The Seedy Underbelly Of Economy

26 February 2011

There is a reason that confidence in the philosophy of a global economy must be put on something solid, or it’s worthless. The torrent of bad economic news from around the world has done more PATRICK BUTLER: Under the Waterfallthan shake that confidence for millions of Americans; it’s revealed the embracing, to our detriment, of a global economy’s limited purposes for existence.

The societal cost and consequences have been astonishing.

Two years ago, Kevin Rudd, then prime minister of Australia, told PBS’s Jim Lehrer, prior to the G-20 Summit in London, “we’ve all joined up to this thing called the global economy” and it's too late to go back now.” World leaders are insisting, Rudd said, that global cooperation ensure the model of modern economy work.

Though the drive to end worldwide hunger and poverty is admirable, consumerism as and end in and of itself is not. The global economy and the drive for profits was blamed by John Miller, former United States ambassador, for the international resurgence of human trafficking. Some estimates say 23 million forced-labor slaves are part of the underpinnings to the global economy. Surely that is an unintended consequence, but how many more of those types of consequences exist?

The border war in Texas being fought by the Drug Enforcement Administration, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, FBI and other U.S. law enforcement agencies in last week’s raids in four states underscore the miserable conditions of simple Mexican citizens caught in the crossfire of those who crush people for their own profit. One DEA agent told me, “I cannot believe what these average people risk in terms of lengthy prison sentences, to avoid being hurt — or their families — by cartel killers.”

Where do the values come from that temper the unfettered drive for profits? Those who seek to disengage and eviscerate the concept of a living eternity from worldview — in education, businesses and politics — already understand that concept-sharing between rampant consumerism and its unintended consequences, and faith, is a tall order.

But we’ve already seen societal consequences in relegating faith to a “whatever” concept. The choice of “right” actions in such an atmosphere is rendered to what is fashionable for the culture or individual. It is “right” for some, evidently, to chain children to desks in sultry sweatshops as they pump out low-cost trinkets or “cool” but cheap fashionable clothing to be sold in first-world markets around the globe.

It’s time to come to grips with concepts that work in our world. The concept of “right” must apply whether one ratifies it or not. One of two ideas — there is no “right” unless it passes a personal litmus test, or that right exists without personal consent or acknowledgement — must go.

A foundering financial framework with a seedy underbelly is before us now from Juarez, Mexico, to the slums of Kenya, but few voices question if it was the right framework to begin with. There is simply too much at stake, economically.

Here lies the opportunity to change; a crisis of confidence pushes the logical conclusions of these alternatives to the surface and makes the chooser evaluate which one really works. Take another look at the results of living for profits only, and choose.