Common Wealth

I remember when I was a per-teen I got these intense growth pains.  It was this numbing feeling in my legs; almost as if someone is sitting on them and simultaneously stretching them out.  It was hell and I would lay there crying praying it would stop.  And somebody listened because at only 1,61 meters I would say it stopped prematurely. 

So I associated growth with pain all my life.  You can imagine my surprise when I got to university and learnt that the answer to all the problems facing our world, the answer to mal nutrient, poverty, child abuse, war even environmental degradation was… GROWTH.  

"Just grow..." the fat economist would smirk.  "All this world need is growth, kid, and then everybody will have more because you grew.  The market will deliver!"

You know what the capitalist system done?  It grew alright, but while some people got the length, others got the pain.  While some got the bargain, others paid for it.  While some got away with murder, others laid dead (probably in a ditch).  The system is not the answer - it is the problem.  Growth is never as simple as you think, there is always pain accompanying it and people praying for it to stop.  Schumpeter said the capitalist system will fall apart not because it is incompetent but because it is too powerful. 

I am not some kind of hippie or crazy one-eyed witch, I am not a communist, I am not an anarchist or a nationalist or a Zionist, or a religious fundamentalist, I am not labeled in any way.  I am one thing – and one thing alone – I am against what we are doing right now. 

 

The funny thing about excessive growth in the human body is that is not that rare.  We just don’t call it excessive growth, we call it cancer.  Cancer is a broad range of illnesses, all involving unregulated cell growth. In cancer, cells divide and grow uncontrollably, which frequently end with death.  I know I am short and I don’t mind because if a human grows and grows and grows and grows… they will soon have to go for chemotherapy.  Cancer has permeated in our society

Non-sense

I recently received an e-mail that had my blood boiling. Many of you have probably received it - the so-called statement made by Bill Cosby about being "76 and tired". Though the e-mail has been confirmed a hoax, it certainly has made the rounds. So here's my reply to "I'm 76 and tired". (You can read the "original" at http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/billcosby/a/I-Am-76-And-I-Am-Tired-By-Bill-Cosby.htm)

I'm 25 and I'm tired

I’m 25. I’ve worked hard to obtain an education and try to make a contribution to research and higher education. I, too, work long hours and never call in sick. I too, didn’t inherit my job or my income. But I do realize that, though I didn’t inherit my job or income, I inherited many opportunities. I did not get where I am alone. I have had parents, friends, family members and employers who were willing to take chances on me throughout my life. Given the state of the world, it looks as though few other people realize this and are thankful for it, as I am, and I’m tired. Very tired.

I’m tired of being told that people are not willing to “spread the wealth” because they are arrogant enough to believe in a thing such as a self-made man. I’m tired of people thinking that, if you’re poor, it’s because you are too lazy to earn money. It is an insult to the extremely hard working, honest people I know who perform back breaking labour for a pittance.

I’m tired of people thinking that any religion out there is, or ever has been, “a religion of peace.” Have Christians forgotten about the Crusades? The Spanish Inquisition? The way they have treated their own women through the ages? Most of all, I’m tired of these very people who claim to follow the “true” religion of peace, who use their faith as an excuse for not tolerating other cultures and religions, when the very founder of their faith that they claim to love above all ordered: “You have heard the law that says, ‘Love your neighbor’ and hate your enemy. But I say, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you! In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and the unjust alike. If you love only those who love you, what reward is there for that? Even corrupt tax collectors do that much. If you are kind only to your friends, how are you different from anyone else? ."

I’m tired of people not being willing to lower their standards of living to fight global warming because they are arrogant enough to believe that their comfort is more important than the air I breathe. I’m tired of people fighting about “being allowed to debate” global warming, when scientists agree it’s a fact. 

I’m tired of people having no empathy for drug addicts, depression sufferers and people who self-harm because they refuse to see that the world they have created by their narrow minded focus on enriching themselves and then hoarding the wealth to themselves is indeed, a disease.

I too, am tired of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers and politicians of all parties talking about innocent mistakes, stupid mistakes or youthful mistakes, when we all know they think their only mistake was getting caught. What I am even more tired of, however, is this system in which we have allowed wealthy athletes, entertainers and politicians – of all parties – to dominate our press and our lives to the extent that they do.

