Do Stock Markets Make Sustainability Impossible?

AKA “Stocks Vs Sustainability.” Why reducing the use of stock markets is equally as essential and feasible as reducing the use of fossil fuels. (Latest significant edits: February 2018, August 2022, March 2023.)

(Illustrations from Wikipedia.Org. Graphs from finance.Yahoo.com.)

Ten summary topics...

1. What are stock markets? They are markets for contracts that require financial and industrial growth. And this is obvious. “I hold this truth to be self evident...”

However… I must list the obvious as of #1 importance because… As Prof. Al Bartlett famously said, “The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our failure to understand the exponential function.” I.e., extremely few people seem to understand that… obviously… Infinite growth is impossible on a finite planet… And there are a few who do understand this… Calling themselves advocates of “sustainability” or even “degrowth…” And yet… NOBODY seems to see… Because NOBODY seems to say… That “stock markets require unsustainable dependence on infinite growth…” Even though this is obvious…

2. It is obviously impossible to achieve sustainability while sustaining large stock markets. And which seem to have no reason to exist. And the existence of which seems never to be questioned.

3. It is not necessary to eliminate stock markets — but it is necessary to reduce their size and influence. Most people agree that “casino gambling” as in Las Vegas — also called “sin city” — is basically unethical and destructive. However — casino gambling does not cause wars or crash the economy of the nation or the world. But stock markets do. Stock markets are far worse than casinos. How can stock markets be controlled? The same way that casinos are controlled. Tax them. Casinos pay high taxes. These taxes can reduce the sizes of casinos. This also helps to pay for education and other helpful programs. The same should be done with stock markets.

Do people need ways to invest? Yes. Do corporations need investments? Yes. And there is already a way to do all this that is safer and more honest than stock markets. They are called corporate bonds. Corporate bonds can enable industrial growth. But corporate bonds do not absolutely require industrial growth. That is a huge difference. It is the difference between sustainability and unsustainability for the human race.

4. It is not necessary to discourage the use of stocks that are not listed in “stock markets.” A stock market corporation is officially called a “public corporation.” A corporation that is not in the stock market is called a “private corporation.” A so-called “private corporation” can survive with or without constant greed and constant growth. This article is not about them. This article is about what is called “stock market corporations.”

5. Human beings are already using up the resources of a finite Earth as if we had 1.5 planets. At the core of this equation is the fact that stock markets require financial and industrial growth that need not otherwise be required.

6. Nonetheless, the people who should be most willing to denounce stock markets seem least willing to do so.

• Promoters of “free enterprise” or “social justice” may denounce “big business” — but fail to denounce stock markets.
• Meanwhile every big business knows that stock markets make them bigger.
• The most progressive economists — such as those who inspired the Club of Rome that inspired China to reduce its population growth — will promote “sustainable growth” or a “steady state” and will implore people to reduce the causes of growth dependence. But the same economists fail to denounce or even specify stock markets as causing financial and industrial growth.
• Meanwhile — everyone knows that the New York Stock Exchange is a cornerstone of financial and industrial growth and brags about it. Everyone knows that the goal of an IPO is for a corporation instantly to become ten times bigger. Everyone knows that there is no point to holding on to a stock if the value of the company fails to grow. And yet — people calling themselves “anti-growth” always refuse to connect the dots. And I mean always. Sometimes I will chat or text until we are all blue in the face. More often they will simply leave the conversation. Either way — they just refuse to accept the fact that they are obviously self-contradicting. There have been a few exceptions. But very few.

7. It is mathematically obvious that any serious plan to reduce growth dependence would have to begin by reducing stock markets.

• It is equally obvious that this direction would be difficult to promote in the face of a religious-like acceptance of stock markets.
• Stock markets are relatively new to history and were not dominant when America was formed. Nonetheless every American now seems to assume God made the universe and then oxygen and stock markets.
• Few Americans seem to understand how stock markets work. Meanwhile all Americans seem to assume stock markets are so essential that nobody thinks about this. Just as kings and queens were once assumed essential.
• Therefore — this all seems to result in what appears to be the following deeply subconscious phenomenon. Sustainability advocates make lists of things that promote growth dependence — and these lists condemn everything that stock markets emphasize— but stock markets are never condemned or even mentioned.

8. Promoters of “socialism” will denounce “capitalism” — but fail to specify stock markets as creating most of what is wrong with capitalism.

• I do not take sides between capitalism and socialism.
• However — capitalism without large stock markets — as during the time of Franklin and Jefferson — was relatively sustainable.
• Socialism with stock markets — as in China today — is not sustainable.

9. Many progressive people say to reduce population growth— but nobody says to reduce stock markets — which require population growth.

• For some underdeveloped countries — where there is no hope of developing successful stock markets —it may be enough for one economist to write one book about developing an economy with bond-only investing.
• Corporate bond investing should be encouraged with F.D.I.C.-style government insurance programs. Stock market investing should be discouraged via taxation… But instead… The USA and the world that imitates the USA do the exact opposite… We give tax discounts to stock market investors and not to bond market investors.
• Entire schools of socialist economics have questioned the entire existence of capitalism and thus dared to restart entire economic systems. Socialist economists have thus uprooted billions of lives in experiments that fail if only because humans are not accustomed to them.
• And yet — not one economist in history seems to have focused on the much simpler and more obvious question of the existence of large stock markets.
• And without large stock markets, there is little effective difference between socialism and capitalism. Every viable socialist nation enables capitalism. Every viable capitalist nation has socialist programs.

