FW: Brian Czech responds to Paul Krugman in the Huffington Post

43 views
Skip to first unread message

biz modl

unread,
Oct 18, 2014, 7:46:25 AM10/18/14
to steady...@googlegroups.com

give people options:

 

http://www.geofflawton.com/fe/73750-a-canadian-urban-garden

 

this is an example of a redesigned production system…

 

have fun,   biz

 

From: biz modl [mailto:biz...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 2:02 PM
To: 'steady...@googlegroups.com'
Subject: RE: Brian Czech responds to Paul Krugman in the Huffington Post

 

from a harris model point of view, arguing about growth or limits isn't really an issue.  harris says that people in all cultures make decisions by choosing options that meet their basic needs with least effort (he defines basic needs in terms of food (sustenance), sex and love (all types of 'belonging')). 

 

if you want a steady state culture, you need zero growth production and population systems that meet member's basic needs with minimal effort that are as good or better than the current systems.  this is a matter of design.  there is nothing in the current system that stops a group of people (who believe in no growth) from developing a counter culture that is steady state.  but you can't get there if you spend all your intellectual capital and effort arguing with people who have overriding vested interests in the current system.

 

don’t argue - compete! give people good options and they will take them J

 

have fun,    biz

 

From: steady...@googlegroups.com [mailto:steady...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of da...@growthbusters.org
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 1:27 PM
To: steady...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Brian Czech responds to Paul Krugman in the Huffington Post

 

Great request, Rentz. Glad CASSE has waded into this.

 

Growth Bias Busted has devoted the entire week to this topic. If any of you are looking for some good background to inform your comments on HuffPost, you may enjoy reviewing the debate:

 

MONDAY: Paul Krugman Digging Way to China

 

TUESDAY: Heinberg: The Limits of Hubris

 

WEDNESDAY: Why So Hard to Question Growth?

 

THURSDAY: Brian Czechs Krugman on Limits to Growth

 

 

Dave Gardner

Producer of the Documentary, 

GrowthBusters: Hooked on Growth

How do we become a sustainable civilization?

See the film today! 

Check out our new initiative: Growth Bias Busted

Follow the Film / Join the movement at

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

 

On Oct 17, 2014, at 10:03 AM, Rentz Hilyer <rentz...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

You've probably seen Brian Czech's response to Paul Krugman's recent argument against the idea of limits to growth. You're a prolific group. I encourage everyone to weigh in on this dialog. It's a rare opportunity to get into the mix with Paul Krugman. We want the Huffington Post to start seeing this topic as newsworthy and of interest to many. We also are hoping for just enough traffic that this column makes it back to Krugman, who could one day become an ally, or at least stop his perpetual growth pontificating.

 

 

 

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SteadyStaters" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to steadystater...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SteadyStaters" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to steadystater...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

biz modl

unread,
Oct 18, 2014, 8:31:09 AM10/18/14
to steady...@googlegroups.com

no one needs a federal 'policy' to give people options:

 

http://www.geofflawton.com/fe/61799-permaculture-fishponds

http://www.geofflawton.com/fe/63401-community-gardens

 

what we see here is a tradeoff of knowledge for energy.  modern ag 'dumbs down' the growing process at a higher energy cost.  the manufacturing paradigm lower intelligence and raises energy inputs. 

 

this production system is consistent with the harris model decision matrix - people get a basic needs satisfied at a lower cost J

 

don’t argue - compete!

 

have fun,    biz

Ishi Crew

unread,
Oct 18, 2014, 1:29:28 PM10/18/14
to steady...@googlegroups.com
comments----

in theory i actually agree with the idea of competing (designing a better product, such as a better ipod or other basic need, in the harris sense) rather than arguing. 

Besides ipods, one could consider more advanced social networking platforms (eg MIRI ---machine intelligence hard and software) and PR campaigns which could be used to help people get sex, love, food, money, gold, bitcoins,  and death or revenge.  With 'superintelligence' AI optimal or actually perfect design could be created, a utopian steady state akin to eden (this without snakes, apples, adams and steves or the many faces of eves.  

