Using a Power Structure Grid to Build a Culture,
Theory, & Reality of Peace: Insights into Adam Smith Problems
from Deming’s Sugar-Beet Errors

Wayne H. Oberle
St. Ambrose University

     A Power Structure Grid (PSG) can help people of all cultures to become fully-human peacemakers who build a shared culture, theory, and reality of peace (mutual respect) centered on the way we relate to others as the source of peace--each momentary choice of: (a) win-win economic principles (WWEPs) over win-lose economic principles (WLEPs); (b) development (DEV, a process in which increasingly more members of a given area or community make/implement socially responsible decisions, the likely effect of which is an ­ in the life chances of some people without a ¯ in anyone else’s, Oberle et. al.) over anti-development (AD, win-lose effects, economic violence, unearned gain, war); (c) socially/ecologically-optimal input/output market relationships (of Deming/Oberle firms with each other & stakeholders) over socially/ecologically-sub-optimal input/output market relationships (of non-Deming firms with each other & stockholders); and (d) DEV-based accumulation of social capital (SC, good will/investment in win-win relationships with stakeholders/the needy) over AD-based accumulation of economic capital (EC, “free lunches,” unearned gain, or material-based power/MBP taken from win-lose relationships). A key step is understanding three sources of Dr. Deming’s sugar-beet errors--his assumptions that farm commodity markets are price-competitive, restrain corporate middlemen from taking a “free lunch” from their own stakeholders, and intellectually/morally “free” them to practice WLEPs rather than WWEPs in their relationships with others. One source is Say’s Law--supply (S) creates its own demand (D). A second is Adam Smith’s Lie, invisible hand--IH, price-competitive, equilibrium-tending, self-regulating S&D market forces (buying/selling of inputs/outputs) substitute for WWEPs by necessarily transforming selfish interests (WLEPs) into what’s good for society or DEV. A third source of Deming’s errors is Adam Smith Problems: the first one is his changing his cultural bias & normative qualitative type of individual (QTI); his first book (MS) favors a Jeffersonian (folk/real education/DEV) peace culture and a moral, accountable, win-win type, socio-economic man, but his Lie in WN favors a Hamiltonian (elite/mass education/AD) war culture and an amoral, heartless, short-run-maximizing (SRM) economically-violent, survival-of-the-fittest (SOF)/win-lose type--economic man.
     We need an economic theory to help us analyze MBP & conflicting economic principles. Our PSG#1 and Chart 1 help us to become non-apologetic, holistic (big picture), and organic (fully-human) peacemakers in more corners of our lives if we: (a) get a real education (RE, holistic, organic, critical, creative, win-win, pro-peace thinking)--not a mass education (ME, memorizing for tests and win-lose/SOF/pro-war beliefs); (b) develop moral sentiments (MS, empathy/antipathy for another), moral principles (MP, what’s right vs. wrong), and a conscience (internal recognition of MP as regards one’s motives/intentions, actions, relationships, and their win-lose vs. win-win effects upon others); (c) create SC, community solidarity (CS), & DEV-based peace (DBP); (d) wisely & pro-actively practice peacemaking steps/principles or other WWEPs over WLEPs in our relationships to show that the power of love, forgiveness, & peace can overcome the love of power, violence, & war; and (e) understand why economists’ failures, whether intended or not, are, in effect, pro-elitist, anti-democratic, AD, and pro-war.
     The failures of economists. One is not knowing about, misunderstanding, or distorting Smith’s conflicting cultural messages plus his deathbed and overall theoretical warnings. His 6th edition preface of Theory of Moral Sentiments (MS) is his apology for using a fallacy-of-composition (FOC, what is good for one is necessarily good for all)-violating term, IH, to please his elite Scottish patrons (e.g., Lord Kames) with his “free-lunch”-veiling Lie--that IH and the statesman’s guiding hand (GH) are necessary and sufficient substitutes for win-win-principled (WWP)/pro-DEV peacemakers who develop WWP relationships and DEV-based peace. They bribed him to intellectually sell out--to trade/exchange: (a) his teaching position/salary, promise to his students to detail his principles of a peace-creating win-win economics (WWE) or capitalism (WWC), and his first book’s morality/DEV premise; for (b) a life-time annuity, an affluent lifestyle, and his promise to complete a book (WN) to not only apologize for and rationalize a SOF win-lose economics (WLE) or capitalism (WLC) but also to use the IH Lie to hide/mask their underbelly (how the WLP get more for less/accumulate economic capital). His deathbed warning is not to admire or worship (serve) the rich and powerful--to not be, as he was, WLP, but to be good/accountable, civilized/non-war-hawking WWP peacemakers in all our relationships. His overall warnings aim at WLP capitalists, corporations, monopolists, and merchants who, images aside, abuse WLEPs plus public trust, destroy MS & MP, and set up monopoly-based AD corporate colonies to accumulate more EC and material-based power (MBP).
     A second failure is the belief that Smith’s Lie, IH, means that a minimal quantity of market participants necessarily transforms selfish intentions (bad) into what’s good for society (DEV) and that the win-win quality of WWEPs and WWP relationships doesn’t matter. We ignore his conspiracy/corruption warning--how WLP corporate oligopolies collude to limit output, raise prices, kill price-competition/market rivals, buy politicians, and profit from war. A third is the failure: (a) to reject Smith’s IH-rooted, elite-pleasing, WWE-imaged, MBP/war-loving, AD/SOF-based Hamiltonian/British WLE/culture; and (b) to become real-educated WWP individuals who practice pro-DEV peacemaking steps/principles (Chart 1) and processes (e.g., cultural/study/trade exchanges). With the help of Dr. Deming’s concepts (The New Economics, pp. 98, 96, 53) of system (a network of interdependent components that work together to accomplish its aim), profound knowledge (PK, appreciation for a system, knowledge about variation, theory of knowledge, and psychology of individuals, society, and change), and optimization (a process of orchestrating the efforts of all components toward achievement of the stated aim), we can be peacemakers who help the WWP and WLP to end war and to create DBP.
     A fourth failure is using our textbooks to teach our children how to be selfish (­ their own greed, income, MBP, consumption) without teaching them the AD effects of our WLP (e.g., A. Fastow, M. Stewart) taking textbook-impossible “free lunches” and how to become WWP people who manage DEV-based peacemaking organizations. We thereby ignore the conceptual links between free rider, opportunity cost (more necessarily costs everyone more), and AD. A fifth failure is our Utopian circular flow diagram, which denies any abuse of WLEPs, AD, or MBP; it portrays input/output markets as level playing fields where no buyer/seller has a MBP advantage or a Structural Opportunity to Exploit (SOTE).
