Michael, I'm afraid I have very little to offer this conversation, as economics and I parted ways in college when I came down with Mononucleosis and was thrilled to take an Incomplete in Econ 101. I've never actually considered the fundamental (and now, I see) logical difference between goods and services, so it's going to take me a while to wrap my head around the topic you've laid out here so brilliantly.
The only thing I have to offer is this: your quote, "There is a difference between manufacturing FOR needs, and manufacturing needs" makes me wonder whether all of this will essentially resolve itself if, as James Kunstler suggests, we are headed for a serious de-technologizing day of reckoning. Perhaps the only things that will be manufactured will be absolute necessities, by virtue of a cataclysmic economic meltdown. Not that that's what I'm gunning for, mind you... :-)
Maybe you have more to contribute to it than you know. We don't have to be nuclear physicists to have a view about nuclear energy, nor political scientists to vote. Or, regarding economics, a quote from Milton Freidman as he suggested that central banks in reality make economies less stable, not more:
“ It is a bad system to believers in freedom just because it gives such few men so much power without any effective check by the body politic... this is the key argument against an independent central bank. To paraphrase Clemenceau, money is much to important a business to be left to central bankers.”
Likewise Steiner, again speaking specifcally about economics:
“...every human being has a share in the working of the 'body social', and it cannot be left to the 'experts'.
I was not aware of the work of Kunstler but having had a look, I'd like to make a comment or two on it: I see that he referred to 'urban sprawl' as being the greatest misallocation of resources that the world has ever seen. I have to agree with that. I think that one day in the not-very-close future, when we have got a lot better at understanding how built environments affect human beings, and a lot more advanced in our technological skills (i.e. to the point that it becomes more viable to do so), we are going to have to revamp, rebuild, rehabitate trillions of dollars of woefully mis-designed habitat. I'm also with Kunstler when he urges us to become more aware of the connections between physical spaces and cultural vitality.
Most relevant to my theme in 'The Economist is Wearing no Clothes' however I want to respond to his suggestion that running out of fossil fuels will oblige us to go back to a more localised and agrarian way of living. On this I do not agree. Sure I think have more localised activity and responsibility, and more localised agriculture would be a very good thing – perhaps combined with the best of technology and what I call 'non-toxic globalisation' [there comes another article for the future!] - but I don't think we will be forced into it by a lack of energy resources. An economist called Julian Simon wrote a wonderful book in the late 70's called The Ultimate Resouce (he is refering to the creativity of people) in which he argued, backed by mountains of data, that we never really run out of anything. We always innovate first. This question is also inseperable from the argument that 'there are too many people on the planet'. That is a way of thinking that too easily encourages us to view humanity badly, and even perhaps begin to sympathise with those who seek 'population reduction'. Despite the massive conditioning we have since birth to accept this very 'obvious truth' about population (I certainly would have also considered it clearly a problem until quite recently) a thorough investigation of history, present trends etc make is look highly questionable, and indeed a growing number of serious analysts and commentators are questioning it. For example Julian Simon again, and more recently Paul Sabin, Marion Tupy, Peter Zeihan, Matt Ridley, Ronald Bailey, Bjorn Lomborg – even Elon Musk has weighed in and said that crisis cause by a collapse of population levels is much more likely.
….. and then 'needs' – I just want to be clear that when I speak of manufacturing for needs, I don't mean some kind of austerity. Needs includes the psychological and spiritual needs of hobbies, arts, beauty, toys for kids and so on and so on. All I'm arguing for is that one day we get to the point where the people who mine our common heritage on our behalf turn it into the items we actually want, not the ones that it suits their interests to make. That is, what WE say we need.
I agree with you that leaving it all to "the experts" is not the path to goodness and healing, either on the individual or the global scale! I also agree on the slippery slope to "there are too many people on the planet" AND a scarcity mindset -- "we are running out of [fill in the blank].
Where we diverge, (perhaps?), is the idea that innovation is necessarily the answer. Too often, I think, innovation has taken the form of higher and higher tech, leading to more and more centralization and ironically, de-humanization. If, as you seem to suggest, there's a way to innovate on behalf of localism (I'm intrigued by your concept of "non-toxic globalization"), then I'm on board.
Love the clarification of human needs, too. A question, though, arises about what the people "actually want." You and I both know that it's all too easy to manufacture desire through subconscious influence (thanks, Bernays!) so identifying what we ACTUALLY need is a bit more challenging than just going with what we SAY we need.
Hi Mary, yes – that slippery slope too easily leads to a fear based mentality, often in the very people who otherwise claim to be against fear-based dynamics.
In fact I agree with you that 'innovation' is leading to more and more centralisation and dehumanisation. But that's exactly because the innovation has become decoupled from real needs. Here's a rather caricatured example, but nonethess real, I think: What if if the trillions of dollars and massive human ingenuity and resource that has gone into AI had gone into developing super-sophisticated recycling technologies? I'd say today 'sustainability' problems would be largely contained. Which is the greater need? And how many people out there are saying 'please, what we need is robots, and computers we can speak to about our health problems? All this comes about because of a market that is detatched from need. 'The money machine' tells everybody 'AI will be the next big thing – that's the place you'll make money'. So lots of people invest their money there, and it becomes the next big thing. Whether we need it or not.
I'm seeking to point (via the three-part society touched upon in my 'Failed Mantra of the French Revolution') toward a much more participative society, in which, yes, localisation and a kind of globalisation can co-exist. Let's call it a kind of bottom-up, collaborative globalisation (of co-operating soveriegn nations), rather than a top down, imposed globalisation (of massively consolidated 'interests'). Very difficult to unfold the many dimensions of that in some quite short 'Substacks'. There is a book coming which will do that, but here it has to be developed gradually.
Please stay with me, and hopefully the picure will start to get richer and more interesing. And please, keep questioning, and probing for weaknesses, it gives me the opportunity add more dimensions. What we need above all, as you already seek in your own 'Substack', is dialogue!
I should also say that your point about needs vs desires is an important one. And not only because of manipulation a la Bernaise. If you have a moment, take a look at the discussion on this with Enrique, on this page.
Of course I will stay with you! Everything you write is rich and interesting ALREADY. Great points re: the recycling example and bottom-up collaborative globalization. Makes me think of The Rationalist -- have you checked out their Substack? They are all about finding tech solutions that are decentralized. Seems like a potential fit for you...
I really didn't feel that you might not stay with me.... just wanted to indicate that my arguments are not fully developed yet ;-)
Thanks for the reference to The Rationalist. I signed up. Not really on board with the worship of pure rationalism to the exclusion of other faculties - that is sometimes part of the problem - but seeking to use technology in service of decentralisation is a noble goal!
Of course! Ah, the limitations of the written word! Joking is so tricky... :-)
And I agree, rationalism has major limitations as well. I think your many-facultied (not a word, apparently, but so what) voice is just what The Rationalist needs. Onward!
This is a very interesting article. There are some smart ideas that I agree with. Firstly, the economics profession has failed in its predictions constantly. They are better historians than scientists. A new approach is necessary. Secondly, it is very challenging to differentiate services and goods and how to deal with them. Nowadays I think is clear that services are being transformed into commodities. Banking business used to be a human to human relationship but now its focus is selling products, and the consumers are treated as commodities. Thirdly, it is very relevant the differentiation between our needs and desires induced by the producers. Great key points to develop going forward.
The difference between needs and desires is an important point! And desires can be induced by ourselves as well as by manipulative marketing. I think however that today quite a lot of the population are in some sense 'activist', in that they are very concerned about both environment and justice. So if consumers were to begin organising around these principles (perhaps intially as campaign groups, later as institutions more integrated with the whole process) it is quite possible that some serious people would show some leadership and it might not be too difficult to get people to pay attention to the distinction between needs and desires. I don't mean to be too utilitarian in that however - we have psychological and spiritual needs as well as those related to physical survival. So sports equipment, toys, make-up are real needs too. (Assuming the people say they are, which I'm sure they would!).
