February 28th, 2009 by admin

I think most of us interpret the word ‘freedom’ in a similar way. Most of us realise that freedom means both rights and responsibilities. Many of us understand that there are different levels to freedom, too. When people agree about something, freedom expands. But it also calls for increased responsibility. In many areas in our society we sign papers to regulate and validate an agreement. This signed paper is the proof that freedom is based on fair rules. But is it? There are many situations where the signatories are very unequal. For example: Parents who can save their kid’s life by signing a loan would probably do it, even if they knew they would have problems with paying the loan back. Governments in different countries sign loan papers that make some people unbelievably rich and the already poor, much poorer. There are people who are tortured, who would probably sign a confession in order to stop the torture. These examples are easy to understand for most of us.

But we also have examples that are highly topical and much harder to understand. In the financial crisis we see today, lots of people must have signed lots of papers and now can’t fulfill their responsibility. An unbelievable amount of money won’t reach its destination, or the amount just isn’t enough for some reason. Of course most of the agreements concerning the failed investments with high profit margins are covered up so it’s not a crime, even though morally most of us think that it is a crime, especially when some of those responsible get very high salaries, big bonuses, golden parachutes and a pension that could feed an ordinary family for generations. And these ordinary families whose work is what our economy is based on – real work, production and services – are now seeing their pension go down the drain. Is that freedom?

Sure… voters used their free will to vote for politicians who are now bailing out the banks. That’s called democracy. Democracy is supposed to be freedom but I’m 100% positive that if the same voters could vote for or against a bailout, the outcome would be not to bailout. So how does the freedom work where decisions are made on the highest level in our society? Is this what is called democracy?

Another perennial hot issue is poverty and starvation. Based on a United Nations report released in 2003 and reported by BBC News, about 25,000 people die each day from starvation. This was before the current food crisis. Why don’t we bail them out? Because it’s in another nation, another part in the world? Or is it because we, the rich countries, exploited their land, forests and water and made it worthless for growing crops? I wonder how starving people interpret the word freedom. One thing is totally clear for me: The freedom one can have is vastly different, depending on who you are and what you do. I’m amazed how much effort we put in to maintain a very bad system.

But on the other hand… we have made the system so complex that if you’re in it, trying to look at it, you will find no end to the complexity.

Let’s try to make it easier! We, the humans have a lot of needs. If we have money we can satisfy most of our needs since we use money to buy products and services. We all know now how money can lose its value very quickly. When that happens we need more money in order to maintain the previous standard of living. To maintain the money system itself, we also need money – actually an enormous amount of it. But how true is this? And if you believe it’s true – how good is it? What makes it good – our living standard? Money in the bank can’t help you. It seems as we actually believe that money can do things.

Put any amount of money on a table and ask it to do something for you. Nothing will happen.

Any product or service is made by hands, minds and materials. They are the real resources. We don’t need money – we need people. By looking at our system that way we realise that people are the real resources, including the unemployed. Today we let them be a burden instead. How clever is that? What we need is to organise those resources. That’s exactly what capitalism has done, too. The thing is that it’s so badly organised that too many people just work to administrate or invest money.  If we see people as productive forces instead, working to improve our livelihoods  – would that be freedom?

Organisations or charities fundraise on a daily basis in order to help in different areas. It tells me some important things. 1: There are needs to be met. 2: Some have a lot, and some have so much less that they need help.

But most of all it tells me that our system has failed to be good and just. The solution is not to pump in new money to bailout and maintain a bad system. The solution is to redesign it and with it our mind set.

Guest Blogger: junivers

April 14th, 2008 by Maja

Do we change from within or from outside factors? Is change possible from within the system or is a new system needed? If we choose to work from within the system, do we work from the roots or from the top? Or perhaps; from all these angles at the same time?

All these big questions sometimes make me feel like a change is impossible, but then meeting ordinary people living this economic crisis, it is clear that the existing system is not sustainable. Witnessing the fine line between prosperity and poverty, and seeing what multi-national companies are doing to the third world, people at home, and the environment, keeps reminding me of the necessity to change this system quickly, and not spend all energy debating over whether it’s possible or not.

It is a man-made economic system after all, and trading methods have changed before to suit the times, so surely they can change again to suit our present situation. Perhaps it is the free market ideology that is a failed utopia?

 We all know we are in a globally fragile state, and historically this is when extremist forces have got to power. Trying to conserve a no longer suitable system will be detrimental to everyone and heighten existing conflicts.

There is a real need to educate and supply ideas to the public, which give hope for a better future, and inspire solutions. It is up to all of us to decide if we want it.

mb

April 1st, 2008 by admin

Finding a way to marry our current economic system with humanistic and environmental concerns seems to be the challenge of our time, but is this perhaps an inherent contradiction?

In human history “the survival of the fittest” has been a matter of competing over available resources. In modern times this competition has been structured into a regulated global economic system, an attempt to create a more “civilized” world. Today our economy still reflects this competition.

With modern technology we have the ability to produce in abundance. According to both Amnesty International and the UN we are already producing more food than is needed to feed the world. We also have the scientific knowledge to maintain this level of production using new methods and materials that wouldn’t damage the eco-system or rely on depleting resources. Still, millions of people are starving and we keep over-exploiting un-renewables such as oil, gas and coal at a much faster rate than the planet can sustain. Somehow, this unequal distribution of goods and unsustainable management of scarce resources, constitutes a “thriving economy”.

Our system is dependent on constant growth, which has led to over-production and dwindling resources. At the same time we need to waste the surplus in order to sustain value, to balance supply and demand in order to keep our economy – not our environment – “healthy”.

People are beginning to ask the question whether our basic model of “competition” and perpetual growth is still valid and necessary. What was once “modern” suddenly doesn’t seem so “civilized” anymore.

Through the intelligent application of new technologies we have a possibility to re-structure our economic system more equitably, in alignment with what the planet can actually supply. It has become a matter of choice; collaboration or competition. We could choose to feed everyone. It could be a seismic cultural shift.

But instead it is argued that our culture and our technological advancements are motivated by the economic competition. There is a big fear that we would not have the incentive to work and invent if we didn’t have the need to earn money. But the competition for profit also creates the incentive for crime and corruption and there are many people already working for no profit, usually people who passionately love their jobs or can afford to do what they want. Have we become dependent on someone else motivating us to get out of bed?

What would happen to a culture where everyone actually had a free choice over how to live their lives?

March 20th, 2008 by admin

We need to think globally about global matters, and both the economic and environmental crises are global concerns at this point.

Who are we to say an economic transformation will never happen in our lifetime? Many things now commonplace were just as inconceivable 50 or 100 years ago. What ordinary person then could have conceived of “software” or the Internet? And who would have thought green issues would become mainstream one day?

In times of crisis there is both the threat of destruction and the possibility for rapid change, it is ultimately up to us what way it will go.

mb/sh