Profitonomy

No mat­ter how green it might be, money still can­not be as organic, sweet and nour­ish­ing as real but­ter. Our soci­ety has done its best try­ing to sub­sti­tute nat­ural bal­ance for world of immense cri­sis and anx­i­ety, swap­ping econ­omy in its true mean­ing and choos­ing prof­iton­omy instead. Results are all around us: poverty, wars, end­less crisis.

Paragraph

The word “econ­omy” can be traced back to the Greek word oikos, “house” or specif­i­cally, “man­ag­ing of a house­hold”. Today’s econ­omy, as the most wildly opti­mistic eye can see, has become every­thing else but man­ag­ing of a house­hold. House­hold orig­i­nally meant a place where fam­ily lives and thrives. In old times that place was sup­posed to be a foun­da­tion of mutual hap­pi­ness and pros­per­ity. A fam­ily con­cern, sus­tain­ing all its mem­bers equally and the whole of the house­hold includ­ing fields and gar­dens, live­stock, water, trees, birds and ani­mals that live in and around it so all can pros­per. Quite an idyl­lic, bal­anced life. Does today’s econ­omy resem­ble that?

The econ­omy that isn’t one

Quite the oppo­site. Today’s econ­omy looks more like a con­stant strug­gle, gov­erned from the high tow­ers of polit­i­cal power and mea­sured through numer­ous abstract indexes and buzz­words ordi­nary peo­ple don’t grasp. Major moti­va­tor in today’s econ­omy, and in many cen­turies ago, is profit. From profit every­thing else is cal­cu­lated, val­ued and derived. If unprof­itable, fac­to­ries are closed, fer­tile fields aban­doned, work­ers laid off and sent home. Wars, poverty, cri­sis and econ­omy go always hand in hand because they’re next of kin. Why it has to be like that?

Paragraph

The rea­son for it is the major flaw in the con­cept of wealth and pros­per­ity. Namely, to achieve profit, some­thing inside every econ­omy needs to be sac­ri­ficed or deval­ued, and to some­thing else value must be added, and that “law” must be uni­ver­sally accepted between dif­fer­ent par­ties in order to work. What makes one thing deval­ued and another increase in value? An oppor­tu­nity to exploit. How­ever, oppor­tu­ni­ties to exploit change daily. And that’s becom­ing of a mar­ket­place dri­ven for (and by) profit.

Instead of ide­alised bal­ance inside the house­hold where econ­omy really takes place, a mar­ket­place (sup­pos­edly claim­ing a fair play) now advo­cates a bal­ance of a dif­fer­ent kind: it claims demand and sup­ply between house­holds cre­ate a bal­ance. (House­holds we had in old times, but in mod­ern times we have busi­nesses). It says some goods or ser­vices will be in demand, and some­one will meet that demand. How­ever, the argu­ment that mar­ket bal­ances itself in such a way is an illu­sion, and major­ity of econ­o­mists have fallen prey to an obvi­ous lapse of logic in it: there’s no such bal­ance between demand and sup­ply, because true mar­ket moti­va­tor is profit, not balance.

Profit as an absolute mea­sure of life

Profit is dif­fer­ence between total rev­enue and its oppor­tu­nity costs. If every­thing is in bal­ance, there’s no artic­u­lated dif­fer­ence between sup­ply and demand and there­fore no profit. In a man­ner of speak­ing, profit despises bal­ance because if sup­ply per­fectly sat­is­fies demand, profit can­not take place: if some­one per­fectly sat­is­fies some­one else’s demand, how can there be more “sat­is­fac­tion” left in supplier’s pock­ets? Either demand was not fully sat­is­fied, or some­one was fooled and some­one cheated, or some­one missed out a major flaw in this equation?

