What Is The Problem?

W.E. Dyke

1997

Published in:

The Northwest Technocrat, 1st quarter 1997, No. 346

The 1996 presidential election is over at last. Citizens have been to the polls and have cast ballots for the candidates of their choice. This choice having been based on whatever the candidate may have said or done that convinced the voter that such a choice was the correct one. Possibly the determining factor was the way the candidate combed his/her hair, the set of the jaw or the shape of the nose. Any of those attributes will surely bring impact upon the problems of unemployment, housing, education, or health care -- problems that our nation continues to face.

If any problem is to be solved, it is first necessary to identify that problem, learn its basic cause, and then remove the problem. But, despite opinions to the contrary, the nature of our problem is probably not to be found in the political arena. What have we overlooked?

Analysis of the physical factors reveals the fact that sufficient raw materials are still to be found on this continent, together with the technical ability and know-how to transform those natural resources into use forms. Then, where is the hang-up? Why aren't more people enjoying the fruits of this capability? Production presents no problem, so the snag must be in distribution. Why?

During all of recorded history the only method of transferring goods or services has been "fair exchange." "You do for me, and I'll do for you." If a hunter had several hides, he might trade some for a new war- club made by someone skilled in making war-clubs but not very skilled as a hunter. If the hunter accumulated too many hides, he could stop hunting for a while. If the maker of war-clubs made more of these than he could trade for things he wanted or needed, he could stop making them to maintain a balance between "supply" and "demand" -- this being the forerunner of the present day "Price System." Eventually the use of tokens replaced the cumbersome transfer of actual goods, and such tokens became accepted as the medium of exchange, the number surrendered being the "price" paid. An entire culture was built around the concept of "money" with no thought given to the reasons for doing things the way we do.

A brief look at the history of production in the United States will uncover a clue to the identity of problems that we are facing today. Production of manufactured goods has increased tremendously since about 1830. Units of production per man-hour employed were very low at that time, while, conversely, man-hours per-unit-of-production were higher than they have ever been since. Preparation of a chart or graph beginning that year will show growth curves of these two factors, widely separated to start with, but converging until they come together and cross around 1920. The lines indicating those growth curves have become more widely separated since that crossing as more and more efficient methods of production were introduced and the relationship of production and employment has become inverted. The logical inference must be that we are producing more and more while employing less and less human labor in the process. Further contributions to this imbalance are the increase of total population and the longevity of people, both of which add to the unemployable labor-force that is no longer needed in our mechanized industrial society. This must result in unemployment.

Since the only means by which the rank and file of our citizenry can obtain purchasing power is by selling their labor, and since such human labor is becoming obsolete in today's mechanized industry, can there be any doubt as to the reason for needing subsidized housing, medicare and direct relief in the form of food-stamps and medical coupons? These needs are only part of the "deficit" with which our political parties have played football while campaigning for office. While these needs continue to exist, no amount of political maneuvering will make even a small dent in that deficit.

Our constantly growing national debt should be sufficient to show the connection: the imbalance between production and the purchasing power of the people. The United States Statistical Abstract for the years 1930 to 1970 contain figures indicating the growth of both Gross National Product and national debt. Graphs showing the growth curves of each, laid side by side, appear to be mirror images of each other. During the interval of time involved, both grew one-thousand-fold, apparently indicating that the increase of the national debt was required to achieve the Gross National Product for the same period. For mechanized industry to continue with production it had to be subsidized at government expense.

Franklin Roosevelt introduced his program of alphabet-soup named, stop- gap work projects in an effort to distribute purchasing power among the population: CCC, CWA, PWA, NYA. Evidently those programs worked, because industrial production increased and people were buying! Politicians then said, "The wheels of industry are rolling now, so we can stop spending so much government money." They did, and immediately the country went into what they called the "recession" of 1936 and 1937! Inventories piled up and production slowed to nearly a complete halt! So, not only must industry be subsidized, the buying public must also be subsidized or the whole thing bogs down -- war and the preparation for war can be seen as another form of subsidy.

In this search to identify social problems, one thing seems apparent: we can no longer distribute the plenty produced by mechanized industry, using the medium of exchange developed at a time when manufactured goods were not so abundant. So much of our labor force is being made obsolete by more efficient mechanization that the potential outlet for manufactured goods is cancelled out for lack of money.

What is needed now is a medium of distribution rather than a medium of exchange. Following are a few aspects of what is probable. We could doggedly continue to support a failing way of doing things, or support an intelligently directed social change. The path society can choose has been studied carefully -- it can lead to the survival of civilized life.

Essential in the solution of any problem is a common denominator which is constant, will not fluctuate, has no variables and is measurable in the same terms regardless of the use to which it is applied. Energy is the only factor which fills all of these requirements. The same amount is converted in the performance of any task, whatever its source: muscular, nuclear or mechanical, and wherever it is applied: in production, transportation or communication.

Considering the total energy converted in the total production of goods and services across the continent, and considering the total population of the continent to be the total consumer of this production, it does seem that an equation of production and consumption could be achieved. Each citizen's prorated share of the total energy would be his/her consuming privilege or right, Since it could not be saved, hoarded, stolen or given away, each citizen would be responsible for their own personal consumption. Consuming privileges being equal involves no moral, ethical or political connotation. It is simply the most practical method of keeping the accounts. "Equal consuming rights" does not imply identical consumption. Personal choice, or taste, will make for variety.

With a constant, running inventory, a balanced load would be maintained between production and consumption with no stockpiling of commodities. Consumption of an item would automatically be a vote for replacement of that item. In this manner production would be for use, not personal gain, and conservation of natural resources would be the logical outcome.

Even the most sophisticated equipment requires people to operate it. Therefore, a citizen's consuming privilege does not mean an entirely free ride. It was estimated years ago that citizens working about four hours per day, and four days per week, could produce all of the goods and services consumed on our continent. At this rate, the working life of each citizen could be reduced to less than about twenty years before retirement.

Abandoning the present system, which is based on adversarial relationships, and making the most of what we have, students would have more time to choose their career and to become educated in the field of their choice.

Housing could be the finest possible because building would be done with an eye to conservation and comfort with no contractor striving to make a profit by stinting on material and time.

Each citizen could be assured of the very best of health care because doctors and nurses would have chosen the healing arts for their life- work, and received the best possible education in that field.

If we have been successful in this effort to identify the problem, and then to seek the solution, perhaps just one more trip to the polls would be required to cast our votes to install the system of distribution, Technocracy, replacing the outmoded system of exchange which is no longer able to function in this world of advancing technology.