The UN Rio+20 agenda means less freedom, happiness, true justice and human rights progress
Guest post by Paul Driessen and Duggan Flanakin
Presidential candidate Barack Obama promised that his Administration would “fundamentally transform the United States of America.” He gave a clue to exactly what he had in mind when he told now-congressional candidate Joe “The Plumber” Wurzelbacher: “When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
Not necessarily – especially when activists, regulators, politicians and ruling elites do all they can to ensure there is less and less wealth to spread around.
Just this week, the Civil Society Reflection Group on Global Development Perspectives released a new report to the United Nations Rio+20 Earth Summit on Sustainable Development. The executive summary of No Future Without Justice begins with the heading, “The World Is in Need of Fundamental Change.” The document then offers “solutions,” which include “universal fiscal equalization” and a “massive and absolute decoupling of well-being from resource extraction and consumption.”
The 18-member Group includes no Americans – but condemns the US and other governments for their dedication to economic growth, rather than wealth redistribution, and demands that governments play a key role in promoting “sustainability” and welfare. They insist that all governments provide universal access to public health care, guaranteed state allowances for every child, guaranteed state support for the unemployed and underemployed, and basic universal pensions and universal social security.
It is, in short, the total nanny state – but with little or no resource extraction or economic growth to support it. In other words, it guarantees sustained injustice and redistribution of increasing scarcity.
The Group admits that human civilization “will still need some form of growth in large parts of the world, to expand the frontiers of maximum available resources for poor countries.” However, the massive investments needed to shift to a totally renewable energy and resource-based economy will require “massive de-growth (shrinkage) of products, sectors and activities that do not pass the sustainability test” – as devised by them, affiliated organizations and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
Key financial support for the push toward “sustainability” includes a “greener” and “more progressive” tax system featuring a financial transaction tax, abolition of subsidies for all but renewable energy, cutting military spending while dramatically increasing “stimulus” spending, a compensation scheme to pay off “climate debts” to poor countries supposedly impacted by hydrocarbon-driven climate change, a new regulatory framework for financial markets, a financial product safety commission, and still more regulations for hedge funds and private equity funds. The Group also demands public control of financial rating agencies and a government takeover of international accounting standards.
To ensure that “sustainable development” permeates every aspect of society, the Group proposes a new “Sherpa” for Sustainability (with cabinet rank), a parliamentary committee on policy coherence for sustainability, a UN Sustainability Council, a Universal Periodic Review on Sustainability, and an Ombudsman for Intergenerational Justice and Future Generations. It also proposes an International Panel on Sustainability that builds on the “success” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Of course, guiding all this would be the world’s premiere political body and bastion of freedom, fairness, democracy and human rights – the UN General Assembly.
To guide this “fundamental” shift toward the sustainability paradigm, the Group laid down eight principles – the key being the “precautionary principle,” which forbids any activity that might involve risk or “do harm.” Its own sustainability prescriptions are, of course, exempted from any reviews under the precautionary principle.
The objective, they state, is to build economies that drastically limit carbon emissions, energy consumption, primary resource extraction, waste generation, and air and water pollution. Society must also stop the asserted and computer-modeled loss of species and ruination of ecosystems.
All this naturally will require mandatory changes in consumption patterns and lifestyles (at least for the common folk), and the recognition that work (unlike capital) is not a production factor. Indeed, says the Group, work is not even a commodity. Moreover, only “decent” work qualifies under the sustainability paradigm. (While “decent work” is never defined, it presumably includes backbreaking sunup-to-sundown labor at subsistence farming, which under the Group’s agenda would be called “traditional” or “organic” farming and would not be replaced by modern mechanized agriculture.)
What is the source of all of this gobbledygook? Agenda 21, the centerpiece of the original Rio Earth Summit – which is being perpetuated, refined and redefined at parallel proceedings in Belo Horizonte, Brazil, while the main sustainability discussions are ongoing in Rio de Janeiro.
Agenda 21 states, for example, that “achieving the goals of environmental quality and sustainable development will require … changes in consumption patterns.” This too would be achieved under UN auspices because, as Earth Summit creator Maurice Strong has explained, the days of national sovereignty are over, and the world needs to embrace a system of wealth transfer to ensure environmental security.