     A sixth failure is our cultural hypocrisy. While our leaders can’t find any IH or GH to stop corporate war-profiteering/price-gouging, convince the Muslim/Islam world that we’re not oil-profiteering/cultural-cleansing military invaders of Iraq, or to bring it peace, they dodge questions about their non-public-debated invasion of a non-terrorist nation without nuclear weapons. Chart 1 shows that their WLP language/policies perpetuate Smith’s hypocrisy--his alleged good teaching to do good (consistent with his deathbed 6th edition/MS warning to teach/tell the truth and not sell out to the elite--what he claimed Oxford didn’t do for him) but his selling out his own students (in mid-semester), the non-elite (working folk), & DBP to do well (his life of affluence for creating his IH Lie--AD/bad ® DEV/good--contrary to all of his warnings). His Lie has evolved into an arrogant, anti-democratic, elite-serving, pro-war mass education of economics students--Samuelson’s textbook instructions (Doughterty, p. 193) that ignore peacemaking steps or principles (or other WWEPs) and imply that monopoly/guns/war are qualitatively as good for economic growth (EG, more is better) and DEV as RE, health care, good jobs, and DBP. It gives them and their hired guns (e.g., image spinners) a pre-approved, pre-rationalized agenda for more corporate monopoly (e.g., Halliburton war services, Bechtel weapons), AD, and war. It keeps us naïve, fearful, hateful, and greedy--ready to worship/serve them and to reject a Jeffersonian/American WWE/folk (community-building)/DEV-based peace (DBP) culture based on win-win policies (e.g., Earth-keeping, corporate accountability, minimal inflation, cooperation/formal cooperatives, quality output, safety nets). Our seventh failure is effectively using SRM to oppose WWEPs, MP, integrity (doing good regardless of any SOTE), Oberle’s Micro-Macro Law of Economics (the health of a nation’s seven fragile, highly-interdependent systems--culture, education, economy, society, polity, foreign policy, and ecology--across time and place is only as good as the quality of WWEPs, behavior, relationships, and effects of its five real-world QTIs), or other sources of mutual respect, trust, SC, CS, and DBP.
     An eighth failure results from our ignorance, misinterpretation, or refusal to objectively look at Adam Smith’s life and economics. We can go beyond his Lie to develop a theory of WWE centered on the conflict between cultures--real education/DEV/WWC/peace vs. mass education/AD/WLC/war (Chart 1). Doing so means designing/applying win-win concepts, profiles, methods, analyses, and policies to help WLP individuals, organizations, and nations transcend (qualitatively change) their individual WLEPs and WLP/war culture to become genuine WWP, pro-DEV peacemakers. We can drop our textbook-perpetuating Pollyannaish belief in our Triple Lie--that the IH of price-gouging de facto monopolists and the GH of nominal statespersons (anti-folk politicians) effectively work as a Galbraithian countervailing power (offsetting checks-and-balances) to qualitatively transform our corporate-dominated cross-institutional bias for EG, EC, economic profit (EP), and war into DBP everywhere. We need to analyze if real-world, non-price-competitive, profit/power-hungry corporate middlemen actually set and exploit non-competitive, whatever-the-market-will-bear prices that commodity farmers pay for farm inputs and parity-defying low commodity prices that they take for risking their capital/management/time/labor.
     Real-world types of resources and real-world business firms. Ignoring E.F. Schumacher’s concept of enough (our need for moderation/not greed) and his point that some resources are renewable and others (e.g., oil, coal, natural gas) aren’t, economists’ Triple Lie, like Graph 1, sub-optimally favors AD cross-border (industrial/financial/commercial) corporations (XBCs) whose PR experts, lobbyists, and market agents share a MBP/SOTE-based SRM bias to profit at the expense of their own suppliers or other stakeholders. Our production possibilities curve correctly shows that there’s a conflict, opportunity cost, or zero-sum between current investment, production, and consumption, but it ignores all micro-economic conflict between corporate middlemen and their stakeholders (e.g., in domestic farm input/output markets) and its micro- and macroeconomic effects; (PSG#1 shows both). It seriously understates the future opportunity cost of our ­ imperialism (domination of weaker nations’ affairs) and ­ risk of jihad terrorism (e.g., bombs) from WLP non-Americans and market instability from cartels (e.g., O.P.E.C.), monopolists (e.g., Enron, Wal-Mart), or war-hawking corporations (e.g., Halliburton) that control non-price-competitive markets, politicians, or foreign policymakers. With record private/public debt, war-based Mid-East instability spikes all costs/prices and threatens our living Earth, its resources, RE, non-war-oriented businesses, good jobs, DEV, SC, CS, the standard of living, the quality of life, and life itself.
     Our energy-dependency crisis: (a) hurts price-taking commodity farmers and non-Deming firms (ones that can’t lower cost or price since they maximize short-run profits and ignore profound knowledge or PK, optimization, and continuous improvement in output quality), (b) helps Deming firms (ones that can lower cost and price since they practice PK, optimization, and continuous improvement in output quality--the Deming component), and (c) as our AD/conflict vs. DEV/cooperation theory and PSG show, gives a DEV-based peace dividend to Deming/Oberle firms (Deming firms who also pursue the Oberle component--ones who freely choose to practice peacekeeping steps/principles (Chart 1) or other WWEPs in their relationships, oppose AD/war, and cooperatively produce SC, CS, and DBP. Ignoring the world’s glaring need for Deming/Oberle firms, typical economists promote Graph 1 as if EG matters but DEV and AD don’t. In theory and reality, non-Deming firms inescapably face rising costs (especially energy) if they try to produce more--following two textbook laws (Diminishing Returns, Increasing Opportunity Cost) that determine the Law of Supply. As defined, only Deming/Oberle firms, partly due to their pro-DEV WWP relationships with stakeholders and the needy of a community, are increasingly more able to be free of the two laws’ constraints due to their understanding/application of QTI or individual variation.
     Why we need a QTI-based theory of peace. In light of economists’ serious errors, Dr. Deming’s assumption that GWSC, or A, is, in our words, a Deming/Oberle firm, is understandable. He doesn’t realize that if A is WLP it abuses a de facto monopoly market by paying a whatever-the-market-will-bear price to B (a price-taking commodity farmer) and it transforms B’s sugar beets into a much higher-priced, differentiated, and branded product. Graph 1 doesn’t show that the market enables A to gain at B’s expense--to get more for less. Our PSG theory shows that whether A (or another business) optimally lowers its cost and passes part of its gain back to B and another part of it on to consumers as a lower price depends on its crucial cultural and non-free (its effects matter to the decision-maker and others) choice to optimize WWP relationships with its stakeholders and other needy people.
