Economic Predation In Tasmania

Brenda Rosser

Tasmania’s economy is now criminogenic: it fosters and rewards criminal behavior. As the economist James Galbraith noted, neither markets nor our governments are providing “discipline” and slurs on reputations don’t secure good behaviour. Economic theory has failed to recognize this reality.

Something new and hopeful may finally be emerging from the decades long fight for the protection of our precious rainforests in Tasmania. There are strong signs of unity between diverse communities from all over this state. A new awareness that our battles — the fight for the forests, the protest against a dirty paper mill, the push for a ban on the use of dangerous pesticides in our water catchments, and our pleas to Government for them to stop selling off public housing to wealthy international investors, amongst many other similar battles — are one and the same.

We want economic predation of our land and lives to stop.

Predators are not simple competitors. Predators suck the life from the businesses they buy and the communities they operate within. They cover up this behaviour for as long as they possibly can by using fraudulent accounting and through complex transactions[1] that lack transparency. Criminality such as this is further supported by acts of media filtering and many other forms of institutionalised deception and propaganda.[2]

Tasmania’s environment has been degraded to the point where there are now costly and ongoing public health impacts and loss of biodiversity. Social costs also abound. Local rates and taxes are no longer collected because rural infrastructure such as housing, sheds, fencing and irrigation pipes have been destroyed. Public services are closed down while our local pollies scratch their heads and wonder why net immigration to the state has stalled and young people seek a brighter future on the mainland. This is only a limited list of losses we are now exposed to and none has been costed.

Why have our legal systems turned the corporation into something akin to a sociopathic individual? Why are powerful transnational corporations free of limitations and the loss of privileges that come with genuine personhood? These institutions can rape and pillage as they please. After all they are not moved by emotions or beauty. Their values are strictly utilitarian and lack ethical or religious dimension. Predatory behaviour is “normal” behaviour for corporations. They’re not there to serve the public good but merely to pursue the hunt for monetary profits. Their only constraint is enforced regulation but our governments have opted out of this process as corporations play one nation off against another in a globalised supply chain. Jurisdiction shopping for the most favourable terms at the very time when the planet’s workforce has doubled by China, India and other nations embracing privatisation of land and capitalism[3] through the forced eviction of millions of peasants from their land and traditional communities.[4],[5],[6]

Tasmania’s economy is now criminogenic: it fosters and rewards criminal behavior. As the economist James Galbraith noted, neither markets nor our governments are providing “discipline” and slurs on reputations don’t secure good behaviour. Economic theory has failed to recognize this reality.

Radical as it may seem we need to examine a post-corporate future. The world’s 200 largest corporations employ only one-third of one percent of the world’s population, yet they control almost 30 percent of the world’s economic output [7]. We should ask the question: do we really need businesses that provide such limited employment prospects whilst they actually destroy the real things we hold of value? Author, David Korten says that “the alternative to the new global capitalism is a global system of healthy market economies that function as extensions of local ecosystems.” Eliminate the for-profit large corporation in favour of enterprises that succeed or fail dependent on their ability to care for local resources. The paradigm of clearfelling an ancient forest then moving on to clearfell another one has to end — must end. Nature will have time to regenerate — with or without us. If we are to survive then this requires a slowing down of our way of life and economies to accommodate the “prime directive” that, according to Teresa Brennan, can be “found latent in the teachings of all the worlds religions — though shalt not use up nature and people at a rate faster than they can be replenished.” [8] The narrow definition of “efficiency” as given by our current state politicians and most-favoured economists is “plunder faster”. They have to go.

Human wellbeing is the *goal*, not a *side effect*, of social and economic life. This seems to be common sense. But few economists can subtract: no consensus exists on how to account for harms done to man or world, or to human potential discarded. How do we get beyond “wealth” to understand “value”?

Craig Hubley

“The Earth is not dying, it is being killed, and those who are killing it have names and addresses.” — Utah Philips

References

[1] Why Capitalism, like Communism. Will fail.

James K. Galbraith: ‘The predator state’

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15156

[2] The condition of modern American society

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/condition_of_modern_american_soc.htm

[3] What Really Ails Europe (and America): The Doubling of the Global Workforce . The Globalist.

http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=4542

By Richard Freeman | Friday, June 03, 2005

[4] Forced Eviction and Demolition Continues after New Year