Reply to comment

evolution or revolution, a pathway to sustainability & equality

Competitive Cooperation – A pathway to sustainability.

Environmental and social problems are for the most part, being left unattended by the market - to the detriment of global society. This essay envisages how a caring economic system can evolve which will strive to ease environmental and social problems.

Our economic activity and our markets are failing to deliver us solutions to the environmental problems which concern us all – markets fail to deliver human need even when these needs are critical. The global population can thrive when its communities are healthy, socially developed, and have the opportunity to sustainably work in synergy.

The pathway towards this ideal, the solution, clearly lies in the evolution of our economic mode, change being driven by the emergence of ethical producers to meet the demand of ethical consumers. The prize of environmental sustainability shall then become less of a mirage, more tangible, driving a mass shift in consumer behaviour.

Currently economic growth unstoppably depletes the environment so it is rational for consumers to consume the environment before it is inevitably consumed by someone else. When it is realised that the environment can be sustained consumers will cooperate to protect the environment for their children.

Utilising current information technology consumer decisions can be taken with more ethical clarity - directing demand towards caring producers. Also via information technology, consumers can build transparent reputations based on their past consumer decisions – reputations that are open for all to see – encouraging and spreading responsibility.

This essay visualises a scenario developing whereby commonly owned producers evolve and compete with one another in a free market to meet demands of informed ethical consumers. The essay explains how this maturing of market behaviour can deliver sustainability while maximizing our potential.

CONTENTS

Intro: the problems; unsustainable growth, environmental harm and unjust distribution.
Unchecked growth is unsustainable while we fail to distribute reinvestment where the human capital needs it most.
Capitalism is inefficient in that it is detrimental to mankind’s best interest.
Capitalisms failings and our inability to resolve them creates the need for a new ideology and economic mode.
The new system envisaged. New economic mode - new ideals.
The conception, development and growth of the new system.
List of benefits over capitalism
Conclusion.

Intro The problems: unsustainable growth, environmental harm and neglectful distribution.

Capitalism widens the gap between rich and poor while unchecked industrial growth is threatening critical environmental damage. Ongoing economic expansion is making the planet less tolerable to live on, resources are being diminished and the environment may become harsh and difficult to endure as pollution levels escalate.

The situation is continually deteriorating, as third world countries industrialise they too are developing less frugal consumption habits while pollution levels soar upwards. Furthermore - the wealth gap in these economies is often extreme. (approximately 80% of the world population are currently trying to survive on 15% of the worlds income.) The circle is a vicious one, poverty is linked to population growth while it is forecast that world food output will not keep up with the numbers.

Our economies are not serving mannkinds’ common best interest and a critical situation may arise. Air and water pollution are steadily increasing, many of our natural resources are being diminished while global warming is threatening disastrous climate changes.
None the less mankind currently has the capability for all to live in practical comfort without damaging the environment. Human potential can be maximised and the benefits of synergy enjoyed. This can only be achieved within a reorganised economic framework - new ideas have to prevail and systematic economic objectives must be redefined.

An economic framework and an operating ideology can emerge which strives to redress wealth imbalance, minimise environmental costs and maximise human wellbeing!

Our strive for growth is unsustainable while we fail to direct investment to where humanity can collectively gain.

Spreading wealth, reducing consumption and discouraging consumerism is not compatible with our current ideology. Through economic growth, we create wealth for those who can afford to invest, and provide goods for those who can afford to pay - the resultant costs are harm to the earth and hardship for the poor. These costs are not addressed by our economic system. There is an urgent need for change.

Capitalism maximises economic growth. (economic growth is beneficial when the gains are allocated to maximise benefit, and when the economic activity in itself is worthwhile and not leading to environmental damage. Capitalism just attempts to grow regardless of any such considerations.)

With our current business model returns are secured on investments time and again, re-investment continually increases the overall capacity while demand is sustained both through growth in (1) emerging economies and (2) consumerist expansion in the developed economies.

(emerging economies)
It is often argued that investing to accelerate growth in emerging economies is harmful in that the rules for environmental protection are weak in those economies. Production and consumption levels become less frugal adding to the global environmental dilemma. Western marketing permeates and the societal values are reshaped i.e. persuaded to desire ever increasing consumption .

