Russell Brand Revolution

[GostHacked]

Carepov

IN regards to food. We cannot grow stuff year round, so much of our food comes from elsewhere during the cold months. Check where most of your processed food comes from.

My car is Japanese, my motorbike is Japanese, I don't own a house, I rent.

But check your hardware store again and read the labels of where stuff if from. Go to other stores do the same. Even a grocery store, start reading the label of origin.

[Wilber]

Carepov

IN regards to food. We cannot grow stuff year round, so much of our food comes from elsewhere during the cold months. Check where most of your processed food comes from.

My car is Japanese, my motorbike is Japanese, I don't own a house, I rent.

But check your hardware store again and read the labels of where stuff if from. Go to other stores do the same. Even a grocery store, start reading the label of origin.

In fact, a lot of food is now grown locally year round in huge green houses. Increasing motor fuel costs and low natural gas prices have made them competitive with produce that has to be shipped from California. This is a rapidly growing industry in these parts also because marginal agricultural land can be used instead of prime land, which is in short supply and needed for other forms of agriculture.

My vehicles are North American and German.

While the basic building materials of homes and a good percentage of manufactured components are sourced in North America, an increasing amount of those components are being made offshore.

If you go to a hardware store, you will find a lot of manufactured items that are made in Asia. The best quality tool brands are still North American, Japanese and European, but they may have been manufactured elsewhere. Label reading can be a sobering experience. It's amazing how many processed foods contain ingredients from China.

Edited November 9, 2013 by Wilber

[Michael Hardner]

I am surprised that this is a question.

Then answer it, please.

Not at all, it's a net loss.

You're not answering the right question. Net loss for whom ? Do the gains by the foreign players plus the losses by the domestic players add to zero is the question.

[eyeball]

I think the paradox is: when people are wealthier, they consume more which impacts the environment.

But is the argument here shouldn't be to keep people poor, so that the environment isn't impacted.

Well, just as the environment is usually mostly absent from discussions involving the economy so to is power largely absent from discussions involving wealth.

People in a number of the countries many of our corporations have set up shop in are unable to protect their environment and ecosystems to the extent that we in the west can. That said, recall that when countries trade with one another they become more alike one another. It's a two way street and it seems pretty clear to me that the quality of our governance and the public's ability to wield power are, like our economy, being chased to the bottom along with our wages and environmental standards.

The balance in between prosperity and consumption is what we need to find in ourselves, and in our own culture.

I'd say we need limits on what we consume. Of course we'll very likely never impose these on ourselves but sooner or later our environment will.

Again what's mostly out of balance is the growth of the economy vs the draw down of natural capital and now we're exacerbating that by squandering our social capital on widening the wealth/power gap.

Edited November 10, 2013 by eyeball

[Michael Hardner]

That said, recall that when countries trade with one another they become more alike one another. It's a two way street and it seems pretty clear to me that the quality of our governance and the public's ability to wield power are, like our economy, being chased to the bottom along with our wages and environmental standards.

Do you think our environmental standards are falling back ? How far, in terms of years ?

I'd say we need limits on what we consume. Of course we'll very likely never impose these on ourselves but sooner or later our environment will.

You should bring some examples from the fishing industry here - specifically. You know these at an expert level, so I'd be glad to revisit your case.

[Moonlight Graham]

I'd say we need limits on what we consume. Of course we'll very likely never impose these on ourselves but sooner or later our environment will.

IMO the easiest way to limit consumption is population control, and population reduction. But the problem (and a problem with capitalism in general)) is that once population goes down or stays the same, consumption goes down or stays the same, and when consumption goes down or stays the same it means no economic growth, or even a reduction in growth.

[eyeball]

Do you think our environmental standards are falling back ? How far, in terms of years ?

I think Canadian's attitudes towards the environment have deteriorated generally speaking mostly as a result of efforts to enculturate the view that the economy gets priority in terms of allocation of attention and resources etc.

You should bring some examples from the fishing industry here - specifically. You know these at an expert level, so I'd be glad to revisit your case.

What is there to say? There's just a fraction of the people making a living at restoring salmon habitat or enhancing wild salmon in BC as there used to be and many local salmon runs are near extinction level.

The traditional commercial salmon fishery goes is pretty much gone around here too, almost everything is now directed towards re-emerging native fisheries and the sport fishery.

The sport salmon fishery has and still is growing without limit in terms of numbers of boats and lodges etc and as it's grown so have the numbers of fish allocated to it - virtually all of which have been taken from the allocation of a commercial sector that is now nearing extinction level (you hear that phrase a lot around here). I can't see the sport fishery continuing to grow in the face of growing native fisheries though. I suspect the fishery will remain embroiled in controversy and the pressure to under-manage overfish will be intense. I think its safe to say that the tradition of Ottawa imposing limits on people from afar will prevail.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

Did I mention there's just a fraction of the people making a living at restoring salmon habitat or enhancing wild salmon in BC as there used to be?

