![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
mintogrubb.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticshttp://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-business/blog/flourishing-enterprises-wellbeing-profits
Ok, so the Guardian is a left wing UK newspaper, but the make the claim that sustainability, and not economic growth is what we need. In many ways, I would expect them to say this sort of thing - but can their claims be dismissed just be saying 'Oh, them? Don't listen.'?
Surely if their arguments are flawed, then their critics can maybe show us how, why and where they are flawed.
It may annoy me that many on the left are just ideologists who insist on pointing to the text book and not the real world, but I have to say that there are just too many people on the right who just won't face up to anything that makes them feel uncomfortable, or challenges their world view.
We are not discussing the causes of Climate change here, we are saying that the planet won't sustain the same levels of economic growth indefinitely - how many times can you double production before you max out on the available resources, which in many cases are finite?
The right wingers in here need to come up with a better answer that 'It's gotta be wrong because its coming from Wikipedia/the Liberal Press/ a source not vetted by Fox News.
And yes, this emphasis on well being , and not profit, is what 'Utopian Socialism', as criticised by Marx, is all about. 'Utopian', or 'non Marxist Socialism', pre-dates Marxism and is likely to outlive it - ok, that last bit was opinion , but nobody has been able to cite anything to show that the first bit is unsupported by history.
In fact, Marxists themselves acknowledge their debt to earlier forms of Socialism.
So, Socialism has come full circle, it seems as the Marxist concept of Total State Ownership has been largely been abandoned, whereas the pre Marxist workers Co operative is still with us and thriving in Britain and continental Europe.
The workers Co - operative, where workers actually own the premises that produce, distribute and exchange goods and services, does qualify as being 'Socialist', but does the State have to own it for them? I would argue not. The State can take up ownership of Social services, it may become a stake holder in banking and and other industries, but if it runs a mixed economy that advocates far and supports co ops, provides Universal health cover, either by legislation or directly, and runs the economy for well being and not for for private profit, then we can arguable call it a Democratic Socialist government, rather than a social democracy.
After all, if 'Socialism' = workers owning the means of production, distribution and exchange, then John Lewis is a Socialist enterprise in the UK, and the Mondragon Corporation is a Socialist enterprise in Europe. and both these places returned healthy profits and are riding out the current recession well.
Socialism, in the form of Direct Workers ownership, supported by a government that legislates and manages on behalf of it's workforce, can therefore also work. Work far better than State Owned Socialism or State Run laissez faire Capitalism, in fact.
If the sources are misquoted, if the figures don't add up, if certain other facts and factors are being left out of the equation - they I say , they have to show us, and not dismiss this with the usual display of right wing, populist hand waving.
Here is the case - what is your answer?
Ok, so the Guardian is a left wing UK newspaper, but the make the claim that sustainability, and not economic growth is what we need. In many ways, I would expect them to say this sort of thing - but can their claims be dismissed just be saying 'Oh, them? Don't listen.'?
Surely if their arguments are flawed, then their critics can maybe show us how, why and where they are flawed.
It may annoy me that many on the left are just ideologists who insist on pointing to the text book and not the real world, but I have to say that there are just too many people on the right who just won't face up to anything that makes them feel uncomfortable, or challenges their world view.
We are not discussing the causes of Climate change here, we are saying that the planet won't sustain the same levels of economic growth indefinitely - how many times can you double production before you max out on the available resources, which in many cases are finite?
The right wingers in here need to come up with a better answer that 'It's gotta be wrong because its coming from Wikipedia/the Liberal Press/ a source not vetted by Fox News.
And yes, this emphasis on well being , and not profit, is what 'Utopian Socialism', as criticised by Marx, is all about. 'Utopian', or 'non Marxist Socialism', pre-dates Marxism and is likely to outlive it - ok, that last bit was opinion , but nobody has been able to cite anything to show that the first bit is unsupported by history.
In fact, Marxists themselves acknowledge their debt to earlier forms of Socialism.
So, Socialism has come full circle, it seems as the Marxist concept of Total State Ownership has been largely been abandoned, whereas the pre Marxist workers Co operative is still with us and thriving in Britain and continental Europe.
