NationStates Jolt Archive

The economic model we've blindly followed since Adam Smith is no longer beneficial - in fact it has become downright dangerous. Incessant growth of the economy has enriched some, but created inequity, isolation, and terrifying environmental consequneces. Moreover, the wealth generated has created a hyper-individualized culture which leaves the most human needs of community and security neglected. How did we screw up? how did we end up richer, but unhappier than ever? According to a book I just finished reading, the coservatism of assuming that since at one time, "more" equaled "better", it always will, is not only threatening the planet, but making us unhappy. The model of unlimited growth as the ultimate goal of our economic systems has outgrown its usefullness.

Bill McKibben's new book, Deep Economy: the Wealth of Communities and the Durable Fututre claims that trading "efficiency" (record profits and GDP growth) for a modern local scale economy not only makes economic and environmental sense, it also makes social sense. Creating durable human communities and restoring mutual local interdependence, as opposed to the current global interdependerce, will satisfy the human needs that wealth has no bearing upon.

I found his arguments deeply convincing. Much data has shown that above a very low threshold of income, wealth does not contribute to life stisfaction. What do you think of giving up the craving of material wealth for the wealth of nature, community, food security, health, and interdependence? Would you trade some of your individualism for a society that needs its neigbors for its basic food and energy needs? Would you pay more for your food if you knew it wasn't burning more energy in fossil fuel than it was providing to you? Would you trade the isolation of suburban living for a community in smaller quarters and a lower level of consumption?
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a140/maayan009/DeepEconomy.jpg
http://www.billmckibben.com/

It's not like anyone has followed adam smith for the past 50 years anyway.

The west is a command economy too. It just manages demand instead of managing supply.

"In the world I envision, you'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll go hunting for deer and see the ruins of the Rockefeller Centre. You'll climb the vines that have grown to the top of the Sears Tower... and when you look down, you'll see [people] pounding corn on some abandoned superhighway."

-Tyler Durden, Fight Club



That movie is a good reflection on the effects of consumerism.

The biggest problem is that we don't have the luxury of trading efficiency for anything else; the entire point of efficiency is that it uses our scarce resources in as optimal matter as possible. Barring the influx of immense quantities of resources and industrial capacity that would render scarcity a trivial issue, you will always need to have the most efficient economic model possible in order to provide a steady or improving standard of living for people.

And, of course, you need constant growth in order to replace the things that are lost and to have the resources necessary to provide the things and services people want. It has much more to do with the way the economy itself is utilized rather than the growth itself that has to do with happiness; an economy that isn't channeled in to improving qualitative as well as quantitiatve living standards is definitely going to produce unhappy people.

It's not the growth, it's the way the growth is used that produces a happy or unhappy society.

I'm afraid I don't conform to your research. My threshold isn't reached until I never have to think about the price of something again.

So yeah, telling people that more is just waste and that it's better to be frugal so an inefficient system doesn't seem as great a failure doesn't sit too well with me.

I disagree with the notion that we are unhappier now than before. The modern economy worries less about ill-health, works less hours, enjoys more free time, etc.

People may be unhappy, but thats down to human nature comparing personal situatuions to other situations. On the whole, we are generally much better off now than we were before. ie. I think growth is definetely still beneficial.

I disagree with the notion that we are unhappier now than before. The modern economy worries less about ill-health, works less hours, enjoys more free time, etc.

People may be unhappy, but thats down to human nature comparing personal situations to other situations. On the whole, we are generally much better off now than we were before. i.e. I think growth is definitely still beneficial.

1) Way to contradict yourself
2) Then explain the rising trends of depression, suicide etc.

1) Way to contradict yourself
2) Then explain the rising trends of depression, suicide etc.

1) I kinda did I guess. What I meant was - we think we are less happy, but we aren't really. That perception is caused by comparing ourselves to other in our own societies. If we compared ourselves to people from the 17th century, we'd be much happier.

2) more people.

On a random note, this thread makes me think of an economy managed by Cthulhu's Deep Ones...

1) I kinda did I guess. What I meant was - we think we are less happy, but we aren't really. That perception is caused by comparing ourselves to other in our own societies. If we compared ourselves to people from the 17th century, we'd be much happier.

2) more people.

1) Physical well-being =/= happiness

2) That doesn't make any sense. Population growth =/= decrease in suicide etc. rates

1) Then explain the rising trends of depression, suicide etc.
Assuming this is true, and that's a big assumption, do you think it would be fair to go back to having worse health, less free time, harder work, shorter lifespan etc for less depression? And do you really think people would agree to making that trade, were they given the choice?

My threshold isn't reached until I never have to think about the price of something again.


Which can be done with easy cheap debt. Hence my point about a command economy.

Assuming this is true, and that's a big assumption, do you think it would be fair to go back to having worse health, less free time, harder work, shorter lifespan etc for less depression? And do you really think people would agree to making that trade, were they given the choice?

1) No, but I think that we could progress forward to the same effect (minus welfare) if we cut the crap.

2) Depends on the person. I won't pretend to be able to answer for everyone, though I think the majority wouldn't.

2) Then explain the rising trends of depression, suicide etc.

More acceptance of mental illness culturally and correspondingly more knowledge, experiences, and resources for dealing with these illnesses.

It wasn't until very recently, even in the past 50 years or so, that mental illness was seen as a real problem that deserves dedicated medical and therapeutic help and so the records of these problems were woefully lacking or even nonexistent. The same is true of suicide; suicide was such a strong taboo and culturally disavowed that a lot of them were likely either covered up or written off as another cause to prevent problems.

What do you think of giving up the craving of material wealth for the wealth of nature, community, food security, health, and interdependence?The problem I have with it isn't giving up the "craving of material wealth," but what you would put in its place.

I already look forward to having enough money to retire very comfortably (and "young")--because then, I won't have to care about getting any *more* money!

But I want to be even more INdependent, not more interdependent. I'd rather live way out in the woods than in a small town.

Rural life, yes. Small-town life, no. And most of what you describe sounds like small-town life: No privacy, no uttering of an independent thought or doing an independent deed (lest you face ostracization), and busybodies always nosing about and meddling in your personal (and professional) business!! I've seen that before, at my grandparents' summer place--and no thanks. It's definitely not the life for me!


Would you trade some of your individualism for a society that needs its neigbors?That sounds like hell. Neighbors can come in handy, but never in a billion years would I want to truly NEED them!

The minute you NEED them, your rights are eroded. The right to say "no" being chief among them. NO you may not plant things on my land. NO you may not just come over anytime you want, NO your brats cannot run around my land screaming at 7 in the morning. NO!

Would you trade the isolation of suburban living for a community in smaller quarters and a lower level of consumption?No, but I'd trade it for going further out into the hick--far AWAY from communities and neighborhoods. Whether my consumption levels would change is debatable. I don't think I consume a heckuva lot (compared to the average American) as it is...

On the other hand:

Would you pay more for your food if you knew it wasn't burning more energy in fossil fuel than it was providing to you? This basic idea sounds pretty sensible, but it would depend how much "more" was really involved. But also, I'd want it to be grown/raised in a more healthy way than the usual. Factory-farms, YUCK!

More acceptance of mental illness culturally and correspondingly more knowledge, experiences, and resources for dealing with these illnesses.

It wasn't until very recently, even in the past 50 years or so, that mental illness was seen as a real problem that deserves dedicated medical and therapeutic help. I mean, there are people today who still see problems like depression and anxiety as a joke or not a real problem, when in fact they really are.

That has nothing to do with the rising rates of suicide, etc.

That has nothing to do with the rising rates of suicide, etc.

It most certainly does. If suicides are being more properly attributed than they were in the past, the rate will increase. There isn't the same kind of social pressure to cover up suicides like there was in the past; often, suicides would be labeled as something else to avoid bringing controversy or dishonor to the other members of the family and to ensure good standing in the community.

That has nothing to do with the rising rates of suicide, etc.

Coroners are more prepared to write a death off as suicide these days as opposed to death by misadventure. I'm sure the rate is actually fairly constant.

Coroners are more prepared to write a death off as suicide these days as opposed to death by misadventure. I'm sure the rate is actually fairly constant.

Phail.

1) Death by misadventure? Not a category of CoD.
2) Most suicides are obvious after (forensic) analysis as compared to a so-called "death by misadventure".

1) Death by misadventure? Not a category of CoD.
2) Most suicides are obvious after forensic analysis as compared to a so-called "death by misadventure".

Yes it is. It's archaic, but it has been used as a cause of death in the past for quite a large number of cases that could not be resolved any other way. It may still be used, but is not used commonly now that better classifications are available (IIRC, also it is primarily used in the UK and not in the US).

And forensic analysis is very new, especially the kind of techniques used today. Even only 20 years ago the field was much less developed than it is now and would not be able to deliver the kind of results available today. 50 years ago, it was almost nonexistent as a separate field of study and DNA analysis didn't even exist.

The economic model we've blindly followed since Adam Smith is no longer beneficial - in fact it has become downright dangerous. Oh noes! I am frightened!
Incessant growth of the economy has enriched some, but created inequity, isolation, and terrifying environmental consequneces. Enriched some? I would say that growth tends to enrich most, in fact, people get upset when they don't experience growth, not when growth occurs. Really though, I don't even see how your arguments make sense, I mean, I can see inequity but how are we more isolated now that we have more opportunities for social connection? How is the environment worse when our growth has allowed us to abandon most of the more unhealthy pollutants and caused people to value environmental conditions more? The fastest destruction of the environment tends to happen in the poorer countries, not the rich, at least ignoring CO2 production which represents a future environmental damage and not a present one.
Moreover, the wealth generated has created a hyper-individualized culture which leaves the most human needs of community and security neglected. Neglected??? There are plenty of communities it is just that the individuals are not becoming a part of them. I mean, unless you are calling for the return of churches and more rules based upon theology, I don't see what issue we have a problem with. Not only that but if anything security has increased as you don't die from eating soup as you did in the industrial revolution, you don't die from the same diseases, you have assets you can sell when there is a problem. I mean, I think we are more secure rather than less secure.

How did we screw up? how did we end up richer, but unhappier than ever? According to a book I just finished reading, the coservatism of assuming that since at one time, "more" equaled "better", it always will, is not only threatening the planet, but making us unhappy. The model of unlimited growth as the ultimate goal of our economic systems has outgrown its usefullness. We are unhappier by our choice to not be happy. In fact, I would say that the real issue is that mankind isn't designed to be happy. The individuals that looked to the horizon at oncoming threats, challenges, etc would be the ones to survive in the old days compared to the ones who the ones who would be content and secure. Not only that but the decline in religion and sources of higher purpose of that nature would also negatively impact the welfare of human beings as we don't live on bread alone but rather have a need for some form of purpose provided by some form of higher assumption whether it be ideological or theological.

Bill McKibbon's new book, Deep Economy: the Wealth of Communitites and the Durable Fututre claims that trading "efficiency" for a modern local scale economy not only makes economic and environmental sense, it also makes social sense. Creating durable human communitites and restoring mutual interdependence, will satisfy the human needs that wealth has no bearing upon. Sounds like idiocy to me. Efficiency is desirable because it allows me to get what I want, if I wanted to be with my neighbors in the first place then I would be dealing with them. I obviously do not. Not only that but should association be imposed in such a manner anyway? The very fact that we don't form communities in this manner is an expression of preference and desire, the Amish already do live in one of your ideal communities, frankly though I prefer greater independence and freedom though as I do not want to be tied down to someone else's ideal. If I want to be Amish then I will grow a beard and get a buggy.

