Good overview of Polanyi (left-economics): "Karl Polanyi and Globalisation," by Girish Mishra. October 18, 2008.

October 18, 2008 > Karl Polanyi and Globalisation

Mainstream, Vol XLVI No 44
Karl Polanyi and Globalisation

Girish Mishra

If one wants to understand the real nature of the ongoing globalisation, based on the Washington Consensus and its impending fate, one needs to turn to Karl Polanyi's The Great Transformation, published in 1944. Polanyi's formulations are more relevant now than ever before. Fred Block of the University of California is quite correct when he states that even after many decades, The Great Transformation remains fresh. Indeed, it is indispensable for understanding the dilemma facing global society at the beginning of the twentyfirst century.
[...]
...Polanyi, "It is the absence of the threat of individual starvation which makes primitive society, in a sense, more human than market economy, and at the same time less economic."
[...]
Traditionally, land and labor are not separated; labor forms part of life, land remains part of nature, life and nature form an articulate whole. Land is thus tied up with the organizations of kinship, neighborhood, craft, and creed—with tribe and temple, village, gild, and church. One Big Market, on the other hand, is an arrangement of economic life which includes markets for the factors of production. Since these factors happen to be indistinguishable from the elements of human institutions, man and nature, it can be readily seen that market economy involves a society the institutions of which are subordinated to the requirements of the market mechanism.
[...]
...the neo-liberal utopia of a borderless and peaceful globe requires that millions of ordinary people throughout the world have the flexibility to tolerate ... a prolonged spell in which they must survive on half or less of what they earned before. Polanyi believes that to expect that kind of flexibility is both morally wrong and deeply unrealistic. To him it is inevitable that people will mobilize to protect themselves from these economic shocks.
[...]
Polanyi's vision has assumed its relevance. It provides a real alternative to market liberalism-based globali-sation that is unsustainable and is bound to give rise to economic crises and authoritarian regimes. "The alternative is that ordinary people in nations around the globe engage in a common effort to subordinate the economy to democratic politics and rebuild the global economy on the basis of international cooperation."

via Karl Polanyi and Globalisation - Mainstream Weekly.

I looked back into this because a young friend of mine asked me what I think about the gold standard.

Here's what I commented to him:

Hi ya, Noah,

Long time no see. I hope you're doing well. How's Japan these days where you are (if you're still there)?

Let's see, the Gold Standard, well, it's loaded with problems even in the secular sense.

The rich have most of it and would if we were to go back to it. Mining of gold is very polluting. The quantity of gold does not increase with productivity gains. That means gold "shortages" are/would be a bottleneck to expanding the economy to meet the needs and wants of the people. It was a major problem in the past.

In addition, it just isn't necessary in any sense. We can easily convert to United States Notes, which are interest-and-tax free.

I've been advocating for years now that we do that and peg the supply exactly to productivity and do it in real-time via supercomputers and transaction monitors.

That's original with me. I've never seen it anywhere else (and I've looked). I don't know why it hasn't caught on. I've mentioned it in many places to many people. I think they just can't see it because it's simple.

Doing that would completely eliminate the national debt and inflation and deflation — no more recessions of the unnatural kind (mammon). We could have endless economic growth. We could completely eliminate poverty in our time. The US is not like a typical family household on a budget and that can't create money for whatever productive projects it wants. The US can create all the money it wants to fund the projects the people need. It's simply a matter of making the decision. It's all very easy. The bankers lie when they say economics is difficult.

They want it to appear complicated so they may obfuscate. They do not want the people out from under because the banker's machine is their parasitic heaven (for a while, until you know when).

Now, all of that United States Notes idea is simply a stepping stone to the Christian Commons, concerning which I'm assuming you are familiar, and then Heaven proper.

I hope this has been a sufficient overview. If you have any questions, feel free to ask, my Christian brother!

Peace to that lovely girl friend of yours and to you,

Tom

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Libertarian Capitalism, United States Notes. Bookmark the permalink.