a place for it to be and your background is really interesting well walking very much to conversations where i'm pleased to welcome to the program dr david korten and dr gordon is what we want to talk about primarily  author of an extremely interesting books but out a year or so now in the united states and on the world scale and i'm sure right at the outset people know what it looks like but it's called when corporations rule the world and this happens to be the paperback edition but it's been out of it's now a year or so and is doing we were just chatting off that is doing very very well at the united nations where well it ought and ought to do well with though the whole world community in terms of trying to understand what's taking place and david personal background and then we could start talking about the implications of a world where the corporations run it all and you can see it but we share your own background forcefully well you know it's been quite a journey and i sometimes feel that the whole thing has almost been preparation for what thing that's significant is actually in the area of organization and organization systems so when i look at economics issues it's not from the perspective an economist but rather the perspective of of organizational systems or behavioral systems and the nature of the incentives in the dynamics and how they how they actually work ok interesting you know and so that's the perspective from which i look at things like the global economy yeah ok now actually with that background i took a rather unusual career course because i became fascinated actually my last year of undergraduate work with the with the problems of poverty in rd world countries all of them the underdeveloped countries and set about st of all  to set up business schools in the rd world my wife and i set up the business school in haile selassie university in the and ethiopia and then we was a harvard business school advisor to the central american management institute on the theory that bringing modern management very much so i and i do push that now that my message tends to to to to move well beyond the conservative message do you do you think you have changed in your view of the world oh absolutely if you had you had a change oh it's there no sudden event it's been a very long gradual process of you know i began to st of all was concentrating on training managers for business organizations  even you know there was a time when i was in business school that i got fascinated with the role of track of all of multinational corporations with calling time and you know their potential to bring development to poor countries so deal with with the issues of rural areas like you know irrigation development programs and small scale agricultural development you go to programs community the development activities or what did you think of those well a number of the things i was involved with dealt with community development and i think the you know the spirit of that is very is very much in the right line but part of what i came to realize is that particularly working you know with time i got i ended up and you know ventura came to realize that the foreign aid programs generally could not deal with the real issues them in the many of the projects that we we worked with were attempting to deal with poverty but they couldn't deal with the structural issues and in fact one of the things that we that we found was that almost invariably the programs funded by development agencies like you know irrigation  which was an area we specialized in a lot that if you you know if you look to what was happening traditionally many areas of asia where we work for hundreds of years farmers have gotten together and developed their own  systems their own resources around them themselves and so forth and what happens when you come in with a government funded irrigation scheme shot from my own well you've got the you get the you get the advisors for mile but you also get the bureaucrats from the national agency coming down and you know we would we would experience projects funded by major donors by the japanese or by the asian development bank or the world bank who would go into an area where the farmers had you know had for centuries been been running amazing irrigation systems highly complex and very efficient and they just sensually obliterate those that wiped them out and those farmers were very carefully in touch with the ecology about them because the edges they didn't have a lot of wiggle room to be doing things that were absolutely knew how to work out of their experimenter i know how to work in balance with nature and they had two months though because very often they're very close to those harvest year to year absolutely is that they really depend on it and so the cavaliers sort of theoretical kind of let's try something that is not something that is necessarily going to sit so well with them or door shut it down i mean one of the worst tragedies we observed it was on the island of bali in indonesia it's an amazing culture the whole culture is built around the irrigation organisations so that's the foundation of community and you know the systems are just elegant they're just they're astounding and some of them you know eleven that we were particularly amazed by you know you get a big development bank coming in in the name of helping the poor giving a big foreign exchange loan to the country and you know the engineers come in and wipe the south and you can imagine the farmers are not always terribly pleased with this help right where you and doing it were you doing it in the sense of trying to really help and if were you committed to it were you doing it just as a sort of no i didn't see the world and get no we were going to good job or what was your career deeply committed you were you and your wife work together ye foundation funds the could actually take a situation with the near geisha agency that's engaged in this kind of atrocity and begin to turn the policies around so that in fact would work in support of the small  irrigator groups and you know provide them technical support and funding by which to me out not to obliterate their systems and replace them with a bureaucratically managed and engineered system but rather to you know incrementally community development act what it tried to do then work with the community let it come from there whether it be and you know this right now you see the difference between what we were doing when we were working with a bureaucracy to bring about this anal community development is that most community development interventions go resource management system a whole national