by Economics fails not merely to account for biophysical limits to growth but to account for actual and potential alternative provisioning systems. Instead, talk of ‘the economy’ makes an implicit ontological claim that there is only a singular form of modern economy: the capital accumulating, price-making market economy. Economics has then become limited to a discussion of market capitalism and how it can be maintained in light of its evident failings. Hence, a new critical orthodoxy has arisen that seeks to maintain ‘business as usual’. Recognising that there is considerable potential for alternatives to current economic systems is a first step beyond this orthodoxy. Economics must go much further to become a science of social ecological provisioning that recognises and provides for
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
NewDealdemocrat writes The snooze-a-than in jobless claims continues; what I am looking for in tomorrow’s jobs report
Bill Haskell writes Monthly payments could get thousands of homeless people off the streets
Angry Bear writes A Doctor at Cigna Said Her Bosses Pressured Her to Review Patients’ Cases Too Quickly
Steve Roth writes How Did Under-40s Get So Much Richer During Covid?
Economics fails not merely to account for biophysical limits to growth but to account for actual and potential alternative provisioning systems. Instead, talk of ‘the economy’ makes an implicit ontological claim that there is only a singular form of modern economy: the capital accumulating, price-making market economy. Economics has then become limited to a discussion of market capitalism and how it can be maintained in light of its evident failings. Hence, a new critical orthodoxy has arisen that seeks to maintain ‘business as usual’. Recognising that there is considerable potential for alternatives to current economic systems is a first step beyond this orthodoxy. Economics must go much further to become a science of social ecological provisioning that recognises and provides for diverse alternatives to be actualised.The bottom line is how alternative economies as ethical social provisioning systems can be made to work, how current economic and political structures operate to prevent change to such systems and how we get from here to there.
Alternative provisioning systems
The lead story today is about Xi Jinping’s speech at the opening of a study session at the Central Party School. Xi said that the path of financial development with Chinese characteristics not only follows the objective laws of modern financial development but also has distinctive characteristics that are suitable for our country’s national conditions. It is fundamentally different from the Western financial model. We must strengthen our self-confidence and continue to explore and improve in practice to make this path wider and broade…
The path for financial development with Chinese characteristics is different in nature from the mode of Western financial development.
I apologize for the length and somewhat arbitrary nature of the following, it is an accumulation of thoughts as I react to the notion expressed by an acquaintance that the term “neoliberalism” has little to no explanatory power for the development of American policy since the Johnson years …
But what about the resource side? Where did all this money go? Why, for example, can the Lebanese Armed Forces, not the wealthiest military in the world, have a dozen Brigades deployed on operations, as well as numerous independent regiments, whereas the British, with their massively greater resources and a larger Army, would be pushed to deploy two? And in this, the British are the norm, rather than the exception.The paradox has no one single cause, but is probably due more than anything else to the move since the 1980s towards managing defence as budgets, rather than programmes. Let me expand on that slightly gnomic statement. In the private sector, it is accepted that companies can and will manipulate their financial statements to inflate their profits and minimise their losses where possible. It’s also accepted that there is a distinction between the financial picture (a company makes increased profits by selling off assets) and the reality (it is doing so in a desperate attempt to avoid going out of business.) In a world where only profits and the share price matter, it is at least a coherent strategy for the short term. If you think about it, it’s also a ridiculous strategy for the public sector, since what matters, and what the voters want, is output for the long term. But from the 1980s onwards, beginning in Britain and spreading rapidly, the idea of managing the defence programme in terms of budgets, and the “efficient” spending of money took over. This meant, in effect, abandoning the previous pattern of managing programmes for capability output, and managing them instead according to budgetary limits. And as time passed, the poisonous theories of management consultants about “efficiency” began to seep into the public sectors of a number of countries....