О теории прогрессивного использования - альтернативы капитализму

[Bulat Yessekin]

Перевод

Теория прогрессивного использования, или PROUT (Progressive Utilization Theory), — это социоэкономическая и политическая философия индийского мыслителя Прабхат Ранджан Саркара (P.R. Sarkar), предложенная в 1959 году как альтернатива капитализму и коммунизму, направленная на всестороннее социальное развитие, духовный рост и справедливое распределение ресурсов на основе неогуманизма, заботы обо всех живых существах и создания самодостаточных локальных экономик. 

"Воистину, именно сильным мира сего – мужчинам и женщинам, обладающим редкими способностями, – надлежит позаботиться о том, чтобы даже мало понимающие и неумеющие должным образом развивались на великом пути всестороннего прогресса. Ключ к симфонии Праута, главный цвет её палитры универсальной мысли, общая нить её человеческого гобелена – это прогресс слабых и несчастных, превращающийся в триумф и истинную силу всех. Здесь Праут провозглашает, что благо каждого человека заключается в развитом обществе, и наоборот: благо сообщества заключается в надлежащем развитии каждого из его членов

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RGMO-xJCWkGlxDzLVM4NgLbJiQhVk1kdiqhhr67MmX4/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jRwnZA-zwBZeoX4EfLW2ycEWUDOftVe9C516VTz13xo/edit?usp=sharing

Best regards,

Bulat K. YESSEKIN

сб, 6 дек. 2025 г. в 15:39, Tarcisio Bonotto <tarcisio...@gmail.com>:

Dear Ian,

it is good to propose new ideas in the economics.

I share my experience with the PROUT (Progressive Utilization Theory) economic theory, well known in 42 countries and widespread in 180.
The author is Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar and it is a collection of his discourses over 30 years. A world-renowned economist and professor at Texas Methodist University, Ravi Batra, whose books were New York Times bestsellers for a year some time ago, is also a leading figure.

PROUT covers all collective and individual economic issues and will undoubtedly replace current capitalism. It is based on the principle of "ensuring the basic necessities (food, clothing, housing, medical care, education) for all through employment or an income for those unable to work."
This is the same principle as the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Values. But while this is only a declaration, PROUT also proposes how these principles can be implemented.
The PROUT economic system is a decentralized system and, politically, an ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY, not a POLITICAL DEMOCRACY.
Here are some ideas: https://proutglobe.org/

Italian: https://irprout.it

Tarcisio Bonotto - proutist

On Tue, Dec 2, 2025 at 3:12 PM Ian Schindler <ian.sc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear all,

Reading Living Earth threads and other things provoked the following musings I would like to throw out:

The economists I find myself the closest to are the physiocrats of the 18th century who said that land (harnessing solar energy) was the source of wealth.  

The first course in economics should be on money creation and how money creation affects markets. If money is created from nothing and is used to buy item X, of course this tends to raise the price of item X. Nomi Prins who wrote "Collusion: How Central Bankers Rigged the World"
(https://www.publishersweekly.com/9781568585628) at one time was selling software that detected what financial asset the Fed was buying so you could buy the same financial asset. If the Fed is bidding up an asset with money created from nothing how can the price decrease? The software was able to do this because the Fed always bought assets the same day of the week at the same time. I read all kinds of nonsense like "Industry Y exists because it is profitable". A minimum qualification should be "with our current monetary system it is profitable". This is however not always correct. I watched in amazement the 260 bankruptcies the fraccing industry racked up between when
oil prices fell in 2015 and 2021. Each bankruptcy caused more money to be created to drill and frac more oil wells. A seasoned economist with a good reputation I talked to had no idea how bankruptcy laws worked in the U.S. It seems to me that when money is created from nothing to produce a good, this naturally lowers the price of the good.