I’m also really tired of people who don’t take responsibility for their lives and actions. I’m tired of hearing them blame the government, or discrimination, or big-whatever for their problems. I’m even more tired, however, of people and governments who often are to blame and still don’t take responsibility for their part in creating our current realities. I’m tired of the church in South Africa, who still won’t apologise for condoning and actively participating in Apartheid.
I’m also tired and fed up with men and women in their teens and early 20’s and even 40’s who are self-righteous enough to criticise other people’s choice in what to do with their bodies, whether it be bedecking themselves in tattoos or face studs. I’m tired of the fact that we live in a society where having tattoos and face studs can make you “unemployable” – when will we finally stop judging our fellow human beings based on appearance, race or religious creed?

Yes, I’m damn tired. I’m especially tired of people who refuse to think for themselves, when a five minute fact check I ran after receiving the “Bill Cosby e-mail” revealed, in a statement from the man himself, that he is NOT the author of the e-mail. But I’m also glad to be 25. Because, mostly, I’m not going to stand by and allow this lack of sympathy, common sense, and respect for scientific fact. I’m young enough to make a difference. Thank God for that.

Common ground

Job Creators

Speaking of job creators and trickling down...

Common ground

Trick(le) or Treat?

A few weeks ago, a Ted Talk that was presented by Nick Hanauer did not air, because the content was felt to be too political. What was the talk on? Income inequality. Though income inequality is not really groundbreaking news to anybody, what did make this particular talk quite incendiary (apparently) was the fact that it features a venture capitalist who proclaims that the rich are NOT job creators in the economy.

Republicans in America are particularly upset about higher taxes on the rich, claiming that the rich should be taxed at lower rates, since they will then go on to spend their money, open new businesses and create more jobs. In this way, the benefits received by the wealthy are believed to “trickle down” to the rest of the economy. But is it so?

Well, no. The trickle down theory is not new at all, and we have not seen it actually leading to lower inequality where it has been applied. In fact, Greenwood and Holt (2010) argue that income inequality in America has worsened after Reagan, who was a proponent of the trickle down effect. There does actually exist a negative trickle down effect, where the economy grows, but because wealth is concentrated, instead of income trickling down to the lower classes in a positive way, it influences them in a negative way. For instance, more conspicuous consumption from the 1% at the top places a lot of pressure on the rest to “keep up”, meaning that consumption patterns have to change in order to maintain a certain level of status in your job and community, and this is detrimental to the average, middle-class Joe’s welfare. The more concentrated wealth is, the less investment there is in public goods which are meant to be beneficial for the commons. This is because the wealthy elite oppose higher taxes and are unwilling to pay their share in order to ensure the commons (this is what we see happening with the Tea Party in America). This makes essential goods such as health and education even less affordable to the poor, widening the income gap further. So what, you might argue? Remember that inequality is in itself a market failure in an economy. It distorts the allocation of resources even more than they already are. As Stiglitz points out, young people flood universities in order to study finance, because they believe that this is where the money is and want to be part of the rich elite. What the economy would actually benefit from most, though, is more teachers, researchers and scientists.

Lan and Hegji (2009) find no evidence of a trickle down effect which benefits lower income groups in America. Qureshi (2008) also does not find evidence of this effect in Pakistan.  The problem is that economic growth is once again confused with development – we want to argue that we should tax the rich at lower rates so that they can seize opportunities to grow the economy, which in turn will mean higher income and quality of life for other people lower down in the economy, but I have explained in previous posts why this is not so.

As Bill Maher states so very succinctly: “How else do you explain trickle down economics? They’re practically saying – we’re pissing on you.”

References:

Greenwood, D.T. & Holt, P.F. 2010. Growth, inequality and negative trickle down. Journal of Economics Issues, XLIV(2):403-410.

Lan, Y. & Hegji, C. 2009. A new look at the trickle-down effect in the United States economy. Economics Bulletin, 29(3):1743-1748.

Qureshi, M.A. 2008. Challenging trickle-down approach: Modelling and simulation of public expenditure and human development - the case of Pakistan. International Journal of Social Economics, 36(4):269-282.

Tragedy of Common (sense)

Imagine a day 2020 million years ago... let's say in June.

Everything was tranquil, still, peaceful and quiet... no humans, no crime, no corruption, even no dinosaurs yet, only equilibrium!  Somewhere on this peaceful planet there was a shallow inland sea (on today's maps that sea is 120km South West of Johannesburg, South Africa).

And then BOOM!! A meteorite, as big as Table Mountain, hits this shallow sea, explodes. Vast amount of energy are poured into every living and geographical thing, the Earth's crust is crushed, melted, moved, flipped, crumpled and pushed into new forms, the inland sea evaporates like a new years resolution.

And then it was over, within the time you would take to make a sandwhich and fall down on the couch... it was still again.  An eery shocked stillness.