In short, “sustainable development” is a system that requires a redefinition of business activity, away from the pursuit of personal profit – and of government activity, away from the pursuit of individual happiness and justice – and toward the pursuit of societal good, as defined by activists and the UN.
Simply put, as Brian Sussman points out in his new book, Eco-Tyranny, the ultimate goal of those who endorse the sustainability paradigm is to expunge “the most precious” rights expressed in the American Declaration of Independence: “that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among them are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness – that to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.”
The Agenda 21 and sustainability paradigm also rejects and undermines Adam Smith’s belief that mankind’s natural tendency toward self-interest, profit and self-improvement results in greater prosperity, opportunity, health, welfare and justice for all.
Most of all, the UN/Maurice Strong/ Civil Society Reflection Group vision is merely the latest embodiment of Plato’s Republic. Under Plato’s thesis, an educated, elite, but benevolent and mythical, ruling class acts on the belief that its self-appointed philosopher kings have all the right answers, and do not require the Consent of the Governed. The rest of humanity must fall into lockstep or face the consequences; however the results will be exemplary.
Unfortunately, as Alexander Hamilton observed, men are not angels. Moreover, it defies experience and common sense to suppose that the elitist UN, UNEP and environmental activist community will ever display wisdom detached from ardent ideology – or benevolence toward the humans they seek to govern.
____________
Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org and www.CFACT.tv) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death. Duggan Flanakin is director of research and international programs for CFACT.
Dave Dodd says:
June 19, 2012 at 6:28 am
And when the Earth decides to again return to snowball status, whose wealth do they then redistribute?
_________________________________
If you look at the United Nations Biodiversity Treaty/ Wildlands Map Humans will be allowed in green areas. Map from http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/articles2/wildlands_project_and_un_convent.htm
UN Biodiversity Treaty and The Wildlands Project; How the Convention on Biodiversity was defeated. (for now) http://nwri.org/the-wildlands-project/un-biodiversity-treaty-and-the-wildlands-project/
Listing of various other related US laws and bills: http://www.klamathbucketbrigade.org/YNTKwildlandsproject_table.htm
But as usual it is being implemented piece meal instead. Rosa Koire goes into how it is now being implemented at her site Democrats against Agenda 21 (her video is worth watching because she gives indepth info)
Here are some of the “Wildlands Websites”
http://www.oaec.org/wildlands-biodiversity
http://rewilding.org/rewildit/
So what does all that have to do with “snowball status, whose wealth do they then redistribute?”
It has to do with making sure much of mankind is immobile and without the resources to survive a colder earth. “Culling the “Human Herd” has been a common goal of the elite for years, from Stalin to Hitler to Pol Pot and the current North Korea and China. You can see the newest Eugenics/Genocide push has already started in the UK where they are getting rid of the “Useless Eaters” The USA thats to the EPA is next.
Freezing the old to death is one way of getting rid of all those Baby boomers and older that are a drain on government wealfare and heathcare systems and no longer contribute to “Society” aka the wallets of the regulating class.
@ur momisugly Curiousgeorge and then . . . I run across this . . . the Republicans said.”The public release of private donor information exposes citizens to possible harassment and intimidation by those who oppose the goals of the charitable organization.”
GOP senators press IRS to keep nonprofit donors secret
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/fundraising/233267-gop-senators-press-irs-to-keep-non-profit-donors-secret
You just got to TRY to ‘love’ them . . .
Life is change. All life takes from the environment and gives something different back, thus changing the environment. Consequently, sustainability and life are not compatable. Life is dynamic, and systems supporting life most also be dynamic. The systems focussed in this article are extremely rigid. They will not support life.
How do these people define sustainability? When I hear the word, I do not think of living things. Someone please tell me what the word means to these Rio types. Seriously…what is their definition?
Gail Combs says:
June 19, 2012 at 11:25 am
“””Culling the “Human Herd” has been a common goal of the elite for years, from Stalin to Hitler to Pol Pot”” “”UK where they are getting rid of the “Useless Eaters”””
Just for the record: “Useless Eaters”= “The DisObedient” “In-Subordinate”
You will be relieved the article was published in 2004, two years prior to Micklethwait becoming editor-in-chief. And the article doesn’t use the word climate once.