Long-term project of course - more on all this is forthcoming posts!
"It means that if you want different results, you have to do different things. And that means that any serious thinking on how to overcome the dysfunctionality that is developing requires a move into the deep and difficult task of revising the principles on which our cultural, political and economic thinking rest. Moreover, that task must be developed outside of established frameworks of thinking, since those will always tend toward variations on ‘what they have always done’ - and we will get variations on ‘what we’ve always got'. "
I noticed while in high school that the 'smart kids' mostly played memory games and accepted hearsay as facts. I remember well sitting in a chair in Physics class, saying to myself; Holy shit Batman, this is why the world is messed up, people only care about form and nothing about substance. I was said to be 'smart' yet felt near totally ignorant. I set about trying to cure the condition with a somewhat compulsive reading habit. Only to find years later that more information cannot 'cure' our condition, if that information is derived from a false premise. It's my opinion that the split model of reality drives how we interpret our perceptions and separates the spiritual and the material in a work of artifice that while a clear aid in the analytical process also gives power to a stand in authority for a far away God.
And the sooner we get over it (reliance on a split model of reality), the sooner people will stop calling me crazy. (Although that is nothing to mind about given the crazy on current display in big world.)
I think this puts a finger right on it. The proclivity to go for form over substance, to 'go along to get along' is most fundamentally the cause of the problems. And it leads ultimately (because of a deficit of reality) to crisis, which becomes the opportunity to realign.
I think your view regarding a 'split model' is right on too. Steiner said (this may not be an exact quote, but pretty close to it) that the problem is that modern thinking 'divides the world into two realms, and then seeks to explain one realm by the principles of the other'. Meaning an attempt to establish the existence of, or nature of, a non-material world according to the principles of a mateiral world. Which is absurd, but nobody seems to notice that.
I'll be very interested to hear any thought you might have on my 'New Paradigm' piece, which I'll publish next week.
You write some interesting posts, Michael, but I can't help thinking that you haven't quite gone deep enough here.
I've spent a significant part of the last forty years trying to envisage how a mature society should govern itself and one of the conclusions I've come to is that swathes of law only exist in order to mitigate the ill effects of more fundamental laws which were either poorly thought out from the start or are now derelict, through becoming detached from the circumstances that shaped them.
You recognise the fundamental importance of access to natural resources but I wonder if you fully appreciate the extent to which the whole economic and social landscape is shaped by the laws which govern how they are allocated? Those laws are an integral part of the foundations on which the structure of organised society rests, and they create a framework within which all other laws operate. Until we ensure that those laws properly reflect the values of modern society, I'd say that any attempt to reform secondary laws (such as regulation of competition) is likely to be wasted.
I have something of a dilemma writing on Substack. Some of my audience, such as yourself, and some of the others who have commented on this page, are already deeply engaged with some of the matters I write about, and others are open-minded professional people, from all walks, who have gone into such things much less, but are amenable to interesting arguments. There is also the question of whether I write longer and deeper pieces, or whether I take up quite small and contained topics and seek initially just to illuminate a possible new angle on them, or attach a question mark or two to them. So far my strategy is the latter, with the intention gradually to expand the vision with some cross-linking and more integrative pieces. But one of the reasons I love feedback is that it will contribute to the way that what I'm doing will evolve.... so please, don't hold back with any thoughts you may have on that!
I also think that appetites (including my own) for reading huge swathes of text online are often limited – so for 'the other half of the strategy', I have a pretty weighty book 'in the works' – though whether it is ever going to see the light of day we'll have to wait and see.
That said.....
I fully agree that law-making tends to become layer after layer of mostly unsuccessful attempts to fix what was wrong with all the previous law-making. I am also very much with you that what can be achieved in changing our systems and social arrangements is very constrained so long as the over-arching framework of our laws and law-making process is unchanged. Yet I'm not inclined to say that nothing at all can be achieved outside of that.
Vaclav Havel, who was instrumental in ending years of Soviet-inspired darkness in the Czech Republic at the end of the 80's, subsequently noted that political reform had not led to Czech society’s re-awakening, but the other way around. Legislation in other words, does not always lead.
Still, that is in no way to diminish your point. It's just that the interlocking nature of all the problems (including the intractability of getting the law-making process - and mentality - changed) is such that it seems that things must be tackled on broad and simultaneous front.
And that said....
I have taken a look at your work on the LSE project for a new constitution. I find much to agree with in it, and also perspectives which are new to me. (I'll particularly mention your very 'balancing' and pragmatic comments on passing power and assets down generations, and on taxation).
Are you familiar with Steiner's concept of the 'three-fold society'? Some of what is implied in it resonates with some of your own work (I have read a fair bit of it and found it very interesting). Let me take that up separately (below).
Thanks for replying, Michael; I'm glad you found my ideas interesting. I dithered over whether to point you to my contributions to the LSE project or to the draft manifesto I wrote, in the wake of the Brexit vote, for a (still-born) constitutional reform party (http://localsovereignty.com/). I felt you'd probably appreciate the more academic approach of the former even though it was older.
You mention 'the intractability of getting the law-making process - and mentality - changed'. This is a fair point but from my perspective it looks a bit circular: a large part of the intractability stems from people's view that it's just too big a challenge. However, I don't see how it can become smaller by putting it off. Your own article starts by referencing a common refrain that ‘We need some kind of new form of government / social organisation’. That surely involves reform at the constitutional level. If not now, then when?
Like you, I have an esoteric perspective on human affairs (which I touched on in a blog post a couple of years ago – https://treasonableman.wordpress.com/2020/10/09/divine-madness/). As I see it, human society will be going through a metamorphosis over the next forty to eighty years whether we like it or not; it remains to be seen whether it happens relatively smoothly, through existing institutions reforming themselves, or more traumatically, through new institutions emerging from the wreckage of societal collapse.
I've read a bit about Steiner's concept of the 'three-fold society' in New View over the last couple of years. I'm not very familiar with it but I do have some thoughts on it – which I will try and put in a comment on your latest piece.
Agreed – if not now, then when? And indeed, the mentality that real change is just too difficult is itself a major cause of us being where we are now, and that itself has to change. (I’d say that through the inevitable trauma it is leading to, it is beginning to change – and even if there is a long way to go, I’ll accept a good beginning!)
I’m only arguing that tightly bound-up systemic problems usually have to be tackled on multiple fronts simultaneously – so while some work on getting some levers into the legislative process (and I think there are quite a few good people doing that – even a small but impressive minority within the political system itself), others will work on the rise of home-schooling, crowd-funding, newly independent medical networks (of which several have sprung up in recent years, as highly qualified doctors, epidemiologists and virologists were driven out of the system by censorship and demonization, because they didn’t agree with ‘the agenda’), etc.
I usually subscribe to a view that ‘public debate is the only motor of social change there is or can be’. Surely even positive legislative change becomes more possible when more people support it, when more people are aligned on what is should look like. For that reason I’m glad that you did point me to your LSE work. As I see it, networks of people sharing and developing ideas, with serious intent, is the only route there is out of the dark spiral which is occurring.
I also looked at your Divine Madness post, so thanks for that link too. The perspective you have arrived at through your own thinking, regarding the ‘contract’ between human and spiritual powers, has a certain resonance with Steiner. It comes out a little different ‘a la Steiner’ but since words are so limited in such matters, perhaps the difference is at least in part semantic. I’ll save further dialogue on that now – I have mostly intended ‘World in Transition’ to focus on the issues of the external world, and am planning to launch a second Substack in the future devoted to esoteric and inner matters. Hope we might have some dialogue there sometime!
