In a certainly post-communist world, and with many capitalist assumptions crumbling that once held to be true– what might the economics of the future look like?

I asked this in my last post, and since then, I couldn’t help but notice a proliferation of angsty articles that asked: If not capitalism, then what?

There was Newsweek (“We are all Socialists now”), the Financial Times (“The Future of Capitalism”), and Time Magazine (“The End of Excess: Is this Crisis Good for America?”).

You may also note that I wrote my article an embarrassingly long time ago.  I could say that it’s because I’ve been busy (which is true), but it also has to do with the fact that I simply couldn’t find an answer to the question I posed.

Well, I still don’t know the answer.  But lucky for you all, I had a few “see the light” moments this week.

So I’ve talked about economics– most of us take as fact that economic activity is the central process of social existence.  And that knowledge– often labeled as “information”– is useful inasmuch as it’s an input for the production of goods and services.  This is reflective of a view of society that is rooted in materialism, one manifestation of which is the belief, held as truth, that economic development lies in economic growth, which is measured by GDP per capita.  Indeed, the idea of “economic development” has largely materialistic assumptions underlying the process: that growth and development is characterized by material well-being.

Material well-being is crucial, of course.  But is it really the end, or a means to an end?  What is the end we’re looking for?  Right now, it seems that economic activity and the creation of wealth is being placed at the center of everything.  But is the creation and distribution of wealth the end to which we should strive?

The Prosperity of Humankind, the 1995 document that I also quoted from in my last post, makes an interesting assertion:

The tasks entailed in the development of a global society call for levels of capacity far beyond anything the human race has so far been able to muster.  Reaching these levels will require an enormous expansion in access to knowledge, on the part of the individuals and social organizations alike.  Universal education will be an indispensable contributor to this process of capacity building, but the effort will succeed only as human affairs are so reorganized as to enable both individuals and groups in every sector of society to acquire knowledge and apply it to the shaping of human affairs.

In other words, rather than the creation and distribution of wealth as the center of development (development as the distribution of material wealth), what’s being posited is development as the endowment of the wealth of knowledge: not only the generation and acquisition of knowledge, but its application.  Given this, knowledge, rather than material wealth, then becomes the “currency” by which one needs to function, the wealth of a person, in a sense.  In this regard, ‘Abdu’l-Baha writes in His treatise to the peoples and rulers of Persia, The Secret of Divine Civilization:

…the happiness and greatness, the rank and station, the pleasure and peace, of an individual have never consisted in his personal wealth, but rather in his excellent character, his high resolve, the breadth of his learning, and his ability to solve difficult problems.

The generation and application of knowledge, then, becomes the center of humanity’s collective existence. What is necessary for this is capacity-building: that all participation of all, that all become the protagonists of their own development.  For example, the present state of the world is such that much of humanity are “users of products of science and technology created elsewhere.” But sometimes, these products of science and technology may, at best, not be applicable to the needs of a community or society, or at its worst, be detrimental to its environment, lead to the loss of livelihoods, of land, and so on.  But if individuals in a community were raised up with the capacity to examine and address challenges in their communities and societies, and apply the knowledge with which they’ve been endowed, then we’d shift away from a top-down model that, in many respects, has become quite problematic.

So what has started as a conversation on capitalism, communism, and a future models of economic has (rather unintentionally) turned into one that flips the way we look at economic activity– asking us, what if it isn’t the be-all, end-all?  If we’re seeking a world in which all have a part to play (as the present state of affairs is not reflective of that, where the materially wealthy holding a seemingly insurmountable advantage over the materially poor), then certainly the paradigm that exists today must undergo a change.

I’m not as confused as I was the night I was sipping borscht in the candlelight, but the fact that I’ve struggled to eke out this post means that we’ve still got a long way to go.  Thoughts are most welcome.

The five of us sat around a candlelit table, and I wrapped my scarf tightly around my neck, warming my hands over the tealights (“The heater never works downstairs!” Justin apologized), grabbing a glimpse of the world of three former Peace Corps volunteers in Ukraine and Nicaragua.

My friend Justin had invited me over that evening, via a message on Facebook: “I’m back in town! I live in a green row house on Capitol Hill! Come have borscht with us on Friday!” (I looked it up on Wikipedia. It was pink, and a soup. I almost backed out.)

