EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The World Is Revolting Against the US Economic and Business Model: A Call to Action
The current economic system has created a massive and widening gap between a wealthy minority and the many people living in abject poverty
Hundreds of thousands of people, young and old, employed and unemployed, black and white, men and women, have come together in a continuing and lasting global unity, partaking in a dialogue of civilisations and peoples in consideration for the common good. This global movement has risen in a thousand cities, in 82 countries on six continents, from Zuccotti Park in New York to Oakland, California; Wall Street to St. Paul’s in London; Frankfurt to Madrid, Rome to Athens, Chicago to Sydney and more, rejecting neo-liberalism as depicted in the US’s economics and business model, demanding a better, kinder and more humane world. The crises of ecological devastation and glaring social and economic inequality are pushing the planet to the brink of catastrophe. Perhaps this revolt against the US Economic and Business model is occurring just in the nick of time.
Given the context of the times, we invite you to reflect on the two very important points highlighted below:
1 - On October 13th 2011, The Economist in its ninth ranking of international MBA Programmes, ranks the world’s top 30 programmes, and identifies the top 20 to be from the US.
2 - The first Nobel Prize in Economics was awarded in 1969. Between that year and 2011, 42 Nobel Prizes in Economics have been awarded. Out of these prizes 26 have been awarded outright to US citizens (62%) and a further 9 have been awarded to US citizens jointly with other nationalities.
At this point the pertinent Question is: if 20 of the 30 top MBAs and Business Schools are in the US, and 62% of the Nobel Laureates in Economics have been awarded to US Citizens then why is it that the US business, economic, social, environmental, healthcare, education, banking and finance, politics and international relations, Wall Street,..., and much more are all so discredited? Why is it that the policies, thoughts, and values that shape and guide the US economic system and Business school model are so unable to explain either the scope or severity of the crises we face, so ill-equipped, out of touch with, and unable to explain the revolt which is permeating the globe?
In our judgement, Business Schools, MBAs, and top Economics programmes have failed in three distinct ways.
They have failed to adequately address questions of values, ethics, social customs, traditions, and spiritual dimensions and their role in under girding a healthy economic system.
They have failed to inculcate in students a sufficient appreciation of market failure in the cases of a lack of competition, asymmetrical knowledge, public goods, and externalities.
Finally they have failed to adequately instil in students the understanding that even when markets are efficient, that they will likely lack social and ecological justice and that these extra-efficiency standards are worthy social goals.
We need to question the functionality of the existing economic system that has created a massive and widening gap between a few super rich and the many in abject poverty. We need to examine the soundness of extracting growing profit from a highly leveraged and unsustainable real sector in the face of massive numbers of disenfranchised people who are deprived of a potentially prosperous economic life. We need to question the ability of mother earth to support the extravagance of our blind and ignorant consumerism. We also need to put self interest in perspective, and balance it with concern for the common good and for other species and the earth.
We should recall the wisdom of Adam Smith, “father of modern economics”, who was a great moral philosopher first and foremost. In 1759, sixteen years before his famous Wealth of Nations, he published The Theory of Moral Sentiments, which explored the self-interested nature of man and his ability nevertheless to make moral decisions based on factors other than selfishness. In The Wealth of Nations, Smith laid the early groundwork for economic analysis, but he embedded it in a broader discussion of social justice and the role of government. Today we mainly know only of his analogy of the ‘invisible hand’ and refer to him as defending free markets; whilst ignoring his insight that the pursuit of wealth should not take precedence over social and moral obligations, and his belief that a ‘Divine Being’ gives us ‘the greatest quantity of happiness’. We are taught that the free market as a ‘way of life’ appealed to Adam Smith but not that he thought the morality of the market could not be a substitute for the morality for society at large. He neither envisioned nor prescribed a capitalist society, but rather a ‘capitalist economy within society, a society held together by communities of non-capitalist and non-market morality’. As it has been noted, morality for Smith included neighbourly love, an obligation to practice justice, a norm of financial support for the government ‘in proportion to [one’s] revenue’, and a tendency in human nature to derive pleasure from the good fortune and happiness of other people.
Building a new economics system will demand challenging and novel ways of thinking, perspectives that encompass the broad swath of human experience and wisdom, from the natural sciences and all the social sciences, to the philosophical and spiritual values of the world’s major religions and of indigenous peoples as well. The task before us is a daunting one, and wisdom in how to proceed will come from a multiple of sources, and must embrace the panorama of cultural and disciplinary perspectives. Practical steps are of the essence and we therefore propose some for you to consider. We also ask for your suggestions in expanding this list of practical steps, so that we can begin a dialogue on where we go from here in building a better world for ourselves and for future generations.