(consumerist expansion)
In developed economies demand growth is achieved by increasing consume demand. With clever marketing and advertising sustained growth of demand over and above consumers previous demand is achieved.

Capitalism depends on ongoing economic growth.

The pursuit of consumerist expansion is unnecessary and may be harmful to our environment.

The development of continually improved desirable goods is unending. As new model goods become available many strive to attain them with people continually gauging their levels of consumption and contentment relative to those around them. An irrational crowd behaviour permeates. It is argued that as we move together to these higher lifesyle levels there is no increase in personal contentment, contentment being relative to what the other people have. Consumers are generally satisfied with the goods that they have prior to the development of the new ones. The point is that consumption growth while possibly making life more comfortable and convenient does not actually enrich life or make it more fulfilling. Maybe consumption growth reduces life quality as we work more for frivolous goods forgoing scarce lifetime.

(for example. A 19th century dweller may have been dissatisfied with his donkey and cart desiring his squires larger carriage pulled by six horses. A present day consumer may be tiring of his second hand car while dreaming about a nice new one. Will 25th century man be trading up his outdated personal jet for a more fashionable interstellar model. He will possibly buy his fresh air from Evian and need that spaceship to go looking for food! There may be problems growing crops on toxic planet earth - resource free zone!)

In time however the consumerist society shall suffer. A continuation of consumption growth as driven on by our economy may in time reduce real life quality as we harm the environment.
Evidence of environmental deterioration is mounting - this problem is real!

Competing firms are concerned only with shortermism & profiteering, and not with sustainability - industrial activity is continually depleting the world of resources.

Air pollution from our industry and transport is damaging health while giving rise to global warming and acid rain.
All land is turned into agriculture, rainforests are being destroyed, the wildlife and species uncared for.
The sea is being polluted and heavily exploited - excessive fishing forces breeds near to extinction.

Does capitalism provide opportunity, freedom and justice for all?

Capitalism has one critical advantage over command ideologies; that being the inherent notion of opportunity and freedom. People are free to take their own decisions and have the opportunity to economically compete with one another - the talented succeed, success being rewarded with wealth and a more comfortable lifestyle. The harsh downside to this is that the unsuccessful become under priviliged. Capitalism renders many people poor, it unjustly narrows their opportunities and impedes on their relative human equality.

Any new ideology must retain the notion of opportunity and freedom while avoiding unjust economic imbalance as caused by capitalism.

Current markets are inefficient in that they currently fail to deliver mankinds best interests.

3.1 The market system serves the individual purchaser well while neglecting collective needs.

It cannot be denied that the market system is a very effective profit driven production and distribution system - it efficiently directs resources, goods and services to those who can pay.

Adam smiths 'invisible hand' (the market system) never ceases to amaze. It can be seen maybe at its best on a changeable day in Manhattan - sunny at first and the street vendors shout 'ice-cream ice-cream', but just when a shower starts to fall the chorus on the street changes as 101 voices call out 'umbrellas umbrellas'!

The system is none the less very restrictive in that only the profitable demands of individual buyers can be met. Mankind collectively has other critical needs, for example the need maybe for a clean environment and a sustainable natural world - these needs are not addressed by capitalism as no profits can be created here. In addition, continuing economic growth will lead to an ever worsening situation as our resources diminish while the environment deteriorates.

3.2 Capitalism gauges efficiency on an all to narrow financial basis. Our delicate planet and its people require a much broader perspective on efficiency.

Capitalism encourages an on-going search for efficiencies with firms and individuals continually seeking ways of minimising financial costs through efficiency. This practice is generally beneficial and discourages waste - nonetheless it is only financial waste and costs which are minimised.

The cost of continuous environmental damage is left uncounted when we consider economic decisions.

Furthermore capitalism encourages research and development seeking out technology which will return financial gain. Such profit driven technological advancement has totally transformed our world over recent centuries and there have been many benefits: for example the availability of ever improving drugs and medication. However the profit driven element often distorts the direction in which R & D could be aimed. (Profit maximising schemes do not necessarily correlate with the maximising of mankinds’ benefits.)

Our economic system facilitates our strive for profits. We are enabled to direct investment towards developing desireable consumer items which have a high profit potential. Such products may arguably be unnecessary, environmentally inefficient, and have an adverse effect on society – is increased consumerism is de-basing human values while replacing them with shallow consumerist aspirations?