Agree that the possibility of some kind of collapse (or other period of trauma such as technology-driven totalitarianism) is very real. For societies as for individuals, it is often trauma that leads to willingness to see things another way! If, worst case, that is what is coming, our task becomes to do whatever we can to reduce the severity of the collapse or trauma and, most especially, to cultivate shared understandings of how we got where we are and how to do something better, so that rebuilding can be most expeditious coming out the other side. (Come out the other side I’m sure we will!)
Will very much welcome your comments on ‘The Circular Economy’!
Many thanks Malcolm, much to come back on here, and I will shortly. Meanwhile I only just noticed that you a substack writer yourself. I have signed up.
I thought I should let you know that I've brought T'Reasonable Man across to Substack (https://malcolmr.substack.com).
So far I haven’t posted anything new there – the four posts I’ve put up so far have largely been re-writes of pieces that have been available on the old site for some time (though the most recent, Foundations of Accountability, does have some new elements). But I expect my posts over the next few weeks to be a mix of old and new.
Steiner's concept of the three-fold society sees quite a bit of responsibility devolving away from government. For example, the responsibility for the economy moves to the entrepreneurial experts who operate it. The elected legislative would ensure that those entrepreneurs can only operate with due consideration for the rights of people and planet, but the legislative would not itself be responsible for the success of the economy – that would be the people doing the work. In addition to an elected legislature and institutions of commerce, there would be a third element, largely non-existent today (though better represented at certain times and places of the past) – namely, institutions of the cultural. You may already be aware of this outlook, but anyway, I mention it because it might change some of the perspectives about who oversees what: There would be a third set of institutions to consider in such questions. A major consequence of devolving responsibilities away from the government in this way is that the government would then have a remit which is actually achievable – setting out the rights framework within which the other two must operate.
I also mention it because of certain meeting points with some of your own work: Your proposal for juries to be involved in the process of appointing (and even more 'de-appointing') governments etc. make a lot of sense. It also strikes a chord with a suggestion made by Fritjers/Foster/Baker in their book 'The Great Covid Panic', which explored the institutional failures of the past two or three years, and what we should learn from them. One of the things they suggest for the future is that appointments to all high public office (including for instance public health institutions) should be subject to the will of juries – composed both of experts (preferably retired, or without other interests), and non-experts, but both sets chosen randomly. In both cases (yours and theirs) this represents a move toward that third set of institutions beyond 'government' and 'commerce' – the institutions of the 'cultural'.
Another 'three-fold' principle which resonates with what you have written (again at the risk that I might be teaching you to suck eggs) is 'money which expires', a la Silvio Gesell and others.
I sense that the question of land use / stewardship is (understandably) fairly close to the heart of your thinking. I freely confess that I have not grappled with the great complexities of that issue sufficiently to make much contribution. I do note though that 'Posthumous', whose comments also appear on this page, is engaged with that issue in a very real way – you and she might conceivably have some fruitful exchange on that. The only contribution I can make for now is to say that I agree with you both that 'stewardship' is the appropriate concept, and to say that ultimately I would expect such stewardship to again involve, eventually, 'institutions of the cultural'.
Although business is supposed to be competitive, survival of the fittest, in my experience there is actually great collaboration which is the whole idea behind "networking" and also coincides with the brotherliness which Steiner discussing in three folding.
Absolutely. I believe that scholars of evolution are increasingly recognising that co-operation is at least as fundamental to all evolution as competition 'red in tooth and claw'. New perspectives on commodity production must recognise that it forms the basis of all our survival, that it is something we fundamentallly do FOR EACH OTHER, and that it is in intimate relationship with nurturing or destroying environments on which we all (meaning now all species) depend for survival. Many thanks for your input!
Companies or Corporations move faster than society, politics and law, and they are the ones that perceive needs and create goods or services to satisfy them.
When society perceives that what is sold to it requires regulation is when it begins to manifest itself, politics echoes and finally the law regulates them.
To think that this order can be reversed and that it is people/society, that set the tone for companies to follow, seems utopian in the short term, even if it slowly permeates and transforms social awareness in the future. Then new needs are created that companies take advantage of again.
With what power is coming together in large companies and funds, it seems difficult for society to follow a path that is not the one that is set for it.
Good article in any case and good luck for a better future
Agree that companies are more agile, and also that this is in principle a good thing. However I think that what they perceive is an opportunity to make money, and that only sometimes co-incides with the fulfilment of real social need. The extent to which it sometimes doesn't can be very harmful.
I don't think though, that creating a means of 'needs input', which would be in general terms, does any harm to the innovation principle, and how it responds to that.
I surely must agree with you that what can be done in the short term must be limited. But long-term vision can only come to fruition if at least the vision coalesces well in the shorter-term.
I'd say it is BECAUSE the power coming together in large companies and funds is leading us in such undesirable directions that we must begin to visualise a direction other than the one being set for us.
I agree that it's important to start from a naive position and forget, at least for a moment, about all the -isms that have been proposed as solutions. We can do this while also being good students of history. Reading your piece, I recognized some of the same ideas that have been put forth before about natural resources. I won't say the name of that famous economist, esteemed by Tolstoy, because his ideas too have become -isms and some people have developed his ideas into cartoons that, if implemented, will create as many new problems as they solve. But yes, let's start with one thing we can all agree on. I hope.
Natural resources, such as oil, minerals, water, old growth forests, bodies of water and land belong to the people, present and future. We, who are standing on the Earth right now, didn't create those things so we can't claim ownership, but we can claim some right to limited access. We have no right to destroy them or use them up; future generations have as much right to them as we do. Those who want access to natural resources should have to buy them from the people by paying taxes. Maybe a minimal amount of natural resources (such as water) that allows one to survive should be free and only an excess amount should be taxed. A direct democracy government should locally and cooperatively manage those resources. Somehow. It will be difficult. There will be abuse and corruption. Cooperating is hard. There will be disagreements and fights. And no plan for managing resources will make the economy completely stable, but we can hope that an economy will be at least as stable as a healthy ecosystem.
Most animals, but especially humans, like to have some territory that they can leave to their offspring. That's why ownership of land, or at least the claim to be the steward of a particular plot of land in perpetuity, is so central to most notions of government, whose function is to protect life, liberty and property. This brings us to your topic of "need." How much land does one person or one family need? On the one hand, if the state enforces laws that give tens of thousands of acres to one person and nothing to another, that state is immoral. On the other hand, if a state takes land from one person who bought it and gives it to another, that's not the solution either because it empowers the state.
Every person or family should have the right buy a plot of land of average size for the area (small in New York, large in Nevada) and hold that land tax free. Such a system would honor the right of all people to have access to this natural resource. Anyone who owns more than the average-size plot for the area should be taxed progressively higher for the excess acreage.
I'm just talking about residential ownership/stewardship, not commercial. Of course with every simple solution like this, immediately one can recognize the complexities and problems. What about farmers? Indeed. I own about five acres, which I farm to grow food for my family, and the houses right around me have only one or two acres. In my area, five acres is just sufficient to feed the livestock and grow enough fruits and vegetables for one family.
Whatever kind of rules we collectively decide on, they must first of all protect the individual's right to be self-sufficient. And the state should not grant any individual free access to land that is more than he/she can personally work. If I owned twenty acres, I'd have to hire help to manage it, which means I would be taking more than my fair share of the land; my hired help would deserve access to land too.
Most wars are fought over natural resources. I think it's reasonable to say that the people living in the area have the right to collectively manage the resources under their feet. But look what happened to Iran, Venezuela and Libya when their people decided to nationalize the oil. What would happen if we tried this in the US? No more Exon or Mobil? Just US oil?