Oh!? Got any citations on that squidly? Make sure it includes all costs for identical services; especially backroom administrative.
Funny, something about working with contractors in the Fed’s services. I worked with folks from a number of countries. It took me by surprise one day when a British worker said he’d been waiting to come to the states on contract. Said he needed dental work and he wanted quality work and materials with the best tools. Then another English temp went and had LASIK done. Same reasons. After that I shouldn’t have been surprised, but another friend from up north in Canada who had regaled me with how cheap and freely prescribed antibiotics were and how codeine medicines were avaible across the counter; well, he mentioned that he was waiting for a several week trip to the states for him to schedule surgery in down here. Something about him not needing it enough and therefore a year or more away on schedule up there. Oh yeah, that universal slavery called universal healthcare is such a benefit, unless you’re really sick or old. Every thing run by the government or micromanaged by the government is performed cheapest yet remains at the pinnacle of science advancement. What a joke!!!
Taxation without representation!
Oh yeah, wave that flag in the United States! Should go across well.
Sic semper tyrannis
Funny enough, that’s on the flag in the state I live in. I do endorse that notion in full!
Liberty Or Death – Dont Tread On Me
Another saying used by a local town. Part of the statement comes from a patriot named Patrick Henry who was a member of the ‘First Virginia Regiment of 1775’.
In America there beats a heart resistant to socialism as the world powers want to install it. Tyranny under all/any other name. Many of these rustic and perhaps primitive citizens not only initiated but to this day still contribute to the idea of “wildlife restoration”. Their contributions are a tax and a substantial one that was developed/agreed with the taxed in advance. When the NGO’s claim wildlife restoration in America, whether game, non-game, fish, amphibian, creature, they are really referring to the achievements of America’s sportsmen and then claiming credit. Give money to the NGO’s who only must make an effort at education and it mainly goes to their administration and lobbying.
If you check some of the legislation currently making the rounds in Congress, you’ll note some that seek to gut the UN and Rio efforts in advance. I’ve already signed petitions to my reps that they support full evisceration. Enjoy that thought!
We have another belief here. “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” One of those remarks by those silly Englishmen whose wisdom we primitives revere, someone named ‘Sir John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton’, 1st Baron Acton, KCVO, DL A saying that goes along very well with those tattered old documents that we Americans admired so much when we freely plagiarized them. You might have heard of some of them; ‘Charter of Liberties, Magna Carta and Bill of Rights 1689, etc.’. All are important milestones of the English people struggling for personal freedoms and yes, we here in the states are appreciative. I can’t help it if you pinkos are so eager to give your freedoms to what is currently called the third world. Got your family’s positions guaranteed by that corruptible head of a socialist dysfunctional appointed group in power yet? Better hurry, I’m sure there are many family, friends, friends of friends or just plain familiar people with graft to be placed if you’re not quick to lay some grease on the right palms.
Any time I see the word ‘Justice’ and it’s not carved into a limestone building or on the base of a bronze statue, I check my hip pocket to see if my wallet is still there. Odds are the true meaning is ‘Injustice’ if you’re the one with money in your pocket.
@ur momisugly Joe Clarke . . . . “Seriously…what is their definition?”
What a good start!!!!! . . but, for most a conversation ender!!! [Insert] Deer in the headlight stare . . [Here]
Spreading the wealth, Obama style. Bureaucratic employment skyrockets at the expense of the private sector.
And let’s compare Greece’s per capita debt to America’s under Obama.
And then there’s the redistribution of wealth, Obama-style [click in chart to embiggen]. Who pays?
Sounds like Mao’s culture revolution. Scary.
Don’t we ever learn from history.
Social Blunder,
Note that I was only responding to your comment, which I quoted.
Rio+20 will in all likelihood end as the same dismal failure as all the previous iterations of these UN confabs have, but the people involved know and accept that, and they already have the garden spot picked out for the next “once in a lifetime” gathering to solve the world’s problems. Although overall failure is a given each of these meetings manages to extract a few concessionary crumbs from the developed nations participating, crumbs that still amount to billions and provide the seed money for the impenetrably named bureaucratic fiefdoms who provide the underlying justifications for each succeeding meeting. Although the worldwide resistance to this nonsense keeps winning the individual battles, we are clearly still losing the war.