The economic system doesn’t facilitate our collective maximisation of common good benefit. We cannot quantify the missed returns for the common good that R&D may have yielded if given a free reign to research unbridled from having to deliver a quantifiable profit.

It is clear that capitalism does not seek to minimise non financial costs nor does it seek to maximise non financial benefits. Failure to address such tangible and critical considerations highlights gross systematic inefficiency within the capitalist ideology.

4.0 Capitalisms limitations creates an opportunity for the evolution of a new ideology and economic mode.

4.1 Capitalism doesn't care!

Neither humanitarian requirement nor environmental care are central to economic decision taking, the outcome being that humankind and the environment are suffering. Furthermore, capitalism continues to encourage irresponsibility within an environment which is becoming increasingly fragile - perpetual profit growth achieved through perpetual consumption growth shall remain unchecked. This is a futile exercise for mankind as the environment perpetually deteriorates while most people become disadvantaged by a widening wealth gap.

The global competition for profits is larger than any individual, in that individual economic decisions are virtually insignificant relative to global economic activity. The system is large and powerful with a seemingly unstoppable momentum that humans as individuals are bystanders, therefore little responsibility for the global problem has been shouldered by anyone.
This problem is often hi-lighted when corporations make harsh environmental decisions. These decisions are take against a backdrop of intense competition, often group boardroom decisions where responsibility doesn’t transcend to individual who are just "doing their job" of protecting the bottom line - little care is exercised.

It can be argued that capitalism reduces the quality of life, humankind wastes its precious time working in pursuit of unrequired socially induced purchases (often doing completely monotonous jobs) creating dissatisfaction and stress. There is an opportunity cost, humankind could be working less on gathering goods as encouraged by our economic mode. This would free up time for humankind to work on making a synergistic contribution to one another enhancing our life experience.

The inhumanity of our economic system is extreme, the poor are left to freeze to death on our streets while third world unfortunates die from starvation and curable disease. At an individual level such treatment would be deemed criminal.
The objective of capitalism is simply the achievement of profit, corporations are green only where it is unprofitable not to be, the survival race of the business world tramples over collective human needs.

Capitalism is weak at addressing collective human demand; preserving the environment, maximising quality living. The market system is not socially progressive. Capitalism fails to help the desparately needy, it doesn’t educate or enlighten societies, it fails to encourage peacemaking, it doesn’t protect free speech. Critical, healthy world demands, from which profit cannot be extracted are not supplied..

4.2 Governments, environmental groups, ethical investors and consumers fail to maximise environmental care.

Governments,ethical investors & consumers and environmental lobbyists are all attempting to redress the imbalances which capitalism places on the environment and on the distribution of wealth.
Such fragmented effort is inadequate in the face of a growing economic momentum.

4.2.1 GOVERNMENTAL EFFORT IS RESTRAINED.
Many governments implement environmental and social policy; they direct resources to fill the void where the market doesn’t meet needs.. Environmental policy attempts to balance environmental protection with economic benefits while social policy provides basic aid for the needy. On these issues government effectiveness is compromised.

National social policy funds fluctuate with the rise and fall of economic performance. This stop start nature of activity fails to deliver the culture of empowerment required for those under-privileged by capitalism to flourish.

Government hands are also tied when strong environmental controls are needed. Countries do not like to enforce environmental control alone. Such action may increase cost in that economy and weaken it relative to others. Co-ordinating international environmental control is very difficult to agree as different economies are affected in different ways by such measures. The compromises reached tend to fall short of what is truly required.

A second challenge for environmental legislators is the lobbying power of corporations. Corporations are major employers and tax payers, they donate to elected representatives and fund political parties. Corporations purchase influence solely to further their profit making goals. Environmental policy which is detrimental to profit is undermined by this influence.
Multi-national corporations have additional bargaining power in that they can re-locate. Governments can be played off against one another while environmental protection is sidelined.

Ethical investors, consumers and lobbyists maybe the forerunners of a growing community of responsible economic participants.
Initial strategies to grow this ethical activity are weak in the face of a dominant capitalist economy. By evolving the strategy a successful outcome may emerge.