10. It would also be best for China and the world if China were to develop a bond-based investment culture.

• Firstly, with its overgrown population and over-used resources, China has no hope of competing with the North American region for growth-hungry stock market investors.
• Secondly, China has huge cash reserves which it pathetically uses in periodic attempts to stabilize its stock markets. These cash reserves could be better spent on an F.D.I.C.-like program to insure investment grade corporate bonds.
• Thirdly however, China must minimize the size of its stock markets. Then and only then can stock market crashes be prevented from crashing China’s bond markets. This would also make China a preferred haven for bond investing.
• And bond markets already hold more capital than stock markets. Bond investing is naturally preferred to stock investing. Nonetheless stocks have an over-sized influence on the economy.
• The over-influence of stocks on the economy compared to their relatively small popularity is a totally unfair situation that is totally equivalent to “minority rule.”
• Dollar-for-dollar, bond markets are chosen far more than stock markets. And stock markets are totally unnecessary. And yet —it is the up-and-down nature of stock markets that created the Great Depression followed by the rise of Hitler and World War II.
• And in every decade, stock markets cause periods of global job loss, financial insecurity. And also force our dependence on the constant industrial growth that causes ever-increasing march toward climate change and environmental devastation.
• Furthermore — there must be an inevitable clash between China and the USA if both pursue the path of insatiable growth required by stock markets.
• Therefore I implore China to consider switching emphasis to bond markets.
• It is probably hopeless to attempt to convince the USA to abandon the stock market game. Just as hopeless as convincing the leading player of a poker tournament to abandon his mountain of chips. However, China has few chips — and no serious hope of winning.
• China has nothing to lose and everything to gain by moving its chips to a different game with the odds in its favor. That would be the bond market as opposed to the stock market. And that game could be rigged in China’s favor — simply by reducing the relative size of its stock markets via taxation. And 50% to 100% of the financial risk of this effort could be paid for by that taxation.
• Many other nations probably could have equal reasons to switch emphasis from stocks to bonds.
• If only one PhD economist might write one book promoting this idea. If I ever have the money, I will pay one to do this. And that might be the only hope that significant sustainability might ever be thought about by any significant number of economists.

11. In developed countries there seems no hope of directly reducing stock markets — but equally important measures could be promoted.

• Progressive leaders should develop quasi-nonprofit alternatives to Facebook, Amazon, Google, etc. These could profit-share with the planet and with all customers who have emergency needs.
• Quasi-nonprofit online corporations could be followed up with quasi-nonprofit alternatives to Walmart, banks, insurance companies, etc.
• In contrast, the current system requires large corporations to profit-share almost exclusively with stock market investors. Who by no means deserve this privilege more than the customers and the planet — that receive next to nothing of the profits.

12. With the small exception of Newman’s Own — nobody seems interested in building corporations that are all-for-planet or all-for-people instead of all-for-profit.

• For-charity corporations have been attempted — but primarily as token ideological gestures — never seeming seriously to compete with and displace for-profit corporations.
• For many decades, Woolworth seemed immortal and unbeatable. Eventually however — Woolworth was displaced by King’s, Kmart and Ames. Which were displaced by Walmart. Today, Walmart seems immortal and unstoppable and perhaps it is.
• However, the supremacy of Walmart is being somewhat indirectly challenged by Amazon.
• This is somewhat ironic. Because a former apparently immortal giant was Sears. That was displaced by Walmart. And Sears was fundamentally a mail order company — quite equivalent to Amazon — which is also fundamentally mail order.
• A pendulum seems to have swung from mail order to shopping malls and back to mail order. The exact reasons for this are interesting but probably not very relevant to this discussion. The point here is that however and whatever pendulums may swing — the people and the planet never receive due consideration.
• Similarly — during the 1990’s, Yahoo multiplied its value more than 100 times and achieved a cult-like status. Nonetheless, Yahoo was displaced by Google.
• Similarly —the online giant MySpace had to downsize offices across the planet after it was suddenly displaced by the upstart Facebook.
• And Facebook, Yahoo and Google were all founded by a few college students. Who had very limited startup capital. And yet were extremely successful even before joining the Stock Market.
• And of course — the rapid injection of billions of dollars from Stock Market investors has enabled Facebook and Google to expand exponentially and to crush or buy out competitors.
• Thus does the current system assure us that one monopolistic giant will always be displaced by another monopolistic giant. As the old saying goes, “The more things change the more they remain the same.”
• The current trend of huge discount stores probably does enable customers to pay perhaps 20% less for many products. However, how long will these savings be significant? And how much does this actually benefit your life? And is this system perhaps trapping the overall quality of life and the health of the planet in a downward spiral?
• So far as the struggles of the people and the planet are concerned — there is little effective difference between corporations. Just as in the distant past — there was little effective difference for the people whether their nation was ruled by one king or another.
• Nonetheless — in my opinion — any online corporation is still extremely vulnerable to displacement by anyone with a compelling new concept.
• Especially if a quasi-nonprofit organization were to develop a popular system of profit-sharing with its customers and with its planet — instead of with Wall Street investors. This might not be just another changing of the guard. This might actually save the planet.

