http://www.positivemoney.org/2012/12/new-documentary-economic-science-and-the-debt-crisis/
This video has mainly Swedish dialogue and (retro-added) English subtitles, occasionally the reverse, and yet more occasionally dilogue in a third language with in vision Swedish subtitles superimposed with retro-added English subtitles. This can make it hard work if you don't know Swedish, and occasionally the English subtitles are obsured by the video content.
A main point I took away from this is that classical economic models do not include the banks and debt, and this is why economists mainly failed to see the latest financial crisis coming. You can take delight in watching various Nobel prize winning economists splutter and stammer when this point is put to them - unsurprising as (and the film points this out via other commentators) they have built careers and reputations over many years using the flawed model. One at least cogent retort is that banks and debt can be ignored becuse "for every loan there is a lender" (I think I quote correctly) , but this conveniently ignores the fact that debt carries interest, so debts are always greater than loans.
The film concludes that reducing the size of the financial sector in an economy - resetting it - is the way forward, but this srikes me as either doing less of the wrong thing, or doing the wrong thing righhter, or just again in the hope that this time it will be OK.
The film stops short of really showing up the contradictions / fallacies in our GDP growth paradigm. It features a Spanish family who narrowly avoid eviction for mortgae arrears, and a vast unoccupiable housing development started before the bubble burst. The references to the 'value' of homes were in the common usage of the price they could be sold for, ignoring the fact of an underlying value of the home as an amenity. [Nature / physics teaches us that there is entropy. So, untouched, a buiding will eventually crumble: its innate value is falling from the moment the builders leave the site - it is depreciating in real terms. Yet we are so indoctrinated by market orthodoxy that we tend to equate price and value.]
Saturday, 12 January 2013
Vertical farms and birthrights
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIdP00u2KRA
I started watching this talk because it is about vertical farms, but the speaker, Dickson Despommier, spends a lot of time explaining what the problems we face as a planet are, leaving less for detail on vertical farms, which for him are part of the solution.
This doesn't detract from the talk overall, though if you're more interested in vertical farms in a technical way, you may need to look elsewhere, or follow up the sources used in the talk.
The main thing I took away from the talk is Despommier's bottom line, or sine qua non, or key aim that there should be adequate water and nutrition for every human being as a birthright (ie not something that you have to work for, nor something which is granted to you by a government or other person or institution). Also, he actually quantifies 'adequate' as being 2.3 litres of fresh water and 1500 calories in food per person per day. I have no means to challenge these quantities, nor reason to doubt them, but having even a working estimate enables calculations to be done and gives clarity for planning purposes over and above the more nebulous/subjective "adequate".
I started watching this talk because it is about vertical farms, but the speaker, Dickson Despommier, spends a lot of time explaining what the problems we face as a planet are, leaving less for detail on vertical farms, which for him are part of the solution.
This doesn't detract from the talk overall, though if you're more interested in vertical farms in a technical way, you may need to look elsewhere, or follow up the sources used in the talk.
The main thing I took away from the talk is Despommier's bottom line, or sine qua non, or key aim that there should be adequate water and nutrition for every human being as a birthright (ie not something that you have to work for, nor something which is granted to you by a government or other person or institution). Also, he actually quantifies 'adequate' as being 2.3 litres of fresh water and 1500 calories in food per person per day. I have no means to challenge these quantities, nor reason to doubt them, but having even a working estimate enables calculations to be done and gives clarity for planning purposes over and above the more nebulous/subjective "adequate".
Monday, 31 December 2012
Starting from where we are
Those who don't study history are condemned to repeat it is a wise
adage. Studying history can lead to regret, remorse and resentment,
through bewilderment, to amazement, as we see the dreadful things we
(political units) have done to each other but also the amazing things we
(sceintists and artist of all kinds) have achieved.
It is vital to remember, especially when looking at negative events in history, that we can only move on from where we are now. This thought was provoked in me by a more controversial subject - crime and punishment. An offender has done what s/he has done, and blame can achieve nothing, only learning from what has happened can help us. In its broadest sense, history simply means everything that has happened. It cannot be changed.
