conservation as the greater option?

[Tom Abeles]

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad965/meta

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad965/pdf

[JOHN DE GRAAF,* JOHN DE GRAAF]

Excellent piece, Tom A.  Sadly, most of what we see out there is this kind of technological utopian nonsense about a new era of wealth and jobs.  https://medium.com/@DenisPombriant/green-new-deal-how-to-manage-the-disruptive-innovation-828e18f44fe2

It's even evident in Elizabeth Warren's climate plan and assumes continued and even great GDP growth...  Sigh...

John de Graaf

www.johndegraaf.com

On June 8, 2019 at 7:27 AM Tom Abeles <tab...@gmail.com> wrote:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad965/meta

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad965/pdf

 

--
- Too many emails? Send an email to orsc...@gmail.com to change to a summary/digest mode.
- Follow our news on Twitter: https://twitter.com/SCORAI_org
- Subscribe to the monthly newsletter: http://eepurl.com/dHXawz
- Submit an item to the monthly newsletter: lizb....@gmail.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SCORAI" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scorai+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/CAC0ykQHxYnqAuFEY6HZFUDgRVwGB7ig4BWAZG7ts%2B-ovGcK0MA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jean Boucher]

Thanks, Tom, really important article though I am a bit shocked with the no mention of Jevons, or as we decarbonize, we, globally, still increase overall throughput. Maybe this was an accidental omission (doubt it) or a purposeful slip over a can of worms.  Jean

On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 7:27 AM Tom Abeles <tab...@gmail.com> wrote:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad965/meta

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad965/pdf

--
- Too many emails? Send an email to orsc...@gmail.com to change to a summary/digest mode.
- Follow our news on Twitter: https://twitter.com/SCORAI_org
- Subscribe to the monthly newsletter: http://eepurl.com/dHXawz
- Submit an item to the monthly newsletter: lizb....@gmail.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SCORAI" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scorai+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/CAC0ykQHxYnqAuFEY6HZFUDgRVwGB7ig4BWAZG7ts%2B-ovGcK0MA%40mail.gmail.com.

--

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. -- Frederick Douglass

[Tom Abeles]

Hi John

Rocky Mountain has always been a bit schizophrenic partially driven by its sources of funding. New energy tech has the glitz; conservation for many in the renewables arena has always been an "add on". Conservation doesn't create jobs because its in the "design". Architecture may be an exception. 

I am not sure how "conservation" fits in a degrowth model.

thoughts?

tom 

Tom A.

[Tom Abeles]

I have to think a bit about Jevons as his example is in the consumption of coal. We are in a different time where conservation is seen differently. The issue is reduction not in the use of carbon based fuels but a reduction in the byproducts of the use- As Lakoff might say, its a different frame. Think electric vehicles which reduce CO2. Does that lead to an increase in mileage driven? Or is there an issue of not accounting for loss of tax revenue with concomitant consequences with artificial pricing of power consumption. There is talk of a mileage tax. Energy efficient buildings- hard to increase consumption

thoughts? 

[JOHN DE GRAAF,* JOHN DE GRAAF]

Thanks, Tom et al.  I hadn't realized the author was with Rocky Mountain, but its founder, Amory Lovins, while undeniably brilliant, has always been a technological utopian--supercars, etc.  The "soft energy path" was a path of different energy sources, not less overall use. 

I think conservation is certainly a way of slowing growth.  For example if we use products longer, reduce planned obsolescence, etc. there will less economic turnover, buying, etc. which is what growth means in the GDP frame.  Conservation may not create jobs, but shortening and sharing working hours, as Juliet Schor has pointed out can. 

As for growth vs. de-growth, it seems to me it all requires a new measure of well-being that subtracts for things like resource use, externalities, repair of the damage caused by previous growth, addiction, reduced life spans, mental and physical illness, climate disasters, pollution cleanup, etc. which now lead to economic activity registered as a plus by GDP.  If by the same token, we add for gains in life expectancy, social connection, leisure time, access to nature and green space, volunteer work, etc., then we then can't say for sure if the index of economic wellbeing will grow or de-grow, though I suspect the latter.  

