Forum Post: Food for thought - an OWS agenda

The movement is fundamentally a protest at how the richest 1% have a monopoly on wealth, decision-making and political leverage. The movement does not want to water down that protest by adopting an existing political ideology that would effectively be used to 'change the subject'. It's a good stance.

However, the OWS movement has attracted a lot of attention now from the wider public, and if the movement does not articulate something at least a little more detailed than the above, then a vacuum is left that allows opponents to misrepresent the movement with pejorative labels: hippies, unemployed, dreamers, lefties, rebel youth etc.

I wish to offer a single idea that constitutes the moral ground of the movement as well as being realistic about the change that people hope for:

"What the world needs is responsible production and responsible consumption."

That's a two-way bargain that fits to the whole idea of market economies, as relationships between product/service providers and buyers; it requires responsible action from both if the balance between social and economic values is to be kept such that it benefits society/the planet as a whole.

There are many economic models, but what's missing is responsibility, something that goes beyond individual or corporate responsibility, but rather something that is genuinely recognised as a collective responsibility that can be met by corporations, organisations, individuals, decision makers and policy makers.

Of course, that still leaves the whole idea of what it means to be 'responsible', but it's a start, and it points in the right direction.

One thing I would say is that for our system of society to involve, we need to add a fundamental ingredient into this whole framework of production and consumption, and that is a feedback loop, so that people have information about the social consequences of the consumer decisions, and corporations can likewise be held to account for their practices.

Such an index (social impact index) might work in the same way that nutritional information is available on food to inform healthy choices.

People need feedback so that they know the consequences of their choices. The single biggest power of the 99% that has not been properly utilised is the power of consumers. Fair Trade and Organic as food labelling schemes have been very successful, and show that the principle is basically sound.

Ensure people have the right information and there is a much better chance they will make the right decisions. Such a call to social conscience would also place better restrictions on corporations.

Only one other point I want to add. The talk about wealth and its distribution is missing at least half of the picture. Profit goes in one direction, and risk goes in the other. It's the distribution in risk that has got us into financial difficulties.

The new financial products that have become the foundation of many corporate investment portfolios are prefaced on various kinds of mortgaged risk, that is, the economy, including household economies, operate on the basis of IOUs. There are two kinds of wealth - one is money, and the other is the lack of investment risk, i.e. security.

We really need to understand this if we are to create an economy that has the leverage of vast capital funds needed to fund investment and growth in our modern societies (building hospitals or factories requires large capital investment) and which doesn't put those vast capital funds in the hands of individuals whose only rationale is to create even larger capital funds.

Thanks for reading and good luck to all activists looking to bring some social conscience back to our world's decision-makers.