Economics - some rational ideas

[Guest]

I commend the New Economics Foundation to other posters, as a truly independent group, comprised of people who are far-sighted, honest and rational. Not so new now, of course, after 25 years, but still coming up with the goods, in my opinion!

Not everyone will agree with its conclusions and suggestions, of course, but there we are.

For those concerned with the banking and financial sectors - as I think we all should be, because things are very close to the edge at the moment - this is the page to go to first:

http://www.neweconomics.org/projects/banking-for-the-great-transition

[Serial_Apologist]

I commend the New Economics Foundation to other posters, as a truly independent group, comprised of people who are far-sighted, honest and rational. Not so new now, of course, after 25 years, but still coming up with the goods, in my opinion!

Not everyone will agree with its conclusions and suggestions, of course, but there we are.

For those concerned with the banking and financial sectors - as I think we all should be, because things are very close to the edge at the moment - this is the page to go to first:

http://www.neweconomics.org/projects...eat-transition

Well from the headings it all looks palatable enough, but without the meat on the bones it doesn't add up to more than reinstating Clause IV of Labour Party constitution principles.

Apart from Simon, does anybody else know anything about this organisation?

S-A

[french frank]

Apart from Simon, does anybody else know anything about this organisation?

Well, it does seem to owe a lot to the economics of EF Schumacher, and to be connected with some of the foundations which have sprung from his thinking.

In that sense, good. But whether such ideas can ever be introduced unilaterally in any developed state and solve the economic problems arising from global economics is sadly to be doubted.

[Serial_Apologist]

Well, it does seem to owe a lot to the economics of EF Schumacher, and to be connected with some of the foundations which have sprung from his thinking.

In that sense, good. But whether such ideas can ever be introduced unilaterally in any developed state and solve the economic problems arising from global economics is sadly to be doubted.

A possible starting point maybe:

http://www.greenspirit.org/uk/resources/Lets.shtml

If the global economy implodes, as is by no means unlikely, we may all have think seriously about ideas such as these.

[ahinton]

A possible starting point maybe:

http://www.greenspirit.org/uk/resources/Lets.shtml

If the global economy implodes, as is by no means unlikely, we may all have think seriously about ideas such as these.

...until it implodes again, one may suppose...

[Sydney Grew]

Economics . . people who are far-sighted, honest and rational. . . .

Obvious first steps:

1) abolish "money" and exchange;

2) let all goods and services be available in equal proportions to each member of the world's population;

3) abolish all borders and "national" states (note that the word "national" is an esentially racialistic concept with its reference to "birth").

How to organize the transition? It might be best done by the Church (that of Rome of course).

Requisite new laws:

1) Illegal to speak of a nation state or to erect a border;

2) Illegal to exchange - If an old lady does not want her tractor, it will be illegal for her to take it anyway and give it to some one else. It should - very simply - remain in the pool of available tractors. The pools will be run by incorruptible robots.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

No economic system will be sustainable until the world tackles the over-population problem, instead of ignoring it and doing no more that trying to make the status quo work.

[MrGongGong]

No economic system will be sustainable until the world tackles the over-population problem, instead of ignoring it and doing no more that trying to make the status quo work.

how many children do you have ?
why do we see large families as a sign of success (Still !)
manny people have large families (not in the developed world) because that's the only way of ensuring survival in old age
we really don't have any excuse
though sadly the "we are overcrowded" etc is usually a prelude to some rather nasty bigoted comments about immigration

[scottycelt]

Forgive me, Mr Grew, but, whilst it is encouraging to hear of your pure form of communism with the secular atheism mercifully junked, wouldn't that be a huge waste of tractors and anything else that lay rotting away in those pools?

Also, should the incorruptible robots treat thoroughly corruptible and lazy human workers in exactly the same manner as their hard-working and less corruptible counterparts?

Equality of rights and ownership at birth is one thing. Afterwards, equal measures can never be "fair", due to various levels of human input and performance,

Much fairer, surely, would be a form of social capitalism that rewarded and vastly improved the conditions of the conscientious worker on the shopfloor, and also limited director and management remuneration to more appropriate and acceptable levels ?

Maybe your incorruptible robots would be the very machines to decide who these conscientious and hard-working workers were ...

[MrGongGong]

incorruptible robots

That's no way to speak of the BBCSO

[vinteuil]

Obvious first steps:

....

2) let all goods and services be available in equal proportions to each member of the world's population;

....
.

I have a teensy problem with Mr Grew's master-plan. The current world population is some 6.94 billion ; the estate of chateau d' yquem only produces 200,000 bottles each year. That means less than 0.00003 bottles per person. I need more than a literal drop of such a wine.

I don't think the incorruptible robots will be able to increase the production of ch. d' yquem.

Therefore this plan is a Bad Idea.

[Richard Tarleton]

The growth fallacy

A key part of NEF's thinking as I understand it is that the growth paradigm on which western economies are based is flawed. You can't have indefinite growth in a finite world with an expanding population. The trouble is, the alternative - a state-directed economy - is equally unappealing. It's er, been tried before. You quickly develop a corrupt elite, who have more than their share of resources, and an entrepreneurial class who will trace in commodities whether legally or not appears in short order.

Basically I think we're doomed - mankind has a basic self-destruct mechanism which didn't matter so much in an underpopulated world where resources were plentiful. "Sustainable development" is a contradiction in terms, or weasel words as Simon Jenkins described them in another context.

[french frank]

"Sustainable development" is a contradiction in terms, or weasel words as Simon Jenkins described them in another context.

But it may slow things down until somebody comes up with a better idea ... Also, people who go down this route will find it easier to survive when the ultimate crash comes. In the meantime, start making a study as to which berries are edible and which poisonous.

[johnb]

I was rather put off when I read the opening paragraph on the website linked to by Simon:

Banking is no longer serving the needs of people, or the productive economy. It is destroying the natural resources that we rely on, and the social resources that give our lives meaning and enable us to actively and appropriately respond to new challenges in a changing world.

Banking destroying natural resources?

Banking destroying "social resources" (whatever they are)?

Yes, the banking system is in urgent need of reform but such bald statements IMO undermine whatever views the organisation might be trying to promote.

(Strangely, that opening para could easily have been written by the muesli eating, Guardian reading lefties that Simon so delights in taunting whenever possible.)

[Richard Tarleton]

Banking destroying natural resources?

Banking destroying "social resources" (whatever they are)?

Yes, the banking system is in urgent need of reform but such bald statements IMO undermine whatever views the organisation might be trying to promote.

Well, yes.

We're not talking Fred Goodwin here. A large part of NEF's work relates to what is going on in underdeveloped and Third World countries. Third World debt (managed by banks) is driving many poor countries round the world to asset-strip their natural resources rather than develop bottom-up "sustainable" economies. Also, banks fund projects which bring huge returns to their shareholders whilst wrecking the third world countries in which these take place - think dams, biofuel crops in the rainforest, etc. etc..