A few practical steps
1. a guaranteed income or meaningful job to all by society
2. a tax on financial transactions
3. access by the poor to credit markets
4. reigning in executive pay in financial firms
5. taxing capital gains and dividends at the same rate as wages and salaries
6. elimination of too big to fail
7. massive use of usury free lending to provide basic human needs, and expand the quality of human life in ways that are environmentally friendly
8. a resurgence of financial regulations to reduce moral hazard, adverse selection, and to improve the flow of information to consumers
9. a serious global commitment to dramatically reduce carbon emissions, preserve habitat for endangered species, and to price goods and services with environmental costs in mind
10. an increase in funds for education at all levels, with education as a right
11. the grounding of Business and Economics education in social, moral, and ethical values and principles
12. a dramatic reduction in global military budgets and a significant reduction in the U.S. military presence throughout the world
13. creation of an International Fund for Peace, recognizing approximate words of Pope Paul the Sixth, ‘that without Justice there can be no Peace,’ that true peace must spring from the access of all to the means of life and the ability to be fully functioning members of the global community
14. the strengthening of multilateral global institutions and structures, the development of new ones, and the gradual elimination of the right of veto by major countries at the UN
We call upon you to support this "Call to Action" by adding your name, affiliation and the country of residence, and any suggestions for additional practical steps to the end of this message and send it back to Kamran Mofid. Please forward this message to your friends and network. We suspect that you are as concerned as we are with these alarming trends in environmental destruction and growing inequality yet are finding encouragement in the chorus of voices rising against the existing financial and economic system. Please join us.
To endorse this statement please send your name, affiliation and country of residence to Kamran Mofid at k.mofid@gcgi.info
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
39 Comments so far
Show AllSustainable means not only stopping population growth but a reduction in population. It is fall in the world and the leaves of trees die so that the tree can survive the winter. We are facing a winter of discontent of major proportions. OWS is a sign of what is to come. Are we as a species capable the compassion necessary?
There's always some guy who's got to insist that sustainability = Population Control / Population Reduction! Even though this article was focused on Failed US & Euro concepts of political economy- which so many Westerners' Obsession w Controlling the Populations of the Poor, African & so-called 3rd World People is Part & Parcel Of [aka Eugenics = Social Darwinism]!
And how would you go about dramatically & rapidly reducing the World's population?! By Imposing a 1 Child per woman policy [ala China's draconian policy] EnForced by Forced Abortions & Sterilizations, -OR- By out-right Culling [= killing off] of targeted population groups??!! And Just who would be those groups that you would target for Culling??!! Then You Label your demand for dramatic population reduction [though you are coy about the specific means to achieve it] as Compassionate?!
-
-
Getting back to the Article - Note this Quote: > ' If 20 of the 30 top MBAs and Business Schools are in the US, and 62% of the Nobel Laureates in Economics have been awarded to US Citizens then why is it that the US business, economic, social, environmental, healthcare, education, banking and finance, politics and international relations, Wall Street,..., and much more ARE ALL SO DisCredited? ... In our judgement, western Business Schools, MBAs, and top Economics programs have Failed in these 3 Ways:
1} They've Failed to adequately address questions of Values, Ethics, and Spiritual Traditions & Dimensions and their Vital Role in Supporting an Equitable & Healthy Economic & Social System.
2} They've Failed to appreciate so-called "free-market" Limitations & Failures in cases of a lack of competition, asymmetrical knowledge, public goods, and externalities.
3} They've Failed to understand that even when 'markets' are so-called 'efficient', that they likely Lack Social and Ecological Justice...' <
This is such a Pertinent yet Damning critique of US & Euro standard political economic capitalist so-called 'free-market' concepts [actually Social Darwinistic Economics] being taught, normalized & globalized by the main western so-called 'higher' educational institutions. And the Nobel Committee is complicit in this! One of its first & most prestigious recipients for the Nobel Prize in Econ was the 'guru' of Reagonimics & Disaster Capitalism Milton Friedman! But then it's this very same Nobel committee who gave WAR-Mongers such as Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Heinz Kissinger, Begin & O-Bomb-em- so-called 'peace' prizes!
You are comparing dead leaves falling from trees to human beings?
All species of plants and animals increase their reproductive rates when under duress.
Reproductive rates in human communities always fall when the living conditions are improved.