13. Old business methods will become obsolete the day that any business develops practical methods to harness the fact that customers are the rightful owners of any business. Just as capitalism rapidly made serfdom obsolete. And democracy rapidly made monarchy obsolete.

14. For now however — instead of being repaid for their primary financing — the customers are primarily exploited.

• Anyone with any imagination could invent a dozen different methods to change this situation.
• This of course is one step beyond the scope of this article.
• The first step is to convince a few dozen people to start thinking in this direction.

15. The “Philanthropist Bias” and “Activist Bias.” Some of the people who should be most interested in this article seem to hit a mental block. They usually are intelligent, serious and idealistic. They usually agree with me that the world is getting ever more hopeless in spite of all the charity and environmental movements. So they agree that something new is needed.

Nonetheless — instead of asking me to explain new things — they sometimes only ask questions with no intention to listen to the answers. Which often proves they are misunderstanding me. Which is understandable. New ideas, no matter how simple, are automatically mislabeled as old ideas if the mind has no label for them. Different individuals will also have different reasons for misunderstanding which need to be clarified differently. However — few are willing to listen to any clarification.

I call this the “philanthropist prejudice.” We all think philanthropists are heroes. And they often are. But the world can only make progress when we have far fewer philanthropists and more equality as a routine matter. And almost everyone can agree with this. Nonetheless — agreement in principle is different from agreement in practical terms. There will obviously be difficulties in accepting the differences we will need. Especially for someone who is dedicated to old-school philanthropy.

There is also what might be called an “activist bias.” Society is hard-wired with the idea that social activism needs to rally thousands of volunteers to convince millions of people to vote for better laws for a better society. And this is partly true. However we are never going to get anywhere if we must wait for that to happen. And there is no need to wait. Much can be achieved simply with a quasi-charity business model that competes successfully against an all-profit business model. And perhaps this can boggle the mind of a dedicated activist.

The resulting arguments usually disprove what they think they are proving. For example, one recent converser said something like, “The fact that Ecosia.org has less than 0.1% market share proves that for-charity corporations cannot compete.”

On the contrary. This obviously proves my point that for-charity corporations never try to compete… Because obviously… There are numerous for-profit corporations which do much better…. Obviously… It must be possible to imitate precisely what for-profit corporations are doing… Except only giving a major portion of the profit to charity…

It also can be difficult to hire idealistic people for a for-charity corporation. People will be very interested when they hear we are helping people or the planet. But they will quit in disgust when they find out we are also trying to be profitable. They seem to prefer to work at Walmart or KFC. Even though they agree that does nothing for the world and is only using them. Don’t ask me to explain this. They don’t understand me and I don’t understand them. Perhaps they think the whole point is to be morally pure. And if not morally pure then might as well work at Walmart.

And so we seem to end up with two extremes. Idealists whose effect is self-limiting. And self-serving profiteers whose effects are unlimited.

The assumption that a for-charity corporation is automatically going to be small or unprofitable is absurd on its face…

Similarly... For years I tried to get some partners for starting a regional for-charity advertising site. I was constantly told, we already have several of those. I go there. I see about six ads. So there is no point going there to buy something. And with no people going there to buy there is no point going there to sell.

With the partial exception of Newman’s Own — current for-charity businesses generally seem to have no idea how to run a business. And no intention of doing so. This is perhaps understandable. Idealistic people are by definition not interested in profit. Profit-minded people are by definition not interested in idealism.

Nonetheless — if anyone cares to listen — I can explain that something like 90% of charities and 90% of small businesses are doomed to fail. And that this obviously can be prevented by adding a little charity to the business or business to the charity. Obviously.

And obviously… If numerous people seriously attempted a quasi-charity business — that system would soon be perfected. And then small businesses could be more successful. And also there would be less need for the traditional idea of charity. Obviously.

Nonetheless… There is obviously a conscious or subconscious conviction, “We are for charity. We are not supposed to be profitable. We are only supposed to appeal to generous people who want to participate for no practical reason.” And that attitude is obviously a major reason why — for example — Ecosia seems content to operate with less than 0.1% of market share. Which is ludicrous.

16. This article does not attempt to suggest a complete blueprint for a sustainable economy.

• This article does not even claim to know whether or not complete sustainability is possible. There might be something about the human race that fundamentally requires war, injustice and billionaires.
• At one time, no human questioned the divine right of a few people descended from royal blood to own the realm. Anyone who usurped this right without the royal blood was considered despicable.
• Today — nobody questions a divine right of billionaires to suck billions of dollars from every corner of the planet. The world believes they absolutely earned every penny and it is absolutely their right. As well as the right of their children to inherit.
• Scholars refer to this as “meritocracy” as opposed to “aristocracy.” It is certainly a bit different. But is it really much different?
• At one time, the initial start-up members of the “aristocracy” risked their lives in battle. They were more successful than others. They were leaders who inspired others to forge nations. Some were brutal and uncaring about right vs wrong. Ultimately, most kings and aristocrats destroyed their nations.
• Similarly — billionaires today can rebuild economies and create secure jobs in a fortress-like environment.
• And similarly — billionaires tend to become parasites that destroy the economy and the nation.
• Some billionaires and kings are benevolent. Other billionaires and kings are brutal and uncaring.
• Nonetheless — whether billionaires of a meritocracy or kings of an aristocracy — everyone always assumes they have a basic divine right.

17. Is there any significant difference in long-term results between an entrenched aristocracy and an entrenched meritocracy?