program for irrigation development to turn the policies around from a policy focused on creating very large very expensive irrigation systems that often then work very well  with a program of providing support on a systematic basis to communities so that they increase the control of their own control over that resource yeah so you get to the same the same kind of issues i mean it can be in health care or you know very one that my wife worked with the still working with the forestry you know the whole difference between whether you you know you manage you know government run forest areas and you contract out to be logged off by big corporations or whether you organize the forest resource so that that land in the trees and the man it controlled and managed by the community and that the harvest is selective as is sustainable and is used in a way that keeps the economic value in the community now what about those who are going to say that in order to keep all of these local controls in the possibility that you're going to forestall the possibility of realising large economies of scale i mean how can you ever have a combine they can get all of the advantages of technology and get the production up in the productivity up and the what the buy can do to the all these small interests that don't see the big picture when you go into those people ok what we're dealing with there is one of the major fallacies of development and it turns out to be a major conflict between the the perspective of ordinary people and the perspective of people who work in the big corporations who run central governments who work within what is sometimes called the economy of money and it's you know it's a system that is to some extent creating wealth but in many respects is much more engaged in the concentration of wealth the transfer of wealth now just like when you go in with a with an irrigation bureaucracy and take over the small irrigation systems you're taking control of away from the people in your allocating more resources to a bureaucracy the thing to actual meeting the needs of the of the local community now the same thing with a sense of autonomy to yeah but i mean you take yeah exactly i very much so and break down the social structure but of course even worse so the are the programs of you know the kind of like the structural adjustment programs of the world bank that come in and and you know if there are any subsidies for small scale farmers they'll pull those out and those shift the subsidies to the export oriented corporations that are producing ben and those are pineapples or whatever for sale on the global market now what you just what you do is you you then end up driving the small farmers off of the land which is then taken over by corporate interests of the lands and a good you know no a ploy few people generally very low wages other people you know ok that's large scale commies of scale right higher productivity and so forth right or build ducks and perhaps yeah yeah it maybe it may or may not be more total production but it's certainly more profitable because you're not you're not consuming all open people consuming their own produce you know but to the extent that you're you know you're you know if if the really good jobs for these people which is the theory and you go into you know if the going to a factory job with a union scale and you know earn twenty dollars an hour or something and say well ok they're you know they're better off than they were a small scale farmers obsessives farm even if even if that process is doing playing havoc with the environment well that's that's another issue but you know the fact is that most of those people who are pushed off of their farms is the same kind of phenomenon we see in mexico right now as you know nafta is increasingly pushing subsidized u s grain into mexico driving the farmers off so what they're pushed into the mackillop doors they're not getting union scale wages not getting a you know a dollar a dollar and a half a day or here it is right know people living in absolutely squalid conditions absolutely no job security very often the jobs are so are so hazardous or you know you get repetitive stress syndrome and so forth that you know you you hire you hire young kids young wom and within a few years there are incapacitated they can hardly work at all yeah right so you know the you know what you're what you're really doing is is not providing better opportunities for people but transferring assets increasingly which you know which in turn are controlled by the global financial markets right now which have trance mortified and new into just absolute  that have only one goal which is maximizing short term profits what haven't you know that's always been the case and business you were in the business school you were and you know it is to is to increase their priority to safeguard their profits  did you did you have a system that came into the modern period where you could see yourself in a certain sense as a keynesian as a supply sider as a did you have a system beacon nomics understanding macro economic understanding against which all of these other kinds of not at that point a student of economics theory fact i actually started out as an economics major as an undergraduate right and found it just deadly boring oh and it's somehow you know even though it's relates to the most basic things that are everyday life it somehow didn't seem to relate to any kind of reality and at that point you know i came from a rather unsophisticated background and didn't those the st st one of my family to go to college oh good and so you know i remember i have this vivid recollection of reflecting on my economics courses and saying you know i came to stanford to get an education right and you know i'm really not enough into it i'm not even sure i really know what it means to be educated but i have a very strong sense of studying economics is not it but you know it's really fun to d he hadn't written that one hundred not everything in one was economics yeah it was just couldn't face it it was just too boring and yet it is in do you think all those macroeconomic considerations despite the boringness of it and that sort of thing it still seems to be in some sense that is the rationale behind which so much of these things you're talking about are taking place and that whether we like it or not and the certain says it's income of one is to try and understand some sort of way we'll see the nomic rationale by which we allow those corporations to move that way and  you know one reason economics is so boring i mean it's is that it doesn't relate to reality i mean the economics as it's taught