What would happen if the big corporate farms were taxed to high heaven for their acreage, such that they couldn't afford to hold it and their employees would be in a position to buy five acres for themselves to farm?
And I was pretty sure that if I did you would open up some challenging issues.
So first, thanks for doing so!
I'm with you that the function of government is to defend life, liberty and property. And that democracy doesn't really begin to mature until it is direct democracy. And you have indicated your agreement that natural resources belong to 'all people, present and future'.
On that common ground, I offer a thought: society depends on three essential functions. The production of commodities, the making of rules, and cultural activity. The first two have huge, powerful and well-developed institutions. (Corporations and Governments). The third doesn't have significant institutions, nor does it have funding, nor power / influence. It may be that direct democracy will be achieved (or at least approached) when there is a 'virtuous triangle' of the three all mutually regulating each other. (This would also be the route into defining 'needs'). In the nineteenth and early twentieth century some kind, at least, of cultural institutions existed, known then as 'civic society'. Where we are now is that government interferes far too much in business, business interferes far too much in government (gradually becoming incestuous and tyrannical), and such cultural institutions have been crushed out of existence.
They cannot be brought back (and strengthened far beyond what they were in the past) unless they are well-funded. This will be the subject of my next post, about real and fake notions of 'the circular economy'. Not 'ESG' and charging for plastic carrier bags in the shops, but a situation in which money and human effort are both re-circulated properly. Culture, in the form of education and science for instance, enrich the production sphere with ideas and trained personnel. 'Circular' here should mean that the production sphere routes funds back to cultural institutions - but unconditionally. I think that's maybe like a variation your suggestion of paying a tax for access to the shared heritage of natural resources, except it doesn't go the government. It goes to cultural institutions, which is even more 'direct'.
Land usage/ownership/stewardship is the most difficult question of all. Renewing, and greatly strengthening 'cultural institutions' will be relevant there, but there is of course a great deal more debate to be had there. I'll leave that to develop in future dialogues. For now at least we are making a start on some new thinking and common ground. (Pardon the pun).
Culture does seem pretty much missing from the three-legged stool of society. But I rather think that if we could just make a complete separation of Business and State (akin to the separation of Church and State), then culture might begin to regenerate somewhat on its own. Once these two power centers started colluding with each other to control the individual, culture never had a chance. The claims that corporations and government make on our attention, our belief systems, and our leisure time have hollowed us out and there's nothing left for deep thinking or enjoyment of art.
Yes, separation of business from state is fundamental. And I think 'akin to separation of church and state' is exactly the right way to view it. The idea of an all-powerful state is bad enough. The increasing marriage of that with globally consolidated corporate interests is leading in the direction of tyranny on a level never before seen. (A tyranny led, as Hannah Arendt warned, not by charismatic dictators, but by dull technology-led bureauocrats, and even worse for that). If we seek to cultivate visions of a way forward that can gradually be bought into by large numbers of people, there is something in our favour here: I think it is not difficult to convince people that, to express it a certain way, government interferes too much in business, and business interferes too much in government.
The harder question is how that separation could be brought about. Since we cannot expect very much help from within, the initiative perhaps has to come mostly from without. To repeat something that I am inclined to invoke rather often, Vaclav Havel, who was instrumental in ending years of Soviet-inspired darkness in the Czech Republic at the end of the 80's, subsequently noted that political reform had not led to Czech society’s re-awakening, but the other way around. It is culture, often which must lead.
My own conception of 'culture' here however is much wider. Essentially, it is everything except that limited and legitimate role of elected legislators in creating a 'rights framework', and the extensive and collaborative enterprise of producing, distributing and retailing commodities. Both of those should be in service to institutions of the cultural. (A relationship that I touched lightly upon in my piece 'The Failed Mantra of the French Revolution'), and not the other way around as it increasingly seems now. This much wider conception of 'culture', how its birth, already showing spontaneous signs, can be aided, and how it plays a role in separating government and corporate commerce will be a core theme for 'World in Transition' for as long as providence allows me to keep writing and developing it.
At best, government codifies the "rights framework" that has already been constructed by culture. Unfortunately, once something has been codified, it is difficult to change even when culture has evolved, recognized mistakes and found new ways to defend human rights better. In my opinion, government should be in charge of building and maintaining public infrastructure, collecting tariffs on imports, creating currency to fund these responsibilities, and not much else. Gov't needs to get out of the morality business. The courts (need to act more quickly and) need more input from juries than judges so that the law can be more human (and always imperfect). Try to name one act or law that has been implemented after the Constitution that is useful to us. Other than 'do no harm,' I don't know what more needs to be said. Let juries debate about the nature of the harm.
Many thanks, again, for allowing us to discuss around old concepts that are permanently evolving. Let me focus on a couple of points: the concept of commodities and what vs how. The first one is based on the assumption that commodities are products which are liquid and marketable and there is a price determined under the market rules. The question, under the energy transition and even the world order pending evolution is to what extend we can apply old rules for new products and needs, where those needs are not fully covered, those products are not marketable and prices are not matched anyway.
The second point is that we can see (and I definitively see) how as a condition precedent for any kind of long term relationship or vision (a different topic is in the case of short time, spot or opportunistic) but what is the essence of any analysis or discussion and is a must, no matter the time frame or the intensity of that relation. Otherwise, things will evolve on the wrong direction and we should combine good skills but to apply to the right one.
An interesting point you raise: Might there arise in our transitionary and accelerating times products and / or needs for which existing market structures are not well suited? Could be.
My focus here however would be more that the definition of a commoditiy as 'something that can be traded on a market' rather than 'the fruits of physical production, to sustain life' may be something that it is need of revision. It leads to investment in what is profitable over what is useful, and I think it also perpetuates the blurring of the line between production of 'tangible stuff', and paid activities consisting in human to human interaction - which, as I argue, need to be dealt with differently. It also introduces a lot of unnecessarily complicating abstraction which have nothing at all to do with needs - NFTs, complex and destablising derivatives, etc. The implications are huge I know. But we are living in times of great change, and I don't thing we should shy away from them.
Another idea that comes to my mind is related with globalization. In our world today, raw materials, manufacturing and consumption are located in different countries, how could we manage to line up all these interest? which society needs will prevail, the one where commodities are manufactured, or the one which uses them?
There is much to say, for instance how the approach would likely be different for different kinds of products, and many other considerations.
But the most fundamental thing is that there will need to be organisations, independent of government, able to liase with production, able to bring in widespread input and participation, and able to liase across nations. Big challenges: How could that be approached incrementally? And, perhaps even more challenging, how would it be funded? On this, the nature of such organisations and how they could be funded, I'll invite you to read my follow-up to this piece, already now published as 'The Circular Economy'. And then look out for a pending article which will be entitled 'More Thoughts on the Economists Clothes' - because it will be dedicated entirely to the attempt to do your question justice!
(I tried working on a suitable answer here in the comments, but it's just too big.
Many thanks for challenging me with an appropriately difficult question!
Michael, I'm afraid I have very little to offer this conversation, as economics and I parted ways in college when I came down with Mononucleosis and was thrilled to take an Incomplete in Econ 101. I've never actually considered the fundamental (and now, I see) logical difference between goods and services, so it's going to take me a while to wrap my head around the topic you've laid out here so brilliantly.