[ReeferMadness]

IMO the easiest way to limit consumption is population control, and population reduction. But the problem (and a problem with capitalism in general)) is that once population goes down or stays the same, consumption goes down or stays the same, and when consumption goes down or stays the same it means no economic growth, or even a reduction in growth.

What would be the problem with that?

[Michael Hardner]

I think Canadian's attitudes towards the environment have deteriorated generally speaking mostly as a result of efforts to enculturate the view that the economy gets priority in terms of allocation of attention and resources etc.

How many years have we fallen back ? Is it across the board, or only in certain areas ?

... there's just a fraction of the people making a living at restoring salmon habitat or enhancing wild salmon in BC as there used to be?[/size]

Pretty surprising that they're still pushing up sport fishing numbers, though.

[Michael Hardner]

What would be the problem with that?

Growth is estimated to add about .5% to peoples' real earnings growth. This means people will be making less.

[Mighty AC]

IMO the easiest way to limit consumption is population control, and population reduction. But the problem (and a problem with capitalism in general)) is that once population goes down or stays the same, consumption goes down or stays the same, and when consumption goes down or stays the same it means no economic growth, or even a reduction in growth.

Capitalism does not require unending growth to exist. We currently over value growth, which is unsustainable, but that is just one of many metrics that can be used. With tweaks capitalist markets could be made to value better over more.

[Michael Hardner]

We currently over value growth, which is unsustainable, but that is just one of many metrics that can be used. With tweaks capitalist markets could be made to value better over more.

What's the difference between 'better' and 'more' when it comes to economic output ?

If I come up with a better way to do something, I will have more. That is why growth isn't unsustainable. It's necessary and natural.

[eyeball]

Pretty surprising that they're still pushing up sport fishing numbers, though.

I would think it should be disturbing to economists and anyone who thinks they know a thing or two about economics to say the least.

How many years have we fallen back ? Is it across the board, or only in certain areas ?

Fishing communities are to our socio-economic and governing systems as canaries are to coal miners and many of the canaries are dropping like flies around the planet.

What does that tell you?

Edited November 11, 2013 by eyeball

[Mighty AC]

What's the difference between 'better' and 'more' when it comes to economic output ?

If I come up with a better way to do something, I will have more. That is why growth isn't unsustainable. It's necessary and natural.

Depends on what we mean by more vs better. If you can make more without making life worse then we will be doing things better.

If the goal is to simply increase GDP we are just measuring more. GDP is increased by both all the money spent on things that make life better and things that make life worse. To GDP money spent on more gas guzzling cars is no different than money spent on super efficient transport. Money spent locking up inmates in a private jail is no different than money spent educating people. Money spent developing a smart grid and green power is no different than money spent expanding fossil fuel extraction.

My point is we don't have to give up on capitalism to incentive better over more. We just have to ensure that the proper regulations and tweaks are in place and that negatives like pollution are priced and not considered externalities. Hence if we incentive safer, healthier, cleaner and more fair capitalism will solve those problems along with the usual hurdles like faster, cheaper and newer.

There are barriers to incentivizing 'better' though. The corporate hold on governments for example. Russell's rant highlighted some of these issues and hence we are discussing potential ways to combat the problems that strip power from we the people.

[Michael Hardner]

If the goal is to simply increase GDP we are just measuring more. GDP is increased by both all the money spent on things that make life better and things that make life worse.

I guess you're right - GDP is a measure of how much we make, and not much else.

'Better' is too much a value judgement in this discussion. An industrial process improvement is 'better' for industry, and for society and you don't have to incentivize it. But I doubt Russell would get excited about it.

And unlimited economic growth is not unsustainable, and in fact seems inevitable.

My point is we don't have to give up on capitalism to incentive better over more. We just have to ensure that the proper regulations and tweaks are in place and that negatives like pollution are priced and not considered externalities. Hence if we incentive safer, healthier, cleaner and more fair capitalism will solve those problems along with the usual hurdles like faster, cheaper and newer.

There are barriers to incentivizing 'better' though. The corporate hold on governments for example. Russell's rant highlighted some of these issues and hence we are discussing potential ways to combat the problems that strip power from we the people.

[dre]

Growth is estimated to add about .5% to peoples' real earnings growth. This means people will be making less.

The problem is, our current economic system requires exponential growth. 2% annual growth might sound like a small managable number but if you carry that on for long enough, then that 2% will mean adding the ammount of our entire GDP today... each year. Simple math will show you that ANY contant percentage of growth is unsustainable.