As I have pointed out many times in the past, these folks are in it for the long haul. They have been at it for more than a century, and actually for all the millenia of human existence, if you include their philosophical brethren who share their view that the proper role of people in relation to their governors is to be an obedient subject. The American experiment was and still is the only “revolution” that succeeded, at least partially at attempting to overturn that notion and make the governors subject to the people, which is why America has has always been the primary focus of their enmity and loathing. When our Founders created our Constitutional system they all warned that though it would provide an opportunity for Liberty, the price to be paid for that opportunity would be eternal vigilance against those that would always be striving to usurp it. Unfortunately, the inexorable human drive for tyrannical power is up against an equally consistent human tendency for those who do get to enjoy the fruits of Liberty to only be really concerned about maintaining it when the potential loss affects them in a very personal way. In the full context of human history our attempt at a republic has endured longer than similar efforts of the past, but our all too human complacency suggests its continuing endurance is very much an open question.
Those who suggest that these concerted and continuing efforts to inflict a global autocracy are too insane to succeed must ignore the entire sweep of human history that clearly demonstrates that their success is not at all uncertain, but absent an equally concerted and consistent resistance, it is almost inevitable. Admittedly no one has achieved dominance of the entire planet in the past, but the tools and weapons available to the tyrant class in the present world are much more sophisticated and capable than anything that has gone before and assuming that the world population will automatically rise to halt this lunacy is dangerously naive.
UH! Smokey ?????? June 19, 2012 at 12:10 pm
Obama-style Who pays?
Just because people don’t pay income tax . . . does not mean they pay NO taxes!!!!!!
All together now . . . how about sales tax, fuel tax, tag, title, property taxes . . . tobacco, liquor taxes . . . hotel room tax, fishing & hunting taxes . . .
And I know what road you are trying to go down . . . . and it is that rosy path straight to the cliffs . . .
“”progressive income taxation relates to the ability to pay and that relates to accumulated net wealth, and less so to what comes in (because the poor have to buy the necessities of life).””
Progressive means to me, that the more you make the higher percentage of tax do you pay . . . for example if you had a Progressive gross receipts tax the net result would be smaller enterprises . . . . as bigger enterprises would pay higher percentages and thus over time those bigger would become smaller for tax avoidance purposes . . . . . .
I have major problems with discussing taxation is that we as common Americans have functionally lost ability to understand the difference between a capitation . . . (head-tax for being born). . . and a direct tax . . . (that cannot be avoided and must be apportioned) . . . and an indirect tax . . . (that can be avoided & doesn’t have to be apportioned but can be divided discretionarily or God forbid apportioned) . . . further when it comes to the income tax . . .we no longer consider the income tax as imposed on the “whatever source derived” compared to/or opposed to the “profit” tax imposed on the source itself . . . .
as Joe Clarke says . . . . “Seriously…what is their definition?”
What a good start!!!!! . . but, for most a conversation ender!!! [
and then I run across . . . . Algorithmic trading in energy markets
http://www.risk.net/energy-risk/feature/2136141/algorithmic-trading-energy-markets
US House panel sticks with CFTC funding cut
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/19/usa-cftc-funding-idUSL1E8HJDPY20120619
while doing research on:
the fact that “””CFTC said its chief economist, Andrei Kirilenko would leave … analyses of algorithmic trading and computer-driven high frequency trading.””” to go to MIT.
Bottom line is that with the advent of computers, spread sheets and algorithms . . . these guys can game the system and have for many many generations . . . . the only way to fix this is to have a tax system that considers every single way transactions are set up to maximize profits which rob the productive capacity of this country . . .
I wouldn’t criticize this if if our country still had a very progressive profit tax . . . . that would automatically reign in the “greed” factor and “Huck Finn” strategies that have been around for so long . . . .
It is this same very progressive profit tax that reigned in motivations for all kinds orf wars (including economic) as well as other conquests . . .and It has funded many peaceful improvements in societies . . . like road, bridges, and crop insurance!
Why is that so many “capitalists” forget that . . . . all wealth comes from Land, Labor, and Capital . . . . and all “Capital” came from Land and Labor first . . . .
