Tribute to Basquiat, Philosophy, and Activism

 We humans keep striving to be human.  Still, we remain a paradox in many ways.

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

From Transnational Institute: Commentary on Public Banks and "Green" Funding

 https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/24844/1/How%20Public%20Banks%20Can%20Help%20Finance%20a%20Green%20and%20Just%20Energy%20Transformation_Marois_TNI_2017.pdf

As examples, two banks are discussed:  Germany's KfW; and Costa Rica's BPDC.  The report is both interesting and informative; it covers the good side of the issue and the shortcomings.  At least read the "Conclusion...", starting on page 12.

Green projects, like everything else, have to be funded.  Public banks should be involved because, in general, they're more accountable than the private banks.  Plus, public banks are much more democratic, and again in general, more concerned with the public good.

..............................

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

Complete Bioeconomics & Degrowth Look Like This

 Most of the Bioeconomics of today is not that of Georgescu-Roegen, the founder of the concept.  Why?  Because the "updated", new century versions are incomplete, and they seem to eschew "degrowth".  There's much more to bioeconomics than just bioenergy, which seems to be the main (or only) focus today.  Plus, the original bioeconomics promoted the idea of degrowth.

In the article below, the ecological and political economist, Giorgos Kallis (one of today's leading champions of degrowth), presents specific policies which would make possible a thriving society without economic growth.

https://www.greeneuropeanjournal.eu/can-we-prosper-without-growth-10-policy-proposals/

Are some of these policies "radical"?  Frankly, yes; but that's the approach needed if we are to get through the ongoing Social-Ecological Crisis now upon us.  If we are to survive and thrive, we must discard the Edward Bernays style propaganda to which we've been subjected for decades.  The neoclassical/neoliberal economists have bamboozled us.

Unlimited Growth + Overconsumption + Inequality + Materialism = a rat race which is destroying not only our habitat, but us as well.  A paradigm shift in Ethics is in order.  Common sense and empirical evidence scream for it.  The main obstacle appears to be the sacrosanct vision of constant, perpetual Growth.

Tick-tock.

...........................

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

The Real Scoop on Interest Rates and Nominal GDP "Growth"

 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800916307510

The research at the above link is somewhat of a blockbuster.  With an empirical approach, it shows that "...conventional monetary policy as operated by central banks for the past half-century is fundamentally flawed".  Among other things, the research demonstrates that low interest rates do not cause economic growth, and "if policy-makers really aimed at setting rates consistent with a recovery, they would need to raise them".

This study has been available for over two years, but apparently, largely ignored.  It also delves into the effects of "quantities" (e.g., QE) on an economy, and further, why environmentally sustainable projects are better for the economy as opposed to growth for growth's sake.  In short, the study provides solidly based evidence that neoliberal economics has failed overall.  Of course, that same economic path has benefitted the Upper Crust immeasurably... which is probably why this study has been mostly ignored by the Powers-That-Be, both public and private.

..........................

Not only my opinion.  Stay Well

"What is the Bioeconomy?"

 https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/7/691/htm

Via a scholarly review of over 450 journal articles, the piece at the link above identifies and discusses three approaches or "visions" of the bioeconomy:

    1)  a bio-Tech vision;

    2)  a bio-resource vision; and,

    3)  a bio-ecology vision.

Two or more of these different approaches sometimes are implemented in combination with each other.  As you might surmise, the first two are primarily concerned with technological "fixes".  The bio-ecology approach is, in my opinion, the closest to the view of Georgescu-Roegen, the founder of bioeconomics.

Despite early theoretical work done in this discipline, the more recent research has evolved in such a way as to attract a broad range of sciences, and a heavy technological flavor.  To have a significant, long-term, and global impact on future human endeavors, Bioeconomics needs to further identify its scope and purpose, and its adherents need to consider the following.

Our primary focus should not be more technological fixes, but rather, the adoption of Ecoethics and striving to live within our means (as aggregate humanity).  The elephant in the room is Unlimited Growth.  It's not sustainable... period.

...........................

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

"An urgent call for circular economy advocates to acknowledge its limitations in conserving biodiversity"

 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969720321185?via%3Dihub

All I have access to is the Abstract... found at the link above.