The few are hoarding most of the wealth and destroying the environment, and your solution is to get rid of the excess humans?
I didn't read the comment this way.
You are completely right, that reproductive rates in human communities fall when living conditions are improved. But improving living standards also means higher consumption of resources. Lifting all seven billion humans to US living standards (and consumption) would result in the instant and complete destruction of the eco system. Don't forget, that the USA with about 4.6 percent of the worlds population uses a quarter of the worlds resources.
Increasing gender equality and giving women access to education as well as contraception have proven to be successful measures to reduce population growth, but the USA intends to cut funding for UNFPA.
Don't forget the vast amount of resources, that the US war machine needs to keep going. As long as the USA fights wars and upholds military bases to get access to resources/commodities (which it then uses to fight the wars and maintain the bases), any economic and sociological corrective measures are just window dressing.
IMO- Two Americas' take on the above fellow's comment was exactly right.
Of course neither the entire World nor even the US & EU can continue this current trend of westernized so-called 'living-standards' [which are being globalized] without the World & the eco-sphere go into total collapse. The above article certainly implies this- even if they didn't say it out-right.
The 'love-affair' w owning one's personal car [or 2, 3 or more] rather than emphasizing public transit infrastructure, is an obvious problem. Greater energy & resource efficiency is another issue that needs to be addressed. The US' unhealthy, animal abusive [on a massive scale], resource wasting, environment polluting SAD meat centered Diet should also be rolled-back- including restrained from being globalized by the likes of McDonalds, Pizza Hut, & Coca Cola, etc.
And Your critique of the US' & NATO's globalized Military Industrial Intel Security Complex is also right on the mark.
Yet the above poster talked about none of these pertinent issues - he focused solely on & demanded an immediate & drastic CUT in Population [he specifically said population stabilization was in his opinion INAdequate]- without spelling out just how he would do it! ! Instead he resorts to clever ‘Poetic Metaphors’ to smooth over the implications of what he’s calling for. But we know practically there is only a few methods to drastically & quickly CUT Down the population - 1} Rolling-out a global 1 Child [or NO Child] / woman policy enforced by a globalized police-state surveillance apparatus- 2} This would most likely be backed-up by forced sterilizations &/or forced abortions - 3} Even MORE Drastic- Culling [IE: Killing off] large portions of the current population!... If this sounds like Eugenics = Social Darwinism leading to Genocide - Hey If you say that the shoe don't fit - then Don't Wear IT! [Note: I'm NOT directing this to you personally]
How about healthcare as a human right? Or how about a CEO cannot make more in total compensation than 35 times the yearly wage of the lowest paid employee of his or her corporation. If congress votes to allow the president to conduct military operations without a formal declaration of war, then the majority and minority leaders of both houses must immediately resign their seats and volunteer for combat duty. This would also include the closest living relative of the President who has attained the age of eighteen (son, daughter, niece or nephew) would also have to serve in harms way.
Thanks, Z1, for your comment! I thought I'd do some multiplying!
The other day, I ran across a piece of information about the starting wage for a bank teller in a number of banks -- $12.50 per hour. That means the average bank teller makes about $26,000 per year (before taxes), if he/she works 40-hours per week. Of course, there's a possibility that the tellers work fewer hours in a week so that banks don't have to pay benefits to the employees. Of course, the bank teller might not be the lowest paid employee in a bank. However, some jobs, like janitors, are contracted out to other corporations.
35 times the yearly wage, $26,000, would be $910,000 -- and as we know, the CEOs of the banks, and upper level management at other corporations as well, are taking home a lot more than that amount. To me, $910,000 as yearly take-home pay seems like more than enough.
The numbers still are far too unequal. What do you think?
Absolutely, 35 times is WAY over the top.
Our consumer co-op two years ago instituted a 5 to 1 limit on the ratio of top executive pay to lowest entry-level pay. i drafted the bylaw amendment, and it passed by over 90% yes vote. i think 5 to 1 is actually too high.
Personally i think we should organize our society and the economy so no one makes more that twice what anyone else makes. In a society that covers basic needs, really everyone could make exactly the same amount.
But in the meantime, i think aiming for something like the 9 to 1 ratio established in the Mondragon Corporation (the word's largest worker cooperative) should be the target. Ben and Jerry's had a 7 to 1 limit, before they were bought out by Unilever Corporation and abolished the cap. 35 to 1 is WAY too high.
