The Big Picture

In the midst of this latest crisis, the meltdown of behemoth Wall Street investment banks and other such institutions around the world, the powers-that-be are scurrying around trying to shore up the system in the short term so as to, at least, minimize the collapse. This is probably a necessary strategy in response to the present emergency and will, perhaps, be somewhat effective. But if it is part of an effort to preserve the system as it is for the long term…that will be a big mistake.

Among the noisy clatter of hammering together some jerry-rigged contraption to get us through the exigent circumstances we find ourselves in there have been some clarion cries for a new model, a new socioeconomic model to operate under that will provide a more coherent system.

Of course, once the faulty system now in place is patched up those cries will die down and it will be business as usual as we head for the next big crisis looming somewhere over the horizon.

Anyway, let’s consider a new model here just for the heck of it.

First of all, with reference to the current outrage, it seems that self-interest is the culprit in all these business and banking crises, past and present. Now, self-interest is considered by many to be a bad thing in and of itself. But it isn’t. It’s all a matter of how it’s directed. For example, self-interest during our primitive existence is what accounted for the formation of close knit groups where individuals put the solidarity of the tribe above themselves. It was self-interest in one’s own survival that bound individuals together. Surviving in the wild on one’s own was not an option. Belonging to a tribe increased one’s chances of survival exponentially. It was also in one’s self-interest to contribute to the tribe’s well-being, to see to it that it was as harmonious as possible. A tribe in optimum condition was much more likely to survive and that, again, benefited each and every individual’s self-interest because their survival depended upon the collective condition of the tribe.

The very same self-interest/collective-interest dynamic is a fundamental aspect of modern societies as well.

Although in our minds self-interest and collective-interest are separate, opposite and in conflict with one another, as the former is associated with capitalism and the latter with socialism, they are in fact always intertwined. It is plain for everyone to see that it is in everyone’s self-interest to be part of various collectives of one sort or another be it a family, school, club, business, gang, community, etc. Forming and being part of collectives is in the self-interest of everyone because that is how everyone’s self-interest can best be realized. One participates, then, in the maintenance of collective organizations as a means of fulfilling one’s self-interest while it is in the interest of the collective to allow individuals to pursue their own self-interest, which includes maintaining the collective-interest.

One’s self-interest is never pursued in an absolutely free state. It is amended and given relevance by the collectives one finds it necessary to belong to. But sometimes the collectives that individuals belong to, like Enron, Countrywide, Bear Sterns and the like operate in an isolated insular way only interested in generating profit for themselves. These collective entities believe they are pursuing their self-interest with their money making schemes but as they eventually find out they are not. They behave like cancerous tumors seeking their own growth at the expense of the whole social body’s well-being. The tumors metastasize and the cancer spreads.

A full realization and understanding of the self-interest/collective-interest dynamic on the part of each and every individual would be a positive step toward weaving a sound socioeconomic fabric in which everyone could put their trust.

With this in mind we need to rethink and redesign the whole system where the government, the economy, the banking industry, the media and the citizenry form a seamless social fabric.

We need to define the terms, create the framework and lay out a blueprint for the radical changes necessary to govern effectively and do business in the 21st Century.

First and foremost we need to focus on the fundamentals and then focus on them some more and then keep focusing on them.

Fundamentals like money. We need to know and have a firm grasp of what money’s purpose is in a social body. Generally speaking the purpose of money is to energize the work that needs to be done to create and maintain a healthy vigorous social body.

Money also plays into the self-interest/collective-interest dynamic.

Collective interest is created out of a universal self-interest - the interest to survive. Everyone has an interest in their own survival. In order to survive in a modern society one needs to acquire money, one way or another. This results in the creation of employers and employees, which form collectives – businesses - wherein one’s self-interest in making money can be realized as can the interests of the business.

There is also a self and collective interest to have a system for the purpose of handling money. That would, of course, be a banking system whose role would be, among other things, to facilitate the operation of the economic system.

The socioeconomic system now in place is top heavy, convoluted, disconnected and generally obsolete.

