Why Distributism Can Work (For Us, Right Now) Part I

For the article, please go to The Distributist Review.

An Interview With Thomas Storck

For the full interview, please go to The Distributist Review.

Why Care about Distributism?

This post was cross-posted at Donald Goodman's personal blog.

An old friend has been commenting on my post Consumer Confidence or Consumer Recklessness, and he's led me to an interesting question. He asked me why I bother with this whole distributism thing at all? After all, he observes, it's exceedingly unlikely that I'd ever live to see distributism put into place; why not focus on making capitalists more virtuous, rather than explaining to them why the system itself is bankrupt?

I can respond in two ways. First, of course, is that while I might not see a distributist system in place in my lifetime, I can certainly see certain distributist principles put into practice. Some of this is happening already, though often under different names. The credit union system, for example, is in a certain way quite distributist (in others not really at all). Another example is the increasing prominence of farm co-ops. The people who form these efforts rarely go by the name "distributist"; however, these efforts are eminently in accord with distributism, and can and should be supported as such by distributists. My advocacy for distributism can therefore forward these and other efforts that I can actually effect, even if an entire distributist system is unlikely in the immediate future.

Second, I advocate for distributism the same way I advocate for Catholicism. While I'm talking to a Protestant, for example, it might be extremely unlikely that I'll convert him entirely to Catholicism, but pretty easy to convince him that he should venerate Mary. I'll certainly try to convince him to venerate Mary (as I certainly now try to convince capitalists to be more virtuous); but that doesn't mean that I give up trying to convince him to adopt Catholicism (as I don't give up trying to advocate for distributism over capitalism).

Well, this friend replied, you do that because God has commanded you to try to convert people to Catholicism, so it's different. However, God has commanded us to spread the truth, and distributism's economic principles are truth, while capitalism's are falsehood. To spread the truth, then, I must try to spread distributism; I can't exclude this one part of the truth any more than I could exclude Marian veneration from spreading Catholicism.

The capitalist at this point generally smirks knowingly, as he's now certain that his interlocutor is not quite straight in the head. Are you seriously claiming, he'll ask, that distributism is just as important as Catholicism? That's absolutely absurd. Well, yes and no; is distributism just as important as Catholicism? Obviously not. But is Catholic social teaching just as important as Catholicism? Unquestionably, yes; indeed, it is part and parcel of Catholicism, and one cannot be had without the other.

Is that absurd? If so, I'm afraid you'll have to tell that not just to me, but also to John Paul II, who said precisely that. Catholic social teachings, he argued, are an integral part of the Gospel and must be spread along with it. Rerum Novarum, for example, the flagship of Catholic social teaching, "is a document of the Magisterium and is fully a part of the Church's evangelizing mission, together with many other documents of this nature." Centesimus Annus, no. 54. Think for a moment about how strong a statement that is; the late Pope is saying that Catholic social teaching is part of the message that the Church must spread throughout the world. That's a pretty high-octane statement if spreading distributism is pointless.

Now, distributism is a name for an economic system that attempts to embody Catholic social teaching; as such, it could be mistaken in some particulars, and can't be called, by itself, part of Catholicism. But the Catholic social teaching that it seeks to embody unquestionably is such. So I must, when spreading the Gospel, spread Catholic social teaching, including those parts that are fundamentally antithetical to capitalism. Such as:

1. Just wages cannot be set merely by the market, but must be compelled to be at least sufficient to support a worker and his family. Rerum Novarum no. 63; Quadragesimo Anno p. 36; Centesimus Annus no. 15.


2. Women should be legally compelled to avoid certain occupations, no matter to what the market might lead them. Rerum Novarum no. 63.


3. Some industries not only might, but ought to be owned and run by the state. Quadragesimo Anno, p. 55.


4. Onwership of private property is a right, but the use of private property is not, and is subject to just state and community regulation. Rerum Novarum no. 25; Quadragesimo Anno p. 24-25; Centesimus Annus no. 30.


5. Free competition is not the best, or even a good, way to organize economic affairs. Quadragesimo Anno p. 44.


6. Social justice and social charity are just and, in fact, are the "soul" of a just economic order. Quadragesimo Anno p. 45.


7. Income earned by a man which is not necessary for his upkeep according to his state is subject to just regulation and use by the state and community. Quadragesimo Anno p. 26.

And these are just specifics; they barely begin to get into the principles of capitalism as opposed to the principles of Catholic social teaching.

So yes, it is important to spread Catholic social teaching, and as such the particular way of embodying it that I support, which is called distributism. To spread Catholicism without it would be omitting an essential part of the Gospel message. Truth is truth; I will try to spread all of it whenever I can.

What We Want, And How

For the article, go to The Distributist Review.

Consumer Confidence or Consumer Recklessness?

This post was taken from Donald Goodman's personal blog.

The current economic crisis is often blamed in part on a “crisis of consumer confidence.” The essential problem, according to those who place such blame, is that consumers just aren’t confident enough. Because they’re not confident enough, they’re not making lots of purchases, which cuts down on orders from retailers, which cuts down on transportation orders for distributors, which cuts down on orders from manufacturers, and thus hits everybody. The important thing, it’s said, is to get consumers confident again so that they’ll start spending again.