INVESTORS: Some investors attempt to invest in projects which are environmentally sound. Investing ethically does not however halt unethical investment. Projects which will attract high profits will always attract capital regardless of the ethics.

CONSUMERS: Ethical consumers try to protect the environment by purchasing 'environmentally friendly products'. Such demand led activity on environmental protection is insufficient, only a few consumers will go to any significant inconvenience for environmental protection. Furthermore, marketing and advertising agents are creating a green perception to sustain demand. Green reality is coming second to green perception and in the meantime our environment is continuously deteriorating.

ENVIRONMENTAL LOBBYISTS: Current pressure groups are usually in a weak position. They attempt to bring emotive environmental and social issues to our attention in the hope that popular opinion can put pressure on governments and corporations to resolve the problems. Victories are occasional however less noticeable or less newsworthy problems are unlikely to be resolved. Sadly most environmental problems and social injustices continue unchallenged and unchecked.

4.23 Ideological shift required !

Economic growth harms our environment and the problem is snowballing. Capitalist distribution of wealth is unjust. Environmental protection and social care cannot be achieved within capitalism.
Ethical , demand led, environmental and social protection, is not proving effective as there is a conflict with the supply side of the economy which is seeking continuous profit growth.

The whole economy both the supply and demand side need to work in synergy to achieve these goals.

To effectively protect the environment and narrow the wealth gap and safeguard our collective wellbeing – ( to preserve the common ) an evolution of the way we demand and supply resources will occur. Necessity ( the mother of invention ) will reshape our behaviour - adjust our ideology and economic framework .

This change will come when an informed cluster of cooperating people establish a successfully growing ethical supply/producer organisation.

When ethical producers meet the needs of ethical consumers the environment will be sustainable. Increasing numbers of cooperative consumers will realise the benefits to themselves and their offspring of a well cared for environment. The discovery of a pathway to the ‘tangible’ prize of a secure environment for ourselves and our children will encourage consumer behaviour towards environmental protection. The way markets currently work with ongoing growth being central, the environment is destined to be consumed and it is rational to grab a slice before someone else inevitably does. As reality dawns that there is a true opportunity for environmental sustainability (through ethical supply and demand) the rationale changes to ethical behaviour towards the ‘truly achievable’ environmental preservation for the benefit of our children.

A change from capitalism however will arouse many concerns. It can be argued that capitalism is the only way because people have a right to be individuals, we can work hard and be rewarded - reaching our market potential, we have personal freedom. To move away from such a system may infringe upon human rights.
It can be counter argued, consider the person who just starved to death, were their rights protected?

Both arguments are legitimate, people have the right to individual decisions and also have a right to an ideology which doesn’t starve them. Lets adjust the system to care for the environment and mankind while protecting total personal freedom .

4.24 TIMING

The timing may now/soon be right for such a shift in that the world is presently witnessing an explosion in communication. Ideas can now be conveyed more quickly than ever before. With increased communication the human needs become more visible, global problems can be highlighted, ideals changed and priorities shifted.

Social networking can be developed to build visible track records/reputations of consumers, possibly a system of ethical businesses awarding reward points to its ethical consumers, these ethical reward points being displayed on consumers social media. Such strategies shall encourage growth in sustainable behaviour as increasing numbers join the scheme and observe its progress online in real time.

There can be similar visibility of supplier reputations with suppliers selecting to display their environmental and ethical ratings online with consumers being able to give suppliers visible reputation building feedback.

THE NEW SYSTEM ENVISAGED; NEW ECONOMIC MODE, NEW IDEALS.
5.1 New economic mode

In these paragraphs it is envisaged how our economic system may evolve and the ideals that may strengthen and prevail.
A system similar to present capitalism is envisaged with consumers demands and decisions being central to economic activity, while the market system is retained to ensure efficiency i.e. people will buy from and work for companies, the companies providing the goods and services required.

The companies shall compete with one another as at present with the intrinsic difference being that these companies are unowned or commonly owned (similar to charitable status.)

Unowned organisations shall not hold profit as the sole objective but shall attempt to meet consumers requirements subject to the environmental & social checks and balances which the consumers are also encouraged to demand.

In developing unowned corporations the catalyst of economic activity (currently profit alone) can be broadened to include ethical and environmental aspirations. Economic supply activity shall reflect the desires of consumers, not the demands of profit seeking shareholders.