• The modern meritocracy is perhaps more efficient at convincing the world that the billionaire earned every penny. Even though simply counting to one billion would require a thousand days of counting.
• Everyone assumes that Ray Croc became a billionaire by selling a billion hamburgers.
• But the assumption is false. Croc was like a human crocodile who became extremely large by feeding on hamburger sales. But Croc could only become a billionaire after billions of dollars were loaned to him via the stock market.

18. And so… This article does not claim to know whether sustainability is possible.

• There might be something about the human race that requires virtual slavery for billions of people. Meanwhile a few become billionaires.
• Nonetheless, this article simply claims that sustainability and fairness to all are necessary dreams. Just as Christ and Buddha and Martin Luther King promoted necessary dreams.
• Whether or not sustainability is impossible makes no difference to the clear imperative for the human race to move toward it.
• Human progress and even human survival obviously requires an economic system that is not heavily influenced by the growth requirements of large stock markets!
• And yet — although “sustainability” is now a popular issue — not one sustainability advocate seems clearly to denounce stock markets.
• Stock markets are not only unsustainable — they also force everything else to become unsustainable.
• And all this is rather obvious. And no famous person or group seems to do anything about this. Or even to say this. Or even to see this.

19. Therefore this article was written to start denouncing stock markets.

• So far, the response seems similar to the response to denouncing “air pollution” one hundred years ago. Or denouncing “colonialism” two hundred years ago. Or denouncing “the divine right of kings” five hundred years ago.
• People make assumptions without asking questions or listening to answers.
• Most people seem neither understanding nor interested in a world not dominated by stock markets and financial insecurity.
• Even though almost everyone seems constantly to complain about the unfairness and lack of security of modern life.
• Perhaps we ourselves are gaslighting ourselves.
• Perhaps we have convinced ourselves that security and fairness would destroy freedom and opportunity. This is ludicrous and the exact opposite of the truth.
• Everyone has a right to “build a better mousetrap” — or a computer or an iphone or a social platform — and thus to become very wealthy.
• However, nobody has a right to siphon billions of dollars every month out of every corner of the planet.
• And when a system enables a few people to become billionaires — this obviously destroys the freedom of a billion others.
• Without masters there can be no slaves. And with masters there must be slaves. The more sick and absurd is the level of wealth and luxury of a few — the more that others must live as relative slaves.

Any destructive monopoly is easily limited by limiting stock markets. No special laws are needed.

Stock markets can initially put an economy on steroids by enabling large numbers of people to invest. Similarly however, stock markets ultimately create unnaturally huge corporations — dependent on constant growth — and which inevitably crash and burn.

The development of personal computers and the internet introduced a new industry of “information technology” which is relatively free from physical reality. Social websites or smartphone designs are mere ideas costing close to $0 in physical resources. These are easily imitated or reverse-engineered. Nonetheless the “market capital” can be driven by stock markets into trillions of dollars.

Computer technology has thus enabled stock markets to deliver something much closer to the impossible Ponzi-like expectations which have always driven the popularity of stock markets. I.e. the general public has always consciously or subconsciously assumed that stock prices can go from zero to infinity, and now they almost can. Unlike gold or oil or automobiles, computer technology basically costs zero to extract from the earth — and can be worth trillions and even win wars — and the supply is endless.

Computer technology thus gave new life to the stock market system, which otherwise was near the end of its life span by the 1970’s. This resulted in a renewed financial strength, as well as renewed military technology. This in turn brought an end to conventional communism in China and Russia.

Nonetheless, Vikings, Visigoths, barbarians and pirates can destroy civilizations without being more rational or more sustainable. Just because someone kills your boyfriend in a fair fight does not prove he will be a better or more honest husband. Even though this was the belief of medieval Christians as well as most other animals for centuries. The fact that stock markets apparently destroyed communism does not indicate that stock markets are likely to be more honest or more sustainable than communism.

It is equally ridiculous to assume that stock markets are at all necessary to capitalism. And yet this is a frequent unthinking assumption in the writings of some of the most famous socialists and capitalists alike. They often use the terms “capitalism” and “stock markets” as if they are synonymous or inseparable. And so it seems obvious that both sides have never thought about separating the two. Even though they should all know that it is ridiculous to sound as if Franklin and Jefferson were Wall Street stock traders.

Uneducated people tend to conflate Christianity with democracy. Also to conflate atheism with socialism. Educated people seem more able to recall that socialism began with the Acts of the Apostles. However — when it comes to conflating stock markets with capitalism and democracy — there often seems no discernable difference between the educated and the uneducated levels of absurdity.

USA Casino and Stock Market in 1892

What are stock markets? They are markets for contracts that endlessly require growth within a finite planet.

Stock markets are obviously unstable and unsustainable. When the world depends on stock markets, the world becomes unstable and unsustainable.

Hong Kong Stock Exchange Today

Similarly, perhaps most essentially: any corporation which siphons profits from any community should require itself to share at least half of those profits to benefit that community. And this does not need to be required by law. This can be achieved by the nature of free markets. As soon as some corporations share profits with communities— then communities will be loyal to those corporations. In other words…

Truly pro-sustainable corporations should not share profits with Wall Street — but with the people and planet that pay for those profits.

