Fairness

Posted on January 26, 2012 by admin

Visualize yourself conducting an experiment.  You are standing in a room with two chimpanzees.  Using sign language you ask them to walk to the table and bring you a plastic token. Both understand and comply.  They’ve done it before, many times. But this time Chimp A gets rewarded with a juicy, delectable, much-craved grape.  Chimp B gets a stale carrot. Repeat.  Same chimps. Same task. Same rewards.  How long before chimp B gets upset about not getting a grape and stops bringing you tokens?  Not long.  Just like humans, chimps expect fairness.

Michael Lewis, in Boomerang, dissects the Greek financial tragedy and discovers that most Greeks were complicit in accumulating debilitating public debt because everyone tolerated tax evasion, unfunded pensions, bribes, kickbacks, nepotism, and disrespect for whistle blowers.  These attitudes and behaviors became normal and expected, Lewis contends, for Greeks: everyone did it, so it didn’t feel unfair when someone else did it, so everyone did it.

Fairness underpins community.  Without fairness, civic commitment declines.  Why sacrifice for the greater good—the commonwealth—if the rewards are not fairly distributed?  Unfairness destroys hope: no matter what I do, the outcomes will not reflect what I deserve.  If I expect to be exploited by an unfair system, why should I commit to it and play by the rules? At some point, when I am in need, an unfair system may  ignore or abandon me.

Fairness. Hope. Commitment.  They are interlinked.  A community cannot survive without them.

What is fairness?  Does it require income equality?  No.  Not in America.  Fairness requires equal access to opportunity and liberty.  We expect—we demand—that government intervene if conditions are unfair, if conditions prevent equal access to opportunity and liberty.  That’s a tall order for govermnet.

Federal laws and regulations reflect the ideals and values of our nation. They define what we believe in.  They articulate the opportunities we want fairly distributed.  These values and ideals are decided politically, through our system of governance.    They protect what we cherish, which includes free speech, safe water, safe food, civil rights, biodiversity, freedom of religion, wilderness, property rights, and literacy.  We are free to chose these societal ideals together, through a democratic process that (ideally) provides everyone fair access to influence the collective choices.  And once that choice is made, we all respect and live by it.

Of course we also believe in individual liberty—the land of the free, the home of the brave.  Conflict between the individual and the collective is uncomfortable but inevitable; but if we are to thrive as a nation, the collective takes precedence. People are free to believe, act, feel, and shop in ways that satisfy their individual preferences as long as they don’t harm someone else and as long as they don’t violate the ideals that define our community—a house divided will not stand, E pluribus unum, one nation with liberty and justice for all.

The current, divisive political climate reflects more than uncomfortable chaffing between individual liberties and collective ideals; we are redefining our community.  We are debating fundamental values and ideals that define who we are as a collective: family values, the role of religion, obligations to environmental commons such as air, water and climate, the role of government, and our trust in science.  Let’s do so honestly, fairly, and with an eye on the prize: the future we will share.

Posted in Landcare, Tea Party | Comments Off on Fairness

Sustainable Consumption? Voting with Dollars Will Not Lead to Sustainable Development

Posted on December 31, 2011 by admin

Consumer citizenship[1] encourages us to use our pocketbooks to shape our politics.  Buying free-trade coffee promotes fair labor practices.  Drinking organic milk protects farms and waterways.  Purchasing certified wood and fish sustains forests and fisheries.[2]  Or so we hope.

Can markets replace politics?  This is not a moot question.  Governments are failing to implement the public’s will while markets are creating a huge global middle class capable of consuming several Earths.

Advocates of consumer-citizenship argue that governments are increasingly unable to guide society along a trajectory of sustainable development: voter turnout is abysmal, cumbersome bureaucracies thwart civic engagement, political apathy is high and trust in government low. The market, its advocates argue, is accountable, efficient, and responsive. Consumer choice, in contrast, promotes freedom and limits the hierarchical, paternalistic, oppressive tendencies of the welfare state.  Markets are “naturally” democratic. Governments, we must remember, have a tendency to be exclusionary: citizenship participation has been and in some places remains limited by matters of race, wealth, religion, and gender. Moreover, consumerism in and of itself is not bad.  Status seeking is a part of the human condition.  There is no reason that consumer choices of green products and slow foods cannot transform norms as effectively as did SUVs and master bedroom suites. Consumer decisions are driven by norms that change over time[3].  Importantly, markets cross national boundaries, thus shaping international culture in ways laws cannot.  Boycotts of slave-grown sugar two hundred years ago accelerated political change.  Brand-conscious multinationals such as McDonalds and Wal-Mart have long supply chains that everything from labor practices to animal stewardship.  Riots over high food prices led to the Arab-Spring.  Concerns of the 99% in OWS are as much or more about economic opportunity as citizenship.