Below is a graphic from the Abstract---

As mentioned in previous posts, the Circular Economy (CE) concept is fairly popular in various parts of the world.  It's a mistake, however, to think that it's the best ecological approach to solving our multi-faceted Eco-Crisis.  It's not even close to that.  In fact, it's only slightly "greener" than the "circular" concept claimed by neoclassical/neoliberal economics years ago... which wasn't circular at all.

As cited in other article links previously posted on this blog, CE has numerous problems in the ecological arena.  Biodiversity impact is one of them.

In my view, only non-ecologists would believe that Tech innovations and "substitutions" eventually will "decouple" an economy from reliance on natural resources found in highly complex (and irreplaceable) ecosystems.  I imagine it can be done to some limited degree, but not without disastrous impacts on the Mother of all Ecosystems (so to speak), Spaceship Earth.  Such an attempt on a global scale would be folly.

The CE concept is in need of some adjustments, and in need of collaboration with Bioeconomists, Ecologists, and others in similar fields.  A greener version of Neoclassical Economics is not going to save organized human existence on this finite planet.

...............................

Not only my opinion.  Stay Well

In General, Is This Close to the Bioeconomics Being Pursued in Europe?

I haven't had time to study the article at the link below, but thought I would post it with the title question.  While I'm reviewing the piece, does anyone know the answer to the question?  [I'm guessing the answer is Yes.]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212567114000677

............................

You will have to scroll down when you get to the page in order to access the pdf text - "Download full text in PDF".

............................

Be Well

"The Blue Skies of Neoliberalism"

Two Reasons Why Banks Should be Public Utilities, Not Private Businesses

 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1057521914001070

Those of us who for years have maintained that this happens have been looked upon as "strange".    Well,  here's empirical evidence... as incredible as this may seem, it's the 1st scientific study of the issue.  Keep in mind - we're not talking about a Central Bank here; rather, it's individual private banks that do this.

At least read the Abstract at the link above... it's short.

Wouldn't you love to collect interest payments on something you created out of "thin air"? 

This is one reason why banks should be publicly owned - public utilities - not private institutions... better accountability if publicly owned.

 ...................

The other reason why banks should be public utilities is as follows.

Technically and legally, when you make a bank "deposit" into your "account", what you're really doing is loaning the bank some of your money.  The bank takes on a "debt obligation", and the money deposited essentially becomes theirs.  The bank owes you money, but not that specific money.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC0G7pY4wRE

Plus, thanks to a policy of the G20 Financial Stability Board, thirty mega banks can convert the loans made to them by "depositors" into equity shares in the bank in the case of a financial crisis.  That's true even if the bank is failing during a crisis.

In the USA, some people think - so what?  Who cares?  Our money in banks is protected by FDIC funds, right?  Yes, but here's the catch:  the FDIC fund total varies, but is in the billions (much less than one trillion); the total amount of "deposits" in U.S. banks also varies, but usually is close to $15 trillion.  Do the math.

........................

Banks, especially mega banks, are a big cause of gross inequality in this country.  We need public banks, and a banking model similar to the one in Germany... an emphasis on small, local banks.  Germany probably has the best banking system in the world, and the USA most likely has the worst.

.......................

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

"The economy as if people mattered..." 2020

The open access articles at the links below are enlightening and much needed admonitions regarding the current misuse of "Green" terminology (circular, bioeconomics, Green New Deal, etc.), and the ethical problems inherent in the "Growth" (neoliberal) economy.  Neoliberal economics is attempting to paint itself green, thus supposedly justifying the continuation on the path of unlimited growth.

 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14747731.2020.1761612#aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudGFuZGZvbmxpbmUuY29tL2RvaS9wZGYvMTAuMTA4MC8xNDc0NzczMS4yMDIwLjE3NjE2MTI/bmVlZEFjY2Vzcz10cnVlQEBAMA==

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800918317178?via%3Dihub

..............................

It is abundantly clear by now that mainstream/neoliberal economics, more than any other relevant factor, is responsible for the disasters of:  the multi-faceted ecological crisis; rampant social & income inequality; an egregiously fragile economy; and a race to worldwide neofeudalism.  In addition to all that, neoliberals currently would have us believe:  the solution to all our problems is more & more efficient growth; and, with recycling, we don't need to worry about running out of natural resources.  Really?  No worries?