One way to reign in outrageous CEO salaries is to peg it to the salaries of the least paid workers in their organizations. Some have suggested CEO, CFO salaries of NOT more than 40Xs - 50Xs [some might prefer 20Xs - 30Xs] that of the lowest paid workers of a particular organization. Currently its as much as Several Hundred to a Few Thousand Times that of their Biz's least paid workers - a trend which has occurred in just the past 3 decades of the post New Deal era! That way if the CEOs, CFOs, etc- insist on increasing their own salaries, they must also increase salaries across the board- or at-least the salaries of their Biz's least paid workers...
FINALLY>>>some smart guys weighing in and talking what needs to be said...and lead with. Where are all those other smart lawyers and economists, business leaders who are morally uncorrupted, preachers teaching Jesus's words, and someone who hasn't been brainwashed by Faux? Chickens. Afraid to speak up? Teachers afraid to boycott cause their contract won't let them..?? what a joke.
The truth is out here and it is time that people like these three guys , start with more than a sentence or two..like an all day lecture on campuses, college papers dedicated to telling the truth, local papers printing more and more what is really happening. The truth will set your mind free. Pass these stories and articles on to your right wing friends and watch the fur fly!!!
Speaking of "smart guys weighing in", last night I channel-surfed in and out of a panel of white male talking heads on France 24 or a similar news channel-- I didn't stick around long enough to discover whether they were economists or so-called journalists.
It must have been one of those formula "point/counterpoint" deals, though, because the smart guy weighing in was horrified that bottom-up popular movements from Greece to the Amerikan "Occupy" protestors were threatening to destabilize Wall Street, the EU, and other pillars of the financial establishment.
He referred to these institutions as "the wellsprings of prosperity". HE certainly looked prosperous enough, that's for sure.
I didn't know whether to laugh or howl, but I had to get the hell out of there. Reversing this kind of entrenched cranio-rectal inversion won't be a day at the beach.
It's hardly surprising that "The World Is Revolting Against the US Economic and Business Model" considering the fact that "the world" didn't choose it in the first place and has no vote on its imposition at gunpoint under threat of being "bombed back to the stone age" for any refusal.
At least US citizens enjoy the dubious comfort of their delusions about having republican sovereignty and democratic governance. The rest of the world has no such faked participation in the imperial decision processes, but is stuck with the results just the same.
Perhaps it wouldn't be quite so infuriating if they weren't also expected to be grateful to the rapists and contract killers.
I would mention that China, Russia and many other countries have indeed chosen our economic system and under no threat from us.
You really believe that the Chinese and Russians have actually adopted the US brand of "deregulated" capitalist economics? Not bloody likely! And I'm quite sure you'll change your mind about coerced economic imperialism very quickly when they re-export their versions to your country -- or try to.
Besides, what do you mean by "our" economic system? Do you truly think that it's yours? If so, congratulations on your arrival amongst the 0.1% (or much less globally) who call the shots.
Your use of the words "us" and "our" here betray your (perhaps unconscious) identification with the rulers, with the wealthy and powerful.
Russia chose the capitalistic model because in the chaos following the disintegration of the USSR the most ruthless guys (mainly a clique of KGB members who later became the oligarchs) found out that it was the best way to exploit the broad population and to get very rich very quick.
China is a different case. The Communist Party allowed capitalism so that ruthless guys could exploit their fellow Chinese without the Party being implicated. The fruits of this exploitation were used in a sophisticated global strategy game, which established China as the manufacturer and pawnbroker of the world.
Chinas Communist Party until now played the game superbly but it remains to be seen if they can control the negative side effects like environmental destruction or suffering and ensuing unrest of the exploited population.
An important statement -- and I am sure it will soon appear as an op ed in the NYT (not).
It is important to remember that economics is one of the least scientific and most ideological driven disciplines of knowledge. Modern economics involves high levels of mathematical sophistication but its basic assumptions are breathtakingly arbitrary and often anti-empirical.
If empirical evidence conflicts with ideological assumptions -- then it is the evidence that is ignored and the ideology that is retained.
In its study of human society, modern economics functions analogously to the Ptolemaic geocentric universe.
http://www.polaris.iastate.edu/EveningStar/Unit2/unit2_sub1.htm
The model was remarkably clever, highly sophisticated, and even had predictive powers for the movements of the planets. However, ALL of its astronomical assumptions were incorrect and it became an immense impediment to scientific astronomy for 1500 years. (Aristarchus had developed a heliocentric model but it was rejected for 1800 years.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos
A few of the rather suspect a priori assumptions of modern neo-liberal economics:
The fundamentalism of "perfect market efficiency".