But, as critics of consumer citizenship will point out, consumerism promotes superficial engagements, faddish preferences, insatiable shopaholics, and selfish and intolerant people. Basic needs of food and shelter have long been satisfied so consumption is now driven by selfish pleasures and individual advancement. Consumerism divides us, forcing us to define ourselves through material possessions, inspiring wasteful excess and conspicuous consumption to compete with the Joneses or enjoy every more ephemeral bursts of novelty.[4]  It focuses not on what we share nor on our responsibilities to one another, but rather on how we differ.   Sustainable development requires real politics, hard work, time, investment, compromise, and perhaps suffering and sacrifice. Consumerism, in contrast, is easy and voluntary: consumers won’t deal if they don’t get their way or if the transaction is not convenient.  Moreover, the materialistic yearnings for physical gratification makes people “lose sight of the close connection that exists between the private fortune of each and the prosperity of all” (De Tocqueville).  Finally, the market ignores equity: products are purchased by those who can afford them, not distributed to those who need them.  Any sustainable development trajectory must redress inequities and injustices or it will not be sustainable for long.

If consumer-citizenship cannot steer a course towards sustainable development, perhaps there is a third way, led by business rather than led by citizens or consumers.

The business community increasingly accepts that 9 billion people living well and within planetary limits cannot be achieved with more efficiency and more technological innovations; they accept that sustainable development will require transformations of lifestyles and consumption patterns. [5]   Their suggested strategy is for businesses to move society along this sustainable trajectory by changing both the supply and demand side of markets; that requires innovating more sustainable products and changing consumer choices.  Both tasks are daunting and will require care, collaboration and prudence.

Fortunately businesses already have the skill sets to succeed at both tasks.  Research and development can design products and services that increasingly decouple consumer consumption from material consumption.  For example, the cradle-to-cradle product design system eliminates waste by redirecting product disposal back into production of new products.  Likewise, businesses are accomplished at influencing consumer choice. They do this overtly through marketing, labeling, and branding products to shape consumer preferences and to help consumers make better choices. Businesses also shape consumer choice covertly by choice editing.  Suppliers, manufacturers and retailers replace unsustainable ingredients and processes that go into their products with more sustainable ingredients and processes.  They also, and probably more importantly for its impacts on sustainability, change the menu of choices so that consumers select only among choices that can be sustainably supplied.

For this strategy of business-led sustainable development to work, businesses need a level playing field.  All countries must have similar social, economic, environmental regulations promoting sustainability.  If they do, businesses will find ways to sustainably produce and sell the things we want within that regulatory framework.  Otherwise, some actors will relocate to less-regulated (i.e., cheaper to operate) locations and outcompete businesses trying to do the right thing.  An un-level playing field forces players to play only one game: a race to the bottom.

For any of these solutions to work—consumer citizenship or business-led sustainable development—the market alone is not up to the task.  Neither efficiency nor innovation—the things a market does best—are sufficient.  Care and prudence are required.  Consumers must care enough to willingly change their consumption patterns and citizens must collaborate to empower governments to set and enforce global standards that level and define the playing field within which businesses can operate and sustainable development can be achieved.


[1] Also called ethical consumption, consumer activism, and civic consumption: see Soper and Trentmann. 2008. Citizenship and Consumption. Palgrave Macmillan, NY.

[2] Forest Stewardship Council, Sustainable Forest Initiative, and Marine Stewardship Council are certifications systems common in the US domestic markets for forest and ocean products

[3] Shove. 2003. Comport, Cleanliness, and Convenience: The social Organization of Normality. Oxford.