The above scenario is not the Bioeconomics of Georgescu-Roegen.  Not even close.  He emphasized biophysical limits, entropy, and finally, degrowth.  [Ever-changing "development" doesn't have to be "growth".]

..............................

Not only my opinion.  Stay Well

The Idea is Simple & Straightforward - The Implementation of it is Monumentally Complex

 Which "Idea"?  Because unlimited growth and overconsumption on finite Spaceship Earth have proven to be incompatible with the long-term surviving and thriving of Life here, we need to make a paradigm shift to Sustainability.

The four journal articles at the links below show part of the reason why that necessary shift cannot be done in one fell swoop.  

.................................

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800919316982

["Sustainable Development and Populism"  2020

From the Abstract:  This paper contains the first empirical study of the relationship between the SDGs (17 U.N. Sustainable Development Goals) and populism.]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652619316191?dgcid=raven_sd_recommender_email  

["Thinking green, circular, or bio: ...researchers' perspectives on a sustainable economy..."  2019]

From the Abstract:  This study aims at highlighting combinations of sustainability concepts (circular, green, and bioeconomy) which selected researchers have considered priorities...]

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/20/5705/htm

["Bioeconomy Transitions through the Lens of Coupled Social-Ecological Systems..."  2019

From the Abstract:  ...it remains unclear whether bioeconomy transitions in high income countries are sustainable.  In order to fill a gap in bioeconomy sustainability assessments, we apply...]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652617330706

["Circular economy as an essentially contested concept"  2018

From the Abstract:  ...basic assumptions concerning the values, societal structures, cultures, underlying world-views, and the paradigmatic potential of CE remain largely unexplored.]

.......................................

Although time is pressing, implementation of Sustainability will not happen only by "voting", and will require years of persistent work (which has been & is ongoing).  I mention this obvious truism because:  I've noticed in many venues both online and off that some younger activists seem to be getting extremely impatient AND depressed to one degree or another with what they perceive as a lack of progress in the shift to a sustainable path.  Take heart.  Work and progress are happening all around the world.  Yes, we (as aggregate humanity) need a giant step forward relatively quickly.  I think we're on the cusp of it, so hang in there.

........................................

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

"...Promising the radical, delivering the familiar"

A sneak peek at an upcoming November journal article - all I have is the Abstract, which is telling (link below).  It's looking more & more as though the CIRCULAR ECONOMY (CE) concept is not what it's cracked up to be.  At least, at the present time it's not.

So, why is that important?  1)  CE currently is highly popular in academic and governmental policy making circles.  2)  It's being viewed as an ecological solution to the ongoing Eco-Crisis.  3)  It appears to adhere to the neoclassical/neoliberal false belief that increased efficiency and substitutes can ameliorate the negative environmental "externalities" of unlimited economic growth.  4)  It also appears to ignore the impact of entropy regarding economic throughput and recycling.  5)  And finally, it appears to not take seriously enough the existence of biophysical limitations on Spaceship Earth.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921800920306091

The CE paradigm is in need of a transformative shift which includes abandoning the idea of unlimited growth and overconsumption on a finite planet.  That path has proven to be disastrous.  It's precisely why the world now is seeking an alternative.  Wrapping a Green ribbon around a neoliberal package is not an adequate solution.  The CE model is not Bioeconomics, Ecological Economics, Donut Economics, or Steady State Economics.  It seems to be merely a greener version of neoliberal economics.

In any case, much more dialectical discourse regarding the details of CE needs to occur.  Our lives, our future depend on that process.

....................

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

Validity Challenges: The Circular Economy Concept

Here's the question:  is the current version of the Circular Economy (CE) genuinely transformational, or merely refurbished and presented as CE 3.0?  More to the point:  does it seriously consider socio-ecological problems involving biophysical limitations in the economic sphere?

The answers are not clear at this point, but the articles at the links below examine the questions in great detail.  CE is not yet crystallized, and could go in any one of a few different directions.  More research and dialectical discourse are needed in order to give the concept a final grounding and direction.