     (Where i used to live i never knew it for 20 years but i later learned there were flying squirrels living in the eves there but you only say them at about 4 am; we did know about the squirrels, coons, possums, pigeons, and bats.  As we learned the problem with eve, is the flying squirrels were free loaders who didnt pay rent nor do any housework so the place started falling down and had to be vacated (or rather unloaded on an unsuspicious buyer, but they knew what they were getting---its now 4 condos each about 700G/each.   As Henry George said, its all about location.   
      With superintelligence (MIRI) everyone be in the rite location, and get even steven, not adam but adami---who has that paper with Steven Koonin  on arxiv from caltech.  (I wonder why i wonder why they spelled it adami and steven rather than adam and steve; maybe because its 15 years old, and since then people have evolved and realize that 'i's and 'n's' are redundant in the Shannon info sense, and hence disposable -----as they say at one of the club i go (or went)  to, there are no 'in's and outs---only outs (so i was shipped to a hospital and am banned as a liability tho i didnt get in a fight.     ) .    

     Charity , such as give em enough rope, also is provided in many indigenous cultures. People love to help, its as natural childbirth---you give people life, for example, and then  later on present them with a bill.  (Alot of babies and fetuses are stupid, lazy, and self-centered so they don't read the fine print in the social contract). 
    (This is discussed in evolutionary game theory----eg see my recent comment on Carson Chow's 'sciencehouse' blog (like N Barton, i've come to disagree with what i consider to be a bias towards 'linear thinking' (which is done because it sometimes seems to be a good approximation---'more is better' such as big data, faster computers, etc. ----and is mathematically tractable and conveniant. 

   But there's a sort of 'dialectical process' (TM); 'dialectic' is a term i coined a bit but was subsequently plagiarized from me by Hegel, and then Baudlerized by marx---later turned into flims, which inspired the great dicktator (He was the Chaplin of the New Church; Stiv Bators was head of the choir, and we learned that 'there is no god but god, and Dirac (fermions) was his profit; ISIS (godess) tried to get 'equal pay for equal work ' on the agrenda, and 'choice' (eg macs or apples, like eve).)

  To get a 'competing ipod---or steady state economy as opposed to say an egalitarian one such as that favored by Krugman (where every baby can plan to get tenure at Yale, a Noble Prize in cash, and a weekly blurb in the NYTs) -----one needs a 'critical mass'  In evolutionary theory, there's an idea called it takes  '2 to tango'.  Robin Dunbar suggessted there is some optimal size of groups.  Marvin Harris has 4 dimensions, but if you look at say Hilbert's 10th problem, eg James P Jones, sometimes you may even need a polynomial of degree 26 with 25 variables.   Certain tribes in Brazil only need 3 numbers (see Everett) , others need more (eg they want to live in Cantor's paradise, or say the land of Woodin cardinals, etc---and i even met Paul Cohen of the continuum hypothesis at stanford---he didnt like my theory).  

So i'd say optimally everyone should start with themselves. Try to live lightly, with a small footprint (eg see bambi meets godzilla movie for an excellent example) . Get your Right Livlihood Award and travel the world promoting small is beautiful (until you get arrested).  Remember the dialect (eg various versions of the golden rule, but stay current so people can understand u----i think python may be one current one).  (another current version of the golden rule in my area is 'dont f-k with me and i wont f-k with you). 

I know someone in one of the big ag u's out west (naomi klein's bro recently spoke there---my friend, who actually does some work even if he's a bit too pro meat and gmo for me, wasn't impressed---just another talking head flying around the world flacking truisms----do as i say, not as i do).  

yeah compete and composte.  grow a garden, design a better ipod. i think alot of this stuff in a sense is a form of the calculus of variations (finding the maximum of a multivariable function).  but its nonlinear. (and of course that is what is used to 'prove' the second law of thermodynamics). 