But I like what Jim Boyce says in his new book ECONOMICS FOR PEOPLE AND THE PLANET:  "It's time to raise a new banner:  Grow the good and shrink the bad!"  See www.jameskboyce.com

However imperfect, the GPI is a step in the right direction as is the Canadian Index of Wellbeing and other alternatives to GDP.

Good discussions here!

John

John de Graaf

www.johndegraaf.com

[Tom Walker]

The Jevons Paradox is CLASSICAL classical political economy. In fact, it is a version of Say's Law (crudely, supply creates its own demand). This doesn't mean it is "wrong." It is "right" under the assumption that everything else remains the same. A closer look at the implications of the paradox produces, in my opinion, a more pessimistic picture than the standard interpretation -- a kind of damned if you do, damned if you don't conclusion. The only escape from that DOUBLE paradox involves a fundamental rejection of the economics paradigm, which invariably seeks to identify beneficial outcomes from essentially evil actions.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/CAC0ykQGfTcEfd7OixLoSW1NQdS_icd0Vr9EeUbVKC9qi_E%2BRnw%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Cheers,

Tom Walker (Sandwichman)

[Benyamin Lichtenstein]

Tom,

Maybe a 'rejection' of economics, but not for the reason you cite, in my humble opinion.

The main problem with 'economics' -- by which I mean the kind of capitalism we have cultivated for... many hundreds of years, is that the paradigm assumes UNLIMITED resources (from the ecological world.)  IFF there are unlimited resources, then the capitalist model has unlimited utility.  

Obviously, until NOW, that assumption was warranted.  But now -- the past 50 years to be sure -- that assumption is being nullified.  

Unfortunately, capitalism rolls on as if the assumption is still correct.  This to me is a major conundrum to be addressed.  It incorporates the assumption of luxury, and growth, and return-on-investment that drives markets, and most of the material economy. 

{:=>)  Benyamin  

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/CANz%2BBQycTFV8X6XffTbZzxHwMgVC2yNB6BOUeK0K9FdzUoKkCw%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Benyamin Lichtenstein
Associate Professor of Entrepreneurship and Management

Organizations and Social Change; College of Management

U-Mass Boston / Praxyma 
617-721-3609 = home office
617-287-7887 = University office (UMB)

Author, Generative Emergence  GenerativeEmergence.org

Academic Director: Entrepreneurship Center  http://www.umb.edu/entrepreneurship_center

Research Websites: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Benyamin_Lichtenstein?ev=hdr_xprf 

OSC blog: http://organizationsandsocialchange.wordpress.com/ 

[Tom Abeles]

Hi Benyamin

My concerns with much of economics is that it starts with a "model" which, in order to develop and validate it requires bounding it by exclusion of externalities or establishing lemmas in order to be able to develop mathematical "proofs" to reach a bottom line, e.g. QED.

An interesting point for discussion is the idea developed by Richard Wilk and others. e/g.: "Consumption embedded in culture and language: implications for finding sustainability" where he points out that that how science looks at consumption is different than that of the lay person. He leans heavily on Lakoff's concept of metaphor and the use of "framing".  Scientists, depending of framing can develop different "models" which are different than that of non-scientists leading to many of the concerns on this list.

tom

tom a

[JOHN DE GRAAF,* JOHN DE GRAAF]

Tom W, Benyamin, Tom A,

I appreciate all of your comments here.  Tom W, I know you believe a key step is reducing working hours.  I agree. Badly missing from Warren's climate policy or the GND for that matter.  Benyamin, you are right that in an era of true limits, the capitalist growth model no longer works (capitalism may or may not be reformable on this count, I don't know).  And Tom A, framing is essential; you are absolutely right on this. 