This was the biggest meteorite to ever hit the earth, even bigger than the one that killed of the dinosaurs. The impact zone is about 300km wide.  It was massive, majestic, immense, aweful and awefilled.

This impacted our lives today as well.  Firstly, the gold of the Witwatersrand is said to have come the meteorite, which overturned the Earth crust and barried it deep enough to only be exposed in our time and drive our economy.  Even the South African currency, the Rand, is named after this gold ridge (rand is Afrikaans for ridge).

In the heart of the impact, the meteorite caused the stone to melt and set almost instantly, this made beautiful patterns in die granite; black lines and parts that looks like a river of stone.  This beautiful rock is said to be the oldest rock on Earth and it lies there, pretty in shades of pink.

And what did the humans do? 

Yip, we mined the granite, we blown it to bits and used it in our very import kitchen tops. For millions of years that rock was majestically untouched... even the Bushmen who roamed the area respected the old rocks.

Sure, we did not know what we were doing, we did not realise the magnitude of the area in which we dug for nice counters!

In neo-classical economics we calculate the value of a piece of land with cost-benefit-analysis.  A cost benefit-analysis is not to say that only money is important - it wants to include the TOTAL value of a natural entity by expressing everything in terms of money.  Then see if the value is more than the benefit from harvesting the natural entity.  In this total economic value, use and non-use values are included.  Use will include direct use and indirect use, such as timber from a forest and oxygen out of photosynthesis, respectively. Non-values include,  option use value, were you would pay to keep the option of harvesting the entity later open. Bequest value, would be how much you are willing to pay to protect it for future generations.  Existence value would be how much you just want the entity to live.  Most cost-benefit analysis only include these three non-use values. 

But there is a fourth, QUASI-OPTION VALUE!  Quasi-option value is the amount you are willing to pay to ensure you don't destroy something of value today and only realise it's true immense value tomorrow. 


I conclude; it is clear to see that the neo-classical system is not only failing in theory but also failing in implementation (example; some idiot forgot to include the quasi-option value before he blew a World Heritage Site to bits).  Ah, who cares for something a million times older than the story of Jesus - as long as we have nice counters to chop and dice on!!

Common ground

Risk

I am more and more astounded by the complete lack of empathy in our modern, capitalist system. A heated debate on income inequality, and particularly the discrepancy in salaries between CEO's and employees, led to this statement a while ago: "But the CEO's and venture capitalists out there are the ones taking the risks, of course they have to be rewarded accordingly." (This comment from a stock broker, naturally.)

Have we really become so twisted that we believe money is the only thing worth taking risks for? What about the miner in that big conglomerate of yours, Mr. CEO, who daily risks respiratory illness (best case scenario) and death (worst case scenario)? Are you rewarding his risks "accordingly"?

Or the teenager living on the streets who turns to prostitution to make a living. She's risking death and disease everyday.

The single mom working two jobs to support her children? Do we really think the risk she takes in missing being there for her child's first steps or first words are somehow less? What about the risks she is forced to take with her children's safety in having to leave them with strangers to take care of for the day?

It's not risk we want to reward. Secretly, it's status and social paradigms of what is acceptable that we reward. Of course that Ivy League graduate deserves that astounding salary for shifting funds around on the market all day - he studied hard to earn the knowledge about how derivatives work. Cut to the small farmer/builder, toiling in the sun and rain all day, performing back-breaking labour to earn a pittance. Like the knowledge he possesses about growing successful crops or laying a sturdy foundation is somehow less.

I guess the most sickening example of how we reward "risk" in this twisted system, is what's happening in Somalia. Italian conglomerates are dumping their toxic waste in this country, simply to save some money by not disposing of it in the correct way. The Somalis are now suffering serious health problems, and the rise of piracy in this nation has also been linked back to this problem - toxic waste has destroyed the local marine life, leaving fishermen with no other place to go.

But it's that Italian capitalist, who took the risk to establish a business of his own and now drinks his espresso's in designer Armani each morning, who carries the real risk. Right?

Common ground

Give a little

Do we really need more growth to combat poverty and inequality? Or do we just need to distribute what we already have a little more fairly and empathically?

Non-sense

Incentives

Understanding incentives is a pretty big part of Econ studies - but how well do we understand what actually does motivate people, and what makes for good incentives? The Venus Project, for example, proposes a world with NO MONEY, in which people work because they want to. Sounds crazy, right? Or is it?

Non-sense

The real invisible hand

"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greater good of everyone." - Attributed to JM Keynes

This quote belies something about economists' misguided beliefs about human nature (that is to say, when human nature is taken into consideration at all.) Economics is a social science, studying human behaviour. Humans are complex beings, so why don't we treat their economic decisions as such? True, behaviourial economics tries to take these factors into account - but the net needs to be widened still.

