Trump’s Presidency is a Tragedy for the Commons

By JASON SIBERT

Economists define the commons as a portion of our economy that provides invaluable benefits to the economy. The commons can’t, or shouldn’t, be reduced to total private property because they generate positive externalities, or things that provide an oversized benefit to the economy. Sustainable ecosystems, access to information, an open internet and quality banking, quality infrastructure and telecommunications should all be considered a part of the commons.

Can you picture local businesses without streets? Even though we pay private companies for the use of a phone, society as a whole benefits from the existence of phone networks for them to be a totally non-regulated business. First-rate diplomacy and peace are also a part of the commons, as economies function well, especially trade, when our country can diplomatically handle its problems in a law-driven world without turning to armed conflict.

What has this president done? Trump has threatened our ecosystems (withdrew from the Paris Climate Accords), hobbled our information networks (treated the media as an occupying power and opposed net neutrality), weakened our finance system (defunded the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) and engaged in dysfunctional diplomacy. Since taking office Trump has trashed our reputation around the world by undermining treaties (Iran Nuclear Deal), conducted diplomacy via Twitter and ignored the advice of national security experts on the need to handle the North Korea crises diplomatically. Can there be a movement to save the commons?

A movement to protect the commons would be active on a number of fronts. It would push for a free and open internet (net neutrality) and it would also favor low and no carbon energy (natural gas and renewables). The US Defense Department considers the greenhouse effect, or global warming, to be one of the primary security threats in the 21st century. Polluters that treat the ecosystems that we depend on as private property, by altering them in a negative way, are attacking the commons and should have to pay for the use. A carbon tax that would encourage low and no-carbon energy would be a way to protect the commons. The carbon tax could replace the corporate income tax and make it easier to invest in the United States. Companies that provide US workers with jobs would be rewarded and polluters would be taxed. The tax would also be fair from a redistributive standpoint because the energy industry is highly dependent on location.

A media that informs the public about the events of our nation and our world is also a part of the commons. A movement to take back the commons would also support the goals of the media reform movement and enact a tax on electronics. The tax would be used to subsidize independent media that wouldn’t be held in line by the views of advertisers, like the commercial media. Net neutrality should be reinstituted to keep cable companies from restricting access to the websites the public wants to view.

Finance should also be reformed. Stock speculation doesn’t benefit our economy in the same way that businesses who produce products or provide services. The reckless actions of Wall Street helped collapse our economy in 2008 and 2009. So, as Ralph Nader has suggested, we should place a financial transaction tax on stock transactions. Consumers pay a tax, usually of around seven percent, on purchases. Yet Wall Street traders trade millions a day with no taxes. A financial transaction tax could raise $350 million a year. The extra revenue could be used to fund improvements in infrastructure, an expansion in healthcare or for tax cuts on ordinary Americans (an expansion in the Earned Income Tax Credit). We must also empower the Consumer Protection Bureau to fight to protect a credible financial system.

A movement for diplomatic solutions to world problems and for a world governed by international law should also be pushed in the movement to restore the commons. The US should reenter the Paris Climate Accords and strengthen the Iran Nuclear Deal. The movement would also push for restoring the funds to the State Department enacted during Trump’s tenure. The cuts are keeping us from communicating our message to other countries. A world governed by law is a world less likely to go to war. War brings restrictions on the liberties of Americans (maybe a draft) and makes our country a more regimented and less free place.

A movement to save the commons would also take on the for-profit military-industrial complex. Right now, our government contracts with weapons manufacturers to make weapons systems. The companies that make weapons have just one customer – the government. Since making weapons is a capital intensive undertaking, this industry is what might be called a natural monopoly, or a business where the capital inputs are so high that the amount of competition cannot be truly free-market. Defense contractors gain government contracts and then use their profits to win even more contracts, even if the weapons aren’t needed. The profit margins of defense contractors are built into the cost the taxpayers pay. This helps lead to escalating costs for weapons procurement.

Singapore’s ST Engineering, a partially state-owned enterprise that makes weapons for Singapore’s military, could be a model for weapons procurement. If our government partially owned the companies that made weapons, then the profits would partially be returned to we the people – not contractors that beg for more and more. The money gained from a partially state-owned company could be used to expand services or cut taxes.

Jason Sibert worked for the Suburban Journals in the St. Louis area for over a decade and is currently executive director of the Peace Economy Project in St. Louis, Mo. Email jasonsibert@hotmail.com.

From The Progressive Populist, March 15, 2018

Populist.com