Suspending disbelief in an economic system

Not this economic system, another similar one that's better for workers and the environment. It's not an -ism, but it may mean an end to the "white picket fence" dream that many of us have.

I think that part of the problem with the economy is the pursuit of 'progress' above all else, ending up with rapacious businesses screwing the public in multitudinous ways;

environmentally,

legally,

regarding workers rights,

legislatively by lobbying governments, etc.

Here's a solution I'm willing to try:

De-croissance is French for 'de-crossing', or de-linking, more literally. It's being called 'de-growth' in English. That means de-linking economic success from the pursuit of economic growth (i.e. relying on GDP growth as the only sign of progress). What this theory intends is for there to be a sustainable economy with less environmental waste, less push for progress and in the end, more sustainability over the long- term.
It started off in France and Switzerland:
Jacques Grinevald, U of Zurich
Serge Latouche, Sorbonne

Now there are associations in Italy and Spain and the Greens are onto it as well.
Checkitout: decroissance.org, if you read French
or search: de-growth

Here's a web text from Friends of the Earth, for my monolingual audience:
[my comments- Costick67]
Decroissance: Challenging the Growth-Paradigm
R&D Research & Degrowth: CASSE Position on Economic Growth

There is a fundamental conflict between economic growth and environmental protection (for example, biodiversity conservation, clean air and water, atmospheric stability), and;
There is a fundamental conflict between economic growth and the ecological services underpinning the human economy (for example, pollination, decomposition, climate regulation), and;
Technological progress has had many positive and negative ecological and economic effects and may not be depended on to reconcile the conflict between economic growth and the long-term ecological and economic welfare of the United States and the world, and;
Economic growth, as gauged by increasing GDP, is an increasingly dangerous and anachronistic American goal, and;
A steady state economy (that is, an economy with a relatively stable, mildly fluctuating product of population and per capita consumption) is a viable alternative to a growing economy and has become a more appropriate goal in the United States and other large, wealthy economies, and;
The long-run sustainability of a steady state economy requires its establishment at a size small enough to avoid the breaching of reduced ecological and economic capacity during expected or unexpected supply shocks such as droughts and energy shortages, and;
A steady state economy does not preclude economic development, a qualitative process in which different technologies may be employed and the relative prominence of economic sectors may evolve, and;
Upon establishing a steady state economy, it would be advisable for the United States to assist other nations [fat freakin' chance. This has to come from people's demands for a more just system, and it starts from home. Just consume MUCH less.] in moving from the goal of economic growth to the goal of a steady state economy, beginning with those nations currently enjoying high levels of per capita consumption, and;
For many nations with widespread poverty, increasing per capita consumption (or, alternatively, more equitable distributions of wealth) remains an appropriate goal for the time being.
decroissance.org [FR] Institut d’études économiques et sociales pour la décroissance soutenable

De-Growth Conference Paris, April 2008 - Public movements develop in France and Italy promoting “Sustainable De-growth”. Politicians mention the word “de-growth”. The question reaches the researchers: The so-called “decoupling” between ecological degradation and economic growth appears insufficient after years of important eco-efficiency improvements. This opens a new field of research:

Is “de-growth” of industrialised countries possible in the present context?
What are the social and institutional conditions required for a fair and sustainable economic de-growth process?
What would be the de-growth scenarios…?
February 21st, 2009
___the end

The best part about this is that YOU can also partake in this change. The benefit of that is that you don't have to wait for some sold-out politicians to change the rules of the game, because they won't. YOU change the rules, by living more wisely, growing your own food, and consuming less, and let the government follow YOU.
It's, like, all peaceful, organic and hippie-like, dude!

"Growing your own" LOL. That's, like funny, man.

Here are some points from the Greens on this:
-Having more wealth does not make us happy, and doesn’t help the poor.
-We need sense of community, friendship and safety.
-Consuming less means starving the pyramid.
-Get our economy back from the experts.
-Growth is not ecologically, socially or economically sustainable.

How to do it:

-LETS (community bartering),

community money,

"common land",

ecologically-sound homes,

community bicycles,

a common pool of cars,

co-operative banks,

organic cooperatives,

worker-owned factories.

-Costick67 ( 8^P