I see lots of economic signals which I attribute to peak oil. People think that the main signal for peak oil is price. Elementary computations show
that the signal is not price, but cost share, and in particular median cost
share is more important than average cost share. Sectors of the economy the derivatives of whose cost shares are negative with respect to growth create wealth, sectors whose derivatives are positive with respect to growth capture the wealth thus created (see

https://doi.org/10.1007/s41247-020-00081-4). Note that this assertion is contrary to mainstream neoclassical economic theory. 

I have been saying that people overestimate the price of oil in the event of a peak in production since 2008.

Definitions:
1. The basic economic problem is to make enough money to live the way you want.
2. The dual of the basic economic problem is to live the way you want with  as little money as possible.

I call investments aiming to solve the first problem aggressive.  I call investments aimed at solving the second problem defensive.

Examples of aggressive investments are investments which increase the
production of some good or energy. Examples of defensive investments are weatherproofing buildings, purchasing a more fuel efficient means of
transportation, harvesting rain water, etc. My main signal for peak oil is
that defensive investments start outperforming aggressive investments.

There is a fundamental difference between the two kinds of investment:
companies making aggressive investments tend not to pay back debt. They roll it over into more aggressive investments. Debt incurred for defensive investments actually gets paid back decreasing the money supply. So we have an interesting interplay: the cost of producing resources is increasing producing inflationary pressure spawning defensive investments which are deflationary. While all this is going on the Turchin described wealth pump causes the bulk of money created to go to a small class of elites. We are living a Wizard of Oz Toto moment in which Toto pulls back the curtain to reveal that the most heinous crimes: murder, war, genocide, child abuse, ecocide, etc. are among the privileges of this elite class.

Thoughts anyone?  Am I far off the mark?

Cheers,

Ian

 

Tarcisio Bonotto

Presidente IRP-Verona

Cell.: +38 351 8014030

www.irprout.it - www.prout.it
Prout world - www.proutglobe.org - https://prout.info/

Il giorno sab 6 dic 2025 alle ore 02:56 Ian Schindler <ian.sc...@gmail.com> ha scritto:

Thank you Johns for your instructive comments.  

I agree wholeheartedly with John's modification of my definitions.  Well said.

With respect to peak oil, I have followed the debate closely since 2005 (I am a member of ASPO France).  Initially I anticipated earlier global peaks.  In 2016, I realized that the models used to predict earlier peaks were quite approximate so I adopted a wait and see attitude.  In fact the latest data from the Energy Information Administration beats the November 2018 local monthly peak by a small margin which means 2025 will exceed the 2018 - 2019 yearly local peak.  According to Jean Laherrère, the accuracy of the data is only to about 5%.  What this means is that we are essentially on plateau since 2018 with a large dip occurring in 2020-21 because of Covid 19.  There are peaks that have passed.  The really cheap oil peaked in the 1970s so oil companies went offshore and into Alaska.  The moderately expensive oil (some people say conventional) was on a bumpy plateau from 2008 to 2018 and now appears to have peaked.  So the new global peak is due to expensive oil in the $40 to $50 a barrel to extract range.  Net energy from oil has probably peaked.

I also agree with John that we will have to cooperate in the 21st century if we are to survive.  I encourage cooperation not based on dollars, euros, or any national currency.

Best,

Ian

Le mer. 3 déc. 2025 à 13:55, John Day <daysa...@gmail.com> a écrit :

Thank You, Ian.

I have read that with interest, and think I have digested it. 

The problem I see is that it assumes financial economic continuum, which is a very complicated thing and rests upon widespread trust, agreement, functioning internet and electrical grid.

These things fail during war, as you know.

I would refrase your basic economic problem: "The basic economic problem is to live."

Your offensive investment vs defensive investment dichotomy can go further. 

Truly defensive investment invests in continuing to live directly, so I would go further than insulation, siding and so on, to location, such as good soil for vegetable gardening and weather that does not usually kill people without gas and eectricity access.

We survive as groups. That makes it harder. I rule out living in a D.U.M.B. (deep underground military base) on principle (though I am also not invited) and a bunker for that reason, though a specialized shelter out in the public space, like a visible and large vegetable garden may be seen as example-setting.