The only thing I have to offer is this: your quote, "There is a difference between manufacturing FOR needs, and manufacturing needs" makes me wonder whether all of this will essentially resolve itself if, as James Kunstler suggests, we are headed for a serious de-technologizing day of reckoning. Perhaps the only things that will be manufactured will be absolute necessities, by virtue of a cataclysmic economic meltdown. Not that that's what I'm gunning for, mind you... :-)
Hi Mary,
Maybe you have more to contribute to it than you know. We don't have to be nuclear physicists to have a view about nuclear energy, nor political scientists to vote. Or, regarding economics, a quote from Milton Freidman as he suggested that central banks in reality make economies less stable, not more:
“ It is a bad system to believers in freedom just because it gives such few men so much power without any effective check by the body politic... this is the key argument against an independent central bank. To paraphrase Clemenceau, money is much to important a business to be left to central bankers.”
Likewise Steiner, again speaking specifcally about economics:
“...every human being has a share in the working of the 'body social', and it cannot be left to the 'experts'.
I was not aware of the work of Kunstler but having had a look, I'd like to make a comment or two on it: I see that he referred to 'urban sprawl' as being the greatest misallocation of resources that the world has ever seen. I have to agree with that. I think that one day in the not-very-close future, when we have got a lot better at understanding how built environments affect human beings, and a lot more advanced in our technological skills (i.e. to the point that it becomes more viable to do so), we are going to have to revamp, rebuild, rehabitate trillions of dollars of woefully mis-designed habitat. I'm also with Kunstler when he urges us to become more aware of the connections between physical spaces and cultural vitality.
Most relevant to my theme in 'The Economist is Wearing no Clothes' however I want to respond to his suggestion that running out of fossil fuels will oblige us to go back to a more localised and agrarian way of living. On this I do not agree. Sure I think have more localised activity and responsibility, and more localised agriculture would be a very good thing – perhaps combined with the best of technology and what I call 'non-toxic globalisation' [there comes another article for the future!] - but I don't think we will be forced into it by a lack of energy resources. An economist called Julian Simon wrote a wonderful book in the late 70's called The Ultimate Resouce (he is refering to the creativity of people) in which he argued, backed by mountains of data, that we never really run out of anything. We always innovate first. This question is also inseperable from the argument that 'there are too many people on the planet'. That is a way of thinking that too easily encourages us to view humanity badly, and even perhaps begin to sympathise with those who seek 'population reduction'. Despite the massive conditioning we have since birth to accept this very 'obvious truth' about population (I certainly would have also considered it clearly a problem until quite recently) a thorough investigation of history, present trends etc make is look highly questionable, and indeed a growing number of serious analysts and commentators are questioning it. For example Julian Simon again, and more recently Paul Sabin, Marion Tupy, Peter Zeihan, Matt Ridley, Ronald Bailey, Bjorn Lomborg – even Elon Musk has weighed in and said that crisis cause by a collapse of population levels is much more likely.
….. and then 'needs' – I just want to be clear that when I speak of manufacturing for needs, I don't mean some kind of austerity. Needs includes the psychological and spiritual needs of hobbies, arts, beauty, toys for kids and so on and so on. All I'm arguing for is that one day we get to the point where the people who mine our common heritage on our behalf turn it into the items we actually want, not the ones that it suits their interests to make. That is, what WE say we need.
I agree with you that leaving it all to "the experts" is not the path to goodness and healing, either on the individual or the global scale! I also agree on the slippery slope to "there are too many people on the planet" AND a scarcity mindset -- "we are running out of [fill in the blank].
Where we diverge, (perhaps?), is the idea that innovation is necessarily the answer. Too often, I think, innovation has taken the form of higher and higher tech, leading to more and more centralization and ironically, de-humanization. If, as you seem to suggest, there's a way to innovate on behalf of localism (I'm intrigued by your concept of "non-toxic globalization"), then I'm on board.
Love the clarification of human needs, too. A question, though, arises about what the people "actually want." You and I both know that it's all too easy to manufacture desire through subconscious influence (thanks, Bernays!) so identifying what we ACTUALLY need is a bit more challenging than just going with what we SAY we need.
Hi Mary, yes – that slippery slope too easily leads to a fear based mentality, often in the very people who otherwise claim to be against fear-based dynamics.
In fact I agree with you that 'innovation' is leading to more and more centralisation and dehumanisation. But that's exactly because the innovation has become decoupled from real needs. Here's a rather caricatured example, but nonethess real, I think: What if if the trillions of dollars and massive human ingenuity and resource that has gone into AI had gone into developing super-sophisticated recycling technologies? I'd say today 'sustainability' problems would be largely contained. Which is the greater need? And how many people out there are saying 'please, what we need is robots, and computers we can speak to about our health problems? All this comes about because of a market that is detatched from need. 'The money machine' tells everybody 'AI will be the next big thing – that's the place you'll make money'. So lots of people invest their money there, and it becomes the next big thing. Whether we need it or not.
I'm seeking to point (via the three-part society touched upon in my 'Failed Mantra of the French Revolution') toward a much more participative society, in which, yes, localisation and a kind of globalisation can co-exist. Let's call it a kind of bottom-up, collaborative globalisation (of co-operating soveriegn nations), rather than a top down, imposed globalisation (of massively consolidated 'interests'). Very difficult to unfold the many dimensions of that in some quite short 'Substacks'. There is a book coming which will do that, but here it has to be developed gradually.
Please stay with me, and hopefully the picure will start to get richer and more interesing. And please, keep questioning, and probing for weaknesses, it gives me the opportunity add more dimensions. What we need above all, as you already seek in your own 'Substack', is dialogue!
I should also say that your point about needs vs desires is an important one. And not only because of manipulation a la Bernaise. If you have a moment, take a look at the discussion on this with Enrique, on this page.
* Bernays
"manipulation a la Bernaise" is too funny... :-)
Completely accidental, but I see that it is!! :-))
Of course I will stay with you! Everything you write is rich and interesting ALREADY. Great points re: the recycling example and bottom-up collaborative globalization. Makes me think of The Rationalist -- have you checked out their Substack? They are all about finding tech solutions that are decentralized. Seems like a potential fit for you...
I really didn't feel that you might not stay with me.... just wanted to indicate that my arguments are not fully developed yet ;-)
Thanks for the reference to The Rationalist. I signed up. Not really on board with the worship of pure rationalism to the exclusion of other faculties - that is sometimes part of the problem - but seeking to use technology in service of decentralisation is a noble goal!
Of course! Ah, the limitations of the written word! Joking is so tricky... :-)
And I agree, rationalism has major limitations as well. I think your many-facultied (not a word, apparently, but so what) voice is just what The Rationalist needs. Onward!
This is a very interesting article. There are some smart ideas that I agree with. Firstly, the economics profession has failed in its predictions constantly. They are better historians than scientists. A new approach is necessary. Secondly, it is very challenging to differentiate services and goods and how to deal with them. Nowadays I think is clear that services are being transformed into commodities. Banking business used to be a human to human relationship but now its focus is selling products, and the consumers are treated as commodities. Thirdly, it is very relevant the differentiation between our needs and desires induced by the producers. Great key points to develop going forward.
Many thanks for your comments Enrique.
The difference between needs and desires is an important point! And desires can be induced by ourselves as well as by manipulative marketing. I think however that today quite a lot of the population are in some sense 'activist', in that they are very concerned about both environment and justice. So if consumers were to begin organising around these principles (perhaps intially as campaign groups, later as institutions more integrated with the whole process) it is quite possible that some serious people would show some leadership and it might not be too difficult to get people to pay attention to the distinction between needs and desires. I don't mean to be too utilitarian in that however - we have psychological and spiritual needs as well as those related to physical survival. So sports equipment, toys, make-up are real needs too. (Assuming the people say they are, which I'm sure they would!).
Long-term project of course - more on all this is forthcoming posts!