The core benefit is that the central economic driving force can be the efficient maximisation of collective human wellbeing as opposed to the ruthless maximisation of individual wellbeing regardless of the impact on others.
Successful organisations may expand and grow at the expense of the capitalist sector, ensuring efficient and sustainable global production while meeting the requirements of all consumers.

Uncaring corporations can be replaced with un-owned companies which compete with one another to provide the best care for mankind and the planet.
Company sizes may evolve to compare with present arrangements i.e. multinationals, nationals and smaller regional/local operations, capitalist activity may also co- exist.

5.2 IDEALS OF NEW SYSTEM
Needs to be more concise(9main thrust of growth the purchase of shares for charity)

Any new system must therefore be one in which people are free to make individual decisions within a free market, (command economies have proved inefficient and detrimental to personal freedom).

Freedom and the free market need to prevail to supply the demands of the consumers for sustainability. Wealth should not be regarded as the ultimate yardstick of success. Over consumption should be seen as unbeneficial to one self, harmful to the planet and its habitants present and future.

A system may evolve which encourages the ideal of personal fulfilment through sustainable living and contribution (with a public online reputation ) without resorting to visible consumerism as the display of success.

Within the new system collective benefit maximisation can emerge as the new corporate stimulus.
Personal profit maximisation may be sidelined as the main catalyst for activity –(due to environmental problems caused by unchecked growth and the inherent unjust wealth distribution)

Ethical demand and investment may drive the evolution of present day corporations to become commonly owned (or unowned entities). Owners of corporate shares may leave legacy donations shifting ownership into charitable trusts/foundations. The current trend of excessive growth and wealth disparity may subside. The present corporate mission of irresponsible profit maximisation and never ending growth can be replaced with the alternative mission to supply real requirement and deliver profit in order to direct surpluses to where they are most required.

The problem of unsustainable growth and ecological damage are also likely to be eased as collectively owned corporations (CCs) aiming to maximise collective wellbeing without profit as the singular goal, they may take a more responsible approach and may not overproduce unnecessary goods which will ultimately create environmental harm and a negative benefit for all.

With ethical advertising CCs may encourage the idea that it is more fulfilling and responsible to help others who haven't enough than to gather wealth and consume selfishly at a cost to everyone as currently encouraged by capitalism.

A system can emerge in which people are rightly proud of what they are working towards, not motivated by frivolous luxuries but inspired by the importance of their achievement and contribution.
The integrity of the system can be enhanced with online visibility of the reputation of participants, both consumers and suppliers enabled to identify and cooperate with one another. As individuals build their ethical reputations
Our economic framework can evolve to one which embraces all people, encouraging them to perform in the interests of a secure future for all within a market driven sustainable and habitable world.

6.0 The conception development and growth of the new system.

6.1 INITIAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE SYSTEM

Initial steps towards change can be taken by current charitable businesses, philantrophic trusts, environmental charities and ethical consumers. These motivated operators are aware of environmental and wealth disparity problems and can be made aware that a caring economic system can evolve. In recognising their role as catalysts to change strategic behaviour may prevail.

(As time goes by global problems shall have a direct effect on more and more people and the impetus for change shall gather momentum.)

Like all momentus change beginnings are humble.
Organisations concerned with problems such as environmental protection, poverty and social justice, can start trading companies (some are already doing so) which because of their charitable status shall have a competitive edge (due to the affinity and loyalty of ethical consumer ) over their capitalist competition. (these organisations could primarily start business in areas where the products are relatively homogenous e.g. supermarkets, homogenous product retailing, fuel gas petrol coal oil, charitable credit cards, internet firms/maybe banking! Areas of supply in which it is easy for consumers to switch.

The commonly owned/ unowned companies (CCs) like present companies shall retain surpluses for consolidation and growth while directing any additional earnings towards charitable donation. Profit would thus be used to promote the general wellbeing of people and addressing critical needs such as poverty.

It would be expected that the charitable business sector would grow, growth being fuelled by harnessing the ability to highlight the reputation of ethical consumers on social media encouraging others to build their own ethical reputation.
This growth would enable the charitable organisations to integrate across many industries. Within the growing commonly owned sector there would arise ever increasing opportunities for career success and a talent exodus may ensue as ethical talent crosses over from the capitalist sector.
In time the charitable sector may profit and grow both organically and through donations - ethical donors may contribute money and possibly current company shares , both in lifetime giving and in legacy donations via wills.