[4] Offer. 2006. The Challenge of Affluence.   Bauman. 2008. Exit Homo Politicus, enter Homo Consumerns.  In Citizenship and Consumption (Soper and Trentmann, Eds.) Palgrave Macmillan, NY. (139-153)

Posted in Landcare, Markets | 1 Comment

The Land of Opportunity

Posted on December 23, 2011 by admin

What do workers in China have in common with Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party?  They are frustrated about no longer getting a fair shot at success (see The End of the Chinese Dream).

The American dream promises opportunity.  China has a similar dream.  It is a social contract—a promise—between a society and its members.  It motivates people to play by the rules, to be good citizens and capitalists, to go to work, pay taxes, obey laws, raise children, save for retirement, pay bills, ….because if you do so, you will be rewarded, or at least respected.

The dream promises that if you are smart, innovative, and hard working, then you have a fair chance at economic and social success.  Meritocracy rewards talent and work ethic.  Most Occupy Wall Street protesters are talented, educated, motivated young people who are complaining that the Dream has become an illusion.  Most Tea Partiers are older, working-and middle-class people who devoted their working lives pursing the Dream; they are frustrated not so much because fame and fortune was not in their cards, but because the social contract promised to those that played by the rules isn’t being respected.

Opportunity and Fairness.

These qualities are the backbone of the American Dream.  Not everyone will win.  Not everyone will have the same incomes. But everyone deserves a fair shot at success.

We are in danger of losing this dream.  It is being corroded by wealth and privilege.  Opportunity is restricted to those with connections.  The playing field is tilted towards those with wealth.  Government is captured by moneyed interest.  As I’ve argued elsewhere in this blog, America’s greatest challenge is to overcome corporatocracy.  We need to get the money out of politics.  We don’t need less government, we need better democracy.

America is fortunate to have fairness, integrity, and honesty as core values of our culture.  We demand accountability.  We abhor corruption.

Let’s get back to basics.

Posted in Convergence 2050, Tea Party | 1 Comment

Political Equality not Economic Equality

Posted on December 20, 2011 by admin

Income gap.  Wealth inequality. 1% versus the 99%.  The facts are not disputed, even by conservative commentators.  Today’s distribution of wealth is as lopsided as ever, comparable only to the “Gilded Age” and the “Roaring 20s.”  Both previous eras of inequality had political parallels to today: rising debt, over leveraged speculation, skepticism of government, reduction of taxes, and ideological politics.[1] And, sadly, both those eras of inequality were followed by market collapse, economic depression, and social unrest.

As problematic as these trends seem, economic inequality should not be the target of OWS and related political movements.  Americans tolerate it.  We don’t begrudge success.  In fact we idolize it.  We do, however, insist on equal opportunity, a level playing field, so that anyone with talent, discipline, and luck might also strike it rich.  That is why politics aimed at income redistribution and class warfare are unlikely to get much traction, and even less likely to influence policy.

But, when economic inequality translates into political inequality, then we have justification for serious concern and major political change.  And, sadly, that is our situation. Larry Bartels, in Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age, convincingly documents that the current inequality of wealth has transformed our government in ways that favor the rich and concentrated sources of wealth.  The system is no longer fair.  Equal opportunity does not exist. The playing field is tilted, a lot.  As a result, wealth inequalities are not the greatest challenges we face, but rather the “pervasive, corrosive effects on political representation and policy making” influenced by wealth inequality that are pushing us along a downward spiral that eventually will call into question the democratic character of America.[2]

Most every adult citizen can vote in the USA.  But not every voter has equal access to wealth, knowledge, status, and political power.  So who actually governs and towards what ends?  The Tea Party and Fox News calls for smaller government are misplaced because that would just strengthen the grip of those with their hands on policy levers.  We don’t need less government instead we need better government.  We need more democracy to reverse the downward spiral to oligarchy.

[1] (See Philips, K. 2002. Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of American Rich).

[2] Bartels p284.

Posted in Tea Party | 1 Comment

Prudence

Posted on December 11, 2011 by admin

We have the need and the urge to be two things at the same time: selfish and social, an individual and a member of a community, a consumer and a citizen, living in the moment and sacrificing for the future, impulsive and prudent.  Civilizations are built on harmonizing these opposing tendencies.  Cultures emerge, grow, and wane according to how well they balance the needs and capacities of the individual with needs and capacities of the community.  Both must be nurtured. Both must thrive if a civilization is to survive.