"It means that if you want different results, you have to do different things. And that means that any serious thinking on how to overcome the dysfunctionality that is developing requires a move into the deep and difficult task of revising the principles on which our cultural, political and economic thinking rest. Moreover, that task must be developed outside of established frameworks of thinking, since those will always tend toward variations on ‘what they have always done’ - and we will get variations on ‘what we’ve always got'. "
I noticed while in high school that the 'smart kids' mostly played memory games and accepted hearsay as facts. I remember well sitting in a chair in Physics class, saying to myself; Holy shit Batman, this is why the world is messed up, people only care about form and nothing about substance. I was said to be 'smart' yet felt near totally ignorant. I set about trying to cure the condition with a somewhat compulsive reading habit. Only to find years later that more information cannot 'cure' our condition, if that information is derived from a false premise. It's my opinion that the split model of reality drives how we interpret our perceptions and separates the spiritual and the material in a work of artifice that while a clear aid in the analytical process also gives power to a stand in authority for a far away God.
And the sooner we get over it (reliance on a split model of reality), the sooner people will stop calling me crazy. (Although that is nothing to mind about given the crazy on current display in big world.)
I think this puts a finger right on it. The proclivity to go for form over substance, to 'go along to get along' is most fundamentally the cause of the problems. And it leads ultimately (because of a deficit of reality) to crisis, which becomes the opportunity to realign.
I think your view regarding a 'split model' is right on too. Steiner said (this may not be an exact quote, but pretty close to it) that the problem is that modern thinking 'divides the world into two realms, and then seeks to explain one realm by the principles of the other'. Meaning an attempt to establish the existence of, or nature of, a non-material world according to the principles of a mateiral world. Which is absurd, but nobody seems to notice that.
I'll be very interested to hear any thought you might have on my 'New Paradigm' piece, which I'll publish next week.
And many thanks for your comments here!
You write some interesting posts, Michael, but I can't help thinking that you haven't quite gone deep enough here.
I've spent a significant part of the last forty years trying to envisage how a mature society should govern itself and one of the conclusions I've come to is that swathes of law only exist in order to mitigate the ill effects of more fundamental laws which were either poorly thought out from the start or are now derelict, through becoming detached from the circumstances that shaped them.
You recognise the fundamental importance of access to natural resources but I wonder if you fully appreciate the extent to which the whole economic and social landscape is shaped by the laws which govern how they are allocated? Those laws are an integral part of the foundations on which the structure of organised society rests, and they create a framework within which all other laws operate. Until we ensure that those laws properly reflect the values of modern society, I'd say that any attempt to reform secondary laws (such as regulation of competition) is likely to be wasted.
If you're interested, a right to land is one of a number of fairly radical reforms I've been proposing to the UK's constitution: https://treasonableman.wordpress.com/constitutionuk/
Hi Malcolm, thanks for writing.
I have something of a dilemma writing on Substack. Some of my audience, such as yourself, and some of the others who have commented on this page, are already deeply engaged with some of the matters I write about, and others are open-minded professional people, from all walks, who have gone into such things much less, but are amenable to interesting arguments. There is also the question of whether I write longer and deeper pieces, or whether I take up quite small and contained topics and seek initially just to illuminate a possible new angle on them, or attach a question mark or two to them. So far my strategy is the latter, with the intention gradually to expand the vision with some cross-linking and more integrative pieces. But one of the reasons I love feedback is that it will contribute to the way that what I'm doing will evolve.... so please, don't hold back with any thoughts you may have on that!
I also think that appetites (including my own) for reading huge swathes of text online are often limited – so for 'the other half of the strategy', I have a pretty weighty book 'in the works' – though whether it is ever going to see the light of day we'll have to wait and see.
That said.....
I fully agree that law-making tends to become layer after layer of mostly unsuccessful attempts to fix what was wrong with all the previous law-making. I am also very much with you that what can be achieved in changing our systems and social arrangements is very constrained so long as the over-arching framework of our laws and law-making process is unchanged. Yet I'm not inclined to say that nothing at all can be achieved outside of that.
Vaclav Havel, who was instrumental in ending years of Soviet-inspired darkness in the Czech Republic at the end of the 80's, subsequently noted that political reform had not led to Czech society’s re-awakening, but the other way around. Legislation in other words, does not always lead.
Still, that is in no way to diminish your point. It's just that the interlocking nature of all the problems (including the intractability of getting the law-making process - and mentality - changed) is such that it seems that things must be tackled on broad and simultaneous front.
And that said....
I have taken a look at your work on the LSE project for a new constitution. I find much to agree with in it, and also perspectives which are new to me. (I'll particularly mention your very 'balancing' and pragmatic comments on passing power and assets down generations, and on taxation).
Are you familiar with Steiner's concept of the 'three-fold society'? Some of what is implied in it resonates with some of your own work (I have read a fair bit of it and found it very interesting). Let me take that up separately (below).
Thanks for replying, Michael; I'm glad you found my ideas interesting. I dithered over whether to point you to my contributions to the LSE project or to the draft manifesto I wrote, in the wake of the Brexit vote, for a (still-born) constitutional reform party (http://localsovereignty.com/). I felt you'd probably appreciate the more academic approach of the former even though it was older.
You mention 'the intractability of getting the law-making process - and mentality - changed'. This is a fair point but from my perspective it looks a bit circular: a large part of the intractability stems from people's view that it's just too big a challenge. However, I don't see how it can become smaller by putting it off. Your own article starts by referencing a common refrain that ‘We need some kind of new form of government / social organisation’. That surely involves reform at the constitutional level. If not now, then when?
Like you, I have an esoteric perspective on human affairs (which I touched on in a blog post a couple of years ago – https://treasonableman.wordpress.com/2020/10/09/divine-madness/). As I see it, human society will be going through a metamorphosis over the next forty to eighty years whether we like it or not; it remains to be seen whether it happens relatively smoothly, through existing institutions reforming themselves, or more traumatically, through new institutions emerging from the wreckage of societal collapse.
I've read a bit about Steiner's concept of the 'three-fold society' in New View over the last couple of years. I'm not very familiar with it but I do have some thoughts on it – which I will try and put in a comment on your latest piece.
Agreed – if not now, then when? And indeed, the mentality that real change is just too difficult is itself a major cause of us being where we are now, and that itself has to change. (I’d say that through the inevitable trauma it is leading to, it is beginning to change – and even if there is a long way to go, I’ll accept a good beginning!)
I’m only arguing that tightly bound-up systemic problems usually have to be tackled on multiple fronts simultaneously – so while some work on getting some levers into the legislative process (and I think there are quite a few good people doing that – even a small but impressive minority within the political system itself), others will work on the rise of home-schooling, crowd-funding, newly independent medical networks (of which several have sprung up in recent years, as highly qualified doctors, epidemiologists and virologists were driven out of the system by censorship and demonization, because they didn’t agree with ‘the agenda’), etc.
I usually subscribe to a view that ‘public debate is the only motor of social change there is or can be’. Surely even positive legislative change becomes more possible when more people support it, when more people are aligned on what is should look like. For that reason I’m glad that you did point me to your LSE work. As I see it, networks of people sharing and developing ideas, with serious intent, is the only route there is out of the dark spiral which is occurring.
I also looked at your Divine Madness post, so thanks for that link too. The perspective you have arrived at through your own thinking, regarding the ‘contract’ between human and spiritual powers, has a certain resonance with Steiner. It comes out a little different ‘a la Steiner’ but since words are so limited in such matters, perhaps the difference is at least in part semantic. I’ll save further dialogue on that now – I have mostly intended ‘World in Transition’ to focus on the issues of the external world, and am planning to launch a second Substack in the future devoted to esoteric and inner matters. Hope we might have some dialogue there sometime!
