A political and economic way forward

By

Stuart Yates

Introduction

Western political and economic values together with actions consequent upon those values are bringing the world to the edge of catastrophe, if indeed it is not too late to avoid such a catastrophe. I believe a new political and economic system based on a different value system is needed if catastrophe is to be averted. There is no sign that Western political leaders are willing to set out the necessary changes in societal values. I assume that they are well aware of the situation and its dangers, but the very nature of the loss of control by politicians of the way in which the West operates and the political system means that such honesty is difficult if not impossible. Individuals in society must therefore spell out the realities, both present and future. What is wrong is clearly known. Identifying alternatives is difficult, but I am attempting here a way forward in principle. We need to start by recapping on our situation at present.

Where we are now

Humankind is faced, at worst, with extinction as a result of climate change. The science is unequivocal: we are the largest cause of global warming and unless emissions are drastically reduced, then, at best, millions of people will die, the diversity of other species decimated. We do not know at what point the die off would become extinction. The plight of the honey bee illustrates this, reminding us of the fragility of our dependence on other life forms for our existence. Only changes in our political and economic systems will avert disaster, the main change being a drawback from the god of growth.

Even in the midst of the recession and the awareness of climate change, Western politicians are still promising a return to growth. By growth they mean an increase in economic wealth, monetary and material wealth. Such an increase inevitably means an increase or a lower decrease in emissions, prejudicing our survival as a species. In the West, zero growth is the only sane option, yet it is studiously ignored. Economic and material growth, beyond a certain level (and most people, not all, in the West are past such a level) is an immature outlook on life. Once we have enough to satisfy our essential needs, then it only remains for us to find meaning and fulfillment in our life. The extent to which Western society seeks meaning and fulfillment in money and material possessions is a measure of our immaturity. We know this. Hardly anyone, faced with a choice of more money or the latest technical innovation on the one hand and seeing even a wonderful sunset or young animals playing on the other hand would rate money/gadget as more fulfilling. I say "even", as it is even more true if we consider for instance relationships versus possessions. The person who would rather have money than good relationships is shallow and immature indeed.

We know this, yet politicians in the UK are presently occupied with the 'problem' of whether or how to limit bonuses paid to senior staff in the finance sector. Such staff's remuneration runs into millions of pounds per year, yet government is frightened that any cap or restriction will send these people running overseas to maintain their income. Anyone who did this is by the above definition immature, performing a service solely for money well in excess of what would provide a very comfortable standard of living. Such people have not learned that enough is sufficient and sufficiency means contentment. I do not want such people to have positions of power and influence in my country.

The reason why growth is all-important is that corporations have escaped from state regulation or control; thus globalisation, as stated above, is out of the control of politicians. It is the function of corporations to make money. In the UK this is enshrined in law: any company director who deliberately reduces his company's ability to make money has failed in his statutory duty. The drive for bigger profits leads to the need to become bigger, which in turn leads to takeovers and expansion beyond national boundaries. Once they have reached a certain size, multi-national corporations can set their own agendas to a large extent. If a country does not provide an agreeable tax climate, the corporation can simply threaten to close down and move elsewhere. The host state cannot afford to lose revenue and increase unemployment, plus adding to its import bill, buying in what was formerly produced within the country. So corporations pay little tax - far less in proportion to income than individuals. Public services suffer. Globalisation - a completely free international market in goods and services, especially money - suits corporations very nicely. Unfortunately, it benefits the source countries, mainly in the West, although China and India are catching up, far more than the non-Western countries who end up hosting the production facilities. The corporations pay low wages abroad, low tax, and the revenue stream flows back to the already rich Western nation. The CEOs and senior executives take home millions, their fellow citizens, former workers, become unemployed. Politicians put out the spin that the third world benefits from globalisation but this is just spin. Again, in order to maintain/improve profits, corporations insist not only on low wages, but also poor working conditions. Third world countries are hardly in a position of negotiating from strength. So countries find themselves for instance growing crops for the West to the detriment of growing food for their own populations. It is grotesque that corporations which are not elected in any way, have no responsibility towards society and are solely concerned with maximising profits should have such undue influence on the policies of nation states and the well being of people worldwide.