John deC.

unread,
Oct 19, 2014, 7:16:43 PM10/19/14
to steady...@googlegroups.com
Or better yet, compete and argue! There are great efforts at competition with the system of predatory capitalism all over the globe now: the Mondragon cooperative in Spain, Credit Agricole Group, the largest retail banking group in France, health cooperatives in the Netherlands, Consorzio Cooperative Costruzioni in Italy, and thousands more. The BRICS nations are building an alternative to the evil IMF and World Bank...should be interesting to see how that turns out! Brazil, Venezuela, and Mexico have demonstrated three ways to nationalize oil...not a bad idea! Take a look at the website for the Partnership for Sustainable Communities...lots of exciting examples there.

But don't give up on arguing while you're getting interested in competing. Listen to Chris Hedges, Richard Wolff, Arundhati Roy, Vandana Shiva, Noam Chomsky...all excellent arguers and most of them activists, too. You can argue and compete at the same time! And don't forget to read Chalmers Johnson. You see, the US empire really is collapsing and the day will come, hopefully soon, when people all around the world will just stop listening to our corrupt, self-interested leaders.

We can help build a world based on models for community, economy, and ecology that draw their energy from principles and values. We need to argue strenuously against those who say, "Forget it, there is no alternative!" We need to compete effectively against those who have forgotten why they are here on Earth. And we need to never give up.

It has been pointed out many times that a steady state future is inevitable, and that we may still have time to determine what it will look like. It could be a planet with no people on it or a savage and violent place where a few people struggle for what is left of industrial civilization. Or it could be something much more humane and egalitarian, based on justice, shared effort, and the rights of every person to everything that is essential to life.

Keith Hudson

unread,
Oct 20, 2014, 6:10:24 AM10/20/14
to steady...@googlegroups.com
"You see, the US empire really is collapsing . .  "

Yes, the US empire is collpasing. The US government is becoming increasingly inept.  But ~america itself it not collapsing.  There never has been so much research done in previous times as today.  About half of all research in the world is carried out in America (half of that by researchers who were born elsewhere).  Scientific rearch (basic and applied) of the US, Germany, UK and Israel is about 95% of all research in the world.

What you have to bear in mind, John, is that what is going on now is a huge and subtle war going on between major businesses and governments which have over-reached themselves.  Governments are desperately competing between themselves by means of taxattion advantagers offered to major businesses. Major businesses are now resisting further government encroachments into personal liberty and private information. Apple and others are now producing mobile phones which prevent government intrusion. Google is actually laying down international optic-fibre systems and total encryption which will be inpenetrable by governments.

The co-operatives you mention may well have a good future -- let us hope so -- but only in so far as they are successful businesses.  They may well have the sort of managerial system which major multinationals will increasingly follow. They have, in fact, been lateralising hugely in the last 50 years -- whereas governments are still military-style top-down pyramidal structures which were designed 150 years ago. Our so-called democratic structure is a farce. The public in an advanced country has far more power as customers than as the electorate.


"The BRICS nations are building an alternative to the evil IMF and World Bank"

No, they're getting nowhere. They have got so far, but they're going  backwards relatively. Even China is getting stuck now becajuse its authoritarian system can't produce anywhere near enough innovative minds. Even with its common wirrten language which enable top-down control for the last 2,200 years ever since Emperor Qin bound together five or six separate countries is showing signs of break-up. There are already signs that some of the provinces are loughing their own furrows. The central government has not been able to re-inegrate Hong Kong, for example, because of notions of competition and individual freedom that were already implanted.

Most of your ideas, John, belong to a world that's passing. Wake up, different governmental systems are taking shape.   


Keith

At 00:16 20/10/2014, you wrote:
Or better yet, compete and argue! There are great efforts at competition with the system of predatory capitalism all over the globe now: the Mondragon cooperative in Spain, Credit Agricole Group, the largest retail banking group in France, health cooperatives in the Netherlands, Consorzio Cooperative Costruzioni in Italy, and thousands more. The BRICS nations are building an alternative to the evil IMF and World Bank...should be interesting to see how that turns out! Brazil, Venezuela, and Mexico have demonstrated three ways to nationalize oil...not a bad idea! Take a look at the website for the Partnership for Sustainable Communities...lots of exciting examples there.

