THE NEED FOR A LOGICALLY PLANNED WORLD

C.  OUR ECONOMY

In prior postings, I described my perceptions of the disadvantages and harms wrought by the continued existence of a hodge-podgeof economies and currencies in a world of numerous nation-states; as well as the benefits that could be derived from the establishment of a universal economy and currency.  I venture to herein describe my conception of what an international economic system ought to entail and contain.

The second half of the twentieth century constituted a period of vast economic growth and expansion; and such growth and expansion continued on into the first years of the twenty first.  These phenomena have taken place within an increasingly borderless playing field, which we today regularly refer to as a "global marketplace."  (Unfortunately, ravenous appetites coupled with lax regulation have led to contraction and calamity during the years following--whereby a substantial quantity of sensibility and cooperation over a period of time will be required to eventually achieve recovery.)

Notwithstanding, as trade barriers have cumbled, tariffs decreased, and costs of transportation and travel reduced to lower and lower levels, a single unified economy has consequently begun to make its presence felt worldwide.  To a certain extent, our economic world has evolved to a point where it resembles a single country, wherein the most developed sections provide services, while the developing areas engage in manufacturing, and the least developed sectors continue to be primarily involved in agriculture.  In such an economic environment, the individual nation-state has become increasingly incapable of regulating and managing financial goings-on--and has, in fact, become more or less irrelevant as a component of the economic equation.  As has been asserted by me in the past, economic zones are emerging, replacing national economic entities.  Such zones may fall within the borders of a single nation; lie partly within portions of two or more nations; and/or overlie the boundaries of two or more countries entirely.  Investments and economic operations are increasingly carried on in a global context; and the multi-national corporation, as well as foreign direct investment, have become common elements within the global economic picture.

The European Union has sought to strip away such internal barriers to economic activity as should remain within the European continent.  This might be compared to earlier efforts undertaken by nation-states to remove internal barriers within their respective borders that had been inherited from feudalism; as well as the shedding of such barriers by the several states that united to comprise the United States of America.  This progression now continues further along on an international basis, resulting in a widespread and continuous array of economic relationships and activities, that require assistance, control, and regulation from an international standpoint.

                                                                 * * * * *

First and foremost, our internationalized world economy requires the worldwide harmony and secure political foundation which only a single global government would provide.  In a stable political, legal, and economic atmosphere, regulations governing worldwide economic activity could be freely and fairly promulgated for the benefit of all.  Such regulations should encourage and promote private ownership, free enterprise, individual entrepreneurship, and a free and competitive marketplace everywhere.  Financial resources and activities would thus be encouraged to be distributed and carried on worldwide.  A global central bank would need to be in place, to function as national central banks do presently.  Also necessary would be an effective worldwide legal system, to enforce contracts, process bankruptcies, and perform any and all other such necessary functions, in a fair and equitable fashion.

An international currency would be the basis of a uniform system of wages and prices.  This would obviate the need to "outsource" functions of region "A" to personnel in region "B" halfway across the world.  It would furthermore put an end to the ambitions of thousands of "illegals" to scale fences or swim across rivers in order to pursue the lure of vastly improved wages on the other side of a border.

                                                                     * * * * *

While I advocate a logically planned economy, I do not endorse an economy that is itself planned.  That is to say, I perceive and testify to the need for an economy that is arranged in accordance with sensible and logical principles and priorities--but I believe that the international economic system that ought be thus derived should be permitted to function and operate freely, and without the shackles of an overall economic plan.  During the post-World War II years, resources and capital in the U.S.S.R. were owned by the state, with economic and industrial activity planned and dictated by public authorities.  During these same years, American resources and capital were privately powned, and their implementation determined via private entrepreneurship.  The eventual results of both styles are readily apparent.  Free enterprise and entrepreneurship seem to have clearly proven themselves as superior to nationwide planning, as attempted, for example, by the U.S.S.R. every five years, durting this period of our history.  And it is rather certain that in the years ahead, this will continue to hold true.

On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with resort to mild innovations, such as "tapping the ,minds" of mankind's most brilliant economic professionals concerning arrangements and details for our worldwide economic and monetary systems.  Or perhaps, borrowing from the West German Federal Republic's "codetermination" policy, programs whereby employees are given seats on the Board of Directors of their corporate employers would succeed worldwide in bringing labor and capital more harmoniously together.  Another possibility might involve open investment by the government of public funds in private endeavors--particularly "start-ups"; in return, of course, for a proportional share of the profits.  Once more, these are merely suggestions by a layman; I am certain there are many more qualified professionals who have better and/or additional proposals.