7.0 MARKET MECHANISMS OF NEW SYSTEM.

s Within our current economic framework consumers select goods on an individual value for money basis while producers and suppliers make decisions to produce/supply solely on a profitability basis. In the new system there shall be a new dynamic guiding economic activity. The missions and goals of the corporations shall be guided by the underlying objectives and aspirations of conscientious consumers.
Within the emerging system the retained competition between competing corporations shall ensure that demands are met and that organisations remain efficient.

Corporations shall in addition compete with one another, with a desire to enhance quality of living for mankind. Profit is not the singular goal and the decision taking criteria for producers and consumers shall be more thoughtful.

The success of the new system shall rest on heightened consumer awareness - it is their influence and purchasing power which is central to ensuring that collective benefits are maximised. Demand must be directed to the corporations which are maximising overall benefits.
It follows that corporate performance, (environmental performance of its products, corporate donations etc., shall have to be completely visible to the consumer.

Consumer's purchasing decisions shall have to reflect on the environmental impact of the product, the charitable needs which the producing corporation is trying to meet, and the efficiency of the producer in trying to meet those needs.

A solution to the complexity of the consumers decision may be achieved with product labelling. Ethical suppliers may declare/rate the environmental impact of their products and list the causes that are financially supported. As this ethical market matures ethical brands are likely to prevail across ranges of goods and services, trust being built with consumers, profit being directed across a spectrum of generally accepted good causes.

Consumers decisions will also be shaped by the development of a system of reputation. Ethical suppliers may award reward points for consumers ethical purchasing and efficiencies. These reputations possibly displayable on consumers social media or outgoing email.

(Ethical branding is currently active with ‘fair trade’ coffee bananas etc delivering fair prices to suppliers. Coffee shops keen to enhance their reputations, find it is good for their business.
With ‘fairtrade’ the benefactors are hard pressed producers. As ethical branding develops to deliver benefits in terms of environmental sustainability right back to the consumers and their children the incentive to select ethical production is greatly increased.)

DETAIL RE : THE NEW CONSUMER DECISION MECHANISM

Consumers shall select on quality and value for money as at present however additional product selection criterion shall come into play.

Consumers will select goods from corporations which have a good reputation on environmental efficiency.

Product/brand selection shall be influenced by the charitable needs which the producing charity/company is attempting to meet. This market force shall direct purchases and the resultant profitable surpluses towards the needs which are publicly perceived as urgent or important.
Consumers would strive to select goods from efficient producers i.e. the organisations which are creating a good donation relative to the price of the product.

Consumer power would also influence the labour market in that overpayment or underpayment of the employees would be frowned upon by ethical consumers.
Supply and demand of skills would remain as the main factor determining wage level, however a balance must be struck as excessive payments may curtail consumer demand from a particular organisation while at the same time efficiency must be rewarded.
A trade off effect may occur with wages being constantly pulled from free market rates towards a perceived fairer level.

In this system consumer decision taking is a potent democratic force.

DETAIL RE: THE NEW PRODUCER DECISION MECHANISM.

New commonly owned / charitable system producers (CCs) shall also have more factors on which to base productive decisions. The present corporate decision to produce is, 'can we supply and market a product at a price and make a profit? (regardless of real benefit to consumer or the environmental cost to all)

The new production decision shall be more subjective, decision takers shall have ethical objectives shaped by consumers ethical demands. Executives shall take supply decisions not solely based on the financials but also based on the direction taken by conscientious consumers. There will be visibility to their decision taking and organisational reputations to consider.

As with their capitalist counterparts, products would compete for production - the most in demand and therefore the most profitable products being selected first, thus retaining Adam Smiths all important invisible hand.
The CCs will however innovate for sustainability and market their products to encourage sustainable consumption.
Environmental cost benefit analysis will emerge as a key indicator alongside profit and loss.
'is the benefit to the user greater than the environmental cost to all, and can the product be sold on or above break even

The CCs would instinctively strive to produce goods that last which have a low environmental impact.