The emphasis on individualism rather than interdependence is another factor in determining where we are now. In the US we have the fierce opposition to the provision by the state of any service to individuals on the basis that this is socialism and all individuals should be capable of providing for themselves. If they do not this is regarded as a willful dereliction of individual responsibility, in other words, their own fault. This emphasis on individualism is also seen in executive pay. CEOs are awarded - or award themselves - massive salaries, bonuses and pensions, whilst employees are laid off at the first sign of a dip in profits, have their pension schemes frozen or discontinued. CEOs are dependent upon the talents, efforts and motivation of the workforce - people are not machines - yet this is not recognised in a fair reward system for the communal activities involved in the functioning of an organisation. Apart from understandable resentment this leads to people viewing this from a selfish point of view - what do I get out of it - and a reduction in compassion and care for others. Along with this selfish, make sure No 1 is OK attitude, comes a reduction in any sense of responsibility, certainly towards others. So there is little compassion shown to the US worker who loses his health insurance with his job, becomes ill and has no means of paying for his health needs. There is no sense that illness can strike anyone, anyone can become unfit to work through no fault of their own and that each of us has the responsibility to contribute to the common good: that all individuals in society are willing to contribute in order to sustain those in temporary or permanent need of support. It is easier to keep, selfishly, what we receive ('earned' or not) and regard misfortune in others as their fault and nothing to do with us. Both in the US and the UK, political parties foster this selfishness, with the mantras 'small state, low taxes', 'it's your money, you should decide how to spend it' etc. Small state and low taxes means no support for the physically and mentally ill. Yet, 'it's your money' does not extend to 'defence' expenditure in order to invade other countries.

I also have a problem with democracy, that sacred cow for which so many thousands, hundreds of thousands, of civilians in countries far from the US and UK have died in the recent past. Democracy may be the best system, or it may not, but it certainly is not perfect and it is part of the problems that face the globalised, looking extinction in the face world of today. Four or five year terms in office lead to short term, populist measures in areas that matter in terms of ecological catastrophe. Politicians wishing to stay in power and needing votes in order to do this resort to two strategies: fear and selfishness. Thus voters are made to feel fear, whether it historically be of the Soviet Union, immigrants, terrorism which neatly satisfies the powerful defence lobby, measures to maintain civil order and jingoism. All the politicians have to do is the convince the populace that they are the best party to reduce or eliminate the threats. Selfishness of course is used in order to ensure that the populace continue to feed their desires for more consumption, which also neatly satisfies the demand by the powerful corporations for more sales, bigger profits. So, again, all the parties compete to convince voters that they will be better off materially if their party is elected. Meanwhile, the defence industry does what it does best, killing people and the defence industry, commercial organisations and consumers all share in the gobbling up of the earth's resources in ways that threaten our very existence.

Change, much greater change than I believe even Barack Obama can envisage within his political system, is long overdue. Such change has to take time: dictatorial imposition, in view of the timeframe, is tempting, but brings its own penalties. It needs to start now, at the top and bottom of society. Let us explore some of the elements of that change.

The Ethical Framework

I have written before about ethics on a personal and political basis: (Towards a new political ethics) so do not need to recap my reasons for adopting the following ethical principles:

Autonomy - respect for the self-determination of individuals and states

Beneficence - strive to do good

Non-maleficence - strive not to do harm

Fidelity - continue to support individuals and states, rather than abandoning them

Justice - treat people and states fairly

These principles guide my own behaviour and are principles, not rules, frequently decisions have to be taken which favour one principle over another. They underpin all the proposals below and hopefully nothing is put forward which violates all the principles. There is one further consideration which is to do with care of the self (or state). It should be used with caution in conjunction with the above principles, not as an excuse for abandoning them, but everything an individual or state does should be within the capacity of the individual or state. Trying to live by the principles but beyond the capacity of the individual or state is not sustainable and may lead to more harm than the intended good.

The way forward

Zero growth

Climate change, with the need for less developed countries to grow in order that there are fairer standard of living conditions across the world, means that the Western economies should, at worst, not grow at all over the next few decades and preferably should shrink. The survival of our species is at stake. The West has a more than adequate standard of living: to increase it remorselessly as at present is both selfish and suicidal. A policy or even an accidental path of zero or negative growth is difficult to achieve politically but this is the starting point and all the following proposals flow from this primary requirement, being geared to assist in its achievement. Without zero growth in the developed nations not only will climate change imperil our species, the increased gap between rich and poor, the increasingly scarce availability of food and water will lead to increased conflicts across the world. Zero growth honours justice for and beneficence towards the poorest of the world.

Within an individual society or state zero growth should also mean a fairer distribution of wealth and benefit. Free market competition, ie competition which is not effectively moderated by the state but allowed unfettered rein, a situation actively encouraged by the Reagan/Thatcher/Chicago school over the last decades does by definition discount and deliminate the ethical principle of justice. Zero growth without the gap between rich and poor in a society becoming smaller may help reduce the effects of climate change but would do nothing towards a more healthy society and promoting the common good.

