Would a "flat world" economic policy be a fairer way?

Yes

1 of 1

by Ray Burke

• 

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

Flat world economics:

Why can't the world be flat? Does our society have to depend on materialistic gains to be deemed worthy of praise and acceptance? First of all, let me say that my background is in archaeology, not economics, so forgive my naivety and simplistic arguments, but I read a lot and have discussed these views with others. Recently, I had been reading about Milton Friedman and the Chicago School movement regarding economics, in The Shock Doctrine' by Naomi Klein. Previously, I had been reading about the rise of the virus-like Affluenza' in the English-speaking world, as eloquently captured by Oliver James, 2007. There does seem to be a correlation between rampant capitalism and wellness deterioration.

Friedm an's use of unfettered capitalism (deregulation, privatisation, and cutbacks), the shock to the system (renamed as Disaster Capitalism' by social commentators) has created the disparate world we live in today, rather than the economically-balance d world that Friedman nominally envisioned. His problem was/is that he could not implement his version of the free-market economy from scratch, because global society was already entrenched in an old (Keynesian) system of government-led policies. The free-market economy would not work within that system, so Friedman found his opportunities elsewhere (mostly South America), say after a coup or a natural disaster, enabling that country's government or leaders to wipe the slate clean and re-format on a free-market remit.

But such a system did not work as intended, because the markets were still controlled by governments (and military) and individuals (the elite) who took advantage of that system to enforce their policies and become richer at the expense of the general population. There can be no free-market system until that flaw, the naked pursuit of power and profits, is fixed. But at the heart of that flaw is the human being. And humans aren't getting any better at being less greedy.

There is a disease spreading amongst humans called affluenza. It is that rapacious inner need for money, or fame, or power, at the cost of one's health and happiness. It is a virus spawned and spoon-fed at birth through childcare policies, instilled within us through the education system and perpetuated within us through employment systems. Affluenza destroys our needs over our wants. Oliver James has many vaccines' for affluenza, but that would mean a radical over-haul of our deep-seated politico-economic systems, a shock to the system, as it were, just like a pure free-market economy.

But could a flat version of the pure free-market economy work and be a cure for affluenza? Financial profit does not have to be the end-all and be-all. I once had a discussion with a friend about my future desire to set up a flat company, where the top earner did not make an exorbitant amount more than the bottom earner. It would be fairer, I said, and people would be happier in a company where profits were ploughed back into the employees and the community. With stars in my eyes and my head in the clouds, my friend said then my company would die, as there would be no incentive to work, no drive for promotion, no ambition, and no company. I did not have an answer then, but I do now: Let them go!

I realised that was the whole point of a flat economy. If people want to work for pure profit at the expense of others, then let them go. A flat company would weed out those not focused on their work, but on profits. Their materialistic outlook on life, their ambitious drive for promotion and bonuses, possibly beyond their means, would expose their insecurities, unhappiness and mental distress. Sure not everyone is affected by such financial gains and rewards are needed for work, but a flatter economy across the board would mediate affluenza. And with all companies on the same level playing field, profits would not be the influencer for customers. Flatness does not mean flat rates of pay, or no advancement, or no profits at all; it just means that the biggest earners or the company would not be sitting on unassailable amounts of profits, that corporate responsibility and meritocracy would be at the forefront of company needs, and that a company's work ethic and reputation would be their biggest selling point. A person would work for a flat company, because they like the job, there would be promotion, a fair share of the profits and knowledge that their colleagues were also there for intrinsic reasons rather than materialistic gain. A sense of accomplishment, success and challenge, would be the rewards in such a system. As more companies encompassed this, the need for obscene profits would dissipate as they vied for wellness profit instead.

This may seem like communism or socialism, but so what? Or rather, if those systems had worked like they were supposed to then we may have seen a pure meritocracy. Properly run, the free-market system of Friedman and socialism had essentially the same outcome: individual freedom. But whether through the private sector or the public sector, in both cases, human nature interfered again, and they brought coups, wars, torture and death. The elite feared their loss of power and wealth in a world that worshipped these things. Free-market capitalism would make them stronger, affluenza would make them ill, a flat economy would make them weaker, but within a relatively stable world. In a flat world, instead of using their materialism as a status marker, the elite would have to use themselves as a commodity to draw any further attention or wealth.

Flat companies would free up profits for social funds, reinvigorating and regenerating their employees and communities. Such private funding would take the lead from government taxation. Such central governance processes would also lead to a flatter (and trimmer) government with less regulation. Such flat governments and companies would lead to the rise of wealthier and healthier individuals, unencumbered by materialism and political control. Of course, a flat world policy would bring conflict as elites fought against it, thus marking flatness as a subjective economic policy with a (subjective) authoritarian leadership having to impose flatness around the world. Is flatness itself then totally fair and just?

Obviously, not just one system will work and total flatness is not the only answer, but our mindset on such matters has to change. What is this obsessive need for profit? Who are you measuring yourself against when we can only look to ourselves for happiness? Why be measured by your house, car, money or fame, than just for yourself? If those are what you are measured for, then look inside yourself as a person who has none of these. If you find yourself lacking then the emptiness inside is affluenza.

I myself have recently downshifted' to another job. It took me eight months of unemployment to find my balance between needs and wants, happiness and stress. I know what I want out of life and I am happier for it; but I look around and see so much unhappiness in people supposedly living the good life, due to the indoctrination policies of our society. The real shock to the system will be when people realise that there is another way and that they can change or demand change. The 21st Century could see a new rising breed of believers in a flat world.

Learn more about this author, Ray Burke.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.