Increasingly our lifestyles and politics are awash in the former: we are self-satisfying individualist who believe that production and consumption of goods and services is all that is expected of us.  We deride sacrifice, prudence, sacrifice, and care.  We are drowning in the consequences of our unbalance, which everyday becomes more apparent in the decaying conditions of our community, economy, political discourse, and environment.

The decisions required of us today—the challenges before us—are hugely complex with many unknowns and unknowables.  Their solutions requires a community response, a tolerance for uncertainty, a willingness to trust others to do the right thing…the capacity to act with humility, care and prudence.  One of the most damaging consequences of an individualistic, consumption-driven, consumer-oriented lifestyle is that it hollows out the willingness and capacity to deal with complex tasks.  We are distracted by texting and tweeting, shopping and surfing, playing and yearning.  Our attention gets consumed by—and limited to—sound bites and emotive images. We lose the ability to tolerate complexity, think critically, dig deeply into issues, see things from multiple perspectives, and willingly negotiate with and trust others.  These abilities are required to solve the complex, wicked and tragic problems we face.

In The Challenge of Affluence Avner Offer examines the rising imbalance between consumer oriented instant gratification versus citizen oriented prudence.  He illustrates the critical role of cultural, educational, and government institutions we’ve established over time to help us invest in community and act with prudence. Many of these institutions have been under attack by neo-liberalism and Tea Party dogma that “government is the problem,” adding to the imbalance and accelerating our undoing.

Prudence is not easy.  It requires work and sacrifice and tolerance.  But it allows us to build roads and infrastructure, to get educated, to invest in research and social services we might need in the future, to regulate safe food and risky financial investments, to act responsibly towards challenges of biodiversity collapse and climate chaos, and to care not just about ourselves but for our legacy.

We must find ways to renew our respect for citizenship. We are more than consumers. We are social, interdependent, citizens looking to the future.

Posted in Markets, Philosophy/ethics | Comments Off on Prudence

Congress Saves Pizza for School Lunch But Can’t Save the Country from Climate Chaos

Posted on December 3, 2011 by admin

US Congress, regrettably, seems unable to do much these days.  It is so completely captured by corporate interests that private profit trump public interests.  The profits of food industries, for example, outweigh the health concerns of overweight children and the challenge of an obesity epidemic.  $5.6 million dollars of lobbying reversed school lunch guidelines developed by the US Department of Agriculture to promote public health.  What, you might ask, was the key issue being debated? Whether catsup and pizza sauce count as a serving of vegetables.

Of course tomatoes are a fruit, not a vegetable, providing further evidence our governance system has gone nuts.

The facts are well established, even climate skeptics admit Earth is warming. Our prospects look grim unless we respond to the challenge.  Enormous harm to economic and human health will be caused by extreme weather events and unforgivable suffering will be caused by declines in agriculture, drinking water, insect pollination, and related climate induced chaos. The respected International Energy Agency’s annual World Energy Outlook warns we have maybe five years to act before it will become incredibly difficult and expensive keep warming below 2 degrees C (read catastrophic climate chaos).  Meanwhile, the world pumped 6% more carbon into the air in 2010 than it did in 2009, exceeding the worst-case climate-chaos scenario projections.

America is better than this.

Posted in Environmental Fundamentalism, Tea Party | Comments Off on Congress Saves Pizza for School Lunch But Can’t Save the Country from Climate Chaos

Eating Florescent Lights

Posted on December 3, 2011 by admin

I have no idea if this dance competition video is real or simulated. I have regrets about sensationalizing it.  But what the heck.  It helps me make a point.  I admit, however, that I  have yet to watch the whole thing because I get queasy and close my laptop when an axe-like tool gets hammered into a dancer’s stomach (that should be enough of a teaser to get you to click the link!).

There is a dance move—I don’t know what else to call it—about a minute into the video when dancers eat florescent lights. Some of you may worry about the consequences to the dancer’s health from eating mercury (a toxin that damages, among other things, the brains and lungs of our children).

Florescent lights do contain trace amounts of mercury, but so does coal, which generates the electricity that powers our lights.

Even if no florescent lights were recycled and all their mercury were released into our environment, the total amount would still be less than the mercury put into our air by the additional coal-fired electricity needed to power our less efficient incandescent lights.

We can easily recycle florescent lights, dramatically reducing mercury emissions, saving money, promoting health, doing the right thing, ….  Or we play partisan politics.