The strange idea that 'markets' exist outside and above the state and even human social relations. Markets can only develop within political economies and social relations.
Market worship, however, leads them to push the cart around in front of the horse.
The belief that "efficient markets" are the best and primary sources of human happiness and fulfillment.
The belief that 'market fundamentalism' and 'democracy' are joined at the hip, and markets invariably promote democracy.
The odd assumption that 'markets' are omniscient, self-correcting, and not subject to manias, manipulations, and even blind self-destructive behavior.
The assumption that human beings are nothing but mere rational, self-interested calculating machines -- or at least that is what they should be encouraged to become in atomized societies.
The belief that greed and even psychopathological obsessions with self-interest and accumulation are the best path to human contentment and social improvement.
This assumption, of course, is rejected by all religions, spiritual movements, and almost all philosophies outside of a few bazaar strands-- e.g. Ayn Rand and her acolytes (such as Alan Greenspan).
As markets take over every aspect of a society-- they destroy human social relations from within as if bathing them in acid.
Karl Polanyi was very prescient as to what would happen if the market mechanism took control over every aspect of human life:
" In disposing of a man's labor power the system would...dispose of the physical, psychological and moral entity 'man' attached to that tag. Robbed of the protective covering of cultural institutions, human beings would perish from the effects of social exposure; they would die as the victims of acute social dislocation through vice, perversion, crime and starvation. Nature would be reduced to its elements, neighbourhoods and landscapes defiled, rivers polluted, military safety jeopardized, the power to produce food and raw materials destroyed. Finally the market administration of purchasing power would periodically liquidate business enterprises, for shortages and surfeits of money would prove as disastrous to business as floods and droughts in primitive society."
http://openeconomicsnd.wordpress.com/2009/07/02/polanyi-on-the-market-and-embeddedness/
http://itslifejimbutnotaswknowit.blogspot.com/2009/03/polanyi-quotes.html
Although Marx was hardly a 'scientific' economist -- he can certainly explain the origins of ideology among modern economists:
"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas."
Marx, German Ideology (1845)
Thanks. Excellent critique of the absurd and impossible basic "axioms" behind the economist's love of markets.
If I may add one of my own, the most absurd aspect of the economists assumptions is how they never, ever, acknowlege this little aspect of human societies called "power". They assume that every market transaction, besides the participants having godlike powers of "perfect informaition" they also assume a sort of absolute egalitarianism - each party has equal bargaining power, no party has the upper hand in a bargain, notably the power to "bide his time" or "bide his space" - i.e. use his power to access distant competetors in places other party can't travel, until the other party, facing the physical constraints of his lowly position, must accept the deal or starve and freeze. Of course, the most well known example of this is that peculiar market in a person's labor. Yet, when the sellers of labor try to organize so they can bargain in conditions of greater information and equality, the economists wag their fingers and say: "No-no-no-no - you are "distorting" the markets! Very bad! Very-very bad! Bad worker! Bad-bad-bad worker!!!
On another note: regarding your lst paragraph, one can go too far with Marx's idea here and become one of those post-modernists that believe that even Newton's, Einsteins, or Plank's theories are ideological in origin. So be careful.
By the way, with regard to Ayn Rand's "theory" it is bizarre, not bazaar.
Glaringly absent from this essay is a call for universal health care as a right.
I noticed this too. I think that the primary author of this piece was a Canadian and takes such a thing for granted, but also, healthcare could be considered part of the "guaranteed income" in item No. 1.
The Authors DID Mention Health-Care in their opening critique of the failed US so-called 'Free'-market Econ system, but seemingly over-looked it as part of their list of 14 recommendations for a better econ model. They should have explicitly named it as a right - right along w the right to earn a fair & living wage for all able-bodied adults [below retirement age] & access to education, etc.
"9. a serious global commitment to dramatically reduce carbon emissions, preserve habitat for endangered species, and to price goods and services with environmental costs in mind"
Eventually, if the entire Biosphere (minus our own bodies, I think) is not conceived of collectively as the universal commons, as a fundamental legal and political reality, there will never be cooperation and peace. The biosphere *cannot* become a privately owned commodity to be owned by one or another particular group who will horde, covet, speculate upon, cordon-off and limit access... or worse, pollute to extinction...
The Earth is a Commons. The fish in the oceans, the oil in the ground, the water in the aquifers.. .they cannot just be taken, without a necessary paying back... not to a person, but to Earth itself and to All Humanity.