So there I was, with an old friend from my carefree days as an intern, who used to wear thick black-rimmed glasses, dressed up as Borat for Halloween before Borat became a household name, and taught me how to play Coldplay on his electric piano. He and his roommate Kelly had just returned from two years of the Peace Corps in Ukraine, while Carly, Justin’s childhood friend, had spent her term in Nicaragua, warding off Dengue fever and attracting the indefatigable attention of locals who called her “La Chinita” (she’s of Korean descent).

As our ideas, experiences, and observations on the world– afar and in our backyard– mingled through the atmosphere that hovered above the tealights and the borscht, that one gray topic arose that has tinted many otherwise cheery Friday evening conversations: the financial crisis.

“I used to teach my students that our economy ran on debt,” Justin declared exasperatedly, of his post as a high school business class teacher in a small eastern Ukrainian town. “That a culture of debt was normal in the U.S. For two years!”

But as he and Kelly revealed more about their years in Ukraine, one thing became certain: The economic culture in that country, too, has its downfalls. Capitalist in name, to be sure, but the scornful looks they received when asking for correct change made them feel like Capitalist Pigs.

In a land where bronze Lenin statues still sprouted in town squares like stale dandelions from bygone seasons, the communism of its past still lingered in the air, it seemed.

With one foot in the realm of capitalism and another still dancing in the communist ways of decades past, its people still bore remnants of habits and norms of a discarded system. And, Ukranian and Russian media propagated exaggerated notions of excessive materialism in the United States, causing some to cling more tightly to their ways. While the capitalist system relied too heavily on “pulling oneself up by the bootstraps,” and American ways admittedly excessively individualistic, the Ukrainian culture’s emphasis on the collective and de-emphasis on personal responsibility wasn’t altogether healthy, they observed.

All of this made me wonder: In a certainly post-communist world, and with many capitalist assumptions crumbling that once held to be true– what might the economics of the future look like?

Now, I don’t profess to know much about economics, nor can I say much about post-Soviet economies. In fact, I know just as much about those two as I did borscht prior to that evening (which, by the way, is quite tasty if taken with a bit of sour cream, and in fact isn’t as pink as Wikipedia made it out to be).

But luckily, I’ve been reading the writings of Baha’u'llah, which has made my brain bubble the way Justin’s borscht did as I suspiciously stared at it stewing in the tin pot. So much so that much of what I want to say cannot fit into a meager blog post. And it’s gotten me thinking about: balance, dichotomous ways of looking at economics, how economic growth is defined, and where justice fits into all of this.

I’ll continue these nascent thoughts in Part II, but in the meanwhile, I’ll leave you with a quotation that asks us to shift our paradigm on economics and development. It’s from a statement prepared by the Baha’i International Community, the NGO representing the worldwide Baha’i community with its offices at the United Nations in New York and Geneva. Called The Prosperity of Humankind, it was first distributed at the U.N. World Summit on Social Development in Copenhagen in 1995. While written over a decade ago, the words are chillingly relevant to the present state of the world. Hopefully, it’ll get your brain bubbling, too:

This unprecedented economic crisis, together with the social breakdown it has helped to engender, reflects a profound error of conception about human nature itself. For the levels of response elicited from human beings by the incentives of the prevailing order are not only inadequate, but seem almost irrelevant in the face of world events. We are being shown that, unless the development of society finds a purpose beyond the mere amelioration of material conditions, it will fail of attaining even these goals. That purpose must be sought in spiritual dimensions of life and motivation that transcend a constantly changing economic landscape and an artificially imposed division of human societies into ‘developed’ and ‘developing’.

– The Prosperity of Humankind

Well as it turns out, there’s more to the story.

Since the article was written we’ve seen the sub-prime mortgage crisis and feared credit crunch hit the light of day. And while companies are facing foreclosure or downsizing, and workers face the very real prospect of retrenchment, an odd thing has happened. Average food prices have actually gone down instead of up — the price of corn in particular – this without any real policy shifts in major biofuel-producing nations. Confusion reigns. The experts revise their figures and it turns out that while the correlation between the two factors still exists, it isn’t as great as previously estimated. So why have prices dropped?

Surprise surprise, all these factors are interconnected. As major investors and investing firms watched the housing bubble pop — so the explanation goes — they looked for other avenues to make a profit. With higher oil prices and a greater push to convert food crops to biofuels, it seemed a safe bet to assume that food prices would rise as a result (since there would be less of it). The frenzied investments around this assumption led to what is known as a speculative bubble, where the market value of a resource greatly exceeds its intrinsic value. Commodity prices rose dramatically, and kept on rising, until a point where it got ridiculous and the bubble burst, along with all the other speculative bubbles.