Neuroscience, for example, has made so much progress during the past few decades in explaining the functioning of the human brain, with all its complexities. Why do we choose to ignore this and still talk about "rational individuals who strive to maximise their own utility?" Self-interest is what is believed to drive the free market system - but human beings are NOT wired for self-interest. One of the greatest triumphs of the current capitalist system is that its proponents have managed to convince us that we have evolved to be greedy, violent and self-interested - and we think THIS IS ONLY NATURAL.

In truth:

• Empathy is the true invisible hand, not self-interest acting to coordinate supply and demand.
• We can't justify greed as being "just human nature" - we're only now starting to understand how evolution truly has shaped human nature, and the fact that it is constantly changing. 
• There really and truly is only one race, and that's the human race.

Common ground

Lessons in etymology: The economist's edition

I've focused in my last two posts on our neoclassical obsession with growth, and how that translates into development. Today I'd like to focus more specifically on the relationship between economic growth and development as defined in the neoclassical framework. It is first necessary to distinguish development from growth, and economists do agree that development is more than growth: it's about fundamental increases in people's quality of life - freedom, self-esteem, levels of living and the like.

I've discussed why growth won't translate into all of this, and contribute towards decreasing poverty and inequality (that, by the way, was just the tip of the iceberg - there is so much more wrong with our way of valuing economic activity). Why then, do economists still say that growth is "necessary" for economic development? (The fundamental philosophical problems underlying this statement are dodged by adding that growth is simultaneously necessary, "but not sufficient.")

Let's have a look at the meaning of the word, necessary, shall we? It's derived from the Latin necessarius, originally "necesse". It means something that is unavoidable and indispensible. Literally, something from which there is no "backing away" - ne (meaning not), and cedere (meaning to withdraw, go away, or yield.)

Why do we state that something is NECESSARY, or indispensable for contributing to human freedom, self-esteem and quality of life, if it clearly in so many cases is the thing that PREVENTS human freedom, self-esteem and quality of life? Once this basic fallacy is grasped, the "but not sufficient" clause at the end becomes moot. If we organise our way of doing more smartly, then growth isn't even necessary*.

The problem, of course, stems from Economics' inability to admit that it is a social science, and behave accordingly. We keep targeting numbers and stats (such as GDP), completely throwing the human side of the equation out the window. As Lynn Parramore reports: "The field of economics is known for attracting Asperger's-spectrum wonks better at formulating financial models than the flow of human interaction."  It's brutal, but true.

Take W.A. Lewis' (Nobel laureate in Economics) defence of the GDP growth=necessary for development paradigm:

"The advantage of economic growth is not that wealth increases happiness, but that it increases the range of human choice...The case for economic growth is that it gives man greater control over his environment, and thereby increases his freedom."

Sen neatly demolishes this view by explaining that freedom is much more complicated than just: I have more money, so I have more choice. There are various factors that could make it difficult, if not impossible, to convert higher levels of income into the capability to live life at a certain level: If you have more money, but you're physically or mentally disabled, how much more free are you really? If you have more money, but you live in a climate so prone to disasters that almost every spare cent you have needs to be spent on shelter, or food because another crop has failed - how much freer are you? If you have more money, but you're a gay man in Uganda - how much freer are you? And isn't man's "greater control over his environment" the very problem which has gotten us into the predicament of futureless growth?

This is why I say we need to re-examine the growth-development nexus. Economists make the mistake of thinking that human life can be so easily quantified: Oh, you have more income so naturally you have more freedom, or choice. We need to take the blinders off and rediscover politics, philosophy, sociology and other social sciences - because it's our entire system that needs changing.

*For those of you choking on your cappuccinos after reading this titillating morsel of economic blasphemy: Yes, really. It's called a Steady State. Look it up: www.steadystate.org

Plain and Common, Happiness

 

If GDP is a poor proxy for Happiness, why not measure Happiness DIRECTLY in some sort of a Happiness Index... Nic Marks says it best (also see Socialist Sally's last post)

Common ground

Why economic growth won't improve poverty and inequality

A few weeks ago I posted something on the obsession that neoclassical economics has with growth. We often also blur the lines between growth and development, forgetting that increases in GDP don't always translate into increases in quality of life or lower levels of inequality. Here are a few really basic reasons why not:

Growth may be jobless, meaning that GDP can grow, even though unemployment is high. It's not a phenomenon that's all that rare in a world where technology can replace what only humans could previously do - output increases, but more people are left with no income.

Ruthless growth refers to a situation in which healthy GDP statistics mask the ugly economic truth about a country: high levels of inequality, exploitation and poverty.

The pursuit of growth as we currently practice it is also futureless. This means that we are sacrificing future wellbeing in order to grow more now - the destruction of environmental capital, which is irreplaceable, is continuing at an alarming rate and, ironically, means less production possibility in future.

As lower income countries start to grow, the growth experienced is often rootless. This means that GDP grows as foreign firms invest in and trade more with the developing country, but the exposure to new, Western products, lifestyle and general pace of life erodes the unique cultural identity of the developing country, often leading to a loss of meaning in life.

Finally, growth is also often voiceless - GDP races along, soaring from one pinnacle to the next, while human rights are ignored in the process. (Ahem. China.)

These factors combine to give growth that is just generally meaningless - societies chase after "wealth" and "prosperity", measuring these items according to money value, and in the process lose perspective about what's truly important. Morality erodes as "it's just business" and "business is business and business must grow, regardless of crummies in tummies, you know" takes centre stage. Less and less time is available as more and more hours need to be clocked up at the office - leading to the demise of relaitonships, health and creativity.

So if all of this is true...

Why isn't any of it mentioned in Econ textbooks (I have so far found ONE text book which refers to these problems. It is not prescribed anymore).

And why do development practitioners still believe that "Growth is a necessary, but insufficient condition for development"?

More on this in my next post.



Non-sense

We love stuff, we love shit.  We are in a culture… nay, in a lifestyle… that loves to love stuff.  Anything really… you name it – we will buy it.  Even if there is absolutely no use for it – then we really want it!!

I recently was fortunate enough to participate in a Buy-‘n-Go.  It works like this: the University has a lot of extra stuff that they throw out; beautiful solid wood tables, chairs, cabinets, old school authentic bureaus, etc.  Then they mark it down to next to nothing (you won’t be able to buy candy from a baby with that money), and then it is open for the public to purchase.  You have to go early to stand in line.  Then they open the gates – now you have to stand behind a marathon-like line.  When the foreman says go and you run faster than you’re legs can carry you and put a sticker on you’re desired item.  Then the item it is yours – CONGRATULATIONS!

What do you think is going to happen?  Let me give you a hint, take a bunch of stuff-loving humans, let them loose in a hanger full of first grade stuff priced at prices that seem to need a extra couple of zero's at the end.  What do you get?  That’s right barbarism!

What does Barbarism mean?  Let’s be civilized and agree on a definition of barbarism.  The famous anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss explained barbaric behavior with the metaphor of a train; that two cultures are like two different trains crossing each other: each one believes it has chosen the good direction.  

Thus, the Buy- `n –Go was barbaric.  Each of us had a destination; a track laid towards it and everybody steamrolled towards their beloved artifacts – no conductors, no traffic lights, no schedule, no platforms, no tickets… just pure buying lust driven by adrenalin and low-low prices.

So there I was, standing in the line, waiting for the foreman to give the go-ahead and let the wild herd loose.  The moment evaporated in front of me: first, he said ‘go’, then I was shoved to the left, I tripped over my own – usually loyal – feet.  I recovered – reached out, grabbed a flock of hair from the nearest head and pulled myself upright.  I used my elbows to beat fast little children who was annoyingly on my heals.  I was getting closer to MY table; if I can only plant the flag… I mean, if I can only put my sticker on it.  My sticker will seal by colonization… I mean, if will declare my ownership and I, oh I, would once again be fully happy.  I was so close – I could smell my table.  When I got to the first green chair I had to make a sharp right.  Someone was blocking my way, I panicked, but then this unimportant person got shoved and my way was cleared - there were good in the world after all.  I got to my table. The shear force of my momentum carried me over the table – while I was sliding over the table top I kept busy by sticking stickers as far as I slid.  I fell over the other side on the hard cement floor, smiling.

Afterwards… well, it was awkward.  Because now you have to face the people with humanity, trying to ignore the fact that moments earlier you screamed a war cry, pissed in your pants and try to slam their face on to the cold wet (from your pee) cement.  So you give them a polite: “Well done, Sir.” Or “You are very fast…: or  “Would you like a tissue to stop the bleeding?”. Yes, we are barbaric.

Shopping doesn’t always take on this intense form.  Mostly we just go into a store and buy something.  Return home – enjoy our purchase for a day or two and leave it on the top shelf were it will soon be full of dust and forgotten.  Yeah, you can never have enough of something you don’t need.  And we have a lot of it!

But even this seemingly innocent purchase can be – and probably is – a barbaric train on the track and storms forth. Crossing a destroying other invisible tracks.  ‘Invisible’ trains, like child and unprotected laborers working in China (or wherever else) to produce cheap stuff.  ‘Invisible’ trains like, the environment in developing countries that is just to glad for a bit of money, food, clothes or liquor; they will give up centuries of trees in literally 15 minutes.  ‘Invisible’ trains, like workers of Wall- Mart that earn a mere $8.75 per hour (Windy City's Pullman) in contrast to the barbaric train of a CEO of Wall- Mart Michael Duke that earns $35million per year (approx $16 826,92 per hour) … please note that Duke earns more in a hour than his bottom workers in a year… Duke, you are an idiot!

It would have been one thing if we were better off for it, but you are probably just as (un)happy after your shopping war as before.  But just remember you are going to have to face your invisible trains someday.  Don’t let it be awkward if you have to return from barbarism to “civilization"*

 

*Please note 'Civilization' is a bullshit word!

Tragedy of Common Sense

Speak for the trees

So I went to see The Lorax yesterday, and it inspired me to contribute a post on the topic of sustainable growth. Tragedy of Common Sense is mostly Dodo's domain and I won't pretend to be quite as clued up on environmental economics, but as a development economist, the issue of growth is important to me.

I love Dr. Seuss, and The Lorax has to be one of my favourites. It's difficult to watch the movie, or read the book, and not start wondering about the point of this whole growth religion we're all so devoted to. This past weekend we celebrated Earth Day, and I had the privilege at that time of gazing through a telescope and getting a very clear understanding of just how isolated we are here on Spaceship Earth, as Dodo's previous post talks about. If anything, this has steeled my resolve that EVERYTHING MUST CHANGE. Growth and development practitioners in particular need to start thinking differently about what we mean with development. It's a topic that has been trudged through time and time again, sure. You can open any Development textbook and find a chapter devoted to "The distinction between growth and development." But it always concludes as follows: "Growth is a necessary precondition for development". We need to throw these textbooks away and really redefine the way we look at these issues, because we're killing ourselves and our planet in the process - all in the name of progress.

A musical number in the film stands out, where the Once-ler is singing about how bad he could possibly be. Sure, he's cutting down some trees and killing habitat in the process, but "I'm just doing what's natural", he argues. People are entrepreneurs, after all. It's natural for us to want to grow. What a crock of shit. The problem is that we have become so disconnected from nature, we don't even know what's natural anymore. Think about it. Do you know of ANYTHING here on Mother Earth that just keeps on growing indefinitely? How tall would I be now, for instance, if I had just continued growing after puberty, instead of leveling out at 5ft something, like all other humans do? Hamsters, though they double their weight each week from birth to puberty, do stop growing once they're mature. And thank goodness for that, since if they didn't, hamsters would weigh about 9 billion tons by the time they reach one year. (Seriously, check out the NEF's animation at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqwd_u6HkMo) Nothing in nature grows indefinitely. Our economies shouldn't either.

But it's just business right? As the Once-ler says after the forest animals start complaining that they've nothing left to eat: "Business is business, and business must grow, regardless of crummies in tummies, you know.''

I don't propose to have the ultimate solution, but I'm hoping I can convince you to at least start thinking differently about these things. So bear with me in the coming weeks as I investigate the relationship between growth and development in economics.

If you are an econ student reading this, do me a favour and start insisting on alternative textbooks and courses at your school. Talk about this with your fellow students and lecturers. Research it, present papers about it at conferences. Contribute to a new way of thinking, because "unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not."

Tragedy of Common Sense

I always feel perspective is all one needs.  We are so quick to judge others who blatantly supported slavery, the holocaust or even Apartheid.  We are quick to see ourselves as a civilized nation.  I hate, I despise the word civilized, what a load of bullshit!  We see ourselves as CIVILISED (urgh) if we have huge bank accounts, five cars, if you have a Sweet 16 that has the budget of a small African country… we feel we are CIVILISED if we destroy Earth to get what we like… we feel we are civilized if we are disconnect from the earth (our life force)…

Are we civilized for you?  No one dares to criticize CIVILIZATION; no one questions the importance of economic growth, no one questions wealth, no one questions the value a time or more important the value of life.  Don’t get me wrong, I do NOT feel human life is the most important thing; to put all of our focus on human life (OUR needs, OUR hobbies, OURSELVES ) as the ultimate goal is wrong – there is also something like life in totality, life as a whole, life in abundance, life of others and of the earth.

The first photo of earth was taken by the Apollo 8 space mission in 1968, it was called Spaceship Earth.  The Apollo mission went up and on the way up, an astronaut, Bill Anders, looked back and took this picture:

Now this is perspective.  Perspective is difficult to get; you can get it by removing yourself in space or in time.  It is easy to judge stuff that happened long ago, because you weren’t THERE, you weren’t the middle of it.  It is difficult to judge stuff happening all around you; then you need to remove yourself in space to get some perspective, to be objective.  And what better space than outer space?

There we are planet earth.  A small dot, a speck; blink and you miss it.  It is not abundances of resources, it is not infinite life and it is not forever.  It is earth, a crumb of life, your life and life in totality needs to be the priority, not civilization…

Non-sense

What would happen if more people just went out - to the mall, around campus, at the town hall - and did what these guys do?

The Middle Way

The road to common wealth, common ground and plain & simple happiness might just be the Middle Way.

No one saves us but ourselves. No one can and no one may. We ourselves must walk the path. - Siddharta Buddha

While Buddha is referring in this quote to spiritual salvation, his words ring true for economic salvation as well. In fact, a little-known branch of economics called Buddhist economics, might just have the answers to our questions about sustainability and inequality.

Buddhist economics turns our Western view of the economy on its head by making the following distinctions:

We’re all one. It’s no secret to Western readers that our usual way of thinking is in terms of “me, myself and I”. In econ classes, we are taught from first year level that rational individuals act to maximise their own welfare – thus, they act out of self-interest. In Buddhism, there is no “self”, and therefore no self-interest. The concept of self-interest is replaced by reciprocation, where people realise that by giving, we receive more in return.

Nuh (every)man, nuh cry. The main aspiration in Buddhism is to empower people to end suffering in their lives, as well as the lives of all other sentient beings. This stands in stark contrast to Western econ’s obsession with maximising profit. In Buddhism, your work should contribute to general welfare. Work is not seen as just a means to survive or make profit - it is an opportunity to grow spiritually and connect with your fellow human beings. This concept is also known in Buddhism as Right Livelihood, one of the steps on the Buddha's Noble Eightfold Path. If your work is not contributing towards the cessation of suffering, you are missing a major part of the path.  

Hold the desire. In Western economics, “greed is good”. Our desire for accumulation is what drives our creativity and entrepreneurship – or so we're taught. In Buddhist economics, the aim is to simplify desire rather than glorify it – let go of your attachment to worldly goods and realise how little you really need to survive on. This attitude would, obviously, do a world of good for the environment.

Market, schmarket. In Western econ, the market is the economy. Buddhist economics rejects this view, since the market clearly doesn’t take into account the needs of future generations, and of the earth – though these are two very important stakeholders in any economy.  In a market system where demand can only be backed up by buying power, the poor and marginalised are often underrepresented. Think of the far-reaching consequences for poverty and inequality if we rather adapted this view of a market – one in which community based participation is paramount, rather than profit maximisation at all costs.

Your ouput’s no good with me. Buddhist economics values organisations in which caring and trust among all levels of the organisation are the true measure of output – not simply the marginal product produced. Anyone thinking of Chinese factories having to put up nets to stop their employees from jumping to their deaths right about now?

Less is more. In Buddhist economics, bigger is not necessarily better. If high trade volumes mean that there is more produce to choose from at the local supermarket, but the transport costs involved have been detrimental to the environment, then no value has truly been added by expanding choice.

Happiness is me. Though the shortcomings of conventional measures of economic activity such as GDP have long been recognised by the Western world, we continue to pursue GDP growth. Buddhist economics realises that this is fatal, and focuses instead on happiness as the main outcome of the economic process.

As the Buddha said - no one can save us but ourselves. Are we willing to make the change?

Buddhist Economics is an exciting and promising field of economic thought that deserves more investigation and attention. To read more about it, refer to E.F. Schumacher’s “Buddhist Economics.”

 

Tragedy of Common Sense

The Easter Islands is probably the best example of an isolated community; it is to date the record of the most isolated inhabited island in the world.  It was inhabited by the Rapanui people, living in harmony… oh no, wait, living in total disharmony with the island.  

Let me explain; the Rapanui believed that their dead ancestors will provide them with food, shelter and prosperity, etc (in our system the Neo-Classical Economics is the one that solemnly promises these things).  The Rapanui believed if they built big giant Moai’s the ancestor will hear them and listen to their needs.  A Moai is a figure carved out of stone, with a big brow and serious face.  Moai’s originally faced inland, after war between clans the faces where scattered and turned.  

