Big 3 reform - Towards real democracy and better global governance

The menu topics below provide supporting information relating to linked sections of [The Case: Big 3 reform]

It is acknowledged that the reference sources on political matters used on this website have taken a largely western 'democracy', and often a US, perspective. This is certainly the case for the section below. But it will become increasingly important to be aware of the implications of other ideological perspectives on the balance of power if the élite mix moves away from the 'Western democracy' model.

In her book The Global Citizen, the late Donella Meadows, principal author of Limits to Growth, posed the question "What makes a great leader?" at a college seminar (Meadows, 1991, pp.251-253). By the end of the seminar, six dimensions of leadership had been assigned, in order to usefully profile 'leadership'. The first three categories refer to the potential for things to happen:

The other categories refer to where the leader is going:

Having assigned the six dimensions of a leadership profile, the seminar participants were in a position to compare various famous leadership figures by allocating a simple dimension-rating of strong, adequate, or deficient. Nine famous people were listed, including five US Presidents, Hitler, Martin Luther King, and Gandhi. Eleanor Roosevelt was included and it was evident from the profiles how well she and Franklin Roosevelt complemented each other. No doubt this could also be observed for some other President/ First Lady partnerships. Overall President Lincoln's profile was the strongest, President Jefferson's second, and President Carter's the weakest.

I was disappointed when the late US President Carter was not elected for a second term, thinking that he was a good person who was trying to take the US in a better direction. This image was reinforced in a recent documentary (Anon., 2020j). It illustrated how his choice to prioritise securing the safe return of the US hostages from Iran, and to allow the (later to be deposed) Shah of Iran to receive US medical treatment^xyz did indeed contribute towards a landslide vote for President Reagan.

^xyz Rather than taking advice to show a more typically robust US military response, which would have boosted his re-election prospects.

The Jimmy Carter example highlights the difference in thinking that will be necessary for leadership in a democratic global governance context, in comparison with that for office in a federal or nation-state context.

Political judgements prioritising love do not seem to be vote-winners for a disturbingly large proportion of US voters who seem to favour an 'America first' mindset. Much better to wield power to get things done and keep the economy strong, whatever the adverse social and environmental costs.

It would be an instructive exercise to review the Meadow's study, after updating it from Reagan onwards. It is possible that in a post-Trump era in which extreme semantic inversion and extreme political views incorporating hate speech and fake news are the norm, the six parameters would not be enough, or even applicable. The expectations of some voters might now be so numbed that their frames of reference for voting criteria have been seriously corrupted, with associated implications for democracy.

Some examples of the genre are described in (Anon., 2020e), (Theroux, 2022), and (Gatehouse, 2021).

Donella Meadows concluded her description of the leadership seminar with the remark "Citizens of a democracy should be as expert about about leadership as Eskimos are about snow, however many words it takes." This is surely even more the case when referring to leadership at a democratic global governance level.

When seeking to better understand what is happening geopolitically it can be helpful to map out the broad characteristics of political systems at a collective nation-state level, ranging from the polarities of the political spectrum: left to right, and from democracy (free) to totalitarianism/ dictatorship (unfree).

The mapping can be conveniently visualised as a compass (or clockface) with totalitarianism at North (12 o'clock); democracy at South (6 o'clock); left-wing at West (9 o'clock); and right-wing at East (3 o'clock).

A third dimension (coming out from the compass/ clockface) is necessary in order to accommodate fascism, which can be dictatorial or operate within democratic frameworks; and can also be left or right-wing (Rickards, 2016, p.257).

(Rickards, 2016, pp.238-240) describes some of the ideas of the Austrian economist Joseph A.Schumpeter. Paraphrasing (by me): Schumpeter's view of democracy was that it was not about fullfilling the will of the people, but rather it "was a process by which elites competed for leadership roles". After an election the "voters are ignored and winning élites carry out preconceived plans". The key for all economies is central planning. He predicted that capitalism would decline and would be replaced by socialism. Schumpeter regarded China's mixture of official communism and state-capitalism as socialist; which can work perfectly well with or without democracy. But the danger is that as planning becomes entrenched the socialism would become blended with fascism.

Facets of dark governance (reference citation only) [Power structure: Notes]

Free/ unfree polarity Nicholas Hagger discusses free/ unfree polarity in his book World State. On China, in contrast with Schumpeter, Hagger's view is that "China is still totalitarian, but the harshness of the regime has eased (Hagger, 2018b, p.74). Appendix D of Hagger's book lists the free/ unfree polarity of 209 nation-states and related and disputed territories; taken from the 2017 Freedom House annual survey. The freedom ratings are from 1 which represents the most free, to 7 which represents the least free.

In 2017 India is listed as being an electoral democracy with a freedom rating of 2.5. But the reality underlying these ratings needs to be unpicked. For example chapter 2 of (Patel, 2022) provides a chilling list of State promises in India, followed by an authoritarian reality in terms of delivery.

Political rhetoric and media-framing In the context of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, (Chomsky, 2022b, approx 31' into video) cites two basic ideas about the Russian military which have been discussed in the western mainstream media: (i) that it is incompetent in comparison to the Ukrainan civilian defence force; just a paper tiger, and (ii) that it is so overwhelmingly powerful that the west has to arm itself to the teeth. Chomsky says that George Orwell called this "double think" - to hold two completely contradictory ideas in mind at the same time, and to believe both of them - which can happen within super totalitarianism. Chomsky remarked that "we are living with it ourselves right now".

We are all affected by political rhetoric and media-framing.

System justification, media framing, and propaganda [Citizen action].

Individuals and political left/ right The political spectrum can also be considered from the perspective/ perception of individuals. In his book Up from Eden Ken Wilber addresses a central socio-political problem: why are men and women unfree? He then broadly contrasts some generalised differences between 'Republicans' and 'Democrats'. Paraphrasing (by me): Following the philosophical ideas of Hobbes/ Burke/ Freud and the ethnologists, political conservatives and Republicans would tend to believe that men and women are unfree because of something inherent in their natures. Whereas, following the ideas of Rousseau/ Marx and humanistic psychology and philosophy in general, those with liberal political views would tend to believe that men and women are born essentially free, but become unfree because the outer world is oppressive and exploitative (Wilber, 1996b, pp.352-354).

The reader can judge how well these contrasting political stances account for some of the observable general differences in political attitudes between conservatives and liberals.

According to this categorisation, conservatives basically believe that man needs to be controlled in order to maintain order in society; in effect, that goodness is repressed evil. Liberals basically believe that oppression would be lifted by wealth redistribution, and repression would be lifted by actively promoting mental well-being (education not through punishment, but through teaching love and kindness); in effect that evil is repressed goodness (Ibid.).

As part of his work towards an integral political theory, Wilber discusses some of his collaborations with other theorists. For example he is in agreement with Drexel Sprecher and Lawrence Chickering on the need to make a "distinction between 'order' and 'free' wings within both conservatism and liberalism, referring to whether emphasis is placed on collective or individual ends" (Wilber, 2001d, pp.88-89).