But don't give up on arguing while you're getting interested in competing. Listen to Chris Hedges, Richard Wolff, Arundhati Roy, Vandana Shiva, Noam Chomsky...all excellent arguers and most of them activists, too. You can argue and compete at the same time! And don't forget to read Chalmers Johnson. You see, the US empire really is collapsing and the day will come, hopefully soon, when people all around the world will just stop listening to our corrupt, self-interested leaders.

We can help build a world based on models for community, economy, and ecology that draw their energy from principles and values. We need to argue strenuously against those who say, "Forget it, there is no alternative!" We need to compete effectively against those who have forgotten why they are here on Earth. And we need to never give up.

It has been pointed out many times that a steady state future is inevitable, and that we may still have time to determine what it will look like. It could be a planet with no people on it or a savage and violent place where a few people struggle for what is left of industrial civilization. Or it could be something much more humane and egalitarian, based on justice, shared effort, and the rights of every person to everything that is essential to life.



On Saturday, October 18, 2014 5:31:09 AM UTC-7, Biz Modl wrote:
no one needs a federal 'policy' to give people options:
what we see here is a tradeoff of knowledge for energy.  modern ag 'dumbs down' the growing process at a higher energy cost.  the manufacturing paradigm lower intelligence and raises energy inputs. 
this production system is consistent with the harris model decision matrix - people get a basic needs satisfied at a lower cost J
 
don’t argue - compete!
 
have fun,    biz
 
From: biz modl [ mailto:biz...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 7:46 AM
Subject: FW: Brian Czech responds to Paul Krugman in the Huffington Post
this is an example of a redesigned production system…
 
have fun,   biz
 
From: biz modl [mailto:...@gmail.com ]
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 2:02 PM
Subject: RE: Brian Czech responds to Paul Krugman in the Huffington Post
from a harris model point of view, arguing about growth or limits isn't really an issue.  harris says that people in all cultures make decisions by choosing options that meet their basic needs with least effort (he defines basic needs in terms of food (sustenance), sex and love (all types of 'belonging')). 
if you want a steady state culture, you need zero growth production and population systems that meet member's basic needs with minimal effort that are as good or better than the current systems.  this is a matter of design.  there is nothing in the current system that stops a group of people (who believe in no growth) from developing a counter culture that is steady state.  but you can't get there if you spend all your intellectual capital and effort arguing with people who have overriding vested interests in the current system.
 
don’t argue - compete! give people good options and they will take them J

John deC.

unread,
Oct 20, 2014, 11:40:51 AM10/20/14
to steady...@googlegroups.com
You make some good points, Keith, but I think the huge and subtle war is actually between Earth and the capitalist system itself. Regardless of whether my iPhone keeps the NSA from spying on me and never mind that a government emerges that is more attuned to systems of taxation, subsidy, and other policies so  green businesses have a fighting chance, we are still living on a planet that is destined to experience drastic climate change in the next generation or two.

In what way do you think my ideas belong to a world that is passing? I'm curious how you see that, Keith.
 
have fun,    biz
 
 
have fun,   biz
 
 
have fun,    biz
 
http://www.growthbiasbusted.org/wall-of-fame/entry/brian-czechs-krugman-on-limits-to-growth
 
 
Dave Gardner
Producer of the Documentary,
GrowthBusters: Hooked on Growth
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
 
On Oct 17, 2014, at 10:03 AM, Rentz Hilyer <rentz...@gmail.com> wrote:
 
You've probably seen Brian Czech's response to Paul Krugman's recent argument against the idea of limits to growth. You're a prolific group. I encourage everyone to weigh in on this dialog. It's a rare opportunity to get into the mix with Paul Krugman. We want the Huffington Post to start seeing this topic as newsworthy and of interest to many. We also are hoping for just enough traffic that this column makes it back to Krugman, who could one day become an ally, or at least stop his perpetual growth pontificating.