What do you think of giving up the craving of material wealth for the wealth of nature, community, food security, health, and interdenpendence? I am fine with nature, do you live in an area where parks do not exist? If I want more nature then I can go up to yellowstone or go camping or some such. Community? I can have about much community as I want. If you want a community then form an organization or get involved with a pre-existing one, the decline of the community is a matter of preference more than something we are forced to do. My health is approximately as good as I choose it to be as well, if I want to buy the lardburgers then I do so, if I don't then I don't, once again we have choice. I don't want interdependence though; I want independence. Now, can a person be perfectly independent? Not without being a hermit, however, a person can be free enough to not be bound to a community by the whims of others and free to pursue their own objectives.

Would you trade some of your individualism for a society that needs its neigbors? Not at all. I choose to be an individual and not an ant.

Would you pay more for your food if you knew it wasn't burning more energy in fossil fuel than it was providing to you? Why does it matter what energy is burned? What matters is the externality of pollution as not all energy is equally valued nor is the pure purpose of food to provide energy anyway given the pleasurable food we buy everyday.

Would you trade the isolation of suburban living for a community in smaller quarters and a lower level of consumption? I live in a college dorm. Smaller quarters are rarely ever found that that, nor is a reduction in consumption desirable. I want to consume more so I can buy shoddy books written by idiotic authors like you do, Kreitzmoorland.

The biggest problem is that we don't have the luxury of trading efficiency for anything else; the entire point of efficiency is that it uses our scarce resources in as optimal matter as possible. Barring the influx of immense quantities of resources and industrial capacity that would render scarcity a trivial issue, you will always need to have the most efficient economic model possible in order to provide a steady or improving standard of living for people.

And, of course, you need constant growth in order to replace the things that are lost and to have the resources necessary to provide the things and services people want. It has much more to do with the way the economy itself is utilized rather than the growth itself that has to do with happiness; an economy that isn't channeled in to improving qualitative as well as quantitiatve living standards is definitely going to produce unhappy people.

It's not the growth, it's the way the growth is used that produces a happy or unhappy society.I'm not sure if we're talking about hte same efficiency. When I say efficiency I mean the notion of the most production using the least expense - ie. the biggest profit margin. This often means replacing human labour with mechanized, chemical-dependant, oil-dependant methods (in farming, for example). If you aren't so worried aobut profit margins that benefit only a very few people (such as in agribusiness), you can have smaller, more diverse farms that depend less on these very high-impact chemicals and fuels. You need more people to run these farms - that's an "inneficiency" in a way - but on the other hand, you are employing more people in a dignified manner. You're supplying people with local healthy food. You're reducing impact on the environment and using less fossil fuel. Those are values that are not reflectred in an economic system that sees efficieny as only "how to get the most out for the least in".

I'm not sure that I understand your argument about "how growth is used". Ecomonic growth the way capitalism knows it is the basically the creation of value by converting raw materials to manufactured or refined things and creating dmeand for them. But when is enough enough? If, as the data shows, (neu leonstein notwithstanding) material wealth does not increase satisfaction, what is the point? Growth in and of itself is not a valid goal for any economic system. THe big flaw of economics has been the fundamentally flawed assumption that GNP=happiness. In fact, many, many countries with far lower standards of living than ours report much higher levels of stisfaction and happiness. McKibbon cites data showing that social ties, family, community, security, etc. play much larger roles in happiness than wealth does. In that case, we have to wonder who our isolated hyper-individualistic possesion-cluttered lifestyles are beneffiting?

A variety of thinkers and writers have been in such a position for quite a while now, many of whom are (of course) discredited by mainstream media, thinkers, and ideology. Some of them are nutjobs, certainly, but most of them have at least a kernel of truth at the base of their ideas.

Vetalia -

I would just like to challenge you with a line of thinking and inquiry, and this goes for anybody who shares similar lines of thought.

Scarcity isn't all it is cracked up to be. Food consumption in the first world is really out of line. Not only do we waste astounding amounts of it, the average caloric intake of somebody in the US is over edit: 3700, according to FAO . The UK Department of Health estimates that average caloric requirements for a female is 1940 and for males, 2550.

Recognize that that US amount is an average, which means there are many individuals higher than that. In fact it would not be surprising to see that many Americans eat twice as much as they ought too. This becomes even more obvious when the obesity epidemic hitting much of the first world is taken into account. Clearly we have NO food scarcity. In fact we produce more than we can eat even as is.

Of course much of the food produced and eaten is of an incredibly unhealthy variety, incorporating far too many sugars and fats. Most of these goods require extensive processing, whereas if we lived off of more basic foods, such as rice, vegetables, and a variety of sustainably produced meats (aquaculture, free range beef, chicken) the amount of energy required to produce even the amount of food we consume at present rates would be significantly lowered.

Feel free to call me an authoritarian hack who wants to take all individual rights from people if you want, but I would really like to see somebody explain to me how we have food scarcity. If demand wasn't artificially manufactured and inflated and if individuals were taught and followed proper nutrition we'd have endless warehouses full of food that would rot before we could use it.

Economic efficiency does not take into account these kinds of concerns, as it is only a neutral tool. Yes, economic efficiency is important. It can help us do more with less, be more sustainable, etc... but efficiency as a goal is misguided. Is not the goal a more equitable, happy, and developed society? If so we ought to be able to recognize when we need to step in and alter, aim, or even halt economic development in order to better achieve those goals. Faith in the free market is exactly that, faith, and I for one am not willing to entrust the development of my society to a set of abstract economic principles that have, to date, had a fairly shoddy record in achieving happiness, sustainability, and any kind of equity.

<snip>Well, your hostility towards the idea of giving up independence for interdependence is understandable. Ruthless capitalism trains us to think in that way. There's no question that markets work; but there's obviously a happy medium between pure maret economies and regulations that safeguard values other than efficiency and profit. values that take into consideration environment, human rights, and so forth. The bare facts are that the whole world cannot have our individualistic consumerist wealth - we'd need a few more worlds. Going in that direction is destructive. Also, data on happiness show that community, family, and friends are the things that make people the most happy. We have less of those as our houses get bigger and farther appart, as we spend longer hours at work, and we are sequestered away in internet alcoves and "relaxing getaways". Humans evolved living in tight communtites - because we had too. We've moved away from that drastically in the western world - and look at depression, suicide, narcissism, and so forth.

I'm not arguing that we should all live in communes - individual creativity and independence is as fundamental to human nature as the need for community. But if local economies are what is needed to avoid (or even improve somewhat) the disasterous consequences of climate change and peak oil, moving away from fossil fuel-enabled isolation to human-enabled interdependance is quite attractive (to me). This isn't religious or especially ideological. Above all, it's an idea about practicality: having a sustainable economy (which we definitely do not have) and a reasonable standard of living as satisfaction with our lives.

Phail.

1) Death by misadventure? Not a category of CoD.
2) Most suicides are obvious after (forensic) analysis as compared to a so-called "death by misadventure".

Yah, well the standard wasn't constant, you know. Just like fifty years ago is was legally impossible to rape your wife. Different times.

As Vetalia says, it's not that there is more suicide, we are just more aware of it/less likely to cover it up.

Well, your hostility towards the idea of giving up independence for interdependence is understandable. Ruthless capitalism trains us to think in that way. Trains us? I would say that it is the cultural characteristic of independence that made us capitalistic rather than the other way around.

There's no question that markets work; byut there's obviously a happy medium between. The bare facts are that the whole world cannot have our individualistic consumerist wealth - we'd need a few more worlds. Ok. That depends on what goods and what economic developments take place. Given the number of areas lacking economic development right now that leaves quite a bit of room.
Going in that direction is destructive. Also, data on happiness show that community, family, and friends are the things that make people the most happy. I know that, but you assume that I would prefer to be happy over being an individual, I would prefer to be an individual more than I would to be happy. You also assume that I don't have communities, family or friends. I have some, but of course my association is by choice.

We have less of those as our houses get bigger and farther appart, as we spend longer hours at work, and we are sequestered away in internet alcoves and "relaxing getaways". Bigger and more distant houses really don't prevent these things. The choice of job is a choice made upon multiple variables, length is one of them, the guys who work at the velvet sweatshops in the world chose those areas. I like my internet alcove and I feel that the experiences I have over it can have some meaning and I love reading as my relaxing getaway.

Humans evolved living in tight communtites - because we had too. We've moved away from that drastically in the western world - and look at depression, suicide, narcissism, and so forth. Ok. Depression, suicide and narcissism. Your point? I prefer having some space to be honest and I find that sociopathy is closely related to people being in my freaking business too much.

I'm not arguing that we should all live in communes - individual creativity and independence is as fundamental to human nature as the need for community. But if local economies are what is needed to avoid (or even improve somewhat) the disasterous consequences of climate change and peak oil, moving away from fossil fuel-enabled isolation to human-enabled interdependance is quite attractive (to me). I don't think that your option is necessary and the costs seem to outweigh the gain.

This isn't religious or especially ideological. Above all, it's an idea about practicality: having a sustainable economy (which we definitely do not have) and a reasonable standard of living as satisfaction with our lives.
Everything is ideological if it is spouted out by the mouth or fingers of an individual, you have no claim to perfect objectivity. In the long run we will have a sustainable economy through one method or another, but really people have prophesized doom for a very long time. Frankly though, even though more and more people have appeared, we are not seeing much of a limit, heck there was a noted wager in the 80s between economist Julian Simons and neo-Malthusian Paul Ehrich on metal prices, and rather than finding the costs going up with increased scarcity we saw them go down with efficiency. I think that what is often underemphasized is the human ability to adapt and make things change, heck, gas prices have a lot more to do before they destroy civilization.

Yah, well the standard wasn't constant, you know.

Suicide is pretty easy to distinguish.

Suicide is pretty easy to distinguish.

You'd be surprised. And how many suicides were covered up or classified as something else under the pressure of the surviving family?

Economic efficiency does not take into account these kinds of concerns, as it is only a neutral tool. Yes, economic efficiency is important. It can help us do more with less, be more sustainable, etc... but efficiency as a goal is misguided. Is not the goal a more equitable, happy, and developed society? If so we ought to be able to recognize when we need to step in and alter, aim, or even halt economic development in order to better achieve those goals. Faith in the free market is exactly that, faith, and I for one am not willing to entrust the development of my society to a set of abstract economic principles that have, to date, had a fairly shoddy record in achieving happiness, sustainability, and any kind of equity.
Misguided? The very fact that it is neutral means that the individuals in the system guide it. Given that they have the ability to make trade offs and should be free to do so I see nothing wrong with efficiency. The goal is not an equitable, happy, and developed society. The goal is a free and developed society, equitability and happiness are up to the desires of the individuals in that society as they are not inherently valuable. Because the goal is the freedom and development of a society there is no need to step in. Faith in the free market is not a baseless faith and I am willing to entrust the development of my society to the choices of the individuals within it as it has had a great record in bringing growth and individual independence.

Suicide is pretty easy to distinguish.

If you are prepared to lie about it, not so much. It was an embarrassing thing and was covered up all the time. Not to mention for most of history there are no records anyway.