     Identifying qualitative types of real-world individuals (QTIs). Dr. Deming’s observation that both people and things vary in quality inspired this author (in 1984) to develop/teach about a set of PSGs to do two tasks2. One is analytical--to illustrate why Smith’s IH and GH may or may not (don’t necessarily) transform: (a) psychological, anti-social, conflict-generating, economically-violent WLEPs or selfish interests of our textbooks’ over-generalized abstract economic man (or of the other two WLP sub-types that the author/others have experienced in the real world); into (b) real education, trust, cooperation, social capital (SC), community solidarity (CS), and DBP. To do so we identify and include for use on our composite PSG#1 all five real-world qualitative sub-types (QTIs) on the following vertical continuum/ hierarchy/axis in descending order with the qualitative best or WWP sub-type of individual, (5), placed last (at its bottom) and the qualitative worst or WLP sub-type of individual, (1), placed first (at its top), in order to theoretically predict the latter’s WLP practice of AD/war and the former’s WWP practice of DBP: (1) Heartless/Ruthless Man (HRM): He’s an unwholesome ego-, profit-, power-, and violence-hungry icon--a SRM model of WLEPs, intentional harm, and insatiable evil who fosters/exploits mass education, hate, fear, greed, monopoly, violence, war, or other sources of AD. He’s an insensitive, arrogant, uncooperative, anti-community, and violent bully, monopolist, colonialist, or SOF terrorist who intentionally, knowingly, and freely chooses to practice WLEPs and produce AD/war in his SRM relationships with others. The nightly news confirms his abuse of MBP and WLEPs to harm others; (2) Economic Man (EM): Because of his mass education, he typically serves as an order-taker who does HRM’s “free-lunch” work and doesn’t necessarily intend to or know that he harms others--produces AD/win-lose effects. He’s an unwholesome, anti-historical, structurally-naive, intellectually-challenged, theory-hating, selfish, individualistic, materialistic, hedonistic, anti-social, holistically-irrational, FOC-violating, anti-community, anti-spiritual, peace-killing believer/perpetuator of Adam Smith's Lie. He doesn’t understand that Smith's deathbed and overall contextual economic messages urged everyone to become an accountable peacemaker (not an uncivil savage); in our words that means first freely choosing to be a real-educated WWP Socio-Economic Man who develops a conscience and daily practices WWEPs in his relationships. Regardless of his false belief that EG always produces DEV, his typical market and non-market behavior produces AD/win-lose effects--just as HRM and SEMWLM do; (3) Socio-Economic Man with a Win-Lose Mindset at the Moment (SEMWLM): He freely chooses to make/renew a personal intellectual/spiritual commitment to tenaciously become a DEV-based peacemaker (PM) ASAP; however, at the moment, for whatever reason, he’s too indecisive or weak-willed to be wholesome enough to behaviorally practice WWEPs in a specific relationship with another specific real-world individual. Despite his win-win commitment, he unintentionally produces win-lose effects that harm others, his relationships with them, the community and its seven fragile systems--just as HRM and EM do; (4) Socio-Economic Man With a Win-Win Mindset At the Moment (SEMWWM): She wisely chooses to make a personal intellectual/spiritual commitment to tenaciously become a DEV-based PM ASAP and is wholesome enough at the moment to practice WWEPs and thereby produce DC, CS, and DBP by bonding with, forgiving, cooperating with, and/or loving others--to do good to, for, and with others and/or to non-violently challenge WLP individuals, organizations, or nations to do the same. Fortunately, she produces win-win behavior, relationships, and individual, structural, and/or ecological effects--the same as a PM and in sharp contrast to the win-lose or AD behavior, relationships, and effects produced by HRM, EM, and momentarily-weak-willed SEMWLM; and (5) Peacemaker (PM): He’s a real-educated, holistic, organic, wholesome, wise, socially-optimizing, community-developing person who practices WWEPs to teach, serve, inspire, develop, empower, love, and sacrifice for others in increasingly more corners of his thinking, behavior, relationships, and life and to challenge the WLP to do so. He’s a real-world example of how WWP people create peace one momentary relationship at a time.
     A second PSG task is cultural--to inspire more people to get a real education, learn/daily practice WWEPs (e.g., our 10 peacemaking steps/principles in Chart 1), design/run/support Deming/Oberle firms, and to prevent all war(s) unquestioned/tolerated by the SRM AD/war policies of non-optimizers (typical textbook authors, apologetic economists, think-tank experts, elite-pleasing policymakers, or others who get/stay rich and powerful by perpetuating Smith’s Lie/Problems and/or ignoring his deathbed or overall warnings about WLE/WLC). The latter, in effect, strangle Jeffersonian/American WWE/folk/DBP culture (whose WWP people/organizations ¯ gaps between the classes and ­ Earth-keeping, RE, DEV, small business, informal cooperation/formal cooperatives, price competition, SC, CS, the middle class, economic/political/personal voice of stakeholders, life chances of the poor, WWC, and DBP). They do so by promoting a set of politically-correct, cookie-cutter Western beliefs to popularize Hamiltonian/British WLE/elite/war culture (whose WLP people/organizations abuse mass education, corporate monopoly, outsourcing-based colonialism, usury, WLC, imperialistic foreign policy, and war): Selfishness is good, ignore ecology, community and DBP aren’t my problem, more is better, take a “free lunch” to get ahead/be win-lose, blame poor people for their poverty, more costs more, markets are efficient and just, monopoly is fine, the U.N. is too slow/weak, war is necessary, and peace is weak/unrealistic. Worse yet, mass-educated SRM WLP troublemakers use the beliefs and AD policies (e.g., health care profiteering, corporate sweatshops) to kill folk-based WWC. Ignoring Dr. Deming, they use quality claims/PR images to mask WLP corporate middlemen who lower output quality/safety/durability, pollute, and price-gouge their own stakeholders--denying them respect, economic voice (EV), SC, CS, and DBP.
     Seeing the world as it is and could be. Typical economists wear rose-colored glasses as if EG necessarily produces cooperation, SC, CS, and DBP. They give a bullish spin to sub-optimizing, de-stabilizing, win-lose/AD conditions/problems (e.g., pollution, inflation, rising interest rates/public debt, a disappearing middle class, cultural war) of corporate monopoly and cowboy diplomacy that threaten economic resources, poor/working Americans, democracy, economic collapse, and more war. They don’t tell us that if our large corporations kill Fordism (paying workers a living wage so they can afford material comforts), then more Americans and non-Americans will work more merely to survive. Their WLE indirectly produces AD (e.g., ­ prices, ¯ purchasing power) because they conservatively imply that geopolitical conditions (e.g., Iraq War, Middle East terrorists) and supply-side economics (giving big tax breaks/other incentives to rich/powerful to ­ EG/AD) dictate federal budget cuts to ¯ war debt, inflation, and social programs or safety nets. Their anti-folk, pro-elite SOF message is that working people need to build their own safety nets against volatile markets or other forces (e.g., scams, disasters, layoffs)--as if WWEPs, short/medium/long-run optimizing (e.g., ­ life chances), and organizational accountability are our personal problems--not corporate priorities and public policy concerns. In contrast, WWP pro-DEV peacemakers/policymakers practice their WWEPs in good & bad times to cooperatively build SC at home and abroad--regardless of current conditions/problems. Our conflict theory helps us to analyze whom we are when we relate to other people and to understand why we need WWEPs to create DEV-based peace.
See Graphs 1, 2 and 3
     Graph 1: Deming’s first S&D error: his belief that ­ MD = ­ MS in farm output markets necessarily produces DEV and WWC--as if our cultural, social, and economic conflict of WWEPs vs. WLEPs doesn’t exist or matter.3 Graph 1 shows at time 2 an equal increase in MD & MS; in IH-assuming textbook theory, market equilibrium price (MEP) stays the same and market equilibrium quantity (MEQ) ­ substantially. It tells Dr. Deming/others that Graph 1 reflects the wonderful world of Smith’s IH. It alleges good news--a price-competitive, growing market/economy enlarging the economic pie and everyone’s piece as if each market’s IH necessarily transforms all selfish WLEPs into DBP & produces a WWC whereby we all get rich/do well/share a ­ quality of life without harming others and without any need to do good. Deming believes the story. His PBS video asserts a win-win between sugar-beet farmers and GWSC, as if better seeds ­ yields and produce a stable MEP plus an ­ MEQ. Graph 1 veils AD if A, a WLP oligopolist, profits by paying B, a farmer, no incentive (the same price) for spending and producing more; in effect, the market unjustly gives A more costly sugar beets for the same price per unit.