Without fail, this “bubble and pop” cycle has caused untold misery for the world’s poor. And while we would like to imagine that the worst is over, this NY times article predicts prices to rise again next year. So the question arises: is it acceptable for a handful of speculators, who are sitting on masses of wealth, to wreak havoc on the lives of millions of people living “downstream”?

Stephen Pearlstein, business columnist for the Washington Post, described the situation as it was happening:

this bubble is causing economic discomfort for households and businesses around the world, and misery for hundreds of millions of hungry people who suddenly cannot afford a bowl of rice or scrap of meat… the global food crisis has provided a grim reminder that the global economic ecosystem has become so interdependent that a drought in Australia, a tax credit in the United States, French farm subsidies and export controls in India can wind up forcing a desperate African farmer to eat his seed corn.

Shad Rowe, a Dallas money manager, remarked that the situation raises the bigger question of “whether people in a complex society ought to be allowed to make bets that affect other people and that have nothing to do with them.“

The insanity of 2008 has forced world leaders to finally sit up and take notice. At last month’s G-20 Summit aimed at combatting the financial situation, world leaders agreed “to a far-reaching action plan that, over the next 4 1/2 months, would begin to reshape international financial institutions and reform worldwide regulatory and accounting rules.” The plan included a joint statement:

We are determined to enhance our cooperation and work together to restore global growth and achieve needed reforms in the world’s financial systems.

Sounds good – and time will tell if the proposed measures lead to meaningful results. But then, given our chequered history with international reform, should there be any cause for optimism? Perhaps, perhaps not.

Let us, for a moment, dust off our magnifying glasses and take a closer look at the phrases “cooperation” and “work together”. Have our past actions always done them justice? What does it really imply when a determined group of previously separate entities work together in unity to fix a problem? Part of the answer lies in this quote. It starts by describing what unity is not, followed by what it is, and what tremendous effects it has had throughout history:

Unity is not… merely a condition resulting from a sense of mutual goodwill and common purpose, however profound and sincerely held such sentiments may be, any more than an organism is a product of some fortuitous and amorphous association of various elements. Unity is a phenomenon of creative power, whose existence becomes apparent through the effects that collective action produces and whose absence is betrayed by the impotence of such efforts. However handicapped it often has been by ignorance and perversity, this force has been the primary influence driving the advancement of civilization, generating legal codes, social and political institutions, artistic works, technological achievements without end, moral breakthroughs, material prosperity, and long periods of public peace whose afterglow lived in the memories of subsequent generations as imagined “golden ages”

(Century of Light, p. 41)

For a creative power which is essential to no less a cause than the advancement of civilization, isn’t it perplexing that the concept of unity receives no real thought or attention at any of these world showcases? Not a mere passing mention or goodwill gesture, but a profound grasp of what it is, what its implications are, and how to set about reconciling the complex misunderstandings and scattered beliefs that presently exist among nations.

For many, I suspect, achieving unity is seen as being incompatible with nationalistic priorities. Or perhaps it is dismissed as a pie-in-the-sky notion, too abstract and loosely-defined. Nothing at all like those big bad economic theories with the graphs and the formulas that make your head spin…right? Well, not really.

How’s this for a concise definition of what unity is all about:

For unity to exist among human beings — at even the simplest level — two fundamental conditions must pertain.
Those involved must first of all be in some agreement about the nature of reality as it affects their relationships with one another and with the phenomenal world.
They must, secondly, give assent to some recognized and authoritative means by which decisions will be taken that affect their association with one another and that determine their collective goals.

(Century of Light, p. 40)

A solid, scientific definition of unity, “at even the simplest level”. For a practical example of what this means, look here.

No guesswork required.

And herein lies the great paradox surrounding our scientific markets: for what is speculation, if nothing more than an educated guess?

“Who is writing the future?” was the question heading a statement issued by the Bahá’í International Community in February 1999 that explored the challenges facing humanity at the end of the 20th century.

Now, almost a full decade since this perceptive document first appeared, this question seems more relevant than ever. With share markets continuing to plummet amid fears of a world wide recession, the impotence of our current leaders to take charge of the situation is clearly visible to the entire planet. And for the first time, they have been prepared to admit it.