In World State (Hagger, 2018b), Nicholas Hagger initially considers seven models for a Supranational Authority. The sixth of these models is the secretive élite agenda described by Rickards. Hagger refers to the élites as The Syndicate, and he describes how they operate in his book with the same title (Hagger, 2004). He outlines the backgound to the élite plan in modern times (Hagger, 2018b, pp.138-144), and why he believes it is flawed. He thinks their secrecy of operation and self-interest in exploiting world resources primarily for their own benefit does not serve the interests of humankind. There is a feeling that such methods are leading towards a dictatorial rather than a democratic world. Hagger concludes (Ibid., p.152) that none of the seven models could give the kind of supranational authority that meet his defined goals; the first of which is to bring peace between nation-states, and disarmament (Ibid., p.105)

In an eighth model for a Supranational Authority, Hagger presents his vision for a democratised UN with accountable global governance (Ibid., p.154). Hagger's vision is vastly preferable to the élite agenda, and the explanations by Rickards and Hagger about the New World Order address many of the questions I have wrestled with for years about the causes of the core business as usual problem. But the following practical question remains:

By what possible mechanism could it come about that the prevailing governance system is reconfigured - to require mandatory legal action to ensure the responsible safeguarding of the habitability of the planet, and the flourishing of the common good?

A fit-for-purpose global governance framework is necessary to stand any chance of providing lasting solutions to the major global human-caused problems. But the prevailing governance system is the élite agenda referred to by Rickards. Since it is the systematic implementation of this agenda over a long period of time which has caused these problems, along with a progressive weakening of democracy, the question might be better split as:

Given the longstanding track record of élite governance, what could prevent their agenda from being fully realised?

If their agenda is realised, what will prevent further escalation of the major global problems?

Hagger believes that "the American people will not allow the American state to be shut down once they are in possession of the facts. Knowledge of the situation will give the American people strength, and be their salvation" (Hagger, 2004, p.313). This was also Donella Meadows' hope.

Hagger addresses potential sceptics on how his concept of a democratic World State might be realised (Hagger, 2018b, pp.209-214). To those who cannot see that any nation-state government would vote for a reduction in its own sovereignty, Hagger points out that in his scheme, funds "previously spent on defence" could then be released to "bring prosperity to their peoples" (Ibid., p.210). He makes a direct appeal to the Members of the UN General Assembly to do their duty (Ibid., p.214).

Since the existing governance framework has evolved over centuries of persistent effort by élites, it would be naive to think that this system is just going to be voluntarily relinquished. As already discussed, any process which is intended to be compatible with a more enlightened global governance structure^egg faces intractable problems of implementation through the 'democratic' process, which has been systematically eroded by élites. Although we may be dissatisfied with the state of democracy in the West, of course many states are much less free, and some totalitarian.

^egg Towards a fit-for-purpose governance system [The Case: Power structure] which could begin to really tackle the major human-caused global problems which have evolved as a consequence of the ever more deeply entrenched form of dark governance.

New ideas which suit the status quo are likely to gain a foothold through the Shock Doctrine mechanism when there is a crisis, and/or their time has clearly come (Klein, 2007). But it is to be expected that radical ideas which challenge the status quo will take much longer to germinate.

As the economist Schumpeter said about democracy; that it "was a process by which élites competed for leadership roles. Once an election is over, voters are ignored and winning élites carry out preconceived plans..." (Rickards, 2016, p.238).

In an interview David Barsamian asked Noam Chomsky about a talk he gave entitled The Common Good (Chomsky, 2012, pp.208-209). Chomsky said that he started with Aristotle's Politics on the inherent contradiction of wealth inequality and democracy. Aristotle felt that "any true democracy has to be what we would call today a welfare state" to reduce poverty, but one in a form well in advance of our concept. This would ensure that neither poverty or excessive wealth could persist.

Chomsky then referred to James Madison ^jm who was concerned that with too much democracy "the poor majority would use its power to bring about what we would call land reform". His proposed solution was to reduce democracy and put "power in the hands of the 'more capable set of men', those who hold 'the wealth of the nation'.

Chomsky pointed out that Madison was pre-capitalist, and could not have imagined the current state of affairs with "investors and corporate executives trying to maximise their own wealth regardless of the effect that has on other people". He then commented that when Franklin D.Roosevelt had to respond to public disquiet, "he left power in the hands of the rich, but bound them to a kind of social contract"; that this was nothing new, and would happen again (Ibid., p.210).

But Madison's concern about the people taking liberties if there was too much democracy reflects an élite perspective, whereas it is the people who need to be concerned if there is not enough democracy.

As already discussed, in the US, corporations have been given too much leeway, and 'democracy' has become corrupted by big money.

Democracy in a " 'free' market" is compromised by many factors [Power structure: Notes]

In Russia the state-controlled media withholds the truth from its people about the war it is currently waging on its neighbour Ukraine. But the western media also presents a highly selective view [The Case]. China is a surveillance-state, which decides what kind of freedoms [Power structure] its people can have, and so on.

Henry Ford once said:

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning".

Proposals have been made to use quantitative easing directly for societal benefit, rather than for 'propping up the banks' as it is commonly perceived by the public at large. But it is safe to assume, on the basis of everyday experience, that those with the authority to control quantitative easing are unlikely to willingly relinquish their positions of power, wealth, and control.

Notwithstanding this apparently insurmountable difficulty, a joint initiative by John Bunzl and James Robertson was aimed at potentially breaking the hold of the markets across nation-states. The potentially devastating effect of market competiveness on governance and on meaningful human activity in the present system has been discussed:

The basis of market confidence [Power structure].

Élite money and power versus a habitable planet [Power structure].

The present destructive financial system appears to be beyond even governments to control. "Furthermore, the global institutions of the WTO, IMF and World Bank"...[believe]... "that market competition is always a beneficial phenomenon"... [they are]..."relatively powerless to influence its out-of-control competitive forces" (Bunzl, 2004).

"the lunatic herd mentality of global markets has ... taken over the asylum" (Ibid.,2004)

There is however a way out of this "prisoner's dilemma".

In 2003 Robertson and Bunzl co-authored a short book entitled Monetary Reform Making it Happen, which linked two proposals they had published in separate journal articles during the preceding three years. The book outlined a general strategic approach whereby Robertson's desirable monetary reforms could be introduced using Bunzl's Simultaneous Policy, which could "overcome the objection that a single country implementing them would risk capital flight and damage to its international competitiveness".

Today this paralysing fear of loss of competiveness has certainly not weakened (Simpol. ISPO YouTube video), but the need for remedial intervention has never been greater. The time has come whereby the sheer untenability of this situation needs to be more widely understood, and that voters everywhere do what they can before it is too late.

For more information about what the Simultaneous Policy is; how it works; how to 'adopt' it, and how to get more involved, the following references provide useful links: (Website. Simultaneous Policy (SimPol) ); and (Website. International Simultaneous Policy Organisation - P2P Foundation Wiki).

External links to the above website references and short YouTube video are provided in the [Bibliography].

We, the ordinary citizens, always end up paying one way or another for the rogue operator behaviour of élites, and the profiteering and indiscretions of the banking system. At one extreme this can include becoming innocent victims of war, with all the suffering from the associated devastating consequences and aftermath; many having to become refugees. Many innocent people are suffering directly from problems resulting from climate change; many of these also having to become refugees. At the other extreme we pay financially via taxes and inflation. In general, 'we' being low to middle income taxpayers in rich countries - the 'privileged consumers' who are the primary target sector of those with vested interests (TwVI), as being the most use for making their profits. We are still paying for the fallout from the 2007/8 financial crisis, after which the banks were bailed out, through various forms of austerity, cuts to public services, etc.. Those who cannot afford to pay financially may suffer more from any adverse consequences arising from cost externalisations (societal and/or environmental losses), because of where they reside.

