Further on economics as we have it:
We claim to place economic value on everything, even when we know it is highly questionable. News reports on drug addiction often include estimates on the cost to the economy of having so many "unproductive" people, yet the real issue is the damage to peoples' physical and moral lives. Why do we even construct such artificial money-based estimates?
Economics is sometimes considered to be the tool which rations limited resources. After all, there is not enough of everything everybody wants to go around. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his need," that old communist manifesto, did not work. And anyone who has read Mikhail Gorbachev's book Mandate for Peace, can perceive the uselessness of the planned economy (and how very boring the meetings and documents are). There are limits to the resources in this world, and that is a hard fact that must be considered.
But we don't need prices and comparative prices to ration resources. In the face of the climate crisis we have other criteria. We know the ecological costs and benefits relating to mining, farming, animal husbandry, dairy, water uses, and generally how land is dug up, cultivated, tree-covered, concrete-covered, building-covered, fertilized, flooded, and made home to varieties of plants, animals, bacteria, fungus, and insects. Protection and rationing of our resources should be based on that information, not on money/economics. Profit, debt, slavery, and personal monetary wealth inhibit flourishing, and cause homelessness, ill health, wasteful consumption, famine, and to some extent disease and war.
We need to create a better theory of economics so that everyone can have decent housing, nutrition, health, assistance for physical or mental limitations, and wherewithal to be in social relationships with other humans and creatures. This new economic fiction should serve to promote flourishing, rather than encourage severe competition among winners and losers. Economics should be ripped away from how we value each other and the world around us (and even outer space).
I do not know what that new theory of economics will be, but it is clear that we must do things very differently very soon. There is no morally acceptable reason to put up with homelessness, starvation, inadequate housing and a general resistance to adapting and avoiding climate change damage. How we finance our existence is getting in the way of solving these problems.
Today our lives are based on the fiction of money/economics – a fiction story we tell ourselves, and were we not telling this story, it would not exist. But the value, cost (to our lives), and benefits world in which we live, are obvious and very real. Whatever replaces money/economics should be based on these real things.
**For non-Canadian readers, the Senate of Canada is a body of unelected members, appointed by the Prime Minister. Until the election of Justin Trudeau in 2015, senators were appointed from the political parties, chosen from within the various provinces and territories, and acted as part of the party caucus. Trudeau removed all Liberal senators from caucus and designated them "independent," while Conservaive senators remained. He also required that future senators would be independent, nominated by an independent commission, and meet specific qualifications Assessment Criteria - Canada.ca. To quote from the Senate's website About the Senate (sencanada.ca) "Created to counterbalance representation by population in the House of Commons, the Senate has evolved from defending regional interests to giving voice to underrepresented groups like Indigenous peoples, visible minorities and women". Senate can propose legislation, and consider and advise on legislation from the House of Commons. Their consent is required. By convention, the House and government do pay attention to the suggestions and commission reports by the senate, and some legislation is stalled by the lack of Senate agreement. But, being unelected, the senate will always ultimately give way to the elected House (again, by convention). Thus we have higher qualifications for appointed politicians than for the elected members. Ironic, eh? I read many of their reports because of their quality.
They are required to retire by age 75 (as are Supreme Court justices – Americans, take note).
No comments:
Post a Comment