Not surprisingly, the world is alarmed.

Earlier this week, in a powerful letter to the Bahá’ís of the world, the Universal House of Justice wrote that, in a short span of time, “financial structures once thought to be impregnable have tottered and world leaders have shown their inability to devise more than temporary solutions, a failing to which they increasingly confess.”

“People desperately want someone to get a grip,” commented Jonathan Freedland in The Guardian on 10 October, “The realisation is dawning that this is not just a financial or economic crisis, but a democratic crisis – the people and their representatives have little or no control over what affects them directly.”

More than sixty years ago, Shoghi Effendi, the Guardian of the Bahá’í faith observed that we are living in an age which is witnessing a dual phenomenon: “The first signalizes the death pangs of an order, effete and godless…The second proclaims the birth pangs of an Order…within Whose administrative structure an embryonic civilization, incomparable and world-embracing, is imperceptibly maturing.”

“The one is being rolled up, and is crashing in oppression, bloodshed, and ruin,” noted Shoghi Effendi, “The other opens up vistas of a justice, a unity, a peace, a culture, such as no age has ever seen.” The process of the rolling up of the old order began with the revelation of Bahá’u’lláh and his announcement that power had been seized from both “kings and ecclesiastics.”

The rest is history. Empires were toppled. Kings lost their thrones. The clergy of all faiths were no longer able to exert their moral influence on the masses.

Economic structures are now coming face to face with the same prospect that met the rulers and religious leaders of the late 19th and much of the 20th century. The wresting of power from the hands of the few who have asserted their right to exercise control over the lives and minds of the many is continuing.

Another prescient statement from the pen of Shoghi Effendi anticipates the emergence of a “mechanism of world inter-communication will be devised, embracing the whole planet, freed from national hindrances and restrictions, and functioning with marvellous swiftness and perfect regularity.”

It is now possible for any citizen of the planet who has a computer and internet technology to communicate with anyone else who has access. Blogs and online forums give every participant a voice to share his view of the world. Even large media outlets are increasingly linking to grass roots websites that can better reflect the voices and views of the public.

Digital cameras and video technology, coupled with the ease of posting and circulating pictures and home-made films, has enabled every one to display their creativity. Citizens caught up in incidents of major import become the journalists, texting their video and pictures to conventional news media or posting them on their own platforms. Unsigned bands can become major stars, freed from the control of major record companies. The works of authors can be read throughout the planet without the rigmarole of acquiring agents and publishers, the agony of serial rejection letters or the environmental nuisance of destroying trees.

The ability of centralized providers of information to dictate the news agenda – or spin the truth to reinforce a particular view – is giving way to the power of everyman to share his own personal perception of reality to a global audience, “freed from national hindrances and restrictions.”

Such a transfer of power from the minority into the hands of the masses, spanning as it does much of the last century and accelerating with every passing day, calls to mind the passage in the Koran, that “The mountains, firm though you may think them, will pass away like clouds.”

“However great the turmoil,” it says in Who is Writing the Future?, “the period into which humanity is moving will open to every individual, every institution, and every community on earth unprecedented opportunities to participate in the writing of the planet’s future.”

“Those are the minarets of the West,” observed ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, sailing into New York City in 1912, witnessing the skyscrapers of Manhattan’s financial district. With what prayer, should the muezzins of Wall Street, be calling the faithful now?

Finished watching?

Let’s reflect for a moment on the video and then turn our thoughts towards the bigger picture…

The Biofuel Conundrum

Biofuel production is without doubt one hot topic these days. It provokes an entire spectrum of opinions from advocates and critics alike. Having initially been devised as a mechanism to reduce the world’s dependence on crude oil, the mass production of biofuel using food crops has precipitated another crisis — in the form of rocketing food prices and increased global famine. What are the possible reasons for this wretched situation? Was this outcome inevitable, or was it somehow avoidable?

Being a regular user of public transport, I’ve had to endure yet another rise in the base taxi fare, as well as a significant price rise for bus tickets, all in the past month. Clearly, biofuels haven’t lowered fuel prices — not for me anyway — and the trip over to the local grocery store is becoming more and more of a nervous window-shopping experience. So what exactly has gone wrong?