The common good

Activity in whatever form is assessed at present in terms of its value as measured in economic terms. This measurement consists simply of income, profit, or growth. Thus it is 'good' to report a growth in sales. It is 'good' to report a growth in profit or income. The sole reliance on financial measurement means that activities which cannot easily be assessed financially are hardly valued at all. Parenting for example. Yet activities like parenting, teaching, social work, as well as artistic activities contribute far more towards the common good than the latest more advanced razor or MP3 player. What do I mean by the common good? Well, it is the benefit which society enjoys as a result of the activities which contribute towards those benefits. The activities of the police contribute to less crime and therefore a greater sense of security experienced by citizens. Social workers repair damage done to children by abusive or neglectful parents and those children develop into more responsible citizens. Teachers similarly play a vital role in facilitating a healthier society and reducing dysfunction. Note that this does not mean the fostering of conformity. The healthiest societies - physically, intellectually, emotionally and spiritually - are those which encourage differnece and dissent. The chief aim of activities which are primarily focussed on the common good is not profit but people - individually and collectively. The contribution to the common good of organisations whose chief aim is profit is accidental, fortuitous. The way forward needs to include an increase in the value society places on those who contribute to the common good. The profit or larger income motive is a poor or non-existent factor in activities geared to the common good. As activities which contribute to the common good tend to be those which are run directly by the state or are sub-contracted by the state to others to run, they fall foul of the 'large state, high tax' attacks from the Right, yet if the Right does get its own way in shrinking those activities we immediately see the harm done to society in higher unemployment, higher crime, higher levels of poverty etc. Compassion is the first beneficial human characteristic to wane, as all are forced to scramble to get what we can of scarce resources. It breeds selfishness, greed - all those characteristics alien to beneficience.

The management and valuing of activities which contribute to the common good need to be fostered and championed by the state. No other organised body will do it.

Corporate management

Corporations, especially global corporations, are out of control and without some control or management of the corporate sector, zero growth will not happen. Corporations are hard-wired to grow and to persuade the consumer to spend more and upgrade regularly. It is unrealistic to assume that corporations will voluntarily curb their growth. We know that competition leads to its opposite: a few companies dominating their particular market, which is then anti-competitive. The following summarises the sort of corporate management that states need to enact as part of the drive to zero growth.

Maximum market share

The US already goes some way towards this via the anti-Trust laws. What is needed are international agreements on how large a market share any one corporation can have in any country where it operates. It is suggested that this be set at 10%, which would ensure that in every country, in every sector, at least ten companies are genuinely competing. Whenever a company grows beyond a 10% share a sufficiently large part is divided off into a separate independent company. Market share is determined by turnover. Clearly there would need to be sensible rules concerning the length of time such excess market share exists before such action is taken - six months seems the right sort of figure and a sufficiently large overrun - perhaps to 12% - so that the new company can compete with the existing organisations in the market. What constitutes a single market sector also needs to be determined. Success in obtaining greater market share need not be penalised: executives who succeed in growing a company beyond the 10% share could be rewarded appropriately. The question of economies of scale revolve around sizing of production facilities and investment in research and development. R & D issues are dealt with below. In most sectors relatively small production facilities may indeed not be as efficient as larger ones, but, consistent with the overrriding aim of holding back climate change this may actually be beneficial in ecological and social terms. Social because smaller facilities may be more labour-intensive and the provision of employment is also seen as part of a movement towards greater social and economic equality. In those few industries where large production facilities are necessary, for instance oil, steel, arrangements could be made for shared production facilities, competition being on all the non-production aspects of the market: price, marketing and other costs, product differentiation etc. We can liken this to airports being the production facility and each airline decides how much to use and what sort of services to offer. If we look at what corporations are really for - providing useful goods and services - then the present system whereby corporations appear to be run solely for the benefit of the corporation is the tail wagging the dog.

