What are the
conditions today? There is a pile of cash sitting idle with our large financial
and industrial corporations. We are not creating nearly enough jobs. And with
people not being able to pay their mortgages, our houses are losing value.
Do we have a
workable solution to our current economic crisis? I don’t think so. It seems
that all proposals on the table suffer from such evident weaknesses that they
are not being implemented and, likely, they are not going to be implemented any
time soon.
Will the American
people—and people in the rest of the world, for that matter—have the inner
fortitude to wait patiently until our political and economic leadership finds
an acceptable solution to the current world wide crisis? I don’t think so
either.
Caught between
these two realities, I would like to offer a two-step just and sustainable
solution that will work at high speed—at no cost to taxpayers, without further loss
in the value of our wealth, with minimal risk to fan the flames of
inflation, and no government intervention.
Here is the bottleneck:
Corporations have gummed up the system with their accumulation of cash—piles of
cash which they cannot use, because there is not enough purchasing power in the
system to recover costs of production and make a profit to boot. There you have
a vicious loop: no jobs, no income, and no possibility to invest that cash.
Absence of
sufficient purchasing power in the economic system is a cause of the bottleneck;
lack of imagination on how and where to invest the abundance of cash in
corporate coffers is another. The conglomeration of wealth into few large
corporations compounds the problem; there is room for far too few minds at the
top and these few minds cannot possibly have the range of expertise necessary to
properly employ the surplus cash. What is lacking is a variety and diversity of
opinion on how to invest most hoarded cash.
Here is the
solution to this variety of problems. Step one: Lets us as a community
determine that corporations will have six months to distribute a large percentage
of their surplus cash—not indiscriminately, not in accordance with any ideology,
but in accordance with rules of law, in accordance with existing lawful
processes.
Lets us determine
that corporations will have six months to distribute their surplus cash to their
stockholders and bondholders: the rightful owners of that wealth.
In the United
States , especially, the ownership of corporations
is broadly based. If the cash accumulated in the coffers of a few large
corporations is distributed among owners of all forms of investment and
retirement funds holding those shares and those bonds, most cash will reach the
people who know how to spend their money wisely.
Then corporations
can make new investments because they can depend on consumers spending those
distributions to satisfy pent-up demand.
But, clearly,
since wealth is concentrated into a few hands, many stockholders and
bondholders will receive so much cash that they will not know how to spend it properly.
After all, there are just so many such conspicuous goods as Gucci and Pucci
bags that one can show off, and spending sprees cannot last forever. Real
people stop before they drop. The bottleneck will reappear downward.
For them, a second
step of the proposal is ready to spring into action: this step involves investments
into the local economy—either through personal connections or through the
creation of Local Interdependence Funds.
Personal
investments are an ancient practice. The constitution of Local Interdependence
Funds is explained in some detail in To
My Polis. Under the aegis of an all volunteer board composed of a banker,
an investment banker, a lawyer, a business development expert, and an
architect, all advised by an accountant, I presented the idea of the Gloucester
Interdependence Fund to all the local bankers, first individually and then in a
group meeting that lasted several hours. The bankers in Gloucester
examined the mechanism of these funds and found nothing objectionable in it.
But they are not going to implement the idea, just because a few people suggest
it should be done. They need full community support from business, civic,
religious, literary, artistic, and political leadership. Perhaps now is the
time to give our local bankers all the community support they need.
Each community
should consider the establishment of a local Interdependence Fund. These funds
can even be established without waiting for the large corporations to disburse
their excess cash.
Investors in such
funds keep ownership and control of their investments. For proper
administration of their wealth they can rely on the expertise and care of local
banks where the cash is deposited. For proper utilization of their wealth—and
further, gradual, orderly increase of their wealth—they can rely on lending
only to local business men and women, artists, and inventors whom they know:
people who are full of ideas and short of cash.
A useful
postscript. If you need the safety blanket of theory to stiffen your
determination, you cannot do much better than ponder these passages from Quadragesimo Anno, ## 105-106:
“…it is obvious that not only is wealth
concentrated in our times [1931] but an immense power and despotic economic
dictatorship is consolidated in the hands of a few, who often are not owners
but only the trustees and managing directors of invested funds which they
administer according to their own arbitrary will and pleasure.
This dictatorship is being most forcibly
exercised by those who, since they hold the money and completely control it,
control credit also and rule the lending of money. Hence they regulate the
flow, so to speak, of the life-blood whereby the entire economic system lives,
and have so firmly in their grasp the soul, as it were, of economic life that
no one can breathe against their will.”
Not too
surprisingly, liberated from the clutches of ideologues of the right as well as
ideologues of the left, Pope Pius XI can be recognized as an eminent
sociologist and economist.
For confirmation, read Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, B. III, Ch. 4: "All for ourselves and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind".
© 2011 Carmine
Gorga, a former Fulbright Scholar, is president of The Somist Institute, a
research organization in Gloucester , Mass. Through The Economic Process, To My Polis, and numerous other publications
in economic theory and policy, he has transformed economics from a linear to a
relational discipline. Dr. Gorga blogs at http://me-a-new-economic-atlas-and-you/
While I genuinely enjoy seeing a proposed solution the laymen can comprehend, I fear it will not be enough. It is a tried method of dispersal used before that ultimately got us where we are today.
ReplyDeleteIt seems the moment we take the basics of life, which change with advancing societies and technologies, none the less, whatever those basics are and make them legal rights to each individual, we will never escape the viscous cycle we are in.
In other words, the answer to economics might exist outside the field of economics. We need something that engages and energizes the collective spirit of every individual in the land.
Example, tomorrow give every person in America a house, condo, or whatever works with a payment or no payment that works for them. Same with access to food, healthcare, and a job (quite similar to Roosevelt's Bill of Rights proposal).
By doing this, we are lead to believe everyone would end up like bums on the street, which is idiotic fear mongering lingo.
What would happen, would we would have millions of people waking up the next day, imaginative and energized about what else is possible.
Anyway, just my two cents.