All we need is the willpower to care.

Posted in Environmental Fundamentalism, Landcare | Comments Off on Eating Florescent Lights

Focus on Crony Capitalism not Class Warfare

Posted on November 26, 2011 by admin

Don’t get distracted. Resist effort to discredit OWS by redefining it as class warfare. Keep focused on corporatocracy.  At issue is the capture of our system of governance: the corruption of democracy by narrow self-interests empowered by immense wealth.

Global capitalism is delivering on its promise: wealth is increasing and spreading, living standards are improving, and people are living longer and healthier lives (YouTube video).  Yes, wealth inequities are increasing, but at least wealth IS increasing.  Middle class wages actually did increase 20% or so over the last few decades (while the income of the top 1% increased by almost 200% during that same time period; see Ron Haskins for a more recent discussion of rising fortunes of the 99%).

The wealthier are getting wealthier in part because capitalism rewards those at the top of the pyramid and because globalization grows the bottom of the pyramid. There are more and more  consumers and workers that funnel more and more wealth to the top.

Yes, some redistribution of this wealth is necessary.  At a minimum we must do so because rising inequity leads to declining opportunity, and America is built upon opportunity.  We need to invest in infrastructure that keeps opportunity open: education, roads, smart grids, research and the like.

But mostly we need to reclaim democracy.  We need to get the money out of politics.  Completely out.  The transition back to democracy will be slow, difficult, and require repeated corrections. It will include campaign finance reform, lobbyist reform, and revolving-door reform.  The perfect solution will not present itself, and to wait for it is dangerous because is will only further entrench corporatocracy. We need to act now.  Tolerance for mistakes will be required.  We can learn from these inevitable mistakes and reform again and again and again.  The goal is not in question: a form of governance that serves we the people, an economy that increases wealth and opportunity, and a culture that inspires hope, generosity, and creativity.

Posted in Tea Party | Comments Off on Focus on Crony Capitalism not Class Warfare

Careful Regulation is a Wise Investment

Posted on November 19, 2011 by admin

Harming others for personal profit is not just morally wrong, it also costs money and jobs.  Environmental regulations promote justice and efficiency.  They put the costs of pollution on the books of those who pollute, rather than distributing those costs to others. For this reason, the benefits from EPA regulations exceed their costs by an average of more than 10 to 1, among the best ratios of all federal agencies.  The annual human health benefits of the Clean Air Act, for example, were greater than a trillion dollars in 2010 and will be nearly 2 trillion dollars by 2020. It turns out that cleaner air makes healthier people, the benefits of which ripple through the economy, by some accounts increasing national GDP by as much as 1.5%.

Environmental regulations also create jobs.  They focus our investments on things that make us more productive in the long run.  We will spend our money somewhere, why not invest it rather than consume it?  Indeed, as EDF economist Gernot Wagner argues, “the numbers just for the EPA toxics rule speak for themselves: up to 17,000 lives saved, and anywhere from 28,000 to more than 150,000 jobs created. That should satisfy even the worst cynics.”

Current accounting practices ignore many trillions of dollars of costs.  It is no wonder that corporate interests invest so heavily in lobbying governments–they have much to lose if the playing field is leveled.  Alarming trends include aquifer depletion, climate change, fisheries collapse, and hazardous pollutants.  Poor accounting practices cause these problems.  They allow profits to be privatized but costs to be socialized.  That is, a few people benefit, but others pay the costs.  There is nothing wrong with making a profit.  Just do it fairly. The age of uncaring accounting must pass.  The Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street are spot on when they critique, in the words of Sarah Palin, crony capitalism.

Fortunately the uncaring unfairness of free market failures can be corrected by subtle but sophisticated economic policies that improve accounting practices. Wagner gives numerous examples in his book, subtitled How Smart Economics Can Save the World.

We must find the will to implement these policies.

We need to start caring.