In addition to decisions related to production, corporations will continually revise the portfolio of causes they support in line with current consumer preferences in order to sustain demand and to ensure that the organisation remains competitive in this domain relative to other competing CCs.

8.0 SYSTEM STRENGTHENED AS IDEALS ARE REINFORCEd

Through advertising and PR charitable corporations (CCs) may strengthen the ideals of their system, promote their causes and enhance awareness of the ideals of pro-environment and pro-humanity themes.
Such information is likely to counter capitalist marketing by putting the triviality of consumerism into perspective, discounting the notion that to over-consume is to be happy, while informing people of their real needs and the real challenges facing the planet and us all.

A charity driven economic system will not attempt to create previously un-required demand, frivolous marketing may decrease as the CCs inform and advertise in an effort to clarify to consumers what their genuine needs are; a sustainable positive environment - where human potential is realised.

The effect of such information may be to develop a society with balanced and well informed priorities - more regard for humanity and less emphasis on increased consumerism.

9.0 HEIGHTENED EFFICIENCY AND STABILITY WITHIN A MATURING SYSTEM.

9.1 IMPLICATIONS FOR CC'S AS THE CHARITABLE NEEDS BECOME SATISFIED

After a period the situation may arise whereby commonly owned corporations (CCs) have alleviated major problems such as extreme poverty. As these charitable requirements decrease mayl CC's lose market share to capitalist producers? The counter argument is that in such a scenario there would be a shift in the CC sectors' goal away from acting as a humanitarian charity while continuing their influence on environmental protection and their capacity as sustainable producers. The goal would remain to maintain the sustainable positive environment which would nurture human potential.

If charitable needs decrease consumers are unlikely to switch their allegiance to capitalist producers for two reasons.
Firstly because consumers who select capitalist produce are opting for unsustainable production a harsh environment and a return to problematic wealth disparity. The marketing would regain momentum distorting our direction finding away from best potential.
Secondly as charitable needs fall CC's are likely to deliver better value goods to consumers, the price would include neither charitable dividend nor profit element.

The overall effect of reduced charitable requirement may therefore enhance the CC's ability to prosper at the expense of capitalist producers. CC's may continue to compete with one another in the competition to enhance quality of life for all within an increasingly secure economic framework.

9.2 WILL UNOWNED/ COMMONLY OWNED CORPORATIONS BECOME INEFFICIENT AS THE PURSUIT OF PROFITS IS NO LONGER THE CENTRAL MOTIVATION.

It may be argued that inefficiency may arise in an economic system which doesn't hold the pursuit of profit as the central economic driving force.

However this can be refuted in that the competition for survival will ensure efficiency. These organisations are competing for survival in an open market.

(Ants are efficient - no dollars involved!) Current charities, public sector entities and non profit making organisations are often highly efficient with employees often working within tight financial constraints.

Such efficiency may increase within the new economic framework.

Current corporate efficiency is not singularly due to the corporate profit catalyst. Leadership and employee motives and aspirations may be considered as the over-riding factor in determining corporate efficiency.
Put simply workers work for a salary/wage, efficient workers are likely to retain their employment and possibly get more pay, while inefficient employees are not.
Efficiency is also entwined with future career prospects and payments. Effective managers earn more with greater potential for career development.

The driving force behind organisational efficiency within the competing CCs will come both from top down leadership and dedication from throughout the organisation as all involved will be stakeholders. Employees within a CC entity are therefore likely to perform with a total dedication. It follows that organisational and productive efficiency shall be retained within the new system.

Broader market efficiency may also improve within a CC framework.
Over time some CCs through success may emerge as dominant within their sector and in such a scenario CCs are not likely to take advantage of the uncompetitive situation i.e. distorting the market by means of capitalist style olig/monopolistic behaviour.

Furthermore if market domination is unbeneficial to CCs (their mission to maximise collective wellbeing) such organisations are likely to split retaining competition and market efficiency.
Failure to do so would see consumers switch allegiance to start up entities.

Conor Desmond.

Reply

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <b> </b> <br> <br /> <a> </a> <em> </em> <strong> </strong> <cite> </cite> <code> </code> <ul> </ul> <ol> </ol> <li> </li> <dl> </dl> <dt> </dt> <dd> </dd> <div> </div> <img> <style> <font> </font> <blockquote> </blockquote> <hr>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.