IMHO we need to frame our criticism of over-consumption  with language that considers it a "sacrifice" to keep it up, not to give it up.  It's not something that makes people happier.  We are sacrificing community, leisure time, beauty, nature, health, honesty, freedom to escape from a sea of marketing, compassion, meaning, altruism, etc.--in fact, all the things that contribute most to wellbeing and happiness--for the blind pursuit of consumerism and GDP growth. 

We are not demanding enough of what matters from the economy.  The Center for a New American Dream was great at this message until it got co-opted into a campaign to push sales of Priuses as a way to fight climate change.  Similarly with Redefining Progress, now extinct, driven to drop its valuable efforts on GPI for a narrow climate agenda. 

The old CNAD slogan was "more of what matters," a good one.  Jim Boyce says: "grow the good, shrink the bad," another good line.  We want bread AND ROSES TOO, said the old labor movement.  We need a smart counter-marketing campaign of the type Stefano Bartolini has long proposed.  Just my two cents...but I think how we communicate, frame, this message with the general public is key.

John

John de Graaf

www.johndegraaf.com

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/CAC0ykQFW4H8eCg%3D8km%3DKm9b49rs0Mi4kp3UceOuhBZLastYSxQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Benyamin Lichtenstein]

Brilliant, John.  I've been thinking about this -- some initial flurrys of thought:

The underlying 'sacrifice' is time, I think.  Its more like the 'trade-off' I've been willing to make. 

I'll drive to work because it will "save" me 30 minutes (versus taking the T, to UMass Boston). 

But what it's costing is... more than the COGS (gas, maintenance of the car, parking), but also GHG emissions.  Whose effects are basically unknown to me.  Aside from a rainy spring, or a tornado, we don't appreciate how the "savings" I get from driving is a "cost" to... my grandchildren.  (About 40 years from now is the literal break-down, right...).

I don't have the logic quite right, but there's an unseen trade-off, with all the luxuries we enjoy (in the Urban West, especially).  We're unaware of the long-term implications, so they become... "externalities", in Tom's language.  What if we became more aware of them?  For example, how much extra GHGs are created if I drive in rush-hour traffic, vs. in the middle of the day (or by taking the T).  (the Joro App has this capability). 

Personally, I'm inspired and engaged in this campaign; appreciating you and SCORAI for all your collective insights.

{:=>) 

[Tom Walker]

You're right about the current version of economics assuming unlimited resources from the environment. I think it would surprise and astound you as to how that assumption comes about. The original assumption of classical political economy is exactly the opposite -- a static universe. In the second half of the 19th century the contradictions of that assumption became untenable, so neo-classical, marginalist economists disavowed the original premise while continuing to cling to the conclusions that flowed from that premise. When you have grasped this fundamental legerdemain of economic analysis, the "logic" of the heads I win, tails you lose analysis becomes clear.

[JOHN DE GRAAF,* JOHN DE GRAAF]

I'm missing something.  How did they "cling to the conclusions"?

John de Graaf

www.johndegraaf.com

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/CANz%2BBQz9orRQ-tVSi4OCcedLihfN76dPpPqJJvkn9BokZ_frcg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tom Walker]

The concept of supply/demand equilibrium mediated by price is premised on a closed system. Absent the assumption of a closed system, the final effect of a change in any one of the variables is indeterminate. This criticism is fundamental to Keynes's analysis, as pointed out by Joan Robinson. The "Keynesian neo-classical synthesis" (or bastard Keynesianism) restored equilibrium analysis to the commanding heights..

[Carol Holst]

I applaud John’s interest in a “smart counter-marketing campaign” for the general public (not the beloved choir) and a few of you might remember my offer during various sessions of SCORAI’s June 2016 conference in Maine to spend $100,000 of my job money if there were partners in the effort (no takers). I forged ahead with a mainstream-oriented campaign anyway and learned that the general public just rolls their eyes unless marketing is at saturation levels. My son is a Facebook vice president (who disagrees with this field) and says it would cost a billion dollars on many platforms.