Agree that the possibility of some kind of collapse (or other period of trauma such as technology-driven totalitarianism) is very real. For societies as for individuals, it is often trauma that leads to willingness to see things another way! If, worst case, that is what is coming, our task becomes to do whatever we can to reduce the severity of the collapse or trauma and, most especially, to cultivate shared understandings of how we got where we are and how to do something better, so that rebuilding can be most expeditious coming out the other side. (Come out the other side I’m sure we will!)
Will very much welcome your comments on ‘The Circular Economy’!
Thanks again.
Many thanks Malcolm, much to come back on here, and I will shortly. Meanwhile I only just noticed that you a substack writer yourself. I have signed up.
Oh dear, I shall have to start actually posting on substack now!
By the way, I like your title ‘Beyond Reason’ a lot – but I have to say I like ‘T’Reasonable Man’ even better!
Hi Michael
I thought I should let you know that I've brought T'Reasonable Man across to Substack (https://malcolmr.substack.com).
So far I haven’t posted anything new there – the four posts I’ve put up so far have largely been re-writes of pieces that have been available on the old site for some time (though the most recent, Foundations of Accountability, does have some new elements). But I expect my posts over the next few weeks to be a mix of old and new.
I hope so! Or if not, feel free to keep chiming in on mine!
Steiner's concept of the three-fold society sees quite a bit of responsibility devolving away from government. For example, the responsibility for the economy moves to the entrepreneurial experts who operate it. The elected legislative would ensure that those entrepreneurs can only operate with due consideration for the rights of people and planet, but the legislative would not itself be responsible for the success of the economy – that would be the people doing the work. In addition to an elected legislature and institutions of commerce, there would be a third element, largely non-existent today (though better represented at certain times and places of the past) – namely, institutions of the cultural. You may already be aware of this outlook, but anyway, I mention it because it might change some of the perspectives about who oversees what: There would be a third set of institutions to consider in such questions. A major consequence of devolving responsibilities away from the government in this way is that the government would then have a remit which is actually achievable – setting out the rights framework within which the other two must operate.
I also mention it because of certain meeting points with some of your own work: Your proposal for juries to be involved in the process of appointing (and even more 'de-appointing') governments etc. make a lot of sense. It also strikes a chord with a suggestion made by Fritjers/Foster/Baker in their book 'The Great Covid Panic', which explored the institutional failures of the past two or three years, and what we should learn from them. One of the things they suggest for the future is that appointments to all high public office (including for instance public health institutions) should be subject to the will of juries – composed both of experts (preferably retired, or without other interests), and non-experts, but both sets chosen randomly. In both cases (yours and theirs) this represents a move toward that third set of institutions beyond 'government' and 'commerce' – the institutions of the 'cultural'.
Another 'three-fold' principle which resonates with what you have written (again at the risk that I might be teaching you to suck eggs) is 'money which expires', a la Silvio Gesell and others.
I sense that the question of land use / stewardship is (understandably) fairly close to the heart of your thinking. I freely confess that I have not grappled with the great complexities of that issue sufficiently to make much contribution. I do note though that 'Posthumous', whose comments also appear on this page, is engaged with that issue in a very real way – you and she might conceivably have some fruitful exchange on that. The only contribution I can make for now is to say that I agree with you both that 'stewardship' is the appropriate concept, and to say that ultimately I would expect such stewardship to again involve, eventually, 'institutions of the cultural'.
Although business is supposed to be competitive, survival of the fittest, in my experience there is actually great collaboration which is the whole idea behind "networking" and also coincides with the brotherliness which Steiner discussing in three folding.
Absolutely. I believe that scholars of evolution are increasingly recognising that co-operation is at least as fundamental to all evolution as competition 'red in tooth and claw'. New perspectives on commodity production must recognise that it forms the basis of all our survival, that it is something we fundamentallly do FOR EACH OTHER, and that it is in intimate relationship with nurturing or destroying environments on which we all (meaning now all species) depend for survival. Many thanks for your input!
Companies or Corporations move faster than society, politics and law, and they are the ones that perceive needs and create goods or services to satisfy them.
When society perceives that what is sold to it requires regulation is when it begins to manifest itself, politics echoes and finally the law regulates them.
To think that this order can be reversed and that it is people/society, that set the tone for companies to follow, seems utopian in the short term, even if it slowly permeates and transforms social awareness in the future. Then new needs are created that companies take advantage of again.
With what power is coming together in large companies and funds, it seems difficult for society to follow a path that is not the one that is set for it.
Good article in any case and good luck for a better future
Agree that companies are more agile, and also that this is in principle a good thing. However I think that what they perceive is an opportunity to make money, and that only sometimes co-incides with the fulfilment of real social need. The extent to which it sometimes doesn't can be very harmful.
I don't think though, that creating a means of 'needs input', which would be in general terms, does any harm to the innovation principle, and how it responds to that.
I surely must agree with you that what can be done in the short term must be limited. But long-term vision can only come to fruition if at least the vision coalesces well in the shorter-term.
I'd say it is BECAUSE the power coming together in large companies and funds is leading us in such undesirable directions that we must begin to visualise a direction other than the one being set for us.
Grateful that you take the time to participate!
I agree that it's important to start from a naive position and forget, at least for a moment, about all the -isms that have been proposed as solutions. We can do this while also being good students of history. Reading your piece, I recognized some of the same ideas that have been put forth before about natural resources. I won't say the name of that famous economist, esteemed by Tolstoy, because his ideas too have become -isms and some people have developed his ideas into cartoons that, if implemented, will create as many new problems as they solve. But yes, let's start with one thing we can all agree on. I hope.
Natural resources, such as oil, minerals, water, old growth forests, bodies of water and land belong to the people, present and future. We, who are standing on the Earth right now, didn't create those things so we can't claim ownership, but we can claim some right to limited access. We have no right to destroy them or use them up; future generations have as much right to them as we do. Those who want access to natural resources should have to buy them from the people by paying taxes. Maybe a minimal amount of natural resources (such as water) that allows one to survive should be free and only an excess amount should be taxed. A direct democracy government should locally and cooperatively manage those resources. Somehow. It will be difficult. There will be abuse and corruption. Cooperating is hard. There will be disagreements and fights. And no plan for managing resources will make the economy completely stable, but we can hope that an economy will be at least as stable as a healthy ecosystem.
Most animals, but especially humans, like to have some territory that they can leave to their offspring. That's why ownership of land, or at least the claim to be the steward of a particular plot of land in perpetuity, is so central to most notions of government, whose function is to protect life, liberty and property. This brings us to your topic of "need." How much land does one person or one family need? On the one hand, if the state enforces laws that give tens of thousands of acres to one person and nothing to another, that state is immoral. On the other hand, if a state takes land from one person who bought it and gives it to another, that's not the solution either because it empowers the state.
Every person or family should have the right buy a plot of land of average size for the area (small in New York, large in Nevada) and hold that land tax free. Such a system would honor the right of all people to have access to this natural resource. Anyone who owns more than the average-size plot for the area should be taxed progressively higher for the excess acreage.
I'm just talking about residential ownership/stewardship, not commercial. Of course with every simple solution like this, immediately one can recognize the complexities and problems. What about farmers? Indeed. I own about five acres, which I farm to grow food for my family, and the houses right around me have only one or two acres. In my area, five acres is just sufficient to feed the livestock and grow enough fruits and vegetables for one family.
Whatever kind of rules we collectively decide on, they must first of all protect the individual's right to be self-sufficient. And the state should not grant any individual free access to land that is more than he/she can personally work. If I owned twenty acres, I'd have to hire help to manage it, which means I would be taking more than my fair share of the land; my hired help would deserve access to land too.