     Deming’s error about WLP corporate middlemen (in his 1980 video) is an easy analytical mistake. Like Smith’s IH Lie, his thinking about MS & MD violates textbook FOC, the error of thinking what’s true for one individual/group necessarily is true for another within an organization, system, or whole, and vice-versa--as if any specific decision/policy has the same effect upon all individuals (who have the same economic principles/economic motivation), groups, and the whole itself. The FOC incorrectly implies a symmetry/equality of effect (e.g., the Fed’s monetary policy) as if all individuals, groups, and the whole supposedly win or lose together--with no exceptions; in comparison, textbook theory of exchange identifies some individual variation in the ability to negotiate (as if both don’t necessarily have the same MBP) but fails to mention any variation in & conflict of economic principles--implying we are & should be selfish, WLP, AD, & immoral. The errors keep us naïve about how WWP people produce DBP and how to see the AD or socially-sub-optimal problems behind our textbooks’ pro-DEV face/mask of Graph 1. In contrast, PSG#1 shows why the agri-business euphemisms, U.S. farm markets and lobbyist-based farm policy, are DEV masks that favor AD farm input sellers (oligopolists who differentiate and limit output to ­ their prices) and commodity buyers (oligopsonists who buy ­ farm surpluses to ­ EP & EC).
     Dr. Deming believes that Graph 1 necessarily reflects clear-cut, win-win input/output market effects for both GWSC and raw sugar-beet farmers--neglecting GWSC’s SOTE (as Cell#1 of PSG#1 shows). He explains that GWSC sells high-quality sugar-beet seeds to the farmers (implicitly at a reasonable price), who plant them and later produce high per-acre yields. He calls the result a win-win (as if both receive more for less and B’s cost doesn’t ­ at time 2), and he incorrectly assumes that both market participants have the same WWEPs and MBP (as if neither has a SOTE the other nor would do so if he did). Graph 1 also reflects Say’s Law, the error in thinking that S creates its own D; John B. Say alleged that WWP processes of production & exchange automatically generate enough demand & income for suppliers to spend it (no ¯ in real income) to generate enough demand to exactly buy back the same increase in output that’s been produced. Graph 1 shows us a constant price at time 2 because the increase in demand at time 2 is equal in size to the substantial increase in supply; however, coupled with Smith’s IH ideology/Lie, it incorrectly implies that no single buyer or seller can unfairly gain or lose from a stable MEP--it doesn’t show/warn us that a constant MEP1 may veil/hide an AD/win-lose exchange between buyer A and seller B. It also neglects Schumacher’s non-renewable resources concept and our defined types of real-world firms--the increase in MEQ (e.g., ­ oil consumption) favors SRM EG over long run stability and DBP.
     The typical textbook S&D theory is abstract and unrealistic--one between corn farmers/producers and corn consumers who implicitly buy industrial/trade field corn (not sweet corn) to eat. Graph 1 reflects how Dr. Deming, clouded by textbook instructions of Smith’s Lie, Say’s Law, and textbook circular flow diagrams, incorrectly assumes that since the price of sugar beets (or any other commodity) is set by a perfectly-competitive market, then all input/output relationships (including those between farmers and corporate input suppliers or corporate sugar-beet buyers) are both efficient and just with no SOTE. He lacks a concept of market crossover (mixture of textbook market types) and inter-individual conflict to go beyond textbook exchange theory; the latter, in contrast to our PSG, gives each buyer/seller some MBP to negotiate/bargain but stops short of identifying any possible SOTE or WLEPs--as if neither buyer nor seller could be or is selfish enough to profit from buying or selling at a price respectively below or above MEP. Deming assumes all economic decision-makers in the sugar-beet seed and commodity markets necessarily follow textbook dictates/instructions--as if markets are price-competitive enough to always transform buyer/seller conflict of interest/WLEPs into MEP and DBP. He ignores that the instructions empower GWSC to act as a de facto WLP monopolist with a clear SOTE commodity farmers who act as if they always get a fair, market-dictated MEP from any corporate middleman on a level playing field. PSG#1 shows that Smith’s IH can be a WLP individual’s win-lose/AD hand that is veiled as a good hand.
     Graph 2: Deming’s second S&D error--his naiveté that WLP corporate middlemen in U.S. agriculture can sub-optimize/exploit their stakeholders in output markets: ­ MS > ­ MD. Graph 2 at time 2 shows an ­ in MS substantially bigger than the ­ in MD, a ¯ in MEP, and a substantial ­ in MEQ. GWSC, or A, can sub-optimally abuse its WLEPs and SOTE by buying more sugar beets from B (or any other sugar-beet producer/supplier) to process into value-added sugar products at less cost if it pays B less than an economically-just or fair price--not a fair or market-optimizing price. Firm-level graphs aren’t shown due to space limitations, but, as in Graph 1, B’s output cost ­ as it produces more, putting itself in a price-cost squeeze where its profit ¯ while A’s profit ­--the market’s hidden gift from B to A. Our conflict theory and PSG explain what Graph 2 can’t--if A’s a WLP oligopolist, then it creates AD by exploiting its own suppliers (it pays them less for more) and the market enables A to take more of B’s profit when MEP1 ¯.
     Insights from Dr. Deming’s errors. Reflecting on his errors give us four valuable insights. One is why Adam Smith’s Lie (about IH’s ability to transform WLC into WWC) is glaringly irrational, AD, pro-war, and long-run unsustainable; it keeps the sources of war and peace disconnected from the souls of economics, WWC, and of specific real-world people who already practice WWEPs and create DBP in their relationships. A second is our individual, national, and global need to develop a WWE culture, theory, and community of real education, WWC, and DBP to help WWP people/organizations oppose all types of war and celebrate the dignity, fulfillment, and joy of work, cooperation, love, and a life of peace. A third is the need to optimize WWP groups, organizations, institutions, and systems rather than MBP, SRM private/public policy, monopoly profit, violence, or war. A fourth is why, as we’ll examine below, using a PSG helps us to winnow (glean--to identify, profile, and qualitatively separate): (a) the chaff--selfish, heartless, ruthless, violent, WLP people and corporations who, by abusing their WLEPs and MBP to sub-optimize and SRM, produce AD/war; from (b) the grain--caring, loving WWP people who pro-actively create DEV-based peace by honoring WWEPs by not abusing their MBP, optimizing the well-being of their organizations, stakeholders/markets/WWC, and by continuously improving output quality.
