The present Essay, proposes a new Social-Economic Model with technical foundations based on: freedom, market, extended well-being, human dignity and environmental preservation with natural resources capitalization. That basically means a change of the “Free Market” paradigm.

Before presenting the Essay and as a way to have a necessary previous diagnosis to understand why the proposed “change of Free Market Paradigm”, I invite you to access the summary of the book “The Myth of Development” written in the last years of the XX century by Oswaldo de Rivero, Peruvian Ambassador to United Nation Organization” in the page:

http://www.sudnordnews.org/libriver.html

ESSAY:

Part I What is global today, has little to do with society and culture, except for the fact that we live in the "era of information", and by the fact that the great corporations are imposing the stereotype of the world-wide client / consumer. The globalization as conceived today, is evolving mainly in a non-equitable world market scenario and is based on the so called free commerce and economic interchange.

But also it has to do with what Hazel Henderson called: the global casino where a very small number of people is betting every day to make money. In effect, Mrs. Henderson said: “Speculators are responsible for at least 90 percent of the trading on the daily currency markets. Traditional economists have always said that currency trading creates very deep markets, but a recent study revealed the opposite. Not only does currency trading cause increased volatility, but currency traders are also error prone. So we can expect a lot more disasters like Barings Bank and Orange County, California”. I think there is implicit the fact that, since the "free market" (and the “free trade”) is not so free -in the sense that only some have enough power and size to affect the prices- therefore, which is known as arbitration today really would finish being a manipulation of prices? ... The speculators are those that arbitrate. If there were a great number of them with a similar "power" and “size”, they would really make the markets more efficient through the arbitration; but this is not the case, there are few that concentrate the power through the managing of money.

An efficient market means that their prices reflect (right away) all the relevant information available, same that is based on the “supply and demand” conditions of products and services of the companies whose titles are traded in the market ... but that does not mean that the consumers of those products and services are basing their purchasing decisions on the capital market information available, right?; therefore, the distortion of the "real market" passes by the "financial markets" that in that sense will be efficiently processing that information, what makes the financial markets work better, but not necessarily reflecting the true necessities of the consumers. The additional point is that financial markets establish the course of action of the companies since they finally determine which company is successful and which is not. Therefore that ends up becoming in a (mortal?) spiral. ¿Didn’t it happen to ENRON four years ago?

The globalization should not be a perverse equilibrium; it must be a virtuous one.

For it we must orient our efforts toward a Sustainable Globalization concept and quit the present purely commercial and economic concept, that is nothing but the internationalization of the interests of Multinationals and Transnational Corporations reinforced by the action of the WTO, WB and IMF, and based on a broadly extended availability of technological IT means. It only will cause that distances between those that are more wealthy and those in poverty, be every time deeper abysms.