Along this vein is the oft-repeated statement that “the consumer is two-thirds of the economy.” Since the consumer is two-thirds of the economy, we need to get him spending his money, or the other one-third won’t work anymore. What’s more, that single two-thirds will shrink, thus costing everybody, consumer and otherwise.

Let’s think about those statements for a moment, however. First, let’s take “the consumer is two-thirds of the economy.” Really? If consumption is two-thirds of the economy, what exactly is the consumer consuming? Presumably, the other one-third is production and services; but let’s be charitable to our dear country and presume that the other one-third is production. (In reality, of course, a great deal of it is, in fact, services; but we’re being charitable.) That means that we’re consuming twice what we’re producing.

Think about that for a moment. If we’re consuming twice what we’re producing, where is all that extra stuff coming from? The answer is China; Japan; Europe. Essentially, elsewhere. And because we’re consuming twice what we’re producing, we’re also spending twice what we’re earning. Where does the extra money come from? The answer is China; Japan; Europe. In other words, we’re borrowing to cover for the extra consumption that doesn’t balance what we produce. And, as a corollary, we’re accumulating a great deal of debt and paying a great deal of interest on it.

And that leads us to thinking about the other notion now, that the problem here is one of “consumer confidence.” Don’t we really mean “consumer recklessness?” The problem, such people say, is that consumers just aren’t spending their money like they used to; they’re saving it instead. Tightening their belts. Never mind that once this great country prided itself on the thrift of its hard-working citizens, noting that said thrift and hard work are the elements which made it economically great. Such people, though, want us “consumers” to just keep spending our money, even though we really need to save it. Even though, in the past, the money that we’ve spent is often money that we didn’t have, and that we had to borrow to spend. We need to retrench; pay off our past debts; save up a cushion in case of a fall. That means that we, as consumers, are not “confident.”

In reality, though, it means that we, as consumers, are not reckless. We’re being wise for a change; we’re being careful only to spend money that we actually have; we’re foregoing present pleasures for the sake of future safety; we’re actually, horror of horrors, paying off some debts instead of constantly racking up new ones. This is terrible! Consumers aren’t confident! Can you imagine what might happen to the economy if this spreads? What horrible disasters might befall our nation if such ludicrous practices spread, and our government adopted such an insane scheme so lacking in “confidence?”

Modern economics have led us to a strange place. Though this country was built on working hard, producing goods, foregoing unnecessary consumption, taking debt as rarely as possible, and paying off necessary debt as quickly as possible; though the wealth of every country has been based on these perennial, thrifty, and diligent practices; we have nevertheless convinced ourselves that our wealth is based on spending as much as we can, racking up as much debt as we need to in order to get everything we currently want, and letting other countries bother with the annoying hard work, production of useful goods, and delayed gratification.

Here is national suicide. We need to return to the basic principles of sound economic management. Namely, that it is production which is primary, not consumption; that it is better to save than to buy what we don’t need; that it is better to be free of debt than to have debt; and that gratification of our present desires need not be immediate, or even occur at all. Thrift; moderation; looking to the future. There is national prosperity. There, and there alone, is the solution to our economic crisis.

Praise be to Christ the King!

"Untouched by the breath of God, unrestricted by human conscience, both capitalism and socialism are repulsive." - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

For the article, go to The Distributist Review

Catholic? Socialist? Distributist.

See Bill Powell's recent article at Inside Catholic and support him with your comments.

You can buck the system

Even though it is so many weeks away from Christmas, retail industries are already preparing. As I am a retail manager, I am very much aware of the fact that there are 6 pallets of Christmas candy clogging up my receiving area, and Christmas trees and ornaments are already displayed, even as costumes and candy for the stupidest holiday ever invented are being sold in another place.

This is not only at my establishment, which I generally refer to as the devil's biggest retailer, but also at many others. When I was a kid, people remarked that Christmas items were up for sale and Christmas commercials were aired too early, because it was not yet Thanksgiving! Now it is not yet Halloween. I'm certain that when my son is about 8 people will remark that we are seeing Christmas products for sale and it is not yet Labor day. Everyone is trying to turn a buck, the earlier the better, but in the process what little culture we have in America has been cheapened and exploited. How many families could celebrate Christmas without presents? How many could still enjoy themselves without the biggest turkeys and the best decorations? How many people could not believe it was Christmas without a million useless toys?

This brings us back towards how we can live Distributism. In my immediate family we have very few presents, and rightly so, Christmas is not about presents. We are more happy being able to go to Mass together than with trinkets and junk. People always ask what to give, and really the best thing would be to pay some bills. If one wanted to be REALLY good there is a bottle of scotch from Balvenie which is aged 21 years. I've never tried it because I can't stand before God and justify that kind of spending with my bills. Nevertheless, Christmas would still be Christmas without it.

Lately, we are all being told to shop. After 9/11 Bush told everyone to go shop. When the economy was week Congress gave us a "stimulus check" so we would shop, now Warren Buffet is telling us to shop. We don't have any money! Oh, that's what credit cards are for. I forgot.