The concept of a fair profit

At present corporations can make as large a profit, either in total or in terms of one product or service, as they can get away with. A good example are pharmaceutical companies who, on the basis of expensive R & D, charge in effect what they please for new drugs. Similarly we have all witnessed excessive profits and bonuses followed by enormous losses made in the financial sector. Such profits penalise those who are dependent upon products such as essential drugs for chronic illness. We also know that in some sectors, notably finance, a significant proportion of excess profits go to 'reward' senior executives in bonuses, share options etc, thus excacerbating the gap between rich and poor. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with making a profit, however, by definition, one organisation's profit is another organisation's or individual's cost. Whilst the proposal to limit market share would resolve many of the reasons for excessive profits through greater competition, nevertheless there will always be occasions when a company has a unique product or service, even if for a short time. Organisations also ought to be rewarded for taking risks. Setting a maximum profit, in percentage terms, in relation to the average base interest rate measured over a period of time, say six months or a year, would be one way of ensuring that excessive profits are not taken. This percentage would of course always be over 100%.

Shared Research and Development

As has been mentioned above, economies of scale are necessary in some areas where extensive research is needed before new products especially can be formulated and tested. However, with the requirement to avoid monopoly or semi-monopolistic situations by splitting up large corporations, investment on a sufficiently large scale might be difficult or impossible for relatively small companies. In these situations shared R & D facilities would provide the economies of scale and avoid the wastage involved at present where R & D effort is duplicated. Generally speaking, R&D investment would be tax free. Funding could be divided on whatever basis is agreed between the R&D organisation and the members of the industry. Benefits back to the organisations would reflect the relative investment. It is possible to foresee two or more organisations agreeing to fund jointly the development of a new product and agreeing shared marketing/profits of the product. This raises the question of patents, licences and intellectual property rights. Bearing in mind the aim of zero growth, the development of non-essential products e.g. consumer goods should not be over-encouraged and for this reason there is a case for reducing the length of time that patents and intellectual property rights run for consumer products, whilst retaining the tax free status and patent/intellectual property rights for socially beneficial products e.g. medicines. The principles of a fair profit would still be maintained. I see no reason why society should not encourage the development of beneficial goods and services whilst not explicitly facilitating tax and licencing arrangements for non-essential goods.

A fair taxation system

In respect of R&D, a differential tax system in terms of tax free status has been touched upon above. There is a case for more radical measures concerning the level of tax paid by individuals and corporations. Businesses have access to services geared to reduce their tax liabilties to the minimum:

"We can advise directors of Limited Companies and Limited Liability Partnerships to reduce their corporation tax by up to 80% through one of our dedicated structures. Through the use of specialist trusts it is possible for the company to obtain a corporation tax deduction, to shelter company profits in a tax-free environment and for the directors and other employees to be able to access the funds with no Income Tax or National Insurance implications. We will also advise on the most tax efficient methods of receiving remuneration from the company. The Inland Revenue have been trying to block our scheme since 1991 with no success and many of our clients have been enjoying the rewards this brings. All of our schemes are fully insured against any revenue enquiry and all fees are refunded if blocked."

From the website of such a service provider - all legal, of course and you will note the guarantee that schemes are "insured" against being blocked by HMRC. There is even a money-back guarantee. Companies benefiting from such services pay substantially less tax than you would expect and substantially less tax in percentage terms than individuals. My own income is less than the UK average. Last year I paid tax of 20.5% on an income of less than £18,000. Corporate tax information is not easy to interpret and any misrepresentation is liable to result in legal action, as in the case of the Guardian newspaper and Tesco. Nevertheless, I can quote from the published Financial Report for 2009 of Diageo, the drinks company. I am not singling out Diageo as any better or worse than other corporations and certainly not accusing them in any way of any illegal activies. The selection of Diageo was literally random, but in 2009 the company made sales of £12,283 million and a profit before taxation of £2,015 million. The report includes £292 million for tax and in the text reports this as 14.5%. Diageo considers itself to be ethical: "Reputation is critical to commercial success and can only be enhanced by behaviours of which we are proud. At Diageo, we strive to have the highest standards of integrity in the way we behave towards our consumers, customers, employees, public officials, suppliers, shareholders and other stakeholders. Diageo’s board and executive committee are therefore committed to achieving the highest standards of corporate governance, being a responsible corporate citizen in the communities of which we are part and applying the appropriate level of risk management when directing and controlling the business." (from the same report) So, on the basis that Diageo do indeed pay their full quota of tax - and we know that many corporations seek ways not to pay - a major corporation pays 5% less in tax than someone who is below the average UK level of earning. We can probably therefore safely assume that this represents a relatively low gap (but still the 'wrong' way) between personal and corporate taxation. Having written the above, I looked up Cable and Wireless, as I was employed by them for a while. In 2007/8, C & W's effective tax rate (their term) was 18%, both before and after exceptional items. In 2008/9 the rate was 6% before and 7% after exceptional items. Corporations really do pay relatively little tax.