So Postconsumers is now marketing a question instead of an answer, and public interest is doing a little better. The question we ask America to consider is “Do I Have #EnoughStuff For Now?” and the key is to let go of caring what their answers are. Spreading the question does some good in and of itself, and I am still offering $20,000 in campaign underwriting from my paid jobs in case there are potential partners at any point.

Best, Carol

On Sunday, June 9, 2019 at 1:47:39 PM UTC-7, jodg wrote:

Tom W, Benyamin, Tom A,

I appreciate all of your comments here.  Tom W, I know you believe a key step is reducing working hours.  I agree. Badly missing from Warren's climate policy or the GND for that matter.  Benyamin, you are right that in an era of true limits, the capitalist growth model no longer works (capitalism may or may not be reformable on this count, I don't know).  And Tom A, framing is essential; you are absolutely right on this. 

IMHO we need to frame our criticism of over-consumption  with language that considers it a "sacrifice" to keep it up, not to give it up.  It's not something that makes people happier.  We are sacrificing community, leisure time, beauty, nature, health, honesty, freedom to escape from a sea of marketing, compassion, meaning, altruism, etc.--in fact, all the things that contribute most to wellbeing and happiness--for the blind pursuit of consumerism and GDP growth. 

We are not demanding enough of what matters from the economy.  The Center for a New American Dream was great at this message until it got co-opted into a campaign to push sales of Priuses as a way to fight climate change.  Similarly with Redefining Progress, now extinct, driven to drop its valuable efforts on GPI for a narrow climate agenda. 

The old CNAD slogan was "more of what matters," a good one.  Jim Boyce says: "grow the good, shrink the bad," another good line.  We want bread AND ROSES TOO, said the old labor movement.  We need a smart counter-marketing campaign of the type Stefano Bartolini has long proposed.  Just my two cents...but I think how we communicate, frame, this message with the general public is key.

John

John de Graaf

www.johndegraaf.com

On June 9, 2019 at 1:24 PM Tom Abeles <tab...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Benyamin

My concerns with much of economics is that it starts with a "model" which, in order to develop and validate it requires bounding it by exclusion of externalities or establishing lemmas in order to be able to develop mathematical "proofs" to reach a bottom line, e.g. QED.

An interesting point for discussion is the idea developed by Richard Wilk and others. e/g.: "Consumption embedded in culture and language: implications for finding sustainability" where he points out that that how science looks at consumption is different than that of the lay person. He leans heavily on Lakoff's concept of metaphor and the use of "framing".  Scientists, depending of framing can develop different "models" which are different than that of non-scientists leading to many of the concerns on this list.

tom

tom a

On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 2:57 PM Benyamin Lichtenstein < benya...@gmail.com> wrote:

Tom,

Maybe a 'rejection' of economics, but not for the reason you cite, in my humble opinion.

The main problem with 'economics' -- by which I mean the kind of capitalism we have cultivated for... many hundreds of years, is that the paradigm assumes UNLIMITED resources (from the ecological world.)  IFF there are unlimited resources, then the capitalist model has unlimited utility.  

Obviously, until NOW, that assumption was warranted.  But now -- the past 50 years to be sure -- that assumption is being nullified.  

Unfortunately, capitalism rolls on as if the assumption is still correct.  This to me is a major conundrum to be addressed.  It incorporates the assumption of luxury, and growth, and return-on-investment that drives markets, and most of the material economy. 

{:=>)  Benyamin  

 

On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 1:49 PM Tom Walker < lumpo...@gmail.com> wrote:

The Jevons Paradox is CLASSICAL classical political economy. In fact, it is a version of Say's Law (crudely, supply creates its own demand). This doesn't mean it is "wrong." It is "right" under the assumption that everything else remains the same. A closer look at the implications of the paradox produces, in my opinion, a more pessimistic picture than the standard interpretation -- a kind of damned if you do, damned if you don't conclusion. The only escape from that DOUBLE paradox involves a fundamental rejection of the economics paradigm, which invariably seeks to identify beneficial outcomes from essentially evil actions.