What we urgently need, as we enter this Christmas, is to do the opposite of what the enlightened ones have told us. We need to not shop. We ought not contribute a penny to the system, nor conform to the corrupt culture. Instead, we should put our money into small business, buy hand made goods of lasting value, things with utility, if we need them. If not, then by all means stick to food and make Christmas merry, but please let us not drop another dime in the system. It is in a gradual meltdown and I say we should let it do so. Let us show those that have money that what is necessary is to invest in America. You see, that is the thing of it, we hear so much about "investors", and we are almost commanded to "shop" so frequently, we should rather be asking which investors, and what shop? They are usually somewhere other than America. China generally, but also in numerous 3rd world countries from Latin America to Asia. That is where people seem to want us to invest. They only want us to buy, but no one wants to invest in America, in American workers, only in corporate swindlers who preside over wealth created at a pittance by the poor and displaced in the third world.

If instead, we invested in America, in American workers, in the production of American resources into wealth rather than strip malls and McDonalds, and furthermore, into products which served the common good, we would not be speaking of an "economic crisis" but merely hard times every now and again.

This Christmas, the Distributist thing to do is contribute as little to the service economy as humanly possible and go on with your lives. Make it about family, and not the worthless trinkets and games of Capitalism, which are meant to lock you in a trajectory of a consumer, and never an owner.

Ali Paulson and his 40 thieves

Before I launch into why the bailout was bad and will fail to do what it is supposed to, I want to remark that there was a solution in place of saying no to the bailout. While often doing nothing does not hurt that much, in this case they would because all sane people should know now, markets head toward ultimate meltdown when they are free. They need to be regulated by positive regulation, and the lack of it had caused this meltdown. Of course, it would not have been instant. There are foreign banks with capital (mostly in China and Abu Dabi) who have a vested interest in slowing American economic collapse. In the long term it is a boon for them but in the short term it will wreck their national economies. What would Abu Dabi be but a mud hole in the desert without greedy Americans buying its oil by the refined bushel? So no, we would not have instantly been reduced to a "post-Katrina" like situation all over the country. It would on the contrary hasten our dependence on foreigners for our daily sustenance, and in the long term we would see the end which the chicken little's in the executive branch are predicting.

Now Free Market economists, seeing the complete defeat of all their theories, proposed an alternative plan which in itself violated them that would present government insurance for the mortgages in question. It was certainly a better plan than Paulson's but tainted by the same flaw, it doesn't understand the problem. Their plan aims at creating the same house of sand which existed before, not alleviate its problem, that there is not enough production within the country to justify the services, and not enough to do with the money which lenders have. Regardless, since it was rejected by the Bush dictatorship and rejected by congress, now they have to distort reality by claiming it is government's fault for forcing lending institutions to give mortgages to "minorities" and low income applicants.

Now it is true that under Clinton and W the government put pressure on banks to abandon prudent behavior and offer sub-prime mortgages low-income borrowers. However, taken by themselves these do not threaten the financial system and every institution within it, just as my lending a bad loan to a neighbor who can't pay will not hurt the institution across town, even if I service many other loans. These would hurt the institution in and of itself. The meltdown of Fannie Mae, Bear Stearns or AIG due to bad sub-prime loans taken by themselves could never in a million years caused a meltdown of the whole system. What caused the meltdown was Free Market principles in and of themselves, because wherever they are tried they inevitably fail, even if they are tried in limited areas.

The meltdown we are witnessing, and the free fall of stocks and banks even after the bailout has been passed, is due to bad securities, short selling, and derivatives. The actual losses from sub-prime loans may in fact be less than 600 billion, which themselves would ruin certain institutions but not the whole system. While I despise the whole lending system and await the day of its demise, not every banker is also a satanist, and there are banks which by themselves would be solvent and sensible both in their lending and what they try and give back to the community. It is the mixing of sub-prime loans, and assorted bad debts into securities packages with solvent ones (even loans made to large and continually paying businesses) and sold. That wasn't enough so bets had to be hedged on the packages which brought more speculation, and tied more prudent investments up with imprudent ones, and like a bunch of lights on a series circuit, if one goes out they all go out. The system of derivatives is completely unregulated, and done so in accordance with free market principles, and it is directly responsible for the meltdown of our economic system. That the meltdown has been so severe is because, much like the Treasury, the banks do not have any money themselves. Bear Stearns was operating at something like a 33 to 1 ratio, for ever $1 they had in their vault they had $33 of debt. Banks themselves do not have to maintain the necessary capital to cover losses on investments. So when default piles upon default, the banks become completely insolvent, whereas had they any money they could cover the bad debt. Hence they need our future.

The reason banks carry not a cent to cover their investments is due to "free market" thinking. Even Communism is not so stupid as to think that debt is a good thing, as is the trend in modern economic liberalism. The current treasury secretary, Ali [sic] Paulson, who was the head of Goldman and Sachs (remember that), met with the Securities and Exchange commission in 1993 and asked for the end to government regulation requiring banks to carry the money to cover their investments. That was the first inroad of many to free banks from government regulation which kept banking from becoming "too big to fail". This was an achievement under a Democratic administration yes, but of Free Market principles in particular, and the baton was passed to W.