Now, let us remind ourselves what tax systems are for. They are to provide the resources to enable the state to fulfil certain obligations towards its citizens. These include, whichever structural ways in which these services are provided, defence, police and emergency services, health, education, water and sanitation, power. These services should be available to all, irrespective of income, and it seems to me to be manifestly unfair if individuals contribute more as a percentage of their income than companies. Companies benefit from the provision of essential services and therefore should bear a similar burden to that borne by citizens. Would it not be reasonable to expect corporations to pay tax at a rate equal to the average percentage paid by individuals? There are the questions of tax relief for investment, for temporary losses, but the principle should be clear: pay the rate e.g. 20%, 30%, whatever. This should be a primary obligation: to be budgeted for and paid irrespective of other factors. After all, I cannot say "Sorry, can't pay my full tax this year, my roof started to leak and I have spent £X,000 repairing it." The international aspect of corporations, whereby for instance profits can be shifted mysteriously from one area to another, so that the major profit appears to have been made in the area with the lowest tax rate, is more difficult to regulate. International cooperation is not just going to happen overnight by magic. The EU however could make a start - indeed in some ways has done so - in ensuring that corporations across separate countries are treated similarly.

There is also the question of, in the UK certainly, a tax which discriminates against labour. Employer national insurance contributions are used to raise revenue for the government but also have the effect of making labour more expensive relative to capital. Now I would argue that one of the primary responsibilities of government is to create a climate in which as many people as possible are employed. Furthermore I believe in the rather old-fashioned concept of work being, or it being possible for work to be, worthwhile in itself, rather than a necessary drudge. Employer national insurance contributions are counter productive to full employment. Whilst many in the US regard any state provision of welfare as anathema, most societies see the need for the state to be able to support those who are unable, either temporarily or chronically, to support themselves. Employee contributions are appropriate: help to provide for those who are less fortunate and also know that your contributions may be used to help you if you fall on hard times. The balance of contributions above employee payments should come from general taxation, corporate and individual. This would reduce to a degree to which companies reach for the wage bill to reduce when profits dip.

Inequality

Bart Becht of Reckitt Benckiser receives £36.76m in remuneration, his staff receive on average £26,749 which means he receives 1,374.2 times as much as his average staff member. (Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/sep/14/executive-pay-bonuses-pay) This is just one and probably not the worst example of the inequality which pervades what may be called the Anglo-Saxon culture: a free for all with as few rules as possible in which those with the greatest inborn advantages, greatest talent, largest work rate or just simply the most ruthless self-interest take what they want without regard to the effects on others.

I had written most of this article, leaving this section until last and this section would have been much harder to write before I read 'The Spirit Level' by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, (Allen Lane, 2009, ISBN 978-1-846-14039-6) which I would urge everyone to buy and read. (I have no connection with the authors or publisher) There is also a web site: Equality Trust. My argument would have been on ethics, culture etc. What the book conclusively demonstrates is that unequal societies are more unhealthy and dysfunctional in all sorts of ways. I will not attempt to summarise their findings - buy it - but graph after graph illustrate the ill-effects of inequality. Life expectancy, mental illness, violence, crime, teenage pregnancies, the list goes on and on. The effects of inequality are proved as far as I am concerned and if you are unsure, just read the evidence. The question is what to do about it, which this whole article is aligned to because inequality is shown not only to be unfair, but damaging to all, including the wealthy themselves.

Politics

Electoral system

This section is written solely with the UK in mind as I am not sufficiently knowledgable about how political systems work in other countries. The principles however may apply elsewhere. The UK system is deeply undemocratic. The 'first past the post' system means that all votes not cast for the winning candidates are wasted, have no effect on political representation. Even worse, in many constituencies where one or other party has an historic majority of votes, votes for other parties can never make any difference to the outcome even of that constituency. So an important principle to establish is a system which ensures that each vote has an effect on the outcome: if your vote is meaningless, as it is for millions, why bother to vote? In the UK there is a long tradition of individual representation ie. you vote for a person, not a party and the argument is that 'first past the post' ensures this, proportional representation systems where all votes do count is incompatible with the 'individual representation' principle. This argument does not hold water. I have set out elsewhere (Some Proposals on Electoral Reform) the outlines of a voting system which maintains individual representation whilst ensuring that party political representation mirrors the proportion of votes cast nationally, ie. all votes count. Until the UK adopts a system whereby all votes count, we cannot regard ourselves as truly democratic and cannot expect people to engage with the political process.

