Modern mainstream economics seems to have one fundamental flaw in particular. I wonder if it is the root cause of all the other short coming of economic theory. The fundamental flaw I speak of is that Economics is fundamentally materialistic in its whole design and approach-it presumes economic problems can all be solved by economic actions and materialistic factors especially "technology".
Ecological Economics improves on this by emphasising environmental considerations, but mainstream economics treats the environment as a side issue, mainly by derisively dismissing environemental considerations as "externalities". Also, economics in its present theoretical form does not even come close to giving due respect and emphasis to the role of politics and cultural values in an economy.
PeakOil is You
The basic problem with Economics
First unread post • 15 posts
• Page 1 of 1
The basic problem with Economics
by Oilgood » Fri 10 Dec 2004, 23:14:02
-
Oilgood - Peat
- Posts: 85
- Joined: Fri 22 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
by gg3 » Sat 11 Dec 2004, 06:40:56
I think you're on the right track with this.
Two other factors:
Economics, whether free market or socialistic, is predicated on the assumption of growth, a positive feedback loop that is inherently impossible to sustain within the boundaries of a finite system.
But what I think is the most important factor:
Economics is a tool, designed to address the issues of production and distribution of goods and services that have "commodity value." However it can't address questions related to "intrinsic value." Where economics becomes the dominant societal paradigm, the result is a society where intrinsic values are either subjected to inappropriate commodity valuation, or neglected entirely. When a tool is applied to an inappropriate job, the outcome of the job is damaged. When the "job" is the entire foundation of a society, the society as a whole is damaged. What we are witnessing is the macro effect of massive damage due to the misapplication of the tool.
In more detail and with explanations:
By "commodity value," I mean "value in exchange for other goods and services." For example, the value of a loaf of bread when it's exchanged for so many eggs or so much milk; either directly or through the medium of the currency. The key question of commodity value is "How much of X can I get in exchange for Y?" For example, how many eggs or how much milk can I get in exchange for this loaf of bread?
By "intrinsic value" I mean, "value that is inherent and cannot be exchanged for anything else." For example, the value of a spouse's or friend's love, the value of a soldier's courage and loyalty, an artist's originality, a scientist's or philosopher's insight, an athlete's excellence, and so on.
Love, loyalty, originality, insight, and excellence are examples of things that are not tradeable. Selling love to a higher bidder is betrayal. Selling loyalty is treason. And while artists, scientists, philosophers (rarely), and athletes may be well-paid for their capability and performance, if they mis-represent themselves in exchange for their paycheck, we call it plagiarism or cheating, a moral condemnation that surpasses the issue of monetary fraud alone.
We also value our children and value the future of our species as a whole, but economic philosophies cannot operationalize this variable any more than they can operationalize love or loyalty.
Economics requires growth, and its appetite is blind: like a hungry animal with no sense of taste, it attempts to eat anything it can get its hands on.
We have come to the point in our social development where economics has encompassed everything that can be commoditized, and has started to intrude upon intrinsic values.
The most glaring example is parenthood. Parents' time with their children has been usurped by the demands of the 80-hour family work week, with the result that children are raised by strangers in institutions (daycare) during one of the most important of their developmental periods. The lack of direct affection from family, i.e. individuals who are consistently present throughout a child's life, can be shown to contribute to the development of sociopathy; see "Bodily Pleasure and the Origins of Violence" by James Prescott -available online- and don't get hung up on the liberal tone of some of his language.
Now we also have fertility clinics that substitute a paid transaction for what was formerly an act of love and a gift from God/Nature. Finally during the 1980s, we came to have surrogate motherhood, where another paid transaction allows the young go-getter to keep her career on track whilst someone else bears the inconvenience of the pregnancy.
Ahh, the value of motherhood! Denominated in dollars!
And we also have the inability of economics to value the future except by responding to price signals, i.e. monetary information that is necessarily oriented toward the short term. As somone mentioned in another topic, this is akin to not allowing one's grandchildren to bid on one's resources, and I'll deal with that issue in the appropriate topic.
However despite these obvious instances of the inappropriateness of the tool to the job, we keep doing it. We do it like a crazed carpenter who believes his magic hammer is the only tool needed to build a house. He hammers the nails, and upon seeing a stunningly good wooden frame emerge from his labors, he proceeds to hammer on the fresh concrete, hammer on the newly-installed plumbing, hammer on the newly-glazed windows, and the electric and telephone wiring, and the porcelain fixtures in the bathroom! And in his lack of commonsense sanity, he fails to connect the inappropriateness of his actions with the trail of wreckage in his wake.
We have gotten such good results from using our economic hammer upon the wood and nails of its commodities, that we have applied it to everything else in sight. We have failed to connect our actions with the wreckage behind us, and the wreckage in our midst, and the much greater wreckage ahead.
Two other factors:
Economics, whether free market or socialistic, is predicated on the assumption of growth, a positive feedback loop that is inherently impossible to sustain within the boundaries of a finite system.
But what I think is the most important factor:
Economics is a tool, designed to address the issues of production and distribution of goods and services that have "commodity value." However it can't address questions related to "intrinsic value." Where economics becomes the dominant societal paradigm, the result is a society where intrinsic values are either subjected to inappropriate commodity valuation, or neglected entirely. When a tool is applied to an inappropriate job, the outcome of the job is damaged. When the "job" is the entire foundation of a society, the society as a whole is damaged. What we are witnessing is the macro effect of massive damage due to the misapplication of the tool.
In more detail and with explanations:
By "commodity value," I mean "value in exchange for other goods and services." For example, the value of a loaf of bread when it's exchanged for so many eggs or so much milk; either directly or through the medium of the currency. The key question of commodity value is "How much of X can I get in exchange for Y?" For example, how many eggs or how much milk can I get in exchange for this loaf of bread?
By "intrinsic value" I mean, "value that is inherent and cannot be exchanged for anything else." For example, the value of a spouse's or friend's love, the value of a soldier's courage and loyalty, an artist's originality, a scientist's or philosopher's insight, an athlete's excellence, and so on.
Love, loyalty, originality, insight, and excellence are examples of things that are not tradeable. Selling love to a higher bidder is betrayal. Selling loyalty is treason. And while artists, scientists, philosophers (rarely), and athletes may be well-paid for their capability and performance, if they mis-represent themselves in exchange for their paycheck, we call it plagiarism or cheating, a moral condemnation that surpasses the issue of monetary fraud alone.
We also value our children and value the future of our species as a whole, but economic philosophies cannot operationalize this variable any more than they can operationalize love or loyalty.
Economics requires growth, and its appetite is blind: like a hungry animal with no sense of taste, it attempts to eat anything it can get its hands on.
We have come to the point in our social development where economics has encompassed everything that can be commoditized, and has started to intrude upon intrinsic values.
The most glaring example is parenthood. Parents' time with their children has been usurped by the demands of the 80-hour family work week, with the result that children are raised by strangers in institutions (daycare) during one of the most important of their developmental periods. The lack of direct affection from family, i.e. individuals who are consistently present throughout a child's life, can be shown to contribute to the development of sociopathy; see "Bodily Pleasure and the Origins of Violence" by James Prescott -available online- and don't get hung up on the liberal tone of some of his language.
Now we also have fertility clinics that substitute a paid transaction for what was formerly an act of love and a gift from God/Nature. Finally during the 1980s, we came to have surrogate motherhood, where another paid transaction allows the young go-getter to keep her career on track whilst someone else bears the inconvenience of the pregnancy.
Ahh, the value of motherhood! Denominated in dollars!
And we also have the inability of economics to value the future except by responding to price signals, i.e. monetary information that is necessarily oriented toward the short term. As somone mentioned in another topic, this is akin to not allowing one's grandchildren to bid on one's resources, and I'll deal with that issue in the appropriate topic.
However despite these obvious instances of the inappropriateness of the tool to the job, we keep doing it. We do it like a crazed carpenter who believes his magic hammer is the only tool needed to build a house. He hammers the nails, and upon seeing a stunningly good wooden frame emerge from his labors, he proceeds to hammer on the fresh concrete, hammer on the newly-installed plumbing, hammer on the newly-glazed windows, and the electric and telephone wiring, and the porcelain fixtures in the bathroom! And in his lack of commonsense sanity, he fails to connect the inappropriateness of his actions with the trail of wreckage in his wake.
We have gotten such good results from using our economic hammer upon the wood and nails of its commodities, that we have applied it to everything else in sight. We have failed to connect our actions with the wreckage behind us, and the wreckage in our midst, and the much greater wreckage ahead.
-
gg3 - Expert
- Posts: 3271
- Joined: Mon 24 May 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: California, USA
Why is growth so important
by ZPF4TF » Sun 12 Dec 2004, 09:54:34
Hello,
Forgive my ignorance of economics, but can someone tell me why it is so important to have growth in the economy? Why cant we remain static?
Can someone also point me to primers on economics that I can follow up? I like to answer for myself such simple questions as, why growth is supposed to be 'good', why when the currency falls in value, the value of gold for example, goes up.
Regards,
Stojan Karlusic
Forgive my ignorance of economics, but can someone tell me why it is so important to have growth in the economy? Why cant we remain static?
Can someone also point me to primers on economics that I can follow up? I like to answer for myself such simple questions as, why growth is supposed to be 'good', why when the currency falls in value, the value of gold for example, goes up.
Regards,
Stojan Karlusic
- ZPF4TF
by 0mar » Tue 14 Dec 2004, 17:41:57
guh I practically have an anyruesm every time I see the words "fractional reserve banking"
Joseph Stalin
"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. "
"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. "
-
0mar - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1499
- Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Davis, California
by Guest » Thu 16 Dec 2004, 02:50:20
some french students got fed up with the B.S. they were being taught in economics classes a while back, and started a movement demanding changes in curriculum....and to make a long story short, hence was born the Post-Autistic Economics Institute.
to offer them as a new resource, here's just one sample of new think from their e-mails i receive regularly:
Gross National Happiness
Rajni Bakshi (India)
The tiny Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan is an unlikely place for the birth of an international trend. Yet Bhutan is emerging as a global leader in the promotion of 'Gross National Happiness', a concept it first embraced three decades ago and which is now being fleshed out by a wide range of professionals and agencies across the world.
The term Gross National Happiness (GNH) was coined by Bhutan's King Jigme Singye Wangchuck when he ascended the throne in 1972. It signaled his commitment to building an economy that would subserve Bhutan's unique culture permeated by Buddhist spiritual values.
Today, the concept of GNH resonates with a wide range of initiatives, across the world, to define prosperity in more holistic terms and to measure actual well-being rather than consumption. By contrast the conventional concept of Gross National Product (GNP) measures only the sum total of material production and exchange in any country. Thus an international conference on Operationalizing GNH, hosted by the Bhutan Government in the capital city of Thimphu from February 18th to 22nd, 2003, attracted scholars and experts from 20 countries.
The evolving concept of GNH could prove a significant advancement in economic theory. It endeavors to enhance the sophistication of human systems by emulating the infinitely greater sophistication of nature. Just what would it mean for economic structures to emulate nature? At present individual companies and entire countries are compelled to keep growing indefinitely. The only parallel for this in the natural world are cancer cells, which by growing exponentially destroy the host body and themselves. Today it is widely acknowledged that the human economy cannot keep growing at the cost of its habitat. Yet even after two decades of expanding environmental regulation we are still losing the race to save the planet. This is partly because production systems and consumption patterns are out of synch with the carrying capacity of the planet. The pressure for ever higher GNP is merely one manifestation of this.
The concept of GNH is seen as one of several ways in which these imbalances might be rectified. The international gathering at Thimphu reflected a consensus that Gross National 'Product' would still need to be measured and given due importance but in ways that are actually conducive to GNH. So far there has been a tendency to treat GNH as merely the well-intentioned slogan of a land-locked developing country ruled by an enlightened monarch. The obvious challenges of attempting to define or measure happiness have also helped to keep the concept of GNH on the outer fringes of serious discourse.
However, as the conference in Thimphu showed, basic happiness can be measured since it pertains to quality of nutrition, housing, education, health care and community life. Thus, GNH may indeed be ready to come of age. The concept is essential for anyone working on development. Three major factors seem to be responsible for the expanding credibility of GNH. One, there is wider awareness that GNP is a one-dimensional and thus misleading measure. Two, a wide range of indices have been devised which offer a more realistic assessment of even material prosperity. Three, there is growing pressure for an infusion of moral and cultural values into the core of economic policy. GNP was never intended to be a measure of actual well-being. It is the artifact of a time when it was assumed that if there are more goods in circulation general welfare is ensured. As extensive documentation has shown, this is not always the case. Moreover, attention has also been drawn to dire side effects of the GNP driven model of economic growth in many societies, including the USA with its multiple social crises and rising sales of anti-depressants. Such critiques are not new. Back in 1968 Robert Kennedy lamented that the GNP also grows because of the sales of rifles and knives and "...television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children. ...(it) does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play."
Since 1995 a San Francisco based think-tank called Redefining Progress has been annually assessing the American economy with an alternative yardstick called the Genuine Progress Indicators (GPI) which presents a relatively grim picture of American society compared to the GDP, as GNP is called in the USA. The GPI index gets closer to the reality of people's lives in the following ways. It includes the household and volunteer economy which is completely ignored by the GNP. It counts as a 'loss' all money spent on either preventing crime or repairing damage caused by it. Similarly all money spent on water filters, air-purification and other ways of coping with environmental degradation is counted as a 'loss'. Likewise money that goes into circulation because of car crashes and divorces is counted as a loss. The GPI also takes into account the extent to which the whole population shared in increasing material abundance.
The GPI is just one among several endeavors to evolve new indicators which measure actual conditions of human well being. But although countries as diverse as Costa Rica, Canada, Iceland, Netherlands, Sri Lanka and Mongolia have established well-being indicators, the hegemony of the GNP measure remains in place. This is why Bhutan's insistence on the primacy of GNH over GNP inspires people far beyond its borders. Their commitment to GNH has meant that moral and ethical values are placed at the core of their economic strategies for ensuring better food, housing and health for their population of just over 710,000 people. It has allowed them to both expand their network of roads and increase their forest cover. In most other developing countries the arrival of roads is inevitably followed by deforestation. This is not to suggest that all is well in the Kingdom of Bhutan or that they are able to fully live up to their GNH commitment. Yet their achievements are notable.
______________________________
SUGGESTED CITATION:
Rajni Bakshi, “Gross National Happinessâ€
to offer them as a new resource, here's just one sample of new think from their e-mails i receive regularly:
Gross National Happiness
Rajni Bakshi (India)
The tiny Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan is an unlikely place for the birth of an international trend. Yet Bhutan is emerging as a global leader in the promotion of 'Gross National Happiness', a concept it first embraced three decades ago and which is now being fleshed out by a wide range of professionals and agencies across the world.
The term Gross National Happiness (GNH) was coined by Bhutan's King Jigme Singye Wangchuck when he ascended the throne in 1972. It signaled his commitment to building an economy that would subserve Bhutan's unique culture permeated by Buddhist spiritual values.
Today, the concept of GNH resonates with a wide range of initiatives, across the world, to define prosperity in more holistic terms and to measure actual well-being rather than consumption. By contrast the conventional concept of Gross National Product (GNP) measures only the sum total of material production and exchange in any country. Thus an international conference on Operationalizing GNH, hosted by the Bhutan Government in the capital city of Thimphu from February 18th to 22nd, 2003, attracted scholars and experts from 20 countries.
The evolving concept of GNH could prove a significant advancement in economic theory. It endeavors to enhance the sophistication of human systems by emulating the infinitely greater sophistication of nature. Just what would it mean for economic structures to emulate nature? At present individual companies and entire countries are compelled to keep growing indefinitely. The only parallel for this in the natural world are cancer cells, which by growing exponentially destroy the host body and themselves. Today it is widely acknowledged that the human economy cannot keep growing at the cost of its habitat. Yet even after two decades of expanding environmental regulation we are still losing the race to save the planet. This is partly because production systems and consumption patterns are out of synch with the carrying capacity of the planet. The pressure for ever higher GNP is merely one manifestation of this.
The concept of GNH is seen as one of several ways in which these imbalances might be rectified. The international gathering at Thimphu reflected a consensus that Gross National 'Product' would still need to be measured and given due importance but in ways that are actually conducive to GNH. So far there has been a tendency to treat GNH as merely the well-intentioned slogan of a land-locked developing country ruled by an enlightened monarch. The obvious challenges of attempting to define or measure happiness have also helped to keep the concept of GNH on the outer fringes of serious discourse.
However, as the conference in Thimphu showed, basic happiness can be measured since it pertains to quality of nutrition, housing, education, health care and community life. Thus, GNH may indeed be ready to come of age. The concept is essential for anyone working on development. Three major factors seem to be responsible for the expanding credibility of GNH. One, there is wider awareness that GNP is a one-dimensional and thus misleading measure. Two, a wide range of indices have been devised which offer a more realistic assessment of even material prosperity. Three, there is growing pressure for an infusion of moral and cultural values into the core of economic policy. GNP was never intended to be a measure of actual well-being. It is the artifact of a time when it was assumed that if there are more goods in circulation general welfare is ensured. As extensive documentation has shown, this is not always the case. Moreover, attention has also been drawn to dire side effects of the GNP driven model of economic growth in many societies, including the USA with its multiple social crises and rising sales of anti-depressants. Such critiques are not new. Back in 1968 Robert Kennedy lamented that the GNP also grows because of the sales of rifles and knives and "...television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children. ...(it) does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play."
Since 1995 a San Francisco based think-tank called Redefining Progress has been annually assessing the American economy with an alternative yardstick called the Genuine Progress Indicators (GPI) which presents a relatively grim picture of American society compared to the GDP, as GNP is called in the USA. The GPI index gets closer to the reality of people's lives in the following ways. It includes the household and volunteer economy which is completely ignored by the GNP. It counts as a 'loss' all money spent on either preventing crime or repairing damage caused by it. Similarly all money spent on water filters, air-purification and other ways of coping with environmental degradation is counted as a 'loss'. Likewise money that goes into circulation because of car crashes and divorces is counted as a loss. The GPI also takes into account the extent to which the whole population shared in increasing material abundance.
The GPI is just one among several endeavors to evolve new indicators which measure actual conditions of human well being. But although countries as diverse as Costa Rica, Canada, Iceland, Netherlands, Sri Lanka and Mongolia have established well-being indicators, the hegemony of the GNP measure remains in place. This is why Bhutan's insistence on the primacy of GNH over GNP inspires people far beyond its borders. Their commitment to GNH has meant that moral and ethical values are placed at the core of their economic strategies for ensuring better food, housing and health for their population of just over 710,000 people. It has allowed them to both expand their network of roads and increase their forest cover. In most other developing countries the arrival of roads is inevitably followed by deforestation. This is not to suggest that all is well in the Kingdom of Bhutan or that they are able to fully live up to their GNH commitment. Yet their achievements are notable.
______________________________
SUGGESTED CITATION:
Rajni Bakshi, “Gross National Happinessâ€
- Guest
START A TOP WORLD CAREER NOW!
by Agnes30 » Thu 23 Aug 2007, 06:38:24
Top World hires:
MARKETING AGENTS -COUNTRY HEAD OR AREA AGENT
STATUS: Contractual - Flexible time
GENERAL ROLE: Management and appointment of
companies,market research, administration and
direct sales activities or conferences.
TERMS: The Marketing Agent will be trained.
Commission per signed Travel Partner Contract
ESSENTIAL QUALITIES:
- College Graduate with at least three years experience
in marketing (COUNTRY HEAD)
- With pleasing personality
- Good project management skills
- Excellent interpersonal skills
- Ability to work to tight deadlines
- A problem solver
- Good presentation skills
- Prepared to travel
- Optimistic and results-oriented
- Experience with travel industry is an advantage
but not required
Send resume to:
travel@topworld.com
Join TOPWORLD TEAM now and experience what a wonderful world it is....
MARKETING AGENTS -COUNTRY HEAD OR AREA AGENT
STATUS: Contractual - Flexible time
GENERAL ROLE: Management and appointment of
companies,market research, administration and
direct sales activities or conferences.
TERMS: The Marketing Agent will be trained.
Commission per signed Travel Partner Contract
ESSENTIAL QUALITIES:
- College Graduate with at least three years experience
in marketing (COUNTRY HEAD)
- With pleasing personality
- Good project management skills
- Excellent interpersonal skills
- Ability to work to tight deadlines
- A problem solver
- Good presentation skills
- Prepared to travel
- Optimistic and results-oriented
- Experience with travel industry is an advantage
but not required
Send resume to:
travel@topworld.com
Join TOPWORLD TEAM now and experience what a wonderful world it is....
-
Agnes30 - Wood
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Thu 23 Aug 2007, 03:00:00
Re: Why is growth so important
by Emma » Thu 23 Aug 2007, 07:13:02
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ZPF4TF', 'H')ello,
Forgive my ignorance of economics, but can someone tell me why it is so important to have growth in the economy? Why cant we remain static?
Can someone also point me to primers on economics that I can follow up? I like to answer for myself such simple questions as, why growth is supposed to be 'good', why when the currency falls in value, the value of gold for example, goes up.
Regards,
Stojan Karlusic
Forgive my ignorance of economics, but can someone tell me why it is so important to have growth in the economy? Why cant we remain static?
Can someone also point me to primers on economics that I can follow up? I like to answer for myself such simple questions as, why growth is supposed to be 'good', why when the currency falls in value, the value of gold for example, goes up.
Regards,
Stojan Karlusic
I am very poor at economics but I assume that economic growth is necessary as the population grows. But I think it would be better if it was static, it needs to be balanced worldwide.
Imagine if all the wealth was equally distributed across the globe, no wars, no terrorism, no hatred
-
Emma - Peat
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Mon 02 Jul 2007, 03:00:00
Re: Why is growth so important
by Alcassin » Thu 23 Aug 2007, 07:54:20
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Emma', ' ')
Imagine if all the wealth was equally distributed across the globe, no wars, no terrorism, no hatred
Imagine if all the wealth was equally distributed across the globe, no wars, no terrorism, no hatred
It's called utopia Emma, and with wealth equally distributed it is cummunist utopia.
Anyway - growth is needed no matter what fractional reserve is or not. USA grew rapidly during times when there was no fractional banking reserve and fiat currency.
Economic growth is needed to create wealth for growing population.
Work creates wealth. (wealth is stuff)
Efficient work creates more wealth (more efficiency and productivity means more stuff to consume).
Market competition is built upon growth - you have to grow or your competitor will close your business.
Human in capitalist terms so-calle is a creature of unlimited wants. To cover this wants, materialist drives, you have to create more and more stuff. Thus, economic growth.
Decline - less efficiency and productivity = less stuff = more unemployment = less wages = less taxes = bigger deficit = less social security = budget sector vanishes = more unemployment and so on.
Zero growth together with population growth is an economic decline = social classes remain the same or even poor become poorer, rich are richer = unemployment rises and so on.
Peak oil is only an indication and a premise of limits to growth on a finite planet.
Denial is the most predictable of all human responses.
Denial is the most predictable of all human responses.
-
Alcassin - Tar Sands
- Posts: 614
- Joined: Wed 20 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
- Location: Poland
Re: The basic problem with Economics
by paimei01 » Thu 23 Aug 2007, 08:14:17
Economics is based on people buying stuff - they don't usually need. They buy stuff because they make a lot of money and must use them, so the factory that produces the useless stuff can produce more, hire more people, then people have more money and buy more and so on
If people would buy almost nothing - like crazy myself , the "economy" would end
If people would buy almost nothing - like crazy myself , the "economy" would end
http://paimei01.blogspot.com/
One day there will be so many houses, that people will be bored and will go live in tents. "Why are you living in tents ? Are there not enough homes ?" "Yes there are, but we play this Economy game". Now it's "Crisis" time !Too many houses! Yes, we are insane!
One day there will be so many houses, that people will be bored and will go live in tents. "Why are you living in tents ? Are there not enough homes ?" "Yes there are, but we play this Economy game". Now it's "Crisis" time !Too many houses! Yes, we are insane!
- paimei01
- Tar Sands
- Posts: 539
- Joined: Tue 27 Feb 2007, 04:00:00
- Location: Romania
Re: The basic problem with Economics
by Alcassin » Thu 23 Aug 2007, 08:43:41
We live in a world where needs of many are not covered but wants of all are unlimited.
Peak oil is only an indication and a premise of limits to growth on a finite planet.
Denial is the most predictable of all human responses.
Denial is the most predictable of all human responses.
-
Alcassin - Tar Sands
- Posts: 614
- Joined: Wed 20 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
- Location: Poland
Re: The basic problem with Economics
by Emma » Thu 23 Aug 2007, 10:21:31
What are your views on globalization? Good or bad for sustained growth?
-
Emma - Peat
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Mon 02 Jul 2007, 03:00:00
Re: The basic problem with Economics
by Alcassin » Thu 23 Aug 2007, 12:04:26
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Emma', 'W')hat are your views on globalization? Good or bad for sustained growth?
Globalization will be dead sooner or later.
Now globalization is race for consumption, so it's a race to the bottom. It creates also many dangers, and these are really inevitable. The gap between rich and poor went from 35/65 in 1972 to 20/80 in 2002. Now we have to feed these 80% hunger for stuff to narrow the gap... this will never happen.
I think the growth is limited, sustained growth is a mirage. We live on spherical planet with limited resources. We should manage them very carefully. Population growth has to stop if we want to do something for real, I think it is more possible than everbody in the world will become anticonsumer.
Bottomline for sustainability is shelter from wind and cold, enough food for everyone, and downsized industry that minimazes its interference with Earth's natural ecosystem with hard population and consumption limits. This basically means no growth.
The more growth the more pollution, junk and waste. Hopefully I'm not a neo-luddite, I think to cover basics we will still need tools of industrial age - like mechanical tools and electricity together to keep some progress, sure. But progress shouldn't imply growth every time. Clean water, clean air, not much stuff other than food, drugs, clothing, and books available.
Peak oil is only an indication and a premise of limits to growth on a finite planet.
Denial is the most predictable of all human responses.
Denial is the most predictable of all human responses.
-
Alcassin - Tar Sands
- Posts: 614
- Joined: Wed 20 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
- Location: Poland
by Iaato » Thu 23 Aug 2007, 14:32:21
I guess I need to thank Agnes the spammer who dredged this topic back up, because it is at the hub of our problems today.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Anonymous', 's')ome french students got fed up with the B.S. they were being taught in economics classes a while back, and started a movement demanding changes in curriculum....and to make a long story short, hence was born the Post-Autistic Economics Institute.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Anonymous', 's')ome french students got fed up with the B.S. they were being taught in economics classes a while back, and started a movement demanding changes in curriculum....and to make a long story short, hence was born the Post-Autistic Economics Institute.
I give the Post-Autistic Economics Insitute members great kudos. They are brave souls to be going up against the status quo in economics. Check out their website sometime. The guest who posted this above may be long gone, since it was posted in 2004. But I would like to add another attempt at quality indicators that are not totally based on economic theory and have an energy basis and wholistic orientation. These indicators of Hazel Henderson's still don't go all the way to capture the important intrinsic values that gg3 so aptly describes. Because of the worship of economics as religion, these intrinsic values such as wisdom, loyalty, and excellence are either ignored or are valued by the wrong scale and for the wrong reasons, leading to inappropriate feedback and system degradation.
Calvert-Henderson Quality Indicators
Emma, on globalization, I agree with Alcassin that while unavoidable in our age, it is unsustainable for a number of reasons. Globalization feeds off of great disparities in wealth and resources in countries, and results in the flow of resources to the most powerful countries. The weaker countries with natural resources tend to lose big time. Witness organizations like IMF and World Bank, which have been set up for expressly that purpose.
-
Iaato - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1008
- Joined: Mon 12 Mar 2007, 03:00:00
- Location: As close as I can get to the beginning of the pipe.