A small but well-known minority of environmentalists and economists is quite rightly dedicated to developing an economy that is “sustainable” because it does not depend on “growth.” We already are using up resources as if we had 1.5 planets. With most politicians and even progressives seeking and praising “growth” without question — anti-growth activists are certainly a step ahead.

Interestingly however, anti-growth activists never clearly denounce stock markets. This is equally as absurd and self-contradictory as if environmental activists were never to denounce fossil fuels.

What is a stock market? It is a market for contracts which must promise growth or there must be no reason to buy the stock. Are stock markets growth-reliant? Is water wet? Any society that depends on stock markets certainly must emphasize growth.

Some anti-growth activists were inspired by a famous lecture, Arithmetic, Population and Energy, given by physics professor Albert A. Bartlett from 1969 to 2013. This began with this pronouncement: “The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.” Prof. Bartlett thus denounced global population growth which averages about 1.2% annually. Unfortunately, Prof. Bartlett passed away a few years ago. We are unable to ask if Bartlett might similarly denounce US stock markets with an average annual growth of about 7% to 11%? In addition–as many economists seem to affirm–stock markets require population growth. So long as the economy is tied to stock markets, it is unlikely to stop population growth without devastating the economy.

This article, “Stock Markets Vs Sustainability,” does not predict the next financial crash nor preach about morality.

Based on initial responses, many people may wrongly assume that this article is like many others — either preaching that investing is immoral or predicting an imminent stock market crash. That is not what this article is about.

Under the current system, people need to save and invest in whatever manner they find most appropriate for them. Nobody needs to be harangued.

What is primarily needed is for a few inspired people to offer safer and more fair methods of investment and trade. Such methods would automatically displace those current methods which are unsafe and unfair.

Therefore, a primary goal of this article is simply to encourage any anti-growth activist to see a bit more of their own truth. Such as, to ask any financial expert whether a lack of growth would collapse the stock markets? And if so, would the stock markets thus collapse the economy?

The clear answers are yes and yes. On top of this, stock markets are uniquely destructive. In addition to general industrial growth, stock markets require population growth and price inflation. Therefore, a stock market not only requires unsustainable growth for itself — but also forces society to pursue every major cause of unsustainability. Until, of course, there is inevitably a massive all-out war, epidemic, famine or financial collapse.

One thing that this article does preach is that a more sustainable alternative to stock markets already exists — in bond markets!

We can not expect any nation simply to dismantle its financial system. Is there a readily-available alternative to stock markets? How about bond markets?

Some pro-sustainability people have argued with me in defense of stock markets by saying that bond markets require exponential growth. This is utterly self-contradictory. Firstly, the same people refuse to denounce stock markets which require twice the growth. More importantly — any time a bond-based corporation decides that growth is bad for them or the planet, it can stop or reduce issuing new bonds.

• The choice to stop growing is possible with bond-issuing corporations that do not belong to stock markets.
• The choice to stop growing is impossible with stock market membership.
• Anti-growth advocates just do not understand this or do not want to hear it or do not believe me. But ask any stock broker. They will tell you, yes, it is true. Also ask yourself, “Is there any reason to buy or hold on to a stock that does not seem to grow?”

These facts could not be more obvious. Everyone can figure this out for themselves. And yet — we do not seem to trust our own minds. And I am talking about the most intelligent and progressive environmentalists and economists. We all seem to want to do the same-old things done for decades. That cannot possibly reverse the suicidal trends of this planet.

I have a saying. “Darwin made a slight error. We are not descended from monkeys. We still are monkeys. We are not guided by logic or reason. Because regardless of logic or reason… Extremely few monkeys will ever do anything they have not first seen ten other monkeys doing.”

Far more money is already invested in corporate bonds than in stocks. Also, click here for the many books and articles on an “all-bond portfolio.”

There is substantial discussion about whether or not bonds currently offer the average investor the best ratio of profit vs risk. There are valid opinions on both sides of this discussion. Nonetheless, bonds are obviously a viable and well-tested instrument for investing. And bond markets would obviously become more viable without the intermittent epidemic of bankruptcies caused by stock market crashes.

Every stock broker knows that crashes are as necessary for stock markets as breathing is necessary for humans. They therefore refer to crashes as “corrections.” Meanwhile— stock markets not only make sustainability impossible — but also are quite unnecessary.

P.S. I am not a “Degrowther”!

In February of 2023 I came across an anti-growth faction called “Degrowthers.” https://illuminem.com/illuminemvoices/664976fb-8b91-49d2-be49-8202597b157b

This “Degrowth” article seems to be unusually insightful in recognizing that “sustainability” as we know it will collapse the “stock market economy” as we know it… However… There is once again a religious-like assumption that there is no alternative to a stock market economy… Added to this is the less-than-insightful assumption that if we simply crash the stock market this will lead to a more sustainable economy…

However… We have already seen that movie. It was called the Great Depression. It did not lead to sustainability. It led to the rise of Hitler and World War II followed by the creation of nuclear weapons. Under which threat we still live today.

Perhaps if this “Degrowth” faction simply realized there is something called a Bond Market… Which does not need to grow or crash… That might be a little more sensible.

Bond markets make stock markets unnecessary and obsolete — in exactly the same way that electric vehicles make gasoline vehicles unnecessary and obsolete.

The only differences lie in two very odd facts. Firstly, that bond markets have existed long before stock markets. Secondly, that many renowned experts recognize that gasoline vehicles are destructive and obsolete. Whereas not one genius or famous person ever points out that stock markets are destructive and obsolete.

