One way…

This is a revisitation of when we were talking about capitalist globalisation, and the danger it poses to indigenous groups of people. I say danger because it has the potential of causing us to get fixated on one way of being, one mode of operation in our daily lives. I say this because as we were talking about the solidarity economy, my mind would begin to envision what it would be like to have a  world like that. Not just a small community here and there, but a world – idealist dreaming, I know. In all honesty, what we were describing as went through the solidarity economy sounded so strange to me because it was so completely opposite to what I have been brought up and taught to believe. The idea that, rather than an economy where each seeks their own personal interest and hence by default helps others, there is an ideology and a system of being in which people seek the good of others and the environment. A system in which “me” is not the centre. The idea of socially responsible consumption, production and governance sounded so farfetched to me because I had not taken the time to see it play out. The idea that as humans we would want to see others better off from our efforts and that we would want to preserve the environment we live in should not sound so farfetched to me, but it did. Which brings me back to the danger of being told time and time again that there is one right way to do things. Just like the globalisation of capitalism can often endanger the values of indigenous societies, its continued promulgation in our lives, from kindergarten through college can lead us to believe it is the only way, which, as shown by the solidarity economy, it isn’t.

Further GDP increase for developing/first world countries

This notion may be somewhat naive and not yet properly thought out, but there are many more possible investments for corporations and government alike – for the continued increase of GDP.

I say this because there ends up being a limit to the amount of airports, shopping malls, and other facilities of mass consumption developing countries are PHYSICALLY able to build. Eventually, as developing countries reach the status of first world countries, they run out of resources (in the simplest form of land) available to keep investing in these ventures. As a result, mainstream economics accepts that the GDP of the more wealthy nations increases at a much lower rate than developing/third world countries.

However, as we have learned in class this semester, there are many other forms of investment. What about the conversion of factories’ power plants into energy saving/biodegradable means of production? Not only does this lead to increase in investment, government expenditure, and consumption in newly developed industries, it also leads to a better environment for all to live in. Inevitably, we will run out of resources, so I really think it is a good idea to start looking into these other, perhaps underdeveloped and neglected industries.

Another such investment is education, normally seen as a positive externality due to the widespread public education system in most Western nations. However, as many developing/third world nations still charge tuition for basic education, it could be another investment for government and corporate alike.

It may be a little far fetched to think about in a society where we only focus on mainstream values of investment, but investment in other socially responsible ventures may be the key to increase GDP (and perhaps pull us out of this financial crisis).

Instead of using obviously fail-prone last resort techniques such as quantitative easing, monetary wealth can be poured into research for environmental friendly techniques (why aren’t there international brands which predominantly produce clothes made from organic cotton?), better education for the population in general, and perhaps even government expenditure on health care and medicinal research.

Searching for alternatives

In class we’ve been discussing the increasing viability of co-ops as service providing alternatives to the corporation. It’s inspired me to look harder for alternatives when making purchases even though buying from the corporation is often more accessible and cheaper. But actually, with the internet it’s become a lot easier to connect with co-ops and even individuals who provide goods and services you might need.

In particular, my aunt often visits family in Ireland and uses the site http://www.homeaway.com when searching for accommodations to directly connect with individuals renting houses or providing bed and breakfasts in Ireland. It’s proven to be a great alternative to the ‘mass produced’ hotel rooms since you get an actual kitchen to cook in, for instance. I actually think the international hotel chains are a good example of the impersonal nature of the corporation’s supplying to people in mass. I know I’ve never had a very personal or even enjoyable stay at a hotel, high end or not. Additionally, workers in hotels are often underpaid. It’s also the nature of a large hotel to be full of people but still relatively anonymous and full of formalisms from staff. It’s a very alienating and awkward environment for everyone in this way. Yet the easy name recognition of international hotel chains makes them more desirable for people traveling to a foreign country. The familiarity of the name brand feels safe, and it’s hard to combat that. So I really appreciate alternatives to this model. It may be convenient and feel safe, but it’s not desirable for anyone on a humanistic and socially responsible level on such a large scale. This is why I’m using Home Away to get in touch with local people in Buenos Aires both to avoid the hotels and experience something different. It’s also proving to be a lot cheaper than the hotels which is an added bonus.

Greenwashing

I just got to a hotel for the night after spending the evening at the airport, mired by delayed flights and airport complications. Out of frustration I immediately headed for the shower only to be distracted by this little placard in the middle of the shower that read ‘Your choice makes a difference!  Please help us save the environment by reusing your towels.’  My first thought was “wow, that’s really considerate of them to be so eco-friendly!”  Then I remembered our discussions about “greenwashing” and pulled out my laptop to read up on the subject only to read these lines at its wikipedia page:

“The term greenwashing was coined by New York environmentalist Jay Westerveld[3][4][5] in a 1986 essay regarding the hotel industry’spractice of placing placards in each room promoting reuse of towels ostensibly to “save the environment”. Westerveld noted that, in most cases, little or no effort toward waste recycling was being implemented by these institutions, due in part to the lack of cost-cutting affected by such practice. Westerveld opined that the actual objective of this “green campaign” on the part of many hoteliers was, in fact, increased profit. Westerveld hence monitored this and other outwardly environmentally conscientious acts with a greater, underlying purpose of profit increase as greenwashing.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing)

It’s amazing to what extent businesses and corporations will go to drive profits.  As the above anecdote shows, greenwashing is a very effective method to counteract increasingly savvy customers who are calling for more sustainable and eco-friendly products.  With greenwashing, corporations are helping the modern savvy customers feel as if they are nullifying their carbon footprints or doing their part in saving the rainforests when buying their product or using their services.  In a way, greenwashing is a means of justification to more consumption.

