Economist Talks Sense.

[Atman]

This is not an article from The Onion but from the Real World Economics Review which regularly post e-mails if anyone is interested. I thought this would be suitable for general discussion, and although the conclusions are depressing they are nothing unknown to most doomers.

Beyond Growth or Beyond Capitalism
http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue53/Smith53.pdf

Abstract
: Recent publications have revived interest in Herman Daly’s proposal for a Steady- State Economy. This paper argues, first, that the idea of a steady-state capitalism is based on untenable assumptions, starting with the assumption that growth is optional rather than built-into capitalism. I argue that irresistible and relentless pressures for growth are functions of the day-to-day requirements of capitalist reproduction in a competitive market, incumbent upon all but a few businesses, and that such pressures would prevail in any conceivable capitalism. Secondly, this paper takes issue with Professor Daly’s thesis, which also underpins his SSE model, that capitalist efficiency and resource allocation is the best we can come up with. I argue that this belief is misplaced and incompatible with an ecological economy, and therefore
it undermines Daly’s own environmental goals. I conclude that since capitalist growth cannot be stopped, or even slowed, and since the market-driven growth is driving us toward collapse,
ecological economists should abandon the fantasy
of a steady-state capitalism and get on with the project figuring out what a post–capitalist economic democracy could look like.

[clv101]

Either we save capitalism or we save ourselves. We can’t save both.

Yeah, interesting. Thanks for posting.

[snow hope]

"In what follows, I will argue that Herman Daly, Tim Jackson, Andrew Simms and the rest of the anti-growth school of ecological economists are right that we need a new macro-economic model that allows us to thrive without endless consumption. But they are wrong to think that this can be a capitalist economic model. I will try to show why ecologically suicidal growth is built into the nature of any conceivable capitalism. This means, I contend, that the project of a steady-state capitalism is impossible and a distraction from what I think ought to the highest priority for ecological economists today – which is to develop a broad conversation about what the lineaments of a post-capitalist ecological economy could look like. I’m going to start by stating three theses which I take to be fundamental principles and rules for reproduction that define any capitalism and shape the dynamics of capitalist economic development:"

This is a very good document (which I haven't fully read yet) and I think describes the way forward, but we have to do it soon.....

The final line as Chris quoted says, "Either we save capitalism or we save ourselves. We can’t save both." Surely that is not a difficult decision to make??

[Little John]

This is not an article from The Onion but from the Real World Economics Review which regularly post e-mails if anyone is interested. I thought this would be suitable for general discussion, and although the conclusions are depressing they are nothing unknown to most doomers.

Beyond Growth or Beyond Capitalism
http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue53/Smith53.pdf

Abstract
: Recent publications have revived interest in Herman Daly’s proposal for a Steady- State Economy. This paper argues, first, that the idea of a steady-state capitalism is based on untenable assumptions, starting with the assumption that growth is optional rather than built-into capitalism. I argue that irresistible and relentless pressures for growth are functions of the day-to-day requirements of capitalist reproduction in a competitive market, incumbent upon all but a few businesses, and that such pressures would prevail in any conceivable capitalism. Secondly, this paper takes issue with Professor Daly’s thesis, which also underpins his SSE model, that capitalist efficiency and resource allocation is the best we can come up with. I argue that this belief is misplaced and incompatible with an ecological economy, and therefore
it undermines Daly’s own environmental goals. I conclude that since capitalist growth cannot be stopped, or even slowed, and since the market-driven growth is driving us toward collapse,
ecological economists should abandon the fantasy
of a steady-state capitalism and get on with the project figuring out what a post–capitalist economic democracy could look like.

Completely agree with the analysis as outlined in the abstract. But, I would add the following:

All life has a habit of outgrowing it's sustainable ecological base if it is able to. In most instances, most of the time, however, there are other restraining factors in the non organic and organic environment that limit the capacity to outgrow one's environment in this way.

In the case of humans, our preposterously large brains have allowed to us to break free of the normal constraints and so we have been living beyond our means now for at least the last few thousand years. However, the industrial revolution and capitalist economic/political systems that have come with it have massively exacerbated all of the above such that we are now rushing headlong toward oblivion.

Our problem is not so much that we are different from the rest of nature. Our problem is that we are exactly like the rest of nature but we are just too damned tooled up for the job with our large brains. I don't know if we can solve that problem. But, one thing's for certain; we have to start by dismantling our current, dominant economic system which is only making things far worse than they already would be. And it's no good those of a free market disposition coming out with the old line that basically states that capitalism is the only system that "works" with humans". If they truly do believe that, then they are as good as admitting that we are f***ed and all hope is lost.

As someone else said, either we save capitalism or we save ourselves. We cant do both.

[clv101]

The final line as Chris quoted says, "Either we save capitalism or we save ourselves. We can’t save both." Surely that is not a difficult decision to make??

I think it is a difficult decision because letting go of capitalism today, is likely to make next year and likely the next decade or two a lot less comfortable than they would otherwise be! The 22nd century is likely to be a lot nicer than it would otherwise be - but the vast majority of us care a little bit more about our comfort this year and for the next decade or two than what life will be like many decades from now.

[Little John]

The final line as Chris quoted says, "Either we save capitalism or we save ourselves. We can’t save both." Surely that is not a difficult decision to make??

I think it is a difficult decision because letting go of capitalism today, is likely to make next year and likely the next decade or two a lot less comfortable than they would otherwise be! The 22nd century is likely to be a lot nicer than it would otherwise be - but the vast majority of us care a little bit more about our comfort this year and for the next decade or two than what life will be like many decades from now.