Party funding

Political parties in the UK are funded primarily by private individuals, trades unions and companies. This weakens democracy as much as the electoral system itself. Put simply, contributing to a political party, beyond modest individual sums, buys influence. Wealthy individuals, unions and companies can as a result of their contribution lobby for policies that help their cause or situation. Some form of payback is implicitly or explicitly expected. The government of the day is thus not completely independent to carry out policies that it deems beneficial for the country. The answer is state funding and a prohibition on any other source of funds. This state funding would be low relative to the funds presently elicited privately - there is no reason to be generous with taxpayers' money. The basis could be £X per thousand votes cast for each party at the previous election. In order that new political parties can be formed or for individuals to put themselves forward as independent MPs, a small sum equivalent to the present requirement for a deposit could be provided by the state. Subsequent funding would then be on historic votes received. This may make it difficult, but not impossible, for small parties to grow.

As for the argument that taxpayers' money should not be provided to fund political parties, the positive argument for this is that there are few more appropriate causes justifying taxation: to support genuine democracy and provide a direct stake in the electoral process. State funding would also stop the grotesque escalating costs in party funding.

Referenda

There has recently been a lot of crocodile tears shed over the inability, now that the Czechs have ratified the Lisbon Treaty, to hold a referendum on the subject in the UK. Now I am aware that any party would be likely to lose such a referendum and I am also a staunch supporter of the UK being in the UK. But the concept of referenda on important issues is a sound one and the UK would only vote solidly against the Lisbon Treaty because of all the media spin. If there were a referendum on staying in, or pulling out, (you see how the wording can influence how people vote?) the outcome is less certain. There is also the issue - bearing in mind the Irish re-run, reminiscent of an authoritarian state persisting until the citizens give the 'right' answer - of how long the results of a referendum should last. Clearly not for ever, circumstances change, but surely it would concentrate peoples' minds if they knew for how long their vote would bind their country. I believe that referenda are an important means of becoming more democratic and that cooperation between political parties is the way forward. Whilst maybe only one party may want a referendum on a particular subject (and a particular result) it should be possible for an independent body to draft the wording and all parties to agree to the wording and the length of time that the vote will bind them. Campaigning for and against would not be affected. The choice of whether or not a referendum should be held is more problematical. If on a free vote, most MPs (assuming they reflect their constituents' wishes) vote for one, then it should take place. "Most" probably means rather more than half, say 75%.

Society

All the above thoughts are geared to and compatible with fundamental changes to Western society. I do not believe in social engineering as such but if we are to reduce the risk of global catastrophe, create more equal societies and create a more equal and fair global society, then governments have to take coordinated actions to shift Western culture away from individual wealth acquisition and competition towards consideration of others, towards principles of justice and fairness. ('The Spirit Level' demonstrates that people have an inbuilt awareness of and preference for fairness) Material reward for cooperation etc is inappropriate. Governments and local councils can contribute to cultural change by recognising and according greater respect for individuals and organisations who work towards the common good. Money needs to be seen in a different light: to be useful only insofar as the use of it contributes to the common good. Money sitting in an engorged pension pot for CEOs to dip into from aged 50 creates more harm than good - for everyone. Western society is sick and everyone knows it at some level. It is indefensible on all counts. The immature and greedy people who benefit financially from the present culture also wield power and that power will not be given up lightly. Governments can nudge society in a different direction but it is the people who can effect real change over a period of time. If many/most of us lived the ethical principles, demonstrated our lack of respect for the greedy and our great respect for those that do live the ethical principles, then the greedy and selfish would realise they form the cultural minority and like all cultural minorities would start to feel uneasy at least at being out of step. It is the intention of free market capitalism to convince us that we are out of step with the financially successful and that we 'need' the extra possessions to keep in step. Actually, we are the majority, could be in step with each other and find the joy and contentment which comes from sufficiency. We know it is shallow to want the 42" plasma screen for instance that our neighbour has, but the marketing bombardment goads us, blinds us to the truth. The truth that wealth is irrelevant to contentment, that inequality creates life-shortening stress for those with and without relative wealth.

Never forget though that power cannot be given. It has to be taken and we have the oppportunity to take it, peacefully and wisely, if enough of us start to live by a new code of ethics and start to badger (they will need badgering) our political leaders to do what they can to shift our societies in terms of how our political and economic institutions are structured. Our power lies with our lifestyle and our willingness to share our way of life with others. No-one can stop us from doing this if we live by those ethical principles. No-one.

January 2010