 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344920302354?dgcid=raven_sd_recommender_email#bib0192

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344917302756

...........................

Not only my opinion.  Stay Well

More on Ecosystem Services... Plus, More on Ecosystems

 http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/EcosystemAssessmentConcepts/EcosystemServices/tabid/103/Default.aspx

At the link above is a concise and comprehensive rendering of the important concept of ecosystem services.

On the left side of the page are more links to all aspects of ecosystems, e.g., ecosystems & biodiversity, ecosystem functioning, etc.

..............................

Be Well

Georgescu-Roegen's Bioeconomics Approach to Development and Change

Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen (G-R), a highly skilled mathematician, epistemologist, & economist, was one of the thinkers who laid the bedrock for anything "Green" in economics.  He did so with his concept of Bioeconomics.

G-R spent much of his career at Vanderbilt University in Nashville.  His best known book, The Entropy Law and the Economic Process (1971), dealt not only with the two subjects in the title, but also science & thought, dialectics, epistemology, mathematical analysis, change/evolution, and society.  It's truly a "magnum opus".

Because the book detailed the problems and dangers of unlimited economic growth, it drew negative reactions from neoclassical/neoliberal economists.  After that, the work largely was ignored by mainstream economics.

G-R's Bioeconomics was/is genuinely revolutionary, and it's making a bigtime comeback.  In large part, that's due to the failures/problems of mainstream economics.  The two primary foundations of G-R's theory are as follows.
1. Human evolution, in addition to being within the body (endosomatic), has been outside the body (exosomatic) in the form of tools, machinery, industry, and external energy (e.g., fossil fuels).  Not only exosomatic manufactured components have become part of our evolution, but money as well.
2.  The recognition of the importance of qualitative change caused by new elements in economic processes is crucial to understanding economic reality.  [The mechanistic epistemology of neoclassical/neoliberal economics largely fails to account for such change because primarily (often only) mathematical analysis is used in constructing economic models.  Math formulas dominate.  G-R proposed a combination of math and a dialectical approach (involving discourse, discussion, & reasoned argumentation) in order to determine economic reality.]

In simpler terms, G-R maintained that neoclassical/neoliberal economics could not account for the unanticipated, unknown variables (e.g., the effects of industrial pollutants, social & income inequality, overharvesting of natural resources, and a plethora of anomalies in human behavior) in an economy because only math is used in economic analysis and prediction.  Dialectical reasoning - discussion of opposing views - is needed.  Input of words, not just math formulas.

In relation to development and change, G-R antagonized the mainstreamers by his insistence that economic analysis must be based on reality, observed facts, rather than mathematical abstractions.  He maintained that the neoclassical approach primarily consisted of nothing but conjecture.

For a much deeper look, see the article at the link below.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2009.01603.x

The economic genius of Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen finally is being recognized.
...................................
Not only my opinion.  Stay Well

The "Green Economy" CANNOT Sustain Unlimited Economic Growth

Even for a moment, I shudder to think of the indoctrination going on in the world today relative to how the theoretical Green Economy (GEcon) will facilitate the continuation of perpetual economic GROWTH.  Is the GEcon a good thing for us?  Yes, it is.  Is continuing unlimited growth a good thing for us?  Absolutely not.  We can have one or the other, but not both.  Here's why.
...................................

The journal article at the link below tackles the nexus of the GEcon and perpetual growth, and it does so with both qualitative and quantitative empirical evidence.  It not only analyzes all the factors involved, but applies synthesis to them as well.  Those factors include:  Gross Domestic Product (GDP), Domestic Material Consumption (DMC), decoupling, re-coupling, material & energy throughput, green growth, theoretical Tech innovation, global material footprint, unlimited economic growth, bioenergy with carbon capture & storage (BECCS), the IPAT equation, Eco-Crisis, ecology, natural resources, political ecology, and more.