What the bailout does in point of fact, is transfer the bad debt from Paulson's 40 thieves, the bad debt of the firm he used to run to public books, and saves his friends and colleagues from bankruptcy. There is no 700 billion dollars because the 700 billion does not exist. The Treasury does not have even $1. All of the budget shortfalls year to year are met by loans from foreigners (China, India, Japan, The Emirates). And as spending increases on worthless education, on two immoral wars, and generally useless and misdirected social services, the interest only goes higher. There is no money to give Paulson and his 40 thieves, unless the Treasury is to embark on Weimar 3.0. Rather, they simply transfer the debt from them to us, and allow the banks to end the year in the black and toast themselves at their time shares in tropical islands, while the rest of the hoi polloi burn. It is a greater theft than any novelist has ever made up, or any wannabe criminals have ever lied about.

Thus both the National Socialist solution passed by congress in defiance of their constituents, and the free market solution proposed by the Emperor's new clothes crowd, both miss the point. There is not sufficient production within our country to base a healthy and stable economy. Production, as John Medaiile of the Distributist Review puts it, must come from farms, fisheries, forests, factories and mines in order to be real wealth, not something produced by services and credit cards. An economy can not be driven only by consumption because by necessity you must have something to consume. We likewise consume production, but it is someone else's consumption in a factory in east Beijing, and so there is no real wealth created within our own country, except for small businesses here and there which manage to subsist, or "Agri-business". More people have to produce, because in times of weakness when we can't afford ships of apples and led filled milk from China, there will be a severe famine due to the lack of American production.

The bailout was not meant for us, and it will not help us. It will help Ali Paulson and his forty thieves at Goldman and Sachs, AIG, Fannie and Freddie, who are already having big spa parties, but it will not help small business nor the individual taxpayer nor the homeowner. For that we must restructure our economy to reflect real wealth, not to be built, as the Pope put it, on sand.

Lastly, Bernanke, Paulson and Bush all told us until two weeks ago that everything was fine, the economy was in great condition and we would bounce back with ease. Not long after that they come out and say the sky is falling. We are expected to believe them that the money that has been voted to them will save the economy? Good grief.

A human solution to the economic meltdown

I've waited to make any comment on what is going on for several reasons, one is to gather facts rather than off the cuff assertions, and two because I simply don't have time.

However, after having taken in three weeks of this spectacle, I feel I won't see anything new that either isn't expected or predicted.

My first reaction to all of it, which is more of the anarchist in me than anything, is the nuclear option. Why help these idiots who ran their businesses into the ground and now expect the public to bail them out with a golden parachute? Let the whole lending system burn down. We don't need it anyway. As I said that is more the anarchist in me than anything, because in reality, a government watchful for the common good can not do that. The meltdown of economic markets as they are (predicted by Chesterton and Belloc), while enjoyable from the standpoint of the anti-capitalist spectator, will not long be enjoyable unless one is already self sufficient and well armed. If the power goes out in a major city for a few hours there is looting, rape and pillage. If there is a mass failing of business due to the meltdown of credit, the detriment to the common good is unimaginable. Apart from the fact that every criminal element of society will be unleashed, that millions of innocent people will starve and be bereft of material necessities, the result will be either constant anarchy or a police state.

Americans are overly individualistic, we do not knit together into a likeminded culture solicitous for the common good. As such, the best of us who tend toward that will be victimized by the worst who don't. Subsequently a parralell economy would form largely criminal in nature, with or without a strong central authority or martial law (perhaps in collusion with it as in the aftermath of the Soviet breakdown).

However, all of this will be the result of an overall descent which will take time to effect. Apart from random acts of crime which will break out, no doubt inspired by media hyperstimulation and hysteria (I always say TV news is a defeat for humanity), the country will not fall apart from a market crash. It will merely transform into anarchy or a police state, or a terribly unhealthy mix of both, and even then steps could be taken to avert that course.

There are of course alarmists who are running out and declaring that the sky is falling. I have heard radio hosts saying if the government doesn't do something the whole country will be destroyed. Not the least of the alarmists are Geroge W. Bush, Ben Bernanke and Henry Paulson and their banking buddies. If our society had any moral fibre they would all be drawn and quartered, and perhaps burned alive (satire). Instead we listen as they advocate that we buy up the debt, and take a huge loss in doing it, so as to re-constitute Mammon. I have read every statement by the three aforementioned characters, and essentially that is their plan. Borrow money from China or print more treasury notes or both, buy up the debt and reconstitute the money lending empire which put us in this mess. It will be, as it is now, a society built on debt. Well, debt for some and filthy profits (mammon) for CEOs who will repeat this whole fiasco down the road, if there is enough time for them to do so. In the mean time, where is the public good? You must pass this bill they say. Then the Democrats say okay, just give us some things we want. They then claim they support the middle class, but pushing for some relief for tax payers and some such things is not sufficient to solve the problem. Then come in the free market economists with their fairy tales.