The workers Co - operative, where workers actually own the premises that produce, distribute and exchange goods and services, does qualify as being 'Socialist', but does the State have to own it for them? I would argue not. The State can take up ownership of Social services, it may become a stake holder in banking and and other industries, but if it runs a mixed economy that advocates far and supports co ops, provides Universal health cover, either by legislation or directly, and runs the economy for well being and not for for private profit, then we can arguable call it a Democratic Socialist government, rather than a social democracy.
After all, if 'Socialism' = workers owning the means of production, distribution and exchange, then John Lewis is a Socialist enterprise in the UK, and the Mondragon Corporation is a Socialist enterprise in Europe. and both these places returned healthy profits and are riding out the current recession well.
Socialism, in the form of Direct Workers ownership, supported by a government that legislates and manages on behalf of it's workforce, can therefore also work. Work far better than State Owned Socialism or State Run laissez faire Capitalism, in fact.
If the sources are misquoted, if the figures don't add up, if certain other facts and factors are being left out of the equation - they I say , they have to show us, and not dismiss this with the usual display of right wing, populist hand waving.
Here is the case - what is your answer?
(no subject)
Date: 15/7/11 11:49 (UTC)Sure. I agree that we are prone to 'confirmation bias'.
Early Socialists like Robert Owen saw that poor people stole more food more often than rich people and concluded that if we eliminate poverty, then we eliminate crime.
However, experience in Russia and elsewhere do throw up enough data to make this questionable.
We must always look at the data, and offer it up for ' peer review'. We shoul;d also take on boar valid criticism and come to a consensus of opinion.
So, here we have a report that quotes economists as saying that we cannot have unlimited and infinite economic growth , and that well being is a more desireable and more easily achievable goal.
Now, are these quotes accurate , and are the economists right?
This is the case that has to be answered.
I await a response from across the aisle with interest.
Incoming !
Date: 15/7/11 12:13 (UTC)Yeah , I ~am~ a naively optimistic sorta guy, as it happens. Why do you ask ? :)
The elusive Social Welfare Function...again
Date: 15/7/11 12:27 (UTC)Presuming those definitions can be had, then comes the discussion of methods.
Re: The elusive Social Welfare Function...again
Date: 15/7/11 12:50 (UTC)Ok -
Bad stuff =
~The incidents of environmental disasters such as
BP polluting the Gulf of Mexico.
~Lack of Universal Healthcare for people unfortunate enough to live in places like Somalia, Afghanistan, and the USA.
~ lower life expectancy for poorer people in places the North of England and Alabama than folks who live in richer parts of the same country in places like like the USA and UK.
~ higher levels of teenage pregnancy, suicide, violent crime and drug abuse in countries where there is a bigger income gap between the richest and the poorest citizens.
~ the very existence of a wider gap in some places than others.
We = us, the adults who can vote in free elections in the democratic nations around the world.
Fix = legislate to ensure
~that workers are allowed trade union representation
~that companies must protect the environment and manage the natural resources in a responsible and sustainable fashion
~that workers co operatives are encouraged and supported by social services like Universal healthcare, primary and secondary education, legal rights and access to the courts for all citizens, and equal rights and opportunities for women.
This list is not exhaustive , but will do as a basis for opening a discussion.
Re: The elusive Social Welfare Function...again
Date: 16/7/11 04:22 (UTC)Universal Healthcare has distorted the medical goods and services markets far too much already. The attempt to "give away" healthcare (which has no definite definition or boundaries in the first place) is what is the reason for the outrageous prices and lack of coverage in the first place.
It is neither your right nor within anyone's ability to engineer societies and cultures to tailor the lifespans of their members according to your sensibilities. It is hubris to even consider the attempt.
Voting cures nothing. It is an act of aggression cloaked behind a mystical euphemism. If violence solved problems the Earth would have been perfected into utopia through its exercise millenia ago.
To the extent that trade unions are peaceful, voluntary organizations then they are tolerable. To the extent that they are not then they are criminal, in a just society.
Cooperatives have no entitlement to be subsidized at the unwilling expense of others.