The title and first paragraph of this essay give a partial hint, but I won't reveal the full conclusion of the linked article here because it's important (and worthwhile) to read the piece.  So, put on your thinking cap, buckle down, study it, and I believe you'll become a convert, so to speak.  This subject might seem boring to the "average" person, but just the fact that you're reading this means you're above average relative to concern over the ongoing Eco-Crisis.  So many solution options to consider - GEcon, Circular Econ, Bioecon, Steady State Econ, Ecological Econ, and various combinations of those.  If organized human existence is to survive and thrive, we have to get this right.  The article below will help tremendously.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13563467.2019.1598964?src=recsys  ["Is Green Growth Possible", by Jason Hickel and Giorgos Kallis]
It's a "Free Access" journal article.

Given the years-long search for Sustainability (especially in the EU), the above article is crucial to deciding on the best path forward for humanity.
...............................
Not only my opinion.  Be Well

The Circular Economy: A Few Implementation Methods

 Although I firmly believe Circular Economics does not go far enough in dealing with our ongoing Ecological Crisis - not far enough mainly because the "circular economy" approach still is wedded to unlimited growth - I nevertheless recognize the approach as a step in the right direction.  In that spirit, the links below may provide a valuable insight or two for researchers, policy makers and others.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/circular-economy  [An overview, and specific implementation methods.]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800918306414   ["Circular, Green, and Bio Economy: How Do Companies in Land-Use Intensive Sectors Align with Sustainability Concepts?"]

.................................

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

Resilience is One of the Keys, and It's Largely Missing

The short essay at the first link below introduces us to the elements in an essential global transformation.  For most of us, it's too overwhelming to think globally relative to solutions/resilience to problems Earth faces.  But that's not true if our starting point is the individual - each of us - then family, then neighborhood, then community, then region, etc.

In order to survive and thrive as a species, we must deal decisively with all the current stressors:  ecological, economic, social, and technological.  As I've said before, at the root of it all is ethics and our worldview - in other words, our spirituality (not "religion").  In general, aggregate humanity clearly is on a destructive path.  Changing that starts with each of us changing our own consciousness.  Fortunately, many have done that.  It's important, though, to not become self-righteous about it, and intolerant of opposing views.  Unfortunately, especially in fully developed countries, intolerance often seems to be the norm nowadays - on all "sides".  [Every time I hear President Trump speak, I wrestle with intolerance in myself:]  We all need to work on overcoming that, but it doesn't mean we should become tolerant of criminals.  Some actions all "sides" know are unquestionably wrong.

We humans all should concentrate on cooperation rather than competition, being open-minded rather than narrow-minded, viewing Nature for its intrinsic (not just utilitarian) value, and viewing existence as a joyous journey rather than a dog-eat-dog rat-race.  If we don't do all that, it's a safe bet that Nature will put us in a place much worse than the one we're in now.  Earth will survive; organized human existence may not.

https://mahb.stanford.edu/blog/surviving-the-perfect-storm/

Here's a project worth exploring -  https://resilienceproject.ngo/ .

There is a fruitful, reasonable path forward.  What's needed is the will to take it.  With education, application, cooperation, and perseverance, I believe we can do it.  We must do it.
..............................
Not only my opinion.  Stay Well 

One Aspect of EcoEthics

https://twitter.com/ScottHa85992272/status/1302711900338257921?s=20

Here's how animals should be viewed, one reason why ecoethics is vital, and a worldview that could stop our collective suicidal path. This is Spirituality, not formal organized Religion. It seems to be lacking in too many people.
...........................
Not only my opinion. Be Well

More In-Depth Assessments of the "Circular Economy"

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800918317178
and
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344920302354?dgcid=raven_sd_recommender_email

While the new Circular Economy and Circular Economics are positive steps forward, they - as presently described - appear to be insufficient in terms of addressing our impending / ongoing eco-catastrophe.  Serious problems are present in the current theory, chief of which are as follows.

1.  Circular economics seems to be wedded to the concepts of unlimited growth and overconsumption.  It's a nice package with a "green" ribbon, but appears to continue to ignore the biophysical constraints of the ecosphere.
2.  The theory is not yet definitively constructed.  There are a few different versions of it.

Neoliberal economics, which certainly adheres to unlimited growth & overconsumption and also ignores biophysical constraints, may be at the root of this new theory.  At this point, it's difficult to know whether or not that's true.

If you're really pressed for time, at least read the short Abstracts at the two links above.
.........................
Not only my opinion.  Be Well