The year 1776 was pivotal in human history. It marked the beginning of two paradigm changes that would shift political and economic systems for a much better world. The first shift was the introduction of democracy as the cornerstone of government as enunciated and incorporated by the newly born United States of America. The second shift came to us from Scotsman Adam Smith in his description of how free markets could provide a more efficient way of allocating scarce resources in making and distributing goods and services (see the Wealth of Nations). Both concepts would allow much greater freedom of choice in how governments and markets could elevate individual rights in the pursuit of justice and in wealth accumulation. Today, after more than 200 years of success, both systems have been hijacked by malevolent ideologues. They consist of a small band of conservative plutocrats who are busy installing their chosen disciples within their oligarchies, with instructions to use legislation to shift huge amounts of income and wealth from workers to the wealthy elite. It is a tale about buying and selling the soul of democracy from the clutches of humanity.

This essay describes an alternate model that has the potential for rescuing humanity from its errant trajectories and toward a vision that can bring about a new era of peace, justice, and prosperity for all.

Back in the 1960s, American physicist, Thomas Kuhn, published a seminal composition entitled “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” He focused on the philosophy of science in terms of its effectiveness to identify continuity in bringing about its own advancement. In particular, he challenged the status quo of the 1950s that presumed research within a given discipline should be backward-looking that sought to validate or add facts to existing models. Instead, he argued that primary scientific research should be forward-looking and seek to establish new models and new ways of describing reality. He argued that science was better served by the introduction of research that represented movement away from old models while bringing fresh approaches to the discipline at hand. The term “paradigm shift” came into wide use in the 1970 among researchers, academicians, and students at all skill levels. Many thought it was appealing to a higher calling to be on the “cutting edge” of science than to be engaged in merely trying to duplicate somebody else’s work. I recall thinking “Hell yes. Let the B students do that dreary duplication work. I’m a progressive, if not an originalist.”

I liked Kuhn’s philosophy then, and still do. But like many others, however, I became bogged down in the vagaries of a discipline that no longer offered solutions to old issues, mainly because it fell victim to ideologues. And if there are two things ideologues hate, they are innovation and forward-thinking. I am referring to how economics got hijacked by the conservative ideologues.

Conservatism and ideologies are the antitheses of science and the common good. They are a means to an end. The end is the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few plutocrats while assuring that all future flows continue unabated to the same group of people. In contrast, Adam Smith (the originalist) was a forward-thinking visionary who saw a society that used the means of production to bring about prosperity for all. Free markets, competition, and the “invisible hand” of supply and demand would assure an equitable distribution of wealth.

Free markets among many practitioners were also believed to be functioning best when profits were driven highest. A fair wage was believed to be the lowest level that workers would accept. High end income, however was open-ended, thus it consistently edged upward. From about 1970 onward, it included not only wages, but also incentives such as stock options, bonuses, free memberships at exclusive clubs, chauffeured limos, corporate jet travel, and excessive exit and retirement packages. A CEO's total compensation could reach several thousand times that of workers. It was bolstered by an “old boy” network of B students from expensive schools with inheritances and cultivated tastes who became CEOs and industry leaders through the same connections. The A students went on to become scientists, professors, judges, writers, and others who value independence and free-thinking.

With wealth also came political power, and that meant supporting candidates and lobbying for laws that locked in gains at the top via lower taxes, shifting profits to overseas locations; the elimination of regulations that restricted risk-taking; little pollution control; extracting coal and oil to the last chunk or drop; and shifting the burden of government’s growing deficits onto workers, the aged, the needy, and the disabled. On the political side, those who benefited most also coalesced around manipulating voting districts (gerrymandering); placing more and more restrictions on low income voting, and supporting massive propaganda campaigns that appealed to ignorance, a fundamental tool of propagandists.

The conventional means for fighting against each of these assaults on human dignity and upward mobility for the many was to attack them one-by-one. From about 1970, that approach has proved to be “a bridge too far,” lacking cohesion from the diminished role of labor unions, and the onset of the age of diminished expectations. Until about 2008 the best economic and political thinking has proved to be less and less effective against the upward flow of incomes and wealth that became locked and protected by an array of laws all conveniently circumscribed and under the umbrella of formidable slogans such as: “We are a nation of laws"; and "no one is above the law.”

In the past 6 or 7 years, however, a new collection of young thinkers has emerged. They have awakened us to the need for a new paradigm shift in politics and in economics. If it proves successful, it has the power to break through the status quo of conservative dominated societies, and to reset world societies back onto the pathway to fairer, more efficient, more productive venues for advancing the common good. It is appropriate to acknowledge these originalist thinkers.

A small group of Austrians and a recent Nobel Prize winner are busy today laying the foundation for a solution to the status quo. Their new paradigm goes by the title to this essay, “Economics for the Common Good.”

Economics for the Common Good is a widely demanded alternative to the inhumane, unstable and unsustainable ruling economic model. It is post-dualistic, overcomes both capitalism and socialism, and is based on the values that make human relationships flourish: ethics, democracy, nature, empathy, dignity, solidarity, cooperation, justice, and sustainability. The common good is the goal; money is the means to that goal. The Nobel Prize winner is Jean Tirole, a French economist who has set forth the foundation and principles of this alternative economic system to the present corrupted free market system that is the status quo. Although this new paradigm is gaining traction, it relies on youth, energy, and clarity of purpose to sustain itself. Whether it will ultimately succeed will depend on those traits. Will they be enough?

                                                                            (To be continued)