All individuals' actions are informed by events that have impinged on them up until the point of the action. Right the way from conception, when the individual inherited parental genes, through every event and thought up until the action in question. This applies just as much to those who have done marvellous, positive things, as to those who have done something awful.
Punishing those who have done something wrong adds to the catalogue of events that shape their future decisions. Whist we may be tempted as a society to pay back bad actions with other bad actions, we really have to swalow the idea that making constructive things happen to people will (or is more likely to) make their later actions constructive. If you could punish your washing machine for breaking down, would you do so? No - when it breaks you fix it.
It is vital to remember, especially when looking at negative events in history, that we can only move on from where we are now. This thought was provoked in me by a more controversial subject - crime and punishment. An offender has done what s/he has done, and blame can achieve nothing, only learning from what has happened can help us. In its broadest sense, history simply means everything that has happened. It cannot be changed.
All individuals' actions are informed by events that have impinged on them up until the point of the action. Right the way from conception, when the individual inherited parental genes, through every event and thought up until the action in question. This applies just as much to those who have done marvellous, positive things, as to those who have done something awful.
Punishing those who have done something wrong adds to the catalogue of events that shape their future decisions. Whist we may be tempted as a society to pay back bad actions with other bad actions, we really have to swalow the idea that making constructive things happen to people will (or is more likely to) make their later actions constructive. If you could punish your washing machine for breaking down, would you do so? No - when it breaks you fix it.
Sunday, 30 December 2012
The myth of sustainability
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIP0O1NJVZA
Don't be fooled by the title. Dr Guy McPherson is no climate change sceptic, or anything similar. I don't really understand why he chose this title, but it seems he prefers the term 'durability'.
In this hard-hitting lecture you will hear a lot of important information and ideas. Mcpherson's remedy against the impending doom is to resort to permaculture.
If you can find just under an hour and a half to hear what he says, I think you will agree it's worth listening to, and that you'll hope he's wrong.
Don't be fooled by the title. Dr Guy McPherson is no climate change sceptic, or anything similar. I don't really understand why he chose this title, but it seems he prefers the term 'durability'.
In this hard-hitting lecture you will hear a lot of important information and ideas. Mcpherson's remedy against the impending doom is to resort to permaculture.
If you can find just under an hour and a half to hear what he says, I think you will agree it's worth listening to, and that you'll hope he's wrong.
Saturday, 8 December 2012
If I ruled the world ...
This intended-to-be-thought-provoking question was rattling around in my head when I came across a productivity article that I had filed away for future reference. It begins like this, except that I replaced the word "goals" in point 6.
"Six simple questions that make you more productive
1. What is the most valuable use of my time right now?
2. What am I ultimately trying to accomplish?
3. What am I giving up to do this?
4. What are my three most important projects or tasks today?
5. Am I being productive or just busy?
6. Is what I'm doing right now moving me measurably closer to what I am ultimately trying to accomplish?"
It stikes me as a good thought experiment to consider how one would rule the world, but I think the set of questions can be reduced to 3:
1. What am I ultimately trying to accomplish?
2. What are my three most important projects or tasks today?
3. Is what I'm doing right now moving me measurably closer to what I am ultimately trying to accomplish?"
Let's examine and perhaps adapt these more closely to the thought experiment.
1. What am I ultimately trying to accomplish? That's good. The answer "rule the world" won't do. I would suggest somehing with a phyiscal referent, or in classic productivity terms a "SMART" target.
2. What are my three most important projects or tasks today? This could be a rather distracting question on day one of your new job as ruler of the world. The best can be the enemy of the good, and I would suggest you do not delay too much while you prioritise. There's some urgent stuff that you need to get on with.
3. Is what I'm doing right now moving me measurably closer to what I am ultimately trying to accomplish?" Well if you're ruler of the world it better be, else there will be moves to displace you. Question 3 might be a variation of question 2; today is the same as right now (more or less) and "important" might be defined as causing a measurable movement towards your goals.
So having decided what your goals are, you are faced with hitting the ground running and getting some quick wins, vs more strategic work like planning, and getting structures in place to help you achieve your goals, freeing up your time.
So question 1) is good. Maybe question (2) should be about quick wins. Not so much focus on the most important things, more on what you could do today
"Six simple questions that make you more productive
1. What is the most valuable use of my time right now?
2. What am I ultimately trying to accomplish?
3. What am I giving up to do this?
4. What are my three most important projects or tasks today?
5. Am I being productive or just busy?
6. Is what I'm doing right now moving me measurably closer to what I am ultimately trying to accomplish?"
It stikes me as a good thought experiment to consider how one would rule the world, but I think the set of questions can be reduced to 3:
1. What am I ultimately trying to accomplish?
2. What are my three most important projects or tasks today?
3. Is what I'm doing right now moving me measurably closer to what I am ultimately trying to accomplish?"
Let's examine and perhaps adapt these more closely to the thought experiment.
1. What am I ultimately trying to accomplish? That's good. The answer "rule the world" won't do. I would suggest somehing with a phyiscal referent, or in classic productivity terms a "SMART" target.
2. What are my three most important projects or tasks today? This could be a rather distracting question on day one of your new job as ruler of the world. The best can be the enemy of the good, and I would suggest you do not delay too much while you prioritise. There's some urgent stuff that you need to get on with.
3. Is what I'm doing right now moving me measurably closer to what I am ultimately trying to accomplish?" Well if you're ruler of the world it better be, else there will be moves to displace you. Question 3 might be a variation of question 2; today is the same as right now (more or less) and "important" might be defined as causing a measurable movement towards your goals.
So having decided what your goals are, you are faced with hitting the ground running and getting some quick wins, vs more strategic work like planning, and getting structures in place to help you achieve your goals, freeing up your time.
So question 1) is good. Maybe question (2) should be about quick wins. Not so much focus on the most important things, more on what you could do today
Friday, 5 October 2012
Owning stuff
One of the key ideas in a resource based economy, shared with Natural Capitalism, is access to the service provided by a product, rather than ownership of the product. The obvious example is public transport, but the idea is spreading.
Spending some time recently de-cluttering has made me think about the value of things. In one or two cases I have mad a few £ selling something on e-bay. These £ do not have any value until I redeeem them on some other good or service, and they disguise the true value of the item, which is of course in its use.
Some of the decluttering has been of a shed. It is so ingrained in us that the value of something is in its physical presence in our home (or shed) that many of us have got stuff there which we never use and perhaps will never use, but it is ours and we keep it, because we somehow believe the value of it accrues to us because we possess it. If anything though, it is of negative value. It possibly takes up precious space, and it nags at our conscience, especially if we've paid £ for it and never got value for that £. We wasted the money, we tell ourselves.
But what if we give these items away to someone who will make use of them. Immediately the value of them - which is their use, not how much the cost in £, is released. OK their value doesn't directly accrue to us, but it can't, so why waste it even more by stowing it away? Let someone else have it if they'll use it. Not only does this stop waste, but you'll probably feel good by helping someone.
Spending some time recently de-cluttering has made me think about the value of things. In one or two cases I have mad a few £ selling something on e-bay. These £ do not have any value until I redeeem them on some other good or service, and they disguise the true value of the item, which is of course in its use.
Some of the decluttering has been of a shed. It is so ingrained in us that the value of something is in its physical presence in our home (or shed) that many of us have got stuff there which we never use and perhaps will never use, but it is ours and we keep it, because we somehow believe the value of it accrues to us because we possess it. If anything though, it is of negative value. It possibly takes up precious space, and it nags at our conscience, especially if we've paid £ for it and never got value for that £. We wasted the money, we tell ourselves.
But what if we give these items away to someone who will make use of them. Immediately the value of them - which is their use, not how much the cost in £, is released. OK their value doesn't directly accrue to us, but it can't, so why waste it even more by stowing it away? Let someone else have it if they'll use it. Not only does this stop waste, but you'll probably feel good by helping someone.
Saturday, 29 September 2012
Libertarianism vs an RBE
http://managainstthestate.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/2nd-post-to-ben-mcleish.html
Ben McLeish of the Zeitgeist Movement and Graham Wright, author of the above blog, are having an interesting debate on the merits (or not) of an RBE cf the libertarian Austrian Economics model.
There are surprising points of agreement, which make me wonder whether AE isn't closer to an RBE than the current economic system.
But I have lighted on Wright's response to a comment on his blog, here separtaed into individual points with my thoughts:
Somewhere in their discussion, McLeish differentiates 'good' growth from 'bad' growth and Wright asks him to explain/clarify. I don't know if he has done so, but Robert Kennedy's critique of GDP/GNP will serve (see http://www2.mccombs.utexas.edu/faculty/michael.brandl/main%20page%20items/Kennedy%20on%20GNP.htm):
"Our gross national product ... counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for those who break them. It counts the destruction of our redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and the cost of a nuclear warhead, and armored cars for police who fight riots in our streets. .... Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile."
So, we are looking for growth in the good things Kennedy lists here. I'm sure that's a close enough description of 'good growth' for McLeish.
As appealing as quality of life and/or happiness are as indicators, they are tricky to enumerate. If you are healthy and happy you will presumably live longer. Maybe life length is a good enough proxy for 'good growth'. That said, if people live longer there will be more of us on the planet. Maybe populatiin is the simplest proxy for good growth? Obviously, there is a limit to how many people the planet can sustain. If our resource efficiency is optimal, we will be sustaining as much population as those resources can allow.
Ben McLeish of the Zeitgeist Movement and Graham Wright, author of the above blog, are having an interesting debate on the merits (or not) of an RBE cf the libertarian Austrian Economics model.
There are surprising points of agreement, which make me wonder whether AE isn't closer to an RBE than the current economic system.
But I have lighted on Wright's response to a comment on his blog, here separtaed into individual points with my thoughts:
- "Economics is the study of the logical consequences of human action". Maybe. As many know, economics is more literally something like household management, and I prefer that as a definition or starting point.
- "Political philosophy is about devising a set of principles for ownership (i.e. who has ultimate decision-making jurisdiction over which resources)". In an RBE there is no need for ownership, only access. As to decision-making, decisions would be arrived at by applying the scientific method.
- "economics can teach what consequences we can expect from different ownership principles being used in societies". Maybe it can, but in an RBE we are not interested in "ownership models".
- " Economics is the body of knowledge that can tell us whether resources will be used more efficiently for satisfying human desire [in one or another system]". In economics the word 'want' covers what would commonly be distinguished as 'need' and if 'desire' is used in the same sense as 'want' it has the same problem as far as I am concerned.
Somewhere in their discussion, McLeish differentiates 'good' growth from 'bad' growth and Wright asks him to explain/clarify. I don't know if he has done so, but Robert Kennedy's critique of GDP/GNP will serve (see http://www2.mccombs.utexas.edu/faculty/michael.brandl/main%20page%20items/Kennedy%20on%20GNP.htm):
"Our gross national product ... counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for those who break them. It counts the destruction of our redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and the cost of a nuclear warhead, and armored cars for police who fight riots in our streets. .... Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile."
So, we are looking for growth in the good things Kennedy lists here. I'm sure that's a close enough description of 'good growth' for McLeish.
As appealing as quality of life and/or happiness are as indicators, they are tricky to enumerate. If you are healthy and happy you will presumably live longer. Maybe life length is a good enough proxy for 'good growth'. That said, if people live longer there will be more of us on the planet. Maybe populatiin is the simplest proxy for good growth? Obviously, there is a limit to how many people the planet can sustain. If our resource efficiency is optimal, we will be sustaining as much population as those resources can allow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)