Keith Hudson

unread,
Oct 20, 2014, 3:17:06 PM10/20/14
to steady...@googlegroups.com
John,


At 16:40 20/10/2014, you wrote:
You make some good points, Keith, but I think the huge and subtle war is actually between Earth and the capitalist system itself. Regardless of whether my iPhone keeps the NSA from spying on me and never mind that a government emerges that is more attuned to systems of taxation, subsidy, and other policies so  green businesses have a fighting chance, we are still living on a planet that is destined to experience drastic climate change in the next generation or two.

In what way do you think my ideas belong to a world that is passing? I'm curious how you see that, Keith.

It's all the terms, assumptions and institutions you keep on about. Just to take one example, your constant use of the word "Capitalism". This is the language of political ideologists of 150 years ago -- ever since Marx, in fact -- but, unfortun ately still in use today, particularly by socialists who can;t think laterally, but bring out the same old stuff. Humans have been capitalists ever since innovations and trading began. The first man who made a flint axehead was a capitalist. He;d invested many leisure hours (probably m any thousands of them) chipping away at a piece of flint instead of enjoying himself with others of his group. Then think of the person who invested huge amounts of time in devising a way of drilling small holes neatly in sea shells and thus making it into a necklace. Such necklaces were being traded for hundreds of miles away from the sea shore at 70,000BC. Just think of the total amount of capital that was involved in that. Australians were making and trading barbed weapons  made from sting-rays hundreds of miles into the interior.  Everything that is going on today -- that which ideologists call Capitalism -- has  been going on probably from the time that man became a new species. That, and the ability to talk (which is, of course useful if you;re trading, probably marked the big divide between man and the previous, rather duller hominin.

Then again, you think of institutions as unchanging -- govenments, mulitnationals, and so lon.  Every man-made institution, from small groups to tribes to civilizations, to protective practices, etc  have always been been changing according to the latest innovation and the changes it produced in the economic (survival) environment.

You keep on assuming that, somehow, people will respond to your ideas as though by a sort of religious conversion. They won't. They'll only comnvert if you can show them that your religion offers immediate beneifts such as being a new institution that will improve your lot in the here and now as well as in the hereafter.  Then, unfortunately, these worthy religious institutions become power-institutions themselves and begin to exhibit the very vices which they were set up to combat. The Italian Mafia, the triads in  China, the KGB in Soviet Russia, the trade unions, the Labour Party, the Democratic Party, etc, etc were all organsiations with worthy objectives, run by well-meaning good people to start with. But they all turn into power-organisations. In such skituaations, most people do as they're told. This is the reality.  You've got to accept human nature as it really is. Only then can you hope to make good, workable changes in the existing system. 

Keith


On Monday, October 20, 2014 3:10:24 AM UTC-7, Keith Hudson wrote:
"You see, the US empire really is collapsing . .  "

Yes, the US empire is collpasing. The US government is becoming increasingly inept.  But ~america itself it not collapsing.  There never has been so much research done in previous times as today.  About half of all research in the world is carried out in America (half of that by researchers who were born elsewhere).  Scientific rearch (basic and applied) of the US, Germany, UK and Israel is about 95% of all research in the world.

What you have to bear in mind, John, is that what is going on now is a huge and subtle war going on between major businesses and governments which have over-reached themselves.  Governments are desperately competing between themselves by means of taxattion advantagers offered to major businesses. Major businesses are now resisting further government encroachments into personal liberty and private information. Apple and others are now producing mobile phones which prevent government intrusion. Google is actually laying down international optic-fibre systems and total encryption which will be inpenetrable by governments.

The co-operatives you mention may well have a good future -- let us hope so -- but only in so far as they are successful businesses.  They may well have the sort of managerial system which major multinationals will increasingly follow. They have, in fact, been lateralising hugely in the last 50 years -- whereas governments are still military-style top-down pyramidal structures which were designed 150 years ago. Our so-called democratic structure is a farce. The public in an advanced country has far more power as customers than as the electorate.