Profit . . . is not magic & it is measured . . . Huck Finn knew this better than Tom Sawyer who painted the fence . . .
And the most primary property each person has is his own labor . . . regardless of how that labor manifests itself.
So I guess if that fall into someone’s definitioin of socialist or communist . . . Oh well . . . Damn it!
Pollyanna says:
June 19, 2012 at 1:18 pm
“So I guess if that fall into someone’s definitioin of socialist or communist . . . Oh well . . . Damn it!”
If the shoe fits…..
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/06/top-400-taxpayers-pay-almost-as-much-in.html
Top 400 Taxpayers Paid Almost As Much in Federal Income Taxes in 2009 as the Entire Bottom 50%
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/06/significant-turnover-in-top-400-us.html
Significant Turnover in the Top 400 U.S. Earners; From 1992-2009, 85% Were in Just 1 or 2 Years
@Pollyanna says:
I find your writing style to be obtuse…and difficult to read….
Regardless, you have a good grasp of redistributionist Marxist rhetoric and a typically poor grasp of basic economics and human behavior.
When a business pays taxes, that money comes from the owners or the customers. This reduces money available in the private sector. Everything the public sector does comes from money taken from individuals and it deprives them of making choices on how to spend it.
In other words, you have it bassackwards. High taxes reduce economic output, which means fewer jobs and lower wages. It also means less taxes collected (because overall economic activity is reduced).
And of course, high taxes mean more of a person’s labor (their property) gets taken from them.
Lack of profits never kept Communist nations from making war.
quidsapio says:
June 19, 2012 at 8:20 am
“I know this is the way it’s presented in the US – but I can promise you that’s not the way it operates in practice. ….. I believe it’s been demonstrated that the US spends far more per capita on healthcare with far less benefit, because of course the profit motive drives the principle of least possible service for highest possible cost. That might b acceptable in other areas of commerce, but when it comes to people’s health, it obviously isn’t good for anyone.”
I know this is the way it is presented to those outside the U.S. You seem to fail to realize that private practice healthcare is a business. It needs to maximize income in order to be profitable. It needs to be profitable in order to compete with like healthcare businesses for patients just like any other business would do. The business owner, the doctor, must be able to hire the best support people he can and to have the latest equipment and training in order to provide the best possible care to his patients in order to stay in business. He must make sure he is adequately compensated himself in order to make it all worth while. Too often people see healthcare as a right and not a service that needs to be paid for. Too often the government gets involved and screws up compensation so that doctors are forced to make hard economic decisions. Many doctors no longer take Medicare and Medicaid patients because they are losing money on those patients. Remember, it is a business not a charity (although the vast majority of doctors do charity work). People do not have a right to healthcare, they only have a right to take care of themselves. If they can’t then they have to pay for the services they need. It is just that simple.
It’s “Animal Farm: A Fairy Story” all over again.
Dave Wendt says:
June 19, 2012 at 1:33 pm
Your links . . . . evidence of this kind of Federal Income Tax GIGO argument. I call it the “Widow’s Mite” Paradox . . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesson_of_the_widow's_mite
Accounting wise it doesn’t mattter whether your paying “God” or Uncle Sam!
.
To clarify what in wiki its’ “””Taken literally, the widow’s donation of one mite could have been by obligation, because she could not have given any less. Following this reasoning, some interpreters suggest that Jesus sits down in judgment “opposite” (over against, in opposition to) the treasury; the lesson drawn emphasizes that, while people are impressed with the large sums that are put in, they did not notice that the Temple took half of what the “poor widow” had to live on.”””
quidsapio says:
June 19, 2012 at 2:45 am
But what’s wrong with universal health care?
It depends upon what “healthcare” is – see Cuba’s where Fidel had to get a Spanish doctor to treat a condition which can be handled right now even in many smaller communities all over the U.S.!
Btw, “Universal Healthcare” already exists in the U.S. without Obamacare: since the days of Hillarycare, I’ve still been waiting for just one valid example of a person not being treated because of their inability to pay. Essentially, this is illegal because of the ethical and legal duty to treat according to “the standard of care” once a condition is diagnosed, which itself must happen in any visit to an E.R., perhaps as a last resort, where an “evaluation” must occur without regard to anyone’s ability to pay for it.