                                                                   * * * * *

A recent World Bank study has determined that free trade, and a free flow of economic activity, worldwide, operates to raise everyone's standard of living.  Toward the end of the twentieth century, the poorest twenty percent of humanity were engaged in only one percent of world trade.  This has been said to be primarily attributable to the trade barriers that the more established nations erect and maintain as an impediment to the potentially competitive exported products of developing nations.  Such conditions foster and preserve poverty and suffering over large areas of the world, and consequently upon great numbers of people.

In a borderless world, the international economic system would be such as to constitute a final termination of competition on an economic level between and among nations.  It would obviate the need for the formation by a group of nations of "special interest" groups (such as O.P.E.C. today).  The entire world would be one's source of raw materials, a place within which to establish one or more production facilities, and a place to market the resultant goods and services.  There would be no protective tariffs.  Instead, a worldwide free market would prevail.  The terms "current account" or "balance of trade" (referring to a nation's imports versus its exports), as well as "capital account" (referring to a comparison of foreigners' purchases of a nation's assets against its own citizens' purchases of foreign assets) would no longer be relevant--because there would no longer be such a thing as a "foreigner" or a "foreign country."

A single unified worldwide economy would avert the aforementioned need for the "outsourcing" of jobs to the other side of the globe due to the vast differences in wages in that place--which differences are usually a function of other economic and social factors that have developed within, and on account of, the borders that enclose and separate the people of that place.  Instead, only world conditions would affect and determine the world's economic situation at any and all given moments.

                                                         * * * * *
In a unified world, there would be no larger and smaller nations, no more advanced and less advanced nations, no wealthier and less wealthy nations.  This is a logical and propoer state of affairs because, among other things, it would put an end to nation "A" straining or depleting its resources--usually at the expense of its citizens' rights and comforts--in order to "keep up with" or "catch up to" nation "B."  Instead, the world would be a single playing field, containing some wealth here, and some poverty there (which latter condition would likely come to be addressed and corrected); certain resources here, and certain other resources there--which would thus be freely available throughout the global marketplace.

It is logical and proper because, under our present system, a number of "nations As" are too small, or too weak, or too poor, to do what is necessary for their own welfare, and/or that of their respective populations.  They are thus vulnerable to domination by corrupt and unscrupulous leaders, who rise to power there by reason of this very weakness, and proceed to lead their nation-states down paths toward additional poverty and problems.  They are unable to effectively stop the few enterprising criminals, who thus succeed in things such as the production and export of drugs, human slavery, and other evils, because of this very weakness that exists within their governments, or by reason of the very corruption that permits such criminals to thereby ply their trades.

It is logical and proper because it would put an end to wealthy "nation B" maintaining barbed wire fences and armed guards in order to keep energetic and industrious people born in "nation A" from improving their lot and their families' well-being via honest labor (that many of "nation B's" citizens frequently elect not to undertake themselves in the first place).

It is logical and proper because, over the years, some nations have become so large and/or wealthy that they have become objects of jealousy and hatred on account of their success, and preyed upon by predators from some of the smaller, weaker, poorer nations.  These predators include some of today's terrorists, who perceive nations such as the United States as being overweight, decadent, and evil.

We need the logic and propriety of a unified world, and a single worldwide economy, because this will make it a thing of the past for a nation's economic condition, and consequently its society, to suffer because of its reliance upon the price of the one or two commodities or products that it produces--as has in the past befallen places like Liberia (rubber), Chile (nitrates--later copper), and many other smaller or less developed nations.

A unified world would no longer require the confiscation or nationalization by an angry or desparate government of the assets belonging to market-dominant foreign investors.  A unified world having a single economy would no longer witness nations protecting the prices of crops raised by their farmers, via subsidies paid to those who didn't raise as much, or who destroyed some of their harvests--while people not very far away might continue to starve.  In a unified world, there would no longer be the opportunity, nor need, for wealthier nations to advance sums of money and materials--often war materials--to one or another of the smaller weaker nations, in order to keep them "on their side" or "in their favor," and/or to maintain military facilities within their borders.

In a divided world as we know it today, there often arises a natural desire on the part of the people within the wealthy nations to keep it all for themselves  This is greedy and immoral--but it cannot be helped, because people living on the other side of the border are perceived as "strangers" and "different."  However, iro nicallyh, the citizens of these wealthy nations frequently wind up parting with their treasure anyway, via costly taxation to finance costly wars, and other more poignant losses as well.  Consider, for example the recent and current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which have so far cost the United States and its allies many billions of dollars and at least seven thousand lives as I write this.

                                                             * * * * *