In marked contrast, TwVI (those with vested interests) even expect to be compensated for any loss to their expected future profits. They have established Corporate courts for this purpose, which are now used increasingly against rich countries.

Corporate courts [Power structure]

Those with vested interests have secured a legal mandate to view such losses as externalised costs. It is accepted that these costs are to be borne by society at large.

The expectation of TwVI that they should be paid compensation reveals a mindset of entitlement and ownership, like the arrogance of Francis Bacon in relation to nature [Power structure] and an Arrogance towards people [Power structure]. In (Olusoga, 2016) historian David Olusoga outlines how British slave owners fought for compensation as the British government moved towards abolishing slavery in 1832. He explains how abolitionists were forced to reluctantly accept that slaves were the legal property of their owners in order to get the legislation through Parliament. The mentality and role of Corporate Courts is not dissimilar to that which the abololitionists were subjected to.

With the prevailing governance/ monetary system, the ultimate controllers (TwVI; the big bankers) must be paid. They are quite shameless; to them it is just business.

Whereas the notion of paying compensation to others who have suffered losses does not feature on their radar. To get any semblance of compensation from TwVI is like getting blood out of a stone. Great perseverance is needed to mount a legal challenge against a large corporation, as illustrated by the films Erin Brockovich and Dark Waters.

Another example of outrageous injustice is the ongoing foot-dragging over any compensation payments to the island-nations, for the consequences of climate change which are now directly affecting them. However, at COP27: "Against all odds, a historic fund was adopted at COP27 for loss and damage – the fund is based on the principle that those most responsible for the climate crisis should compensate those who are most impacted by it. It’s an important first step towards climate justice, but it remains to be seen how money will get in and out, and how people on the frontlines of the climate crisis will be heard." (Anon., 2022x). The first meeting of the Board of the fund took place at COP28.

A number of bold initiatives for modern monetary reform have been articulated. Three thought-provoking examples are: The Next System Project (Alperovitz et al, 2016); Doughnut Economics by Kate Raworth (Raworth, 2018); and Modern Monetary Theory by Stephanie Kelton (Kelton, 2019), (Website. A Paradigm Shift in Macroeconomic Finance) .

The working paper (Alperovitz et al, 2016, pp.5-7) outlines how the central banks used massive injections of quantitative-easing (QE) following the 2007-2008 financial crisis, and address the extremely important question Can QE avert climate disaster? (Ibid., pp.19-21). Various ideas for getting the money into the economy have been suggested, including that of governments buying up fossil fuel plants and closing them down. US cost estimates for buying out the US fossil fuel industry show that when spread out as annual payments, the costs are comparable with the average annual cost of the Iraq war (Ibid., p.21).

The seventh of Kate Raworth's "seven ways to think like a 21st-century economist" is that we need to "become agnostic about growth". We need economies that make us thrive, whether or not they grow, instead of the opposite which prevails today (Raworth, 2018, p.30). The first of her stated ways to do this is to change the goal of GDP growth to "meeting the human rights of every person within the means of our life-giving planet" (Ibid., p.25).

Raworth's doughnut concept follows from the embedded economy [Power structure], which is the complete inversion of the the mainstream global economy - the 'three overlapping economies' concept. Therefore, while her above statement takes-as-read the primary importance of not jeopardising the habitability of the planet, I would want to explicitly recognise that the (life-giving) biosphere is a complex interdependent system which also includes non-human beings and other lifeforms.

Ideas for an economic system based on mandatory internalisation of all costs (MIAC)

An overview of this topic is provided in [The Case: Big 3 reform].

Ideas for an economic system based on mandatory internalisation of all costs (MIAC)

The material below provides more a detailed description of the main MIAC ideas.

The hope is that its essence could be implemented, in principle, within the existing economic and conventional accounting framework; albeit with some fundamental legal adjustments.

Whether or not the concept is theoretically viable - in principle - would need independent evaluation and verification by those with more appropriate expertise (the present author not being an economist, or an accountant).

The material below is an exploratory outline of some basic principles for a mandatory internalisation of all costs (MIAC) type of economy.

The chosen starting point is the simple premise of regarding a right way as one which contributes towards reducing the identified problems with dark governance, and a wrong way as one which contributes towards making them worse.

What an acceptable form of business activity might look like [Power structure]

At first sight this might not seem to be saying much, but it signifies a major conceptual, and directional, change. In effect it inverts the present economic growth paradigm, leading to a smaller but more sustainable overall economy. Perhaps even Towards global equilibrium, and a golden age? [Issues]

An underlying principle which follows from the 'right way' definition is that it prioritises the process for converting natural and human resources into products and services that we all need over unnecessary products and services.

In a truly democratic world, categorising the essentialness of a product or service would be independent of the ability to pay for it. An economy which focused on the delivery of essential products and services would tend to have less inequality in any case.

The main purpose of the process would be to put access to basic essentials within the reach of everyone, and to constrain the rate of environmental plundering and desecration.

Re-financialising in support of essentialness value would be in stark contrast to the current

ethos which maximises money profit through reliance on ignoring externalised costs, and uses sophisticated advertising to artificially stimulate markets to create more wants, rather than just to meet basic needs.

Cost externalisation [Power structure]

Instead, externalised costs would be internalised, and pricing adjusted to reflect essentialness value, using fully disclosed subsidies as necessary. The aim would be sufficiency rather than overconsumption and wastefulness.

To the extent that wealth inequality was a barrier to paying for essentials, disclosed subsidies based upon essentialness could be applied. Essentialness value would reflect the inherent effectiveness of a resource/ product/ service at meeting essential customer needs after internalising externalised costs. Essentialness value is described further in the Value(s) section below.

The approach would aim to redefine money to support essentialness value in such a way that "the love of money" (Russell, 1992, p.80) would no longer be the 'root of all evil'.

At this point it might be helpful to clarify my usage of the term value(s). This is not intended to be a comprehensive discussion, but merely a round up of the different ways it is referred to on this website:

Amoral 'values' - in the sense of the de facto collective global societal 'values' framework that we are all obliged to live by.

This obligation is a direct consequence of the nation-state/ corporate legislature which underpins the prevailing dark governance system; in particular of the 'legal fiction' of the Corporate Person. These 'values' are gradually taking precedence over the personal values of individual citizens, which is dehumanising and disempowering.

What is wrong with dark governance? [The Case: Power structure]

The Corporate Person [Power structure]

Value - in the sense of normally financialised/ monetised market price.

Financialisation [Power structure] is an accounting process, however, and is yet another way in which business as usual (BAU) becomes entrenched. It can be observed that the trend is for anything which can be commodified to be commodified; including human experiences (Rifkin, 2000). To try to put a monetary 'value' on a human life seems preposterous and wrong, neverthess this is routinely done for 'risk assessment' calculations. The feeling that one is just a number is not so far from the truth - at least as perceived by the banker who "knows the price of everything but the value of nothing" (Oscar Wilde).