Equal rights, everyone should have, despite the bald fact that you contradict this supposed desideratum everywhere else in your comment except paying it lip service in one line. Equal means equal; meaning that some are not "more equal" than others and able to demand that others be plundered for their benefit.
"Equal opportunities" cannot even be objectively defined, much less ajudicated outside of transactions between willing parties.
Re: The elusive Social Welfare Function...again
Date: 16/7/11 09:14 (UTC)BP should never have been allowed to do their own safety checks. Nobody should, regardless of the depth of water. the fact that the feds let them go ahead without independent supervision makes them guilty by association.
It is neither your right nor within anyone's ability to engineer societies and cultures to tailor the lifespans of their members according to your sensibilities. It is hubris to even consider the attempt.
Yeah. A doc tell me that my kid has appendicitis and they need to operate, and that his sister could use a vaccine for polio. Do I let my kids take their chances, or do I 'engineer' their allotted lifespan? meh - we engineer our lifespans by ploughing up the ground and growing food in nice neat rows instead of grubbing for what Nature decides she might like to give us.
Voting cures nothing , you say. Mere hand waving.
Clean Air Act? Voted for. Decimalisation? Voted in by act of Parliament. Vaccines for children in Schools - why even the schools were voted in. Equal pay for women ? Voted in by 1975.
Cooperatives have no entitlement to be subsidized at the unwilling expense of others.
Who said anything about subsidies? The government over here owns 40% of a certain bank. It also owns a few firms taken into receivership. It could sell them or run them at a profit by recruiting management and labour if it chose to.
"Equal opportunities" cannot even be objectively defined, much less ajudicated outside of transactions between willing parties
Bullshit. Equal rights is simple. What does a man get per hour for working a till, or working on an assembly line, or driving a train? Work it out and give a woman the same as he gets. Bingo- you have equality . You are not willing to pay a woman the same as a man? Fine - you go to prison. Same as you would for opening a shop with no fire escape from the top floor.
In Britain , we have thought about these 'problems' of yours and come up with the answers long ago.
Mixing economics and morality is like mixing oil and water
Date: 15/7/11 15:13 (UTC)Sometimes, one just knows right from wrong. Stealing is wrong, even if mitigated to feed a starving family. Theft is wrong, no matter what. Premeditated murder; these are all clear lines we can agree upon when making morality issues codified.
Utility is an admitted unmeasurable concept, and is vague at best. When mixing economic concepts with moral codes (mixing math with emotion), all sorts of confusing 'facts' are created.
R.I.C.O., eminent domain abuse, tort limits written by and for the benefit of the industry's liability exposure, these are all things I think most rational people could commonly agree are 'bad law' therefore 'wrong'.
I go with your "who gets to decide, who put them in charge and why do THEY get to decide" argument. But don't bring 'utility' into the fracas when the concept is built on the premise it is not an accurate barometer of morality in consumption and law making.
Re: Mixing economics and morality is like mixing oil and water
Date: 15/7/11 20:03 (UTC)Go google 'BP oil spill' and see what comes up.
Bhopal is another nice little number, too.
How did the lack of economic utility cause corporate malfeasance?
Date: 16/7/11 00:23 (UTC)Quite the contrary, there is no 'business' really. It no longer exists except as tiny sole proprietorship.
Corporations are 'human' now, and should be subject to the same laws and rules. (Equal Protection, yo!)
Re: How did the lack of economic utility cause corporate malfeasance?
Date: 16/7/11 08:35 (UTC)no - corporations should never enjoy ' personhood' - if that is what you mean.
Re: How did the lack of economic utility cause corporate malfeasance?
Date: 16/7/11 11:45 (UTC)I'm talking about a concept of 'utility' and you interject something about business, when what I am talking about is some vague concept of 'human satisfaction.'
Stop adding stuff to my argument then pointing out how wrong it is now that you have added stuff. That is not my hubris, it is yours.
It's getting more difficult to get you back on track, you are so far off the thing, at this point.
I never said corporations SHOULD or SHOULD NOT, I said they CURRENTLY HAVE.
