Follow the Money–Somewhere New!

People in the know always advise us to “follow the money.”

Thanks to the Occupy movement, it’s become plain to a lot more of us that huge amounts of money are concentrated in a very few, very influential hands.  Big business interests control politics at every level, and the name of the game is profit for the top managers and owners, with the bare minimum allowed to “trickle down” through taxes and philanthropy.

Nothing new in that picture.  But there are some provocative new ideas arising about how to change a system that seems so entirely entrenched that most of us don’t even bother to think too hard about alternatives.

Last night I had dinner with some folks who are working on an alternative local finance program, called Common Good Finance.  The idea is somewhat similar to local currencies like, for example, our homegrown BerkShares.  But instead of paper money, Common Good will be an electronic credit system, based on R-credits.

One R-credit will equal $1 US, but the use of R-credits will be incentivized: if I spend R-credits rather than dollars, I’ll get a 5% rebate on every purchase, and even better, the merchant will get a 10% kickback for accepting my R-credits.  That sure sounds win-win!  What’s the catch?

There doesn’t seem to be a catch as far as the ordinary consumer and local vendor is concerned.  The ultimate goal of Common Good Finance is to create a local, democratically governed credit union, to which businesses and individuals in a community could apply for low-interest loans and grants.  The main criteria for approval would be: would extending this credit line be in the interests of the common good?

Forget about bankers getting rich on those exorbitant interest rates attached to every debt.  Forget about too-big-to-fail banks preying on consumers in every town and city in the nation.  Forget about municipalities cutting back on social services, including health care, education and affordable housing, because there simply isn’t enough money.

The people behind Common Good Finance believe that scarcity is a convenient fiction created and upheld by the central bankers who control the Federal Reserve.  It’s convenient because it keeps the pace of debt constantly accelerating, and it’s the interest on all these debts that provides the profits that line the bankers’ pockets.

Common Good would create a monetary system where money circulates locally, and any surplus in the form of interest is plowed right back into the local community in the form of loans and grants to worthy individuals and causes.  The local members of the R-credit system would be the ones to decide democratically, by facilitated consensus-building, who would get what.

As we talked about these intriguing ideas over dinner, the question came up of cronyism and conflict in this collective decision-making process.  But as John G. Root Jr., one of the founders of the Common Good initiative, put it, “We know the system we have now is not working well for the majority of Americans.  Why not try something new?”

In making his case for the R-credit system, John referred often to the American revolutionaries who decided to throw off the yoke of British tyranny and strike off on their own, founding a new country.  Now, going on 300 years later, Americans find ourselves under a new yoke: multinational corporate interests that may make judicious grants to communities and non-profits through their well-heeled foundations, but would not want to see communities empowered to divorce themselves from the thrall of big business.

Having R-credits would encourage people to shop local, and it would encourage businesses to source locally too, since they could keep their R-credits in circulation that way and keep earning those 10% kickbacks on every R-credit exchange.  Pricechopper and WalMart wouldn’t like this–but who knows, maybe they could be drawn into this network too!  Maybe the idea of democratically controlled local finance is an idea whose time has come, an idea could even go global!

As an example, take the Grameen Bank, which was founded in one of the poorest countries in the world to provide poor women with low-interest micro-loans to start local businesses.  It has grown exponentially; its founder, Muhammad Yunus, won a Nobel Prize in 2006; and its model is being replicated in many other parts of the world.  Why not in the U.S.?

Common Good Finance is not alone in searching for outside-the-box answers to our current financial predicament.  Economist David Korten has been working on what he calls “living economies” for about twenty years now; he is one of the leaders of the New Economy Working Group, which includes free thinkers like Gus Speth and Gar Alperovitz.  The New Economy mission statement sums up the vision quite well:

“Effective action will shift the economic system’s defining value from money to life, its locus of decision making from global to local, its favored dynamic from competition to cooperation, its defining ethic from externalizing costs to embracing responsibility, and its primary purpose from growing individual financial fortunes for a few to building living community wealth to enhance the health and well-being of everyone. We humans face an epic choice between the certain outcome of continuing business as usual and the possible future it is within our means to create through conscious collective action.”