Yours-in-service,

Bicyclist-gardener-John

On Tue, Dec 2, 2025 at 3:12 PM Ian Schindler <ian.sc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear all,

Reading Living Earth threads and other things provoked the following musings I would like to throw out:

The economists I find myself the closest to are the physiocrats of the 18th century who said that land (harnessing solar energy) was the source of wealth.  

The first course in economics should be on money creation and how money creation affects markets. If money is created from nothing and is used to buy item X, of course this tends to raise the price of item X. Nomi Prins who wrote "Collusion: How Central Bankers Rigged the World"
(https://www.publishersweekly.com/9781568585628) at one time was selling software that detected what financial asset the Fed was buying so you could buy the same financial asset. If the Fed is bidding up an asset with money created from nothing how can the price decrease? The software was able to do this because the Fed always bought assets the same day of the week at the same time. I read all kinds of nonsense like "Industry Y exists because it is profitable". A minimum qualification should be "with our current monetary system it is profitable". This is however not always correct. I watched in amazement the 260 bankruptcies the fraccing industry racked up between when
oil prices fell in 2015 and 2021. Each bankruptcy caused more money to be created to drill and frac more oil wells. A seasoned economist with a good reputation I talked to had no idea how bankruptcy laws worked in the U.S. It seems to me that when money is created from nothing to produce a good, this naturally lowers the price of the good.

I see lots of economic signals which I attribute to peak oil. People think
that the main signal for peak oil is price. Elementary computations show
that the signal is not price, but cost share, and in particular median cost
share is more important than average cost share. Sectors of the economy the derivatives of whose cost shares are negative with respect to growth create wealth, sectors whose derivatives are positive with respect to growth capture the wealth thus created (see

https://doi.org/10.1007/s41247-020-00081-4). Note that this assertion is contrary to mainstream neoclassical economic theory. 

I have been saying that people overestimate the price of oil in the event of a peak in production since 2008.

Definitions:
1. The basic economic problem is to make enough money to live the way you want.
2. The dual of the basic economic problem is to live the way you want with  as little money as possible.

I call investments aiming to solve the first problem aggressive.  I call
investments aimed at solving the second problem defensive.

Examples of aggressive investments are investments which increase the
production of some good or energy. Examples of defensive investments are weatherproofing buildings, purchasing a more fuel efficient means of
transportation, harvesting rain water, etc. My main signal for peak oil is
that defensive investments start outperforming aggressive investments.

There is a fundamental difference between the two kinds of investment:
companies making aggressive investments tend not to pay back debt. They roll it over into more aggressive investments. Debt incurred for defensive investments actually gets paid back decreasing the money supply. So we have an interesting interplay: the cost of producing resources is increasing producing inflationary pressure spawning defensive investments which are deflationary. While all this is going on the Turchin described wealth pump causes the bulk of money created to go to a small class of elites. We are living a Wizard of Oz Toto moment in which Toto pulls back the curtain to reveal that the most heinous crimes: murder, war, genocide, child abuse, ecocide, etc. are among the privileges of this elite class.

Thoughts anyone?  Am I far off the mark?

Cheers,

Ian

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Living Earth" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to livingearth...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/livingearth/CACO9jQktdycudYFvLOjum5OX-o8ufpAxXP6yrNzRNc1SsXfMQQ%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Living Earth" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to livingearth...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/livingearth/CAA3OguhpHRzR9Vz%2BiBSYhzhQxv0oQnFuYbHci99ZjRsNFrUYAw%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Living Earth" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to livingearth...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/livingearth/CACO9jQnvBQJVs55A6WBv9rjT9QsiJt0ZyxBxRHHJmTzzQP_mxg%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Living Earth" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to livingearth...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/livingearth/CAK6sfFu7QoWeOAqo%3DC_3sP%2BHA8J4WiQRPNtiLMSPtoLY6axmCQ%40mail.gmail.com.