Re: How did the lack of economic utility cause corporate malfeasance?
Date: 16/7/11 12:26 (UTC)Ah, in the states , they do.In the UK , they don't.
But lets get back to ' utility' then.
I believe that we need to focus on making things without harming the health of the workforce, and produce things that society needs, rather than making the sort of stuff that will yield the corporate manufacturer the greatest profits.
Ok, ' social good is a lot harder to define than ' profit', but just having lot of output and a wealthy corporation is not a satisfactory state of affairs - and this is where we came in , I think.
Sustainability, not making more goods than last year.
Growth in services, maybe. growyth in things like literacy, life expectancy and the like , yes.
GDP - not so important. This is the nub of the argument, and indices can be used to mark such things as literacy and life expectancy, so why not go for it.
When it comes to raising earnings, there is the law of diminishing returns to consider. While some in the western world do need to be lifted out of drastic poverty, many don't.
It is time that most of us looked at our consumption levels and cut back.
Re: How did the lack of economic utility cause corporate malfeasance?
Date: 16/7/11 12:34 (UTC)On these things, we agree.
Re: How did the lack of economic utility cause corporate malfeasance?
Date: 16/7/11 12:35 (UTC)Apologies.
(no subject)
Date: 15/7/11 17:24 (UTC)Um, this is not a very telling statement. Eventually the Universe will end (so far as the best science currently available tells us) so nothing is unending, and even if it was eventually we would consume every molecule and erg of energy in the universe and growth would have to stop.
The important question is how close are to varying limits to growth and frankly the cries of the eco-doom club have been proven wrong every time since they got started with Malthus and his gang.
There is absolutely no reason why this planet cannot sustain about 10 Billion humans at a richer lifestyle than is currently enjoyed in the richest countries, from a resources standpoint that is and even that is not a hard limit because contrary to popular opinion we don't have "just 1 planet", there is the Moon, Mars, Asteroids, Comets, The solar wind that can all be tapped to provide for some or all of our needs and that is just within the next couple hundred years. Past that you start getting into possibly terraforming Venus and settling some of the Jovian and Saturnian moons and maybe even looking at interstellar generation ships.
(no subject)
Date: 15/7/11 17:46 (UTC)But can we support the 6 billion on board Spaceship Earth right now?
Can we ensure that we can still have the six billion people all living in comfort for the time it takes to develop the technology to explore space?
No - we need to change the current system - not so much in terms of production, but the logistics of supply.
In the wake of the Tsunami that devastated the Pacific rim on Boxing day, the world sent an awful lot of aid in terms of food, medical supplies and other items - much of which was still sitting in the docks a good six months after.
We need to invest in infrastructure, and also develop the institutions of democracy, a free press and the rule of law in many places for this to happen. We also need to ensure that America gets a Health Service like UK, and the UK gets one like the Japanese, which would vastly improve things.
ok, everyone could switch directly to the Japanese model which is vastly more efficient and cheaper than the Uk Model and still gives treatment to everyone in the same way that the UK one does. but even one small step up is worth trying.
The Socialism based on the Co op model is still delivering ownership and control to the workers, but nobody gets their own factory confiscated. the real problem comes in getting workers to step up to the plate. it can be done gradually, though.
(no subject)
Date: 15/7/11 19:26 (UTC)Can we ensure that we can still have the six billion people all living in comfort for the time it takes to develop the technology to explore space?"
Absolutely, like I said, the eco doom has been prophesied as being "within our lifetimes" for the last 200 years and by all measures people are better off, living longer and healthier lives today than at any point in history.
Sure there are problems and things that need to be fixed or they will become serious threats but things have consistently gotten better every year, not worse and there is no reason to expect that this will not continue into the future.
"We need to invest in infrastructure, and also develop the institutions of democracy, a free press and the rule of law in many places for this to happen. We also need to ensure that America gets a Health Service like UK, and the UK gets one like the Japanese, which would vastly improve things."
We invest in infrastructure all the time, but it is failing with more and more frequency because it is done by fiat of government action and not free exchange. Further government directed "infrastructure" has a very bad tendency to lock us into less efficient and more polluting modes of production by crowding out innovations.
As far as the Health Services in the US, no I am sorry but your own health service is largely unsustainable because it is driving you broke and spurs dependency rather than industry. Socialization of Health Care is not a critical factor, especially when you are talking about a single country with a population of only a 3rd of a billion.
"
ok, everyone could switch directly to the Japanese model which is vastly more efficient and cheaper than the Uk Model and still gives treatment to everyone in the same way that the UK one does. but even one small step up is worth trying."
Why yes, because one size fits all and there are absolutely no differences in culture or demographics that could possibly impact how efficient any given system will work in one country or another.
"The Socialism based on the Co op model is still delivering ownership and control to the workers, but nobody gets their own factory confiscated. the real problem comes in getting workers to step up to the plate. it can be done gradually, though."
Hey Co-Ops are great, I love Co-Ops and while you see them as Socialist Institutions I seem them as Libertarian because they are entirely based on voluntary co-operation and not force. However it is pretty clear that most people do not want the level of risk or decision making control that being in a Co-Op entails or they would be more popular because there is absolutely nothing preventing people from forming them now.
However here you do properly identify a large part of the problem, it is peoples attitudes that is the problem. What you fail to see is in large part these attitudes are created by the very centralized socialist policies you advocate by giving the impression that it isn't "my responsibility, it is all the government's job" and then crowding out any independent solutions.
(no subject)
Date: 15/7/11 20:23 (UTC)For you and me, yes. But for people in Somalia and Afghanistan ? I don't think so.
We invest in infrastructure all the time, but it is failing with more and more frequency because it is done by fiat of government action and not free exchange
If ' we' = USA/Europe, i agree, but most of the worlds poor live some place else and critically need sanitation , drinking water, roads and bridges, electricity, etc and etc.
Socialization of Health Care is not a critical factor, especially when you are talking about a single country with a population of only a 3rd of a billion.
Only ? If you think that this isn't that much , can I have a loan please? I only want 1 third of a billion dollars.
What you fail to see is in large part these attitudes are created by the very centralized socialist policies you advocate by giving the impression that it isn't "my responsibility, it is all the government's job" and then crowding out any independent solutions.
II accept that "State owned and State run" does create dependency on taxpayers and an unwillingness to embrace change - I have worked in the Public Sector long enough to see this happen.
However, to say that I support ' centralised socialist policies is to misunderstand 'Utopian Socialism', as the Marxists call it, or Democratic Socialism as we prefer to call it today.
What I favour is pushing down the levels of decision making as low as possible. OK, we will have to wean people off the State Gradually, but the aim is to create and sustain a more mixed economy by encouraging cooperatives. the State could also assist by directly investing a stake in significant and successful areas - being a 'sleeping partner' in successful enterprises being privately owned and managed.
because one size fits all and there are absolutely no differences in culture or demographics that could possibly impact how efficient any given system will work in one country or another.
I think that Japan , Europe and America all have the elements that could make it work - there is a cultural bias that the Japanese have that make their system more effective , but American and European firms could adapt to doing the same thing. Give private healthcare to people, but let the corporations finance it, and then give decent tax breaks to corporations that free the State from the burden of providing healthcare.
(no subject)
Date: 15/7/11 21:16 (UTC)Um, ultimately yes, life in Afghanistan and Somalia is better today that it was in say 1900. Even in the aspects and to the extent it is not is not because of any flaws in modern society but rather because of their being in a near constant state of war for decades.
But tell me, since nearly everyone in Somalia has access to a Cell Phone how has that not improved their lives?
"If ' we' = USA/Europe, i agree, but most of the worlds poor live some place else and critically need sanitation , drinking water, roads and bridges, electricity, etc and etc."
No, I am referring to those poor countries as well. I am sure there are a few countries here and there that effectively spend nothing from the government on infrastructure, but even there private individuals are building infrastructure everytime they build or repair a house or car.
However we get more failures in the projects that are run by government both in the first and 2nd/3rd world because those infrastructure projects are rarely entered into on the basis of the value the infrastructure investment will create but because of the jobs it will create and the votes it will buy.
"Only ? If you think that this isn't that much , can I have a loan please? I only want 1 third of a billion dollars."
Um scale matters, .31 is very small compared to 6.95, a mere 4.5%. It matters not whether those numbers are in 1's, Millions, or Quintillions the ratio is small which is what matters.
Oh and as far as your loan, no sorry I haven't got 350 billion dollars, so how about I give you 350 Billion atoms of gold instead?
"II accept that "State owned and State run" does create dependency on taxpayers and an unwillingness to embrace change - I have worked in the Public Sector long enough to see this happen."
That is not quite what I mean. The larger and more expansive the role of the state the less that a person has to handle on his own. Everything from people expecting police to keep them safe (they can't) to buying products without researching them because the government keeps them safe (they don't), to not saving for the future because the government will take care of any problems and their old age years. Now obviously some of this is necessary to a point and with some of it the good at least arguably outweighs the dependency it creates but you do not need to have a true socialist state to enforce a state of dependency where everyone is essentially a ward of the State, you can accomplish that quite fine with a highly regulated system even if it is capitalist in name.
"What I favor is pushing down the levels of decision making as low as possible."
But what do you do when people don't behave the way you want? See that is the thing about humans, you get 5 of us in the room and you'll get 6 different visions for what to do next and decentralized decision making is called a free market, whereas your social democracy can't handle pushing it down because every time you do you get some town deciding that they don't want to go along with the grand plan because it doesn't work for them.
(no subject)
Date: 15/7/11 20:23 (UTC)For you and me, yes. But for people in Somalia and Afghanistan ? I don't think so.
We invest in infrastructure all the time, but it is failing with more and more frequency because it is done by fiat of government action and not free exchange
If ' we' = USA/Europe, i agree, but most of the worlds poor live some place else and critically need sanitation , drinking water, roads and bridges, electricity, etc and etc.
Socialization of Health Care is not a critical factor, especially when you are talking about a single country with a population of only a 3rd of a billion.
Only ? If you think that this isn't that much , can I have a loan please? I only want 1 third of a billion dollars.
What you fail to see is in large part these attitudes are created by the very centralized socialist policies you advocate by giving the impression that it isn't "my responsibility, it is all the government's job" and then crowding out any independent solutions.
II accept that "State owned and State run" does create dependency on taxpayers and an unwillingness to embrace change - I have worked in the Public Sector long enough to see this happen.
However, to say that I support ' centralised socialist policies is to misunderstand 'Utopian Socialism', as the Marxists call it, or Democratic Socialism as we prefer to call it today.
What I favour is pushing down the levels of decision making as low as possible. OK, we will have to wean people off the State Gradually, but the aim is to create and sustain a more mixed economy by encouraging cooperatives. the State could also assist by directly investing a stake in significant and successful areas - being a 'sleeping partner' in successful enterprises being privately owned and managed.
because one size fits all and there are absolutely no differences in culture or demographics that could possibly impact how efficient any given system will work in one country or another.
I think that Japan , Europe and America all have the elements that could make it work - there is a cultural bias that the Japanese have that make their system more effective , but American and European firms could adapt to doing the same thing. Give private healthcare to people, but let the corporations finance it, and then give decent tax breaks to corporations that free the State from the burden of providing healthcare.
What numbers?
Date: 15/7/11 12:05 (UTC)Actually, it seems the kind of monograph one would write if one were deeply, religiously, committed to the idea of the perpetual motion machine. In such a monograph, one would want to call for the "repeal" of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, because it stands in the way of having the desired perpetual motion machine. Of course, one can't do that without looking like an idiot among the smarter set. What one can do though, is pant and pine for a world without the Second Law and write nasty-grams about how awful it is and how many wonderful things it prevents, and if others start coming up with interesting "new" ideas for "getting around" the entropy problem, well, that will be okay then, won't it.
I don't see any sort of real argument in this article. I see a bunch of disingenuous whining about capitalism in it, most of it rooted in folk-economics and other superstitions. If you do see an argument in that article would you care to summarize it and make its case in real terms?
Re: What numbers?
Date: 15/7/11 12:35 (UTC)http://www.citizenrenaissance.com/the-book/part-one-three-seismic-shifts/chapter-one-the-perfect-storm-surrounding-climate-change/
Ok, "the numbers are here", he argues, if you click on the first blue link the article cites.
We are facing climate change ( never mind who done it, CC is a done deal, and it is coming to a country, and a city, and a shoreline near you. If there is not a shoreline near you right now, there is a good chance you will get one well before you are dead.)
We are also facing peak out, ecological collapse, high er populations than we can feed and a confluence of several different crises that are all gonna hit us more or less together. Again , you can expect it all to hit the fan before most of us retire, so lets consider how we are gonna deal with it.
Now, he gives the facts and figures for each event- is he right or wrong ?
And if he is right - what is the solution?
We need to stop thinking about how much oil we got have left. We can't put any of it back in the time scale we need to be using.
We have to a) think about switching to renewables.
b)realise that we cannot make and use renewables on the scale that we get and use up oil. We need to scale back on what we are making and using in our daily lives.
Not necessarily to save the ice caps, or Venice, or the Maldives islands - maybe we have lost them already, maybe it is already to late and is only a matter of time.
But we can, and should save human civilisation, and can do so by specifically reducing consumption , going for growth services not manufacture and reusing and recycling non renewable raw materials.
Check all blue links for specifics, for numbers, for the arguments and the raw data supporting them. More importantly , we need governments to legislate , to level a playing field and tell corporations like BP that we cannot allow them to do to the Planet what BP did to the Gulf of Mexico. The governments should set the lead by legislating to encourage democratic participation and workers co ops, and industrial standards that protect the environment and the welfare of the workforce.
Re: What numbers?
Date: 15/7/11 15:17 (UTC)Probably too busy off finding other lib's to joust.
/kidding
Re: What numbers?
Date: 15/7/11 15:34 (UTC)I think he is so busy jousting that he can't be bothered to click the links in the OP.
Re: What numbers?
Date: 15/7/11 18:22 (UTC)To illustrate let us consider the case of the whales.
Whales are not extinct.
They should be.
Whales used to be the primary source of lamp oil and a long with coal they powered the industrial revolution. We nearly hunted them to extinction but as whales became scarce people started looking for alternatives.
Someone had the bright Idea to dig wells for liquid hydrocarbon and another guy invented the light bulb.
Tohmas Edison saved the Whales.
(no subject)
Date: 15/7/11 12:52 (UTC)The fact is, that workers really don't have much influence upon the success of a company, ownership just gives them the appearance that they do. They still need to hire executives to run the company, and those executives are going to be under the same pressure as running any conventional company. Eventually, workers are going to demand higher wages and the stockholders are going to demand higher ROI, even though the same group of people is making both demands. Older employees are going to want ROI when they cash out, younger workers are going to want higher wages. The only way out of this is to grow the company.
Worker ownership is one type of incentivization that uses tribalism, just like communes. Here's another incentive: You work, I pay you. And another: Make working conditions better and/or pay more, else lose profits due to the cost of hiring and training. So really, worker ownership is just a way to make workers feel better about being exploited. To the extent that works, fine. Either be exploited by employers or exploit yourself, no difference.
(no subject)
Date: 15/7/11 15:25 (UTC)In practice, these people do not 'hire' execs. They invite execs in from outside to be partners under the same terms as the guy on the shop floor.
Now, this means that in the co op, if the supervisor is unpopular, the workers can vote them out. Show me where else that happens.
we are not talking of ask the boss nicely and see if the boss will fire him - we are saying "You either keep 50%+ of the workers happy, or you lose the post. Period - no ifs buts or maybes. And yeah , if the workers all think that somone is goofing off and not pulling weight, that worker goes. And that is all the way up to the CEO.
If I work for Walmart , and I want a union in , or I want a longer meal break, or a raise, or the boss fired - well it's " My way or the highway " as far as the CEO is concerned.
Anyone who is not toeing the party line in John Lewis or Mondragin is told " We are her to work. you get on with everyone else, fit in the team , or you hit the road.
It tends to produce a workforce that raises production and throughput of service, a workforce that has invested saving of its own in the company and wants it to do well, rather than people who 'just get by'.
Walmart has the option of firing anyone who complains and wants day care. So they do.
Workers in John lewis has the option of raising the issue at the next company meeting and voting on it. So they do.
Result - John Lewis has fringe benefits that ensure they can pick hi calibre workers who want in and work hard.
Walmart is going into areas where the job is the only one available and people work or join the welfare queues.
Both will work - but who do you wanna work for ?
The only point of agreement is 'grow the business'. The opportunities to grow co ops both by opening new divisions and expanding local branches is enormous.
it is not inevitable, because a terrorist attack can wipe out a co op or a co op movement in any given country. But , on balance , the co op movement has advantages to the workforce, and ought to succeed , all other things being equal.
I DEMAND THE VULCANS LAND NOW!
Date: 15/7/11 15:21 (UTC)Who needs their own bottle of Thunderbird when we can all share it!
Seriously: Yes. I agree. However, our Corporate Masters have devised The Machine to demand endless consumption. The "Best Thing" we can do for citizens is to "Create More Jobs".
What? No.
Fucked fucked fucked!
Re: I DEMAND THE VULCANS LAND NOW!
Date: 15/7/11 15:33 (UTC)the right to vote by STV and the right to own and run workers co ops in a land where there is a free press and access to the courts is gotta be a winner.
they said we would never get votes for working men in Britain . We got it.
Then they said we could never afford to give women the vote - but they got them all the same.
Then that we could give women the vote , but the sytem would collapse if women got equal pay. Yet there are women alive now, working in jobs , who can't recall the days when omen didn't get same money for same time as the men.
What we want now is workers co ops. Workers running factories, shops and haulage companies as the owners and managers, not as the lackeys. What are their excuses this time? Go tell John Lewis staff why their company is doomed to failure and see if they are impressed.
(no subject)
Date: 15/7/11 17:16 (UTC)That said there are some arguments not worth discussing because the assumptions underlying the basic premise are diametrically opposed to the target's assumptions.
For example in this case.
He has a few good points, the consumerist culture is a bust from just about any angle, economically, philosophically, moralistically, ecologically all of them, consumption for it's own sake is a losers game and we must change out culture to get rid of it.
However consumerism is not the only driver of growth and the growth that consumerism creates is very much not sustainable. Growth happens because humans are naturally restless. This probably comes from out hunter gatherer past but sitting in the same place doing the same thing over and over again is torturous to most of us, this leads humans to drive and explore and when they do they make new discoveries that change the world.
His goal should not be to limit or constrain growth, because that will just lead to stagnation, the goal should be to reprogram people to think more of the future than the now and whatever growth naturally occurs is just part of the human condition.
The points in his arguments that most open minded people would agree with however will be lost because of the basic assumptions that he goes into the discussion with. Lets start with the idea of "wellbeing", he talks about it like it is something that can be measured and is universal. It is not. Each of us has our own internal scales for what "being well off" means. Varying levels of health, security, income, assets, possessions, etc will make each of us feel "comfortable" but the formula is unique to each individual. His approach is to take a statistical median and tell everyone "nope, sorry you're not within the 1st standard deviation so you don't count".
In the end, yes I agree with him on a few points, growth for it's own sake is bad and excessive consumption is destructive and self defeating, but I disagree with his end goals and methods of getting there.
(no subject)
Date: 15/7/11 17:53 (UTC)Ok, can we go with the idea that we need to adapt how we produce and what we produce?
Look at it this way - a guy in a barbershop will use a small amount of electric power, but use minimal amounts of raw materials to produce a substantial amount of wealth- so maybe instead of going in for manufacture, we should scale up services and cut back on manufacturing?
Yeah, we still need cars, fridges, and stuff like that - but legislate that any gadget has to have a service life that will not make it necessary to replace every year or so. Also that every thing must be made of stuff than can be recycled.
We basically need to use less raw materials and energy, and legislating manufacturing procedure is one way to make this happen.