On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 3:29 PM Tom Abeles < tab...@gmail.com> wrote:

I have to think a bit about Jevons as his example is in the consumption of coal. We are in a different time where conservation is seen differently. The issue is reduction not in the use of carbon based fuels but a reduction in the byproducts of the use- As Lakoff might say, its a different frame. Think electric vehicles which reduce CO2. Does that lead to an increase in mileage driven? Or is there an issue of not accounting for loss of tax revenue with concomitant consequences with artificial pricing of power consumption. There is talk of a mileage tax. Energy efficient buildings- hard to increase consumption

thoughts? 

On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 12:34 PM Jean Boucher < jlb...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks, Tom, really important article though I am a bit shocked with the no mention of Jevons, or as we decarbonize, we, globally, still increase overall throughput. Maybe this was an accidental omission (doubt it) or a purposeful slip over a can of worms.  Jean

On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 7:27 AM Tom Abeles < tab...@gmail.com> wrote:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad965/meta

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad965/pdf

 

--
- Too many emails? Send an email to orsc...@gmail.com to change to a summary/digest mode.
- Follow our news on Twitter: https://twitter.com/SCORAI_org
- Subscribe to the monthly newsletter: http://eepurl.com/dHXawz

- Submit an item to the monthly newsletter: lizb...@gmail.com

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SCORAI" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sco...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/CAC0ykQHxYnqAuFEY6HZFUDgRVwGB7ig4BWAZG7ts%2B-ovGcK0MA%40mail.gmail.com.

--

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. -- Frederick Douglass

 

--
- Too many emails? Send an email to orsc...@gmail.com to change to a summary/digest mode.
- Follow our news on Twitter: https://twitter.com/SCORAI_org
- Subscribe to the monthly newsletter: http://eepurl.com/dHXawz

- Submit an item to the monthly newsletter: lizb...@gmail.com

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SCORAI" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sco...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/CAC0ykQGfTcEfd7OixLoSW1NQdS_icd0Vr9EeUbVKC9qi_E%2BRnw%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Cheers,

Tom Walker (Sandwichman)

 

--
- Too many emails? Send an email to orsc...@gmail.com to change to a summary/digest mode.
- Follow our news on Twitter: https://twitter.com/SCORAI_org
- Subscribe to the monthly newsletter: http://eepurl.com/dHXawz

- Submit an item to the monthly newsletter: lizb...@gmail.com

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SCORAI" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sco...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/CANz%2BBQycTFV8X6XffTbZzxHwMgVC2yNB6BOUeK0K9FdzUoKkCw%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Benyamin Lichtenstein
Associate Professor of Entrepreneurship and Management

Organizations and Social Change; College of Management

U-Mass Boston / Praxyma 
617-721-3609 = home office
617-287-7887 = University office (UMB)

Author, Generative Emergence  GenerativeEmergence.org

Academic Director: Entrepreneurship Center  http://www.umb.edu/entrepreneurship_center

Research Websites: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Benyamin_Lichtenstein?ev=hdr_xprf 

OSC blog: http://organizationsandsocialchange.wordpress.com/ 

 

--
- Too many emails? Send an email to orsc...@gmail.com to change to a summary/digest mode.
- Follow our news on Twitter: https://twitter.com/SCORAI_org
- Subscribe to the monthly newsletter: http://eepurl.com/dHXawz

- Submit an item to the monthly newsletter: lizb...@gmail.com

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SCORAI" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sco...@googlegroups.com.