However its not "capitalism" per say that creates the requirement for growth its our monetary system. When GDP grows DEBT (public and private) grows, and an ever increasing ammount of new growth is required each year to make available money to extinguish the debt from the previous year.

[Michael Hardner]

The problem is, our current economic system requires exponential growth. 2% annual growth might sound like a small managable number but if you carry that on for long enough, then that 2% will mean adding the ammount of our entire GDP today... each year. Simple math will show you that ANY contant percentage of growth is unsustainable.

Uh... what is the difference between growth and exponential growth ? Any growth will become exponential over time....

Any constant percentage of growth is unsustainable ... why ?

However its not "capitalism" per say that creates the requirement for growth its our monetary system. When GDP grows DEBT (public and private) grows, and an ever increasing ammount of new growth is required each year to make available money to extinguish the debt from the previous year.

Economic growth occurred before fractional banking was invented. What do you think about that ?

[Moonlight Graham]

If I come up with a better way to do something, I will have more. That is why growth isn't unsustainable. It's necessary and natural.

Unless we colonize another planet or completely revolutionize our economy to utilize renewable resources in a sustainable way, the global capitalist economy is unsustainable. Humans are depleting more resources than we replace, and some aren't renewable. If we don't alter course radically we will eventually run out of some key resources and destroy our environment through pollution and depletion. Growth means that not only will this continue but it will increase.

Edited November 12, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[dre]

Any constant percentage of growth is unsustainable ... why ?

Because eventually we would be using the ammount of resources equal to what is found on an entire planet in a single year... and then in a single day... and then in a single second.

Economic growth occurred before fractional banking was invented. What do you think about that ?

Its not fractional banking per say that creates the need for exponential growth its the way we do it. And yes... there was growth before... whats your point?

Uh... what is the difference between growth and exponential growth ? Any growth will become exponential over time....

No an exponential curve in mathematics is one that gets steeper for each unit of time. Linear growth averages out to a straight line.

[Bonam]

Because eventually we would be using the ammount of resources equal to what is found on an entire planet in a single year... and then in a single day... and then in a single second.

And why is that necessarily unsustainable? By the time we are using the amount of resources found on an entire planet in a single second, our civilization will necessarily be spanning billions of planets. It can't be any other way.

[-1=e^ipi]

Because eventually we would be using the ammount of resources equal to what is found on an entire planet in a single year... and then in a single day... and then in a single second.

And by then human civilization will have more than 1 planet. Humanity will begin to colonize mars in a few decades.

No an exponential curve in mathematics is one that gets steeper for each unit of time. Linear growth averages out to a straight line.

Dre, your definition of exponential is wrong. Oh how the terrible Canadian education system fails us! A curve is exponential if the rate of change is proportional to the displacement. The red and blue curves are not exponential, they are linear and cubic. Only the green curve is exponential.

Anyway, perhaps economic growth is actually logistic rather than exponential, but given how young human civilization is, for all intents and purposes we can consider it exponential within our lifetimes.

Edited November 12, 2013 by -1=e^ipi

[Michael Hardner]

Because eventually we would be using the ammount of resources equal to what is found on an entire planet in a single year... and then in a single day... and then in a single second.

That's consumption, not growth.

Its not fractional banking per say that creates the need for exponential growth its the way we do it. And yes... there was growth before... whats your point?

My point is that the problem exists no matter what banking system we have in place, so why bring it up ?

No an exponential curve in mathematics is one that gets steeper for each unit of time. Linear growth averages out to a straight line.

Ok, well linear growth is simply not going to happen - you don't find straight lines in nature.

[Wilber]

And why is that necessarily unsustainable? By the time we are using the amount of resources found on an entire planet in a single second, our civilization will necessarily be spanning billions of planets. It can't be any other way.

Of course it can. Species become extinct all the time when demand exceeds the resources available or those resources disappear altogether. Even if we became capable of interstellar travel within the next hundred years, it would take hundreds if not thousands of years to actually settle other planets. I suggest that a better Plan B would be in order.

[Wilber]

And by then human civilization will have more than 1 planet. Humanity will begin to colonize mars in a few decades.

Mars is a small inhospitable planet. It will be a drain on Earth's resources for a long time before it becomes a contributor.

[dre]

My point is that the problem exists no matter what banking system we have in place, so why bring it up ?

No youre just flat wrong. Growth prior to the current monetary exeriment was not exponential it was for the most part linear. I bring it up because the discussion touched on growth and whats sustainable, and its absolutely relevant. The current system has arbitrary rules that make exponential growth a requirement, and make debt a requirement for growth to happen. We cannot grow the economy without growing debt, and as soon as growth slows we are stricken with defaults. Not to mention the system is responsible for the regressive concentration of wealth Mr Brand is talking about, so bringing up the macro-economic framework we are operating on is absolutely relevent to the topic.