'Thinking Outside the Box' in 2012

[Potemkin Villager]

Such articles get swamped by the economically-focussed chapters (though producing nutritionally complete food makes economic sense).


No book - including Fleeing Vesuvius - is going to solve that much but it's part of the type of thinking that's required.

Here we get to the nub of it. I have a feeling I am maybe not being nearly dismissive enough!

I am yet to be convinced that economists and their physical reality denying religion and arrogant theories, having led us to the current predicament, have suddenly changed their spots and are now coming up with outside the box ideas that are going to save the day and lead us all to some promised land ( usually called a soft landing).

We do have a massive systemic predicament and not merely some tractable problems amenable to being "solved" with even more exceedingly cunning plan(s).

So I would ask you what it is you see as what is solvable and what exactly is the "type of thinking that's required".

Let us indeed try and look outside the famous box.

[emordnilap]

So I would ask you what it is you see as what is solvable and what exactly is the "type of thinking that's required".

While I'm at it, I'd like to ask you the same.

[emordnilap]

Anyway, 'solvable' - you'd have to be a cock-eyed optimist; virtually anything I would like to see being done is unimplementable.

Cap and share or tradeable energy quotas.

Put that in place and then move on.

[Potemkin Villager]

So I would ask you what it is you see as what is solvable and what exactly is the "type of thinking that's required".

While I'm at it, I'd like to ask you the same.

Boy I would love to discover what type of "thinking that's required"!

What you are saying however implies that you know already!
I am sure we all would love you to share this knowledge of
the "type of thinking that's required" which you allude to.

[emordnilap]

Which authors in particular do you see as thinking along the right lines in the likes of Fleeing Vesuvius?

To a great extent, they're all 'having a go' at thinking outside the box. Whether they succeed depends upon your particular evaluation. What ideas are not 'self-serving', if that is how you judge ideas?

[UndercoverElephant]

Such articles get swamped by the economically-focussed chapters (though producing nutritionally complete food makes economic sense).


No book - including Fleeing Vesuvius - is going to solve that much but it's part of the type of thinking that's required.

Here we get to the nub of it. I have a feeling I am maybe not being nearly dismissive enough!

I am yet to be convinced that economists and their physical reality denying religion and arrogant theories, having led us to the current predicament, have suddenly changed their spots and are now coming up with outside the box ideas that are going to save the day and lead us all to some promised land ( usually called a soft landing).

We do have a massive systemic predicament and not merely some tractable problems amenable to being "solved" with even more exceedingly cunning plan(s).

So I would ask you what it is you see as what is solvable and what exactly is the "type of thinking that's required".

Let us indeed try and look outside the famous box.

"Type of thinking that's required" is easy.

At the moment, economics is subservient to politics and only pays partial attention to science (most importantly ecology.) This needs to be the other way around. Economics has to take full account of ecology. It must start with the ecological facts and only after that should it start taking politics into account. "Ecological" facts includes things like human overdependence on non-renewable fossil fuels.

Put another way: economics must become a branch of ecology.

[emordnilap]

Which indeed is my prime recommendation: C&S/TEQs first, then decide what predicament needs 'solving' next.

[Potemkin Villager]

Like the comment in the text about the euros being a good insulator

Except against economic calamity I suppose

You could have added "and reality" as well.

I must say Ken that the UK currency would seem to have
equally sterling qualities in this regard.

[Potemkin Villager]

"Type of thinking that's required" is easy.

At the moment, economics is subservient to politics and only pays partial attention to science (most importantly ecology.) This needs to be the other way around. Economics has to take full account of ecology. It must start with the ecological facts and only after that should it start taking politics into account. "Ecological" facts includes things like human overdependence on non-renewable fossil fuels.

Put another way: economics must become a branch of ecology.

I would go along with that.

[UndercoverElephant]

Systemic failure of some sort is approaching. Main problems:

(1) Monetary system and banking sector.

(2) Rapidly growing inequality. Ever smaller numbers of people getting even richer whilst 90% of the population get poorer and see no hope of this changing.

(3) Unsolvable (under current system) unemployment problem (numerous causes.)

(4) Demographic problem: pension / healthcare for elderly. Pensions insufficient (and unsafe) for the babyboomers to have long retirements. Generations following them have largely given up on pensions altogether.

(5) Perceived (and real) failure of democracy.

These are no longer just the sort of things that political activists go on about; All sorts of people are talking about them.

Then there are the eco-problems, which are more controversial due to widespread denialism, but there is a growing awareness about them too.

(6) Peak oil generally and the failure to plan how to keep the national grid going in some places (including the UK.)

(7) Climate change, and the failure to do anything about it.

(8] Fisheries crisis and general food security worries.