Human values - in the sense of ethics and morals.

Essentialness value.

In marked contrast to the de facto 'amoral' values of business as usual, the concept presented here of meeting essential needs and internalising previously externalised costs is to be rooted in a set of global-consensus values. This values-set would be used to derive an essentialness ranking for significant categories of products and services. Essentialness value would be assessed after internalising externalised costs to determine the necessary size of disclosed subsidy. The resource/ product/ service would then be re-financialised (priced) as for any other market commodity, except that there would be full disclosure of the extent of the subsidy, how it was being paid for, and what it was to be used for.

Most importantly, if the rigorous full cost internalisation assessment was too uncertain, for whatever reason, then use of the resource/ product/ service could be banned.

The task of obtaining a democratically-derived, global-consensus set of core human values is discussed later.

Towards a global citizens' collective

In principle, notwithstanding the practical difficulties, if costs were fully internalised in accordance with the MIAC concept, then market pricing would properly reflect the human impacts of non-essential products or services on people and the planet.

Accounting for sustainability, or un-sustainability? [Power structure]

The first task of MIAC would be to evaluate the real cost of ensuring that the product or service had no significant adverse environmental or sociological impacts.

This would be a realistic measure of the extent of cost externalisation currently built into the product or service. This cost could be conventionally accounted for.

The prevailing financialise everything which can be commodified convention is the means by which the price of commodities can interface meaningfully with the world economy (as it is currently configured).

Financialisation [Power structure]

(Developed or underdeveloped? [Issues])

The MIAC real cost pricing procedure would aim to eliminate the untenable aspects of the financialisation process. It is likely that for many products and services, externalised costs are currently ignored, or fudged.

A reality check (I) [Power structure]

As yet, evolving methodologies in the field of sustainability accounting [Power structure] do not come close to the level of rigour, comprehensiveness, or transparency necessary to verify the cost of prevention of adverse environmental and/or social impacts, whether these preventative actions have been implemented, and whether they are effective.

However it is inferred that the real problem may be that businesses are getting away with selling products/ services without knowing how to prevent adverse environmental and social impacts. Perhaps particularly polluting processes are 'legally' carried out in countries where compliance with environmental limits is easy.

Under such circumstances the mandatory internalisation of all costs (MIAC) process could be used to provide an important indication of whether products are being sold which perhaps should not be.

If applying the MIAC process for any products or services which turned out to be intractable, for example due to insufficient understanding of the biosphere (and/or of manufacturing technologies) which prohibits a viable design of effective environmental protection equipment, then this would be sufficient grounds for abandoning the product, unless it was deemed essential.

Depending upon the outcome of the MIAC process for a given product, and of the essentialness assessment, a manufacturer might decide not to continue marketing it in view of the expected market price revision. If marketing is to continue, it would be expected that the necessary protection equipment would have to be designed, fitted, and verified to be effective, to an agreed timetable. Depending upon the level of protection equipment necessary, the product might have to be withdrawn until the equipment was fitted.

It would be expected that products with low environmental and sociological impacts could continue to be competitively priced in the market.

Where a resource/ product/ service had high externalised costs (such as those arising from the extraction and combustion of fossil fuel, and associated product waste disposal), but was deemed to be essential, it would require a large cost internalisation valuation, offset by a large subsidy in proportion to its deemed essentialness valuation. Another example of an environmentally disastrous but incredibly useful product is of course plastic.

A significant funding allocation, besides the subsidy, would therefore be directed towards greening the product, or researching alternative ways of meeting the essential need. This would be regularly reviewed as necessary to remain focused on minimising damage to the environment. The market price of non-essential products would directly reflect the cost of incorporating any necessary protection equipment, as noted above.

Most existing products and services have inherent externalised costs just via the necessary use of transport, especially transport which uses fossil fuel (externalised costs arise from the extraction and combustion of fossil fuel, and associated product/ waste disposal).

State-funded research and development aimed at product greening or finding an alternative has not happened sufficiently in the mainstream economy. Instead large subsidies continue to go to fossil fuel companies. Consequently, despite the potentially catastrophic consequences of global warming, we do not have enough non-fossil fuel energy to meet demand. Meanwhile TwVI in fossil fuels continue to make huge profits at our expense, and are so powerful that they hold us to ransom, as demonstrated at COP26 and subsequently to date.

A good example of the need for more product greening research is in tackling the growing problem of unrecyclable wind turbine blades (Covington, 2023).

Similarly in the case of plastic, despite the disastrous pollution of the air, land, and sea caused by plastics, again, in the mainstream economy, viable alternative solutions are not being sought with the urgency required, meanwhile large profits continue to be made by the purveyors of plastic.

The intention would be for essential goods subsidies, and product greening or sociological risk minimisation allocations, to be sourced directly from general taxation, with a significant component from the higher pricing of non-essential goods. In particular from those which require large internalisation of externalised costs. In effect this would reflect a shift towards 'taxing the bads'; by paying a truer price for a product in order to render it pollution free, and/or sociologically safe.

In principle, where necessary a for the common good form of quantitative-easing^qe could be authorised.

The process, including full cost internalisation, would need to be legally binding, unlike voluntary schemes like Corporate Social Responsibility which have been tried and unsurprisingly have failed.

^qe At present, the bottom line of business is measured as a currency unit (eg. $), and the business objective is profit maximisation in this currency unit. The unit is just a number in a computer, generated by an authorised central bank - out of nothing. It does not of itself have any intrinsic 'value', and these days it is not even pegged to gold.

Quantitative-easing (QE) is routinely authorised by financial élites for the express purpose of maintaining the existing financial system.

Other potential applications of QE are referred to in The Next System Project, referenced in the section Monetary reform (above). In the context of an enlightened global governance system in which natural and human resources are not squandered; are used responsibly, sustainably and fairly; and are not commandeered largely for the benefit of powerful élites, I am not aware of any reason, in principle, why quantitative-easing could not be used, as necessary, directly for the common good.

The process of essential/ non-essential product classification, with mandatory full cost internalisation, would help to identify business activities and practices which could not be justified.

The mechanism would directly improve the sustainability of manufactured products. Transparent information about the process could also facilitate improvements in sustainability through citizen cooperation and lifestyle adjustments.

Meeting basic needs like healthy food (not processed/ UPF and 'junk' food) and utilities would be deemed to have high essentialness value, and so low price.

The size of subsidy would need to reflect the associated externalised costs, such as the extent of fossil fuel usage inherent in the product at the point of sale.

For items deemed essential, but having high externalised costs, in addition to the subsidy a significant funding allocation would be directed towards greening the product, or researching alternative ways of meeting the essential need.

Providing non-essentials would be deemed to have low essentialness value, and so no subsidy. The price would therefore depend upon the cost of internalising associated externalities. If the product had a small adverse footprint, it could be priced low. Conversely, if it had a high adverse footprint, it could be very expensive.

Criticisms of the concept can be expected from mainstream economists, on the grounds that subsidies interfere with the true market price (Wheeler, 1997, p.14). Such practices are formally frowned upon; they disguise externalities, such as subsidies for fossil fuels, and are therefore an abuse of the market (Wikipedia, Environmental full-cost accounting). There is also an inherent tendency towards wastefuless where a resource/ product/ service is priced artificially low through subsidy.

These are all valid points. A culture change would certainly need to be encouraged whereby profligacy was undignified. However the main problem is not subsidies per se, but the blatant hypocrisy of business as usual (BAU). For example: the extent to which fossil fuels have been (and still are being) subsidised without full disclosure of the extent of subsidy or of the associated environmental consequences. This effectively rigs the market for profligate energy consumption, affecting virtually all business activities and transport costs.

This results in high traffic volumes and encourages overconsumption (hence large profits) of low priced products, with ensuing environmental consequences which are largely externalised. Similarly, processed food/ ultra-processed-food (UPF)/ 'junk' foods are regarded as 'cheap'. Externalities include consumer ill-health, high levels of product waste (food, packaging, production processes..), and a consequential large environmental footprint (industrialisation of agricultural land use and production processes, waste, associated transportation...).

It is time to change the rules, and to make full internalisation of all externalised costs mandatory, with fully transparent disclosure of any subsidies.

Either speculative activities to make money out of money would be illegal, noting that the ultimate context for this scheme is to be part of an eventual fit-for-purpose global governance system.

or an alternative approach be found, such as the application of a Tobin tax or similar tax on speculative financial transactions.

In principle, it would be sensible to increase fossil fuel prices to deter wasteful usage and to reduce consumption. This should have been done decades ago, on a properly planned basis, with more investment in renewables in parallel. Instead of which, the whole societal infrastructure has been established on the premise of artificially cheap fossil fuel availability, with global warming being a serious consequence of the externalised costs. Despite the fact that the industry has known about the future consequences for potentially catastrophic climate change for decades, they deliberately seeded public misinformation about it (Anon., 2015e), meanwhile continuing to profit enormously by encouraging/ maintaining growth in subsidised demand.

Non-fossil fuel energy prices should similarly reflect the fully internalised costs (environmental, sociological) of production. For genuinely renewable sources the climate impact costs would be expected to be much lower than for fossil fuels, whereas nuclear generation is expensive, with very long term ongoing waste management costs, and ongoing security risks. The inherent distortions of the present system for energy pricing are becoming very apparent when gas prices are very high.

For example - resulting from post-Covid-19 factors and the Russian war in Ukraine. Coinciding with an increase in inflation the UK government was under pressure to help citizens cope with sky-rocketing energy bills. Concerns about the impact on the cost of living took precedence over any considerations such as reducing consumption of fossil fuels to reduce further global warming. (Stiglitz, 2022) pointed out that these high energy prices were undeserved windfall profits for the energy companies, which should be taxed.

Those who have invested in renewable energy, which is now much cheaper than gas, and does not cause global warming, are still having to pay a price which is skewed by the very high gas price. This is fuelling inflation, and is causing societal mayhem.

In mainstream economic parlance, this would appear to be a market failure.

But would it be? (see below)

If we voluntarily choose to reduce our energy demand, we reduce our costs. But if a price increase of energy/ fuel is imposed on us, then we will end up paying more for less energy.

'The authorities' could massively increase the cost of fossil fuel, at the taxpayers' expense, while claiming that this was legitimate and necessary in order to incentivise meeting the global warming temperature limit. They could assume emergency powers and argue that the additional funds were to be used to offset rising costs from climate change-related processes, for example. But without full transparency of the economic process and money flows, it would not be possible to verify fair play by those in control, and we would have to take their word for it that the increased prices were not being used as a back-door route to 'compensating' TwVI. Unless corporate law is changed to make corporations liable for future consequences of cost externalisations, this sort of grey area is inevitable.

The élite plan to deliberately increase global inflation will inevitably have the consequence of reducing economic activity, and therefore reduce the rate of consumption of fossil fuels. Increased energy pricing counteracts this so the TwVI in fossil fuels still make a profit - a win:win.

Whether or not there is any connection between the élite plan to increase global inflation, and the various military provocations involving NATO, and the resulting application of economic sanctions [Power structure], is a matter for speculation only.

The agenda of global élites [Power structure]

If we are to halt further global warming it is clear that until there is sufficient non-fossil fuel energy generation to meet our demand, we need to reduce our personal combustion of fossil fuels by directly reducing our energy consumption. This can be also be achieved indirectly, by reducing our consumption of products and services in general. These all use energy, which still mostly comes from fossil fuels.

From the perspective of the core message on this website, it is with some irony that many UK citizens are now having to reduce their consumption to essentials only anyway, because high prices are being forced on us.

We all need to use energy, and so it can be regarded as an essential product. The pricing should therefore include:

Subsidies to offset the fully internalised cost of essential products in general,

Full transparency about subsidies, especially where the product environmental footprint is very large, as in the case of subsidised fossil fuel energy, and

Subsidies for big footprint essential products (below).

The issue of corporate legislation granting rights without societal or environmental responsibilities has been referred to (Evolution of corporate legislation [Power structure]). Relieved of the primary corporate goal of maximising profits largely for the benefit of powerful élites, a proposed MIAC Process Authority would take on the mantle of exercising genuine corporate social and environmental responsibility.

Subject to public trust ^lpt in the full cost internalisation process, potential customers would be better informed, without the need for labelling, and be able to decide whether the price was genuinely value for money. As already noted, the issue of wealth inequality as a barrier could, in principle, be resolved by disclosed subsidies based on an assessment of the essentialness of a product or service.

^lpt Past excessive reliance on green-wash marketing claims and deceitful public relations communications by 'free-rider' businesses to mask externalities are likely to make it much more difficult for the public to believe in genuine change for the better.

Demonstrably responsible governance, with more honesty and better transparency over a sustained period, would probably be necessary to begin to heal public cynicism from years of media misinformation and marketing hype; from reduced expectations, and from a generally numbed capacity for consumer discernment.

In a speculative study such as the present one, the issue of how this process might be formally organised can only be considered in terms of general functional requirements. Tasks would include competent MIAC of all cases, essential and non-essential, and their independent verification; and essentialness value assessment/ pricing with fully transparent disclosure of subsidies and product greening/sociological risk minimisation allocations.

Difficult judgements would need to be made concerning factors such as:

How can the severity of pollution from product/service A (say fossil fuelled vehicles) be compared to that from product/ service B (say electrically powered vehicles)? This is discussed further below.

Using a societally sanctioned assessment of essentialness to inform decisions about subsidies.

Essential products with very large adverse environmental or sociological footprints

If an essential product/ service has a very large adverse footprint, the priority should be to explore/ invest in other ways to meet that essential need rather than to subsidise it. This should have happened much sooner in the mainstream economy in the case of energy generation from fossil fuels, and with the indiscriminate widespread use of plastic. This is discussed further below.

If there is insufficient understanding about the environmental or sociological implications of a using a product/ service, then might it be better to confine such usage to a small scale pilot exercise until an adequate understanding has been obtained? It might even be judged that no usage could be justified.

The criteria for making such judgements would be science-based, and in relation to the common good, rather than compromised by corporate profit-maximisation for élites. Government policy formalisation of the process and primary functional interfaces would be necessary. A primary interface might be expected to be with the Treasury, on account of the common good form of quantitative-easing, and others with: legal; banking; taxation; and accountancy disciplines.

As things currently stand, it is likely that sometimes the technical information to carry out the necessary internalised cost analyses would not yet exist. But rather than press on regardless (making money while ignoring such complications, as in BAU), the process could prompt consideration of a range of options.

For example, a particular policy might initially be deemed to be 'essential'; such as the rollout of a massive infrastructure programme of electric car mobilisation, as part of the 'net zero by 2050' 1.5°C commitment.

Then, after further assessment as required by the process, it might turn out to be problematic due to huge associated environmental impacts, natural resource depletion, and/or societal disruption as infrastructure is updated. A decision might have to be made to scale back such a programme, perhaps largely restricting it to public transport and commercial vehicles (lorries, vans, taxis..), until a less environmentally-damaging technology could be developed.

If the fully internalised costs of an essential item happened to be very high, for example in the manufacture of an electric car, then a decision would need to be made as to the extent of subsidy which could be justified. It might be better to look at alternative ways to provide, substitute, or reduce demand for that item.

This example demonstrates the need for a rigorous type of footprinting, in which the impact of a product or service needs to be considered at many levels. An obvious benefit of using electric cars over fossil fuelled cars is the absence of atmospheric emissions (greenhouse/other gases and particulates), provided that the electricity used is generated without using fossil fuels. But even if all the electricity used is generated by renewables, there are still large resource implications.

Mass implementation of battery storage brings with it many as yet unsolved problems which will adversely affect their environmental footprint. For example rising demand for critical materials [Power structure] and the associated environmental impacts.

To be practical, it is likely that most users would require fast-charging of batteries. For most people in every street to have access to high power battery charging, the logistical implications for roads and properties resulting from electrical re-cabling, and the operational effects on local electricity grids would need to be realistically anticipated.

Is so much travel by individuals really essential, regardless of whether it only uses electricity generated by renewables? People may have got used to spending many hours per week travelling, but is this time well spent?

Another important factor is the global trend towards urbanisation, which points towards investment in better public transport infrastructure. If passengers can rely on frequent and reliable pickups and dropoffs, there is less need for private cars. As the trend towards internet shopping continues, the problem of carrying heavy and/or bulky goods reduces, further reducing the need for private cars. Taxis and car-share vehicles could be electrically powered..

The categorisation and characteristics of a product would affect the outcome of subsidy decision-making. An example would be plastic packaging. Because of the high global volume and diversity of forms of this product, the internalised cost per item might not be large, but taken overall the adverse environmental impacts - and therefore the overall internalised cost - would be massive.

If the fully internalised costs of a non-essential item happened to be low, for example certain cosmetics and perfumes, it would be perverse to unnecessarily interfere with the pricing, and so the product could happily be priced low as an affordable luxury.

But many cosmetics contain microplastics, thereby massively increasing their environmental footprint. This is discussed later.

Fashion clothing is an example of a non-essential item, with a high environmental footprint, which could be reduced by subsidised essential product-greening research (applied to essential clothing).

If some business activities received subsidies as part of the commodity revaluation process, for example in order to 'green the product' or to research alternatives, then this would be because they were judged to have legitimacy in terms of meeting essential needs.

The prices of certain commodities would rise; this would still favour the better off, who could afford to pay more for treats and scarce desirables. This necessary and just 'tax on the rich' would be used directly subsidise the above process.

Large cruise ships use a lot of fossil fuel

Large cruise ships use a lot of fossil fuel

The very wealthy would not like such a societal redistribution from what they have become used to. Cries of 'foul' and pleas for level-playing-fields would be inevitable until all companies internalised their previously externalised costs, and the adverse consequences from past externalised costs remedied or written off.

Following the global lockdown during the coronavirus pandemic, a measure of acceptance of the need for a 'new normal' evolved. The occurrence of practical and widespread compliance with the concept of unnecessary travel demonstrated that it is no longer possible to declare the impossibility of a different, smaller, type of economy. The coronavirus resulted in a period of underconsumption, exposing an inherent weakness of capitalism which results from interdependencies within the system (Beardshaw, 1992, p.735).

The sociological and environmental footprints of technology are growing very rapidly. If technology is increasingly used to constrain or control us, against our will, then how can it be viewed as essential or beneficial?

In affluent societies the internet and telecommunications system [Power structure], together with the associated hardware^tshw, software, firmware, and ancilliary services such as the proliferation of 'data-centres' and their energy-hungry air-conditioning plants (Jones, 2018), etc. would no doubt all be considered 'essential'.

^tshw Power generation equipment, data-centres, masts, computers, phones, satellites and their launch infrastructure, etc., etc.

The sustainability assessment model (SAM) [Power structure]

As an example at a more local level, the unsightly images below suggest that the visual impact (aesthetic footprint?) and maintainability of 'essential' services on neighbourhoods have not been factored in to any 'cost-benefit-analyses'. Pavement cable ducts are now deemed to be too expensive.

UK fibre rollout

Some poles are extremely overloaded with connection boxes, and very few are screened by foliage. The poles depicted in the above images are located in a pleasant village, not in a shanty town.

UK fibre connection boxes

The provision of essential services is certainly relevant to national economic growth statistics, as recorded using the highly flawed metric of Gross Domestic Product ( GDP [General] ).

Gross Domestic Product

Many people are not aware of the anomalies present in the make-up of this indicator. 'GDP is a poor indicator of sustainable economic welfare. Growth in GDP does not ensure a corresponding growth in welfare' (Jackson, 1997). Other related indicators include: the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW), Human Development Index (HDI), GPI (Wikipedia, Genuine progress indicator), and the Social Progress Indicator (SPI).

Given the adverse environmental impacts of technologies such as those listed above, it is increasingly necessary to monitor global emissions and identify their sources. Satellite technology can be used to monitor greenhouse gas emissions such as methane and carbon dioxide (Edmond, 2023). Unsurprisingly the biggest emitters in the world are seen to be oil and gas fields. If such data can be used effectively to curb emissions by challenging the polluters then it will be providing a very valuable service.

As noted earlier, more product greening research is needed to tackle the growing problem of unrecyclable wind turbine blades (Covington, 2023).

There are countless examples of bad consequences from previously externalised costs. Occasionally we get to hear about some of them; for example in publications such as Private Eye. The 2000 film Erin Brockovich is a dramatisation of a true story describing a legal case in which Erin Brockovich "fought against the energy corporation Pacific Gas and Electric Company regarding its culpability for the Hinkley groundwater contamination incident" (Wikipedia, Erin Brockovich (film)).

The consequences of 'cheap' plastic waste will be with us for a very long time. Even now that the need for some level of plastic recycling is well recognised, it turns out that large amounts of our carefully sorted and 'recycled' plastic waste is being shipped overseas - with the associated additional transport footprint - and then literally tipped and/or burnt.

One of the problems is that not all plastic waste exported from the UK for 'recycling' is properly sorted (Crawford, 2020). This is likely to be the material which ends up being tipped and/or burnt. Even resourcing an investigation of what is going wrong with the waste stream pre-sorting would be yet another externalised cost.

To the extent that plastic recycling does take place, the output is plastic pellets which can be reused. The real environmental and social impacts incurred throughout any waste recycling/ processing/ transporting stages include 'accidental' impacts; for example: spillages of plastic pellets have occurred at sea, causing devastation to the marine environment; recently for example, in Sri Lanka (Ellis-Petersen, 2021).

Apart from the long term environmental damage, this causes more immediate problems for those unfortunate enough to live nearby. China stopped receiving shipments of plastic waste from the UK in 2017. Malaysia was one of the countries receiving large quantities of plastic waste from the UK, some of which was being tipped or burnt (Anon., 2019h), and Turkey was another (Crawford, 2021). Turkey imposed a ban on nearly all imports of plastic from July 2021. In 2021 the UK only recycled about 46% of its plastic waste, with a bigger proportion being incinerated with some energy recovery (Ibid.).

Mass burn incineration [Power structure].

As things currently stand the fashion industry generates "high carbon emissions, wastewater production, and large amounts of landfill waste" and is known for "its poor working conditions" (Colucci et al., 2019). It has therefore been keen to be seen to make improvements; but what 'sustainable clothing' actually means is difficult to unpick (Laitala et al., 2018). If it refers to a product derived from a mixture of natural and synthetic fibre waste, then this might be 'sustainable' in the circular economy [Power structure] sense that it could be reused ^fief, but not in the sense of a naturally renewable resource - like cotton or wood.

^fief "A fully integrated viscose production system or a system that makes one of the newer cellulosic fibres (eg. lyocell) from the recovered cotton will improve the performance of the recycling system relative to its alternatives" (Peters et al., 2019).

Trying to ascertain what is considered essential, and what is non-essential, in domains such as 'personal care products' and cosmetics could be expected to be controversial. Old school consumers might ask what is wrong with soap, water, and flannels? Footprinting controversies over the use of old-style Terry towelling nappies versus modern convenience versions might be reduced if the latter contained more sustainable materials. The vast range of products now available demonstrates significant cultural changes, at the expense of a massively increased environmental footprint ^mief. "The truth is that the future of cosmetics relies on more sustainable approaches, and though a revolution will not happen overnight, each effort towards sustainability is a huge step for a better future" (Born et al., 2019).

^mief Microplastic particles widely used in cosmetics and personal care products have become a serious marine pollution problem. See for example (Napper et al., 2015) and (Hernandez et al., 2017). As in the case of air particulate pollution, the extent of environmental and health hazard depends not just on the mass of pollutant, but also on number and size of particulates. Very small particles pass through air filters and can enter airways and cause damage. Microplastics similarly pass through wastewater treatment plant filters and reach the oceans, with potentially serious consequences to marine life, and for the food chain.

The film Dark Waters is a dramatisation of a legal "case against the chemical manufacturing corporation Dupont after they contaminated a town with unregulated chemicals" (Wikipedia, Dark Waters (2019 film) ). The case concerned PFOA; a chemical used in the manufacture of Teflon, which is used in non-stick cookware. This serves as an example of a non-essential product which became a household name in the 1960s before enough was known about its toxicity. In the case dramatised in the film, thousands of tons of toxic sludge had been dumped in a landfill site. By the 1970s Dupont knew that the chemical could accumulate in the body and cause cancer and birth defects, but did not publicly disclose these findings. No doubt some people made a lot of money out of producing that chemical, but at what cost to others, and to the environment?

A key principle of the MIAC concept is that it incorporates a moral compass [Moral compass]

"As a matter of long term survival, we ( the big group/ global society at large ) need to ... become a more 'pro-social', caring society; helping each other more; being more; and consuming less".

A foreseeable and ironic consequence of privileged consumers heeding the message en masse to curb their consumption would be to put innocent people out of work in places like China. With the present pro-economic growth agenda it is hardly likely that affected poor workers overseas would be furloughed by their employers, or by their nation-state. In order to walk-the-talk, a way must be found to offset such consequential injustice.

If privileged consumers were prepared to provide financial assistance, there is no reason in principle why organisations could not be established to directly help such workers. Money saved initially by privileged consumers exercising voluntary frugality could be redirected, not only to help those losing their jobs as a direct consequence of the reduced demand, but to fund work which corporations and rich governments should be doing, but aren't. Such as helping to organise the funding and distribution of Covid-19 vaccinations to the poorer parts of the world, and helping them deal with the effects of climate change.

Notes: Taking back control?

Some ideas for a rigorous full cost internalisation based economic system have been presented. The purpose of the system would be to reduce global warming, overconsumption, wealth inequalities, and to move towards environmental sustainability. The emphasis of economic activity would be shifted towards the needs of people at large, rather than towards their wants. The intention is that essential goods would be priced low enough to be readily affordable to all, by using disclosed subsidies. In order to be able evaluate the cost of these subsidies a key task is to determine an 'essentialness ranking' for broad categories of products and services.

It is recognised that globally, there will be a wide spectrum of views as to what might be considered essential. However, by focusing on a set of core human values, and on shared common ground, it should be possible to obtain a usable measure of consensus on essentialness, while not stifling the manifestation of cultural diversity.

The need to respect cultural diversity to some extent mirrors a feature of Nicholas Hagger's World State which, on a much bigger scale, is a 'loose federal model' limited at the supranational level to seven goals, such that the loss of sovereignty and disturbance to existing nation-states and civilisations would be minimal outside the areas of the seven goals (Hagger, 2018b, p.210).

A credible essentialness ranking for significant categories of products and services would need to be rooted in a realistic consensus set of human values, obtained from a diversity of lifestyles and cultures around the world. A global survey [Notes] of a representative sample of ordinary citizens could, in principle, be obtained using the internet, but to be authoritative it would need to be co-ordinated by a steering group commanding a high level of public respect.

Referring to the primacy of self-interest in market societies, and to Margaret Thatcher's claim that 'there is no such thing as society' as "implying that the market society is best understood as an agglomeration of individuals", (Cleaver, 1997, p.12) quotes from Adam Smith's classic work The Wealth of Nations (1776), which defines the basis of the 'invisible hand'. Commenting that this passage is "perhaps the most famous in all economics", Cleaver points out that "Smith wrote this over 200 years ago as the professor of moral philosophy at Glasgow University, and was well aware of the ethical and institutional foundations upon which this assertion is based." Cleaver later writes: "..the price mechanism is the key organising agency of the modern market economy - the invisible hand that directs the pattern of all consumption, production and distribution. It determines what is produced, which industries will succed or fail, and which resources will, or will not, be employed" (Ibid., p.46).

But 'amoral' dark governance often uses a deceitful conceptual inversion by referring to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' of self-interest, without mentioning that his ideas were set in a context of pre-capitalism; which in comparison with the dark global capitalism of today, might be regarded as relatively moral capitalism. "Adam Smith was the author not only of the Wealth of Nations, but of the Theory of the Moral Sentiments, where he asserts time after time that self-interest has to be pursued by people of conscience, informed by their capacity for moral awareness. Without that, the 'invisible hand' of self-interest will not work for the common good" (Porritt, 2005, p.34).

In the final sentence of the last paragraph of his book, (Cleaver, 1997, p.256) writes: "In a fast-changing, chronically uncertain world where our economic and technological power to create or destroy embraces vastly disparate peoples and indeed the entire planet then it must be concluded that some rather more visible hands would be very welcome to guide the wealth of nations into the twenty-first century."