Take, for instance, the way money from the private sector is pooled for the benefit of the collective-interest. The pooling of money to serve the collective interest is, of course, in every one’s self-interest. For example, if some disaster befalls a particular area we all want to know that funds will be available for assistance. The pooling of money is now the purview of governments that have the power to tax. So, part of the money that is made in the private sector by individuals and businesses and in the pubic sector by government workers is collected, in the US for instance, by the IRS and then the congress decides how to redistribute it.

The whole rigmarole of taxation and redistribution is a bureaucratic nightmare that is all too expensive. The power to tax lends itself to abuse and it can never seem to be wielded in a judicious manner.

So, although a society needs to pool its money for its collective-interest it need not be accomplished through government’s power to tax.

Another way of pooling a society’s money will be submitted here a little further on. There is, as we shall see, a way of doing this that would have everyone paying their fair share and have appropriate funds readily accessible whenever and wherever they were needed.

But first let’s look at the circulation of money in the private sector. In the system now in place money starts its journey from the upper echelons of the federal apparatus and banking industry from where it finds its trickle down way to the rest of us. And when things are good this is supposed to be a boon to everyone. As Ronald Reagan claimed, “A rising tide raises all boats.” But somehow it doesn’t seem to work out that way. Like the tax system the manner in which money is circulated lends itself to abuse, is not judicious and is inefficient.

In designing a socioeconomic system we can take a lesson from the composition of everything else in existence. Every macro system is composed of micro bits. Everything is built by connecting small discrete bits together to form a macrocosm. The microcosm fashions the macrocosm - from infinitesimal quantum particles to the gigantic universe - from hydrogen atoms to enormous galaxies - the whole biosphere is made possible by miniscule molecules of DNA – life forms are made up of microscopic cells - buildings are built brick by brick, nail by nail, rivet by rivet. And this how a socioeconomic system should also be created and maintained. That is, built up from localities – communities, neighborhoods, towns, villages. So, the idea is to, first and foremost, support and secure the foundation of a social system and then go on from there.

So, the circulation of money would begin at the local level. Local banks, then, would begin the process of distributing the money supply throughout the whole system. The money would be supplied by the system’s “reserve”. Initially, the local banks would, of course, invest in their own communities in both the private and public sectors. Through sound banking practices local economies prosper and this adds to the banks’ value and their ability to borrow more money from the reserve. The local banks would use “extra” reserves to fund a county bank to handle larger investments in the area.

County banks would actually be comprised of local banks and they would invest in the larger projects that would benefit the operation of the localities. County banks would be dependent on local banks for funding and, so, could not take on any projects without approval from localities.

The county banks would, similarly, create state banks, state banks regional banks and the regionals a national bank. Local banks would have to have confidence in all the various banking terminals from the county to the national. The confidence level would determine the amount of capital local banks would invest in county banks, state banks and the rest. Local banks would control the money supply throughout the system. Thus the financial system would not stray very far from its foundation.

The social dynamic of self-interest/collective-interest also demands other services that need to be fulfilled by a system of government.

Government, however, would not have the power to tax. The public sector would be allocated funds by private citizens and businesses, via the banking system. The scope of government would be determined by whatever is deemed necessary by those in the private sector. That is, government would provide only those services deemed necessary by the people.

The government per se would have nothing to do with the collection and allocation of money. Whatever government is deemed necessary to support and integrate the system would receive the appropriate funds with which to operate efficiently. Such funds would amount to a share of the wealth generated by the economy to be allocated to government as required with respect to particular circumstances.

A good image to illustrate this system would be to imagine the whole society afloat on a national pool of money. Let’s say the entire value of the GDP would create this money pool which would be allocated for private and public sector projects. Each and every individual, each and every business would be contributing to it and withdrawing from it, via the banking system, for investments, or public works. Every segment of society including the federal government would be just another locality. In this vision of things everything flattens out floating on the pool. No higher and lower, only different perspectives and roles. One draws from and contributes to the general pool as one’s condition and circumstance dictate with reference to one’s ongoing and overriding need to preserve the solvency of the system as a whole.

Banks would be pivotal to this symbiosis. Government, business people and bankers would gather together to decide how available funds should be used in order to serve their mutual interests which must be kept in synch with the interests of the entire community as well. Bankers and businessmen would want to keep at a minimum the funds needed for government so it would not be a drain on the economy. On the other hand they would also have an interest in things being governed effectively in order to facilitate social and economic activity.

