Archive for Economics

Love is Wise

December 29, 2010 Consciousness, Economics, Emotional Energy, Politics, Values No comments

From a friend’s Facebook post, I saw a video of Bertrand Russell giving advice to people who might see the tape in 1000 years. His quote was “Love is wise, hatred is foolish.” What a great thing to live by—something that should be taught as the basis of all moral teaching. The Golden Rule is a corollary to this statement.

One might also conclude: “love is positive, hatred is negative,” or “love is positive emotional energy, hatred is negative emotional energy.” This is in line with a metaphor I’ve been thinking about lately that I think is very powerful as a guide to human activity: humans are emotional energy batteries. We store the emotional energy we receive and generate that emotional energy back to the world.

So if kids receive a lot of negative emotional energy in their formative years they transmit this negativity back as dysfunctional adults. If kids receive a lot of positive emotional energy they also tend to reflect that back as successful adults. Of course, there may be a genetic component that helps determine whether people are generators of positive or negative emotional energy. But regardless of a person’s innate orientation, negativity begets negativity and positivity begets positivity.

That’s why wars seldom solve things, particularly when the negative energy of violence does not have a clear target. WWII presented a clear evil with a mad dictator directing a well-defined, military entity. In the kind of wars we’re fighting now, the negative energy of violence is much more likely to create stored negative energy in a population than to curb future violence.

At some level our civilian and military leaders understand this, which is why there is an emphasis on building schools and stabile, secure areas in Afghanistan where people can live their lives without the negative energy of fear and violence. But our bombs often create more negative energy than can be overcome by other positive acts. And our fundamentalist enemies are big time negative energy generators.

The Network of Spiritual Progressives has a better solution.

“The NSP wants advanced industrial countries of the world to use their resources to eliminate once and for all global and domestic, poverty, homelessness, and hunger; provide quality education and health care for all; and repair the global environment. As an initial commitment, we want the U.S. to donate at least 1-2% of its Gross Domestic Product each year for the next twenty years, in the form of a Global Marshall Plan (GMP).”

The link is here: http://www.spiritualprogressives.org/article.php/gmp_one. This would certainly be following a wise policy as defined by Bertrand Russell.

Anger vs. Rationality

September 20, 2010 Economics, Politics, Values No comments

The conventional wisdom is that 2010 will be a “wave election” in which Republicans are propelled into office because of an angry electorate who thinks that the country is going in the wrong direction. Well I understand the anger and the wrong direction feeling. What I don’t understand is why any sane person would think the Republicans have a solution. Being against improvements in healthcare, unemployment benefits, and re-regulation of Wall Street isn’t a plan. Stopping government action is not a jobs plan. Even the laudable goal of balancing the budget will not create more jobs. It will create more lay-offs.

The fact is that “throw the bums out” is not a strategy. The government is not in the way of the free market. The government, particularly the Republican leadership, is owned by the wealthy, who are simply looking out for their own interests. If unfettered capitalism is so good, why did we have a crash? And why do most Americans seem to think that returning control of the government to those who screwed it up is such a good idea?

Let’s say that the economy is a child who was injured by its caretaker—injured so badly that recovery will take a lot of rehabilitation and time. So now, because the healing isn’t fast enough, we want to return the child to the caretaker that inured it? If the polls are to be believed, apparently so.

Anger and fear-mongering about “socialism” are not a plan. I’m angry and fearful too. I’m angry that the corporate chieftains and Wall Street types who control the economy are perpetuating the myth that somehow government is to blame and that if we do nothing things will fix themselves. People seem to think that the rich have more because they deserve more and that we should not tax them because that will mean they won’t do as much for us. This is bull.

The rich, like all of us, are motivated by self-interest. This is fine up to a point. But when the rich control both parties and rig things so they can suck up as much wealth as they can, a little balance needs to be restored. Those who think that the government is the enemy are being duped into a self-fulfilling prophesy of voting for people who either have a misguided ideology that no government equals some miraculous cure or for people who are deliberately misleading them in order to keep the government from interfering with the continued sucking of the public’s neck by their wealthy vampire overlords.

I say be angry; but let’s have a rational plan of action that moves us toward a fairer government. The rich will survive just fine; even there is a little mandatory moderation in how much financial blood they can suck. Don’t be a willing victim and vote Republican against your own self-interest.

Dynamic Equilibrium vs. More More More

July 26, 2010 Economics, Energy, Politics, Values No comments

In high school I learned that living systems, if they are healthy, achieve a state of dynamic equilibrium. That is they are in balance. There are a lot of processes going on but they act on each other to stay in balance. A simple example is any local ecosystem prior to man’s arrival. There may be too much rain or too many of one kind of species for a while, but the overall ecosystem comes back into balance over time. Without humans, the whole earth would be in a kind of dynamic equilibrium.

Clearly humans have thrown the natural balance of the planet out of whack. We’re using a huge amount of energy and creating a huge amount of waste product. Without a change, the energy required to keep human progress going will run out. More people chasing a better life will need more and more energy—more coal, more oil, more water, more food. More energy for more machines and more energy for more humans.

More energy use means more waste by product—carbon dioxide, methane, toxic chemicals, trash. And this waste is what’s threatening to throw the planet into a new state of dynamic equilibrium that will be extremely detrimental to humans and other life on the planet. Balance will be restored but at the cost of many lives and much hardship. But you probably know this already. The question is can we change?

To change the way we act requires a change in beliefs and values. Right now most people on the planet are operating with a core set of beliefs that is not aligned with our best interests or the true nature of the universe. We believe that the pursuit of happiness equals the pursuit of stuff, of wealth. We think the more stuff we have the happier we’ll be. Our economic systems are set up to encourage this, to promote “wealth creation.”

But it turns out, according to Jeremy Rifkin in The Empathetic Civilization, that “once people have achieved a minimum level of well-being that allows them to adequately survive and prosper, additional accumulations of wealth do not increase their happiness but, rather make them less happy…” [p 497].

The idea that we must accumulate all that we can, that life is a competition, is ingrained in all of us. “I’ve earned this stuff, it’s mine, and the government doesn’t have any right to take it and share it with others who didn’t work for it.” That’s the way the prevailing value system shakes out if you’re a “conservative.” But unless we refocus on creating a dynamic planetary equilibrium for all, rather than wealth creation for a few, we face disaster for all.

The End Is Near

July 2, 2010 Economics, Energy, Evolution, Politics, Values No comments

If you’re awake and paying attention you may have noticed that things aren’t going so well right now. The oil spill in the gulf is a harbinger of more difficult challenges ahead as we have to go to greater depths, literally and figuratively, to find the oil that powers our world. That’s because the end of easy cheap oil is here. That’s bad news for the economic reality of the life we’ve become accustomed to. Because to work properly, the dynamics of our current economy depend on constant growth fueled by cheap oil. So the end of life as we know it is near. And the change that is bearing down on us is not pretty.

Of course it’s not like the economic system we have has been working all that well anyway. The middle class is going backward and the millennials are really going backward in terms of prosperity. The world economy had to stop growing sometime. Constant growth—in the stock market, in home prices, in ever more affordable energy—has never been possible. But it’s only now, when it’s ending that we realize we shouldn’t have expected an ever-rising arrow of economic well-being.

The idea that most of our kids will have a better life than we did has already ended. With cheap energy ending, global warming coming and a world economic system increasingly unable to sustain itself at the current level, life as we’ve come to know it is definitely ending.

The question is how bad will it be when it ends? You see, many great civilizations, such as Rome and the Egyptians, collapsed not because of conquerors, but primarily because they grew too large for the energy resources available. Their agricultural land went fallow and in the case of Rome at least, the dark ages ensued. (This is laid out in the great 2009 book The Empathetic Civilization by Jeremy Rifkin.) Right before the industrial revolution Europe was entering an energy crisis because the wood they used for virtually all housing and energy was almost gone. Fortunately rail and mining technology arrived just in time for a transition to coal without a real nasty economic collapse.

Will we be so fortunate? Or will we only transition to new forms of cleaner, sustainable energy after life as we know it ends? Right now the power lies in the hands of those who control the oil and the industries that rely on it. Unless we all rise up and recognize it’s already ending and work together to make a transition many of the humans on this planet are definitely going feel extreme stress. I don’t want civilization as I’ve known it to end. But unless we radically change course, the end truly is near. It’s too bad that many in power have let self-interest be a blanket they pull up over their heads to keep from having to acknowledge how near the end is.

  Recent Entries »