"The BRICS nations are building an alternative to the evil IMF and World Bank"

No, they're getting nowhere. They have got so far, but they're going  backwards relatively. Even China is getting stuck now becajuse its authoritarian system can't produce anywhere near enough innovative minds. Even with its common wirrten language which enable top-down control for the last 2,200 years ever since Emperor Qin bound together five or six separate countries is showing signs of break-up. There are already signs that some of the provinces are loughing their own furrows. The central government has not been able to re-inegrate Hong Kong, for example, because of notions of competition and individual freedom that were already implanted.

Most of your ideas, John, belong to a world that's passing. Wake up, different governmental systems are taking shape.   


Keith

At 00:16 20/10/2014, you wrote:
Or better yet, compete and argue! There are great efforts at competition with the system of predatory capitalism all over the globe now: the Mondragon cooperative in Spain, Credit Agricole Group, the largest retail banking group in France, health cooperatives in the Netherlands, Consorzio Cooperative Costruzioni in Italy, and thousands more. The BRICS nations are building an alternative to the evil IMF and World Bank...should be interesting to see how that turns out! Brazil, Venezuela, and Mexico have demonstrated three ways to nationalize oil...not a bad idea! Take a look at the website for the Partnership for Sustainable Communities...lots of exciting examples there.

But don't give up on arguing while you're getting interested in competing. Listen to Chris Hedges, Richard Wolff, Arundhati Roy, Vandana Shiva, Noam Chomsky...all excellent arguers and most of them activists, too. You can argue and compete at the same time! And don't forget to read Chalmers Johnson. You see, the US empire really is collapsing and the day will come, hopefully soon, when people all around the world will just stop listening to our corrupt, self-interested leaders.

We can help build a world based on models for community, economy, and ecology that draw their energy from principles and values. We need to argue strenuously against those who say, "Forget it, there is no alternative!" We need to compete effectively against those who have forgotten why they are here on Earth. And we need to never give up.

It has been pointed out many times that a steady state future is inevitable, and that we may still have time to determine what it will look like. It could be a planet with no people on it or a savage and violent place where a few people struggle for what is left of industrial civilization. Or it could be something much more humane and egalitarian, based on justice, shared effort, and the rights of every person to everything that is essential to life.



On Saturday, October 18, 2014 5:31:09 AM UTC-7, Biz Modl wrote:
no one needs a federal 'policy' to give people options:
what we see here is a tradeoff of knowledge for energy.  modern ag 'dumbs down' the growing process at a higher energy cost.  the manufacturing paradigm lower intelligence and raises energy inputs. 
this production system is consistent with the harris model decision matrix - people get a basic needs satisfied at a lower cost J
 
don̢۪t argue - compete!
>
 
have fun,    biz
 
From: biz modl [ mailto:biz...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 7:46 AM
Subject: FW: Brian Czech responds to Paul Krugman in the Huffington Post
this is an example of a redesigned production system…
 
have fun,   biz
 
From: biz modl [mailto:...@gmail.com ]
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 2:02 PM
Subject: RE: Brian Czech responds to Paul Krugman in the Huffington Post
from a harris model point of view, arguing about growth or limits isn't really an issue.  harris says that people in all cultures make decisions by choosing options that meet their basic needs with least effort (he defines basic needs in terms of food (sustenance), sex and love (all types of 'belonging')). 
if you want a steady state culture, you need zero growth production and population systems that meet member's basic needs with minimal effort that are as good or better than the current systems.  this is a matter of design.  there is nothing in the current system that stops a group of people (who believe in no growth) from developing a counter culture that is steady state.  but you can't get there if you spend all your intellectual capital and effort arguing with people who have overriding vested interests in the current system.
 
don̢۪t argue - compete! give people good options ns and they will take them J

biz modl

unread,
Oct 20, 2014, 3:19:51 PM10/20/14
to steady...@googlegroups.com

hi folks,

 

mondragon is a good example of how a 'non-capitalist' social structure can follow the primate biogram of hierarchy (status) and center/periphery.  the wage differentials insure that production differentials are recognized (status and rewards) and the owner/non-owner distinction places non-owner workers on the boundary (they are typically laid off before 'owners').  and, of course, there is the inevitable hierarchy needed to coordinate an organization with this scale.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation#Business_culture

re: the harris model, the selection criteria is 'what is the least effort path to sustenance (food, shelter, clothing), sex and love (belonging)'.  while I suspect the work environment creates opportunities for male and female worker to meet (sex), the key benefits appear to be wages to acquire food, shelter, clothing (sustenance) and solidarity (love).

