And the cataclysmic gap between theory, policy and ecosystem collapse
I had a big LOL moment picturing the 1% “evacuating the planet.” Of course somebody needs to tell them that space is really really big, there is nowhere to go, and that we live on the most beautiful planet in the universe yet we treat it like trash. But let them sail off to their deaths. Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of hominids.
Just spotted a macroeconomic briefing from the Women’s Budget Group, published end of July “… every activity needed to sustain life and society should be considered when making economic policy decisions.”
Might be of interest https://wbg.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/A-feminist-approach-to-macroeconomics.pdf
I hope Steve’s better at forecasting Climate than he is at house prices hehe but at least he owned his deluded calls by hiking the mountain
Thankfully, not all economics professors have bought the corporate, extractive, rent-seeking posture. One professor of economics is Joshua Farley at the University of Vermont. Here is a link to an interview of professor Farley worthy of your time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2Q4b0NWV8E
The needs of the Society (capital "S") come first. If the ruling arrangements in effect, the richest of the Society, need good science they will have it. But what if they don't need that? Well if the need is for example to block the science, that is what they will do. They represent one particular ruling arrangement. So what is it they want? The ruling elites or ruling "class" want to have more trade, as it enriches them, and this elite wants to dominate the trade. So, what if global climate change/warming stops them from their desired human social system? The answer is just to deny, or "under-price," the global warming. What rules the planet is the ruling system or ruling arrangement. It has to be understood as a social system. The solution that might help is that one destroys elite power. Hey - They can have nice two-bedroom apartments as far as I am concerned but they should not be a ruling class. It would be better if they were no longer in control. It is kind of hard to make that happen.
The elites prefer trade to warfare; it is less lethal. Also, consider that with better technology, warfare becomes that much *more* lethal, so trade it is. They prefer trade. Now, within trade, they prefer a system with a large mass of poor people, or subjugated poor. I think it is necessary, because it just seems to me intuitively clear that for this system there has to be a large lower economic stratum. That way elites have someone to look down on. This is necessary, because otherwise they would quarrel too much amongst themselves. Better to cuss out your servant. This way they are the superior class. After establishing this sort of social basis, with a small elite and a large impoverished or dependent mass, they also want freedom to act without interference by other people. They need to have "private" property so that each individual rich individual may have as much freedom as possible (while simultaneously having a lot of smaller, weaker persons to vent their emotions on. These emotions are frustrations, hatred, prejudice and the like).
It follows: any attempt to create coordination between elites for the purpose of controlling climate disaster or problems stemming from the climate change situation is not feasible. It is not their version of how human life should go forward. Such coordination between persons would mean persons controlling one another --- that they cannot have. They refuse to put brakes on each others' actions, hoping I suppose that the magic of the market will provide the boundaries and limits. But intentional submission to others is out --- they do not want to do that.
So, the response of these persons who deem themselves to be of obvious superiority and higher class than the rabble, is to just ignore the problem. When that does not work, they respond in some bizarre way, like killing 300,000 cows. (Some say they are now strategically exaggerating the climate problems in specific areas --- Hawaii.)
You are right, Ann Pettifor. Economic system change would be best, which is to say, *if* there were some force for making it occur. The elites themselves cannot do it. They are stuck on the wrong version of society.
The needs of Society come first.
„Some may doubt the power and influence of economists in bringing us to this pass.“ That is my problem, when trying to explain this to other people. I always feel like I am a conspirity theorist. Neoclassical economists have managed to declare themselves the only economist. If I introduce different ideas to people I find myself in the position of having to start from scratch. Especially explaining the role of economists in sabotaging climate protection sounds like this story, where the vaccination of cows leads to regrowth of trees. It is true but it is complex and needs an effort from the other site in trying to understand. So thank you for your effort in trying to explain it so eloquently.
Keep up the good work! Look forward to reading the new book.
Very much looking forward to your book!!
The Scary But Joyous New Paradigm
Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting is the new monetary and economic paradigm and its policies are a 50% discount/rebate policyat retail sale and a universal dividend of $1000 per month to everyone 18 years of age and older.
And there is no coerciveness about it, which means you are free to refuse the dividend and pay full price for everything...until your wife hits you over the head with a rolling pin and tells you to grow a couple of new neurons and accept your freedom instead of habitually bitching about how bad everything is.
Yes, you will have to then wake up and stop trying to escape from freedom by beginning to fill your life with positive, constructive and self chosen purposes to fill the additional leisure time you'll have. There will be no more being "distracted from distraction by distraction", habitually claiming to be the victim of government or going back to being the breeding stock of finance. It will be freedom. Scary at first, but joyous and rewarding freedom. Get over it and get used to it.
Thank you for writing this Ann. Now holding thumbs that this reaches more people, that the voices of people like yourself and Steve reach more people.
Thank you so much Ann. I am sure the "Nordhaus myths" are behind the smug complacency I heard in the Cumbria coal mine Public Inquiry.: Jim Truman of Wood Mackenzie and the Counsel for West Cumbria Mining agreeing with each other about the eventual need for low carbon solutions...and that Counsel deriding Bob Watson's evidence as "virtue signalling", and Paul Ekins' evidence as unrealistic. Angry? Frustrated? What the hell do we do?
Great review Ann. Thank you! Besides Keen, Prof John Broome should also be read more widely.