It is truly incredible. They will blame the current crisis on a whole host of things. They will blame Bush as I blame him, but for different reasons. They will condemn the bailout as I do, but not because they believe there is something better, but because government shouldn't be involved in the market forces which shape the economy. This is where the fairy tales are necessary. What the hellen keller are market forces? They are rather like the tooth fairy or the easter bunny, they neither exist nor communicate any valuable message or moral in their telling. There is no such thing as a market force, or markets which rebound or markets which come into being or crash, or for that matter which are free. There are men who determine the actions other men must make by their inventments, their trades, and their blunders. There are men who initiate bad practices, and other men who react to them. But there is no hidden hand at Wall Street which comes into play and guides men safely so long as governments leave it alone. Yet that is what they will have you believe. If only George Bush didn't interfere with the market, after all, sub-prime mortgages are his fault according to one author, part of a scheme to create an "ownership society" (the horror if men owned something and didn't pay greedy bankers!) like in Argentina. Or, this is all the fault of tax policies and spending.

All of that is fiction. The situation we are in arose precisely because government followed these principles and provided no oversight and no intervention, just as Economic liberals want. The reality is that Free Market Economics (i.e. Economic Liberalism) are a failure. The current situation allows us to write economic liberalism's obituary as surely as Richard Pipes could write Communism's obituary. They will still gasp from the grave, just as the leftover communists do today, but it is clear that Free Market principles are as effective in economics as excrement is at keeping away flies. We need government regulation in the economy to make sure that greed, the sole force involved in a "free market" does not endanger the public good.

However, what kind of government intervention we need is the real question. The answer should be that which tends toward the common good. When we consider government intervention in that light, it is incumbent upon voters to reject this proposed $700 billion bale out on its face as a phony solution which will do nothing to "sure up the economy", that is make it stable. (They won't, they will take it as they have taken every step of Bush's creation of National Socialism, and this is no exception).

A stable economy is necessarily defined by real ownership. It is sad that ownership must be qualified with the adjective "real", but today people have the idea that when they are paying three or four times what something is worth that they actually own the thing rather than that they are renting it from the bank until the latter has several pounds of flesh, which as we have seen they can then invest badly or soundly, not dependent upon illusory market forces but upon the skills or lack thereof of the investor. People have the idea that an Ipod bought on a credit card is "theirs". Regardless there is no ownership in that scenario, except on the part of those who have caused the economic meltdown, which are a gross minority. The "bail-out plan" does nothing to fix the lack of equity in society's ownership. Worse than that even, is that there is no standard by which worth is to be judged in all of this worthless debt which the government is about to buy, only to sell back in the future. How do we know that the banks will not cheat the government? Will the government, staffed by individuals who used to work for the same firms which they are now bailing out, such as Mr. Paulson a former Goldman-Sachs employee, act in the people's interest or in the bank's interest? Yes, that is rhetorical. Like all political hacks and quislings, from Bush down to the lowest treasury appointee, they serve the banks, as they have for 150 years if not more.

Even worse than all of that, is the fact that this plan as it is currently proposed gives unprecedented power to government bureacrats in the treasury department. (source)They will be free from judicial overview, from congressional oversite, and answerable to no voter and no veto. And people wonder why I don't vote. You don't live in a democracy, you live in a National Socialist dictatorship, where the hands are hidden rather than seen like in Germany or Russia, where the change is gradual rather than sudden, as in Hitler's appointment or the Bolshevik Revolution. This is just the icing on the cake, and if this bill goes into effect that is exactly what it will create. But never mind that.

We were talking about stability. The plan, as old as the 1930's, is to bail out the fools who created the problem, thinking that if we re-establish the status quo, we won't end up in the same place. This is literally like saying we will put the train backward 20 miles, we will sure up the track, but don't worry, we won't end up in Chicago again. The primary problem is that what the bail out aims at creating is not a stable economy, nor a safe one. It is an attempt to stimulate business and lending. NOTHING MORE, by saddling you and I with worthless assets. This is nothing other than welfare for the rich.

If the government were to take an action that seriously aimed at helping people below a net worth of a million or so, there is one thing it could do. It is so simple as to be more or less unthinkable, principly because it is too human and religious. Amnesty.

Only a year ago amnesty was a hotly debated topic, being advocated by a majority of the government as a grand solution to the problem of illegal immigration. When opponents declared that it will only make the problem worse, proponents declared that they would re-structure the government and put laws in place to prevent an increase in illegal immigration.

Well...... no one said that such a thing couldn't work, only that the government would never live up to the committment. And one would probably have been right. Nevertheless, let us apply the same concept to this situation. The government could just declare an amnesty, particularly on mortgages. If it limited itself to this, and did not try to also bail out credit cards where more than 50% was spent on comoddities, then something unthinkable might be achieved: ownership. Some will say but this will only encourage people get into debt again. This is easily solved, place terms and conditions. The homeowner would have to agree not to sell for 7 years. That should be a fair amount of time to satisfy the governments interests and sure up some of the debt problem. Essentially what I am proposing is that debt be wiped right off of the books. Nothing for the rich, heaven knows they can afford it, afterall, they got us into the mess, there is no need to reward them.

