July 6th - Perhaps we need a new way of running the economy?
If we can't rely on technology to give us a better future perhaps we need to find a new way of organising our economy based, as it is, on growth. I'm on thin ice here but must try to get to grips with what's being said. Once again Tim Jackson comes to the rescue in challenging the idea that growth is essential to our human 'flourishing'. He explains what he recognises as the 'dilemma' of growth: -
'Growth is unsustainable - at least in its current form. Burgeoning resource consumption and rising environmental costs are compounding profound disparities in social well-being
'De-growth is unstable - at least under present conditions. Declining consumer demand leads to rising unemployment, falling competitiveness and a spiral of recession'
And then -
'To resist growth is to risk economic and social collapse. To pursue it relentlessly is to endanger the ecosystem on which we depend for long-term survival'.
I wonder what he sees as the way out of the dilemma? Next task on my 'read this' list (think I might get a headache!)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No-one knows for sure, but there are lots of promising ideas outside the moribund orthodoxy box
ReplyDeleteGood to get this comment - I was thinking of moving on to looking at various ways of restructuring the economic system and to look at 'localism' which sounds like a pretty good idea. Major problem seems to be the power wielded by capitalists which is, it seems to me, what pulls the strings of government and largely determines legislation.
ReplyDelete"I guess it depends on what people mean by "growth". Many in the eco-movement will argue that as we bump along the plateau of peak oil, our energy intensive lifestyles must soon come to an end. But both the OECD and IMF looked at the economics of peak oil 3 or so years ago, when it wasn't clear if tar sands would be exploited, and they concluded that growth would still be possible in those western countries that move away from oil dependency. If western economies make a big shift - powering business and residential needs from low carbon energy sources, we would save trillions in money spent on imported oil and gas and we could continue to grow indefinitely. That was their view, but their opinion may not attach sufficient importance to peak copper, zinc, rare earth minerals, etc. The other interesting fact is what will happen here in the UK - our population is going to grow much faster than virtually all other EU nations. Indeed, some like Italy are in population decline. So as we gain 10 million more people over the next 22 years, I think it inevitable that our economic output, as measured by GDP, will also increase. For me the great challenge is to ensure that we provide homes for people in such a way that does not entail the destruction of fields used for crops, that we share our wealth more evenly (tackling poverty) and grow our low carbon energy sector that will make us self sufficient in energy, create jobs and tackle climate change. I would argue that one of the most important levers to get us to where we need to be is through fair taxation. We need much higher taxes on very high earners and a wealth tax. We need an economy that no longer exists to serve the desires of the 1% of wealthiest people."
ReplyDeleteGood to hear from you. I agree with everything you say, especially the last three sentences. I suspect that the reason higher taxes for the wealthy hasn’t happened before is that the wealthy wield power to prevent it. Because of globalisation they can always threaten to move their money to another country which has a friendlier tax regime! That is a big stick to wield. As long ago as the 60’s Harold Wilson cited the ‘Gnomes of Zurich’ as the reason he couldn’t implement many policies his government favoured. I know your life is pretty hectic, but if you could find the time it would be good if you could add your comments/ideas by using the ‘Comment’ button on my the. Thanks.
Delete