Most wars are fought over natural resources. I think it's reasonable to say that the people living in the area have the right to collectively manage the resources under their feet. But look what happened to Iran, Venezuela and Libya when their people decided to nationalize the oil. What would happen if we tried this in the US? No more Exon or Mobil? Just US oil?
What would happen if the big corporate farms were taxed to high heaven for their acreage, such that they couldn't afford to hold it and their employees would be in a position to buy five acres for themselves to farm?
I hoped I might hear from you on this one...
And I was pretty sure that if I did you would open up some challenging issues.
So first, thanks for doing so!
I'm with you that the function of government is to defend life, liberty and property. And that democracy doesn't really begin to mature until it is direct democracy. And you have indicated your agreement that natural resources belong to 'all people, present and future'.
On that common ground, I offer a thought: society depends on three essential functions. The production of commodities, the making of rules, and cultural activity. The first two have huge, powerful and well-developed institutions. (Corporations and Governments). The third doesn't have significant institutions, nor does it have funding, nor power / influence. It may be that direct democracy will be achieved (or at least approached) when there is a 'virtuous triangle' of the three all mutually regulating each other. (This would also be the route into defining 'needs'). In the nineteenth and early twentieth century some kind, at least, of cultural institutions existed, known then as 'civic society'. Where we are now is that government interferes far too much in business, business interferes far too much in government (gradually becoming incestuous and tyrannical), and such cultural institutions have been crushed out of existence.
They cannot be brought back (and strengthened far beyond what they were in the past) unless they are well-funded. This will be the subject of my next post, about real and fake notions of 'the circular economy'. Not 'ESG' and charging for plastic carrier bags in the shops, but a situation in which money and human effort are both re-circulated properly. Culture, in the form of education and science for instance, enrich the production sphere with ideas and trained personnel. 'Circular' here should mean that the production sphere routes funds back to cultural institutions - but unconditionally. I think that's maybe like a variation your suggestion of paying a tax for access to the shared heritage of natural resources, except it doesn't go the government. It goes to cultural institutions, which is even more 'direct'.
Land usage/ownership/stewardship is the most difficult question of all. Renewing, and greatly strengthening 'cultural institutions' will be relevant there, but there is of course a great deal more debate to be had there. I'll leave that to develop in future dialogues. For now at least we are making a start on some new thinking and common ground. (Pardon the pun).
Culture does seem pretty much missing from the three-legged stool of society. But I rather think that if we could just make a complete separation of Business and State (akin to the separation of Church and State), then culture might begin to regenerate somewhat on its own. Once these two power centers started colluding with each other to control the individual, culture never had a chance. The claims that corporations and government make on our attention, our belief systems, and our leisure time have hollowed us out and there's nothing left for deep thinking or enjoyment of art.
Yes, separation of business from state is fundamental. And I think 'akin to separation of church and state' is exactly the right way to view it. The idea of an all-powerful state is bad enough. The increasing marriage of that with globally consolidated corporate interests is leading in the direction of tyranny on a level never before seen. (A tyranny led, as Hannah Arendt warned, not by charismatic dictators, but by dull technology-led bureauocrats, and even worse for that). If we seek to cultivate visions of a way forward that can gradually be bought into by large numbers of people, there is something in our favour here: I think it is not difficult to convince people that, to express it a certain way, government interferes too much in business, and business interferes too much in government.
The harder question is how that separation could be brought about. Since we cannot expect very much help from within, the initiative perhaps has to come mostly from without. To repeat something that I am inclined to invoke rather often, Vaclav Havel, who was instrumental in ending years of Soviet-inspired darkness in the Czech Republic at the end of the 80's, subsequently noted that political reform had not led to Czech society’s re-awakening, but the other way around. It is culture, often which must lead.
My own conception of 'culture' here however is much wider. Essentially, it is everything except that limited and legitimate role of elected legislators in creating a 'rights framework', and the extensive and collaborative enterprise of producing, distributing and retailing commodities. Both of those should be in service to institutions of the cultural. (A relationship that I touched lightly upon in my piece 'The Failed Mantra of the French Revolution'), and not the other way around as it increasingly seems now. This much wider conception of 'culture', how its birth, already showing spontaneous signs, can be aided, and how it plays a role in separating government and corporate commerce will be a core theme for 'World in Transition' for as long as providence allows me to keep writing and developing it.
At best, government codifies the "rights framework" that has already been constructed by culture. Unfortunately, once something has been codified, it is difficult to change even when culture has evolved, recognized mistakes and found new ways to defend human rights better. In my opinion, government should be in charge of building and maintaining public infrastructure, collecting tariffs on imports, creating currency to fund these responsibilities, and not much else. Gov't needs to get out of the morality business. The courts (need to act more quickly and) need more input from juries than judges so that the law can be more human (and always imperfect). Try to name one act or law that has been implemented after the Constitution that is useful to us. Other than 'do no harm,' I don't know what more needs to be said. Let juries debate about the nature of the harm.
I though you may find these links interesting:
Decentralise TV https://www.brighteon.com/b1f89262-40a9-45b1-b861-32c4e85c1a2a
One Small Town: https://youtu.be/32dkKtDAyMA
Decolonising the Global Economy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Pw2z8VvGvk&t=850s
Many thanks, again, for allowing us to discuss around old concepts that are permanently evolving. Let me focus on a couple of points: the concept of commodities and what vs how. The first one is based on the assumption that commodities are products which are liquid and marketable and there is a price determined under the market rules. The question, under the energy transition and even the world order pending evolution is to what extend we can apply old rules for new products and needs, where those needs are not fully covered, those products are not marketable and prices are not matched anyway.
The second point is that we can see (and I definitively see) how as a condition precedent for any kind of long term relationship or vision (a different topic is in the case of short time, spot or opportunistic) but what is the essence of any analysis or discussion and is a must, no matter the time frame or the intensity of that relation. Otherwise, things will evolve on the wrong direction and we should combine good skills but to apply to the right one.
Thanks for stepping into the debate Antonio!
An interesting point you raise: Might there arise in our transitionary and accelerating times products and / or needs for which existing market structures are not well suited? Could be.
My focus here however would be more that the definition of a commoditiy as 'something that can be traded on a market' rather than 'the fruits of physical production, to sustain life' may be something that it is need of revision. It leads to investment in what is profitable over what is useful, and I think it also perpetuates the blurring of the line between production of 'tangible stuff', and paid activities consisting in human to human interaction - which, as I argue, need to be dealt with differently. It also introduces a lot of unnecessarily complicating abstraction which have nothing at all to do with needs - NFTs, complex and destablising derivatives, etc. The implications are huge I know. But we are living in times of great change, and I don't thing we should shy away from them.
Please feel free to come back at me!
Regarding the second part of your comment, I am heartened that you see the essence of the discussion as 'a must'.
Thanks again!
Very interesting debate around this article.
Another idea that comes to my mind is related with globalization. In our world today, raw materials, manufacturing and consumption are located in different countries, how could we manage to line up all these interest? which society needs will prevail, the one where commodities are manufactured, or the one which uses them?
Hi Miguel,
A short question with a very big impact!
There is much to say, for instance how the approach would likely be different for different kinds of products, and many other considerations.
But the most fundamental thing is that there will need to be organisations, independent of government, able to liase with production, able to bring in widespread input and participation, and able to liase across nations. Big challenges: How could that be approached incrementally? And, perhaps even more challenging, how would it be funded? On this, the nature of such organisations and how they could be funded, I'll invite you to read my follow-up to this piece, already now published as 'The Circular Economy'. And then look out for a pending article which will be entitled 'More Thoughts on the Economists Clothes' - because it will be dedicated entirely to the attempt to do your question justice!
(I tried working on a suitable answer here in the comments, but it's just too big.
Many thanks for challenging me with an appropriately difficult question!