i mean i think you know the further i get into it the more the more i institutions allocate power that's the central to understanding our world on and understanding the global economy and you know that's that's an area that most contemporary economists don't really deal with in fact one of the things that was so striking to me is in writing the book it actually pushed me to go back and read some of the classical economists you know and i went back and spent some time with adams of nations right and you know mixed his his wealth of nations is an extraordinary he was a moral philosopher to start with the words amount of yeah but he also i think he was one of the st real social social science systems thinkers and he was trying to understand systems of relationships and institutions of the dynamic of them in a way that it seems to me that most economists can't do now which is part of the weakness of the field you know the really striking thing that i got into was realizing that you know the whole foundation of market economics as it grows out of marx is based on a number of assumptions most particularly as it grows out of marx or grows out of  those th is that the units of production are small and local they were in his time but that's also his ideal you know you know the whole book the wealth of nations is almost a tirade against any kind of corporate did interfere with the laws of ordinary people but that it existed mainly to protect the monopoly powers of state corporations or for state related corporations and that's where most of this criticism of the go through the you know i go through the index check back  any of his news criticisms of government and of course you know in his time the whole idea that you know government would be involved and you know an environmental regulation and any kind of social welfare activity or redistribution was just not was just not part of the consciousness that was not so the days of the ten mills yeah i find no sense in which he was attacking the functions of government that now the conservatives are trying to get rid of when he was what he was attacking were the functions of government that are exactly those areas that our current government politicians are trying to protect which are the subsidies to the corporations and the implementation of rules that favor the big corporations at the expense of the possibilities of small firms into and maintaining control of local econom i make the case that you know i'm an advocate of the market economy you are an advocate of market economy yeah and our current problem is specifically that we don't have a market economy we don't have free to capital asset ownership that's for sure yeah i mean it's in a snob you know it's not the problem of excessive government control but the problem is that what we have is a corporate managed economies centrally planned corporate economy and you say  which which means if we really don't want big government which which i'm not much of a fan of myself but ok along with scaling down government we've got to scale down the size of our corporations and economic you know what about the people would save you scale you could only do that by artificially not allowing them to realize all the technological advantages that the large economies of scale do offer possibly some and we should do that in the name of not allow the efficiencies for increased production that those  scale offer well name of some other values or something or you know i mean st of all we need to realize that economies supposedly exist to serve people not to serve the generation of corporate profits well if a corporation can make profit serving rather than those who are trying to do good you know it's almost never mentioned from the only place in the wealth of nations where mentions the invisible hand really should memorize a sentence but it's the it's and added in a sentence in which he says that because the essentially the intelligent investor will want to invest locally where he can control his own assets thereby by pursuing his interest he will maximize the benefit to the larger society or something to that effect and those who develop blowing that out of context and yeah i mean to have i mean the critical thing there is the assumption that it's local investment and that of course is critical to trade theory the whole idea that trade is mutually beneficial absolutely essential assumption of that theory is that capital is rooted locally that it's cannot move outside the boundaries of the economy that's not the case these days no i mean no we've got as these so when did the change occur and wouldn't lead to it and what occurred and what brought it about you know i think it's been a very very long trend and i make no pretense of being historian but in that scenario i'd love to study more because it is a really when you add into it and rockefeller when he was there the robber barrons you know yeah the history of this kind of thing we have this period after the after after the civil war where you had the rise of the big corporations and it was a fairly rapid movement and of course one of the things that we neglect from our history is that back from you know the foundations of the united states and there was very little corporate activity and it was very very strictly wrote him a lot change very very recently i got a call like that noted that even as recently as the one thousand nine hundred and fifty s and wisconsin it was a felony for a corporation to make a political contribution really yeah but you know in i mean you know another one of the anomalies of course is the current you know idea that comes a purely out of supreme court decisions that the corporations have constitutional rights as a personality person's and of course if you read the constitution there's no mention of a corporation the original constitution we would have to presume that the founding fathers didn't necessarily even expect they were going to exist did you think in the room court was wrong in that decision or the  entities but they're given this person all of nature in terms of the law and under stand yeah and that's actions of that right you know and that you know basically so far as i can see i mean that that reflects the degree of corruption of our of our legal system and it was a corruption of the supreme court know you do ok if you think you know you don't you know a lot of members of the supreme court come out of the legal system which is engaged with serving corporate clients and serving the rich and there's a frame of reference that comes to that  know right in the snow you know the title introduces some ambiguity for marketing purposes but there's