OU blog

Personal Blogs

The Hurdles of Steady State Economics

Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Neal Grout, Saturday, 28 Aug 2010, 10:31

A steady state economy is one which remains within fixed parameters (while allowing for the natural oscillations that occur in all dynamic systems) as opposed to our current economic system which is based on a compound growth model.  However there are two major problems, one socio-economic and the other biophysical in nature, which must be overcome before the foundations of a steady state economy can be laid.

The sub-optimization of the world’s corporate/financial system

Humans form hierarchy’s to facilitate the workings of their societies.  On the simplest level this can be a headman instructing the other villagers on building a dam to improve their agricultural production. The work is performed much faster and easier if directed by one competent leader than if each man performs to what he thinks is best. These hierarchies form subsystems within the greater whole system. In the past banks and corporations arose to help facilitate the workings of society. Banks for example were safe stores of wealth and were able to loan money to projects that would otherwise have not gone ahead. But in a world where capital wealth equals political power it was only a matter of time before the sub-optimization (subsystem domination to the detriment of the greater system) of the corporate/financial system took place.

Clear evidence of corporate/ financial sub-optimization can be found in the  TARPs bank bailouts of 2008 when the political subsystem, now subservient to the financial subsystem, rejected the moral hazard argument and declared the banking system ‘too big to fail’ and taxpayers (the lowest rung of the social hierarchy) were forced to foot the bill.

When the corporate/financial subsystem has such a tight stranglehold on the rest of society from the political top to the taxpaying bottom and presenting a model of perpetual growth as the only way forwards, then how can a steady state economy possibly be initiated without first a separation of corporate interests and politics? And how could such a separation be brought about?

 

An Overfull World

Herman Daly, one of the world’s most prominent ecological economists, describes our current situation as a ‘full world’.  He argues that in the last 80 years economic policies such as the growth model which seemed a good idea for reducing poverty no longer work because humanity is coming up against the biophysical constraints of our environment, the biosphere. These constraints include both resource depletion and degradation of environmental sinks. According to the Wackernagel Eco-footprint model, which is accepted by a majority of the environmental science community, humanity currently uses the equivalent of one and a half worlds to support the almost 7 billion and growing population. From an ecological perspective, this puts humanity 30% in overshoot of its environment. Humanity is therefore not in a full world but an overfull world.

Considering these biophysical constraints how can a steady state economy be initiated without first dealing with the inevitable decline that must take place bringing the economy back to a level where it can be supported by the environment?

Permalink
Share post

Nature loss 'to damage economies'

Visible to anyone in the world

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10103179.stm

"An ongoing project known as The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) is attempting to quantify the monetary value of various services that nature provides for us.

These services include purifying water and air, protecting coasts from storms and maintaining wildlife for ecotourism.

The rationale is that when such services disappear or are degraded, they have to be replaced out of society's coffers."

How ridiculous is this? That we can put a price on eco system services is ludicrous! and who does it benefit to formulate such a price?

If we have a 200 hectare area of rain forest, the most intensely bio-diverse habitat known, and owned by a company, do they care how much the ecosystem services of that forest is worth? No they don't because to the company the only profit to be made is from bringing the timber to market and then re using the land for some other profit making development. It doesn't matter if the ecosystem services are worth 4 hundred or 4 billion dollars for our small stretch of forest because that value cannot be converted to cash in the bank.

 From a corporate perspective, the only one that counts when converting natural resources into profit, the value of the ecosystem services provided are 0$ and always will be. That at some point in the future we will use the profits from the cash invested from the destruction of the forest to provide artificial substitutes for ecosystem services is also stupid. We're not even sure of all the ecosystem service we gain from nature let alone how to replicate them.

 The only solution is government legislation providing total protection for the ecosystem services nature provides humanity but considering we live in a capitalist society and the corporate economic subsystem is showing clear signs of sub-optimization of societies entire hierarchy from top (political) to bottom (brainwashing your kids through TV advertising) I wouldn't hold my breath for any political solution.

The hubris is shocking!

Permalink
Share post

This blog might contain posts that are only visible to logged-in users, or where only logged-in users can comment. If you have an account on the system, please log in for full access.

Total visits to this blog: 45453