So are you counselling despair then? I'm not having a go CLV. I'm just tying to get to the bottom of the implications of your position. Do you think capitalism is unsustainable? But, do you also, at the same time, think there is no alternative to capitalism for a variety of reasons?

Or, do you think that capitalism can be "tamed"? If so, how?

[clv101]

The final line as Chris quoted says, "Either we save capitalism or we save ourselves. We can’t save both." Surely that is not a difficult decision to make??

I think it is a difficult decision because letting go of capitalism today, is likely to make next year and likely the next decade or two a lot less comfortable than they would otherwise be! The 22nd century is likely to be a lot nicer than it would otherwise be - but the vast majority of us care a little bit more about our comfort this year and for the next decade or two than what life will be like many decades from now.

So are you counselling despair then? I'm not having a go CLV. I'm just tying to get to the bottom of the implications of your position. Do you think capitalism is unsustainable? But, do you also, at the same time, think there is no alternative to capitalism for a variety of reasons?

Or, do you think that capitalism can be "tamed"? If so, how?

I think capitalism is unsustainable - but, what I'm saying is that letting go of capitalism today will cause a greater loss comfort today, next year and probably for a few decades than sticking with it.

I suspect we, collectively, value the short term higher than the long term, even when the long term costs of sticking with capitalism are very large indeed. This is why it is a difficult decision to make.

[biffvernon]

This is why it is a difficult decision to make.

I'd decide to stop it now for the sake of future generations, but mine is a minority view so unlikely to prevail.

[emordnilap]

Worrying about such short-term phenomena as the current incarnation of capitalism is pointless; it's not going to stop or be replaced voluntarily.

That the entire planet is about to suffer horrendously due to climate change seems to me more important. It's a far more worrying prospect but another minority view.

[biffvernon]

Possibly two aspects of the same minority view.

[emordnilap]

Possibly two aspects of the same minority view.

Yes, good point.

[emordnilap]

This is why it is a difficult decision to make.

I'd decide to stop it now for the sake of future generations, but mine is a minority view so unlikely to prevail.

More depressing writing if you can take it.

Deeper down than this, in turn, is the realization that growth itself is the problem. But every day, the excellent proposals for managed economic contraction, or “powerdown” (Heinberg, 2004), and steady state economics (e.g., Daly, 1991, and Czech, 2013) go unused, while civilization grinds the biosphere to nothing. The necessary actions which these proposals require (things like depaving, or a moratorium on the petrochemical industry, or the Rimini Protocol, which calls for fair distribution of the world’s remaining oil) are unthinkable by public officials and corporate executives

Petrodollar hegemony as U.S. fiat money “buying” free oil is actively defended by the mightiest military, financial, and political forces in the world, backed by the inertia of a billion “first-world” people like us, who apparently cannot stop destroying the Earth unless we somehow acquire a great raft of missing skills and opportunities. That level of awareness is already somewhat traumatic. It can foreclose one’s idea of a human future, if it comes to include enough of the many stressors available to the curious.

Climate change, peak oil, potable water scarcity, and the eventual failure of several hundred nuclear reactors (in a world without reliable electricity to cool spent fuel rods) comprise a quartet that will likely devastate all the systems on which our lives depend, most especially agriculture.

The end of the beginning, again.

It's a good blog, though - but it does get even more depressing as it moves on. You have been warned.

[frank_begbie]

We'll only change when we have to; when the water is at the front door and all the lights are out.

[woodburner]

This is why it is a difficult decision to make.

I'd decide to stop it now for the sake of future generations, but mine is a minority view so unlikely to prevail.

Especially unlikely with all that capital tied up in wind turbines.

[emordnilap]

Anyway, from the op's pdf link:

1) We’re going to have to find ways to put the brakes on out-of-control growth, even if it means drastically retrenching or shutting down coal companies, oil companies, chemical companies, auto companies, even whole economic sectors dedicated 100% to waste production like the disposable products industries.

2) We’re going to have to radically restructure production to impose sharp limits on the production, to physically ration the use and consumption of all sorts of specific resources like coal, oil, gas, lumber, fish, oil, water, minerals, toxic chemicals, and many products made from them. Some products, like coal-fired power plants, toxic pesticides, diesel fuel, bottled water, junk food, should probably be phased out and banned altogether.

3) We’re going to have to sharply increase investments in things society does need, like renewable energy, organic farming, public transit, public water systems, public health, quality schools for our children, and many other currently underfunded social and environmental needs.

4) We’re going to have to do away with production that is geared to mindless consumerism and needless repetitive consumption and the industries that support them. Too many choices and too short a lifespan for products have socially and environmentally unbearable costs. We live on a small planet with limited resources. Others need those resources too, so we can’t afford waste.

5) We’re going to have to devise a rational approach to waste which means to minimize all waste, forbid the disposal of toxics of any sort, eliminate most if not all single-use products like disposable containers, wrappings, diapers, pens, cameras,etc., eliminate throwaway containers, enforce mandatory and systematic reuse of containers, packaging, recycling, composting, etc.

6) And, if we have to shut down polluting or wasteful industries then society is going to have to provide equivalent jobs, not just retraining or the unemployment line, for those all those displaced workers because, if we don’t, there will be no social support for the drastic changes we need to make to ensure our survival.

Nod bad at all, sounds good. I'll go along with it. Where do I sign up?