Posted in Landcare, Tea Party | Comments Off on Careful Regulation is a Wise Investment

A House Divided Will Not Stand

Posted on November 13, 2011 by admin

We are a divided nation. Pick an affiliation: red state, blue state, urban, rural, evangelical, agnostic, white, brown, conservative, liberal, …

Pick a reason: media deregulation, immigration, campaign finance, income inequity, no common enemy, political election strategies, globalization,…

Each year Foreign Policy and the Fund for Peace publish the Failed States Index ranking countries according their vulnerability to violent collapse and social deterioration.  Somalia, Chad, Haiti, Afghanistan, and Iraq are among the top ten must vulnerable.  Countries at the stable/sustainable end of scale include Finland, Norway, Sweden, New Zealand, and Canada.  The index is based on social, economic and political conditions summarized at the conclusion of this blog[1], but a sample of questions the analysts ask should give Americans pause:

  • Is there a large economic gap?
  • Is there public scapegoating of groups believed to have acquired wealth, status or power as evidenced by “hate” radio, pamphleteering, and stereotypical or nationalistic political rhetoric?
  • Are there hidden economies, including drug trade and capital flight?
  • Does the government have the confidence of the people?
  • Is the government representative of the population?
  • What are the general conditions of public services and are roads and other infrastructure adequate and safe?

Americans are indeed fortunate to live in a well-functioning country (ranked 19th out of 177), but we must not squander our good fortune.  We have real work to do.  Opportunity for social and economic success must warrant the buy-in, which means citizens must believe that the sacrifice and hope for a better life are justified. We must re-discover tolerance of individual and cultural differences and end the name-calling and blame-game.  We are a community; we sink or swim together.  We must (again) be willing to ask what we can do for our country, not what our country can do for us.  Government is a solution, not a problem.  Civil service is noble, not dishonorable.  What can be a higher calling than contributing to the well-being of others, certainly not individual wealth?  We need to invest in our politics and we need to invest the infrastructure upon which everything depends—education, transportation, information, discovery, energy, air, water, agriculture, climate, markets and government.

How do we get from current politics that accentuate our differences and demean the community to a future full of hope, prosperity, and diversity?   We adopt and practice an ethos of care.  We accept some inefficiencies, forgo maximum profits, tolerate mistakes, accept imperfect knowledge, and willingly sacrifice personal gain today with the hope of greater rewards in the future.

We need to care about what we share.  Most Americans want clean air, convenient commutes, safe food and water, jobs that provide dignity, equal access to justice and political power, the opportunity and responsibility to succeed, and freedom to speak, assemble and worship as we wish.  Most Americans fear illness, infirmity, the bad luck of being in path of a natural disaster, and losing control over our future.  These things we share. These things we address because we care.


[1] The indicators of failed states in more detail:

  • High population density relative to food and water supply. Settlement patterns that limit the freedom to participate in economic activities.  Skewed population distributions such as a “youth or age bulge.” Vulnerability to natural disasters (hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, drought, etc.) and pressures stemming from epidemics, such as HIV/AIDS, bird flue, SARS, and other contagious diseases.
  • Forced uprooting of large communities as a result of random or targeted violence and/or repression, causing food shortages, disease, lack of clean water, land competition, and turmoil that can spiral into larger humanitarian and security problems, both within and between countries.
  • A legacy of vengeance-seeking paranoia such as institutionalized political exclusion and public scapegoating of groups believed to have acquired wealth, status or power as evidenced in the emergence of “hate” radio, pamphleteering, and stereotypical or nationalistic political rhetoric.
  • A “brain drain” of professionals, intellectuals and political dissidents fearing persecution or repression and, as a consequence, the rise of exile communities mobilizing elsewhere.
  • Uneven economic development and opportunity, including group-based inequality, or perceived inequality, in education and economic status, poverty levels, and infant mortality rates.
  • Rise of crime and delegitimatizing the state through corruption or profiteering by ruling elites, resistance of ruling elites to transparency, and widespread loss of popular confidence in government institutions and processes.
  • Deterioration of basic government functions, including failure to protect citizens from terrorism and violence and to provide essential services, such as health, education, sanitation, public transportation, etc.
  • Suspension of the rule of law and widespread violation of human rights
  • Emergence of state-sponsored or state supported “private militias” that terrorize political opponents, suspected “enemies,” or civilians seen to be sympathetic to the opposition.
  • Fragmentation of ruling elites and state institutions along ethnic, class, clan, racial or religious lines.
  • Economic intervention by outside powers, including multilateral organizations, through large-scale loans, development projects, or foreign aid, such as ongoing budget support, control of finances, or management of the state’s economic policy, creating economic dependency.
Posted in Environmental Fundamentalism | Comments Off on A House Divided Will Not Stand