Trains us? I would say that it is the cultural characteristic of independence that made us capitalistic rather than the other way around.it doesn't really matter. the point is that hyper-individualism and our globalized capitalist society are linked - and that they create more inequality and dissatisfaction than local economies that are not quite as singularly profit- and efficiency-driven

Ok. That depends on what goods and what economic developments take place. Given the number of areas lacking economic development right now that leaves quite a bit of room. Yes, but I was talking mostly in the frame of reference of 'western' capitalist economies. However, it is a fact that the world simply doesn't have the resources for china and india to have our level of consumption. So industrialization i nthat direction for the whole world is impossible and the wrong direction to proceed.
I know that, but you assume that I would prefer to be happy over being an individual, I would prefer to be an individual more than I would to be happy. You also assume that I don't have communities, family or friends. I have some, but of course my association is by choice.I'm not sure I understand this. "happiness" is the situation on which you are the most...satisfied. I guess you're saying is that individualism is what makes you the happiest? or that you want individualism even though you know it won't make you happy? In any event, the point is that on average people with developed social networks are happier whith their lives.
Bigger and more distant houses really don't prevent these things. The choice of job is a choice made upon multiple variables, length is one of them, the guys who work at the velvet sweatshops in the world chose those areas. I like my internet alcove and I feel that the experiences I have over it can have some meaning and I love reading as my relaxing getaway. I beg to differ. If you see your family less because you work such long hours, don't know your neigbors because you never see them since your property is so big, and stay in your internet alcove instead of spending time in public spaces your human interactions are obviously more brief and smaller parts of your life. IF you need your neigbors, spend more time with your family, and participate in community activites your social life is probalby more fulfilling. Seeing as how humans are generally social animals, and social networks are the most important factor in happiness, on average, you'll be happier. I don't think that your option is necessary and the costs seem to outweigh the gain.Okay, how do you propose to shift toward a sustainable economy? our level of consumption, our depletion of resources, and the creation of wealth for very few people are obviously not the ways to go. The 'costs' of this system is saying no to the idealization of humungous amounts of material wealth in favor of enough. Mostly though, it'll be the people profitiing the most now that will take a pay cut - not you or me.

Everything is ideological if it is spouted out by the mouth or fingers of an individual, you have no claim to perfect objectivity. What I meant by ideological is that it isn't 'left' or 'right' - liberals and conservatives have always competed with each other about "how ot flog the economy faster" (as bill mckibben writes). THis is a proposal to change our priorities to ones that better reflect our needs now. In the long run we will have a sustainable economy through one method or another, but really people have prophesized doom for a very long time. vaguely washing your hands of climate change and peak oil won't make them go away. sticking your head in the sand about somehting as important as this is pure cowardice. "one way or another"? what, exactly, do you suggest?

When I say efficiency I mean the notion of the most production using the least expense...
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=524908&page=2

Check out the part about pareto optimality.

Misguided? The very fact that it is neutral means that the individuals in the system guide it. Given that they have the ability to make trade offs and should be free to do so I see nothing wrong with efficiency. The goal is not an equitable, happy, and developed society. The goal is a free and developed society, equitability and happiness are up to the desires of the individuals in that society as they are not inherently valuable. Because the goal is the freedom and development of a society there is no need to step in. Faith in the free market is not a baseless faith and I am willing to entrust the development of my society to the choices of the individuals within it as it has had a great record in bringing growth and individual independence.
This seems exactly backwards to me. Why are growth and free markets the ultimate value? You haven't justified that.
It makes more sense that happiness and equity are the ultimate values - these things are fundamentally human goals. Free markets are only valuable inasmuch as they forward these more fundamental goals. In the developed world, at least, they no longer do so. Of course, if you're still hungry, more is better - but it is also a persumptuous mistake to assume that poor people only value material goods over other values like environment, family, education, community etc.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=524908&page=2

Check out the part about pareto optimality.I don't claim to understand the math of economics.
But again - the assumption of "more is better" does not make sense. More is not necessarily better for human happiness and wellbeing. GNP, maximum wealth and so forth, aren't useful measures of the success of our economy when inequality, environmental destruction, human rights abuses, and grwoing dissatisfaction are the realities we face.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=524908&page=2

Check out the part about pareto optimality.

I'd pay real money if economists actually bother to look up what a vector was.

I can't be bothered to figure out the math, but I would imagine you are groping to describe tensors, not vectors.

I don't claim to understand the math of economics.
Oh, the mathematics of it isn't important, just the concept of pareto optimality. That's what Vetalia meant by "efficiency".

But again - the assumption of "more is better" does not make sense. More is not necessarily better for human happiness and wellbeing. GNP, maximum wealth and so forth, aren't useful measures of the success of our economy when inequality, environmental destruction, human rights abuses, and grwoing dissatisfaction are the realities we face.
But you're talking about inaccurate macro-measures of societies as a whole. The assumptions (and on the first page of the thread I explained them in more detail) are basically that if you can have more of some commodity without giving up anything else, then that's a superior thing.

I don't think you actually can disprove that, simply because it's such a general statement. When people make decisions, they're always trading things off. If you were to say that a Buddhist monk wouldn't take more of some material good, then perhaps that is because he would be giving up some "spiritual commodity". The model itself doesn't specify what commodities have to be, it's just that economists have trouble measuring things that aren't physical. But if that monk could be living in a comfortable house, not have to beg for food and just generally enjoy the niceties of physical wealth without harming his prospects of enlightenment, I would be willing to bet that he'd do just that.

I'd pay real money if economists actually bother to look up what a vector was.
Well, it's every consumer being associated with a set of quantities with each being associated with a commodity, so yeah, I suppose you would call it a tensor. But why make the thread any more complicated than it already is and it doesn't add a whole lot to the argument.

My ultimate goal with it is to explain the welfare theorems and the notion that a market allocation is in the core. I'll try to avoid complicated maths as much as possible. My guess is that most people have some idea of what a vector is, while a tensor is perhaps less well-known. As far as understanding what is going on is concerned, I think it's good enough to just think of commodity bundles as being items rather than vectors themselves.

it doesn't really matter. the point is that hyper-individualism and our globalized capitalistsociety are linked - and that they create more inequality and dissatisfaction than local economies that are not quite as singularly profi- and efficiency-driven Ok.

Yes, but I was talking mostly in the frame of reference of 'western' capitalist economies. However, it is a fact that the world simply doesn't have the resources for china sd india to have our level of consumption. So industrialization i nthat direction for the whole world is impossible and the wrong direction to proceed. Ok. So? Who says that technology won't deal with this.

I'm not sure I understand this. "happiness" is the sutuation on which you are the most...satisfied. I guess you're saying is that individualism is what makes youthe happiest? or that you want individualism evn though you know it won't make you happy? In any event, the point is that on average people with developed social networks are happier whith their lives.
No, I am saying that individualism is what I desire. I can be miserable but I would prefer to be an individual. Happiness isn't the only human value. Ok, that much is somewhat obvious, however, of course there is variation on a person by person basis, I am a strong introvert and I need my privacy in order to be happy. Not only that but I assert that people are simply not taking advantage of the opportunities that they do have.

I beg to differ. If you see your family less because you work such long hours, don't know your neigbors because your property is so big, and stay in your internet alcove instead of spending time in public spaces your human interactions are obviously more brief and smaller parts of your life.
Then try to work less and cut back on consumption, get a smaller piece of property, and get off of the internet. All that you mention are not things that people lack all control over. The fact of the matter is that those things are CHOICES on some level and manner.

IF you need your neigbors, spend more time with your family, and participate in community activites your social life is probalby more fulfilling. Srring as how humans are generally social animals, on average, you'll be happier. Right, so if you want to be happier do these things. If you like how you live already then don't do these things. There is a difference between a suggestion and a requirement.

Okay, how do you propose to shift toward a sustainable economy? our level of consumption, our depletion of resources, and the creation of wealth for very few people are obviously not the ways to go. As prices go up quantity goes down.

What I meant by ideological is that it isn't 'left' or 'right' - liberals and conservatives have always competed with each other about "how ot flog the economy faster" (as bill mckibbon writes). THis is a proposal to change our priorities to ones that better reflect our needs now. vaguely washing your hands of climate change and peak oil won't make them go away. sticking your head in the sand about somehting as important as this is pure cowardice. "one way or another"? what, exactly, do you suggest?
No, this is left vs right in a very traditional sense. This is a struggle of capitalism vs non-capitalism, you just tend to ignore the non-traditional left in your analysis. I do not ignore these issues at all, however, all that is necessary to cut down on environmental damage is action to increase the prices of polluting goods. Peak oil? Well, that will spur on more and more innovation and thus allow us to shift our production. I do not stick my head in the sand, I just tend to believe that markets will solve most things save rapid, uncontrollable disasters and even then they are good in the aftermath.

This seems exactly backwards to me. Why are growth and free markets the ultimate value? You haven't justified that.
It makes more sense that happiness and equity are the ultimate values - these things are fundamentally human goals. Free markets are only valuable inasmuch as they forward these more fundamental goals. In the developed world, at least, they no longer do so. Of course, if you're still hungry, more is better - but it is also a persumptuous mistake to assume that poor people only value material goods over other values like environment, family, education, community etc.
Nothing makes sense, it is all a moral assertion. I can argue that corn is the highest value although some would disagree. Really though, I said freedom and growth were the ultimate values. Freedom is the ability to choose one's aims and growth is the increasing of opportunity and ability and thus the force that will eventually lift all boats. Happiness is only a value if one thinks it is a good thing. Drugs can make a person plenty happy but most people would not want to live a drugged up life. Equality has no meaning as man is inherently unequal by the virtue of being different and having different desires. Markets are desirable because they pursue or are my goals. I never stated that poor people were homogeneous, however, developing nations are where the most ecological destruction is occurring because improvement is worth more than the environmental cost. Richer people put more value on much of the latter values, family as we understand it only arose due to the industrial revolution, the environment was not the major concern until economic growth was such that we could expand our interests, education was solely the domain of the rich until economic development kicked in, and community may have dissolved to some extent but partially because people don't want the authoritarian nature of many of those structures as in many social groupings there is an inside crowd and an outside crowd and some distinctions between the two, this can be seen in many of the current and past social groupings that we have seen in society.

Oh, the mathematics of it isn't important, just the concept of pareto optimality. That's what Vetalia meant by "efficiency".


But you're talking about inaccurate macro-measures of societies as a whole. The assumptions (and on the first page of the thread I explained them in more detail) are basically that if you can have more of some commodity without giving up anything else, then that's a superior thing.

I don't think you actually can disprove that, simply because it's such a general statement. When people make decisions, they're always trading things off. If you were to say that a Buddhist monk wouldn't take more of some material good, then perhaps that is because he would be giving up some "spiritual commodity". The model itself doesn't specify what commodities have to be, it's just that economists have trouble measuring things that aren't physical. But if that monk could be living in a comfortable house, not have to beg for food and just generally enjoy the niceties of physical wealth without harming his prospects of enlightenment, I would be willing to bet that he'd do just that.
I think the problem with this is that the commodities that are used in such calculations are mostly extractable natural resources that can be turned into physical goods we use. This model is only useful for monetarily quantifyable things, as you admit. The premise that having more of such commodities is superior to less of them is not at all convincing. If you figure out a way to count natural ecosystem services, human rights, happiness, etc. as "commodities" in this model, maybe it will be closer to the truth. But as it is, assuming that up-ing a commodity by some unit produces some unit of superiority doesn't make sense when you have no established relationship between the two. How useful is this model when wealth is evidentally not making us happy? Economists models are uselessly simplistic in a world where crucial things like the ecosystems of the planet we live on, and our mental health have been treated as either free or value-less; where growth, not happiness, is the ultimate value.

From an environmental perspective, things are much worse than ever before in human history.

However, from just a human perspective, things have never been better. We live longer and murder rates are down, and the smart/intelligent among us have more time to lead meaningful lives while the stupid are content to drool over celebrities.

Not that I don't agree with Mr. McKibben; nobody denies that sustainable growth and more localized dependence is beneficial if possible (and I believe it is possible).

Well, it's every consumer being associated with a set of quantities with each being associated with a commodity, so yeah, I suppose you would call it a tensor. But why make the thread any more complicated than it already is and it doesn't add a whole lot to the argument.