[Lisa Ruetgers]

My friends and me have recently started a charity called climbers for conservation (still in the making) with the goal to promote concrete actions as part of a sustainable lifestyle. Our idea is to research different easy and impactful actions everybody can incorporate in their lives, such as switching to a 100% renewable energy provider, choose a vegan burger patty, freeze your leftovers and eat them for lunch, etc. The idea is to make the change easy and aspirational and to celebrate every little step. Often people feel bad because they don't do enough, so they stop doing anything. But we want to encourage action, by celebrating every little step, as every step is important and creates impact. Instead of promoting veganism, we suggest that you try a vegan meal from time to time, as we believe people are more likely to change like that. Achieving the perfect situation feels too challenging and too far for most people, but we believe people want to act. But they don't want to "sacrifice" (I like the reframing of sacrifice idea, that's great!) too much and they also don't know what to do, what the impact of a certain action will be, if it is worth it. 

We aim to post on social media brief content indicating the action & the impact (incl the source). We hope to get instagram influencers on board to make it cool and aspirational to live sustainably. We start with the climbing community as we are climbers and know this community best and have access to it. 

This is something everybody can do in their networks, post easy things to do, promote concrete sustainable lifestyles. And I believe that's necessary. Marketing managed to introduce plastics, against the will of consumers originally. Marketing achieved the creation of a consumer culture. So marketing can also achieve the transition to sustainable lifestyles. 

Especially considering the promotion of consumer culture by media, such as magazines, movies and series young people watch and read in particular, it is important to create a counter campaign. Promoting the opposite, a sustainable lifestyle, because that's cool, not buying the latest make-up, clothes, cars, villas and so on. 

Everybody who wants to join us, is very welcome!

Thanks for putting so much of your private money into marketing campaigns fostering sustainability, Carol, that's great!

All the best,

Lisa

---

From: sco...@googlegroups.com <sco...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Carol Holst <ca...@postconsumers.com>
Sent: 11 June 2019 02:38:09
To: SCORAI
Subject: Re: [SCORAI] conservation as the greater option?

 

- Submit an item to the monthly newsletter: lizb....@gmail.com

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SCORAI" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scorai+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/2f0ecf81-5c99-488b-8258-1c6f2fe1610e%40googlegroups.com.

University of the Year for Student Experience
The Times and Sunday Times Good University Guide 2019

1st for Overseas Student Experiences
based on student trips abroad - HESA 2016/17 UK, published 2018

2nd for Teaching Excellence
Times Higher Education UK metrics ranking 2017

13th in Guardian University Guide 2019
of 121 UK institutions ranked

NOTICE

This message and any files transmitted with it is intended for the addressee only and may contain information that is confidential or privileged. Unauthorised use is strictly prohibited. If you are not the addressee, you should not read, copy, disclose or otherwise use this message, except for the purpose of delivery to the addressee.

Any views or opinions expressed within this e-mail are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Coventry University.

[Tom Abeles]

some points:

a) there is a "new" or newly defined phenomenon, binge buying, or buying under the "influence". This is part of the old cliche that if you have an issue, go out and buy something to feel better. And, I would add, this includes the manufactured secretary's day, etc

b) banks are now encouraging the creation of debt, even for the marginal population, to the point where there is an increasing number of financial enterprises that provide unsecured loans. Remember that debt creates an "asset" or collateral for leveraging loans by the finance industry. The growing industry here is the merchants- think Amazon's finance program which provides vehicles for purchasing, not all from the Amazon site (the Chinese are ahead here. Think Alipay or the equivalent for WeChat).

If one draws all the linkages, the key to the driver for consumption rests with the investment banking sector now with the increased linkage with the traditional banking (deposits, loans etc) overlap. Under these conditions, the banks can consider deposits of their clients as assets and can actually seize them if in trouble, with the depositors protected by the FDIC, the government.

To break the chain is hard considering that even most workers, thru their retirement programs and near term investments are also tied to the "banks" or "Wall Street".

To try to break this at the consumer level, where Carol seems to be working, is like treating a disease with a topical, palliative. The anti consumption or post consumer efforts plays into the same frame that the finance industry has created. In many ways, the ideas promoted by the Green New Deal using a variance of Modern Monetary Theory to feed the goals plays in the same frame.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/AM6PR01MB4962F02DCB25AF2000427976BEED0%40AM6PR01MB4962.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com.