As usual, I dive into the World Wide Web to try and figure things out. A Time magazine article, Solving the Biofuels vs. Food Problem, points out that in 2006 alone the U.S. produced 4.86 billion gallons of corn ethanol. That sounds like a lot, but what does it really mean? Well, United Nations expert Jean Ziegler, explains that it takes the same amount of corn to produce 13 gallons of ethanol as it does to feed a child for one year. Divide 4.86 billion by 13 and we have 374 million starving children who could have been fed, all by a single country!! And this was back in 2006 — I can only imagine the numbers would have shot up by now. Ziegler, clearly exasperated by this situation, goes on to comment:

…the effect of transforming hundreds and hundreds of thousands of tons of maize, of wheat, of beans, of palm oil, into agricultural fuel is absolutely catastrophic for the hungry people… So it’s a crime against humanity… What has to be stopped is… the growing catastrophe of the massacre (by) hunger in the world.

Based on this statistic alone, it would take a foolhardy person to reject Ziegler’s statement outright.

When Baha’u'llah, Prophet Founder of the Baha’i Faith, pronounced that the prevailing world order is “lamentably defective”, need we look any further for proof?

Couldn’t They Have Waited?

Both Ziegler and the author of the Time article state that non-food alternatives for biofuel, such as switchgrass (which is energy-efficient) and Jatropha shrubs (which grow well on poor land), are only a few years away from becoming viable for mass production. The Science Blog reports on an even more promising alternative, a grass called Miscanthus. Why then, do the economically advantaged countries not wait a little while longer? Surely it should be obvious that all this excess corn can quite easily feed the world’s hungry population. Why do these countries ruthlessly trade human lives in order for their citizens to drive a few extra miles on the highway?

In the masterpiece entitled Century of Light, which examines the successes and failures of the 20th century, the The Universal House of Justice explains:

Tragically, what Bahá’ís see in present-day society is unbridled exploitation of the masses of humanity by greed that excuses itself as the operation of “impersonal market forces”… What they find themselves struggling against daily is the pressure of a dogmatic materialism, claiming to be the voice of “science”, that seeks systematically to exclude from intellectual life all impulses arising from the spiritual level of human consciousness.

(Commissioned by The Universal House of Justice, Century of Light, p. 137)

This captures, in essence, what Baha’is believe to be the root cause of humanity’s ills. What is completely disregarded by our present economic and political systems are those universal spiritual qualities spoken of in the Holy Books of the world’s religions — justice, honesty, trustworthiness, generosity, love of one’s neighbour and so on. Indeed, it is puzzling to observe how these guiding principles, which govern the behaviour of righteous individuals across just about every society, are conveniently swept under the rug in debates on international policy.

Having said this, individual transformation, although vital, is alone not enough. It is becoming increasingly urgent for nations to acknowledge that they belong to a single common homeland known as planet Earth, and that the good of the whole can never be achieved without sincerely seeking the best for each and every part. This implies moving from a culture of competition for natural resources towards one of collaboration. The implications of this change of thinking would be nothing short of revolutionary, and revolution, it seems, is precisely what is needed.

Sure, it is easy to pass this off as some fanciful notion and continue seeking the latest popular explanation as to why our world systems are just so volatile. Commonly-heard phrases like “economic downturn”, “instability in the Middle East”, “rising interest rates”, “loss of investor confidence”, “farm subsidies” are forever making the rounds in the media, and people blindly accept these for the very reason that they are impersonal. These phrases, in my opinion, are comfortable to accept because they do not challenge the status quo. They do not challenge ingrained patterns of human and societal behaviour. Instead, all they do is mask the reality that we are governed by a system that has long passed it’s sell-by date; one which is described as “morally and intellectually bankrupt” by The Universal House of Justice. The only solution that will ensure a long-term future of peace and prosperity is spiritual — it can only be spiritual.

But what to do about the biofuel problem?

Ahh, the million dollar question. Obviously there is no such thing as a quick fix. Nevertheless, Baha’is believe that even the most complex economic problems can be solved through the application of spiritual principles. Now, supposing for a moment that Tony Deamer’s coconut fuel initiative in Vanuatu became a candidate for large-scale production. What are some questions that we would hope the Government would ask? What are some suggested potential international guidelines on this matter? Here is a quick list that came to my mind:

• What is the nutritional value of the crop in question? Is it a viable source of food for the world’s population?
• What is the current economic state of the country in question? In what ways can the money saved on importing fuel be channeled towards improving education, health care etc?
• Will the by-products of the fuel extraction process have any worth or be discarded as waste?
• What is the potential environmental impact in terms of greenhouse gas emissions etc?
• How do we “give back” to the land what has been taken from it?