The Easter Island was home to subtropical moist broadleaf forest; a beautifully rich seabird inhabitance and some land birds.  Yip, like earth, the Eastern Island had abundant resources.  And like today, the Rapanui het a certain cultural motivation that was focused only on building bigger and better Moai’s (today we are motivate by technology, economic growth, iPads, a huge bank account, Western defined ‘success’, bigger and more, etc).  You might look back on the Rapanui, snigger at their obsession with big faces and think our current motivation for a growing economy is nobler.  Don’t be ignorant – growth is growth; whether you would like a bigger, more serious and more impressive Moai or whether you want a bigger BMW, a bigger house, a Jacuzzi, a second PC, a Wii, a $10 million bonus or eat until you are obese … fundamentally there is no difference?

Where did this system bring them?  

They were over taken by war (sound familiar?), deforestation (sound familiar?), 

 unstable ecosystem (sound familiar?), extinction of species (sound familiar?),  overpopulation (sound familiar?), even cannibalism… until they themselves became extinct…

And today?  How does the Eastern Islands look today?  It is a deserted desert island with eerie looking faces looking out to sea, maybe for help.  The once proud Moai, now seemingly weeping.

Einstein said insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results.  The Neo-Classical is fundamentally the same as building bigger and bigger Moai’s and the Earth can expect the same results.

Wait a minute, there one community that is more isolated than the Easter Island… Planet Earth.

Non-sense

Change

Stop thinking that you can't change, the world can't change - get your head out of your ass and DO IT!

“When we least expect it, life sets us a challenge to test our courage and willingness to change; at such a moment, there is no point in pretending that nothing has happened or in saying that we are not yet ready. The challenge will not wait. Life does not look back. A week is more than enough time for us to decide whether or not to accept our destiny.” - Paulo Coelho, The Devil and Miss Prym
 

Non-sense

VICTOR LE BOW SAID:

SCREW YOU VICTOR! 

I refuse to believe that our fundamental economic goal is consumption!! 

My spiritual satisfaction is NOT in what I have, it is in what I BELIEVE.  

I don't need STUFF to know who I am!  

The fundamental goal of the economy should be to be just, to be in harmony, to create happiness and a life worth living.

Non-sense

Mythbusters

Warning: This post may disturb sensitive readers. We’re going to talk about the S-word today…That’s right, boys and girls. Socialism. Dirty, nasty, oh-no-she-di’int  SOCIALISM.

I’ve already mentioned it twice now, so by this time you’re picturing Lenin knocking on your front door to confiscate your property, ordering you around. Right?

It’s a provocative word that’s generally very unpopular, mainly because so many people have a misconception of what it is. Current Economics 101 courses aren’t doing much to provide balanced information on what socialism is either, so I’m going to attempt to dispel a few myths.

Some of the most common critique you’ve heard runs along these lines: Socialism as a system fails because people want to improve themselves and be free to be rewarded for their effort, as well as have a free choice in what they do with their lives. Furthermore, socialism inevitably ends up in brutish dictatorships, since it’s only human nature to exploit others when we have the chance to.

Now, for the facts:

Socialism DOES reward you for the work you do – it aims to empower the owners of the means of production (i.e. labourers), therefore if you’re an honest, hard worker, you will be rewarded for it. It’s the capitalists who don’t get rewarded – people who don’t really contribute anything at all, but grow rich by speculating with money and exploiting labour. Socialism won’t rob you of your choices in life. It’s NOT a system whereby government seizes control of everything, simply one in which we acknowledge that market failures do occur, and government has a role to play in providing what the market fails to do. Especially when it comes to services such as education and health which are basic human rights and should not be run for profit. As for human nature – you may be surprised to find out that most of what you think comes naturally to you, is actually just conditioned by society. Greed, opportunism, self-interest, violence – these are not things we’re necessarily born with the instinct to do. Much of it is what we’re programmed to do, ironically mostly by the capitalist system which most suppose is an antidote to this behavior. If you’re taught from a young age that only the fittest survive, competition will eliminate you so you’d better be competitive, and hey, it’s not personal, it’s just business…How else do you expect people will behave? Evolutionary biology has proven that, if anything, humans, as social animals, are biologically programmed to be cooperative and empathetic (You can look up studies by Jack Nitschke, Joshua Greene & Jonathan Cohen, and James Rilling & Gregory Berns on the biology of compassion.)

We need to be critically evaluating the alternatives that are available to capitalism. Alternatives which are, by the way, so much more numerous than just either/or between socialism, capitalism and communism. Question and investigate…so we might find solutions to the imbalances of our current system.