Declaring an amnesty for home mortgages under certain conditions has more benefits: It prevents a wave of homlessness which certainly leads to crime while at the same time presents an asset with a verifiable value, as opposed to the sewage debt that the banks will foist upon the government. Concommitant with this move would be to foster the growth of small business and local community. At the present slugs like you and I are seen by Wall Street as one thing: A consumer income. We don't own anything, we can not stop and buy a house or a car, but we can by worthless commodities, and we are told this will keep the economy running. We know now that this is false. The economy will not keep running because people buy chinese made crap at Walmart.

Yet what if we not only formed small economic communities, championed by ownership, but also produced goods which people need? You mean we don't need to get it from China? No. You mean I can buy it out of my pocket? Yes. You mean I can perform a service to society or produce something for it, rather than speculate about it in New York? Damn straight.

But it won't happen. To do that means alienating the money class, the business owners, the banks, and all of their cronies in government, presuming they are not running the whole show from behind the scenes. To do that means dismantling the status quo and getting people to think differently, which the government has no interest in. Hilaire Belloc essentially said the same thing a hundred years ago in his classic "The Servile State". In that work, he predicted that the capitalist state, constituted as it was in England at the beginning of the 20th century (more or less what it is here and now, just on a smaller scale) would fall apart because credit would get so out of control some defaults would effect the whole system, and lead to an overall collapse and millions out of work, as with Capitalism's beginning. The solution? Slavery. When Belloc says we will return to slavery, he does not mean it in the sense of ancient Rome or Greece, because he recognized that we have created such an animus to slavery. So instead of "slavery", it will be reinstituted under a different name, "lifetime employment". A well to do banker, bailed out by Mr. Paulson's plan, will one day be able to go to the employment office and pick up a "lifer", someone guaranteed to work for him for life.

In the event you are shaking your head in disbelief, consider the results of my non-scientific sociological experiment. Feel free to conduct it yourself. Just in the work place, both of them in fact, I popped the question to various co-workers of different sexes and positions, through a general run down of how in the future we will lose our jobs, and then slavery will be introduced only it will be called "lifetime employment. Out of 50 people, only 2 people objected. The response from everyone else was "well, that sounds kind of nice actually. Job security", or "Well, I wouln't have to pay for food and rent, would I?" I suppose not. Freedom in exchange for food and shelter. People have lived long enough without owning or producing anything of value, that food, clothing and shelter for free for life won't be such a bad deal in exchange for work.

Community Supported Agriculture

From: The Idaho Statesman

Casey O'Leary pedals to her dream job, towing a shovel, a hoe, a rake and a flat of tiny vegetable starts on her bike trailer. Her rubber boots shed yesterday's mud as she rides.

Her dog, Norm, who has been waiting all morning, runs alongside her on their way to a small plot of land - one of three that O'Leary cultivates in Boise's Collister neighborhood.

"I used to think I had to get out of the city to get back to nature," O'Leary said. "Urban farming is the ideal interface between city and country."

You won't find O'Leary at the farmers market. She already has sold her harvest to 25 shareholders, or members of her CSA farm. They've paid upfront for 18 weeks of fresh food.

"My members just cherish the work I do," O'Leary said. "It's because of them that I'm able to have this absolutely beautiful life that I love so much."

WHAT'S A CSA?

Community-supported agriculture is a mouthful to say, but it is an easy idea to grasp.

Members agree to pay farmers in advance of planting for a season of food. That gives farmers money when they need it most, in early spring.

Members receive a guaranteed source of fresh produce and the security of knowing where their food comes from, how it was grown and who grew it.

"I like to buy as much as I can from the farmer directly," said Nina Bied, a CSA member of Morning Owl Farm in Southeast Boise. "Food is our medicine. If we eat the proper food, why would our bodies break down?"

Farmers and members also share the risk of crop failure, which helps keep small-acreage farms in business.

Most farmers have a drop site for vegetable pickup once a week, although arrangements vary. For $4 extra a week, for example, O'Leary will make a home delivery, by bicycle.

To market directly to eaters, farmers who want to use a CSA model often must learn to navigate the Internet, network among social groups and put in lots of face time every week, in addition to completing the work the growing cycle demands.

"There's a myth that it's the D students who end up on the farm," O'Leary said. "I've never been more intellectually challenged in my life."

Since the publication of recent books "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan and "Animal, Vegetable, Miracle" by Barbara Kingsolver, the idea of eating locally grown food has swept into the national consciousness, O'Leary said.

Shares of her farm sold out last fall, and by March 15, most CSA memberships in the Treasure Valley were taken.

Despite the spark in interest, only about 10 farms in the Treasure Valley offer CSAs. Several of them are profiled here. Each has modified the traditional model to fit its needs.

CHANGING FOOD CULTURE

Eaters in the United States usually decide what's for dinner while contemplating a large selection of produce from around the country and the world.