It does feel like an epic moment, a transition time pregnant with the possibility for positive change.

Let’s follow the money and let the revolution begin!

 

Watch out, Grey Lady! We’re watching you….

Maybe I should just do the right thing and swear off reading The New York Times. 

I’ve been reading The Times more or less every day since the time I could read–going on forty years now, give or take.

Never have I felt less confident that I can rely on the editors there for solid, unbiased information.  Never has it been more obvious to me that The Times represents the viewpoint of the 1%.  The liberal 1%, perhaps, but the 1% after all.

Why am I ranting about this today?  I just got around to reading a piece from the Sunday Magazine section, “It’s Not Just About the Millionaires,” in which author Adam Davidson, co-founder of NPR’s Planet Money show, argues that to solve our financial crisis in this country, “we have to go to where the money is — the middle class.”

Davidson constructs a cockamamie story about how it makes more financial sense to raise taxes on the middle class–families earning less than $68,000 a year–as well as close “despised loopholes (or beloved incentives)” for these middle class folks (we’re talking about the mortgage interest deduction, for example) than to raise taxes and close loopholes for corporations and those making more than $1 million a year.

Excuse me?

Has Mr. Davidson and his family ever tried to live on $68,000 a year?

As someone who is struggling as a single mom in this tax bracket right now myself–in a home that is now worth less than its mortgage–I can say with personal conviction that raising my taxes would have a huge impact on my life.  For most people in my position, it would mean the difference between starting a life of permanent credit card debt bondage, or staying very precariously in the black.

But that’s not all.  Mr. Davidson proposes that the middle class should also “give up some benefits (Social Security, Medicare).”

So not only are you proposing to raise my taxes, Mr. Planet Money, you’re also going to shrink the paltry benefits I may receive when I’m old and worn out and expecting at least some support from the society to which I’ve given all the best years of my life?

What’s wrong with this picture?

In Mr. Davidson’s scenario, a middle-class worker like me works hard every day, both in the public arena and at home (and remember, no benefits accrue for the years and years of unpaid home labor I’ve put in since I married and had children), and because of a downturn that I had nothing to do with, I am now going to be squeezed harder through taxes, and then hung out to dry in my old age with reduced Social Security and Medicare benefits.

This kind of attitude is EXACTLY what the Occupy America movements are protesting.

Hell no, we are not going to take this kind of B.S. anymore.

If you want to raise taxes, Mr. Planet Money, it will have to be on the wealthy and the corporations who are making out like bandits while the rest of us tighten our belts and do the best we can.

If that’s not enough money to make our national ends meet, then how about reducing the military budget?  How about reducing the billions we spent on the nuclear arms program?  How about directing more taxpayer funds into programs that actually benefit taxpayers?

I am beyond frustrated with the one-sided reporting of The New York Times.

I know statistics can be manipulated to support any side of an argument.  But I expect the most respected source of news on the planet to do a better job at being truly even-handed.  Sure, give Mr. Davidson and his monied folks some space.  But his should not be the only voice we hear.

Fortunately, in the internet age, there are plenty of alternatives to The New York Times.  

Watch out, Grey Lady, or even longterm devoted readers like me may be simply switching the channel.

Tough times ahead

Thinking more on this question of whether an American bust could be good for the planet, the problem is that the current political machinations are aimed at producing boom times for the very wealthy, while leaving the rest of us on the banks gasping for air.

And as the wealthy (individuals and corporations) have more money to slosh around, they have more and more influence in politics.

The result: a hollow democracy and a hollow Empire, ripe for a fall.

It’s going to be interesting, in a macabre sort of way, to see which comes first: climate change catastrophe, or economic catastrophe.

Either way, we’re looking at tough times ahead.

%d bloggers like this: