Like unicorns, the 'free market' doesn't exist

What we have is not capitalism, it’s corporatism. Under real capitalism, the free market would prevent the destruction of our environment. All our problems would be solved if we just returned to the good competitive capitalism. There never has been, is not and never will be a capitalist free market economy. 

• Capitalism is meant to pivot around the free market. If the market were rid of government regulation then true competition would reign, with corporations battling it out to provide their goods and services to rational, all knowing consumers. This would provide stable and accurate prices and quality for goods and services as competition would aggregate supply, demand and pricing.
• The success or failure of a company would be directly proportional to its ability to meet the needs of its consumer.
• The recent failures – the bankers bailout, the corporatisation of government, the decline in social mobility – are because we do not have real capitalism. We are in fact in a post capitalist, state capitalist of fascist state. Whatever state we are in, it is as a direct and inevitable result of capitalism. 
• Corporations themselves are rabidly anti-competition.
• In Britain today, 97% of food purchased, is bought in supermarkets, with only four corporations making up 76% of those sales. In the US, 72% of food is purchased in supermarkets. As these figures continue an upward trend, we can see that monopolies are being created in food production.
• If we take a look and test the theory that the consumer would benefit from this process of corporate battles. Since the 1950's, the percentage of the US household budget spent on food dropped from 32% to 7%. In the UK the proportion spent on food has dropped from 33% to 15%. With supermarkets making record profits, and household food budgets down, who is paying the price for our food? The answer is the farmer and the environment. 
• Seventy years ago, there were nearly seven million American farmers, today there are two million. Now 75% of US produce comes from just 50,000 farming operations.
• The free market has seen a few corporations rise to dominate the market, set their own prices and lead to negative social impacts. While some consumers might see a fall in the price of the food they are buying, they cannot be sure that they are comparing apples with apples and while perhaps benefiting as consumers, they are losing out as producers.
• As seen above, it is not in the interest of the corporation to maintain a free market. The corporation has no reason to apply any kind of ethics whatsoever. Adidas employs child and sweatshop labor in the far east because it is cheaper than employing people on a living wage, with decent terms and condition.
• Historically the government, the purported servant of the people has been the enforcer of rules necessary to restrain the ‘market’ from behaviors which from point of view of the corporation would lead to undesirable social outcomes.
• In the US, by 2011 the largest thirty corporations spent more that year on lobbying government than they spent on taxes. 
• In the UK, corporations with outstanding tax issues are currently in working groups with the to redraft the very tax rules they are doing their best to avoid. 
• When corporations break the law, they are either not tried or given a fine which comes nowhere near the profits reaped by breaking the law.
• Recently banks have instituted fraud on a global scale by simply making up the LIBOR rate, the base interest rate, at the cost of savers and pensioners and to the benefit of their traders who specialize in debt, not capital.
• In 1950, corporate taxes made up 30% of federal revenues in the US. By 2012, this had fallen to just 7%. In the UK, Corporation Tax rates were cut from 52% to 35% over just two years between 1984-86 and has continued to be cut until it stands at just 21% today.
• Corporations do not want any rules which stand in the way of making profit. Left unregulated, they would simply operate in ways which maximized their profits regardless of social outcomes. When we introduce a regulator, corporations seek to and succeed in compromising them. The issue is not to blame one or other of the players, but the game of capitalism itself.
• The free market myth is nothing but a nonsense. It is a self serving nonsense propagandized by its beneficiaries.

In conclusion, not only is the market not free, but it never can be. It requires legislation to prevent rational corporate behavior which would undermine it, and any regulator (state or otherwise) will be corrupted by corporations seeking to influence them. The sooner we abandon this madness, the sooner we can answer the bigger question: how do we create a means of economic organisation which has the highest chance of meeting our social goals? We must abandon the myth of the free market, just as we gave up on Santa Claus and Unicorns – it is time to put away childish things so we can become grown up caretakers of ourselves, each other and the planet.

Read the source article

Development and poverty

POVERTY

• Poverty is present everywhere. Manifestation of poverty is a challenge.
• Poverty and development are two sides to a coin. Where there is poverty, there may not be development.
• Poverty is not only a lack of money to take care of basic necessity of life it creates a picture of aimlessness, uncertainty and hopelessness in the mind of the poor. 
• An unhealthy or poor population produces less and may be forced into practices damaging the environment. It is the poor people who suffer most acutely from lack of development. 
• The poor are anxious about the future in regard to the national political life, degradation of the environment, the high rise of inequality among people coupled with mass unemployment.
• The high level of selfishness in the society with people looking only to their needs and fearful of others. Corruption is endemic. Crime rate is high and the future of generation yet unborn is clouded with uncertainty.

DEVELOPMENT

• Development is often socio-economic, political, science and technology biased. 
• The concept of development is a complex one. Its difficulty is not only in terms of definition or description but also in terms of measurement. 
• Lack of infrastructure, deep seated corruption, various forms of conflict, bad governance and poor healthcare facilities cannot promote a healthy population committed to work for progress and development.
• GDP as the measurement does not say anything about the distribution of total income of its country. It does not capture the totality of the development situation of the country.
• The people are both the means and the end of economic development.
• Human beings are at the center of concerns for sustainable development. 
• They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.
• Development cannot be merely economic development or GDP as important as that may be. 
• Development must include the conditions of reality that allow people to take their destiny into their own hands, individually and collectively involving economic, social, political, psychological, environmental, cultural, religious and international dimensions. 
• Development is the ability and capability of the people to procure sufficient natural resources to meet the basic needs of all in a self-reliant manner.
• The situation of the bottom forty percent of society is often bypassed by development and government.
• Human welfare is the ultimate end of development not economic indices.
• The welfare of the human person in its totality is the good health of a person and his skills cultivated through educational programmes as his endeavours add to the wealth of his nation.
• Development strategy should be people centred and community participation must be evident. Any project that people/community cannot identify with will collapse. 

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

• World Commission on the Environment and Development (WCED) defines sustainable development as ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.’
• WCED posits that the present generation has been reckless and wasteful both in its exploitation and use of natural resources by pursuing a series of socio-economic and industrial policies which endangers global environmental security. It condemned the inequalities with and among nations and called for a restructuring of contemporary economic relations to guarantee an equitable distribution of national and international wealth.
• The International Economic System (IES) is primarily profit orientated. Consequently, everything could be sacrificed on the altar of profit to the detriment of development of peoples and individuals, the often stated corporative responsibility of multinationals.
• Can accountability and transparency be found in their political intercourse?
• Poor countries are without development and citizens may not be able to compete with others because of lack of necessary capital, the technical-know-how and expertise. Symbiotically, without development poverty may not be eradicated. The solution to the dilemmatic situation is to confront the reality of poverty and challenges of development simultaneously, nationally and internationally.

There is no humiliation more abusive than hunger ... Pranab Mukherjee

Any kind of development that don't benefit bottom 40% of people, environmentally sustainable and generate mass employment is not a development at all. The trickle down theory, the standing rationale for our economic reforms, doesn't not address the aspirations of the poor people and eliminate poverty is unacceptable nonsense. Health, drinking water, sanitation, education, skill development and empowerment with adequate capital are essential for poverty eradication and meaningful development of poor people especially in rural India. Govt spending meager 2.27% on healthcare and 3.70% on education in the current budget against a minimum of 5-6% indicates empathy deficit towards the poor people of India. Even these meager allocations are towards high end spending rather than improving PHCs and schools. Hyped disruptive economic reforms Demonetisation & GST continuum have impacted poor most with loss of livelihoods and incomes and driven towards desperation and our rulers thought fit to turn a Nelson's eye.

Development is not a buzzword but a toxic word

Despite its widespread usage, the meaning of the term ‘development’ remains vague, tending to refer to a set of beliefs and assumptions about the nature of social progress rather than to anything more precise. Development fail to address poverty or to narrow the gap between rich and poor, but in fact it both widens and deepens this division and ultimately creates poverty, as natural resources and human beings alike are increasingly harnessed to the pursuit of consumption and profit. The survival of the planet will depend upon abandoning the deep-rooted belief that economic growth can deliver social justice, rational use of environment, and human well-being.

• The word ‘development’ as a buzzword is in vogue for almost 60 years and its actual meaning is still elusive, since it depends on where and by whom it is used.
• Everyone uses it as she or he likes, to convey the idea that tomorrow things will be better. 'Development' has been widely used as a hard drug, addiction to which may stimulate the blissful feelings that typify artificial paradises.
• President Truman merely wanted to include in his 1949 Inaugural Address as a fourth point that would sound ‘a bit original’. So from the very beginning, no one not even the US President really knew what ‘development’ was all about. This did not, however, prevent the word from gaining wide acceptance.
• There was an unquestioned assumption that “development”, whatever it was, could lead to improvement in the situation of 'poor people’. And no one cared to define it properly.
• Any measure (foreign investment, lowering or raising of trade barriers, well-digging, literacy campaigns, etc) was justified ‘in the name of development’, making even the most contradictory policies look as if they were geared to ‘improving the lives of poor people’. This trick has been highly instrumental in preventing any possible critique of ‘development’, since it was equated almost with life itself.
• During the cold war period (1947-1991), the great powers disagreed on almost all issues except one: ‘development’, the magic word that reconciled opposite sides. Its necessity and desirability were not debatable, and the two ideological adversaries vied with each other in promoting it across what was then known as the Third World. ‘Development’ was mainly used as an excuse for enticing ‘developing countries’ to side with one camp or the other.
• This political game turned to the advantage of the ruling ‘elites’ who were influential in international arenas, rather than grassroots populations.
• To reconcile the requirements to be met in order to protect the environment from pollution, deforestation, the greenhouse effect, and climatic change and to ensure the pursuit of economic growth that was still considered a condition for general happiness has resulted in the coining of the catchy phrase ‘sustainable development’, which immediately achieved star status.
• It is impossible to bring together a real concern for environment and the promotion of ‘development’. ‘Sustainable development’ is nothing but an oxymoron, a rhetorical figure that joins together two opposites such as ‘capitalism with a human face’ or ‘humanitarian intervention’. Hence the battle to define what ‘sustainable development’ is really about.
• The ‘new era of economic growth’ was certainly not in favour of those who considered environmental sustainability a top priority. Despite increasing concerns for the environment protection, but the popularity enjoyed by the idea of ‘sustainable development’ is overwhelming. Increasing number of people feel that something has to be done to lessen the impact of human activity on the biosphere due to the mounting environmental crises. And yet, ‘development’ whether sustainable or not remains high on the agenda, and no one seems about to forsake it.
• Irrespective of ideologies, no politician would dare to run on an election platform that ignores economic growth or ‘development’, which is supposed to reduce unemployment and create new jobs and well-being for all. Small investors and ordinary people expect an increase in profits or wages. ‘Development’ has become a modern shibboleth, for anyone who wishes to improve his or her standard of living.