As consumers, we’re getting smarter about corporations’ tactics, but we’ve got to remember corporations and their ad agencies are getting smarter, too.  They have the resources and the capabilities to figure out what consumers are concerned about and doing.  Greenwashing is simply another smart tactic corporations are using to counterbalance the smarter consumer.  As this tug-of-war continues, I suppose the only thing responsible consumers can do to stay on top is to be aware of these tactics and buy accordingly.

Obstacles of Transformation

          When we were talking about the transformation to a socially responsible economy by promoting Fair Trade and/or buy local, it brought me to the concern about Free Trade. What we should do with it? While Fair Trade really benefits poor countries and no harm to rich countries, a policy that imposing a percentage of Fair Trade and buy local goods to large firms might be criticized as protectionism in the WTO structure. And protectionism is a very sensitive issue in today’s world.

          If there is no government intervention, educating consumers and citizens becomes the most important task. Consumers and citizens usually have been educated by advertisements. From time to time, activists who concerned about the environment and human rights would do some demonstrations in the public, but there is no comparison of the frequencies of their presence to commercial advertising programs. Ten years ago, the CEO of Ingersoll Rand, Asia told me that, in today’s world, who owns more TVs owns the world. If this is the truth, the transformation needs to go from top down.

Wal-Mart: The High Cost of a Low Price

After our class discussed the possibility of doing a flash mob at Wal-Mart, I finally watched Wal-Mart: The High Cost of a Low Price, a documentary by Robert Greenwald that had been sitting in my Netflix queue for a while. The documentary is composed mainly of stories by current and former Wal-Mart employees. These saddening stories of mistreatment and exploitation are contrasted against Wal-Mart’s own commercials, which promote Wal-Mart as an organization that offers a caring environment and wealth of opportunities for employees.

The documentary offers a completely different picture of Wal-Mart, listing a dizzying array of injustices: former employees speak up about the demeaning workplace environment, pressure to work overtime without getting paid, and Wal-Mart’s anti-union activities. Despite being the biggest and richest retailer in America, Wal-Mart employees are paid well below a living wage, and many are encouraged to get healthcare from government-aid programs. I was outraged to discover the extent of Wal-Mart’s neglectful behavior; Wal-Mart refused to spend money on security in its parking lots, despite the rising number of murder and rape occurring in these areas throughout America. Instead, they concentrated their surveillance efforts within the store to curtail shoplifting. Not only does Wal-Mart not care about its employees, it doesn’t, apparently, care about the well-being of its consumers, who are the lifeblood of the company.

Although the film explored Wal-Mart’s “crimes” against humanity on several different layers, it was quite one-sided. It did not explain why the company is a success or how it gets away with its activities. I was also left wondering about the CEO of Wal-Mart but, more glaringly, I was curious about consumers who routinely shop at Wal-Mart. Did they possess this information when they were “voting with their dollars”? Were they aware that Wal-Mart has a reputation of driving local stores out of business? As a shopper myself, I watched the documentary with varying levels of disenchantment. Although I don’t go to Wal-Mart very often, I do make a trip for school and dorm-room supplies at the beginning of each year. People go to Wal-Mart for the low prices, and I am definitely guilty of perusing the aisles for the “best deal”. Those cheaper prices, however, no longer seem so cheap when you factor in the lives and labor of Wal-Mart employees. Although many people probably think of Wal-Mart as reliable, I realize now that the only reliable aspect Wal-Mart provides is securing the lowest possible price at whatever cost. This really highlights the selfishness inherent in the capitalist system and makes me re-think where I will make my customary shopping trip at the beginning of next year.

Solidarity Economy

I think there are three main hindrances of a national solidarity economy in America: tradition, pride, and convenience.

The first is pretty self-explanatory. Capitalism is deeply rooted in American history, making it all the more difficult to move past it. Granted, I don’t expect anything as vast and extreme as the Red Scare to happen in response to the Solidarity economy. However, morphing a whole nation’s economic ideology would require a step-by-step process, otherwise there may be more resistance from special interest groups and the people they influence.

The second might seem a little strange, but it makes a lot of sense. When reading about the Freegans, I was struck by a huge appreciation not only for their message, but also that they were more than willing to back up their ideals with (illegal) actions. Why do we allow there to be so much waste in the food industry when there are so many people who are hungry or barely scrapping by? There is a huge amount of stigmatization not only of these poorer groups, but also of the political groups, such as the Freegans, who choose to pointedly go against the capitalist grain. Granted, Freegans are a rather extreme example of this. Nonetheless, people who are willing to align themselves with a system different than the “normal” capitalist views are giving up their ego for the sake of the solidarity, and many people may not be entirely comfortable to take that step.

Lastly, I’ve come to realize that an unofficial American value is convenience. I’ve definitely experienced the temptation of using paper place settings so that I didn’t have to wash any dishes. When watching the video of the No Money Man, I was in awe of the skills that he had, but it was extremely easy to admit to myself that I was far too lazy to follow his example. Normal citizens often have trouble with far less extensive changes. Going to the grocery store with a familiar name instead of branching out to the unfamiliar local market is a source of comfort and routine that is psychologically hard to break out of. This is why microwavable meals exist – we don’t want to worry about things more than we have to. We want it all, and we want it quick and easy.

Now, I’m definitely not trying to rain on anyone’s parade! Throughout this section I’ve been struck by the movements to strengthen the solidarity economy.  I found myself reading the cohousing website with serious interest, unconsciously looking up cities that I have thought about living in to see if there were any looking for new members. I think that our generation has more of a conscious awareness of the movement, and I definitely hope that it will expand.