Notes

Notes: 'Further ideas for an economy based on based on mandatory internalisation of all costs (MIAC)'

On the "Tobin tax" (Korten, 1996, p.321):

'International Financial Transactions Tax A 0.5 percent tax should be collected on all spot transactions in foreign exchange, including... ..as proposed by James Tobin, winner of the 1981 Nobel Prize for economics....would help dampen speculative international financial movements but would be too small to deter commodity trade or serious international investment commitments...The priority for applying the proceeds from this tax should be to establish a debt repayment fund to retire those international debts of low-income countries....A second use of this tax should be to finance the operations of the United Nations and its specialized agencies'. .

Although unpalatable to many people, sectors such as tourism need to be regarded more as treats. This may be upsetting, but it regrettably reflects the increasing stark reality of the current human predicament. As a direct consequence of decades of necessary remedial actions being put off, we are running out of options (Meadows, 2005, pp.248-250).

In principle, there is no reason why organisations modelled on an offsetting injustices basis could not be established more generally. With the prevailing corporate mindset they would be viewed as 'charities' - giving 'aid'. But this is another form of semantic inversion [Power structure]; it all depends on the frame of reference. Even with the existing system, if enough privileged citizens cared about fairness to 'share' by voluntarily 'paying' with their money, or their time, then "many hands [could] make light work".

In relation to such an ethic, the behaviour of some corporates during the Covid-19 pandemic, and rubber-stamped by governments in the rich world (with little protest by privileged consumers/ taxpayers, it has to be said) would be regarded as an outrage.

This example refers to the injustice inflicted by some expedient operations of TwVI in 'Big Pharma', which is not being offset by the rich nations. During the Covid-19 pandemic some corporations have been making huge profits from annual booster vaccinations for those who can afford to pay, while guaranteeing their future income through indirectly assisting the spread of disease-variants among the too-poor-to-be-vaccinated.

Targeting those who can afford to pay [Power structure]

These huge profits will be made from the taxpayer in rich countries. While there is no doubt smugness all round for the big pharma executives and their investors, this situation provides yet another graphic reminder of what is wrong with business as usual - the absence of a moral compass.

Moral responsibility and the amassment of power [Moral compass]

The system could be made less unfair if the if the tax burden fell on the corporate and richer societal sectors, and a significant proportion of this revenue sent to poorer countries to support their vaccination programmes.

A 'charity' could fund and organise the distribution of Covid-19 vaccinations to the poorer parts of the world.

Globalisation with a nation-state based political system has allowed corporates to make money while perpetuating inequalities and injustices. TwVI have it both ways. If privileged citizens continue to look the other way, MHCPS can only get worse.

Trickle-down economics

The idea that all benefit from economic growth because of spin-off benefits from the rich to the poor. "... the trickle-down effect operates poorly in Brazil, and not at all in India" (in 1991) (Latouche, 1993, p.38). In general, rather than trickle-down the reality is very much on 'funnel-up'. Especially in regard to debt repayments. But as with most of BAU, it depends on your point of view.

The concept of "no gain without pain" has been used in the past to erroneously justify economic growth as the way to reduce inequalities by the 'trickle down' effect, whereas an emerging view is that equitable economies follow from designing wealth distribution into a network from the outset - Design to distribute : Chapter 5 of (Raworth, 2018, pp.163-205)

The Russian invasion of Ukraine

Many citizens in Europe and the UK have responded very generously [Citizen action] to help the substantial number of refugees fleeing from the war. Possible citizen actions by those immersed in a war zone might be limited, but soon become apparent. The need for official humanitarian aid only increased as the war unfolded.

Within a more enlightened, fit-for-purpose global governance system, there would be 'no enemies across the border'; but just decent human beings everywhere trying to live in peace.

Exercising rights and responsibilities in the world [Being]

The survey questions would need to be formulated to provide unambiguous answers on matters which would directly affect the assessment of essentialness to be used in the economic process. A practical start could be to review sources such as Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory [Life choices]; the Basic Knowledge 101 source (Website. Basic Knowledge 101); data from United Nations Development Report (UNDR) indices such as the Human Development Index (HDI) ^hdpi; Human Poverty Index (HPI); and from other sources, for example the Social Progress Index (SPI) (Wikipedia, Social Progress Index).

^hdpi HDI as described in (UNDP, 1997) and, for example (Ghatak, 1995); HDI and HPI data from (UNDP, 1998), (UNDP, 1999), (UNDP, 2000).

Complicating factors include the numerous parameters which might be considered highly desirable/ essential, but which many people do not have access to; for example, a pollution and crime-free place to live. Lines would have to be drawn as to the extent of subsidies which could be considered. The practical application to tangible essential products and services will inevitably act as a boundary/ constraint. Difficult judgements would have to be made about the relative essentialness of physiological survival parameters, and quality of life parameters. Religious and cultural dimensions would also have to be considered.

Previous work [Notes] and surveys (Norris, 1999) could provide further useful insights, and in particular the various welfare approaches to the issue, such as the Universal Basic Income (UBI) (Wikipedia, Universal basic income). Mainstream economists are obliged to question how this could be paid for, on the assumption that most people do not understand the way the existing monetary system works, and how it is routinely baled out by quantitative easing. Also, given the (hypocritical) objections of mainstream economists to market interventions like subsidies, it may be more practical to deliver basic essential resources/ products/ services through something like UBI, and to make full cost internalisation mandatory.

Regarding the outcome from a survey, it might be argued that the results could not be regarded as sufficiently comprehensive without contributions from regimes where internet communication is blocked or monitored (Anon., 2021c) ^faoi, or where contributions from citizens living within repressive regimes are heavily censored. Some allowance would have to be made for such situations. But circumstances change, and so the exercise would need to be repeated periodically. It is to be hoped that future surveys might become more comprehensive. In the meantime it seems fair to assume that the survey results freely obtained without oppressive restrictions would be more representative than results obtained under duress.

^faoi From a televised interview by Amol Rajan: "The free and open internet is under attack around the world, Google boss Sundar Pichai has warned"

The scope of a consensus on core human values will involve cultural and religious beliefs, however inconvenient that might be for economic élites.

(Developed or underdeveloped? [Issues]).

To the extent that the status quo regarded such a survey as potentially 'unhelpful to business', some manipulative infiltration [Citizen action] is to be expected. It is not clear how any contamination of survey results arising from such influences could be reliably detected and removed.

Perhaps one possible format for the initial outcome of a survey could be an overall distillation of the results into a basic set of principles, rather in the manner of the Christian ten commandments, but modified in accordance with the feedback and comment from citizens from diverse cultures, religious faiths, and demographics. The results could be presented in a variety of forms to permit wider analyses to be carried out.

Noting that the human rights dimension would need to blend with elements of cultural and religious diversity, a promising forum for conducting a survey might be a global citizens' collective through the positive engagement [Citizen action] of concerned global citizens?

For example the 'Global Ethic' declaration by the Parliament of the World's Religions (Anon., 1993), see Feeling the common ground [Purposeful art]; the 1995-7 World Values Study (Norris, 1999); The Charter for Global Democracy and the many other global governance-related initiatives carried out around the time of the millennium (Hagger, 2018b, pp.144-5); and more recently the surveys carried out by Freedom House (Hagger, 2018b, p.74).