no question about the reality no you know you had you had the period of enormous corruption during the civil war room the profiteering which are of which resulted in a certain amount of concentration of wealth which then became the foundation you know the began to build a large corporations and you know as i understand it you know very substantial corruption i mean very similar to what we have right now in terms of you know special favors from congress and concessions and so forth that allowed the building of these massive corporate fortunes then you know if you got toward the turn of the century the thing you know enough people including within the system became concerned that the thing was becoming unstable with you know such levels of inequality and forth you know you you were actually and but then you know the depression allowed roosevelt to come in gradually more controls you move toward a much more pluralistic kind of system with a strong government strong labor unions which resulted in in and actually a massive wealth distribution back in the direction of equality greater equal back in the yeah back in the away from crack capital toward labor yeah so that's when we really began to develop the middle class that those in track anymore well there's several things i mean you know the domestic corporate i mean there was concern about the you know i think about the you know the flower child care or the rejection of consumerism which was you know really a revolutionary attack on the system but you also had the rise of the station economies and the increasing penetration of our economy so i you know many of the leaders in the business community you know hey we're going to all this get out of control yeah not working anymore and so lateral commission founded yeah you know so they started getting much more aggressive in terms of politics and public relations you know coming back to the legal system you have you know you have conservative foundations and conserve the funders you know specifically funding economics education and law schools noam i mean that's just transparent you can get in terms of essential way you know recognizing the role of the legal system and protecting this absurdity of corporate rights so you're introducing this ideological indoctrination into the the training of the young lawyers so that they be sure to have the again the lawyers are the seventy three particularly the transfer of the wealth toward labor and higher wages and the labor unions were strong this global pattern was not so well developed there was the containerization was starting to come to beginning to develop that marshall plan of brought up the western european countries and easy asian here it was beginning to develop a feisty kind of world situation which was leading to a global economy but there was the but at the same time there was coming along a technological revolution that was making more and more of the technological instruments responsible for actual production visagie labor and those the labor in the mass produced economy if sara lee now they produce all kinds of things and not a single person and they're doing it so that claims of labor upon development upon income was being based not so much anymore upon the their contribution to the actual production in the mask economy but was being based upon some sort of other principle by which they were going to get income but it hasn't worked because they're not going to say what i'm saying absolutely yeah and to phone or ship of the ownership of the capital instruments you know the robots or whatever is held by a miniscule number of people  their concentration of the ownership of that wealth in a national on a world scale grows ever every time we have it we write each passing day seven you want to talk about is not activity earlier now you know that's what i actually like to talk about productivity in one hand or productive  another which is a new idea that the binary economists are beginning to own about that the productivity analysis is not going to work in terms of justice is the actual production but that they want to spread ownership of technological instruments system is doing now is using a combination of more productive technologies which means you need fewer people to produce the same thing or more you can produce more you can produce more we have same number of yeah  technologies become overwhelmingly successful but you know what that means is you're marginalizing more people now right if we had a sane society if properly organized society so you know productive increasing productivity is great you know if it's fabulous if we don't have to work so much to produce the same output or to meet our needs but of course that only plays out if in fact the benefits of productivity increases or equitably shared your productivity if i may add only it was employing point of productivity is usually where you take the whole production of the economy and then divide it by the labor input to it yeah and it has a bias toward favoring labor and those who are concerned with the mass of the people there are good you know the fortune of the mass of the people desire to have tend the democrats in the labor unions the people that were progressive have tended to emphasize the importance of labor as a value by which they then return in return get income because they're contributing to production y now is the technology that's doing it and they don't contribute to production labor does not contribute to production in the mass economy in the way that they have and so all of the power of the capital is in the hands of the few people who own that which is producing the well which are these mass produced yeah system it's not quite the word polluted but it's i wouldn't argue with the analysis and but the you know the the larger the larger phenomenon is one of those who who control capital  maintain to another country that has very low wages and low environmental sure and they can open up and they can open up emerging markets if they're undercutting the market potential midst of ruth or mr forty's to have those the money the workers had to give five dollars  buy the automobile you needed to complete supply and demand it had to create its own supply so i had to create its own demand that but i mean it hasn't but they could go to emerging markets over there and try to develop emerging markets and to to to be pushing wages down yeah and just breaking the labor union yeah yeah and which is all part of a transfer of power over a real well power of wealth to to those who who own capital yes no see the other the other element of some terms of distributed local ownership is you know