The CSA model turns that culture on its head. A member starts with a bag of food and makes meals with what's inside.

A typical share feeds a family of four. Some farmers sell half shares, and others offer work opportunities in exchange for shares. Most shares in Treasure Valley farms cost $300-$550 for 18-22 weeks of food.

Mary Ann Newcomer has a share in O'Leary's CSA.

"The first year, it was hard to keep up with the amount we got," she said. "I ended up making greens the centerpiece of the meal and pushed the store-bought chicken and fish to the side."

Eating what's growing in season can be a challenge. Many CSA farmers provide recipes and helpful hints with their produce every week to introduce members to vegetables they've never seen before.

MORNING OWL FARM

Because CSA farmers have to supply food every week, about 20 percent of the vegetables they grow no one has heard of, said Mary Rohlfing, who operates Morning Owl Farm in East Boise.

But not everyone wants to add exotic vegetables to their diet. This year, Rohlfing is trying something new with her CSA. She's setting up a farm stand on Wednesday nights, where members can buy what they want with their pre-paid shares. The stand will be open to the public on Thursday nights.

"My fear is, what if everyone wants carrots?" she said. "What about the bok choy?"

Nina Bied, a member of Rohlfing's CSA, said she's excited about the farm stand but never had a problem getting her two kids to eat vegetables.

"I teach my children about all the vegetables and fruits," she said. "To them, whatever I cook for them is great."

Rohlfing started her CSA five years ago because she liked the idea of being connected to the people who ate the food she grew. It is that connection - the phone call in February from a member having tomato dreams - that keeps her farming, she said.

"You start with a love of your fellow species, and then you want to feed them all," Rohlfing said.

Rohlfing uses ducks, about 300 of them, to maintain the ecosystem on her farm. They eat the bugs and weeds, lay eggs and provide manure.

"We're becoming a no-till farm. We run the ducks," she said. "I don't have to run a tractor over three acres of land, and that's better for everybody."

Rohlfing recently received a $15,000 grant from Western Sustainable Agriculture Research Eduction. The program is supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

She will study the viability of using ducks for many purposes on a farm. She will let 40 ducks graze on a pasture for three years as part of the study.

Research is nothing new for Rohlfing. In her past life, she was a tenured professor at BSU.

"Health insurance is a scary thing to let go of," she said.

Part of what motivated her to change her life was a conversation she had with her uncle shortly after the 9/11 attacks. Her uncle had walked home from his office in the World Trade Center.

"He said to me, 'You need to do what you want to do, and you need to be fearless,' " she said.

FARMING IN THE SUBURBS

Farmers for hire Doreen Guenther and Jenn Harrington signed a three-year contract to manage production at the Hidden Springs Community Farm.

When the subdivision was built, the developer saved the farm, Guenther said, which was certified as organic last year.

This is their first year running the CSA. Only five of the 26 acres will be in production.

"Having two brains is nice," Guenther said. "I can see why families want to do this together."

Guenther and Harrington offer 200 shares, as well as a work-share program - four hours of work a week in exchange for a share. Shares are open to anyone, not just residents of Hidden Springs; there still are some left.

"We did a preseason survey of former members," Harrington said. "They told us they want more of the basics."

NOT JUST VEGGIES

The Vogels used to raise just hogs on their Kuna farm. They exported the meat to Japan.

As the houses got closer, they felt the need to downsize and try to sell the meat in the Treasure Valley. Having a CSA is part of their farm's survival strategy.

"No way, if we expanded, would we recoup the money," said Debi Engelhardt-Vogel, who operates the farm with her husband, Eddie. "Doing this, we hope we can stay here longer."

According to a 2002 study by the American Farmland Trust, 1.2 million acres of farmland nationwide is lost annually to development - about two acres of farmland per minute.

In the six years between 1997 and 2003, Idaho lost 56,600 acres of farmland to urban development, according to the National Resources Inventory.

The Vogels raise hogs and cattle and will add about 100 chickens by midsummer. All the animals are born and raised in Kuna and butchered, frozen and USDA certified in Meridian.

"So much of the cost of meat comes from getting it places," Engelhardt-Vogel said. "When you buy meat at the store, you don't know where it came from."

The Vogels grow their own feed, sending the cattle out to pasture to forage for themselves. They don't use antibiotics or hormones, and their animals are left to grow at their own rate.

A full share in the Vogel's CSA includes 30 pounds of meat, pork and beef, for $107 a month plus tax. For subscriptions that are paid six months in advance, the Vogels pay the taxes.

"Some customers will buy a whole hog (140 pounds) and just take a beef subscription," Engelhardt-Vogel said.

They'll also have a stand at the Kuna Farmers Market.

Eddie Vogel's family has been in the hog business for more than 50 years. Debi moved to Kuna from Seattle after she and Eddie married 10 years ago.

"I hated pork when I lived in Seattle," she said. "It was tasteless. I had to marinate it."

FROM ORCHARD TO FIELD

Cathy and Chan Cabalo keep their bees in the fridge, so the pollinators think it is winter until the apple trees blossom.

