise their ownership !y patroniHing the store and #oting in elections. &he mem!ers elect a !oard o" directors to hire guide and e#aluate the general manager who runs day to day operations.*3F, Food cooperati#es were originally esta!lished to pro#ide "resh organic produce as a #ia!le alternati#e to packaged imports. But this process can present a struggle as communities tend to import the same crops that local "armers culti#ate. &he ideas o" local and slow "ood production can help local "armers prosper in addition to pro#iding consumers with "resher products. But the growing u!i)uity o" organic "ood products in corporate stores testi"ies to !roadening consumer awareness and to the dynamics o" glo!al marketing. Associated with national and international cooperati#e communities Portland ;regon cooperati#es manage to sur#i#e market competition with corporate "ranchise. As $ee $ancaster "inancial manager "or Food Front states /cooperati#es are potentially one democratic economic model that could help guide !usiness decisions toward meeting human needs while honoring the needs o" society and nature/. >e admits howe#er it is di""icult to maintain colla!oration among cooperati#es while also a#oiding integration that typically results in centraliHed authority. 6+

&im Cal#ert !elie#es that dollars are the most important #ote to make and others tend to agree. Citing mem!ers o" People5s Co.op and Al!erta Cooperati#e :rocery Romona Je0ies o" &he Portland Alliance states /Co.ops are the antidote to the centraliHation o" power. People "orget they ha#e power as consumers to make choices. 2e can5t !e completely disentangled "rom the corporate world !ut we can try to pro#ide a local model o" li#ing "urther "rom it. 0o one is getting rich o"" your money at a co.op. But that5s the economic #alue o" shopping here. In return you support a #ia!le alternati#e to the #icious cycle o" !ottom lines and end pro"its/.*3A, As 2orld &rade ;rganiHation representati#es negotiate issues o" competition agricultural su!sidies and economic protectionism among de#eloped nations the pending "ate o" the American "armer depends upon the a!ility o" "armers to /compete/ with su!sidiHed agricultural giants like 9onsanto Company. $ee $ancaster says M7nderneath our uni)ue aspects we ha#e the same structure and principles. 2el"are o" our respecti#e neigh!orhoods is o" #ital concern to us. Food co.ops were started to pro#ide local organic produce. 0ow with those things more mainstream the demand is going up and our share o" that market is declining. 2e ha#e to ree#aluate./ Further $ancaster claims the traditional independence and decentraliHation o" 7.'. cooperati#es ha#e restricted their impact on the "ood industry through economies o" scale lamenting they should ha#e !een !etter organiHed: /2hat i" we could work with other co.ops to nurture and esta!lish other cooperati#es</ he asks /In essence this is an e%tension o" neigh!orhood organiHing. 2e5re all dri#en !y competition "rom national chains !ut in looking at national issues and realiHing there5s a lot to address what5s needed is a !igger mo#ement not a !ig corporation./*3A, *edit, Regional trading currencies According to &homas >. :reco 1r. author o" 0ew 9oney "or >ealthy Communities /&he pinnacle o" power in today(s world is the power to issue money. I" that power can !e democratiHed and "ocused in a direction which gi#es social and ecological concerns top priority then there may yet be hope

for saving the orld". In this regard

many proponents o" -conomic Jemocracy recommend the regionaliHation o" currencies. 'ome e%perts suggest that /under the Bretton 2oods system the Federal Reser#e acted as the world(s central !ank. &his ga#e 1merica enormous leverage over economic policies o" its principal trading partners/.*38, ;ther analysts add that de#eloping nations are suscepti!le to e%ploitation mainly !ecause they ha#e no independent monetary system using the 7.'. dollar instead. &his "eeds the "ractional reser#e !anking system operated !y the 7.'. Canada -urope and 1apan ?imperial.centers.o".capitalB. Je#eloping nations pay hea#ily "or this ser#ice through market interest rates and !ecause !anking pro"its and property ownership emigrate to "inancial centers elsewhere.*C4, According to 1.2. 'mith /Currency is only the representation o" wealth produced !y com!ining land ?resourcesB la!or and industrial capital/. >e claims that no country is "ree when another country has such le#erage o#er its entire economy. But !y com!ining their resources 'mith says de#eloping nations ha#e all three o" these "oundations o" wealth: By peripheral nations using the currency o" an imperial center as its trading currency the imperial center can actually print money to own industry within those periphery countries. By "orming regional trading !locs and printing their own trading currency the de#eloping world has all "our re)uirements "or production resources la!or industrial capital and "inance capital. &he wealth produced pro#ides the #alue to !ack the created and circulating money. 'mith "urther e%plains that de#eloped countries need resources "rom the de#eloping world as much as de#eloping countries need "inance capital and technology "rom the de#eloped world. Aside "rom superior military power o" the imperial centers the unde#eloped world actually has superior bargaining leverage. 2ith their own trading currencies de#eloping countries can !arter their resources to the de#eloped world in trade "or the latest industrial technologies. Barter a#oids /hard money monopoliHation/ and the une)ual trades !etween weak and strong nations that result. 'mith 66

suggests that !arter was how :ermany resol#ed many "inancial di""iculties /put in place to strangle her/ and that /2orld 2ars I and II settled that trade dispute/. >e claims that their intentions o" e%clusi#e entitlement are clearly e%posed hen the imperial centers must resort to military force to prevent such barters and maintain monopoly control of others# resources.*+,