Every dollar spent for government would need to have real value to the whole community in making a vital contribution to society’s proficiency as a synergistic unit. One way to keep government limited would be for the banking industry, business and individuals to play by the rules, to effectively police themselves . The private sector would not have to spend a lot of money in lobbying efforts or contribute large sums to political campaign funds in seeking advantageous legislation and tax breaks. This would add to their value and free up resources for investment, research and development. Also government would not have the ability to bailout any businesses that got into trouble but it would have the ability to penalize businesses that misbehaved with hefty fines. So, a culture of self-regulation would be seen as advantageous in the private sector.

As for services that are now provided by government like water, sewage, garbage collection and disposal, road building and repair, etc., these could, at the discretion of the community, be contracted out by the bank to individuals able to oversee an efficient operation and be directly answerable to the community for their performance - thus, removing the need to create enormous inefficient and often corrupt government bureaucracies to deal with these matters. Run by private individuals the operations would need to use economically sound business practices though they would not be profit making affairs. People would be charged for the delivery of these services in terms of what it costs to deliver them. The target for the providers of these services would be to operate at cost though some subsidy might be necessary from the general pool of money to which everyone contributes. Things like the building and maintenance of roads would be financed entirely through the general pool of money. Recently, however, in some areas, the private sector has ventured into providing roads. This, apparently, is due to new technologies whereby tolls can be collected without inconveniencing drivers. A bar code on the windshield of their cars is read by a laser as the traffic speeds by. This is a good example of how technology can change traditional concepts of public and private sector arrangements. Generally speaking, all expenditures for infrastructure and basic services which the so-called private sector chooses not to handle have value to the social organism as long as they support a healthy vigorous economy. The infrastructure of a healthy social body, the roads, bridges, plumbing, etc. should cost the body much less than the value received. All organs of the social body must get just what they need to produce what they must through the circulation of money.

We have to be able to discern what our priorities are in terms of real value to our well being, in the long term especially, and see to it that resources are made available to invest in those priorities in a cost effective manner. With money going directly into certain needy areas for the purpose of dealing with specific problems there would not be the enormous waste of resources and effort there is today. So, disaster relief funds with more accurate targeting would be immediately available to affected areas through local banking systems.

The various terminals in a system of government would be formed as is the banking system. Basically we see the social body made up of a network of autonomous communities forming from within themselves all the political, social and economic organs needed for their own particular situations while at the same time creating out of themselves the larger body politic in which they would all be incorporated.

Communities, then, would function as centers unto themselves with respect to their associations with other communities and to the society at large as well. The communities would form out of themselves a county government made up of an individual representative from each community. This same process would be repeated at the county terminal with counties networking to form a state apparatus, and so on and so forth for regional and national terminals of government. The microcosm forms the macrocosm congruous to the contours of the microcosm and therefore prevents the macrocosm from becoming something alien to the microcosm.

All government terminals, in real-time communication with one another, could contribute what timely input each had to offer from their particular vantage point in regard to a given situation and decide among themselves how best to handle it. Generally speaking, it would be incumbent upon localities to resolve their own problems. When this would not be possible, however, the matter would be relegated to the proximate terminal and so on until some satisfactory solution was formulated. Lines of authority would not be altogether fixed but would be commensurate to the value of the input one had to offer in an ongoing process of checks and balances throughout the system.

So, if a problem were irreconcilable at a locality authority would be given to the proximate terminal to impose a solution. However, if and when the parties involved at the locality agreed to abide by a different solution arrived at among themselves, which they found preferable to the one imposed upon them by the county or other government terminal, then the imposed solution could be overturned in favor of the local agreement.

This kind of system would give communities better representation and allow for programs and policies to be as fine-tuned as possible to particular situations.

Through this kind of networking it would be possible to establish an integrated system that forms social bonds which allow for differences while not tolerating contamination. Bonds that define how we are individually oriented, how we fit into the overall scheme and how we can all find ways of making things work more harmoniously than is now the case.

A community must be able to decide for itself what policies and programs it needs to engender in order to keep itself fit and healthy. In extreme cases it might have to impose extreme measures on itself to achieve a healthy condition. Communities rife with crime, for instance, might choose to declare martial law to get things under control. Such a police state, enacted from within rather than imposed from without and enforced by members of the community, would be much more tolerable, would not threaten the law of the land with such extremism and could easily evolve into normalcy as soon as conditions warranted.