This article does not criticize “privately traded” stocks. Private stocks are simple divisions of ownership.

The so-called “public stocks” of stock markets are quite different. As explained above, public stocks are, in essence, a contract promising growth. The owners of a “private corporation” can decide they are happy making a million dollars every year. A privately-traded non-stock-market corporation may decide not to grow or just get lazy about growth without feeling as if the ceiling is about to collapse. But things are very different for what is called a “publicly-traded stock market corporation.” The moment word gets out that an exchange-traded company is not growing, the stock price will collapse.

I hold this truth to be self evident.

If you think I am making this up — just ask any stock broker. Or just google this phrase invented by the executives of stock market corporations: “Grow or die.” Their only delusion is their belief that every business must follow their credo. That is a lie. It is only publicly-traded stock market corporations that must “grow or die.”

I hold this truth to be self evident.

Also just ask yourself if you would hold on to a stock that does not grow? Otherwise you obviously are holding on to self-contradictory notions — just because you want to believe them and so does everyone you know. This article may be your first glimpse of a red pill of reality as opposed to a blue pill of obvious but familiar illusion.

Meanwhile — all environmental and social and economic activists seem wistfully to assume they can someday convince the CEO’s of stock market corporations to choose more ethics over more growth. This is a childish and ludicrous assumption. The CEO of a stock market corporation is forced to emphasize growth and unable to give more than token attention to ethics. To do otherwise would collapse the corporation — if the corporation is tied to the stock market system. The CEO of any stock market corporation is forced to emphasize growth over the survival of the planet — even when they may wish to do otherwise.

I hold this truth to be self evident.

Also, so long as there are large stock markets, there will be large stock market crashes — that in turn can cause bond market crashes.

In fact, a stock market crash is about the only thing that can cause a well-regulated investment-grade bond market to crash. Therefore, not only are stocks unsafe — but the existence of large stock markets also causes bonds to be unsafe — which otherwise might be safe.

Why do anti-growth activists never, never denounce growth-addicting stock markets?

I cannot definitively answer this question any more than I can answer, “Why does a lunatic suck on his toes?”

However… Perhaps one reason may simply be that the idea has not yet occurred to many people. Questioning the necessity of stock markets today may be somewhat like questioning the necessity of kings in medieval times. Or in colonial times, questioning the right of European corporations to control the governments of so-called colonies.

In the nineteenth century, famous British progressives such as Charles Dickens and Arthur Conan Doyle wove endless tales of sympathy for British people victimized by British society–but had nothing to say against entire Asian nations being ruled by a British tea company. Today, there are similarly many progressive activists and economists. And similarly — not one of them has written one book advocating a capitalist economy without large stock markets.

Also, especially in the USA, even the most well-respected concepts of sustainability, such as “preventing climate change,” are often denounced as “anti-business.” Consequently, perhaps anti-growth activists have an inferiority complex that prevents them from thinking about anything that may sound weird or strange.

Similarly perhaps — 1909 civil rights activists named themselves the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Their thinking was far ahead of their time. They were odds with a society that calmly accepted Jim Crow laws as normal… However… precisely because they were already at odds with social norms… It took about 60 years for them to have the added courage to realize that “African American” is just as respectable a term as “Italian American.”

Also, the stock market system can be seen as a global poker tournament, in which the USA is the clear winner — with the huge stockpile of poker chips which it won from the other players. This stockpile represents cash, confidence and coercion. With this stockpile, the winner is able systematically to out-bluff and out-maneuver the other players even when holding a weak hand. And thus a semi-imaginary game of confidence and infallibility can automatically be converted into real power, reliability and money. The USA-based S&P 500 index continues to fly ever higher as the USA wins over the investment capital from most other regions where stock markets are clear losers. And this makes the USA more certainly a winner in the future. And the others become more certainly losers.

Therefore — for the USA unilaterally to forsake stock markets today might be equivalent to England unilaterally forsaking colonialism during the colonial era. This certainly might have weakened England’s position in the world. Therefore, consciously or subconsciously, it is quite understandable that to start questioning stock markets can seem a lose-lose initiative, even for anti-growth activists.

Conversely however, if the British people had clearly understood the injustice of colonialism, they might have worked multilaterally for a more equitable era and prevented two world wars. Similarly, the stock market era will end someday — possibly in a third world war. Those who foresee this end should do what we can to soften the inevitable transition.

Currently, it certainly might seem hopeless to question a de facto “divine right of stock markets.” However, before the recent performance of Bernie Sanders, it seemed similarly an apparent non-starter for a US presidential candidate to reject PAC money and depend on small donors.

Meanwhile, in so-called underdeveloped nations, throughout the twentieth century as well as the current century, every small dip in the global stock market has tended to generate disproportionate devastation on currency values, wages and life savings.

For the survival of human rights as well as the human race, some people within both “winner nations” and “loser nations” need to start questioning the necessity of stock markets.

Above all, “Stock Markets Vs Sustainabilty” suggests that a major step toward sustainability can begin immediately — by developing “pro-actively sustainable corporations.”

Or what this article refers to as “pro-sustainable corporations.” Pro-sustainable corporations would not merely have solar panels and recycle their trash. They would also promote sustainability on a more fundamental level–such as by sharing half of the profits with the people and the planet that pay for those profits.