Hence we’re not talk­ing about sup­ply meet­ing demand, but about unreal (or arti­fi­cially cre­ated) demand cre­at­ing unreal sup­ply. The whole process is set in motion to pro­duce profit — a fac­tor that con­stantly cre­ates imbal­ance and turns the scale of econ­omy from one side to another. As a con­se­quence we have crises. Crises cre­ate anx­i­ety, a drive to catch the profit at all expense because that’s the only way to float sol­vent, and stay in the game. A game of econ­omy becomes a strug­gle, a mat­ter of life and death. How often we read in the news­pa­pers that farm­ers, for exam­ple, or busi­ness own­ers com­mit a sui­cide because they can­not defeat debt, which is noth­ing else but accu­mu­lated lack of profit.

To achieve profit, nat­ural bal­ance of the econ­omy needs to be dis­turbed and some­thing must be sac­ri­ficed, or exploited. What’s best to sac­ri­fice? Usu­ally two things, and that’s human labour and nat­ural resources. They’re the weak­est links in the chain. World his­tory shows there’s no low enough mea­sure that can describe how invalu­able and depre­ci­ated human life and labour can be in hands of those who want to max­imise profit. Sim­i­larly, same his­tory shows there’s no limit of human exploita­tion of nat­ural resources, which are taken for granted and for free.

Paragraph

Thus the word econ­omy — the man­ag­ing of a house­hold — in an oxy­moron. Makes no sense because the idea of profit denies it. Plus econ­omy today is run by busi­nesses, not house­holds, and soci­ety tries to sep­a­rate busi­ness from fam­ily mat­ters. But can they be sep­a­rated despite over­whelm­ing evi­dence that busi­ness affects not only fam­ily life but all life on Earth? Prof­iton­omy, exploita­tion or over-consumption is a much bet­ter word for the econ­omy as we know it.

GDP (Gross Domes­tic Prod­uct) is a mea­sure that describes how suc­cess­fully one big house­hold — say a nation — cre­ates profit in the global mar­ket­place, under a com­mon denom­i­na­tor of the US dol­lar. Thus so far hap­pi­ness of nations could’ve been esti­mated by mea­sur­ing how much their hap­pi­ness relates to hap­pi­ness of the US econ­omy and its peo­ple. (That’s another oxy­moron, for today’s econ­omy pre­sup­poses a US cit­i­zen an ideal Earth’s cit­i­zen and Amer­i­can way of life a desired one.)

Let’s exam­ine fig­ures from 2003/04; a cit­i­zen from Lux­em­bourg is some 1.45 times hap­pier than a US cit­i­zen, but one US cit­i­zen is as happy as a bas­ket­ball team from Iran. Or, it takes a com­bined hap­pi­ness of a whole soc­cer team from Syria to match the hap­pi­ness of one goal­keeper from the US. Many peo­ple today would agree it’s true.

Some coun­tries and insti­tu­tions pro­pose world economies to go after GNH (Gross National Hap­pi­ness) index, which is indeed inter­est­ing. GNH attempts to sum up and define qual­ity of life in a more holis­tic terms includ­ing eco­nom­i­cal, envi­ron­men­tal, phys­i­cal, men­tal, social well­ness. Nev­er­the­less, it’s noth­ing entirely new and is still infected with two dis­eases: firstly, eco­nom­i­cal well­ness is a sig­nif­i­cant part of it and is not rede­fined yet, and sec­ondly, what can be used to describe, to mea­sure hap­pi­ness? What’s the com­mon denom­i­na­tor of hap­pi­ness every­one can relate to?

For many hap­pi­ness is still money, and money jus­ti­fies profit and is derived from it. Even revered prof. Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel prize lau­re­ate in econ­omy, had stiff lips when try­ing to dis­miss it alto­gether. But few will whole­heart­edly admit that to fix world economies and broad neg­a­tive social and envi­ron­men­tal con­se­quences would mean this: kill the very idea of profit, and start from square one: restore bal­ance in our lives, in our fam­i­lies, between peo­ple and their environment.

– Zvon­imir Tosic


One Response to “Profitonomy”

  1. […] and inde­pen­dence. Oikos, or the house­hold — a place where fam­ily lives and thrives — was a core of the soci­ety and was much more impor­tant than it is today. Word ‘econ­omy’ comes from it; the man­age of a […]

Leave a Reply