The Cabalos started farming four years ago on Cathy's family orchard of about 1,000 trees. They grow four kinds of apples and three kinds of pears, along with pie cherries, prunes and plums.

"When we took over the farm, we assumed they had a clientele," Cathy Cabalo said. "Three years ago, we had a beautiful crop and no one to buy it."

She remembered how her dad used to talk about the Kuna Farmers Market, but it didn't exist when she moved home. So she and her husband set about reviving it.

"We used to go with whatever I could put in the back of a Suburban," she said.

The success of the Kuna Farmers Market led them to try a CSA this year for the first time. They plan to cultivate four acres of vegetables, a large part of which will be a you-pick pumpkin patch.

"I have to be able to fill the subscriptions and still have enough to go to market," Cathy Cabalo said. "My first number was 10, but I thought if I could do 10, I could do 20."

The Cabalos still have shares available.

Three years ago, they converted to organic practices because their daughter has allergies, Cathy said.

"We had a crop failure in the orchard when we were switching," Cathy said. "Every single apple had a sting here or a bite there. It takes a while to regain the balance."

The Cabalos feel the pressure from residential development encroaching on their farm.

They are teaming up with the Vogels to offer events, like an apple blossom festival, throughout the growing season to connect people from town with where their food comes from.

Plainly visible through the rows of bare trees in early spring, a McMansion sits at the far side of their orchard.

"Someday, somebody's gonna starve to death because we grew houses and not food," she said.

Orestes Brownson on the oppression of "Free Labour"

Orestes Brownson was a late convert to Catholicism in the 19th century, and described by the Ven. John Henry Cardinal Newman as "The Greatest thinker the United States has ever produced."

From The Boston Quarterly Review; 3 (1840): 368-370

In regard to labor, two systems obtain: one that of slave labor, the other that of free labor. Of the two, the first is, in our judgment, except so far as the feelings are concerned, decidedly the least oppressive. If the slave has never been a free man, we think, as a general rule, his sufferings are less than those of the free laborer at wages. As to actual freedom, one has just about as much as the other. The laborer at wages has all the disadvantages of freedom and none of its blessings, while the slave, if denied the blessings, is freed from the disadvantages.

We are no advocates of slavery. We are as heartily opposed to it as any modern abolitionist can be. But we say frankly that, if there must always be a laboring population distinct from proprietors and employers, we regard the slave system as decidedly preferable to the system at wages.

It is no pleasant thing to go days without food; to lie idle for weeks, seeking work and finding none; to rise in the morning with a wife and children you love, and know not where to procure them a breakfast; and to see constantly before you no brighter prospect than the almshouse.

Yet these are no infrequent incidents in the lives of our laboring population. Even in seasons of general prosperity, when there was only the ordinary cry of "hard times," we have seen hundreds of people in a not very populous village, in a wealthy portion of our common country, suffering for the want of the necessaries of life, willing to work and yet finding no work to do. Many and many is the application of a poor man for work, merely for his food, we have seen rejected. These things are little thought of, for the applicants are poor; they fill no conspicuous place in society, and they have no biographers. But their wrongs are chronicled in heaven.

It is said there is no want in this country. There may be less in some other countries. But death by actual starvation in this country is, we apprehend, no uncommon occurrence. The sufferings of a quiet, unassuming but useful class of females in our cities, in general seamstresses, too proud to beg or to apply to the almshouse, are not easily told. They are industrious; they do all that they can find to do. But yet the little there is for them to do, and the miserable pittance they receive for it, is hardly sufficient to keep soul and body together.

And yet there is a man who employs them to make shirts, trousers, etc., and grows rich on their labors. He is one of our respectable citizens, perhaps is praised in the newspapers for his liberal donations to some charitable institution. He passes among us as a pattern of morality and is honored as a worthy Christian. And why should he not be, since our Christian community is made up of such as he, and since our clergy would not dare question his piety lest they should incur the reproach of infidelity and lose their standing and their salaries? . . .

The average life--working life, we mean--of the girls that come to Lowell, for instance, from Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont, we have been assured, is only about three years. What becomes of them then? Few of them ever marry; fewer still ever return to their native places with reputations unimpaired. "She has worked in a factory" is almost enough to damn to infamy the most worthy and virtuous girl. . . .

Where go the proceeds of their labors? The man who employs them, and for whom they are toiling as so many slaves, is one of our city nabobs, reveling in luxury; or he is a member of our legislature, enacting laws to put money in his own pocket; or he is a member of Congress, contending for a high tariff to tax the poor for the benefit of the rich; or in these times he is shedding crocodile tears over the deplorable condition of the poor laborer, while he docks his wages 25 percent. . . . And this man too would fain pass for a Christian and a republican. He shouts for liberty, stickles for equality, and is horrified at a Southern planter who keeps slaves.

One thing is certain: that, of the amount actually produced by the operative, he retains a less proportion than it costs the master to feed, clothe, and lodge his slave. Wages is a cunning device of the devil, for the benefit of tender consciences who would retain all the advantages of the slave system without the expense, trouble, and odium of being slaveholders.