It is a ubiquitous cliché for businesses to say, on signs and receipts, such things as, “Thank you, dear customer, for making our success possible.” However, how many businesses back up this thanks with more than lip service or token rewards? Whenever any executive or investor can claim responsibility for enabling profits, that person receives substantial compensation. The customers as a whole are certainly responsible for every penny of profits–but generally receive next to nothing.

Every business should behave as if its customers were the rightful owners of the business. Because they are. The customers pay for everything. The customers provide everything. The customers make everything possible. Nonetheless, every business thinks of its customers no differently than slaves or cows to be milked and exploited. For several hundred years, reformers have focused on improving the rights of the workers — even to the degree of re-writing society. Nobody has focused to any similar degree on the rights of the customers. And this does not require any significant re-writing of society. Ultimate sustainability — and ultimate economic justice — merely requires giving to customers some of what currently ends up in the pockets of only a few successful stock market investors.

Of course, the ultimate customer is Mother Earth — the initial provider of all customers and of all resources that make all business possible. And yet again — the typical attitude of any business person is that they alone deserve every penny of the profit.

Similarly — for tens of thousands of years in any so-called civilization —as described in stories by Shakespeare and Jane Austin — wives and daughters were similar to slaves, possessions to be bought, sold and exploited. Even today, in backward countries a billionaire has the right to leave his wife with nothing after he dies or moves on to a younger woman. It is only recently recognized, and only in some places, that wives are equal partners who own half of what their husband owns.

Mother Earth, as well as the customers of any business, are certainly owed something as well. And — just as respecting a wife will help the success of a marriage — respecting customers certainly helps to ensure the success of businesses and of the economy and of society. Nonetheless — profit-sharing with customers has not yet been done or even suggested to any significant degree by any audible voice anywhere.

Even in a so-called “consumer co-op,” a person is required to give extra work or payment in order to receive ownership status. Simply being “a customer” is never given special value. In spite of the obvious truth that, in every business, it is the customers who give the most. Just as on a 19th century cotton plantation, the slaves gave the most. Anyone should be able to walk in to a so-called consumer co-op, buy a package of chewing gum, and be considered a part owner accordingly. Before computers, this might have been a bit difficult. Today this is extremely easy.

The technical aspects of customer ownership are actually done by most supermarkets in a token manner.

But aside from token rewards for good behavior, customers and slaves and cows and Mother Earth are only considered to be objects to be milked.

Of course, many businesses receive less profit than a normal salary. Then the owner is really no better than an underpaid employee. Such an owner deserves all the profit. However, if for example the net profit is two billion dollars — surely one billion should be used to help the people and the planet that made that business possible. This is exactly the level of profits of the heads of Amazon, Ebay, Google and Facebook.

And yet, aside from token charity contributions, no significant debt ever seems to be considered toward the people or the planet that made their success possible. . . Just below is a well known diagram among “sustainability” advocates. . . “The Three Pillars of Sustainability.” . . . This shows that economics is well recognized as having key importance. . .

However, this article, “Stock Markets Vs Sustainability,” may be the first time anyone has suggested that a key to sustainable economics might be a new type of corporation. Which firstly eschews stock markets. And secondly which develops a readily available source of alternative support. By promising half of net profits to the consumers and the ecosystem that have always paid for all profits. Thus securing the loyalty of the most important financiers of any business. . . its customers. . .

Perhaps the most important sectors for developing pro-sustainable corporations are also the easiest: social networking, finance and internet commerce. As demonstrated by the rapid rise of Ebay, Facebook and Google, these sectors enable a compelling new approach to challenge huge giants without huge initial assets. Furthermore, these online giants increasingly influence every aspect of society.

Therefore — during this new century — new laws or political movements might not be the most effective needs for reversing the suicidal direction of civilization.

What might be more essential might be for the same types of people who developed Facebook, Google and Amazon to recognize that when they join the stock market–they thus fail to support the people and planet that support them. They are thus abusing billions of people as well as furthering the destruction of society and the planet. We need for such people instead to create more corporations such as Newman’s Own–which promise “all profits to charity.” Or perhaps at least, “half the profits to help the people and the planet that pay for the profits.” Such is the new direction of pro-active sustainability that this article hopes to inspire.

Please note that “pro-sustainable profit-sharing” does not mean “sales commissions” or some sort of “referral commissions.”

A pro-sustainable corporation may of course have sales people like any other. However, business-as-usual or quid pro quo commissions must not be confused with “pro-sustainable profit sharing.” Successful sales people normally receive more than they pay.

The goal of “pro-sustainable profit-sharing” is to help loyal customers who normally pay more than they receive. They are the ones who most support every company and yet who receive the least in return. This can be changed by systematically funding local support programs. Or with a donation-matching policy for “crowd funding” type systems for customers with emergency needs.

I do not advocate “equal profit sharing” which is practiced by most so-called consumer coops. That helps nobody in the long run. I advocate to calculate and give to any customer any money that they have earned the system. And also to credit them for the increase in value every year that they leave that money in the system. And in several other ways to offer incentives never to ask for help unless help is seriously needed. Thereby enabling the system to grow financially. But also avoiding legal complications — because of never promising but sometimes delivering when possible. And always being transparent about this.