 

the next question, from a steady state point of view, about mondragon is 'is it a zero growth production system?' the organization appears to be following the 'capitalist' model of growth and expansion ('growth' of coops is 'good').  the reward system still incents the organization to make 'more' and acquires worker effort with unequal distribution of benefits by packaging it in a 'solidarity' wrapper. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation#Reactions

 

I am guessing that the wage differentials are worker approved - so at mondragon equity doesn’t meant equality J  this is no surprise.  I  havent run across any malibu socialists with their hearty concern for the poor (as they munch on their 10 dollar organic muffins looking out on the ocean) who advocate equality of wealth as social justice - they advocate equality of opportunity.

 

this corresponds to the different types of social justice:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice#Theories_of_distributive_justice

 

mondragon is playing the same game - the primate biogram wins every time J

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

 

On Oct 17, 2014, at 10:03 AM, Rentz Hilyer <rentz...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

You've probably seen Brian Czech's response to Paul Krugman's recent argument against the idea of limits to growth. You're a prolific group. I encourage everyone to weigh in on this dialog. It's a rare opportunity to get into the mix with Paul Krugman. We want the Huffington Post to start seeing this topic as newsworthy and of interest to many. We also are hoping for just enough traffic that this column makes it back to Krugman, who could one day become an ally, or at least stop his perpetual growth pontificating.

 

 

 

 

--

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

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

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

--

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

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

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SteadyStaters" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to steadystater...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

~WRD000.jpg

John deC.

unread,
Oct 21, 2014, 1:48:52 PM10/21/14
to steady...@googlegroups.com
Keith, I think you're a little behind the times. An individual chipping out a flint spear point is not a capitalist under any meaningful definition of the term. Capitalism is usually defined as a system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned. The current version of predatory global finance capitalism, probably the last stage of this system, is dedicated to privatizing or corporatizing everything possible (or perhaps just everything) so as to extract the last dime of profit from a dying planet. If you look on-line, you can find nonsense like the following, of course: Capitalism is the only moral political system because it is the only system dedicated to the protection of rights, which is a requirement for human survival and flourishing. This is the only proper role of a government. Capitalism should be defended vigorously on a moral basis, not an economic or utilitarian basis.

What needs to be said about such gibberish? Nothing.

You're entirely wrong in imagining that I think of institutions as unchanging. If I actually thought that, there would be no point in participating in this conversation, would there? Of course institutions can and do change. Even the life-destroying system of global capitalism (there's that word again!) that we live within can change, and it will. For one think, markets are essentially saturated, the ability to create new "needs" is becoming exhausted, many resources are depleted or close to it, and the ability to maintain and enforce exploitive economic relationships is straining even the mighty USA. Change is imminent.

The real question, of course, is whether very substantial change can come in time to avoid the climate catastrophe that the overwhelming majority ("overwhelming" means 97 percent) of climate scientists now predict. Your analogy with religious conversion may be accurate, though. People - and you may be among them - tend to cling to whatever beliefs make it possible for their sense of the world and their place in it to persist. For many people this shows up now as a belief that capitalism and technology will find a way to overcome the historic and probably irreversible destruction that over-exploitation of resources and waste sinks has brought. (Kunstler's book, "Too Much Magic", is a good discussion of this phenomenon.) Once people accept the scientific evidence - and this is almost always very difficult to do - people see the world, the future, and their role in life differently.

We don't need good, workable changes in the existing system. It's too late for that. We need an entirely different system, a non-capitalistic steady state economy, and a global community committed to preserving the rights of present and future generations.
Keith

>
 
have fun,    biz
 
 
have fun,   biz
 
 
have fun,    biz