The undeniable success of ‘development’, linked to its undeniable failures in improving the condition of the poor, therefore needs to be called into question. Those who are ready to recognise that ‘development’ has not really kept its promises are also loath to discard the notion altogether. Failures, they would say are from erroneous interpretation or ill-considered implementation. After all, God himself may not answer all our prayers or grant all our requests, but his righteousness remains beyond doubt. In a nutshell, ‘development’ could be defined as: the essence of is the general transformation and destruction of the natural environment and of social relations in order to increase the production of commodities (goods and services) geared, by means of market exchange, to effective demand. 

• A country is the more ‘developed’ the more limited the number of free things that are available: to spend an afternoon on the beach, to go fishing, or enjoy cross-country skiing is nowadays impossible unless one is prepared to pay for it.
• In a ‘developed’ country, human beings are also turned into ‘resources’ and are expected to know how to sell themselves to potential employers. Prostitution may be officially condemned, but it has become the common lot: everyone is for sale.
• Poverty is proof of the ‘good health’ of the capitalist system. It is the spur that stimulates new efforts and new forms of accumulation. Economic growth – widely hailed as a prerequisite to prosperity – takes place only at the expense of either the environment or human beings. 
• World segregation is such that those who enjoy a so-called ‘high standard of living’ hardly come into contact with the poor and may thus cherish the illusion that their privileged circumstances may sooner or later spread to humankind as a whole. But climatic change, the greenhouse effect, and nuclear clouds cannot be contained and affect everyone, rich and poor alike, perhaps in the not-too-distant future. This is the real meaning and the real danger of globalisation. 

It is clear that ‘development’ is not a buzzword but a toxic word. It has been used time and again to promote a system that is neither viable, nor sustainable, nor fit to live in. The benefits that it still confers on a tiny minority are not enough to justify its continuing acceptance, in view of the lethal dangers that it entails. This is being progressively admitted. Given the amount of information that have been gathered on the manifold man-made hazards that impinge on our daily lives, why is it that we do not believe in what we know to be certain? The answer, probably, lies in the fact that our belief in ‘development’ is still too strong to be undermined by the scientific certainty. A change could be conceivable if we recall the Amerindian wisdom that teaches us that ‘we hold the earth in trust for our children’. It is high time to debunk the ‘development’ buzzword. To do so means that we must define it relying on actual social practices, rather than wishful thinking. We must be aware of its inclusion in a corpus of beliefs that are difficult to shatter, expose its mischievous uses, and denounce its consequences. The most important thing is that there is life after ‘development’ – certainly a different one, but there is no evidence to suggest that we would lose on such a deal.

All progress is precarious, and the solution of one problem brings us 

face to face with another problem - Martin Luther King Jr

Development as a buzzword - Gilbert Rist

In India there would be no speech by politicians or officials or anybody without reference to the buzzword 'development' which in fact justifies, promotes and expand their activities and vested interests in multiplying their profits albeit unjustly, undemocratically and often unlawfully. Every rich and 'street smart person' tries to jump into the bandwagon of  'development' gang and corners some share of the booty. Those who can't in the name of ethics & morals, will get lost in this siren world to lead ignominious life. Excepting escaping from extreme poverty by masses, there is no justification for destruction of ecological assets and deterioration of social life in the name of 'development' and 'capitalism'. China's development if loaded with the factors of ecological destruction and erosion of human values, it would be negative. Finite world doesn't have enough resources to support ever increasing population without erosion and degradation.