Page 8 R IN December 1978 Wl at follows is an attempt to olltline an area.of research I want to pull together over tbe next year ofso. The ideas are relevant now- the details longer in coming. All that depending 011 time and funds, ideas nd inpllt from you and others, and what other plans the universe has for me in the meantime. Feedback, data, ideas, and any help on fllnding are welcome. - TB Over the last fifty years a worldwide shift from substantially self-reliant regiona.l economies to experimentation with a ingle giant exchange economy has taken place. The unique political, energetic, and material conditions which supported that experiment have since changed dramatically. The effects upon our lives of the e on my reated are coming under erious question, and the possibility of new self-reliant e onomies based upon appropriate technologies is beginning to offer a distinct alternative that warrants careful examination. It 5 time to see if, as we suspect. our present economic patterns are really costing us far more than we realize. It's time to examine the new forms of self-reliant economics to see if they can be a more desirable way to live. Starting to try to put such a picture together, here are some of the perspectives and questions that have come out: • "Free Trade" rarel means fair trade. The terms of trade in any exchange economy are set by the more powerful trading partners to their own advantage. The U.S. has benefitted hand. mdy from this in the past, buying raw materials at highly competitive (or gunpoint) prices and selling manufactured goods in return at monopoly prices. But today the balance has shifted to where we have to purchase raw materials at monopoly prices and sell manufactured goods with strong ompetition from others. Likewise, farmers selling to a monopolistic food processor or consumers bu ing food, autos, electricity or newspapers from firms that are powerful enough to influence prices cnd up repeatedly on the short end of the stick. To the degree that a person, community, or region provides for its wn needs, it can avoid dealing in such arrangement that literally can starve them out. But would "protected" regional or local markets create a similar monopoly position for dominant firms in the smaller market? Or could we set up new "rules of tbe game" for large-scale trade which would insure fair treatment for everyone? • Exchange economies have resulted in major centralization of economic power, which with its resultant concentration of political power presents a grave threat to any democratic form of g vernment. We've already witnessed the effects in Vietnam, Watergate, the Soviet Wheat Deal, and the growing political infl uence of oil countries in D.C. today. Decentralization of economic power brings more relative power to individuals and ommunities to control their own affairs. But change in cale may only ubstitute petty local tyrants for distant great ones. Are they any less chafing? • Centralized economic planning (whether by business or government) also generally disregards and escapes the often staggering local impacts of their actions. Energy "boom towns" strain local tax bases and schools. Unnecessary plant closings frequently have catastrophic impact on a local community and people's investment in their community. Freeway construction and urban renewal projects are notorious for their unwanted local impacts. The scale at which such decisions are made and at which industries and other organizations operate can be decreased dramatically- frequently with improvement in economic performance. But can, or should, smaller organizations be able to respond as quickly to new market developments as larger ones? And can they maintain a broad enough perspective on their own actions? • On closer examination, many of the apparent economies of large scale organization turn out to be accounting sleights of hand. The lower food prices in supermarket chains often results from their monopoly of marketing opportunities for the farmers and resultant underpayment to farmers for their crops. The farmers rather than the consumers are paying the price subsidy, while the food processors/distributors are actually taking a larger bite out of the middle than before. • Failure to include the household as a producing economy in our economic calculations (though its product equals onethird of our GNP) results in major distortions of our perceptions of economic progress. Anything done at home, even if more efficient, registers as a loss of production and employment, while any production moved out of the home and into the workplace (even at a loss of efficiency) registers as e 0nomic and employment growth. How do we include i.e? • Measuring only production (GNP) has led us to equate expenditures with benefit. More expenditures on medical services are inferred to mean better health care and better health, though more likely they are a cost of dealing wi th the results of unhealthy living patterns or the results of harmful substances we allow to be released into our surroundings. Likewise, increased production associat~d with throw-away rather than durable goods is seen as a plus, and increased transportation use and expenditure is counted as a benefit rather than a cost of making a way of life possible. All of which lead to distortion in the way we do things. What new accounting procedures can give us clearer perceptions, and support decentralized ways of operating?
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz