Race Condition

Pax wrote:

An excellent piece in New Scientist.
It reminds me of a New Scientist article last year with a graph of HDI to number of planets' resource usage and Cuba was the one country in the 'sweet spot'.

http://friendsoftheirishenvironment.net/index.php?do=paperstoday&action=view&id=10619




"We don’t need environmental evangelicals to tell us that
sustainable development is a good idea. Yet, if that is our goal, we
are heading in the wrong direction - with the exception of Cuba. So
says the first study to examine the ecological impact of changing
lifestyles around the globe."

Unfortunately it is a built in dynamic of the market system to ignore and to profit from, (and to lobby against attempts to prevent such profiteering) such externalities outside of the market exchange.
Speaking of technologies, I think there's a real imperative to make all breakthroughs and innovations immediately available to all enterprises, so there will never be any loss of static efficiency in tackling the problems, (not that a techno-fix will save us genuine one or not)



* Also check out the documentary on how Cuba survived peak oil. (note to reactionaries... this does not mean I'm a fan of the top-down coordinatorist elements of the Cuban system)

The Power of Community: How Cuba Survived Peak Oil
http://globalpublicmedia.com/articles/657
full vid

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-66172489666918336


And finally, I don't believe it ibis, you've just linked to the 'infamous' Susan George
(she of being agin the treaty/constitution)

The one planet lifestyle is a nice concept. Depending on who you listen to, Cuba has either cracked it, or cracked up. From a superfical look at TV coverage, it would look to most people in Ireland I'd say as if there is a lot of poverty there. What do you think?

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Are you suggesting that the OP issues can be solved by tweaking environmental regulations and without a profound change in how society is organised economically?

Yup. The problem is over-consumption of environmental products and over-emission of environmental pollution. Deciding to fix that by introducing an entirely different (and failed) model of society and economy is like fixing a leak in your roof by moving the floor out of the way.

As overconsumption of environmental products is inherent to the present system, trying to fix it without introducing a different system is failing to recognise that the floor has fallen out already. What is failed model you mention btw?

No, there's no requirement in the current system to over-consume resources or to pollute. The current system does it because resources are under-priced (their price is set by the scarcity of a flow of supply, ignoring the fact that it's actually a reduction of capital) and the environment is treated as a free good to pollute in. The result of that is that capital flows to businesses that use as much of these under-priced or free items as possible, but if you price them properly then it flows to those businesses that use them most effectively.

The failed system is planned economies. They don't work very well, for reasons that are not curable with bigger faster computers. At the end of the day a market does a much much better job of matching needs to means than any planned economy has ever done - but it needs regulation to steer it.

Then how come its doing such a seriously bad job right now on both the environmental, production and distribution fronts ?

Because natural resources are grossly underpriced compared to, for example, labour or capital. Imagine a business that needs, say, tin, and produces acid water waste as a byproduct. If the environment is valued at zero, it's not worth expending either labour or capital on cleaning up the waste, and a business that does so is penalised. If tin is under-valued, because the economy values it as if we could go on producing the same amount year after year, then it's more "efficient" for the business to use more in its product if that means a reduction in the use of labour or capital.

The incentive effect in the current economic system are what makes it work so well - but they apply well only within a framework of prices. Where bits of reality are left unpriced, the incentive system produces perverse incentives - such as those outlined above. One solution is to ensure that things are properly priced, so that the incentives are no longer perverse. There's a whole field of study in respect of this - environmental economics - which formed a fair chunk of my MSc.

What were your recommendations for price fixing ?

I don't recommend fixing the price! I recommend fixing the maximum amount of a resource that can be used, and letting the market price it, because the price the market sets on something is a meaningful signal. I am suggesting we plan the limits to the economy, if you like, in terms of the damage it is allowed to do. How it operates within those limits is up to itself, as long as it doesn't breach the limits.

Cuba, which is often held up as the example sustainable country, runs the same system that was in use in a lot of unsustainable countries. The major difference is that due to the US-led embargo, it exists on a very restricted import-export 'diet'. It is possible, I think, that if Cuba went over to a market economy within the current embargo constraints, it would still be sustainable.

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Resource Rationing ?

The trouble with rationing is there will always be a group who believe rationing means more for themselves. So then there would be a revolution.

Legislation and regulation is just adults pretending. Let's pretend we have very little lithium. Well I'm not playing because I want shitloads of lithium....

Only when there really is no more lithium can the game begin.

Some opportune points on the frailty of regulation within our economies EVM....

And the evidence from the short few years of carbon trading is certainly not promising.... In fact, I think such a strictly globally regulated approach is less realistic than one which changes the very institutions of the economic system, away from either top-down planning, or the market (the latter I would prefer, along with supporting reforms) Both approaches would require a revolution (despite what Ibis says) but only the latter can persist over the longer term that the climate demands.
Basically environmental reformism without underlying desires to change the economic system is worthless.

In short, it's either capitalism or a habitable planet, there is no other choice

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Holy cow. USA is miles off. That's a very interesting graph.

Any idea how HDI is measured Pax ? I presume its based on loads of economic/technology stats. ?

Here's an easier to see version
http://www.indymedia.ie/attachments/oct2007/sustainability.jpg




The Wikipedia hdi page is pretty good since the last time I checked it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

Quote :

The HDI combines three basic dimensions:

• Life expectancy at birth, as an index of population health and longevity
  
• Knowledge and education, as measured by the adult literacy rate (with two-thirds weighting) and the combined primary, secondary, and tertiary gross enrollment ratio (with one-third weighting).
  
• Standard of living, as measured by the natural logarithm of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita at purchasing power parity (PPP) in United States dollars.
  

ibis wrote:

It is possible, I think, that if Cuba went over to a market economy within the current embargo constraints, it would still be sustainable.

It seems like a corporate lobbyist's job will become redundant in this 'new' 'capped' capitalism?

Pax wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Resource Rationing ?

The trouble with rationing is there will always be a group who believe rationing means more for themselves. So then there would be a revolution.

Legislation and regulation is just adults pretending. Let's pretend we have very little lithium. Well I'm not playing because I want shitloads of lithium....

Only when there really is no more lithium can the game begin.

Some opportune points on the frailty of regulation within our economies EVM....

And the evidence from the short few years of carbon trading is certainly not promising.... In fact, I think such a strictly globally regulated approach is less realistic than one which changes the very institutions of the economic system, away from either top-down planning, or the market (the latter I would prefer, along with supporting reforms) Both approaches would require a revolution (despite what Ibis says) but only the latter can persist over the longer term that the climate demands.
Basically environmental reformism without underlying desires to change the economic system is worthless.

In short, it's either capitalism or a habitable planet, there is no other choice

What you want undeniably does require a revolution. Unfortunately, the reason for having a revolution bears no relation to the problem we are trying to solve.

Over most of the world, certain environmental features are already regulated - it only happens after people realise the real extent of the problem, but it happens nonetheless, whether the system is capitalism,socialism, or primitive. That suggests it is something people are OK with - sure, they bitch and moan, but they don't violently overthrow it.

Socialistic systems and planned economies, on the other hand, seem to require violent revolution on foot of intolerable conditions. They are then generally maintained in existence by force, and overthrown once the will to maintain them from the top is gone. Parecon economies simply don't happen at all.

We will not have a revolution unless people take the problems facing us sufficiently seriously - but if they take them seriously, we won't need a revolution, since the problems you point out are simply the result of not taking the matter seriously enough, not the system we use for dealing with them.

Either we limit the damage we do, or the planet becomes uninhabitable. Claiming that only one system can deliver such results, and that we must have a revolution to get there, puts the cart firmly before the horse (and then shoots the horse).

Pax wrote:

ibis wrote:

It is possible, I think, that if Cuba went over to a market economy within the current embargo constraints, it would still be sustainable.

It seems like a corporate lobbyist's job will become redundant in this 'new' 'capped' capitalism?

I wouldn't think so, I'm afraid. There's plenty more to lobby about than raw materials and pollution.

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Are you suggesting that the OP issues can be solved by tweaking environmental regulations and without a profound change in how society is organised economically?

Quote :

Yup. The problem is over-consumption of environmental products and over-emission of environmental pollution. Deciding to fix that by introducing an entirely different (and failed) model of society and economy is like fixing a leak in your roof by moving the floor out of the way.

As overconsumption of environmental products is inherent to the present system, trying to fix it without introducing a different system is failing to recognise that the floor has fallen out already. What is failed model you mention btw?

No, there's no requirement in the current system to over-consume resources or to pollute. The current system does it because resources are under-priced (their price is set by the scarcity of a flow of supply, ignoring the fact that it's actually a reduction of capital) and the environment is treated as a free good to pollute in. The result of that is that capital flows to businesses that use as much of these under-priced or free items as possible, but if you price them properly then it flows to those businesses that use them most effectively.

The failed system is planned economies. They don't work very well, for reasons that are not curable with bigger faster computers. At the end of the day a market does a much much better job of matching needs to means than any planned economy has ever done - but it needs regulation to steer it.

Then how come its doing such a seriously bad job right now on both the environmental, production and distribution fronts ?

Because natural resources are grossly underpriced compared to, for example, labour or capital. Imagine a business that needs, say, tin, and produces acid water waste as a byproduct. If the environment is valued at zero, it's not worth expending either labour or capital on cleaning up the waste, and a business that does so is penalised. If tin is under-valued, because the economy values it as if we could go on producing the same amount year after year, then it's more "efficient" for the business to use more in its product if that means a reduction in the use of labour or capital.

The incentive effect in the current economic system are what makes it work so well - but they apply well only within a framework of prices. Where bits of reality are left unpriced, the incentive system produces perverse incentives - such as those outlined above. One solution is to ensure that things are properly priced, so that the incentives are no longer perverse. There's a whole field of study in respect of this - environmental economics - which formed a fair chunk of my MSc.

What were your recommendations for price fixing ?

Quote :

I don't recommend fixing the price! I recommend fixing the maximum amount of a resource that can be used, and letting the market price it, because the price the market sets on something is a meaningful signal. I am suggesting we plan the limits to the economy, if you like, in terms of the damage it is allowed to do. How it operates within those limits is up to itself, as long as it doesn't breach the limits.

You are making the case that under-pricing is the problem I thought. You have two choices, to ration by price or to ration by quantity. Either way, that would cut straight across the free market, and would entail a planned approach.

Quote :

Cuba, which is often held up as the example sustainable country, runs the same system that was in use in a lot of unsustainable countries. The major difference is that due to the US-led embargo, it exists on a very restricted import-export 'diet'. It is possible, I think, that if Cuba went over to a market economy within the current embargo constraints, it would still be sustainable.

In other words, rationing works. But how can rationing be implemented in a free market/capitalist system?

ibis wrote:

Over most of the world, certain environmental features are already regulated - it only happens after people realise the real extent of the problem, but it happens nonetheless, whether the system is capitalism,socialism, or primitive. That suggests it is something people are OK with - sure, they bitch and moan, but they don't violently overthrow it.

It seems not entirely violently in developed economies, but even there regulation is certainly 'overthrown' or the clock is turned back. Just look at the very high level of regulation of utilities in the US up until recently. It was, and still is, 'overthrown'. In fact it was actually democratically planned regulation. Indeed when you look at the history of how it was reversed, a very large part of it was corporate supported and lobbied for, deregulation policies masking as environmental or green ones under the Carter administration.
The entire regulatory apparatus was removed to the detriment of the environment, despite the fact it provided cheaper prices to the average user of the utilities. People 'bitched and moaned' (or participated) to get it back, but for some reason the US (a similar polyarchy to our own) failed to respond....strange that.

And there's plenty of other examples, particularly since the early 70s. More recent and even more relevant ones would be carbon trading as I mentioned above.

ibis wrote:

Socialistic systems and planned economies, on the other hand, seem to require violent revolution on foot of intolerable conditions. They are then generally maintained in existence by force, and overthrown once the will to maintain them from the top is gone. Parecon economies simply don't happen at all.

The don't always require violence, look at the elected Alende, and just because an economy has not been created completely (putting aside some similar examples) does not mean it shoudn't be. Speaking of Alende, lets look at Pinochet.... One of the book club reads here (The Shock Doctrine) outlines how violent shock therapy capitalism was introduced in an undemocratic manner, but by capitalist countries. But onne important point from Klein's book is that the reaction from the wealthy capitalist economies was mainly against Keynesian or social democratically regulated capitalist economies. Not just against consciously revolutionary socialist movements such as with Alende.

The separate argument on getting from here to there, --well it's not easy either way and I don't support violent revolution, but by and large violence is against such developments and not by such developments. (Again for instance see latin America recently with Chavez) I support reform within the current system but at the same time I'm looking for the possibilty of building long-term participatory and decentrally planned institions which can replace the current system. (this is a separate and long argument for another thread...)
But I think Parecon is one of the most well thought out alternatives, from either an environmental, libertarian socialist or anarchist perspective (or just an efficient economy perspective which probably everyone holds), but it's not my only blueprint.

ibis wrote:

We will not have a revolution unless people take the problems facing us sufficiently seriously - but if they take them seriously, we won't need a revolution, since the problems you point out are simply the result of not taking the matter seriously enough, not the system we use for dealing with them.

I think people are by and large aware of the problem but the system has effects on peoples views and preferences which work against that. It will continue to have that effect but even moreso when people take them seriously. I'd like to see a system which is incentive compatible so that people express their views in harmony (an awful word but apt) with the environment, while not having a bias towards carrying a cost to doing that. This unlocks peoples' control over the economy in proportion to how they are affected by it, including by harmful externalites and pollution etc and replaces current institutions which will work to break free from controls which constrict their capacity to make easy profits.

And to address your first point,

ibis wrote:

"Unfortunately, the reason for having a revolution bears no relation to the problem we are trying to solve."

and

ibis wrote:

"Either we limit the damage we do, or the planet becomes uninhabitable. Claiming that only one system can deliver such results, and that we must have a revolution to get there, puts the cart firmly before the horse (and then shoots the horse)."

I'm in favour of reform and revolution. No cart before the horse there. Unfortunately reform/regulation only is not likely to last given the wealth of evidence that it, well, simply doesn't, or else just falters into greenwash.

At the same time the forces working against such regulation have decades of experience under their belt which means the time period between the fall of such regulation is likely to be even shorter than in the past.

This all probably depends on what you mean by 'revolution'. The system which you support, of global regulation and the use of neoliberal pricing (for that is what it is), of such a scope as to achieve a workable solution, will require an extraordinary amount of ongoing effort and authoritarian control. I think you'd equate even 'contraction and convergence' or global democracy as revolutionary but for some reason not your global cap? So if going beyond your capping system means 'revolution' (and apart from it being surely false that we don't need to go beyond this given the reality), then yes you can call it revolutionary. But no, you can't say it's not required.

Also the link below might be instructive* with respect to what I want having nothing to do with the problem.

*
Protecting the Environment in a Participatory Economy
http://www.greens.org/s-r/34/34-18.html

Quote :

....Uncorrected markets accomplish none of the four goals above. Markets
corrected by pollution taxes only lead to the efficient amount of
pollution and satisfy the polluter pays principle if the taxes are set
equal to the magnitude of the damage victims suffer. But
because markets are not incentive compatible for polluters and
pollution victims, markets provide no reliable way to estimate the
magnitudes of efficient taxes for pollutants. Ambiguity over who
has the property right, polluters or pollution victims, free rider
problems among multiple victims, and the transaction costs of forming
and maintaining an effective coalition of pollution victims, each of
whom is affected to a small but unequal degree, all combine to render
market systems incapable of eliciting accurate information from
pollution victims about the damages they suffer, or acting upon that
information even if it were known.

A participatory economy, on the other hand, awards victims an incontestable right not
to be polluted, and arms them with a federation that includes every
victim to express and represent their interests. Moreover, the context
of participatory planning makes it in the best interests of the
federation’s members for their federation to truthfully express the
magnitude of the damage pollution does to its collective victims, and
to permit emissions so long as the social benefits outweigh the damage
to victims. [3]

The crucial difference between participatory planning and market economies in this regard is that the
participatory planning procedure generates quantitative estimates of
the costs and benefits of pollution while markets do not.
Consequently, even “good faith” efforts to internalize the cost of
pollution through taxes or permits in market economies are “flying
blind,” and opportunities for “bad faith” intervention are ever
present. Estimates from “contingent valuation surveys” and “hedonic
regression studies” are less accurate than the indicative prices for
pollutants that are generated automatically by the participatory
planning procedure. Moreover, because everyone knows estimates based on
surveys and studies are unreliable, it is possible for interested
parties in market economies to challenge estimates they find
inconvenient. Interested parties frequently finance alternative surveys
and studies that arrive at predictably different conclusions regarding
the damage from pollution and benefits from environmental preservation.

Since, unlike participatory planning, market systems generate
no “objective” estimates that could serve as arbiters, debates over the
size of pollution taxes in market economies invariably devolve into a
cacophony of “he says, she says.” The participatory planning procedure
described above, on the other hand, provides credible estimates of the
damage done by pollution because the above procedure makes it in the
interest of pollution victims to reveal the extent of the damage they
suffer truthfully as a byproduct of simply participating in the
planning procedure.....

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

I don't recommend fixing the price! I recommend fixing the maximum amount of a resource that can be used, and letting the market price it, because the price the market sets on something is a meaningful signal. I am suggesting we plan the limits to the economy, if you like, in terms of the damage it is allowed to do. How it operates within those limits is up to itself, as long as it doesn't breach the limits.

You are making the case that under-pricing is the problem I thought. You have two choices, to ration by price or to ration by quantity. Either way, that would cut straight across the free market, and would entail a planned approach.

Rationing by price doesn't work as well, though, because it doesn't address the basic problem, which is that you want to use a fixed amount of a resource, or less.

cactus flower wrote:

Quote :

Cuba, which is often held up as the example sustainable country, runs the same system that was in use in a lot of unsustainable countries. The major difference is that due to the US-led embargo, it exists on a very restricted import-export 'diet'. It is possible, I think, that if Cuba went over to a market economy within the current embargo constraints, it would still be sustainable.

In other words, rationing works. But how can rationing be implemented in a free market/capitalist system?

Er, easily. It's been done before, and is done regularly. It's what the CFP does (admittedly, not as well as it should, but that again is an outcome of not taking the problem seriously).

I'm sure it's impossible in youngdan's libertarian version of the free market, but that doesn't actually exist anywhere, fortunately.

Quote :

The separate argument on getting from here to there, --well it's not easy either way and I don't support violent revolution, but by and large violence is against such developments and not by such developments. (Again for instance see latin America recently with Chavez) I support reform within the current system but at the same time I'm looking for the possibilty of building long-term participatory and decentrally planned institions which can replace the current system. (this is a separate and long argument for another thread...)
But I think Parecon is one of the most well thought out alternatives, from either an environmental, libertarian socialist or anarchist perspective (or just an efficient economy perspective which probably everyone holds), but it's not my only blueprint.

I don't agree, as you know. Aside from that disagreement, my point is that parecon does not directly address the issues. It is a system which could result in a solution to the problem, if it chose to do so. If a parecon system chose, on the other hand, to ignore the environmental limits, it would do so - there is nothing whatsoever in parecon (or a centrally planned economy) that requires it to observe environmental limits.

So the argument as to whether these various socialist systems work is entirely irrelevant, because they have no more built-in observance of environmental limits than capitalism does.

To be blunt, those who wish to introduce such socialist solutions under the guise of solving the environmental issues the world faces are doing no such thing. You are simply using the environmental issue as a trojan horse to implement the socialist solutions you prefer, and as such, you're part of the problem, not part of the solution.

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

I don't recommend fixing the price! I recommend fixing the maximum amount of a resource that can be used, and letting the market price it, because the price the market sets on something is a meaningful signal. I am suggesting we plan the limits to the economy, if you like, in terms of the damage it is allowed to do. How it operates within those limits is up to itself, as long as it doesn't breach the limits.

You are making the case that under-pricing is the problem I thought. You have two choices, to ration by price or to ration by quantity. Either way, that would cut straight across the free market, and would entail a planned approach.

Rationing by price doesn't work as well, though, because it doesn't address the basic problem, which is that you want to use a fixed amount of a resource, or less.

cactus flower wrote:

Quote :

Cuba, which is often held up as the example sustainable country, runs the same system that was in use in a lot of unsustainable countries. The major difference is that due to the US-led embargo, it exists on a very restricted import-export 'diet'. It is possible, I think, that if Cuba went over to a market economy within the current embargo constraints, it would still be sustainable.

In other words, rationing works. But how can rationing be implemented in a free market/capitalist system?

Er, easily. It's been done before, and is done regularly. It's what the CFP does (admittedly, not as well as it should, but that again is an outcome of not taking the problem seriously).

I'm sure it's impossible in youngdan's libertarian version of the free market, but that doesn't actually exist anywhere, fortunately.

What is the CFP and how does it ration consumption of non-renewable resources over time? You say its been done, but not well, and that is simply because people don't understand that its serious?

ibis wrote:

Quote :

The separate argument on getting from here to there, --well it's not easy either way and I don't support violent revolution, but by and large violence is against such developments and not by such developments. (Again for instance see latin America recently with Chavez) I support reform within the current system but at the same time I'm looking for the possibilty of building long-term participatory and decentrally planned institions which can replace the current system. (this is a separate and long argument for another thread...)
But I think Parecon is one of the most well thought out alternatives, from either an environmental, libertarian socialist or anarchist perspective (or just an efficient economy perspective which probably everyone holds), but it's not my only blueprint.

I don't agree, as you know. Aside from that disagreement, my point is that parecon does not directly address the issues. It is a system which could result in a solution to the problem, if it chose to do so. If a parecon system chose, on the other hand, to ignore the environmental limits, it would do so - there is nothing whatsoever in parecon (or a centrally planned economy) that requires it to observe environmental limits.

So the argument as to whether these various socialist systems work is entirely irrelevant, because they have no more built-in observance of environmental limits than capitalism does.


To be blunt, those who wish to introduce such socialist solutions under the guise of solving the environmental issues the world faces are doing no such thing. You are simply using the environmental issue as a trojan horse to implement the socialist solutions you prefer, and as such, you're part of the problem, not part of the solution.

All you're saying here Ibis, is because you say it, it is so. Capitalism is inherently expansionary, you haven't addressed that.

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

I don't recommend fixing the price! I recommend fixing the maximum amount of a resource that can be used, and letting the market price it, because the price the market sets on something is a meaningful signal. I am suggesting we plan the limits to the economy, if you like, in terms of the damage it is allowed to do. How it operates within those limits is up to itself, as long as it doesn't breach the limits.

You are making the case that under-pricing is the problem I thought. You have two choices, to ration by price or to ration by quantity. Either way, that would cut straight across the free market, and would entail a planned approach.

Rationing by price doesn't work as well, though, because it doesn't address the basic problem, which is that you want to use a fixed amount of a resource, or less.

cactus flower wrote:

Quote :

Cuba, which is often held up as the example sustainable country, runs the same system that was in use in a lot of unsustainable countries. The major difference is that due to the US-led embargo, it exists on a very restricted import-export 'diet'. It is possible, I think, that if Cuba went over to a market economy within the current embargo constraints, it would still be sustainable.

In other words, rationing works. But how can rationing be implemented in a free market/capitalist system?

Er, easily. It's been done before, and is done regularly. It's what the CFP does (admittedly, not as well as it should, but that again is an outcome of not taking the problem seriously).

I'm sure it's impossible in youngdan's libertarian version of the free market, but that doesn't actually exist anywhere, fortunately.

What is the CFP and how does it ration consumption of non-renewable resources over time? You say its been done, but not well, and that is simply because people don't understand that its serious?

The Common Fisheries Policy - which, like most fisheries management systems, is a series of quotas.

Quote :

All you're saying here Ibis, is because you say it, it is so. Capitalism is inherently expansionary, you haven't addressed that.

There's no problem with capitalism being expansionary as long as it observes the required limits - there are plenty of ways to 'expand' without simply using more of everything. If it turned out it couldn't, then something else would evolve in its place. That might be some form of socialism, it might be a modified version of capitalism - the limits are the important thing. Anyone who brings in a socialist system still has to bring in those limits.

Quote :

There's no problem with capitalism being expansionary as long as it observes the required limits - there are plenty of ways to 'expand' without simply using more of everything. If it turned out it couldn't, then something else would evolve in its place. That might be some form of socialism, it might be a modified version of capitalism - the limits are the important thing. Anyone who brings in a socialist system still has to bring in those limits.

Ibis, do you by any chance think that thought determines being?

cactus flower wrote:

Quote :

There's no problem with capitalism being expansionary as long as it observes the required limits - there are plenty of ways to 'expand' without simply using more of everything. If it turned out it couldn't, then something else would evolve in its place. That might be some form of socialism, it might be a modified version of capitalism - the limits are the important thing. Anyone who brings in a socialist system still has to bring in those limits.

Ibis, do you by any chance think that thought determines being?

Well, I do believe that if someone wishes to claim that capitalism is necessarily expansionary, they would need to prove it - it's an article of faith for many, but I am not amongst them. Capitalism does not disappear in a recession (which is an economic contraction), so it seems to me that there's quite a lot of work to do proving that.

To some extent, though, I believe that political will determines regulation and enforcement, and enforced regulation changes the way people do things. Since 'people doing things' is the problem, it looks to me like you can address the problem through regulation - if there is the political will. All the suggested solutions require political will - this one actually requires less, because the socialist solutions require both the political will to change the system and the will to impose the limits.

ibis wrote:

Quote :

The separate argument on getting from here to there, --well it's not easy either way and I don't support violent revolution, but by and large violence is against such developments and not by such developments. (Again for instance see latin America recently with Chavez) I support reform within the current system but at the same time I'm looking for the possibilty of building long-term participatory and decentrally planned institions which can replace the current system. (this is a separate and long argument for another thread...)
But I think Parecon is one of the most well thought out alternatives, from either an environmental, libertarian socialist or anarchist perspective (or just an efficient economy perspective which probably everyone holds), but it's not my only blueprint.

I don't agree, as you know. Aside from that disagreement, my point is that parecon does not directly address the issues. It is a system which could result in a solution to the problem, if it chose to do so. If a parecon system chose, on the other hand, to ignore the environmental limits, it would do so - there is nothing whatsoever in parecon (or a centrally planned economy) that requires it to observe environmental limits.

So the argument as to whether these various socialist systems work is entirely irrelevant, because they have no more built-in observance of environmental limits than capitalism does.

To be blunt, those who wish to introduce such socialist solutions under the guise of solving the environmental issues the world faces are doing no such thing. You are simply using the environmental issue as a trojan horse to implement the socialist solutions you prefer, and as such, you're part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Well the link above (or any cursory reading of Parecon) would show that it's not the case that it does not require a limit. Externalities are built into the price in Parecon, and without the problems of markets or central planning while the system works through people having a say in proportion to how they are affected (by pollution say, or resource depletion). The very institutions mean that consumption is constrained, which is why it has garnered so much interest from left greens in particular.

Given the wealth of evidence I too have to be frank and I think that, reformism and regulation only and within capitalism, while at the same time enclosing and privatising the commons even further, will fail.

For instance you mentioned fish resources under capitalism and limits to fishing earlier, and as an example in favour of your argument!

ibis wrote:

You could start doing that today. No societal revolution is required -
you simply set a limit on the use of resources and the emission of
pollutants. We actually have the latter already, and for certain
resources (eg fish) we have the former as well. You progressively
tighten the restrictions (to give people time to adjust) towards the
goal state of actual sustainability.

I think this is just more of Hardin's unfortunate myth, as I mentioned on another thread here on MN.

The Myth of the Tragedy of the Commons
http://www.monthlyreview.org/mrzine/angus250808.html

Quote :

Where's the Evidence?

Given the subsequent influence of Hardin's essay, it's shocking to realize that he provided no evidence at all to support his sweeping conclusions. He claimed that the "tragedy" was inevitable -- but he didn't show that it had happened even once.

Hardin simply ignored what actually happens in a real commons: self-regulation by the communities involved. One such process was described years earlier in Friedrich Engels' account of the "mark," the form taken by commons-based communities in parts of pre-capitalist Germany:

[T]he use of arable and meadowlands was under the supervision and direction of the community. . . .

Just as the share of each member in so much of the mark as was distributed was of equal size, so was his share also in the use of the "common mark." The nature of this use was determined by the members of the community as a whole. . . .

At fixed times and, if necessary, more frequently, they met in the open air to discuss the affairs of the mark and to sit in judgment upon breaches of regulations and disputes concerning the mark. (Engels 1892)

Historians and other scholars have broadly confirmed Engels' description of communal management of shared resources. A summary of recent research concludes:

[W]hat existed in fact was not a "tragedy of the commons" but rather a triumph: that for hundreds of years -- and perhaps thousands, although written records do not exist to prove the longer era -- land was managed successfully by communities. (Cox 1985: 60)

Part of that self-regulation process was known in England as "stinting" -- establishing limits for the number of cows, pigs, sheep, and other livestock that each commoner could graze on the common pasture. Such "stints" protected the land from overuse (a concept that experienced farmers understood long before Hardin arrived) and allowed the community to allocate resources according to its own concepts of fairness.

The only significant cases of overstocking found by the leading modern expert on the English commons involved wealthy landowners who deliberately put too many animals onto the pasture in order to weaken their much poorer neighbors' position in disputes over the enclosure (privatization) of common lands (Neeson 1993: 156).

Hardin assumed that peasant farmers are unable to change their behavior in the face of certain disaster. But in the real world, small farmers, fishers, and others have created their own institutions and rules for preserving resources and ensuring that the commons community survived through good years and bad ...

[my emphasis underlined]

Quote :

Well the link above (or any cursory reading of Parecon) would show that it's not the case that it does not require a limit. Externalities are built into the price in Parecon, and without the problems of markets or central planning while the system works through people having a say in proportion to how they are affected (by pollution say, or resource depletion). The very institutions mean that consumption is constrained, which is why it has garnered so much interest from left greens in particular.

I have to admit that my cursory readings of parecon over the last several years do not show that the system comes with a limit. They assume, instead, that the people involved will choose to limit themselves - and if they did that, we wouldn't have a problem in the first place.

There isn't any environmental problem that parecon solves except with the addition of exactly the same kind of goodwill that would equally well solve it in any other system. As such, parecon isn't an answer to the question at all.

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Quote :

There's no problem with capitalism being expansionary as long as it observes the required limits - there are plenty of ways to 'expand' without simply using more of everything. If it turned out it couldn't, then something else would evolve in its place. That might be some form of socialism, it might be a modified version of capitalism - the limits are the important thing. Anyone who brings in a socialist system still has to bring in those limits.

Ibis, do you by any chance think that thought determines being?

Well, I do believe that if someone wishes to claim that capitalism is necessarily expansionary, they would need to prove it - it's an article of faith for many, but I am not amongst them. Capitalism does not disappear in a recession (which is an economic contraction), so it seems to me that there's quite a lot of work to do proving that.

To some extent, though, I believe that political will determines regulation and enforcement, and enforced regulation changes the way people do things. Since 'people doing things' is the problem, it looks to me like you can address the problem through regulation - if there is the political will. All the suggested solutions require political will - this one actually requires less, because the socialist solutions require both the political will to change the system and the will to impose the limits.

Capital itself is expansionary - money under the mattress is dead money and is not part of capitalism. Capital consists of the money/commodities that are enchanged / invested in order to produce more capital and commodities. It requires a return. There is no steady state in capitalism. It is either "working" i.e. expanding, or it is in a destructive collapse.

I think you seriously misjudge the extent to which thought or "will" can overcome inherent tendencies of an economic system like capitalism. Capitalism is at risk of collapse now at a time when anti-capitalist ideologies are weaker than they have been for 100 years.

The idea that capitalism is the "end of history" and that it can't be replaced by something better and more in tune with human need and potential was fashionable in the neoliberal era that passed away this year. There are plenty of serious capitalists who are questioning that now. Their vision of an alternative seems to be a corporate / state form of capitalism, with majority living standards crushed to keep the bailed out private sector creaking along. If you find this appetising, I don't. It really doesn't wash to say that because capitalism hasn't been successfully replaced so far, then it can't be. That would have been an arguement for living indefinitely in caves. And I don't know why anyone would expect social and economic transformation to be easy, or not to have false starts.

You don't seem to realise that capitalism is collapsing in front of your eyes. If it holds on, it would will not be a pretty sight. Even if you look at the conflict that has broken out in Ireland in the last week, that should give some kind of awareness of the choices that have to be made.

ibis wrote:

Quote :

Well the link above (or any cursory reading of Parecon) would show that it's not the case that it does not require a limit. Externalities are built into the price in Parecon, and without the problems of markets or central planning while the system works through people having a say in proportion to how they are affected (by pollution say, or resource depletion). The very institutions mean that consumption is constrained, which is why it has garnered so much interest from left greens in particular.

I have to admit that my cursory readings of parecon over the last several years do not show that the system comes with a limit. They assume, instead, that the people involved will choose to limit themselves - and if they did that, we wouldn't have a problem in the first place.

There isn't any environmental problem that parecon solves except with the addition of exactly the same kind of goodwill that would equally well solve it in any other system. As such, parecon isn't an answer to the question at all.

"and if they did that, we wouldn't have a problem in the first place".


And which system do they not do that in currently? Why capitalism of course.

Your last paragraph suggests every economic system has the same effect on people, and the same outcomes. You've completely ignored the paragraph I quoted above from ( http://www.greens.org/s-r/34/34-18.html )
Different economic institutions have different outcomes and different ways of estimating pollution limits. Practically everything in capitalism stops the victim of pollution from having a say, despite whether they want to or not, while profit seeking institutions and imperatives work against accurate estimates. The exact opposite is the case in a decentrally planned anarchistic economy such as Parecon. And yet you say there's no difference?

Quote :

You don't seem to realise that capitalism is collapsing in front of your eyes. If it holds on, it would will not be a pretty sight. Even if you look at the conflict that has broken out in Ireland in the last week, that should give some kind of awareness of the choices that have to be made.

Somehow it survived the 30's, and the 70's. It survived in Japan despite over a decade of contraction and deflation. It's a system now several centuries old, which has survived an awful lot worse than what's currently happening. "Collapsing in front of my eyes" it isn't - it's at one of the points where people realise that it needs regulation.

Quote :

"and if they did that, we wouldn't have a problem in the first place".

And which system do they not do that in currently? Why capitalism of course.

And in what decade is that happening currently? Why this one - so clearly next decade will be entirely different!

You are confusing coincidence with causality, I'm afraid.

Quote :

Your last paragraph suggests every economic system has the same effect on people, and the same outcomes. You've completely ignored the paragraph I quoted above from ( http://www.greens.org/s-r/34/34-18.html )
Different economic institutions have different outcomes and different ways of estimating pollution limits. Practically everything in capitalism stops the victim of pollution from having a say, despite whether they want to or not, while profit seeking institutions and imperatives work against accurate estimates. The exact opposite is the case in a decentrally planned anarchistic economy such as Parecon. And yet you say there's no difference?

There's nothing whatsoever in Parecon (or functional socialism) that makes it a better system for accepting environmental limits - except the fact that in order for Parecon to work at all, people already have to be quite different from what they are. Since that's essentially make-believe, you are of course entitled to make any claim you like about it.

Unfortunately, it remains the case that if the political will of the people were sufficient to institute a parecon economy, we would already be somewhere quite far above the level of political will required to institute proper environmental limits.

Dirty business is more profitable than clean business - perhaps you remember that UK study Ibis, Look at your own graphs, and compare the impact trends with the foreign investment graph.

You don't deal with what capitalism is and how it works. It requires growth to function at all.

ibis wrote:

There's nothing whatsoever in Parecon (or functional socialism) that makes it a better system for accepting environmental limits

I've just repeatedly pointed out to you how it is quite obviously better. You've ignored that reality of both Parecon or other alternatives and the reality of capitalism. Soooo, as per usual, we'll have to agree to disagree.

ibis wrote:

in order for Parecon to work at all, people already have to be quite different from what they are.

I've pointed this out to you a number of times before on p.ie I believe, but a Parecon economy does not require that everyone is a saint. It's actually one of it's strengths that it does not require a biasing of people towards being non-selfish say to get on in the economy. And really, any cursory reading of how the institutions operate would make this clear to you.

To get to that level of political will you mention, will require a lot more than setting a limit and then letting capitalism get on with it. You can hold that view if you like, but you've not addressed the reality that's it's unlikely to work, given the evidence, and particularly in the long term and the time scale which the environment and the planet demands.

ibis wrote:

Quote :

Your last paragraph suggests every economic system has the same effect on people, and the same outcomes. You've completely ignored the paragraph I quoted above from ( http://www.greens.org/s-r/34/34-18.html )
Different economic institutions have different outcomes and different ways of estimating pollution limits. Practically everything in capitalism stops the victim of pollution from having a say, despite whether they want to or not, while profit seeking institutions and imperatives work against accurate estimates. The exact opposite is the case in a decentrally planned anarchistic economy such as Parecon. And yet you say there's no difference?

There's nothing whatsoever in Parecon (or functional socialism) that makes it a better system for accepting environmental limits - except the fact that in order for Parecon to work at all, people already have to be quite different from what they are. Since that's essentially make-believe, you are of course entitled to make any claim you like about it.

Unfortunately, it remains the case that if the political will of the people were sufficient to institute a parecon economy, we would already be somewhere quite far above the level of political will required to institute proper environmental limits.

Nonsense. There is a positive incentive in Capitalism to reject environmental limits - profit motive. If you remove that, you remove one of the key pressures.