My ultimate goal with it is to explain the welfare theorems and the notion that a market allocation is in the core. I'll try to avoid complicated maths as much as possible. My guess is that most people have some idea of what a vector is, while a tensor is perhaps less well-known. As far as understanding what is going on is concerned, I think it's good enough to just think of commodity bundles as being items rather than vectors themselves.

I seem to remember a whole bunch of silly assumptions that are needed for the Pareto thingumbyjig. Like being sovereign maximizer, no monopoly distortion, and such. I really think you should at least mention those as well.

From an environmental perspective, things are much worse than ever before in human history.

However, from just a human perspective, things have never been better. We live longer and murder rates are down, and the smart/intelligent among us have more time to lead meaningful lives while the stupid are content to drool over celebrities.He's not asking us to give up on our long lives and breadth of choice - he's asking us to make the choices that are hte most responsible.
Of course, nobody wants to go back the the authoratarian moralistic societies that were so oppressive, miserable, and discriminatory.

@ Holyawesomeness: You say that I can already make all these choices if I want to - that they are personal moral values. Indeed I can, and indeed they are. There is nothing incopatible about the suggested reforms with the current system. A local community-based economy can develop gradually with no coersion or revolution necessary. I already try to live my life in a way that reflects values other than economic growth and personal wealth, and I'll continue to do so more and more as I can. The point of McKibben's book, and this thread, isn't to argue for forcing people to do that, but convincing people that it's a good idea. Obviosuly, when enough people make personal choices from a similar understanding, society changes with them.

I think the problem with this is that the commodities that are used in such calculations are mostly extractable natural resources that can be turned into physical goods we use.
Not at all. In the model a commodity is defined as some "thing" that has a set of characteristics associated with it. It's an incredibly general definition including things like labour (for most people their initial endowment of resources will to a large percentage be their labour).

This model is only useful for monetarily quantifyable things, as you admit. The premise that having more of such commodities is superior to less of them is not at all convincing. If you figure out a way to count natural ecosystem services, human rights, happiness, etc. as "commodities" in this model, maybe it will be closer to the truth.
Happiness isn't something easily quantified, but of course it's the main basis of the model.
Human Rights is a very general term that doesn't tell us very much at all. The model deals with a "free market", meaning the freedom to use one's commodities as one pleases and acquire and do whatever you can afford. As such I would say that human rights already feature in them. If you're going to complain about a lack of human rights, then that's a problem outside the market.
Valuing the ecosystem is a huge part of modern economics and a lot of smart people are working on it. It's not easy, but new valuing methods are being proposed all the time. I didn't include them in my simple model because I'm aiming at something specific. You can see though that the natural economy can easily be made into a set of commodities to be included into the initial endowment of resources (though since it's an ownership model, the price wouldn't be some non-market value but rather something that lets the market clear).

But as it is, assuming that up-ing a commodity by some unit produces some unit of superiority doesn't make sense when you have no established relationship between the two.
Well, feel free to read the first page of the thread. The superiority is established quite early on as a ranking system between different bundles of commodities.

Modern general equilibrium economists don't even use units of happiness anymore, in other words the output of utility functions is ordinal, not cardinal.

How useful is this model when wealth is evidentally not making us happy?
Can you really say with any sort of confidence that life was better 400 years ago, when everyone was poor, than today when everyone is quite wealthy?

I mean, comparing happiness is a difficult thing because really you can't compare states of happiness between people. So any collective measure of happiness is bound to have weaknesses. You can say that A is happier now than she was before, but you can't say Americans are happier than Chinese, at least not with any sort of numerical meaning.

What we can measure is things like health, how long and hard we work, how long we live, how many of our kids die early and so on. And those things have been generally improving as economic growth continued (and the two seem correlated). I'd be hesitant to argue that happiness is somehow divorced from these things and is explained by something else entirely.

Economists models are uselessly simplistic in a world where crucial things like the ecosystems of the planet we live on, and our mental health have been treated as either free or value-less; where growth, not happiness, is the ultimate value.
Look, economists aren't here to tell you how to be happy. The model I'm talking about explicitly tries to minimise any assumptions on what makes people happy and how they rank their preferences.

What we know is that economic growth has not been an end in itself, and if it was it has greatly improved standards of living. Even in the short term, having seen what it is like to have my father being long-term unemployed makes me think that economic growth having picked up in Germany and reducing the number of unemployed people from more than 5 million to little more than 3 million is worth quite a bit to people's happiness.

As for non-market valuing, economists are working on it. It's hard to attach a price to things no one is willing or able to pay for. If you really wanted a money value for things like nature, you'd have to privatise them and let people trade - which apart from the practical limitations isn't what you'd want either because it precludes some sort of exclusion.

If you can come up with a better way of making sure natural resources are valued properly, you're welcome to develop some methodology to do so. Simply sniping at the current arrangement from the sidelines isn't fair to those who're spending time and money on solving the problem.

Not that I don't agree with Mr. McKibben; nobody denies that sustainable growth and more localized dependence is beneficial if possible (and I believe it is possible).
Well, nobody disagrees with sustainability but localized dependence is something that many people disagree with as the aim is to create goods efficiently according to the minds of many. The very aim of free trade and better transportation is to weaken local dependence because of the desire for better, cheaper goods.

@ Holyawesomeness: You say that I can already make all these choices if I want to - that they are personal moral values. Indeed I can, and indeed they are. There is nothing incopatible about the suggested reforms with the current system. A local community-based economy can develop gradually with no coersion or revolution necessary. I already try to live my life in a way that reflects values other than economic growth and personal wealth, and I'll continue to do so more and more as I can. The point of McKibben's book, and this thread, isn't to argue for forcing people to do that, but convincing people that it's a good idea. Obviosuly, when enough people make personal choices from a similar understanding, society changes with them.
Well, I can understand that perspective of personal moral values, however, I do disagree somewhat with the ideas put forward as well. Like I may have said, I put a high value on efficiency therefore the localization and unnecessary reduction of consumption seems ridiculous. People can have community without that and really, the problem is not the consumption of goods destroying the environment but rather the lack of accounting for the externalities created by that, the issue of the future will be solved by effective pricing and family planning that most will pursue, really though, I don't see quality of life really going down as even as resources become scarcer recycling will become more valued and innovation and adaptation will take effect.

The book is just based on one of the most important tenants in economics. Which is opportunity cost, or in layman terms what someone gives up for another thing they want more.

Essentially, what it says is if we give up a world economy, one based on the accumulation of wealth and progress, and adopt a local system we would all be better off. Well, he really cannot say that is true. Because even on the local level people will make their trade offs, and some will exceed others in the return on those decisions.

The fact of the matter is the local economy might produce a more cohesive unit. However, that does not mean it makes as good of an economy. Today, a healthy world economy is important, not just for those you called the “enriched” but for everyone. Without a world economy the luxuries you and I enjoy, as well as the advances in health, social, and politics just would not occur.

The theory of a local economy forgets those very points. It might make people, say a little happier overall; however we fail to recognize the need for global research to better ourselves in so many different ways.

Can you really say with any sort of confidence that life was better 400 years ago, when everyone was poor, than today when everyone is quite wealthy

I mean, comparing happiness is a difficult thing because really you can't compare states of happiness between people. So any collective measure of happiness is bound to have weaknesses. You can say that A is happier now than she was before, but you can't say Americans are happier than Chinese, at least not with any sort of numerical meaning.?One way to do this is to compare levels of happiness in 'wealthy' countries (with high life expectancy, high standards of living, high GNP, etc) with poor countries. Studies on happiness and satisfaction are fairly robust. Nigerians are the happiest in the world. That's pretty stark.

What we can measure is things like health, how long and hard we work, how long we live, how many of our kids die early and so on. And those things have been generally improving as economic growth continued (and the two seem correlated). I'd be hesitant to argue that happiness is somehow divorced from these things and is explained by something else entirely.On the timescale of hundreds of years they certainly have. Markets can do well to improve conditions when there's not enough to go around. The question is whether they still do well to improve satisfaction once there is already enough - or do they create unequal distribution and heedless waste? The vast majority of the economic growth in the US and Canada (I don't know about elsewhere) goes to a very small percentage of the top-earners. The "trickling down" isn't working out so well.
Look, economists aren't here to tell you how to be happy. The model I'm talking about explicitly tries to minimise any assumptions on what makes people happy and how they rank their preferences.Why minimize the assumptions? there is fairly good data available on human happiness. it shows that happiness is mostly tied to supportive reciprocal social networks.

What we know is that economic growth has not been an end in itself, and if it was it has greatly improved standards of living. Even in the short term, having seen what it is like to have my father being long-term unemployed makes me think that economic growth having picked up in Germany and reducing the number of unemployed people from more than 5 million to little more than 3 million is worth quite a bit to people's happiness.Why are so many people not working when there is enough wealth to go around? could it be because "efficiencies" are eliminating the need for labour? "efficiencies" that depend on fossil fuels and poisons? for example, instead of thinking of the industrialization of farming as a more efficient, more economically productive system, think of the millions of people that lost jobs. A few CEOs now make a killing, as opposed to those millions of families making a living.

As for non-market valuing, economists are working on it. It's hard to attach a price to things no one is willing or able to pay for. If you really wanted a money value for things like nature, you'd have to privatise them and let people trade - which apart from the practical limitations isn't what you'd want either because it precludes some sort of exclusion.

If you can come up with a better way of making sure natural resources are valued properly, you're welcome to develop some methodology to do so. Simply sniping at the current arrangement from the sidelines isn't fair to those who're spending time and money on solving the problem.as for valueing things that aren't in the market, I don't know anything about that. I'm happy that people are trying to put togehter models that actually make sense. Even without that though, its glaringly obvious that we depend on the earth's biosphere. We know what to do to conserve and maintain the health of that biosphere, though we haven't done it. Selling future generations out for cheap thrills now is incredibly irresponsible - i don't need a fancy economic model to tell me how irresponsible it is. Though - refer to the Stern report for a conservative projection.

The book is just based on one of the most important tenants in economics. Which is opportunity cost, or in layman terms what someone gives up for another thing they want more.

Essentially, what it says is if we give up a world economy, one based on the accumulation of wealth and progress, and adopt a local system we would all be better off. Well, he really cannot say that is true. Because even on the local level people will make their trade offs, and some will exceed others in the return on those decisions.

The fact of the matter is the local economy might produce a more cohesive unit. However, that does not mean it makes as good of an economy. Today, a healthy world economy is important, not just for those you called the “enriched” but for everyone. Without a world economy the luxuries you and I enjoy, as well as the advances in health, social, and politics just would not occur.

The theory of a local economy forgets those very points. It might make people, say a little happier overall; however we fail to recognize the need for global research to better ourselves in so many different ways.I agree: there are some things (technological innovation, highly specialized manufacturing, scientific research, cultural exchanges) that thrive on globalized, centralized interactions. McKibben doesn't adress those fields in detail. He spends most of the time talking about food, energy, and "simple" manufacturing economies. Having those three things (which comprise most of the world's economic activity, and a whole lot of carbon emmisions) on a local scale seems to be worth it. Other activities, by their nature, aren't as successful locally. But this isn't an argument for going back to the middle ages - it's an argument for cutting disasterous environmental consequences and enhancing general human satisfaction.

Why are so many people not working when there is enough wealth to go around? could it be because "efficiencies" are eliminating the need for labour? "efficiencies" that depend on fossil fuels and poisons? for example, instead of thinking of the industrialization of farming as a more efficient, more economically productive system, think of the millions of people that lost jobs. A few CEOs now make a killing, as opposed to those millions of families making a living.

63% of the working-age US population is working, one of the highest rates in our history. However, because our economy is so much more productive, we can support more non-workers for each worker than we could in the past. That enables more leisure time while still reaping the benefits of our society.

By and large one or two family members can now support an entire family with a white-collar job working 40-50 hours per week. 150 years ago, that would have been next to impossible for most people; the entire family would be working, including children, for far less real income and far lower living standards than they have today. And, that income would hardly be the regular, guaranteed salary or wage of the modern worker; for a farmer, they might see their income swing wildly and range from abundance to near starvation in a matter of a few years.

And industrialization of farming is what has prevented famine and hunger from consuming untold numbers of people; without mechanization, we would still be seeing the kind of hunger and suffering that still consumes innocent people in the developing world. We need productivity growth in order to enjoy the secure living standards we take for granted in the developed world.

Individualism is not now, nor has it ever been a threat, and no I will not trade it for your new ideal of community. What we wear, what we think, what we say, whom we love - these are not commodities, they are rights given to mankind by virtue of his standing as a rational being. Their availability must be maximized at all times. On that there can be no compromise.

By and large one or two family members can now support an entire family with a white-collar job working 40-50 hours per week. 150 years ago, that would have been next to impossible for most people; the entire family would be working, including children, for far less real income and far lower living standards than they have today. And, that income would hardly be the regular, guaranteed salary or wage of the modern worker; for a farmer, they might see their income swing wildly and range from abundance to near starvation in a matter of a few years.What about people fifty years ago? One salalry was enough then. What about europeans? they have less money, but they work much less and have more time for other things. Europeans have pretty good lives mostly. but they don't seem to mind taking vacation, or going for a luch break. Why is billing more hours the thing North Ameriacans place the highest value on?
And industrialization of farming is what has prevented famine and hunger from consuming untold numbers of people; without mechanization, we would still be seeing the kind of hunger and suffering that still consumes innocent people in the developing world. We need productivity growth in order to enjoy the secure living standards we take for granted in the developed world.You're out of date on your farming. Small diverse farms are just as, or more productive (calorie-wise) as large industrialized monoculture ones. They are also much less dependant on fossil fuels and artificial fertilizers. But they require more people to work on them. Modern organic farming techniques (cover cropping, using microorganisms, proper crop rotation, composting) have large yields - but they are still labour intensive compared to industrial farming. Trading people for machines and fertilizers and oil doesn't create more food. It just reduces the number of farmers. In developing countries, the mechanization of farming displaces many people: they trade a self-sucfficient rural poverty for an urban slum poverty. And an western executive with patents on a GMO monoculture gets rich, while species diversity and rural communties decline. The idea of "green revolution" is only meant to increase profits on fertilizer and tractors - not to improve the lives or cure the hunger in developing countries.

For a great example, read up on what happened in Cuba after the collapse of the Soviet Union. They were forced to change from mechanized industrial farming to de-facto organic farming when shipments of ferlitizer, oil, and spare parts stopped coming from Russia almost overnihgt. They managed to increase their average calorie diet to normal levels and create a sustainable food system. it's a fascinating story.

Individualism is not now, nor has it ever been a threat, and no I will not trade it for your new ideal of community. What we wear, what we think, what we say, whom we love - these are not commodities, they are rights given to mankind by virtue of his standing as a rational being. Their availability must be maximized at all times. On that there can be no compromise.What about trading some of it for a planet that won't collapse around your grandchildren?

Misguided? The very fact that it is neutral means that the individuals in the system guide it. Given that they have the ability to make trade offs and should be free to do so I see nothing wrong with efficiency. The goal is not an equitable, happy, and developed society. The goal is a free and developed society, equitability and happiness are up to the desires of the individuals in that society as they are not inherently valuable. Because the goal is the freedom and development of a society there is no need to step in. Faith in the free market is not a baseless faith and I am willing to entrust the development of my society to the choices of the individuals within it as it has had a great record in bringing growth and individual independence.

Kreitz already addressed this bit.. but I will add my voice into the choir.

Who decided that happiness and equity is not the goal of society? Did you? Who gave you that power? And NOT inherently valuable? Where did you ever get that idea?

Seriously, you ignore the meat of my post and then respond with crackpot garbage.

Can anybody else go back there and give me an answer, because nothing I've read or seen to date has been able to suitably explain how the free market is supposed to deal with that issue. And frankly an answer about how we just haven't reached optimal market conditions and distribution and free trade is a cop-out. I won't accept that, because there isn't any satisfactory way to ensure that we as a society won't kill ourselves off by being short-sighted pleasure-driven consumers of mass-produced goods too intent on keeping up with the Joneses to notice there are no more trees, frogs, snowfalls, etc.

What about people fifty years ago? One salalry was enough then. What about europeans? they have less money, but they work much less and have more time for other things. Europeans have pretty good lives mostly. but they don't seem to mind taking vacation, or going for a luch break. Why is billing more hours the thing North Ameriacans place the highest value on?


Actually, if you look at wealth distribution, the average briton or frenchman has more money than the average american. Mind you they are also more productive per hour worked. (Unless the Economist is lying).

Now, granted, there is a much higher unemployment rate, but that's just because the US government is much more adroit about hiding it. The participation rate is about the same.

Actually, if you look at wealth distribution, the average briton or frenchman has more money than the average american. Mind you they are also more productive per hour worked. (Unless the Economist is lying).

Now, granted, there is a much higher unemployment rate, but that's just because the US government is much more adroit about hiding it. The participation rate is about the same.
I've also read that they're more productive. I haven't read that they have moe money though...quite the opposite.

I won't accept that, because there isn't any satisfactory way to ensure that we as a society won't kill ourselves off by being short-sighted pleasure-driven consumers of mass-produced goods too intent on keeping up with the Joneses to notice there are no more trees, frogs, snowfalls, etc.heh, thanks for piping up. Now keeping up with the Jones's wouldn't even be so bad. Keeing up to the OC and the Real Housewives of Orange County is what's really getting people's material ambition out of whack.

I've also read that they're more productive. I haven't read that they have moe money though...quite the opposite.


The upper 5% don't. But the average worker does. So even though the GDP per capita is lower, the average worker enjoys a much higher standard of living.

The upper 5% don't. But the average worker does. So even though the GDP per capita is lower, the average worker enjoys a much higher standard of living.Well, if true, that makes sense. It seems that closing the inequality gap won't be the end of the world.

Well, if true, that makes sense. It seems that closing the inequality gap won't be the end of the world.
But it makes baby Jesus cry, and God, being a rather poor parent, tries to shut him up the easiest way he knows how: crucify him. Crucification causes Jesus' messiah chip to kick in and he stops being a whiny douche and is forced to act all brave and heroic, leaving God the peace he needs. Do you really want to be responsible for Christ being crucified, again?

Who decided that happiness and equity is not the goal of society? Did you? Who gave you that power? And NOT inherently valuable? Where did you ever get that idea? Who decided it was the goal of society? Who decided that the goal of society was independent of those within that society? I simply stated that we should become better at using all of the resources available and that we should have choice between individuals and frankly acceptance of the latter means that we might have to give up your priorities as individual desires will often lead to status-seeking behavior, wealth seeking behavior, knowledge seeking behavior, etc, all of which prevent equality from existing. Of course they are not necessarily to be too highly valued either. If one surveys a graveyard then one sees equality and if ignorance is bliss and the goal is happiness then we institutionalize brain damage. Really though, if you are a literature buff, I would recommend reading Harrison Bergeron or Brave New World to see where your ideas can be seen as failing.

Seriously, you ignore the meat of my post and then respond with crackpot garbage. No, I simply said that your goals were wrong and because my goals were good and markets do them then markets are good. It is not ignorance nor is it "crackpot garbage" you simply ignore parts of my post or fail to consider them with the merit they are due.

Can anybody else go back there and give me an answer, because nothing I've read or seen to date has been able to suitably explain how the free market is supposed to deal with that issue. And frankly an answer about how we just haven't reached optimal market conditions and distribution and free trade is a cop-out. I won't accept that, because there isn't any satisfactory way to ensure that we as a society won't kill ourselves off by being short-sighted pleasure-driven consumers of mass-produced goods too intent on keeping up with the Joneses to notice there are no more trees, frogs, snowfalls, etc.
Ok, within the framework of your ideas? Markets promote better material conditions and these are beneficial, but as stated there are a few problems, material conditions do not necessarily equal happiness as rising standards tend to mean that gains from such things are swept away. That being said though, I can't see a system as good if it forces people to live how you want them to live, markets do not disallow your goals just people do not pick them for whatever reason. In terms of equitability, markets do not aim at perfectly equal distributions, they do try to aim for distributions that relate somewhat to natural ability and work ethic but that is not your goal, however, I disagree with the very imposition of this goal upon a society as equality has no purpose in and of itself. Sustainability? Supply and demand, if supply goes down then markets adjust. There is no way to ensure any of your desires though as they depend on mechanisms beyond any of our controls.... at least without disbanding the economy.

Actually, if you look at wealth distribution, the average briton or frenchman has more money than the average american. Mind you they are also more productive per hour worked. (Unless the Economist is lying). Right, however, life satisfaction distributions in the US are still similar or better than more egalitarian nations. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lif_lif_sat_ine-lifestyle-life-satisfaction-inequality

Now, granted, there is a much higher unemployment rate, but that's just because the US government is much more adroit about hiding it. The participation rate is about the same.
Well, I am not sure that the US has a real problem with unemployment. Long term unemployment rates in the US are considered one of the lowest.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lab_lon_ter_une-labor-long-term-unemployment
As well, we have lower youth unemployment rates.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lab_you_une-labor-youth-unemployment

Now looking at participation rates is well and good but that looks at people not seeking jobs which is undesirable considering that cultural and other influences have some impact on this.

While there are many, many, many things wrong with this; in fact I think think the only thing good about the book and the philosphy is promotes as well as the review is the intentions of the authors, except that's what the road to hell is paved with.

The most glaring of all for me is the desire for interdependance as opposed to independence. This may just be me being a stupid, thick-headed American but I thought we fought a friggin' war for independence. Why would I want to need my neighbors? Like them, yes. Interact with them, sure. But need them?Am I wrong to admire and aspire to total self-reliance? If so then how the fuck is that the case? How can being personally deficient to the point of needing others to assist in your basic needs possibly be better than being able to care for oneself?

And what's this about the food? Modern agriculture is more efficient and productive than at any time in history. Leading biologists and botanists like, oh say, Norman Borlaug have said that strictly organic farming would only feed about 2/3's of the worlds current population. I just don't see 2 billion people volunteering to starve to death, do you?

And just how th fuck is suburban living isolating? Wasn't the whole point of suburbanism for people to get away from the big cities so that they could interact in a safer and more casual environment? Why would people want to cram into small communes when they could all have a house and a yard and a safer, less crowded environment?

I find that suggestion that we surrender our individuality repulsive. Without it we lose our uniquness. It is, to me at least, our greatest strength. It defines us, both as a people and as ourselves. All this talk about giving up individuality reminds me a lot of the Borg. Whenever someone starts preaching the benefits of co-dependency they will usually have no respect for those that are asked (often by force) to give up what makes them unique and will sacrifice them for their idea of the good of the collective. I would fight any attempt to rob me of my individuality to the bitter end, to do any less would be to capitulate to slavery and certain death.

Nigerians are the happiest in the world. That's pretty stark.
Funny thing is, I seem to recall it was the Danish who were happiest. So I suppose that tells you the value of such studies.

The question is whether they still do well to improve satisfaction once there is already enough - or do they create unequal distribution and heedless waste?
There isn't. If there was "enough to go around" in other words there was no scarcity, then the prices for everything would be zero. The market can tell us when it's no longer needed, if you want to put it that way.

As it is, stuff is getting cheaper as time progresses, so we're moving towards less scarcity (notwithstanding the constant innovations and new products which start off expensive before getting cheaper), but we're definitely not there yet.

The vast majority of the economic growth in the US and Canada (I don't know about elsewhere) goes to a very small percentage of the top-earners. The "trickling down" isn't working out so well.
Funny thing is that this was probably even more extreme in the 19th century, but that's where one could argue the long-term improvement in living standards was the most obvious.

I wouldn't go as far as saying that unequal income distributions cause improvements in standards of living. I would instead say that the two are symptoms of the same thing, namely a vibrant society in which the distribution of innovation, creativity and willpower are rewarded.

Why minimize the assumptions? there is fairly good data available on human happiness. it shows that happiness is mostly tied to supportive reciprocal social networks.
Because if history has taught us anything, it's that making assumptions ends up being a mistake. I wouldn't go down the road of trying to measure something as flimsy as happiness, tie it to something as flimsy as "supportive reciprocal social networks" and then use that to design an economic system, when we already have a system that has the flexibility to do precisely what people want. And what we see is that people indeed to have their social networks, whether they're family, colleagues or friends and that for many it is the wish to make their families better off that drives them to achieve new things in order to earn money for them.

Why are so many people not working when there is enough wealth to go around?
I'm not going to go into the details, but lagging domestic consumer demand played a role, the transformation of the East German economy another and a bunch of inept politicians did the rest.

As for my dad, the reasons are rather less abstract and I won't get into the details. Rest assured though that usually one is not left wondering.

We know what to do to conserve and maintain the health of that biosphere, though we haven't done it.
The first reason is the tragedy of the commons, which is in this case probably the biggest puzzle there is. Once again though, it's not the realm of the market to solve it by itself. In my view it could only do so through government intervention, which obviously is difficult when it comes to global issues.

Selling future generations out for cheap thrills now is incredibly irresponsible - i don't need a fancy economic model to tell me how irresponsible it is. Though - refer to the Stern report for a conservative projection.
Stern incidentally being a liberal economist...

Seriously though, you actually do need a rule to tell you just how irresponsible it is. If you need a fire in order not to freeze to death, you might want to cut down a tree. So you do some sort of analysis to come to the conclusion that your life is worth more than that tree. Then you have the choice between a forest and building a whole village so that people can live better lives. Again you might pick the village over the trees.

So if you make your decisions that way, by picking which provides a greater benefit to you or mankind as a whole, then you need to actually have some sort of value attached to the part of the biosphere you're sacrificing. It'd be madness to make decisions without a valuation either way. You can't just keep going cutting down every tree on the planet, but you can't freeze to death either.

Individualism is not now, nor has it ever been a threat, and no I will not trade it for your new ideal of community. What we wear, what we think, what we say, whom we love - these are not commodities, they are rights given to mankind by virtue of his standing as a rational being. Their availability must be maximized at all times. On that there can be no compromise.


What about trading some of it for a planet that won't collapse around your grandchildren?

Why do you two think it is automatically a trade? Are humans not advanced enough a race to be both in a community and still maintain their sense of self?

Why do you two think it is automatically a trade? Are humans not advanced enough a race to be both in a community and still maintain their sense of self?

QFT.

Why do you two think it is automatically a trade? Are humans not advanced enough a race to be both in a community and still maintain their sense of self?
Because interdependence and independence have a conflict between the 2. It is difficult being interdependent when you are aiming for independence and vice versa.

While there are many, many, many things wrong with this; in fact I think think the only thing good about the book and the philosphy is promotes as well as the review is the intentions of the authors, except that's what the road to hell is paved with.I find it a bit disturbing that you say this without having hread the book. My comments are a representation with its own limmitations.
The most glaring of all for me is the desire for interdependance as opposed to independence. This may just be me being a stupid, thick-headed American but I thought we fought a friggin' war for independence. Why would I want to need my neighbors? Like them, yes. Interact with them, sure. But need them?Am I wrong to admire and aspire to total self-reliance? If so then how the fuck is that the case? How can being personally deficient to the point of needing others to assist in your basic needs possibly be better than being able to care for oneself?Ah, but here's the catch - you are very far from being independent when it comes to your basic needs. Estimates are that in about a week to ten days most urban/suburban areas would be out of food should they be isolated by a disaster. As the earth's climate gets more erratic didsasters are only likely to increase. A local food economy integrated with urban agriculture doesn't create the large profit margins of multinationals, it also requires more labour. But it produces just as much food per land. which means that instead of depending on an industrial farm in India, a trucking company, a processing company, a shipping company, etc until you get your calories, you depend on people that are close to you. You, with your inviolable ideal of individualism, aren't self-sufficient inthe least unless you grow your own food, make your own clothes and create your own entertainment. Not many people do that. The question is not whether to depend on others, it's who do you prefer to depend on? I'll take my neigbors over multinationals, and reap the benefits of improved environment, community, health and all the rest, thank you very much.
And what's this about the food? Modern agriculture is more efficient and productive than at any time in history. Leading biologists and botanists like, oh say, Norman Borlaug have said that strictly organic farming would only feed about 2/3's of the worlds current population. I just don't see 2 billion people volunteering to starve to death, do you?It's more efficient insofar as it has replaced labour with lare amounts of oil and chemical inputs. It isn't more productive calorie-wise. There are opposing schools of thought on this, but don't take your assumption as a given. Modern orgamic farming is highly productive.
And just how th fuck is suburban living isolating? Wasn't the whole point of suburbanism for people to get away from the big cities so that they could interact in a safer and more casual environment? Why would people want to cram into small communes when they could all have a house and a yard and a safer, less crowded environment?Well, why they would want to is the whole idea: our enormous suburban expanses - the building, furnishing, and accessorizing of them, is largely responsible for the vast excess in consumption that makes americans the biggest energy consumers on earth. This argument is fundamentally an environmental one. It attempts to make the case that slowing consumption of some things and depending more on local economies won't make everything we know collapse. Also, this isn't an argument for "cramming people into communes". In fact, it hinges on increasing the number of people working in rural areas or farming in urban open spaces, where there's plenty of yeard space to relax in.
I find that suggestion that we surrender our individuality repulsive. Without it we lose our uniquness. It is, to me at least, our greatest strength. It defines us, both as a people and as ourselves.Nobody is asking you to erase you personality! Simply to shift towards a less feul-intensive local economy. That means you might actually know the people that will grow your food, generate your energy, and so forth - they won't be faceless nameless things you throw money at. that's all the interpdependence thing means. that more of the people you depend on for your most frequent needs are in your vicinity, as opposed to being far away, exploited by some multinational.

Kreitz -

Painful no?

It seems that any mention of anything outside of choice, individual, independence, and growth is taboo. I applaud your efforts and agree with you fully, though I would wager I am yet more socialist leaning than what you recommend. Regardless at this point I think its a necessity to begin transforming our economies to more INDEPENDENT (because getting all your stuff from China is REALLY independent isn't it?) and locally interdependent models as they will be the key to being successful in the future when the energy crunch inevitably occurs. Oil won't last forever, and whether we hit peak oil in 10 years or 20, we will hit it and when we do incredibly inefficient (in terms of energy used) global transportation networks for food and products will quick become a thing of the past.

Why must we wait until we are suffering to allow the market to correct it? The market has been an inherently reactive force, and it seems it fares poorly in being proactive in responding to challenges. You can say 'but if people did XYZ the market would be able to cope well with no problem!' and sure, that might be the case, but do people act that way? So far we tend to wait until we're in the thick of it to start to deal with it. Why take the chance that we may or may not act proactively? Why not simply take steps to ensure we have the best outcome, for us and our descendants?

When I have kids, should I have kids, I am going to have to apologize profusely to them for the inability of my generation and those before mine to act appropriately to the challenges we face.

Let's not have to do that and instead start to change our world before we end up doing some irreversible harms that could forever diminish the world's capability to support human life.

Why do you two think it is automatically a trade? Are humans not advanced enough a race to be both in a community and still maintain their sense of self?

I believe we are, namely because individualism alone doesn't threaten communities. In fact, the threat to the community is most often bigoted people opposed to their neighbors ideas of individuality.

Kreitzmoorland's request however assumes there is a trade, in calling for a reduction of individualism. That's not right.

I believe we are, namely because individualism alone doesn't threaten communities. In fact, the threat to the community is most often bigoted people opposed to their neighbors ideas of individuality.

Kreitzmoorland's request however assumes there is a trade, in calling for a reduction of individualism. That's not right.

I can accept walking with a neighbor to the local market to buy some quality, locally produced food for dinner.

Cannot accept being a peon/member of People's Tractor Factory #414 Community.

I believe we are, namely because individualism alone doesn't threaten communities. In fact, the threat to the community is most often bigoted people opposed to their neighbors ideas of individuality.

Kreitzmoorland's request however assumes there is a trade, in calling for a reduction of individualism. That's not right.Hmm, maybe I phrased it wrong. When I said trading some individualism for a larger degree of local interdependence I didn't mean becoming communist or surrendering sovereignty over you life. I didn't mean eliminating choice in your professional, or personal life. But, becoming more tied to you local community for basic economic needs does imply a greater responsibility to your neighbor - and of your neighbor to you. That's all I meant. I think it does have something to do with hyper-individualism that we don't need our neighbors, and voraciously reject the idea of needing them. Instead, we now depend on people and structures far away that we neither understand, nor control, nor care much for. You can choose your life, and still have a local economy. But people might need to work together more closely, and pay attention more carefully, because your economic actions will effect those immediately around you, not people "elsewhere".

It seems that any mention of anything outside of choice, individual, independence, and growth is taboo. I applaud your efforts and agree with you fully, though I would wager I am yet more socialist leaning than what you recommend. Regardless at this point I think its a necessity to begin transforming our economies to more INDEPENDENT (because getting all your stuff from China is REALLY independent isn't it?) and locally interdependent models as they will be the key to being successful in the future when the energy crunch inevitably occurs. Oil won't last forever, and whether we hit peak oil in 10 years or 20, we will hit it and when we do incredibly inefficient (in terms of energy used) global transportation networks for food and products will quick become a thing of the past. Well, choice and individualism and independence are what most socialists and capitalists agree on. Autarky and inefficiency don't improve individual independence but rather diminish it. Energy prices will probably go up but I doubt that the world will completely collapse, and frankly the use of energy as we do so now isn't inefficient anyway. A gram of fuel isn't edible no matter how much energy is inside of it. Measurement by the joule is therefore foolish as different forms of energy have different uses. I tend to be optimistic on the fuel crunch though as gas prices would have to increase a lot more before systems have to change to an incredible extent.

Why must we wait until we are suffering to allow the market to correct it? The market has been an inherently reactive force, and it seems it fares poorly in being proactive in responding to challenges. You can say 'but if people did XYZ the market would be able to cope well with no problem!' and sure, that might be the case, but do people act that way? So far we tend to wait until we're in the thick of it to start to deal with it. Why take the chance that we may or may not act proactively? Why not simply take steps to ensure we have the best outcome, for us and our descendants? Because otherwise we have other pains that will likely be more pressing. If there was only one thing to speculate on in society and that was the fuel then markets would already be reacting, the issue is that markets weight things based upon where need really seems to be rather than where people at the present moment think it will be, and I think that some companies are already looking into alternative fuel source. No, people don't, markets don't either. People react when the damage looks imminent and keep on doing so rationally increasing efforts until it is alleviated, markets do the same, a distant pressure is not going to motivate much market or human action. I would say that by having markets deal with it we will have a good outcome, I won't say best because NOBODY has the tools for determining utopia.


Let's not have to do that and instead start to change our world before we end up doing some irreversible harms that could forever diminish the world's capability to support human life.
I think that we can be fine within the context of existing structures so long as we do deal with externalities that currently exist.

Hmm, maybe I phrased it wrong. When I said trading some individualism for a larger degree of local interdependence I didn't mean becoming communist or surrendering sovereignty over you life. I didn't mean eliminating choice in your professional, or personal life. But, becoming more tied to you local community for basic economic needs does imply a greater responsibility to your neighbor - and of your neighbor to you. That's all I meant. I think it does have something to do with hyper-individualism that we don't need our neighbors, and voraciously reject the idea of needing them. Instead, we now depend on people and structures far away that we neither understand, nor control, nor care much for. You can choose your life, and still have a local economy. But people might need to work together more closely, and pay attention more carefully, because your economic actions will effect those immediately around you, not people "elsewhere".
The only thing is that being tied is being held down and thus removing individual choice. If we were not tied but rather chose to associate with our neighbors by choice then that would be absolutely fine. I mean, I don't mind a community where everyone knows everyone else's name, the real problem is a community where this is forced at the cost of individuals being able to choose their objectives. Your economic actions impact everything in an interconnected system, the real question is the degree.

Hmm, maybe I phrased it wrong. When I said trading some individualism for a larger degree of local interdependence I didn't mean becoming communist or surrendering sovereignty over you life. I didn't mean eliminating choice in your professional, or personal life. But, becoming more tied to you local community for basic economic needs does imply a greater responsibility to your neighbor - and of your neighbor to you. That's all I meant. I think it does have something to do with hyper-individualism that we don't need our neighbors, and voraciously reject the idea of needing them. Instead, we now depend on people and structures far away that we neither understand, nor control, nor care much for. You can choose your life, and still have a local economy. But people might need to work together more closely, and pay attention more carefully, because your economic actions will effect those immediately around you, not people "elsewhere".

Then we're not so opposed to one another. I believe in interdependence and our duty to one another, that's why I lean left economically. It's only that normally when someone says 'let's make more community by reducing individuality,' they are proposing something entirely distasteful and usually totalitarian.

Of course I have other reasons for not wanting a switch to localized economies unless it becomes our only real option - namely that economic connectedness (ie Globalization) brings nations and people closer together, promoting peace and the free exchange of ideas. Mankind's only real way to approach a more or less permanent state of peace is to build and maintain such bridges.

Because otherwise we have other pains that will likely be more pressing. If there was only one thing to speculate on in society and that was the fuel then markets would already be reacting, the issue is that markets weight things based upon where need really seems to be rather than where people at the present moment think it will be, and I think that some companies are already looking into alternative fuel source. No, people don't, markets don't either. People react when the damage looks imminent and keep on doing so rationally increasing efforts until it is alleviated, markets do the same, a distant pressure is not going to motivate much market or human action. I would say that by having markets deal with it we will have a good outcome, I won't say best because NOBODY has the tools for determining utopia.

I admit I am only taking the time to answer one bit, and only briefly. I'm incidentally looking for a job; these university degrees aren't all that useful it seems. Those issues aside...

Isn't it possible that the energy crunch, global warming, or some other event of similar magnitude could present issues greater than what the market is capable of solving? The market is a fractured force, unable to meet a singular massive threat head-on without altering how it acts in fundamental ways.

I suppose it could, over time, but I see no reason why we ought to let the market solve it, eventually, and with probable greater harm, than if we mobilized and prepared long in advance. An energy crunch is going to cripple the market's ability to do much of anything, wouldn't you agree?

You admit you do not think it would be as bad I think it would be, but wouldn't you agree it is better to be prudent in this case? We aren't just dealing with a little bump in the road; it could very well be the end of the road. (Har, I am so good at this word thing.)

The only thing is that being tied is being held down and thus removing individual choice. If we were not tied but rather chose to associate with our neighbors by choice then that would be absolutely fine. I mean, I don't mind a community where everyone knows everyone else's name, the real problem is a community where this is forced at the cost of individuals being able to choose their objectives. Your economic actions impact everything in an interconnected system, the real question is the degree.Dear god, you're missing the point entirely. Nobody is trying to force you to know people's names. It has to do with being TIED to you neigbor because his solar panels generate some of your electricity through a local grid. Your neighbor is TIED to you because he buys the potatoes you farm to make his favorite dish - shepard's pie. There's no forcing involved. this argument is trying to convince you that it makes sense to be locally dependant rather than internationally dependant.

in summary (I feel like a broken record):

1.) The world is facing catastrophic climate change, and in short order will be facing a moajor energy crises.
2) our current economy, which depends of huge amounts of transportation and major centralization depends on enormous energy inputs, and creates environmental damages.
3) economies that supply many basic needs on a local scale are much less wasteful energy-wise. They may be less efficient since they require more labour and higher cost.
4)community based economies replace dependence on far away, gas-guzzling production with the independence of local supply.

Of course I have other reasons for not wanting a switch to localized economies unless it becomes our only real option - namely that economic connectedness (ie Globalization) brings nations and people closer together, promoting peace and the free exchange of ideas. Mankind's only real way to approach a more or less permanent state of peace is to build and maintain such bridges.I also though about this - and a previous post of mine adressed it. With the communication technologies available, and the amount of immigration and internationalism, I don't think we're in danger of isolting ourselves culturally. Moreover, having the cucumbers I eat grown in mexico doesn't mean I understand, care for, or desire peace with mexico. In fact it most likely means I'm assisting in the exploitation of mexicans. Having a plastic beaver keychain, made in china, purchased in a Vancouver 'canadiana' gift shop doesn't make any cultural sense at all. Food, energy and manufacturing exchanges across the world (which are often hugely exploitative and obviously the biggest energy users) are probably the things that least facilitate true enlightened cross-cultural behaviour/thinking. Other things like research, language-learning, appreciation of cultures, and desire for peace really are international - and there's nothing wrong with that. Those activities also aren't the polluters, exploiters, and global-warmers.

I also though about this - and a previous post of mine adressed it. With the communication technologies available, and the amount of immigration and internationalism, I don't think we're in danger of isolting ourselves culturally. Moreover, having the cucumbers I eat grown in mexico doesn't mean I understand, care for, or desire peace with mexico. In fact it most likely means I'm assisting in the exploitation of mexicans. Having a plastic beaver keychain, made in china, purchased in a Vancouver 'canadiana' gift shop doesn't make any cultural sense at all. Food, energy and manufacturing exchanges across the world (which are often hugely exploitative and obviously the biggest energy users) are probably the things that least facilitate true enlightened cross-cultural behaviour/thinking. Other things like research, language-learning, appreciation of cultures, and desire for peace really are international - and there's nothing wrong with that. Those activities also aren't the polluters, exploiters, and global-warmers.

It's not people like you and I whom the plastic beaver keychain trade is tying to China, or the cucumber market is tying to Mexico. It's politicians who see the economic benefits, and businessmen who see dollar signs. In our societies, they're the ones with the influence and power.

It's not people like you and I whom the plastic beaver keychain trade is tying to China, or the cucumber market is tying to Mexico. It's politicians who see the economic benefits, and businessmen who see dollar signs. In our societies, they're the ones with the influence and power.

QFT.

Unfortunately. *sigh*

It's not people like you and I whom the plastic beaver keychain trade is tying to China, or the cucumber market is tying to Mexico. It's politicians who see the economic benefits, and businessmen who see dollar signs. In our societies, they're the ones with the influence and power.Maybe they're the ones with the power, but industries don't exist for their own sake. We are the purchasers, and we are the ones that end up eating the cucumber and throwing out the keychain, because it's really useless after all. Collective action is always much harder and considerably slower than a top-down enforced change. But if you look at all the real tangible initiatives for cutting carbon emisions, they have all come from municipalities, communities, or at the largest, states. No federal government in the US or Canada over the last 10 years has lifted a finger. Maybe communities are the places to start.

And after all, the idea of local economy (apart from cutting emissions) is to wrest power back from far-way profit-seekers, and get some of the most important products securely near by - in control of the biggest stakeholders: the producers and consumers. Now, when all my choices are made in china, I have very little control.

Works for me. I doubt it will happen anytime soon, if ever.

i have seen arguments before like the Original Post, usually under the title "sustainable economics".

they make sense, since constant growth is hitting the limits of sustainability right now.

http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC32/Gilman.htm

http://www.rprogress.org/newprograms/sustEcon/index.shtml

http://www.sustecweb.co.uk/

Isn't it possible that the energy crunch, global warming, or some other event of similar magnitude could present issues greater than what the market is capable of solving? The market is a fractured force, unable to meet a singular massive threat head-on without altering how it acts in fundamental ways. Well, I believe that Neu Leonstein already stated that markets cannot solve global warming but only adapt to it due to the nature of the problem. The market is an anarchic force that works to pursue needs and desires according to the desires of the people within a society and probabilities of things working out to please those people. Can it deal with a hurricane? No, but it can adapt to changes once they have occurred and deal with some incremental change as shown with energy crunches, as you seem to assume that replacements are impossible.

I suppose it could, over time, but I see no reason why we ought to let the market solve it, eventually, and with probable greater harm, than if we mobilized and prepared long in advance. An energy crunch is going to cripple the market's ability to do much of anything, wouldn't you agree? Not really, because the energy crunch won't be overnight $20,000,000 increases but rather more slowly than that allowing for adaptation. It will only hamper the market if oil all vaporizes due to a mysterious happening that nobody could foresee .

You admit you do not think it would be as bad I think it would be, but wouldn't you agree it is better to be prudent in this case? We aren't just dealing with a little bump in the road; it could very well be the end of the road. (Har, I am so good at this word thing.)
The only thing is that it is also not prudent to overuse the tools we have available else we will continue to do so. This is not likely the end of the road though but rather a bump that could be somewhat large. Heck, if anything the ideal way to deal with this is to try to knock them both out with one action by taxing gasoline and other pollutants, people just don't like that though.

Dear god, you're missing the point entirely. Nobody is trying to force you to know people's names. It has to do with being TIED to you neigbor because his solar panels generate some of your electricity through a local grid. Your neighbor is TIED to you because he buys the potatoes you farm to make his favorite dish - shepard's pie. There's no forcing involved. this argument is trying to convince you that it makes sense to be locally dependant rather than internationally dependant. Why be tied to it??? WHY?? There is no reason to do so unless it is to force a relationship, otherwise it would be more efficient to contract things out based upon efficiency. Why not tie everyone to the nuclear power plant and then tie everyone to Maine potatoes? There is some issue of lacking independence if I HAVE to use that neighbor in order to get my power or to get my potatoes and cannot go get them elsewhere. Frankly, I think the reason I am missing the point is because you don't really have one and shooting a target that isn't there is beyond the capability of most machines and people.

in summary (I feel like a broken record):

1.) The world is facing catastrophic climate change, and in short order will be facing a moajor energy crises. In the next 100 years then yes we will face issues with that, however, the energy crisis and the climate change actually work against each other as less energy consumed reduces climate damage.

2) our current economy, which depends of huge amounts of transportation and major centralization depends on enormous energy inputs, and creates environmental damages. But if things start changing then we can work on changing the infrastructure for our transportation instead of giving up and abandoning it. Frankly, we don't need to force a certain outcome to have a positive one in this situation as people will automatically seek one no matter who argues what.