understanding the real dynamic of the system now yes as you said earlier the idea that corporations make a profit is nothing new right but part of the question is what is an adequate profit what's a fair profit for moon well if you have competition they should be able to compete with one another adequately in order to let that be realized well you know if you if you go back  to to my younger days you know i remember you know back in the days when our one hundred days yeah when when eighteen t paid a regular seven percent dividend in you know i thought that was a pretty good return it was pretty steady and you know what isn't orphans but the money in that and over a number of years the average us and standard and poor's corp five hundred corporations been increasing profits at a rate of twenty percent a year from well then do you think this is the solution to the problem if we could just begin to build ownership in will be taken care of no no so let me play the argument through in terms of in terms of what's what's happening in the you know on that level the the issue is that you know we've we've gone way beyond any concept of what is a reasonable profit or a reasonable return on the money out of what you call it capital that makes it sound like something substantial but another part of the fallacy here is recognizing that you know there are the there is there are capital assets th real like buildings and equipment and technology and so forth but we also tend to use capital simply refer to money and you know that's one of the things i've just been getting more and more into that you know in a sense we've always got to pearl economies fact understand it you've you've actually got to separate these i mean take remove the money out of the whole system and just look at how the system operates you know the production the physical production of goods and services and how that's allocated and then you realise over here you've got this other system for creating and allocating money which is nothing i mean money is nothing but a number and that's that's part of getting breaking out of the of the illusions and mis and fallacies that  federalists and understanding economics that the money system is just purely a system for allocation it's a purely human artifact it doesn't exist really except in our minds exists and counts numbers numbers moving from one computer account to another doesn't even necessarily have to go to a different computer it may you know think this is like getting into virtual virtual economical is very much universal reality knowledge industry as a whole we've got as a whole class of groups a lot of money you know down here in the wall street area you know that are terribly good at manipulating the the money system right you know pyramiding values and land and stock markets and so forth and and then you know this is sends up being the system which is the you know the only point of accountability of the global corporation ok who is to the financial system right right and right you know if because the political is being eclipsed the political entit it is very common back in those days and we didn't have mutual funds or there might be some investment or insurance funds but normally if you were a participant in the stock market you owned a real share of stock in a coyote and most of us would buy a share and we hold it for years ok now it's much more common you know if we have an interest in the stock market which of course only a rather small percentage of the population does but we're more likely to have it in mutual funds or in some kind of a retirement trust or something of that sort which is managed by a professional money manager ok so these professional money managers are essentially competing with each other for returns and you know if you're buying of mutual fund and you know you actually own here or there but you just look at the returns so you know that's a pressure the mutual fund managers are on because their bosses know if their fund is down i mean if you're a mutual fund manager and you're not making more or less the average of the mutual fund your job's on the line into a fast lane things are going fast you know that you know that's part of the reality people but also you know also more and more of our assets and our markets and our lives are are controlled by these very very large corporate conglomerates some oh yeah there's no question that and the financial institutions ok now you know look look look at the difference if you're you know i grew up in a small town and you know my my background is actually a small business family ok not a retail music an appliance store rhein ok now you know whatever you might say about the family and so forth were rooted in that community you know we lived in that community and i and i doubt belong to the  planning to stay there and his assumption was that he was running that business to turn over to his kids you know so you know it's a long term perspective and you know he cared about the health of the community now you've got a system in which more and more of the of the wealth from the ownership is not in any way attached to any place or any community again you get money in a mutual fund you have no idea what companies it's in you don't know what countries it's invested in all you know is that r return the manager i doubt fund he's out there you know now we've got this integrated financial you know computerized system you sit behind a computer terminal he can buy and sell in virtually any financial market in the world instantaneously and so you know watching the financial services watching the prices going up and trading anywhere in the world and that seems to be the direction in which things are going yeah i mean again increasingly you know he don't even care at all he doesn't care either what you know right well that's like a trade yeah that yeah so the so that the in cut the capital has the distributor ownership has the distributive capability of income you can distribute income according to ownership or you can distribute out them according to labor and so very strange kind of sort of ownership because that fund manager doesn't really own it well it doesn't well ok ok ok so the person is really making the decisions is not the owner i mean the real owner maybe you or me we're not make it we're only making the decision of what fund we put it in to write right and then that becomes available for capital i mean the so the so that what is done with it doesn't matter it's just a source of income yeah and they saw a little can be a source of india sometimes  that we could use the term in business they use the term under income as though the