In terms of coconut fuel in Vanuatu, you may find it interesting to read this article, in which Tony Deamer addresses some of the above questions.

Do you have any personal thoughts on this issue?

In an interesting article (Hoarding Nations Drive Food Costs Ever Higher, 30 June 2008), the New York Times explains that since 1980 “even as trade in services and in manufactured goods has tripled, adjusting for inflation, trade in food has barely increased. Instead, for decades, food has been a convoluted tangle of restrictive rules, in the form of tariffs, quotas and subsidies….[T]he world is increasingly dependent on a handful of countries…that are still exporting large quantities of food…. [P]oor countries have frequently cut farm assistance programs and lowered tariffs to balance budgets and avoid charging high prices to urban consumers. But they have found that their farmers cannot compete with imports from rich countries — imports that are heavily subsidized”.

In our Economics 101 lectures we were taught about Adam Smith’s ”invisible hand“, about comparative advantage and the importance of free trade.  By the time we made it to post-graduate courses, our lecturers could no longer hide the fact that Messers Smith, Keynes and Friedman did not have it all worked out, and that in fact “free market forces” did not have the power to fix everything.

In a statement entitled Valuing Spirituality in Development (18 February 1998), the Baha’i International Community posits an entirely different view of economics:

Central to the task of reconceptualizing the organization of human affairs is arriving at a proper understanding of the role of economics. The failure to place economics into the broader context of humanity’s social and spiritual existence has led to a corrosive materialism in the world’s more economically advantaged regions, and persistent conditions of deprivation among the masses of the world’s peoples. Economics should serve people’s needs; societies should not be expected to reformulate themselves to fit economic models. The ultimate function of economic systems should be to equip the peoples and institutions of the world with the means to achieve the real purpose of development: that is, the cultivation of the limitless potentialities latent in human consciousness.

There is a very useful tool that economists use to measure the inequality of wealth distribution. The Gini Coefficient is a ratio between 0 and 1, with 0 being perfect equality.  The map below illustrates the 2007/2008 Gini Coefficient for the world, as based on a recently released Human Development Report by the UNDP.  The darker the colour, the more unequal is the distribution of wealth in that country.

Addressing the problem of the extremes between wealth and poverty, the Universal House of Justice said this, in their 1985 message to the world The Promise of World Peace:

The inordinate disparity between rich and poor, a source of acute suffering, keeps the world in a state of instability, virtually on the brink of war. Few societies have dealt effectively with this situation. The solution calls for the combined application of spiritual, moral and practical approaches. A fresh look at the problem is required, entailing consultation with experts from a wide spectrum of disciplines, devoid of economic and ideological polemics, and involving the people directly affected in the decisions that must urgently be made. It is an issue that is bound up not only with the necessity for eliminating extremes of wealth and poverty but also with those spiritual verities the understanding of which can produce a new universal attitude. Fostering such an attitude is itself a major part of the solution.

Unbridled nationalism, as distinguished from a sane and legitimate patriotism, must give way to a wider loyalty, to the love of humanity as a whole. Bahá’u’lláh’s statement is: “The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens.” The concept of world citizenship is a direct result of the contraction of the world into a single neighbourhood through scientific advances and of the indisputable interdependence of nations. Love of all the world’s peoples does not exclude love of one’s country. The advantage of the part in a world society is best served by promoting the advantage of the whole.

It is important for all of us, especially those from more developed countries, to remember our responsibilities to the rest of the world and to not take our material comforts for granted, as if they are somehow our “God-given rights”.  The resources of the world are the God-given patrimony of every member of the human race.

God is not partial and is no respecter of persons. He has made provision for all. The harvest comes forth for everyone. The rain showers upon everybody and the heat of the sun is destined to warm everyone. The verdure of the earth is for everyone. Therefore there should be for all humanity the utmost happiness, the utmost comfort, the utmost well-being.

But if conditions are such that some are happy and comfortable and some in misery; some are accumulating exorbitant wealth and others are in dire want — under such a system it is impossible for man to be happy and impossible for him to win the good pleasure of God. God is kind to all. The good pleasure of God consists in the welfare of all the individual members of mankind.

(‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Foundations of World Unity)