Have just returned from holiday in a beautiful part of the UK. Rolling countryside, thatched cottages and plenty of provision for grouse shooting on a country estate which is apparently owned by a Swedish industrial company. The Land Rovers and BMWs were lined up outside the village pub which was heaving with mid-week diners. Not much sign of 'austerity' there and didn't really look like we are 'all in it together'!
But I digress ... I did manage to spend some time trying to get to grips with how people are seeing the way forward to a better future. The main thrust of argument seems to be that THINGS CAN'T GO ON AS THEY ARE AT PRESENT!!! The reason is simple: However clever we are with technology, the Earth's resources can't provide for the entire population of the planet to enjoy a capitalist lifestyle based on consumerism. It just isn't going to happen. And what's more, even those who are currently 'fortunate' enough to enjoy such a lifestyle are finding that the dream doesn't quite come up to expectation and that those who have 'made it' are often depressed and addicted and living shallow lives in unequal societies dominated by social unrest. Some commentators have identified a 'social recession' where individualism (look after yourself and don't bother about others) has led to a breakdown of communities and an increase in social isolation.
I somehow feel I've lost the battle to find a simple answer to how we can change our economic system which depends on growth, but perhaps I could understand a bit more about the way forward if I look at what Tim Jackson calls the 'social logic' by which he means the way people think and behave which keeps them locked into a lifestyle based on material consumption. That might be easier than jumping into the deep waters of 'macro economics' and 'structural change'. I'm beginning to think I might have to go back to my knitting ...
Maybe check out Robin Hahnel's work then return to Jackson's[nm]
ReplyDeleteThanks for that - any lifebelt is welcomed cos I feel a bit like I'm drowning in the complexity!
DeleteHi Eileen, been hunting for your blog since I saw it mentioned on the media Lens message board a while ago, then couldn't find it again til now.Just to say its good to know other people in the same sort of 'demographic' as myself are grappling with all these BIG issues and not just going 'oooh' at the cookery programmes etc!
ReplyDeleteIf you want to get in touch, I've just signed on to your automatic blog feed to my email (think that's right) so hopefully that should give you my email address.(timed at about 7.30ish on 1st aug)
HD
ps can't knit, but gardening is good!
Hi Eileen, been hunting for your blog since I saw it mentioned on the media Lens message board a while ago, then couldn't find it again til now.Just to say its good to know other people in the same sort of 'demographic' as myself are grappling with all these BIG issues and not just going 'oooh' at the cookery programmes etc!
ReplyDeletePS - Can't knit but gardening is good!
I'm beginning to feel much better now about this whole enterprise - two comments on this post which is very encouraging! Thanks.
DeleteI'm not convinced we actually need to maintain growth.
ReplyDeleteCurrent demand for perpetual growth is a direct consequence of our debt-based money system;
When all money is created as an interesting bearing debt, the logical consequence which most economists and politicians seem more than happy to ignore, is that there will always be more debt (principle plus interest) than money (principle) P < P + I
This means society as a whole must constantly take out more loans just to pay back past debts. This is the real driver for growth!
Obviously the corporate objective of maximizing profits for shareholders has paralleled the public policy objective of GDP growth. This corporate influence could be easily mitigated by forcing corporations to pay for what CEO’s call ‘externalities’ – this is the true cost of doing business borne by us all – and should obviously be privatized rather than socialized.
In ‘The Myth of Sustainability and the Quadrillion Dollar Economy: Why Must the Economy Grow?’ http://montreal.degrowth.org/downloads/papers/R008_Robbins.pdf published last year, Richard H. Robbins makes some strong arguments against perpetual economic growth:
“In his 1967 book, The Cost of Economic Growth, British economist E. J. Mishan asked whether the cost of economic growth, “the irrestible spread of steel and concrete, … the plague of motorized traffic, … the growing impatience and tenseness of people”, as he phrased it, is really worth it. His conclusion, in general, was that it is not. At that point, US GDP was $834 billion and global GDP was about $3 trillion. Monthly average carbon dioxide concentration was about 300 ppm.
In 1976, in his book The Joyless Econmoy, economist Tibor Scitovsky wrote that there is a “Growing realization that technological and economic progress … has a dark side to it.” The evidence is increasing, he wrote, of the cumulative threat “to health, environment and future generations created by our reckless brandishing of weapns, extermination of pests, squandering of resources, popping of pills, ingesting of food additives, and our use or overuse of every mechanical aid to our comfort and safety.” In spite of this so-called “progress,” he concluded, we are continually less satisfied. In 1976 the US GDP stood at under $1.8 trillion and global GDP was about $9 trillion. Monthly carbon dioxide concentration was about 335 ppm.
By 2011 the US GDP was just over $15 trillion, or 17 times greater than it was in 1967 and 8 times greater than it was in 1976. Global GDP stood at about $70 trillion, over 20 times what it was in 1967. And monthly carbon dioxide concentration was about 385 ppm. In fact, if the US economy grew at the minimum desired rate of 3% real GDP growth a year (close to the growth rate of Japan from 1900 to 2000) in 2100 the GDP, that it what we are spending and producing would be over $200 trillion, or 600 times what we spend and produced in 1950! And since emerging nations tend to grow at higher rates than wealth nations, global GDP could approach or exceed a quadrillion dollars. And all the evidence indicates is that, putting aside the increasing technological complexity we enjoy and the vast quantity of material items, larger homes, and higher salaries, the overwhelming evidence is that our social and psychological well-being has declined (see e.g. Putnam 2000, Wilkenson 2009)
While, as we shall see, some argue that the more growth the better, it is difficult to conceive of the effects the size of a quadrillion dollar global economy would have on our environment in climate change alone, not to mention on our social and political lives, particularly as economic growth continues to increase the gap between rich and poor for reasons we’ll explore. Furthermore, as John Magnus Speth (2008) points out, even if our economic output remained at its present level, the world would be virtually uninhabitable by the end of this century.”
Thanks for that Mike. Its a comfort that so many great minds are addressing the problems facing humanity but I don't really see how change is going to come about considering the power of the capitalist machine. I'm not being over-dramatic here but there are so many examples of the capitalist masters over-riding democratically-elected bodies: Obama hasn't been able to bring in his health reforms, EU legislation on controlling chemicals was watered down, currently private health providers are leaning on the UK government to privatise the NHS. The list is endless. I think that globalised companies not paying their fair share of taxes is the tip of the iceberg in terms of the power they exert. As I say I'm not an economist and don't pretend to understand the workings of governments (and lobbying) but I'm of average intelligence and I keep my eye on what is going on. I sometimes feel a bit like the little boy in the 'Kings New Clothes!'
Delete