only income there really is earned is that which you have a job and you work and you do something labor we've had this employment act of one thousand nine hundred and forty six the basic grounding policy state of the american institution and we're committed to the idea that people are going to get income by working at what we call a job and i think it's not and i know you and we've set it up and we rigged if that's the right new rig the system so that despite mutual fund development and that sort of thing it's way so that the ownership of capital in a world scale is worse right ok there's two hundred and eighty five dollars billionaires in the world or something and they have their incomes equal to what forty five percent of the population of the world is really staggering but the capital in the ability to own the capital instruments to degree that that exists in the world is held by so relatively few it's all financed by self insurance putting up collateral a capability to make an investment that will pay for itself in five to seven years the wall street standard it takes for a loan or a business investment to pay for itself and the capital if you malaysian keeps going more and more intimate say most most of this has nothing to do with the real investment it doesn't well are it doesn't having to have real investment it has and it has the fact that the vast majority of the population of our nation in the world does not have any means to be able to gain having no collateral having no back or having very little to live beyond their immediate  ownership of capital instruments that are increasingly responsible in a ratio with labor to production were becoming capital intensive in the mass produced economy and of means of which that capital that capital contributes to production is analysis if you stop talking about capital ok ok and talk about you know when you mean money speak of money ok because it's so much of what's happening just simply you know just because i happen to have a few dollars that i can put in the stock market i mean these these are you know they're nothing but numbers that i have been to have that in my bank account and put it in the he that's a pretty good track record but it would go ahead but no but yeah i mean it's not only astonishing it's from a social standpoint it's ridiculous some ok because you know i haven't i haven't put in any entrepreneurial energy yeah you know i haven't made any long term commitments because i can take that money out of you know any any day that i'm concerned that there's a fluctuation harkat i'm just simply getting a return because i happen to be one of the fortunate people that happens to have a little extra money some of these numbers that i can put in an account well that's capital that's savings as capital that's the thing that is of most of the money that goes into the stock market does not go to a corporation i mean this is the you know these are most of the stock is these is internally generated  the only money in the stock market the that actually goes to a corporation that may in some way be related to real investment made you know my plan equipment productive quote facet or whatever is the new issues and that's  drawn to the overall it's all retained earnings it is yeah right so i mean their estimate which may actually be high is that no more than ten in a mature stock market more no more than ten percent of the total capitalization is represented by money that actually went to a corporation in those it goes out oh but you know that's money see it's it's not it's not capital in any real sense that something that happens within the money system i guess i guess i guess do you think there's any problem in terms of labor labor being displaced by technological advance oh absolutely you think that that is a reality that is coming absolutely and you think that is as good as the real world aristotle used to talk about that yes aristotle used to talk about how the slaves could be able to be freed in the situation if the loom learned to weave they were coming into a situation where technological instruments can become sarah got producers of wealth or income and dell and that we that that's an advantageous thing that we can see in a world scale but one wonders how we're going to do it when all of our criteria for trying to get income to people is their labor and their labor is becoming less relevant as in terms of production and these robots are becoming more and more to us a key it is only advantageous if the benefits are equitably distributed and they're not now they're not now what we do not as a national policy think in terms of expanding ownership that's the only with the i don't think up of some sort of representation of the capital side mumford auction we don't think in terms of distributing that because we're so locked into the idea that we're going to create jobs you know going to get small jobs for b or you know why wage jobs now people and we're going to strip it of going into labor but we're in it has been followed it is a mythology in your view you know it would be advantageous to try to spread ownership among the mass of the society of the world in order to distribute income according to the way you goods are increasingly being produced and order if only to vouchsafe your market that's going to be you're going to need people to be able to buy that which can be back into serving real human needs from well the production system of virtue could could could good provide mass produced goods and services the sara lee cookies and whatever you have or automobiles television sets and these kind of things are done with society in which you know aside from those of us that live in downtown manhattan are virtually dependent on an automobile to survive and if you begin to look what happened to our automobile society you know more and more of our lives are devoted to earning to maintain the car our landscape is devastated by highways we become separated from one another we spend you know people live in the suburbs they spend an hour commuting back and forth we have we have literally created unlivable communities and societies mainly to support the automobile yeah it's a bit is something so this is another you know there's another aspect of it in a finite world in which we're pushing up against and one that a lot of places is rethinking the whole way we live right to know about the book right when corporations rule the world david's the court and he's been your doctor david secord we didn't get a chance he was at harvard for years talking teaching management there and important must read as mr desmond tutu says i know david i want to thank you very