Some such communities have taken matters into their own hands with superb results. Citizens of a project in East St. Louis that had been under siege with theft, violence and drugs formed a committee with the power to decide who could, and who could not, take up residence within their borders. They were successful in cleaning things up by applying a policy of strict discrimination in regard to who would be allowed to be their neighbors. Such discrimination could not have been imposed by the government agency in charge of the project but administered by the people of the community upon their own it was an acceptable policy.

Government agencies residing in remote power centers which have no real interest in the communities under their purview cannot accurately prescribe the correct measures particular communities need to improve their conditions. The people living in the community know better than anyone what prescriptions to administer for the ailments they are inflicted with and no outside agency should be able to override the mandates they decide upon. They would, of course, be monitored, guided and influenced by the society at large.

People need to have a direct input with respect to their immediate surroundings so that they can effectively manage their environment. Being manipulated by remote centralized power structures distract and abstract us from immediate associations. Big business, big government, big media and big religion do more to distort people’s perception than to promote reason, balance and clear vision.

Within each of us resides a complex system of scales by which we weigh the appropriateness of what is going on around us. It is to everyone’s benefit that these individual systems be allowed to fully develop through their vigorous interaction with other individual systems to form and reform the social milieu within which the individuals reside. Being instructed and enveloped by remote power structures promoting a broad clinical socialization of society for their own interests weakens the necessary discriminatory apparatus of individuals which in turn erodes social cohesion.

One’s individual system of scales must be, first and foremost, fine tuned to one’s immediate environment in order to be able to weigh individual elements against each other, what is known about them, how they fit into the overall scheme, how one is effected by them, how one effects them and so on and so forth and through this process arrive at what action if any should be taken to deal with particular situations.

So, we have subjective views interacting with other subjective views to form objective harmony through which one feels one’s subjectivity vital and elevated in the social organism one is instrumental in forming. We see social order as growing out from ourselves rather than something to be imposed upon us. This conforms to the nature of things progressing from the microcosm to the macrocosm. If everyone as an autonomous arbiter of what is and is not conducive to a harmonious environment is not allowed to act as such then license is given, through the manipulation of centralized power structures, to those whose sense of harmony might be cacophonous.

The whole measure of a society can be taken by how it effects, and is affected by, the individual. In the United States individuals are primarily thought of as consumers to be cajoled, conned and/or compelled to buy any number of nicely packaged products from kitty litter to political platforms. Individuals are seen as quarry to be captured through the clever use of advertising techniques which operate on the irrational, the sensational, the unconscious level of our psyches. Hit them below the belt is the modus operandi. Or as one ardent member of a political movement once said, “When you’ve got them by the balls their hearts and minds will follow.”

We are continuously barraged with messages, images, and signals aimed at manipulating us in the crudest way possible. Appealing to our higher faculties would, one might suppose, be less democratic than appealing to the lowest common denominator. Anyway, one is jerked around this way and that way by government, business, media and a variety of crusading cults without any recourse for individuals to correspond in a mindful manner. The prevailing attitude of most every social, political, economic set and subset is “you are either for us or against us”.

One would think that perhaps the Media might be the place to provide a forum that would serve to find common ground between the various factions. However, the Media is merely a multi-ringed circus of personalities and events using the most salacious and titillating aspects of the social/political scene to garner the highest rating share possible. Media stars pose as the guardians of reason and rationality while merely serving to highlight the scenes of mayhem and madness they’re only too eager to broadcast. They are dutifully serving their master’s monstrous appetite for ratings.

The two aspects of the social dynamic, self-interest/collective interest must be vigilantly attended to so as to maintain the optimum balance between them at any given time. Such a balance cannot be arrived at from edicts and manipulations conjured up by a central authority that chronically or alternately favors one aspect of the social dynamic over the other. Going form under-regulating to over-regulating, for instance. It can only be arrived at through the vigorous interaction of individual members of communities, and their associations, as they strive to find and maintain an optimum balance at all times.

Individuals that realize the self-interest/collective-interest dynamic and how it serves them as well as the society-at-large are guarantors of a viable social organism.