     Graph 3: Deming’s S&D insight about how WWP businesses/non-profits can prosper more over time by organizational-, market-, and WWC-level optimizing of win-win relationships with stakeholders (e.g., Japan’s industrial sector, Ocean Spray/other formal cooperatives): ­ MD > ­ MS in a farmer/supplier commodity market. It illustrates one way to apply Dr. Deming’s suggestions in his books, Out of the Crisis (OC) and The New Economics, of how to get the U.S. economy out of its cultural crisis. For example, a WWP corporate middleman optimizes by ­ his firm’s demand for more high-quality sugar beets--­ MEP & its price at time 2, giving a non-performance-based economic incentive to sugar-beet farmers/suppliers who cooperate to ­ quality and productivity. Similar in effect to food customers who bypass corporate middlemen to market-optimize with organic/natural farmers in farmers’ markets, Graph 3 shows at time 2 in a farm commodity market (e.g., sugar beets) an ­ in MD bigger than the ­ in MS. MEP ­ by a small amount (that helps price-taking farmers a lot) and MEQ ­ substantially, as in Graphs 1 and 2. Since paying suppliers a fair price to produce more and better output is historically or theoretically more likely to occur in Japan’s WWC culture, (e.g., our oligopolists use cost-plus energy prices to spike profits), we need WWP U.S. industry price leaders to price-optimize (not price-gouge) in order to help build stronger organizations, domestic markets, and WWC (systems) before their WLP rivals ­ stagflation and economic collapse by killing Fordism with trade deficits and the outsourcing of good American jobs.
     Why we need a PSG: In Graph 3 more units of output are available at time 2, but S&D theory doesn’t tell us if GWSC or sugar beet buyer X will necessarily take the oligopsonist price-leader initiative or be a textbook price-follower. In our conflict theory, if buyer X is WLP he pays sugar-beet seller Y much less than the MEP and at least the MEP if he’s WWP. PSG#1 shows something textbook S&D theory can’t--it makes every difference to the buyer and the seller, their relationship, the community’s seven fragile systems, and to DBP whether two specific market participants are, at the moment, WLP vs. WWP. We can extend Dr. Deming’s (OC, p. 98) warning (that SRM of profit is a disease--a sure road to disaster) to non-Deming businesses that cut quality and steadily lose market share to WWP Deming/Oberle firms. The latter produce more higher-quality output at lower cost; they’re less dependent on MEP (or a price leader) and more able to optimize themselves, markets, and WWC by paying an efficiency wage to employees and a fair/higher price to suppliers, lowering retail prices for their customers, and rewarding long-run investors. As Dr. Deming reported, in hard times/conditions WWP managers cut their own salaries way before thinking about cutting the wages or jobs of working people--their own consumers.
     What is a PSG? It’s a micro-/macro-economic theoretical tool that gives us an analytical insight into win-win vs. win-lose effects of decisions that textbook S&D theory can’t. It shows why and how we can go beyond Smith’s Lie/Problems and Dr. Deming’s errors if we stop perpetuating a second type of Adam Smith Problem--assuming/implying that abstract, price-competitive market S&D forces (based on psychological, selfish, anti-social indifference curves that endorse unrestrained WLP desire for ­ income) competitively transform WLP relationships into DEV-based peace. Following Smith’s MS premise that we need to develop a WWP conscience (impartial spectator), it helps us to stop apologizing for all three individual WLP sub-types. It meets our need to relate to others as if the variation in the quality of real-world people does matter and to analyze and/or predict if any specific real-world market relationship is or isn’t: (1) WWP; (2) economically just/win-win; (3) medium- and long-run sustainable; (4) committed to continuous quality improvement and socially/ecologically-optimal stakeholder relationships, markets, or WWC; and (5) a reflection of each individual’s momentary choice of DEV-based peace over AD and war.
     Shifting our analytical & cultural focus from structurally unrealistic textbook markets to structural conflict/war vs. cooperation/peace theory and community focused on WLP vs. WWP individuals/types of decision-makers, their relationships (in and out of markets), & their respective predictable (AD vs. DEV) micro- and macro-analytical effects. Since all 5 qualitative individual sub-types (QTIs) theoretically could be in the same place at once, our encapsulated meta-economic theory helps us to: (a) see our momentary choice of WWEPs over WLEPs as a wise way to transcend individual and structural conflict between two cultures: Hamiltonian (ME/AD/war) vs. Jeffersonian (RE/DEV/peace); and (b) predict win-win vs. win-lose effects of exchanges, transactions, interactions, or other relationships. Chart 1 & composite PSG#1 are complementary theoretical tools that give us a non-textbook-dependent way to create a DBP culture, theory, and community one relationship at a time. They help us respect, visualize, design, develop, apply, critique, and re-design holistic/organic economic theory--a structural mindset/perspective (in contrast to textbook psychology’s bias for selfish/SOF private property accumulation by XBCs and the power elite) that shows the analytical link between two specific people relating to each other, two very important peace-over-war decision-making criteria (MBP and their choice--or not--of WWEPs over WLEPs), individual/community needs, their unique relationship, and its (hopefully) win-win vs. win-lose effects upon each of them, it, and the seven fragile systems within a local, nation, or global community.
     Our life experience indicates that it's the WWEPs (or, in amoral EM’s case, the AD effects of his lack of them) vs. WLEPs of any two specific decision-makers in a specific relationship that really matter to everyone, and we need to understand them if, going from good theory to good policy, we want to produce a culture/causal chain of peace rather than war. Chart 1 and our composite PSG#1 illustrate that A (or any selfish, greedy, or WLP individual), consistent with his SRM (effectively-WLP) beliefs, abuses his WLEPs (especially if he has/fakes a SOTE) to take a “free lunch”; and B (or any authentic WWP peacemaker) won't. Our underlying premise is that B values inner peace, economic justice, and DEV in his relationship with A and rejects the S&D-hidden violence/AD that A uses to hurt or kill others; B isn’t trying to SRM profit, but to optimally break even or make a small economic profit so both participants, the community, its seven fragile systems, and any others in the whole wide fragile world all gain. Our theory predicts that a WLP individual sees a relationship as a mere impersonal exchange/transaction/deal with a possible SOTE, but a WWP individual sees it as a way to create respect, trust, SC, CS, and DBP.
     PSG#1 is a composite meta-economic prototype that shows us the smallest structural relationship between one or more QTIs. It’s an analytical lens to help us understand that each individual’s choice of WWEPs over WLEPs is a personal, cultural, structural, and community-developing step that creates DEV-based peace rather than AD/war within a specific relationship between two specific, real-world people (e.g., one buyer and one seller) at a given point and beyond. Like good ecology, their relationship’s individual and structural effects upon each other matter a lot because any given interaction is, in effect, a commitment to one of two conflicting cultures: a red/Hamiltonian/WLP one of ME/WLEPs/AD/WLC/war vs. a green/Jeffersonian/WWP one of RE/WWEPs/DEV/WWC/peace. PSG#1 helps us to peel back Smith’s IH veil by predicting the individual, structural, and/or ecological (not shown) effects of all theoretically possible relationships between any of the 3 WLP individual sub-types with each other, the living Earth, or with either of the 2 WWP individual sub-types (with opposite WWEPs) that have the same (level cells # 4, 7, 10, 13) or different (12 un-level cells) levels of MBP.
     Two examples of composite PSG#1 cell theory--predictable behavior of any qualitative sub-type of WLP individual in a relationship with any qualitative sub-type of WWP individual on either a level or an un-level playing field. PSG#1 gives us an encapsulated, microcosmic analytical template to view the cultural conflict (war vs. peace) theory of Chart 1: 12 grid cells reflect one-sided relationships where one individual structurally has a SOTE and of 4 grid cells (# 4, 7, 10, 13) where neither individual objectively has a SOTE. In the latter case, it predicts that WLP individual A strives to deceive individual B (into believing he’s giving more value to their relationship than B) and that WWP individual B won’t do so to A (or others)--because B identifies with and values his wholesomeness & soul. In brief, WLP individuals predictably behave in a win-lose/AD way by taking a “free lunch” every chance they get and WWP people don’t--consistent with Chart 1’s opposite paths of mass education/war and of real education/peace.
     Since each PSG cell compares the MBP of its two members, in Cell#16 the Material-Based Power Relationship (MBPR) compares WLP#5’s (pyramided) 1 unit to WWP#4’s (circled) 4 units. For the purpose of consistent, objective analysis, we refer to the respective differences of three, two, and one in the absolute MBPR of the two individuals in any cell as substantial, considerable, and small. By definition and structural position, individuals #1 through #4 on the horizontal axis of PSG#1 are WWP greens--one of two sub-types of WWP individuals who more (PM) or less (SEMWWM) daily practice Chart 1’s peacemaking steps/principles; due to their WWEPs, they predictably won’t, short of a SOF cultural war of survival (one between a giant Goliath and an underdog David) like our own Revolutionary War and Vietnam, take a “free lunch” from anyone even if they have a SOTE. In sharp contrast, individuals #5 through #8 on the vertical axis are WLP reds (profit-, power-, or violence-hungry bullies/monopolists/terrorists)--WLP individuals who believe or talk win-win but use win-lose SOF ideology (e.g. need to outsource to be competitive, or other WLP versions of SRM) to take a “free lunch” from the other individual. Textbook hero EM predictably produces just as much economic violence/injustice or AD as a HRM in the same structural grid position. Even if EM’s behavior seems to be honorable, good, or WWP, his economic choice/role is being a SRM order-taker for his boss, who, in our WLP culture, predictably is a HRM; he’s as functionally irresponsible or violent as a HRM because, like the mass-educated German middle class/Hitler’s officers, he lacks the real education and tenacity to act as a WWP David (who challenges WLP Goliath to transform individual-, group-, or class-level AD economic, political, and social conditions into DEV-based peace)--rather than worship, admire, or tolerate/acquiesce WLC’s AD gods of mass education, monopoly profit, MBP, violence, and war.
     Insights from PSG#1 cell analysis. Cells # 1 & 16 show us polar-opposite PSG examples of MBP imbalance (asymmetry on an un-level playing field) where a structural top dog has a substantial SOTE or kill the other; together they show why it matters a lot whether we wisely choose WWEPs/peace over WLEPs/war. Cell#1 dramatically shows the Red (Hamiltonian, Violence, AD, War, Peace-Killing) Principle: If individual A has a mass education and believes his only path to a good life is to practice WLEPs--whether or not he’s the structural top dog in a relationship with another--then, except for a cultural war, he predictably harms/kills individual B plus our hope/need for him to be a PM rather than a HRM. That is, A takes or steals (e.g., by ME, ideology, fear/hate, intimidation, subsistence wages, low sugar-beet/commodity prices paid to suppliers) B's market value, MBP, lifeblood, human spirit, energy, or life--even though his doing so is anti-holistic, anti-organic, & AD because he harms/kills B, the quality of their relationship, any peace community plus its seven fragile systems, and peace itself. Those win-lose effects reflect A’s naive, psychological “I’m-free-to-exploit-or-destroy-the-world” textbook instructions & pro-war beliefs--unconsciously, uncritically, and immorally seeing/endorsing himself as a selfish, free-to-be-irresponsible, take-whatever-the-market-will-bear, SOF, materialistic, AD, and soulless WLP being.
     Like Smith’s Lie, A sells his mind, spirituality, or soul. Worse yet, his arrogant WLE causes a third Adam Smith Problem--a recurrent cycle of more AD, retaliatory civil unrest/insurgency/terrorism, and internal/external military violence. In PSG#1 detail, the MBPR compares the pyramided 4 of structural top dog WLP#8 (e.g., our post-9/11 invasion of non-al-Qaeda-linked Iraq) with a pyramided 1 (not shown) of structural underdog WLP#1 (e.g., our official cultural enemies, S. Hussein & O. bin Laden). A huge exception to an otherwise straightforward analysis of PSG cells is when the cycle ignites an unconventional cultural (e.g., class, racial, religious/holy) war. Its risk requires us to set aside or even invert our textbooks’ other-things-equal-assumption when predicting its outcome. For example, if the Iraq War actually is, or is simply perceived as, a conventional (non-cultural) war of military occupation for oil --not for cultural hegemony--then WLP#8 has a substantial SOTE or quickly win it (e.g., 1991 Gulf War) against a materialistic underdog, WLP#1, but the objective odds need to be reduced or even inverted if we/others see the former as The New Romans and the latter as an agrarian, spiritually-centered, tribal Islamic culture supported by insurgent underdogs and oil-rich top dogs--as a cultural war. In contrast, Cell#16 illustrates the Green (Jeffersonian, Win-Win, DEV, or Peacemaking) Principle: If individual A has a real education and wisely chooses to be a SEM or PM who practices WWEPs rather than WLEPs, then, except for a cultural war, he’s the structural top dog in a specific relationship with individual B and he predictably treats him with dignity/respect--thereby creating or producing DEV-based peace. In Cell#16 detail, our theory predicts that structural top dog WWP#4 has a substantial SOTE (to take a “free lunch” from) the structural underdog, WLP#5, but won’t do so; he’ll create trust, SC, SC, and DBP in all situations other than a cultural war by practicing WWEPs in increasingly more relationships with others.
     Summary of PSG#1 cell analysis. Each of the 16 cells in PSG#1 shows why the way that each individual relates to another is important to both, their relationship, their families, each community’s seven fragile systems, and conditions of war vs. peace. Each relationship in or out of a market is a source of war vs. peace since any one individual can--depending on his choice of WLEPs vs. WWEPs--create AD/war vs. DBP. The northwest quadrant’s set of 6 cells is the home of the Red Principle. It shows many variations of how a red/WLP individual structurally has MBP over a green/WWP individual B (or, though not shown, a red/WLP one) and--except during a cultural war--predictably will harm, abuse, exploit, or kill him. Given our definition of a heartless, ruthless man (HRM), Cell#1 warns us, especially during a cultural war, to be alert for any words, tone, or behavior that might hint that he may be hiding his true colors--red or WLEPs. The other/southeast quadrant’s set of 6 cells is the home of the Green Principle. It shows variations of how a green/WWP individual has a SOTE to harm a WLP (or, though not shown on PSG#1’s vertical axis, another WWP) individual but, short of a cultural war, freely chooses to not do so. He seizes the moment to create good will and DBP by treating another person in a win-win way.
     Conclusion: Our DEV/peace vs. AD/war theory encapsulated in Chart 1 & composite PSG#1 show and help explain why each of the 3 qualitative sub-types of a red/WLP individual (contrary to either qualitative sub-type of green/WWP individual) are dangerous to each other and the rest of the world. Each predictably practices WLEPs, abuses MBP or his SOTE, and creates AD/war when relating to another individual (whether WLP or WWP); the huge exception is a cultural war that unites sets of underdogs who perceive themselves as humble Davids fighting an arrogant Goliath. Textbook instructions and Adam Smith's Lie/Problems still mislead us that an IH of ample market (price or non-price) competition (corporate oligopolists use the latter) and a GH of centralized government necessarily transform the selfish mindsets, behavior, and effects of all WLP individuals into DBP--ignoring our need to be WWP, moral, accountable, or responsible enough to create DBP (not AD/war) in our relationships.
     Our theory of DEV-based peace (vs. AD-based war) and composite PSG#1 help us to see/expose Smith’s admitted Lie/Problems and to stop their perpetuation by WLP who worship or admire the rich and powerful. They also help us to make some helpful economic policy distinctions and strategies about the huge real-world variation in the quality of people and of their WLP vs. WWP relationships with each other in and out of markets so the WWP can keep the hope of peace alive and build communities of DEV-based peacemakers: (1) selfish EM and momentarily-weak-willed SEMWLM need to get a real education to understand the contrasting cultural/economic paths of AD/war vs. DBP in order to become WWP; (2) profit-, power-, or violence-hungry HRM, who currently controls our giant corporations, military, trade, political parties, foreign policy, and private news networks, needs to be vigilantly tracked to ensure that he’s not harming anyone; if he is, then, extending Adam Smith (WN), perhaps his corporate employer needs to lose its charter and forfeit its assets to a court-appointed formal cooperative that shares its profit and losses with its stakeholders; and (3) a truly-ruthless bully, monopolist, or terrorist needs--consistent with our native-American culture--to be understood, forgiven, socially-engaged, and integrated in  community projects with peacemaking people and groups since we collectively mis-educated, mis-socialized, or mislead him. Like our war-profiteering corporations, he’s our WLP cultural defect. We intellectually, socially, and morally owe him the respect of learning why Smith’s IH and GH didn’t work for him--why he didn’t learn how to help create a culture and community of peace. People in categories (2) and (3) are violent/dangerous and their lack of win-win economics (WWE) is clearly not good for the economy, society, or DBP. All people need to understand these qualitative differences to produce peace.
     Our peace theory and PSG#1 help us to see why WWEPs especially matter in farm commodity markets. They predict that corporate middlemen who are WLP in effect sub-optimally abuse oligopolistic markets and Congressional subsidies (e.g., Export Enhancement) to take a “free lunch” from suppliers, workers, customers, taxpayers, or other stakeholders who can’t afford a lobbyist or have a mass education, poor information, or limited income/material-based power (MBP). The positive message is that good-willed leaders, managers, & ordinary people have a need and opportunity to be less dependent upon the power elite to produce DBP rather than AD-based war. We can empower ourselves to create peace at any given moment--in or out of markets--if we get a real education and develop our own relationships with WWP people and Deming/Oberle type of economic-voice/system-optimizing, DBP-dividend-creating WWP firms and markets. Why? In contrast to textbook MS & MD theory, our theory shows and explains why, in our corporate-dominated AD/war culture, Smith’s IH and Keynes’ (big government) GH don’t necessarily produce EV, economic efficiency, economic justice, trust, respect, SC, CS, or DBP. The only guarantee of inner/world peace is WWP & WLP individuals who wisely choose to be a SEMWWM or a PM who, at the moment, practices pro-DEV peacemaking steps/WWEPs to heal cultural conflict, avoid war, optimize economic resources, improve output quality, reduce costs/prices, create more good jobs, give deserved economic incentives to stockholders/stakeholders, and ­ life chances of the poor.
     Our theory of peace and PSG#1 cell analyses suggest that our own or other people’s wise, intentional, and ensouling choice to practice WWEPs over WLEPs is a cultural decision more important than a WLE focus on MBP, winning, or being an arrogant top dog who harm or kills others. They also suggest that we need to re-develop and disinvest in all relationships with red/WLP individuals/organizations and, instead, to create/design, invest in, work for, and support more Deming/Oberle type of firms, cooperatives, non-    profits, or social organizations/institutions (e.g., schools, churches) that help us and others to become real-educated, holistic, fully-human, wise, wholesome, vigilant, accountable WWP peacemakers who build increasingly more WWP relationships and peace communities to bring DBP to all corners of the world.
Footnotes:
Young (p. 123) aptly notes: “The system of market exchange does, of course, require them [individuals] to practice the Smithian virtue of not committing injurious [harmful] acts against one another.” For more on the need for individuals and organizations to practice WWP DEV rather than WLP AD to offset sub-optimal separation of the three souls, unrealistic assumptions, and the macroeconomic conflict of long-run vs. short-run economic and cultural (non-economic) system needs, see Wayne H. Oberle’s 2007 article (in the National Social Science Journal), “The Failure of Anti-Developmental Economic Growth.” The following passage of Susan Dunn (Jefferson’s Second Revolution, pp. 1-2) captures the heat of the hotly-contested 1800 presidential election between the Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians--helping us to compare it with current American education, media, political parties, and ordinary citizens, who, by comparison, seem anti-intellectual, anti-democratic, and apathetic (no longer heavily engaged in knowing, discussing, and debating outside of the Beltway and not just before elections) about the economic principles and corporate-dominated WLC war-profiteering culture and foreign policy of our nation that Adam Smith warns us about in his elite-pleasing WN; it gives us an encapsulated, historical perspective to realize that the Iraq War has diverted the attention, thought, and public debate that the Jeffersonians insisted was necessary to prevent a total Hamiltonian take-over of their/our culture, education, politics, and foreign policy from ordinary working folks, as reflected by the well-documented disappearance of the American middle class (a clear example of AD): “In the fall of 1980…something had to be done to save the country from the ‘fangs of Jefferson,’ cried an anxious Alexander Hamilton. The Virginian’s radical promises of liberty, equal rights, and a redistribution of wealth and property, another Federalist declared, would introduce anarchy.” Kathryn Sutherland (p. xxxvii) indirectly addresses Brockway’s concerns about Smith’s and modern economists theoretical shortcomings. She notes that the WN “Smith [incorrectly] assumes a society of independent agents whose conduct [in our words, inconsistent with the MS Smith’s centering of market and non-market relationships on their impartial spectator/civilized conscience of cultural and social needs, meanings, and obligations] is self-policing in the [material] context of free-market relations and the [SOF] laws of nature, which are, as we have seen, the one and the same in his view.” She adds more about his WN writing: “While ‘progress’ [emphasis added/e.a.] dictates the emergence of the [final] commercial stage [of history], moral health [e.a.] lies in the agrarian and earlier stages”. She earlier (p. ix) states: “For not only did Smith view merchants and manufacturers with deep suspicion but he considered the sign of a properly functioning market system to be the maximization of material benefits to society’s lowest members. The comprehensiveness of his vision of a self-regulating market appears to confirm him as the founding father of economic conservatism [e.a.]; but against his celebration of capitalism as the surest means of wealth accumulation should he set a pessimism at the de-humanizing potential of industrial society [e.a.] which appears to anticipate Marx’s alienation theory”.
On p. 94 of Out of the Crisis Dr. Deming states that “everything is one of a kind” and in his 1980 PBS video, “Dr. W. Edwards Deming: The International Prophet of Quality,” he states that we need to understand that there’s a lot of variation in both people and things.
In textbook logic (that ignores cooperatives and cooperation beyond the production process), D & S are opposite, conflicting interests and independent market forces that can never be equal but are harmonized or offset at market equilibrium, the only point where quantity demanded equals quantity supplied. Do not confuse the latter point with both textbook theory of oligopoly and reality--that in oligopoly, the most common type of market in the U.S., a price-leader/price-follower relationship (or other forms of mutual interdependence) means, in effect, that there’s no price competition for consumers to benefit from as they do in perfectly-competitive and monopolistically-competitive (ma-and-pa) markets. Outside of formal cooperatives (e.g., Ocean Spray, Farmland Industries), which directly share their profit or losses with their voting shareholders, and/or informal cooperation, this means that mass-educated WLP buyers and sellers predictably have sub-optimal economic mindsets and interests; for example, consumers, in theory, selfishly want the lowest possible price, and, consistent with Dr. Deming’s theory, the highest possible output quality, whereas oligopolistic sellers, consistent with Adam Smith’s WN, selfishly want the highest possible price and thereby profess high-quality output, but actually may not produce it; for example, GM & Ford reportedly are losing market share to WWP Toyota  and Honda.

References:

(1) Brockway, George P.  The End of Economic Man: Principles of Any Future Economics. NYC, NY: HarperCollins Publishers,
        1991. Pp. 6-7 detail the optimistic but questionable belief that all three robust, interdependent children of the Enlightenment
        (the free market, the free state, and free thought by intellectuals and ordinary citizens) could vigilantly mediate/restrain
        win-lose effects of Smith’s IH.
(2) Deming, W. Edwards.  Out of the Crisis.  Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Advanced
        Engineering Study.  20th printing.  1982.
(3) Deming, W. Edwards.  The New Economics for Industry, Government, Education.  Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts
        Institute of Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study.  1993.
(4) Dougherty, Peter J.  Who’s Afraid of Adam Smith?: How the Market Got Its Soul!  Hoboken, N.J.:
        John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2002.
(5) Dunn, Susan.    Jefferson’s Second Revolution: The Election Crisis of 1800 and the Triumph of Republicanism.   Boston, MA:
        Houghton Mifflin Company.   2004.
(6) Heilbroner, Robert L.  Beyond the Veil of Economics: Essays in the Worldly Philosophy. 
        New York: W. W. Norton & Co., Inc.  1988.
(7) Lux, Kenneth.  Adam Smith’s Mistake: How a Moral Philosopher Invented Economics and Ended Morality. 
        Boston, MA: Shambhala, 1990.  Pp. 120-121 review Smith’s argument that people can be and are moral but only if they
        are accountable enough to develop their conscience or impartial spectator.
(8) Oberle, Wayne H., Kevin R. Stowers, and James P. Darby.  “A Definition of Development.”
        Journal of  the Community Development Society.  Vol. 5, No. 1 (Spring, 1974), pp. 61-71.
(9) Oberle, Wayne H.  "Two Tough Steps Toward An Economics of Peace Through Development: The Discovery and
        Acknowledgment of the Anti-Development Mercantile Bias of Economic Theory and U.S. Farm & Trade Policies," 
        Social Science Perspectives Journal, (Vol. 1, No. 3), pp. 9-23.  December 1987.
(10) Oberle, Wayne H. "The Fallacy of Farming: More Isn't Better," p. 434 in Ralph T. Byrns and G. W. Stone,
        Great Ideas for Teaching Economics.  Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman & Co.  1989.
(11) Oberle, Wayne H.  A book review of David A. Reed's The Winnowing: Economic Change in Rural America
        (1989), pp. 513-515 in May, 1990 issue of American Journal of Agricultural Economics.
(12) Oberle, Wayne H.  An invited definition and essay, “Invisible Hand,” Magill’s
        Survey of Social Science: Economics.   October 1991.
(13) Oberle, Wayne H.  A book review of Gail L. Cramer  & Clarence W. Jensen’s textbook,
        Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness.   Pp. 217-220  (Feb., 1995), 
        American Journal of Agricultural Economics.
(14) Oberle, Wayne H.  “Western Beliefs that Get in the Way of Good Economic Principles,” a paper presented at
        the National Social Science Association meeting in San Francisco, CA. Oct. 15-17, 2003.
(15) Oberle, Wayne H.,  “The Failure of Anti-Developmental Economic Growth: The Time to Produce Development
        By Choosing Win-Win Over Win-Lose Economics,” A paper presented Oct. 12-13th, 2005 National Social
        Science Association Conference in Seattle, Washington (forthcoming, 2007 in National Social Science Journal).
(16) Public Broadcasting System (PBS).  “Dr. W. Edwards Deming: International Prophet of Quality,” a video in its
        1980 PBS video series.
(17) Say, Jean-Baptiste.   A Treatise on Political Economy.   Trans. C. C. Biddle.  New York: Kelley. 1964.
          Pp. xxiv, xxv, xlv, xxvi
(18) Schumacher, E. F.  Small Is Beautiful: Economics As If People Mattered.  New York: First  Perennial Library. 
        Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., 1975.
(19) Smith, Adam.  An Inquiry Into the Nature and Cause of the Wealth of Nations. 7th ed. 1793.  Originally published
        in 1776 in London by A. Strahan and T. Cadell.
(20) Sutherland, Kathryn (ed. of the Introduction to) Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations, New York: Oxford University
        Press, 1993.
(21) The Editorial Staff.  America’s Unknown Enemy: Beyond Conspiracy.  Economic Education Bulletin. 
        Great Barrington, MA: American Institute for Economic Research.  Pp. 36-37 imply that economic theory is
        unrealistic and misleading since it ignores elite concentrations of economic, military, and political power
        (e.g., the Trilateral Commission dominated by huge transnational corporations).
(22) Wilber, Charles K. and Kenneth P. Jameson. An Inquiry into the Poverty of Economics.  Notre Dame:
        University of Notre Dame Press, 1983.
(23) Young, Jeffrey T.  Economics as a Moral Science: The Political Economy of Adam Smith.  Lyme, U.S.:
        Edward Elgar, 1997.

	Graph 1		Graph 2		Graph 3.
	P      D1  D2      S1   S2		P      D1  D2    S1  S		P      D1  D2     S1  S2
MEP1 = MEP2		MEP1 > MEP2		MEP2 > MEP1

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Power Structure Grid #1:
  Theoretically possible relationships of a heterogeneous socio-economic structure between a win-
lose-principled (WLP) individual (vertical axis) and a win-win-principled (WWP) one       
(horizontal axis) at time one and two: sources of anti-development/war vs. development/peace.                           
(9/18/06 copyright of Dr. Wayne H. Oberle)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Chart 1.  Wholesome Economics as a Way to Make Peace
(by Dr. Wayne H. Oberle; copyright, 9/18/06)