I never saw anyone not treated because of an inability to pay during my ~30 years of E.R. experience. We would directly arrange for the next level of care on the spot. If needed, I would talk to the next level M.D. myself, and always advised everyone to come back or call the E.R. if there were problems.
“Free” care costs are absorbed by increased charges on everyone else, charitable services – where the Catholic Hospitals are crucial, and flat out free care on the part of very many providers of medical services.
On the other hand, “Universal Healthcare” provided by the Gov’t, such as under Obamacare, immediately politicizes every disease and treatment, as the HHS mandate for the provision of “free” birth control just proved!
In other words, if you are getting something “free”, something else is either more costly or maybe no longer even available.
Obamacare also changes the current standard of care from “the provision of the highest quality of care possible” to a “cost-benefit” calculus – where, apart from a decision being made on the basis of some pseudo-scientific “study” or purely subjective whim, in fact for many conditions “doing nothing” would be indicated, since statistically most people either get better or manage to absorb the cost themselves in terms of decreased functional quality of life, decreased economic productivity, and decreased life spans, a.k.a., “Death Panels”.
In short, intentionally created scarcity under Gov’t Unversal Healthcare only results in an increased ability for pre-Enlightenment Totalitarians to control people.
Wake up, quidsapio, you are being duped into Totalitarian control through another intentional program of “perception is reality” Thought Control Propaganda.
Hasn’t the intentionally unscientific “mainstream Climate Science” CO2CAGW Propaganda Operation hoax taught you anything?
I’d like to see a sustainable stock market where I can play but someone would probably want to tear it down.
more soylent green! says:
June 19, 2012 at 1:35 pm .
. . . . “Lack of profits never kept Communist nations from making war.”
Really . . . that’s why in history ‘they’ would functionally run around the country saying . . .”””Like what you have done with the place . . . . a real improvement . . . now move!!!!!! “”” Lack of . . . is what makes many a motivation . . .
How about . . . “I am about to make you a deal you can’t refuse”!
Further, history demonstrates often . . . after the pusuit of profits has been satiated with wealth the new objective is just plain & abject power!
Could you define “obtuse…and difficult to read”1 I know my spelling is sloppy . . . in too much of a hurry most of time . . .
“the massive investments needed to shift to a totally renewable energy and resource-based economy will require “massive de-growth (shrinkage) of products, sectors and activities that do not pass the sustainability test” –”
Sustainability is impossible in all cases. The fact is that nothing is sustainable as the world in every way is constantly changing. Sustainability is the new manmade global warming, another political myth. Imagine bureaucrats trying to manage, by regulations, of course, a sustainable economy—try balancing 10 squirming kids on the tip of your finger—yep, that not gonna happen, AT ALL.
Man loves status quo. The first time we count foxes per acre, fine. But, if the number changes when we count them next, we get upset. Actually, only those who do not know biology and predator/prey dynamics get upset.
Sustainability is the status quo tendency on steroids and applied by the UN!
Sea gulls are a constant along the sea coast. In the 1970s, a bird flu wiped out 75% of the population. It was not terribly obvious as you could still attract a gull fairly quickly by throwing food in the water, just not as many. But, the chicks born in the next several years had plenty of food and grew to be like Baby Hueys, more than twice the size of their parents. These immature gulls were clumsy bullies and blundered about, driving the adults away. Several years later, these same gulls were mature and able to get more food due to their size and even from the now smaller immature gulls, who could not compete with these giants. It took close to 20 years for the effects of this one disease event to level off and, of course, another could occur at any time, if not already. Imagine how meaningless and probably damaging regulations to manage the population would have been with the 20 years of changes that occurred naturally. There is no way that bureaucrats would wait 20 years before they start to meddle and screw things up even worse.
Most people do not know that one of the main factors that collapsed the USSR was the fact that they were trying to manage an economy by bureaucratically fixing prices. It became entirely impossible to adjust over 36,000,000 prices every day and not make mistakes that caused amazing damage, surpluses, shortages. The “market” was so unstable that factories tended to have huge raw materials and parts inventory as they did not know when the next order would arrive. This represents huge value sitting around doing nothing.
The UN wants to manage the world. Be scared, very scared.