Add that lot together and you've got a major systemic failure - something has gone spectacularly wrong and this fact is now becoming more obvious. At some point we are going to reach "peak crisis", the main lump of monetary/fiscal shit will hit the fan and at that point everybody will be talking about points 1 to 5. Points 6 to 8 will temporarily slip down the agenda as the world tries to comprehend what has just happened to the existing global economic system.

This is surely a golden opportunity in terms of ideological change. What is missing at the moment is the Big Idea of how to best take advantage of this opportunity. The 99% CAN force a new system into existence at the expense of the 1%, but only if a clear majority can rally around some sort of strategic vision which is seen to address 1-5. Getting a clear majority for a coherent response to 6 is difficult until we are ten years past the peak and the denialists have crawled back under their rocks. 7 and 8 lead to even bigger problems, including population.

I think it is possible to make an argument that there is no point in addressing 1-6 without taking 7, 8 and the bigger problems into account.

There's lots of possibilities here. There is going to be widespread thinking out of the box, because the existing box has been fatally compromised by 1-5 (and soon 6).

[madibe]

This is surely a golden opportunity in terms of ideological change. What is missing at the moment is the Big Idea of how to best take advantage of this opportunity. The 99% CAN force a new system into existence at the expense of the 1%, but only if a clear majority can rally around some sort of strategic vision which is seen to address 1-5. Getting a clear majority for a coherent response to 6 is difficult until we are ten years past the peak and the denialists have crawled back under their rocks. 7 and 8 lead to even bigger problems, including population.

UE - totally agree, and I know we are a UK-centric board....but the problem is that even if we here in the west make the jump...then we will be wasting our time because asia is on a big big roll and will not stop just because we have.

I hope you get my point, even though under-described and short on detail.... it's late

[UndercoverElephant]

This is surely a golden opportunity in terms of ideological change. What is missing at the moment is the Big Idea of how to best take advantage of this opportunity. The 99% CAN force a new system into existence at the expense of the 1%, but only if a clear majority can rally around some sort of strategic vision which is seen to address 1-5. Getting a clear majority for a coherent response to 6 is difficult until we are ten years past the peak and the denialists have crawled back under their rocks. 7 and 8 lead to even bigger problems, including population.

UE - totally agree, and I know we are a UK-centric board....but the problem is that even if we here in the west make the jump...then we will be wasting our time because asia is on a big big roll and will not stop just because we have.

I hope you get my point, even though under-described and short on detail.... it's late

I think China is also heading for serious trouble. They are currently in what looks to us like a very strong position. I see two main reasons for this: the export-led economy which has out-competed every other country on the planet in terms of costs and the one child policy which has led to a transformation in the living standards of those only children. Unfortunately for the Chinese, their export-led model can only keep working so long as people in the developed world can still afford (and want) to buy their cheap goods. They don't have a plan B either.

China is self-sufficient in neither fossil fuels nor food. They are as dependent on the flawed globalised system as we are. If you were talking about climate change then I have to agree with you - they will continue to burn coal until it becomes uneconomic to do so. I think the era of explosive Chinese economic growth is going to end soon - permanently. But even if China stopped growing - if it just continued to burn coal at the current rate for another two or three decades - we're still heading for major climate chaos. Sadly, I think it is now too late to stop this happening, even if a major ideological change in the right direction comes soon.

[emordnilap]

The 99% CAN force a new system into existence at the expense of the 1%

It's some way to go before that 99% really gets it; possibly a very long way. My experience is of this country, of course but it's salutary. There is very little protest at the responses from on high to the crises but why? I think it's because people have been bludgeoned into believing it does no good to complain.

Look at the Lisbon referendum - the result was not what was required, so they did it again, brought in big guns and forced the right result. Look at Rossport; the state does not protect its people, let alone compromise.

The PM here has now blamed the Irish for their acceptance of cheap credit; another switching of blame and a blow to self-confidence.

Lately they're saying they don't want a referendum on the EU's new fiscal policy because they know the Irish will say no. Hah! Such is democracy, eh? "We know people don't want this, so we're not going to even consult them."

Can you think of any other reason why people are simply putting up with this tax, that charge, this deduction, that fee, higher taxes, unemployment (26 unemployed to each job vacancy), still handing over billions to gamblers with hardly a murmur, promises of less money in your pocket etc etc?

Complacency seems to be a disease the whole nation has contracted. I try my bit to get people worked up about it but I just see shrugs and slumped shoulders. Nobody's angry.

[emordnilap]

"Type of thinking that's required" is easy.

[...]

Put another way: economics must become a branch of ecology.

I would go along with that.

Ah, good; so would I. Roger, you've agreed with an anodyne (but important) 'outside the box' statement. Do you want to take that further? Such as, do you see a way from here to there? Even the first step?