For example — customers may receive “thank you points” for each dollar spent. Each point may promise nothing legally — but nonetheless makes them eligible for a hundred dollars or a thousand dollars of emergency help — depending on what is available. It must be made clear that there is no guarantee of receiving that help. However the customer paid nothing for these points and there is nothing lost by leaving that money in the system. Meanwhile saving up for potential life-altering help for customers with emergency needs.

This can not be 100% fair. But it is infinitely more fair than a lottery ticket. Lotteries are nonetheless extremely popular. Help cannot be given to every individual with every need. But the overall help to many who are in need and thus to society will be far more beneficial than any lottery.

In the long run — pro-sustainable profit-sharing — if focused on emergency needs and also saving available funds for future needs — is also more beneficial than the typical charity. Which literally survives like a beggar, living hand-to-mouth, with no income source outside of donations. And the goal is not just a few profit-charing corporations — but for the majority of corporations ultimately to become profit-sharing. Therefore — what is given is perhaps more then the traditional business and less than the traditional charity. Because there can be hundreds of times more of them. And because they are not incompatible with innovative entrepreneurs who are not altrustic, but whose primary motive is their own success. I.e. it is far better to have $1,000 available for charity from 1,000 sources than $10,000 available from 10 sources. I.e. we will have a new era when and only when every successful business is also partly a charity. This makes far more sense than gigantic department stores sending most of their profits to Wall Street. The question is not whether this is viable. The question is what weird prejudice in our subsconscious somehow prevents us from insisting on this or even thinking about this?

How can we determine who receives the profit-sharing? This is already readily determined with what is called “crowd funding.” Incidentally — I may have invented “crowd funding” before “crowd funding” existed. Because I envisioned such a system in order to decide who receives the help. Some improvements are needed for “crowd funding” systems. All of this is less difficult than traditional systems to determine insurance payments.

For example — customers may share their points to other customers in need. The customer-to-customer response then helps determine who is most in need — without anyone knowing the private identity of that customer — except for an employee of the management during fact verification. Free help can also be provided for customers to present their case while protecting their privacy. And in helping other customers —in addition to aiding the system — each customer also leaves a record that encourages others to donate to them when they are in need.

“Pro-sustainable profit sharing” systems — as hereby suggested by this article — have the equal advantage of lack of legal complication. Because of not promising anything. Financial help can be dispensed on an as-needed and as-available basis. Meanwhile the recipient can remain anonymous and private. Meanwhile enabling complete transparency in the overall accounting. Meanwhile inviting anyone to investigate to improve the security and privacy and fairness. Modern information technology makes this extremely efficient.

Of course our “information technology” is currently used primarily to enable billionaires to receive more billions. This article, “Stocks vs Sustainability,” is suggesting a small change with a revolutionary potential.

“Pro-sustainable profit-sharing” as suggested here can not only revolutionize business — it can also revolutionize politics.

Imagine if every narrow-minded voter who rails against “socialized medicine” eventually has a close relative who is given life-saving emergency medical funding — simply because of using profit-sharing search engines or ecommerce sites? Imagine if, instead of thinking of new ways to siphon money out of people with gambling and video games — there emerged a Facebook-like social media which constantly re-posted popular documentaries that educated people about society and the environment? Or instead of maximizing revenue by using algorithms that promoted lunatic fringe videos — imagine if there were a YouTube type platform that was able to maintain human standards and human editors?

Also, according to many pundits, the existence of Fox News is singularly responsible for the frequent control of the federal government by the Republican Party. The highest representatives in the nation therefore include some who believe the earth is 5,000 years old, reject climate change science, and defend every infantile tweet made by Donald Trump. Facebook-type social media is gaining a similar level of influence as Fox News — but lacks any focus except to maximize its own profits. Imagine if a similar force were used to educate and enlighten? This is a distinct possibility with pro-sustainable networks that are not owned by Wall Street stock markets.

(Please note that the far-right bias of the “Fox News effect” can not effectively be countered by a far-left bias. Human societies are like alley cats —in that the older view will always be more self righteous. Also, the answer to polarization is not more polarization. The most constructive bias, if any, would be either to favor moderate Republicans or something like the “Common Sense Coalition.”)

“Pro-sustainable profit-sharing” also should not hamper the profit motive.

A shop owner is unlikely to buy something from someone else’s shop that is available in his or her own shop. Similarly, customers are likely to favor a business which behaves as if they are a fellow-owner. This does not require legal red tape because it does not need to be promised — just done. Meanwhile writing this into the articles of incorporation. Meanwhile also receiving certification of this from something equivalent to “Fair Trade” or “Dolphin Safe” certification.

Thus, if the concept of pro-sustainable profit-sharing is properly developed, it could rapidly force a majority of businesses to shun the stock market. Otherwise, their customers will shun them.

Of course, many small companies do not generate much profit to share. Therefore, the level of sharing would need to change according to the level of profit. Meanwhile more easily enabling successful entrepreneurs to amass millions. Meanwhile making it impossible to amass the billions enabled by stock markets. Small companies could also create a pooled profit-sharing system.

At any rate, a basic idea of “Stock Markets Vs Sustainability” is to inspire new companies to follow a pro-sustainable strategy — and to profit-share with customers — vs stock market companies which profit-share with Wall Street investors.

New ideas — no matter how simple — may seem confusing and unclear to most people. Such as replacing monarchy with democracy. Or the idea of Columbus to sail west to get to the Far East. However, soon after they are put into practice, new ideas can rapidly become clear realities.