The means of extraction and transport do not give the oil companies the right to take all OUR oil, for themselves and profit off of it. This is not 'Socialism' per se, but it is the only true 'social solution'.
This could be enacted by ensuring that all profits from natural exploitation are automatically nationalized to the countries of origin. The profits of the multinational natural resource exploiters are obscene, and need to be shared in a way that recognizes and rewards the proper beneficiaries of the natural wealth of nations. How can a land which produces diamonds from the ground, end up enslaving and impoverishing the local people to get those diamonds, while enriching others in a far off land?
This current paradigm of uncompensated exploitation is simply obscene.
OWS is a call for local change as well as national and global change. The decentralized LOCAL OWS's are where it's strength lies. Get active and TRUST THE PROCESS. The 1% are not tough, their just tall, that's all.
Pretty good.....pretty good, let me just fix one line in there for him:
4. reigning in executive pay in all publicly traded firms.
There, that should do it.
Umm, about that UNHRC, article 23 says everyone has the right to work, as in you cannot be denied employment because you're woman, or a minority or whatever. It does not say everyone is guaranteed work.
Also, where does this sense of entitlement come from? Everyone should have a guaranteed income. If someone slacks all day watching TV and eating burgers why should society be obligated to sustain that person.
Here's my proposal, whoever wants to live on gov dole, fine, you get assigned a studio apartment and get to go eat at the gov sponsored facility three times a day. You get issued some cash for clothes and other necessities of life. You can live that lifestyle for as long as you want.
Here's another thing I'm gonna put forward. if you get all the wealth in the US and divide it evenly among all 320 million people in 50 years the distribution will be the same as it is today. Moreover 90% of the people will be at the same level of wealth they are right now.
"YES, iT does say everybody is guaranteed work! "
That's your interpretation. Most people view it differently. That article (as does most of the UNHRD) specifically makes discrimination illegal . It does not guarantee work.
I don't wanna get into semantics and lawyerisms with you. But here's some clarification:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cescr.htm
Read article 6. It does not say state has to provide employment for everyone but to "include technical and vocational guidance and training programmes, policies and techniques to achieve.... full and productive employment"
Translation, the gov will help you go to school and create the environment for you to be able to find employment, *not* provide a job for you.
Free-market capitalists / Tax Cutters always complain about Gov't welfare & so-called handouts- even calling Social Security an entitlement {IE: Gov't handout} even though Working people PAY into it for Their OWN Retirement [& Corp-controlled Poly-trickster types have often used it as a slush-fund & want give access to Wall St Bankster types to LOOT IT]. But the obvious solution to 'Ending Welfare as We Know It' [Note The Constitution even talks about part of the Gov't's duty is to 'Promote the General Public's WelFare'] is to roll-out a Full Employment Program at fair / living wages for All Able-bodied Adults below retirement age who want to work! And there's Plenty of meaningful work to do - Yet the so-called private 'free-market' sector is laying-off & exporting more jobs than they are creating [Note: A Main part of the unemployment problem is due to Corps off-shoring so many jobs in-order to exploit cheap slave-wage over-seas labor & drive down wages for the US work-force!]. So what do so-called 'Free-Marketeers' want jobless / working poor people to do- Starve?! - Because the so-called free-market & Gov't failed to provide enough adequate jobs?! Do they expect the Gov't to Let the jobless Starve?!
It's a popular myth in elitist circles that the poor are poor because they generally don't work hard enough [based on whose standards] -&- that the rich are hard working innovative geniuses...; when in fact most poor folks work much harder than they should & get paid far less than they deserve- while too many wealthy are over-paid for what they do [or don't do] are often wealthy based on belonging to an elite class where they've inherited [not worked for] their wealth & often implement plans & policies that cause more harm than good [IE: The value of the contributions of the working class / working poor is too often Under-Rated & Under-Appreciated while the value of the ‘contributions' of the rich is too often Over-Rated & Over-Valued]!!!
For more on this topic see Frances Fox Piven's Nov 7 article here at Common Dreams 'The War Against the Poor'
If you haven't included the elimination of "free trade" and advocate economic policies that are best suited for each country (regulated by tariffs and regulations etc) then you aren't serious at solving the real problem.
JJR
Before selling out, I understand Ben and Jerry had written into the mem and arts (or the US equivalent) of their company a ratio of 7 to 1. That way they could pay themselves whatever they liked but the lowest paid employee would earn at least one seventh of that.
Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws.