The Ehrlichs have been working in the ecological arena for decades. I first read some of their written work in about 1970. Ever since then, I've greatly respected their scientific acuity and promotion of caring stewardship regarding Earth.
Here's a recent, short essay of theirs---
https://mahb.stanford.edu/blog/the-fallacy-of-back-to-normal-thinking-anne-and-paul-ehrlich/
If we are to continue the responsible, organized existence of human beings on Spaceship Earth, then the Powers-That-Be in developed democratic countries (in particular) need to heed the call expressed in the piece above.
.......................................
Not only my opinion. Stay Well
Thursday, July 30, 2020
Free Book - "Beyond Growth" by Herman Daly
Below is a link to the online version of Beyond Growth - The Economics of Sustainable Development, by the renowned ecological economist, Herman Daly.
Some of the Figures/illustrations found in the regular book are not in this online text.
http://feineigle.com/static/books/2014/beyond_growth/Beyond%20Growth_The%20Economics%20of%20Sustainable%20Development-Herman%20E.%20Daly-(1997).pdf
........................
Be Well
Some of the Figures/illustrations found in the regular book are not in this online text.
http://feineigle.com/static/books/2014/beyond_growth/Beyond%20Growth_The%20Economics%20of%20Sustainable%20Development-Herman%20E.%20Daly-(1997).pdf
........................
Be Well
Tuesday, July 28, 2020
Challenges Faced by Ecological Economics
Preface
The author of the article linked to farther down the page is Professor Brian Czech. Here's a bit about him---
https://steadystate.org/brian-czech/
Not long ago, I became a member of his outfit (of which he's the founding president), CASSE. Here's their Mission statement + their Strategy---
https://steadystate.org/meet/mission/
Join their group and you'll be sent a dynamite, slim volume of essays titled, Best of The Daly News, "from the leading blog in Steady State Economics", and referring to Herman Daly. Read that, and you'll be somewhat of an expert on Steady State Economics. [NOTE: I'm not being paid to promote CASSE.]
.........................................
Ecological Economics and its Challenges
The piece at the link below is an outstanding essay by Professor Czech. It comprehensively describes the history, principles of, and challenges for the academic discipline of ecological economics (eco-econ).
https://steadystate.org/wp-content/uploads/Czech_Ecological_Economics.pdf
If you don't have time now for the entire article, at least read all of Section 5., "Future Directions and Challenges for Ecological Economics" and all of Section 6., "Conclusion". Catch the rest later. You will then have the most concise and cogent understanding of eco-econ I've ever seen.
Some of the topics addressed in the above piece include:
1. a key component of eco-econ, "sustainable scale", which means the size of the economy in relation to the biophysical constraints of its sustaining ecosystem;
2. the influences of classical, neoclassical, and ecological economists on the discipline of macroeconomics;
3. ends, means, and philosophy in economics;
4. allocation of resources;
5. GDP and sustainability;
6. distribution of wealth;
7. ecological implications of the volume and flow of money;
8. de-growth;
9. natural capital valuation in relation to macroeconomics; and more.
......................................
Conclusion
If you really want to be part of the ecological movement, it's necessary to become educated far beyond catch-phrases and sound-bites. On this page alone, you have links to sources which will help advance your eco-socio-education by leaps and bounds. Take advantage. The macro-ecosystem known as Mother Earth needs all the help it can get.
.....................................
Not only my opinion. Be Well, and Happy Trails
The author of the article linked to farther down the page is Professor Brian Czech. Here's a bit about him---
https://steadystate.org/brian-czech/
Not long ago, I became a member of his outfit (of which he's the founding president), CASSE. Here's their Mission statement + their Strategy---
https://steadystate.org/meet/mission/
Join their group and you'll be sent a dynamite, slim volume of essays titled, Best of The Daly News, "from the leading blog in Steady State Economics", and referring to Herman Daly. Read that, and you'll be somewhat of an expert on Steady State Economics. [NOTE: I'm not being paid to promote CASSE.]
.........................................
Ecological Economics and its Challenges
The piece at the link below is an outstanding essay by Professor Czech. It comprehensively describes the history, principles of, and challenges for the academic discipline of ecological economics (eco-econ).
https://steadystate.org/wp-content/uploads/Czech_Ecological_Economics.pdf
If you don't have time now for the entire article, at least read all of Section 5., "Future Directions and Challenges for Ecological Economics" and all of Section 6., "Conclusion". Catch the rest later. You will then have the most concise and cogent understanding of eco-econ I've ever seen.
Some of the topics addressed in the above piece include:
1. a key component of eco-econ, "sustainable scale", which means the size of the economy in relation to the biophysical constraints of its sustaining ecosystem;
2. the influences of classical, neoclassical, and ecological economists on the discipline of macroeconomics;
3. ends, means, and philosophy in economics;
4. allocation of resources;
5. GDP and sustainability;
6. distribution of wealth;
7. ecological implications of the volume and flow of money;
8. de-growth;
9. natural capital valuation in relation to macroeconomics; and more.
......................................
Conclusion
If you really want to be part of the ecological movement, it's necessary to become educated far beyond catch-phrases and sound-bites. On this page alone, you have links to sources which will help advance your eco-socio-education by leaps and bounds. Take advantage. The macro-ecosystem known as Mother Earth needs all the help it can get.
.....................................
Not only my opinion. Be Well, and Happy Trails
Sunday, July 26, 2020
The Bioeconomics of Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen
Preface
Professor Georgescu-Roegen, a Romanian-American masterful mathematician and economist, laid the groundwork (with his Bioeconomics) for the discipline of Ecological Economics (Eco-Econ). Herman Daly, generally acknowledged as the "Father of Eco-Econ", was Georgescu-Roegen's student back in the day.
The article at the link below relates in great detail a small part of the Bioeconomics founder's life. His most famous publication was the book, The Entropy Law and the Economic Process (1971). It's a discussion of a key principle in Eco-Econ.
.......................
Why Study History?
In this particular case, there are at least two reasons:
1) It's a fairly fascinating story.
2) It's a great example of how and why a brilliant idea/concept can get smothered, ignored, delayed, and essentially squashed by the Establishment in any field of endeavor. In regard to the application of entropy to economics, that's still ongoing to some degree by "mainstream" (neoliberal) economists.
.......................
Conclusion
In trying to grasp the essence of any discipline, it's important to delve into its history. I imagine some/many younger people who find Eco-Econ extremely appealing often wonder why it's not already implemented. The article at the link below will give anyone great insight into a few possible/likely reasons for that. It should encourage them to "hang in there".
https://www.degrowth.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Levallois_degrowth-an-historical-nite.pdf
........................
Not only my opinion. Be Well
Professor Georgescu-Roegen, a Romanian-American masterful mathematician and economist, laid the groundwork (with his Bioeconomics) for the discipline of Ecological Economics (Eco-Econ). Herman Daly, generally acknowledged as the "Father of Eco-Econ", was Georgescu-Roegen's student back in the day.
The article at the link below relates in great detail a small part of the Bioeconomics founder's life. His most famous publication was the book, The Entropy Law and the Economic Process (1971). It's a discussion of a key principle in Eco-Econ.
.......................
Why Study History?
In this particular case, there are at least two reasons:
1) It's a fairly fascinating story.
2) It's a great example of how and why a brilliant idea/concept can get smothered, ignored, delayed, and essentially squashed by the Establishment in any field of endeavor. In regard to the application of entropy to economics, that's still ongoing to some degree by "mainstream" (neoliberal) economists.
.......................
Conclusion
In trying to grasp the essence of any discipline, it's important to delve into its history. I imagine some/many younger people who find Eco-Econ extremely appealing often wonder why it's not already implemented. The article at the link below will give anyone great insight into a few possible/likely reasons for that. It should encourage them to "hang in there".
https://www.degrowth.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Levallois_degrowth-an-historical-nite.pdf
........................
Not only my opinion. Be Well
Tuesday, July 21, 2020
Overview: The History & Future of Entropy's Influence on Economics
Preface
Admittedly, this topic is a bit esoteric. Nevertheless, and even though I'm not any kind of mathematician, I believe there's a lot of insight to be gained from the journal article (published in April, 2020) at the link below. The researcher, Jakimowicz, presents an analysis of entropy and the largely theoretical or nascent disciplines of quantum economics, complexity economics, econophysics, and the much more developed ecological economics. He covers the role of the brilliant Romanian-American economist and science philosopher, Nicolas Georgescu-Roegen, in opening the door to the ongoing development (arguably, it's now pretty much complete) of ecological economics. [In my next post, I'll link to a journal essay which discusses that. It's quite an interesting story, and one which I believe demonstrates the arrogance of the "Church of Perpetual Growth & Overconsumption", aka, neoclassical/neoliberal economics.]
..............................
Navigating the Article
If, like me, you're not a mathematician, then you can skim over the somewhat complex math formulas in the piece below. Like Georgescu-Roegen, I've never believed that it's wise of economists to attempt to represent human behavior with math formulas anyway... and economics is very much about human behavior, not just goods and services.
To get a fairly solid understanding of the article, I recommend reading the Abstract, and then sections 1, 3, 6, and 12. That should give you valuable insights into the connection of the Law of Entropy to ecological economics, and really, to all economics.
Though the piece is for those with advanced backgrounds, I believe anyone with only a bit of science education plus at least average intelligence can grasp the nuts & bolts of it.
.............................
Conclusion
The journal article at the link below provides more proof that neoliberal economics--- which is destroying our life support systems--- is on the ropes, so to speak. The King is vulnerable to being dethroned. 😄 It's time for people to step up, to demand of politicians (probably 90% of whom are neoliberals) a major change. Without pressure, those politicians will not abandon their main constituency--- the Super-Rich.
https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/4/452/htm
............................
Not only my opinion. Happy Trails, and Stay Well
Admittedly, this topic is a bit esoteric. Nevertheless, and even though I'm not any kind of mathematician, I believe there's a lot of insight to be gained from the journal article (published in April, 2020) at the link below. The researcher, Jakimowicz, presents an analysis of entropy and the largely theoretical or nascent disciplines of quantum economics, complexity economics, econophysics, and the much more developed ecological economics. He covers the role of the brilliant Romanian-American economist and science philosopher, Nicolas Georgescu-Roegen, in opening the door to the ongoing development (arguably, it's now pretty much complete) of ecological economics. [In my next post, I'll link to a journal essay which discusses that. It's quite an interesting story, and one which I believe demonstrates the arrogance of the "Church of Perpetual Growth & Overconsumption", aka, neoclassical/neoliberal economics.]
..............................
Navigating the Article
If, like me, you're not a mathematician, then you can skim over the somewhat complex math formulas in the piece below. Like Georgescu-Roegen, I've never believed that it's wise of economists to attempt to represent human behavior with math formulas anyway... and economics is very much about human behavior, not just goods and services.
To get a fairly solid understanding of the article, I recommend reading the Abstract, and then sections 1, 3, 6, and 12. That should give you valuable insights into the connection of the Law of Entropy to ecological economics, and really, to all economics.
Though the piece is for those with advanced backgrounds, I believe anyone with only a bit of science education plus at least average intelligence can grasp the nuts & bolts of it.
.............................
Conclusion
The journal article at the link below provides more proof that neoliberal economics--- which is destroying our life support systems--- is on the ropes, so to speak. The King is vulnerable to being dethroned. 😄 It's time for people to step up, to demand of politicians (probably 90% of whom are neoliberals) a major change. Without pressure, those politicians will not abandon their main constituency--- the Super-Rich.
https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/4/452/htm
............................
Not only my opinion. Happy Trails, and Stay Well
A Paradigm Shift in Ethics is Needed for the Journey to Sustainability
Preface
Philosophy is the study of knowledge, being, and reality. One of its branches is Ethics, the study of values and behavior. Ethics is concerned with "right" and "wrong", and in particular, with what is "good" for individuals and society. Its three primary principles are: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. A simple definition would be: a code of conduct for human good. Socrates was the Father of Ethics in the western world.
................................
The Ethical Problem in Relation to the Cessation of Environmental Damage
As detailed to a degree in previous posts here, the Powers-That-Be in most countries around the world have opted (for decades) to implement neoliberal economics in their lands... resulting in severe, worldwide environmental damage. Despite efforts to mitigate that damage, it continues to this day. Most ecologists agree that's because, rather than Aldo Leopold's "Land Ethic" (or something similar), countries have chosen to follow the neoliberal path of unlimited growth and overconsumption.
Even in countries that are attempting to "go green", the prevailing ethic is "growthism" not sustainability. More and more perpetual growth apparently is mistakenly viewed as "good" for society. History disagrees with that assessment.
Despite the shrinking of nonrenewable natural resources and the overharvesting of renewable natural resources, human populations (in general) have been indoctrinated to accept without question the idea that economic growth must continually expand for the good of individuals and society. "Going green" supposedly will solve the problems of ecological/environmental damage. That most likely will help a bit, but only a bit. Much more is needed. Here's why.
1. The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed; it only can be transformed from one type to another.
2. Because of entropy, every time energy is transformed some of it is lost as dispersed heat. "Lost" means it's no longer available to do "work" because it's too dispersed.
3. As a result, because of entropy nothing can be 100% recycled. So, nonrenewable mineral resources (e.g., rare earth minerals which are gobbled up by high tech industries) will continue to shrink.
4. Although solar energy is renewable, it obviously has to be captured. If the rate of consumption of solar power exceeds the rate of the in-flow and capture of solar energy, then sooner or later, consumption has to be limited.
5. While the stock of solar energy (the sun) is super-abundant, the in-flow and capture of it are limited.
6. Whether "green" or not, all material economic growth consumes resources and produces wastes. That's even true of service industries such as health care, education, taxi service, tourism, and others.
7. Ever-increasing growth results in an ever-increasing flow of "throughput":
resources from Earth's ecosystems to the economic subsystem, and then back to ecosystems as wastes. Sooner or later, throughput will exceed Earth's resource regeneration and waste assimilation capacities.
8. Renewable resources, such as ocean fish and trees, are being overharvested already. More and more economic growth will exacerbate the problem.
All the above means sustainability is nowhere in sight. It also means that, first and foremost, we have a massive ethical problem. Without a paradigm shift in the cultural and ethical thinking & behavior of humans, serious ecological damage on Earth will continue. Why? Because the Powers-That-Be are firmly locked onto the path of unlimited growth and overconsumption. The only way to change that is from the ground up, not the top down... and, in my opinion, that won't happen until a majority of us (or at least a significantly large number of us) adopt what ecologists call "eco-ethics" (or ecoethics). Only then will people gravitate to demanding the implementation of ecological economics.
...................................
Here's a declaration by which to live---
https://www.int-res.com/articles/esep/2002/E21.pdf
[It will warm your heart.]
It's a short read. Have a look, and, as best you can, try to live by it. Thanks. Younger generations thank you as well.
[NOTE--- At the above page, the print can be enlarged by moving your cursor to the lower right-hand side.]
...................................
Not only my opinion. Stay Well
Philosophy is the study of knowledge, being, and reality. One of its branches is Ethics, the study of values and behavior. Ethics is concerned with "right" and "wrong", and in particular, with what is "good" for individuals and society. Its three primary principles are: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. A simple definition would be: a code of conduct for human good. Socrates was the Father of Ethics in the western world.
................................
The Ethical Problem in Relation to the Cessation of Environmental Damage
As detailed to a degree in previous posts here, the Powers-That-Be in most countries around the world have opted (for decades) to implement neoliberal economics in their lands... resulting in severe, worldwide environmental damage. Despite efforts to mitigate that damage, it continues to this day. Most ecologists agree that's because, rather than Aldo Leopold's "Land Ethic" (or something similar), countries have chosen to follow the neoliberal path of unlimited growth and overconsumption.
Even in countries that are attempting to "go green", the prevailing ethic is "growthism" not sustainability. More and more perpetual growth apparently is mistakenly viewed as "good" for society. History disagrees with that assessment.
Despite the shrinking of nonrenewable natural resources and the overharvesting of renewable natural resources, human populations (in general) have been indoctrinated to accept without question the idea that economic growth must continually expand for the good of individuals and society. "Going green" supposedly will solve the problems of ecological/environmental damage. That most likely will help a bit, but only a bit. Much more is needed. Here's why.
1. The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed; it only can be transformed from one type to another.
2. Because of entropy, every time energy is transformed some of it is lost as dispersed heat. "Lost" means it's no longer available to do "work" because it's too dispersed.
3. As a result, because of entropy nothing can be 100% recycled. So, nonrenewable mineral resources (e.g., rare earth minerals which are gobbled up by high tech industries) will continue to shrink.
4. Although solar energy is renewable, it obviously has to be captured. If the rate of consumption of solar power exceeds the rate of the in-flow and capture of solar energy, then sooner or later, consumption has to be limited.
5. While the stock of solar energy (the sun) is super-abundant, the in-flow and capture of it are limited.
6. Whether "green" or not, all material economic growth consumes resources and produces wastes. That's even true of service industries such as health care, education, taxi service, tourism, and others.
7. Ever-increasing growth results in an ever-increasing flow of "throughput":
resources from Earth's ecosystems to the economic subsystem, and then back to ecosystems as wastes. Sooner or later, throughput will exceed Earth's resource regeneration and waste assimilation capacities.
8. Renewable resources, such as ocean fish and trees, are being overharvested already. More and more economic growth will exacerbate the problem.
All the above means sustainability is nowhere in sight. It also means that, first and foremost, we have a massive ethical problem. Without a paradigm shift in the cultural and ethical thinking & behavior of humans, serious ecological damage on Earth will continue. Why? Because the Powers-That-Be are firmly locked onto the path of unlimited growth and overconsumption. The only way to change that is from the ground up, not the top down... and, in my opinion, that won't happen until a majority of us (or at least a significantly large number of us) adopt what ecologists call "eco-ethics" (or ecoethics). Only then will people gravitate to demanding the implementation of ecological economics.
...................................
Here's a declaration by which to live---
https://www.int-res.com/articles/esep/2002/E21.pdf
[It will warm your heart.]
It's a short read. Have a look, and, as best you can, try to live by it. Thanks. Younger generations thank you as well.
[NOTE--- At the above page, the print can be enlarged by moving your cursor to the lower right-hand side.]
...................................
Not only my opinion. Stay Well
Tuesday, July 14, 2020
What is Earth Telling Us?
Preface
As we humans continue deforestation in tropical areas, massive air pollution in temperate regions, and numerous other ecocide activities all over the world, our planet (which is a dynamic ecosystem) is reacting in various ways. The reactions in total are sending a message which is clear to anyone with either an academic ecological background, or anyone with an intuitive sense of ecology, and anyone with both.
..................................
The Message
Professor William E. Rees deftly explains it here:
https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2020/04/06/The-Earth-Is-Telling-Us-We-Must-Rethink-Our-Growth-Society/
Yes, humanity has done many amazing, wonderful, and productive things in the past 5,000 years or so. There's no denying that. Plus, in approximately the last 200 years, we've made advances in technology, health, food production, and more that are nothing short of miraculous. Those accomplishments continue up through present day.
Unfortunately, however, for the last 50 years or thereabouts, we also have been on a path of species suicide. We have been adhering to an ideology which preaches unlimited growth and overconsumption. For all practical purposes, it's essentially the largest religion in developed countries. [See the post immediately prior to this one.]
The disease, cancer, provides an instructive lesson. What is the overriding characteristic of cancer? It's unlimited growth. That occurs in a finite body, and eventually kills the body. In a certain sense, that's what some of our activities are doing to our habitat; and those particular activities are the result of the economic religion to which we are adhering.
...................................
Conclusion
The article cited above is dated April 6, 2020. It deals with current problems, and suggested solutions. It broaches subjects about which too many of us have had our heads in the sand for too long. If we keep treating the symptoms of ecological problems rather than the root causes, organized human existence soon will be in dire straits... much worse than we already are.
..................................
Not only my opinion. Stay Well
As we humans continue deforestation in tropical areas, massive air pollution in temperate regions, and numerous other ecocide activities all over the world, our planet (which is a dynamic ecosystem) is reacting in various ways. The reactions in total are sending a message which is clear to anyone with either an academic ecological background, or anyone with an intuitive sense of ecology, and anyone with both.
..................................
The Message
Professor William E. Rees deftly explains it here:
https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2020/04/06/The-Earth-Is-Telling-Us-We-Must-Rethink-Our-Growth-Society/
Yes, humanity has done many amazing, wonderful, and productive things in the past 5,000 years or so. There's no denying that. Plus, in approximately the last 200 years, we've made advances in technology, health, food production, and more that are nothing short of miraculous. Those accomplishments continue up through present day.
Unfortunately, however, for the last 50 years or thereabouts, we also have been on a path of species suicide. We have been adhering to an ideology which preaches unlimited growth and overconsumption. For all practical purposes, it's essentially the largest religion in developed countries. [See the post immediately prior to this one.]
The disease, cancer, provides an instructive lesson. What is the overriding characteristic of cancer? It's unlimited growth. That occurs in a finite body, and eventually kills the body. In a certain sense, that's what some of our activities are doing to our habitat; and those particular activities are the result of the economic religion to which we are adhering.
...................................
Conclusion
The article cited above is dated April 6, 2020. It deals with current problems, and suggested solutions. It broaches subjects about which too many of us have had our heads in the sand for too long. If we keep treating the symptoms of ecological problems rather than the root causes, organized human existence soon will be in dire straits... much worse than we already are.
..................................
Not only my opinion. Stay Well
Saturday, July 11, 2020
More on the Secular "Religion" of Unlimited Growth and Overconsumption - A Bit of History & Philosophy
Preface
As social beings, we humans recognize the importance of structure, organization, and institutions in everyday life. That's true all across the political spectrum. The amount of those pillars desired may vary from ideological group to group, but no one who is sane wants "Mad Max". So, we are reassured when we believe that politicians, religious leaders, economists, and others are keeping things in society humming along to the benefit of all. We feel secure to varying degrees, and life makes some sense.
The movers & shakers within those pillars know full well that it's crucial to maintain our faith in their abilities. Many/most of them have spent their professional lives working within and promoting a particular ideology or viewpoint. That's true whether the field is politics, or religion, or economics, or anything else. They truly believe in what they're doing and, for the betterment of society, would like to see it continue. [I'm excluding fraudsters and greedy sociopaths from the previous sentence.] Also, it's how they make their living.
The-Powers-That-Be and their apprentices learned this long ago: logic usually is not the best way to get people to adhere to your beliefs. Appeal to emotion is much more effective. Once emotion is generated, it's not especially difficult to transition to the final step: make belief in your viewpoint faith-based. Once there, any challenge to the system/belief/ideology is viewed as sacrilegious, and is not tolerated. Rather than engaging the "rebel" in productive and critical discourse, the heretic usually is attacked, denigrated, and dismissed.
..................................
The Secular Religion of Mainstream Economics
Once the philosophical underpinnings were laid in the 1930's at the U. of Chicago (and elsewhere), Professor Frank Knight and others began to spread the "gospel" of neoclassical/neoliberal economics. In 1947, the neoliberal think tank, the Mont Pelerin Society, was co-founded by Knight, Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman, and several others. Noted members have included many business moguls, and famous journalists such as the liberal, Pulitzer Prize winner, Walter Lippmann, and the former radical Max Eastman. Some of them rejected the term, "neoliberalism", but not the economic philosophy. They preferred the term, "neoclassical". They truly believed their new economics was going to spread freedom and lift the developing (or underdeveloped) parts of the world out of poverty. The main themes were: free market economics, free trade, and minimal (if any) government oversight. The market would regulate itself. [Note: years ago, I believed in all that. Over time, I came to realize that such policies were resulting in egregious corporatism, inequality, and ecological destruction.]
It was quite an uphill battle for them. At the time, Keynesian economics reigned supreme. The neoliberals kept building their base. Meanwhile, the World Trade Organization was being formed... which took years. After the socialist, Salvador Allende, was elected in Chile in 1970, Kissinger convinced Nixon that Chile was a cancer that would spread throughout the region. When the elected Allende was overthrown by a military coup (aided by our CIA) in Chile on 9-11-73, Pinochet was installed as the new leader of the country. Neoliberals convinced him to adopt their economic policies. Later, they considered the Chile "experiment" a success (relative to neoclassical/neoliberal economics).
In the economic disruptions of the 1970's, a few flaws in Keynesian economics became glaringly obvious. No time to detail them here. Then, with Reagan and Thatcher, came the Washington Consensus... neoliberalism through & through. The neoliberals had made their first big breakthrough. Chile was small potatoes compared to Reaganomics. [I left out the Carter Administration, which was prior to Reagan. They did a bit of deregulation, and were a bit corporatist/globalist (mostly due to Brzezinski) but, like Chile with Pinochet, the Carter Crew were nothing in terms of neoliberalism compared to Reagan].
From then to present day, neoliberal/neoclassical/mainstream economics has been, and continues to be, sacrosanct. That's true even though covid-19 has seriously wounded it. For any economist (or really, anyone) challenging it, you essentially are guaranteed to be professionally suppressed and dismissed. There's no need for mainstreamers to defend their ideology because to them it's simply a given. They largely shift the blame for any problems--- inequality, ecological damage, increasing numbers of monopolies, etc.--- off their ideology and onto anything & everything else. Perhaps those problems are due to a combination of factors; nevertheless, it should be plain by now that neoliberalism is responsible for at least a large portion of them.
The following flaws are ignored by mainstream economists---
1. Neoliberal economists seem to have little to no grasp of complexity theory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLXIJF5ytpM [The clip is only 6.5 minutes long, and gives an excellent overview of the concept.] Never mind (for a moment) their unrealistic belief that economics and economies are separate from, and larger than, Nature... which is bad enough. Perhaps worse is their view that the individual parts of any natural system are separate from each other. Thus, in their ignorant thinking, one part can be removed, damaged, or destroyed without any serious effects on other parts or the whole.
I can imagine certain economists saying to central planners: so what if we clearcut tropical forests? They're only trees. We need the lumber, and farmers/ranchers need the pasture or crop fields, or developers need the space for housing projects.
That kind of thinking allows the true believers in unlimited growth and overconsumption on a finite planet to pursue their shortsighted objectives. Any problems are considered negative "externalities", and not their concern.
2. In the same vein, they appear to fail to understand the creation of a "whole" that is greater than the sum of its parts--- synergy. The phenomenon is common in both natural and artificial systems. Ecosystems are without a doubt, synergistic, and they are our life support. For that reason, we must treat them with due consideration and care.
Decades ago and in a somewhat broader context, the esteemed macrohistorian, Professor Carroll Quigley of Georgetown U., gave the following assessment.
"Professor [Lynn] White's thesis is that when the Judeo-Christian faith established the view that there is no spirit in nature other than the human, the world was reduced to a created object to be exploited [conquered] by humans, and the way was thus opened to the destruction of nature and to the total pollution of the world -- a consequence that may have become inevitable with the rejection, in the latter thirteenth century, of the message of St. Francis to treat all nature as sacred.
The cognitive techniques derived from our underlying outlook have included ( a) using analysis rather than synthesis in seeking answers to problems; (b) isolating problems and studying them in a vacuum instead of using an ecological approach; ( c) using techniques based on quantification rather than on qualification study done in a contextual situation; (d) proceeding on the assumption of single-factor causation rather than pluralistic, ecological causation; and (e) basing decisions and actions on needs of the individual rather than needs of the group."
Quigley, Carroll, "Needed: A Revolution in Thinking", National Education Association Journal, Volume 57, May 1968, pp. 8-10.
Point being: warnings were given long ago. To this day, however, too many people seem to be ignoring them. While the revolution in thinking has progressed since the above article, we need to pick up the pace. Immediately.
3. Mainstream economists and oligarchs have promulgated the following, and have indoctrinated Main Street to the hilt in this false narrative.
4. Whether it intended to or not, neoliberalism has installed massive central planning in the economic sphere... planning not by governments, but rather by central banks (which are privately owned), other mega banks, and other mega corporations. Governments largely go along with the whole scenario because politicians get campaign funds mostly from those private institutions. Don't bite the hand that finances you.
I don't believe I need to explain why that setup is a really big flaw in the secular religion of perpetual growth & overconsumption, or why it's damaging to Main Street. That should be obvious.
Years ago, in a PBS News Hour interview during his time as Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan stated: "We are completely independent. No one has control over us.". Given some of their testimony during congressional hearings after the 2008 Crash, mega bank CEOs apparently feel pretty much the same way.
.................................
Conclusion
If we are to thrive on Spaceship Earth, it seems obvious to me that we must address all the above in an ecological (holistic) manner. Except for a relatively few individuals and groups/institutions, we have been doing little more than tinkering around the edges of massive problems for decades. A major change is past due. Though they are relatively few, those who have been working for decades on solutions to our many, interrelated, and various dilemmas deserve our esteem, support, and thanks. Ironically, those people are too numerous to list. Plus, many are essentially unknown in the broader sense. Kudos to all.
The priests of the Unlimited Growth paradigm usually wind up extolling it via a reference to the glory of capitalism. But which capitalism are they talking about? Is it crony capitalism, or casino capitalism, or disaster capitalism, or the one in which a central bank uses central planning to totally eliminate a "free market" when it comes to currency/interest rates/other monetary issues? One thing is certain--- it's NOT the capitalism of Adam Smith. Not even close. Plus, why do those high priests ignore the fact that the USA and other democratic countries have had a Mixed Economy for decades & decades? That was true even during the Golden Age of American Capitalism (from the end of WW II to 1971).
It's time to make some noise... time to seriously consider Aldo Leopold's "Land Ethic"... time to stop being lemmings going over the cliff... time to get some ethical backbone... time to stop drinking the Edward Bernays style Propaganda Kool Aid... time to push for cooperation rather than division... for tolerance rather than hate... for sanity in politics rather than psychological gaslighting... and finally, it's time to promote with vigor the idea that this precious planet on which we live has limits which must be respected.
................................
Not only my opinion. Happy Trails
As social beings, we humans recognize the importance of structure, organization, and institutions in everyday life. That's true all across the political spectrum. The amount of those pillars desired may vary from ideological group to group, but no one who is sane wants "Mad Max". So, we are reassured when we believe that politicians, religious leaders, economists, and others are keeping things in society humming along to the benefit of all. We feel secure to varying degrees, and life makes some sense.
The movers & shakers within those pillars know full well that it's crucial to maintain our faith in their abilities. Many/most of them have spent their professional lives working within and promoting a particular ideology or viewpoint. That's true whether the field is politics, or religion, or economics, or anything else. They truly believe in what they're doing and, for the betterment of society, would like to see it continue. [I'm excluding fraudsters and greedy sociopaths from the previous sentence.] Also, it's how they make their living.
The-Powers-That-Be and their apprentices learned this long ago: logic usually is not the best way to get people to adhere to your beliefs. Appeal to emotion is much more effective. Once emotion is generated, it's not especially difficult to transition to the final step: make belief in your viewpoint faith-based. Once there, any challenge to the system/belief/ideology is viewed as sacrilegious, and is not tolerated. Rather than engaging the "rebel" in productive and critical discourse, the heretic usually is attacked, denigrated, and dismissed.
..................................
The Secular Religion of Mainstream Economics
Once the philosophical underpinnings were laid in the 1930's at the U. of Chicago (and elsewhere), Professor Frank Knight and others began to spread the "gospel" of neoclassical/neoliberal economics. In 1947, the neoliberal think tank, the Mont Pelerin Society, was co-founded by Knight, Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman, and several others. Noted members have included many business moguls, and famous journalists such as the liberal, Pulitzer Prize winner, Walter Lippmann, and the former radical Max Eastman. Some of them rejected the term, "neoliberalism", but not the economic philosophy. They preferred the term, "neoclassical". They truly believed their new economics was going to spread freedom and lift the developing (or underdeveloped) parts of the world out of poverty. The main themes were: free market economics, free trade, and minimal (if any) government oversight. The market would regulate itself. [Note: years ago, I believed in all that. Over time, I came to realize that such policies were resulting in egregious corporatism, inequality, and ecological destruction.]
It was quite an uphill battle for them. At the time, Keynesian economics reigned supreme. The neoliberals kept building their base. Meanwhile, the World Trade Organization was being formed... which took years. After the socialist, Salvador Allende, was elected in Chile in 1970, Kissinger convinced Nixon that Chile was a cancer that would spread throughout the region. When the elected Allende was overthrown by a military coup (aided by our CIA) in Chile on 9-11-73, Pinochet was installed as the new leader of the country. Neoliberals convinced him to adopt their economic policies. Later, they considered the Chile "experiment" a success (relative to neoclassical/neoliberal economics).
In the economic disruptions of the 1970's, a few flaws in Keynesian economics became glaringly obvious. No time to detail them here. Then, with Reagan and Thatcher, came the Washington Consensus... neoliberalism through & through. The neoliberals had made their first big breakthrough. Chile was small potatoes compared to Reaganomics. [I left out the Carter Administration, which was prior to Reagan. They did a bit of deregulation, and were a bit corporatist/globalist (mostly due to Brzezinski) but, like Chile with Pinochet, the Carter Crew were nothing in terms of neoliberalism compared to Reagan].
From then to present day, neoliberal/neoclassical/mainstream economics has been, and continues to be, sacrosanct. That's true even though covid-19 has seriously wounded it. For any economist (or really, anyone) challenging it, you essentially are guaranteed to be professionally suppressed and dismissed. There's no need for mainstreamers to defend their ideology because to them it's simply a given. They largely shift the blame for any problems--- inequality, ecological damage, increasing numbers of monopolies, etc.--- off their ideology and onto anything & everything else. Perhaps those problems are due to a combination of factors; nevertheless, it should be plain by now that neoliberalism is responsible for at least a large portion of them.
The following flaws are ignored by mainstream economists---
1. Neoliberal economists seem to have little to no grasp of complexity theory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLXIJF5ytpM [The clip is only 6.5 minutes long, and gives an excellent overview of the concept.] Never mind (for a moment) their unrealistic belief that economics and economies are separate from, and larger than, Nature... which is bad enough. Perhaps worse is their view that the individual parts of any natural system are separate from each other. Thus, in their ignorant thinking, one part can be removed, damaged, or destroyed without any serious effects on other parts or the whole.
I can imagine certain economists saying to central planners: so what if we clearcut tropical forests? They're only trees. We need the lumber, and farmers/ranchers need the pasture or crop fields, or developers need the space for housing projects.
That kind of thinking allows the true believers in unlimited growth and overconsumption on a finite planet to pursue their shortsighted objectives. Any problems are considered negative "externalities", and not their concern.
2. In the same vein, they appear to fail to understand the creation of a "whole" that is greater than the sum of its parts--- synergy. The phenomenon is common in both natural and artificial systems. Ecosystems are without a doubt, synergistic, and they are our life support. For that reason, we must treat them with due consideration and care.
Decades ago and in a somewhat broader context, the esteemed macrohistorian, Professor Carroll Quigley of Georgetown U., gave the following assessment.
"Professor [Lynn] White's thesis is that when the Judeo-Christian faith established the view that there is no spirit in nature other than the human, the world was reduced to a created object to be exploited [conquered] by humans, and the way was thus opened to the destruction of nature and to the total pollution of the world -- a consequence that may have become inevitable with the rejection, in the latter thirteenth century, of the message of St. Francis to treat all nature as sacred.
The cognitive techniques derived from our underlying outlook have included ( a) using analysis rather than synthesis in seeking answers to problems; (b) isolating problems and studying them in a vacuum instead of using an ecological approach; ( c) using techniques based on quantification rather than on qualification study done in a contextual situation; (d) proceeding on the assumption of single-factor causation rather than pluralistic, ecological causation; and (e) basing decisions and actions on needs of the individual rather than needs of the group."
Quigley, Carroll, "Needed: A Revolution in Thinking", National Education Association Journal, Volume 57, May 1968, pp. 8-10.
Point being: warnings were given long ago. To this day, however, too many people seem to be ignoring them. While the revolution in thinking has progressed since the above article, we need to pick up the pace. Immediately.
3. Mainstream economists and oligarchs have promulgated the following, and have indoctrinated Main Street to the hilt in this false narrative.
- Material wealth is always meritorious and indicative of success and happiness in life.
- Poverty is almost always the result of individual failing.
4. Whether it intended to or not, neoliberalism has installed massive central planning in the economic sphere... planning not by governments, but rather by central banks (which are privately owned), other mega banks, and other mega corporations. Governments largely go along with the whole scenario because politicians get campaign funds mostly from those private institutions. Don't bite the hand that finances you.
I don't believe I need to explain why that setup is a really big flaw in the secular religion of perpetual growth & overconsumption, or why it's damaging to Main Street. That should be obvious.
Years ago, in a PBS News Hour interview during his time as Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan stated: "We are completely independent. No one has control over us.". Given some of their testimony during congressional hearings after the 2008 Crash, mega bank CEOs apparently feel pretty much the same way.
.................................
Conclusion
If we are to thrive on Spaceship Earth, it seems obvious to me that we must address all the above in an ecological (holistic) manner. Except for a relatively few individuals and groups/institutions, we have been doing little more than tinkering around the edges of massive problems for decades. A major change is past due. Though they are relatively few, those who have been working for decades on solutions to our many, interrelated, and various dilemmas deserve our esteem, support, and thanks. Ironically, those people are too numerous to list. Plus, many are essentially unknown in the broader sense. Kudos to all.
The priests of the Unlimited Growth paradigm usually wind up extolling it via a reference to the glory of capitalism. But which capitalism are they talking about? Is it crony capitalism, or casino capitalism, or disaster capitalism, or the one in which a central bank uses central planning to totally eliminate a "free market" when it comes to currency/interest rates/other monetary issues? One thing is certain--- it's NOT the capitalism of Adam Smith. Not even close. Plus, why do those high priests ignore the fact that the USA and other democratic countries have had a Mixed Economy for decades & decades? That was true even during the Golden Age of American Capitalism (from the end of WW II to 1971).
It's time to make some noise... time to seriously consider Aldo Leopold's "Land Ethic"... time to stop being lemmings going over the cliff... time to get some ethical backbone... time to stop drinking the Edward Bernays style Propaganda Kool Aid... time to push for cooperation rather than division... for tolerance rather than hate... for sanity in politics rather than psychological gaslighting... and finally, it's time to promote with vigor the idea that this precious planet on which we live has limits which must be respected.
................................
Not only my opinion. Happy Trails
Sunday, July 5, 2020
"Economics for a Full World", & a Sustainable World
Preface
This isn't only about economics. It's also about ethics, respect for and appreciation of the biosphere/ecosphere, respect for all sentient beings, and a path to a sustainable, mostly peaceful world.
At the links below, Professors Herman Daly and William Rees give masterful, concise explanations of ecological economics. The Daly essay is a longer, illustrated read, but both require your full attention in order to comprehend them. The Rees piece (the link was posted previously on this blog) includes a brilliant comparison to neoliberal/mainstream economics (aka, neoclassical economics).
Both essays do a great job of weaving the larger ethical, political, and ecological contexts into the discussions.
.................................
https://greattransition.org/publication/economics-for-a-full-world
https://greattransition.org/publication/economics-vs-the-economy
................................
Conclusion
For anyone desiring to understand the best solution to a large part of our ongoing problems on Earth, the essays above are a must-read. Study them as if our lives depended on it... because they do. Then, do whatever you can to support and promote these concepts. Thanks, and my grandkids thank you as well. 😊
p.s. I recommend reading the Rees piece first - Economics vs. the Economy.
..............................
Not only my opinion. Stay Well
This isn't only about economics. It's also about ethics, respect for and appreciation of the biosphere/ecosphere, respect for all sentient beings, and a path to a sustainable, mostly peaceful world.
At the links below, Professors Herman Daly and William Rees give masterful, concise explanations of ecological economics. The Daly essay is a longer, illustrated read, but both require your full attention in order to comprehend them. The Rees piece (the link was posted previously on this blog) includes a brilliant comparison to neoliberal/mainstream economics (aka, neoclassical economics).
Both essays do a great job of weaving the larger ethical, political, and ecological contexts into the discussions.
.................................
https://greattransition.org/publication/economics-for-a-full-world
https://greattransition.org/publication/economics-vs-the-economy
................................
Conclusion
For anyone desiring to understand the best solution to a large part of our ongoing problems on Earth, the essays above are a must-read. Study them as if our lives depended on it... because they do. Then, do whatever you can to support and promote these concepts. Thanks, and my grandkids thank you as well. 😊
p.s. I recommend reading the Rees piece first - Economics vs. the Economy.
..............................
Not only my opinion. Stay Well
Friday, July 3, 2020
An Alternative to the Obsession With GDP
Preface
Mainstream economics is obsessed with gross domestic product (GDP) growth. Those who measure GDP growth are convinced that any amount of it is a good sign for the economy, and that's how it's presented to the public. Furthermore, any economy is considered to be separate from Nature (or worse, Nature is only a small part of the economy); also, sustainability of natural resources is rarely ever considered. The only resources taken into account during the bulk of economic planning are artificial--- railways, trucks, factories, ships, etc.--- or are humans (labor). A bit of consideration is given to natural resource availability, but usually not in any holistic way. To be more concise, mainstream economists value Nature only for what can be extracted from it, and for the amount of wastes that can be dumped back into it.
Note--- these topics are not "flashy", but understanding them is crucial to the continued organized existence of human beings. The path we're still on is leading to species suicide. That's not hyperbole.
.............................
The Flaws in Mainstream Economic Thinking
1. Herman Daly and other Steady-State economists astutely have pointed out the probability of growth beyond an optimal scale that is uneconomic. In other words, growth in which the costs outweigh the benefits. Mainstream economists don't agree. That's because they don't know the overall practical value of Nature to economics and human well-being. Nor do they appear to understand the true costs of ecosystem damage inflicted by human mainstream economic activity. To them, ecosystems merely are a tiny part of the economy. That's especially true now that financialization has become a larger part of economies. So, I imagine this quip from a mainstreamer: "We don't need Nature. To increase GDP, all we have to do is shuffle more papers (so to speak).".
2. The practical value of natural capital and ecosystem services is often somewhat invisible to, and thus vastly underestimated or ignored by, mainstream economists. Here's a short introduction to the topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMIUglBligI .
Here's another, with E.O. Wilson:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duOzXGTuUrA .
3. Mainstream economists fail to recognize that GDP as a measurement of economic health (and human well-being) is incomplete in the long run, and thus misleading.
Gross Ecosystem Product (GEP) Approach
From the Natural Capital Project at Stanford U.---
https://naturalcapitalproject.stanford.edu/news/accounting-nature-economies
For those of you who may be at a more advanced level regarding this subject, here's the link to the full study--- (which also is embedded at the link above as "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences").
https://www.pnas.org/content/117/25/14593 .
This ecological approach, developed by the Natural Capital Project, already is being tested in China. The EU has something similar: Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES).
.............................
Conclusion
The philosophy and policies of neoliberalism/mainstream economics have brought us to where we are today: environmental degradation; little to no concern for the importance of ecosystem services; little concern for industrial waste disposal (especially if it's into the atmosphere); the unsustainable use of natural capital; and a false belief in unlimited growth, overconsumption, GDP as a complete measure of economic health, and corporatism. If all that isn't bad enough, we're on the brink of the largest, most severe ecodisaster in human history. Meanwhile, the Super-Rich are laughing all the way to the bank, most politicians are doing a lot of talking and not much else, and the corporatist propagandists are running amok.
A ray of hope---
A shift to ecological economics, as well as the continued development of the GEP approach to economic measurement, and the adoption of ecoethics is the best path forward... and it's all possible.
............................
Not only my opinion. Stay Well
Mainstream economics is obsessed with gross domestic product (GDP) growth. Those who measure GDP growth are convinced that any amount of it is a good sign for the economy, and that's how it's presented to the public. Furthermore, any economy is considered to be separate from Nature (or worse, Nature is only a small part of the economy); also, sustainability of natural resources is rarely ever considered. The only resources taken into account during the bulk of economic planning are artificial--- railways, trucks, factories, ships, etc.--- or are humans (labor). A bit of consideration is given to natural resource availability, but usually not in any holistic way. To be more concise, mainstream economists value Nature only for what can be extracted from it, and for the amount of wastes that can be dumped back into it.
Note--- these topics are not "flashy", but understanding them is crucial to the continued organized existence of human beings. The path we're still on is leading to species suicide. That's not hyperbole.
.............................
The Flaws in Mainstream Economic Thinking
1. Herman Daly and other Steady-State economists astutely have pointed out the probability of growth beyond an optimal scale that is uneconomic. In other words, growth in which the costs outweigh the benefits. Mainstream economists don't agree. That's because they don't know the overall practical value of Nature to economics and human well-being. Nor do they appear to understand the true costs of ecosystem damage inflicted by human mainstream economic activity. To them, ecosystems merely are a tiny part of the economy. That's especially true now that financialization has become a larger part of economies. So, I imagine this quip from a mainstreamer: "We don't need Nature. To increase GDP, all we have to do is shuffle more papers (so to speak).".
2. The practical value of natural capital and ecosystem services is often somewhat invisible to, and thus vastly underestimated or ignored by, mainstream economists. Here's a short introduction to the topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMIUglBligI .
Here's another, with E.O. Wilson:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duOzXGTuUrA .
3. Mainstream economists fail to recognize that GDP as a measurement of economic health (and human well-being) is incomplete in the long run, and thus misleading.
Gross Ecosystem Product (GEP) Approach
From the Natural Capital Project at Stanford U.---
https://naturalcapitalproject.stanford.edu/news/accounting-nature-economies
For those of you who may be at a more advanced level regarding this subject, here's the link to the full study--- (which also is embedded at the link above as "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences").
https://www.pnas.org/content/117/25/14593 .
This ecological approach, developed by the Natural Capital Project, already is being tested in China. The EU has something similar: Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES).
.............................
Conclusion
The philosophy and policies of neoliberalism/mainstream economics have brought us to where we are today: environmental degradation; little to no concern for the importance of ecosystem services; little concern for industrial waste disposal (especially if it's into the atmosphere); the unsustainable use of natural capital; and a false belief in unlimited growth, overconsumption, GDP as a complete measure of economic health, and corporatism. If all that isn't bad enough, we're on the brink of the largest, most severe ecodisaster in human history. Meanwhile, the Super-Rich are laughing all the way to the bank, most politicians are doing a lot of talking and not much else, and the corporatist propagandists are running amok.
A ray of hope---
A shift to ecological economics, as well as the continued development of the GEP approach to economic measurement, and the adoption of ecoethics is the best path forward... and it's all possible.
............................
Not only my opinion. Stay Well
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)