3) economies that supply many basic needs on a local scale are much less wasteful energy-wise. They may be less efficient since they require more labour and higher cost.
Ok, and the labor, capital and economies of scale involved are where we see the problems. Energy costs aren't my biggest concern as I think energy issues will eventually change, labor, capital and economies of scale might do so less efficiently though.

4)community based economies replace dependence on far away, gas-guzzling production with the independence of local supply. Ok, it is a solution to some problems, I don't think it will be the final accepted solution though.

I also though about this - and a previous post of mine adressed it. With the communication technologies available, and the amount of immigration and internationalism, I don't think we're in danger of isolting ourselves culturally. Moreover, having the cucumbers I eat grown in mexico doesn't mean I understand, care for, or desire peace with mexico. In fact it most likely means I'm assisting in the exploitation of mexicans. It is only exploitation if it isn't their best option, if making your keychain is the best option then you are helping them. Given that sweatshop wages tend to be higher than most local wages I would say that trading helps these people out. I don't think that you have to understand or necessarily desire peace with Mexico, the fact that your cucumber prices will increase if war does occur means that you won't seek war with them due to the personal costs of that happening though.

Having a plastic beaver keychain, made in china, purchased in a Vancouver 'canadiana' gift shop doesn't make any cultural sense at all. Food, energy and manufacturing exchanges across the world (which are often hugely exploitative and obviously the biggest energy users) are probably the things that least facilitate true enlightened cross-cultural behaviour/thinking.
Cultural sense? Does it matter? I probably have some American flag somewhere made in China. I disagree with your assessment of exploitation though and I don't even care about someone's opinion on enlightenment or cross cultural exchange.... however, you do ignore anime! ;)

Other things like research, language-learning, appreciation of cultures, and desire for peace really are international - and there's nothing wrong with that. Those activities also aren't the polluters, exploiters, and global-warmers.
Why can't research happen in a free trade world? In fact, wouldn't we have more of it as Indian engineers, European engineers, and American engineers might all work for one firm? Won't language learning increase as cultural important such as mangas, movies, and need for foreign countries to have multilingual employees increase? Do we not appreciate cultures more if we can trade with their people than if we never interact at all? Pollution is just an externality, it can be efficient and exploitation all falls down to the definition, I think you overestimate exploitation to be honest.

they make sense, since constant growth is hitting the limits of sustainability right now.

As resources change then how we grow will too. If imagination and what future knowledge are practically infinite resources then we can grow forever.

As resources change then how we grow will too. If imagination and what future knowledge are practically infinite resources then we can grow forever.

Intensive versus extensive growth. Especially as the economy shifts to be more and more knowledge-based, the limits of intensive growth become virtually nonexistent. We can always make things better, and as far as I know there is no limit to human imagination.

Holyawesomeness, I'm not sure why you're fixating apon this notion that someone is "forcing" a certain consumption pattern. The word "tied" means dependant - in need of - in use of. for example, you are tied in a variety of relationships to the things that supply you with your needs. Most likely, you depend on a centralized power plant, some factory farms and very long transportation systems. You are tied to these in a network of need and supply. McKibben is arguing that local economic ties are more beneficial. Don't fixate on the word; it doesn't mean that you have no choice, or no other options. Like I said this isn't an argument for enforced communes. Obviously. This should be obvious in the context of this discussion. Does that help?

You and Neu Leonstein have said that markets can't adress certain problems - "externalities" I believe they were reffered to. If we make the right choices, I can envision and economic culture that is inexorably linked to how we understand the world's ecology and its limits. Why stick to a system who's very core - the cheap energy stored in fossil fuel - has put us in the hole we find ourselves in?

Also, you'd do well to re-read before resonding. You don't seem to be following the discussion about cultural exchanges.

Holyawesomeness, I'm not sure why you're fixating apon this notion that someone is "forcing" a certain consumption pattern. The word "tied" means dependant - in need of - in use of. for example, you are tied in a variety of relationships to the things that supply you with your needs. Most likely, you depend on a centralized power plant, some factory farms and very long transportation systems. You are tied to these in a network of need and supply. McKibben is arguing that local economic ties are more beneficial. Don't fixate on the word; it doesn't mean that you have no choice, or no other options. Like I said this isn't an argument for enforced communes. Obviously. This should be obvious in the context of this discussion. Does that help? Yeah, I know, however, there is some competition with these systems and they are less personal so therefore I don't have to worry about pissing off my power company so much as just paying the bill. I disagree with that notion of greater benefit. It really does not help Kreitzmoorland as the simple fact is that I disagree and I am caught up on a point that you don't see or don't see as important. That isn't to say that I am right with my emphasis nor does it say you are right with your underemphasis but rather your model leaves some issues that I can't really reconcile.

You and Neu Leonstein have said that markets can't adress certain problems - "externalities" I believe they were reffered to. If we make the right choices, I can envision and economic culture that is inexorably linked to how we understand the world's ecology and its limits. Why stick to a system who's very core - the cheap energy stored in fossil fuel - has put us in the hole we find ourselves in? Externalities, you mean the economics term, well, any system with something without legal ownership and means of enforcing it will have externalities. I don't think that this is a matter of right choices or economic culture so much as simply dealing with this one problem. I think that all systems are linked inexorably to the world's ecology, your system just shoots for under what we can do. Our core? Our core is exchange and efficiency, and really, I still don't see us as in the hole, especially given that the global warming problem is still recent enough where people haven't warmed up completely yet.

Also, you'd do well to re-read before resonding. You don't seem to be following the discussion about cultural exchanges.
No, I read. The discussion is mostly that post and a few things building off of it and mostly a rehash of the anti-market "we hate globalization trend" as it also attacks profit seekers, who are not bad, as well, it claims that you have less choice now even though the location of production has very little to do with your choice as it doesn't matter whether your stuff is produced in Michigan or China, you still choose the product you like the best.

Why stick to a system who's very core - the cheap energy stored in fossil fuel - has put us in the hole we find ourselves in?
Because the market has nothing to do with fossil fuels.

Because the market has nothing to do with fossil fuels.The industrial glabalized one absoloutely does. It would not have come to be, and still cannot exist, without huge amounts of innexpensive fossil fuel. This model doesn't do away with markets - it explains the rational behind smaller localized markets in an attempt to reduce reliance on fossil fuels before the global market forces us to do so, and before it's too late to salvage ecosystems. Markets, for all their wonder, cannot raise the dead.

The industrial glabalized one absoloutely does. It would not have come to be, and still cannot exist, without huge amounts of innexpensive fossil fuel.
The thing is that smaller and more localised markets have been tried throughout history, but there's been a steady trend towards bigger and bigger societies and more and more trading links over longer and longer distances.

Fossil fuel use is just an enabler like the wheel or the telegraph.

I've never been able to understand anti-globalization. There's no organization to it. It has no coherent, accross-the-board goals. Individual protesters have often found themselves in direct opposition to other AGers on everything but the "Big companies and international ties must die" slogans. AGers will say that the common enemy will be enough to unite them but what happens if that enemy no longer existed? A million squabbling terrorist wannabe warlords each fighting for control of their neighboring communes. What about the people caught in the middle? What's to stop a small organized force from sweeping around the world conquering one dipshit's territory after another?

I've never been able to understand isolationism. That's what anti-globalization is, isolationism. If you tear down international ties then you'll isolate everyone from everyone else. These sub-suburbs would be breeding grounds for hatred and paranoia. What if one of these isolated communities runs low on a vital resource and their neighboring communities refuses to provide service or product because of ideological disagreement? And what happens to those starving to death in Africa and elsewhere because they lack the technology to grow enough food to feed everyone? Are they to just suffer and die? History and science have consistantly shown that a closed system will eventually stop working, will run out of energy and useable material if nothing new is introduced.

People in your position criticize the current system constantly but offer no real solutions, at least none that have snowballs chance in hell of working. How would you deal with human rights violations or genocide in your ideal world? Or would we all be running on an honor system?

How many must pay the price for your impatience? How many must die? How much damage must you do before you see the error of your ways?

How many must pay the price for your impatience? How many must die? How much damage must you do before you see the error of your ways?

Deep economy is not about allowing people from underdeveloped countries to languish. It's about developing them on locally sustainable scales to improve their living conditions, as opposed to kicking them off their land into slums. Moving people from one type of povety to another type is the pattern that alot of 'development' now follows in order to create large profits.

By the same token, it's about shifting some of the developed world's fossil-fuel intensive markets to a sustainable local scale.

The economic model we've blindly followed since Adam Smith

I'm a communist, but I have to defend Adam Smith right now.

I don't think that AS would have ever thought the present-day capitalism as a good example of a society. Iirc, in AS's thought, political power and economical power had to be separated.
Now, take the USA: a country ruled by Exxon, Halliburton, General Motors and some other economical major through the lobby system...
Or Italy, ruled in the period 2001-2006 by the country's richest tycoon...

...really, present-day capitalism isn't very strictly related to Adam Smith.

I'm a communist, but I have to defend Adam Smith right now.

I don't think that AS would have ever thought the present-day capitalism as a good example of a society. Iirc, in AS's thought, political power and economical power had to be separated.
Now, take the USA: a country ruled by Exxon, Halliburton, General Motors and some other economical major through the lobby system...
Or Italy, ruled in the period 2001-2006 by the country's richest tycoon...

...really, present-day capitalism isn't very strictly related to Adam Smith.Hmm, agreed. From my understanding, Adam Smith's model with the baker and the butcher acting in their own self-interest to enrich and improve society also depends on some social accountability. That's because the baker bought meat from the butcher and the butcher needed bread. The problem is that in a global market nobody (in the west) much cares what the consequences of their actions are because the imbalance of power is such that they themselves, and their communities will never experience repercusions (be they feelings of shame, or financial penalties). Local economies bring about a measure of that accountability.

I'm a communist, but I have to defend Adam Smith right now.

I don't think that AS would have ever thought the present-day capitalism as a good example of a society. Iirc, in AS's thought, political power and economical power had to be separated.
Now, take the USA: a country ruled by Exxon, Halliburton, General Motors and some other economical major through the lobby system...
Or Italy, ruled in the period 2001-2006 by the country's richest tycoon...

...really, present-day capitalism isn't very strictly related to Adam Smith.

You should really read Schumpeter's 'Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy'.
Anyone calling themselves communist needs to read it. Keep in mind that it is itself outdated and obsolete, but at least it is better than Marx.

The very reason why capitalism today is unappealing to many is why Schumpeter believes socialism is inevitable after capitalism. It is far more accurate to call our system corporatism as we have moved into an political/economic system far beyond Adam Smith. The individual entrepreneur is superseded by large corporations who have the political clout to bend the government to its favor.

Blaming Smithian economics and capitalism is absurd - corporate use of government to alter markets and attempt to constrain the invisible hand is not capitalism. I do not think I could point to a single country which does have a capitalist economy, so blaming the world's economic woes on capitalism is totally inaccurate.

You should really read Schumpeter's 'Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy'.
Anyone calling themselves communist needs to read it. Keep in mind that it is itself outdated and obsolete, but at least it is better than Marx.

The very reason why capitalism today is unappealing to many is why Schumpeter believes socialism is inevitable after capitalism. It is far more accurate to call our system corporatism as we have moved into an political/economic system far beyond Adam Smith. The individual entrepreneur is superseded by large corporations who have the political clout to bend the government to its favor.

Blaming Smithian economics and capitalism is absurd - corporate use of government to alter markets and attempt to constrain the invisible hand is not capitalism. I do not think I could point to a single country which does have a capitalist economy, so blaming the world's economic woes on capitalism is totally inaccurate.

It's the whole thing about misunderstanding the political spectrum that runs rampant like this. Such as how communism has nothing to do with absolutism and how fascism has nothing to do with capitalism.