Posts

What Kind of Future Does Your Degree Prepare You For?

by James Magnus-Johnston

James Magnus-JohnstonAs the fall chill sets into the air and farmers begin to harvest, universities invite another wave of impressionable young minds to think about the future—of society, and of their place in it. But preparation for the future requires us to consider exactly what kind of future we think we’re in for, and far too many schools are preparing students for a fictional business-as-usual future.

Do your universities and instructors acknowledge that the global temperature will likely rise by at least two degrees this century? Do they invite you to reflect on the kind of droughts that some argue have hastened Syria’s civil war and caused mass migration? Are you asked to draw connections and present solutions to these challenges, or are you instead invited to rehearse standard narratives and become job-bearing cogs in the growth economy?

Steady state economics acknowledges some unsettling facts, but very few undergraduates will be exposed to anything resembling steady state economics. They’ll be lucky if the name Herman Daly graces the syllabus of their economics class. The lack of interest in post-growth thought more generally signals a curious rot in the academy away from creativity and the synthesis of new ideas, in favour of what’s couched as “critical thinking” within conventional, rigidly defined, and well-rehearsed disciplinary frameworks.

Patrick Finn, author of Critical Condition: Replacing Critical Thinking with Creativity, argues that the contemporary academy provides us with “advanced mental tactics that can be taught for a price,” when we should rather be provided with opportunities to foster creativity through a kind of “loving thinking.” By “loving thinking,” Finn means that we should connect dots from a position of hope and realism rather than merely rehearse advanced mental tactics. Karim Lakhani, a thinker with the Harvard Business School, cautions, however, that new paradigms and ideas that synthesize strands of research from different disciplines face an uphill battle.

VA Tech campus.VA Tech

Virginia Tech campus, Blacksburg, VA. Photo Credit: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Ecological economics—the branch of thinking that includes steady state economics—is one such discipline. Some have labelled it a transdisciplinary field of research (Norgaard, 1989; Costanza et al., 1997; Costanza and King, 1999), which applies a wide array of techniques to analyse relevant issues from different disciplines. While we may face an uphill battle, I believe that steady state economics invites students to start working from a position of hope precisely because it invites cross-disciplinary thinking. There may not be a perfect consensus surrounding some steady state economic concepts, but the transdisciplinary framework is sufficiently open to foster adaptive, synthetic thinking without losing sight of important questions.

The charge that creative thinking is too general or “unproven” is not historically uncommon. For instance, in a review of Kenneth Boulding’s 1950 work A Reconstruction of Economics, reviewer Ralph Turvey charges that “the problem is that Professor Boulding touches on so many matters and makes so many stimulating or provocative remarks that another book would be required for an adequate discussion” (Turvey, 1951, p. 205). The same charge might be levelled against this author, or any other theorist concerned with the application of theory across and through disciplinary lines.

It is clear that what is acceptable to one discipline (such as environmental science) may be unacceptable to another (such as economics). Yet by understanding what sort of future we’re in for, and by knowing the stakes of the present moment, we cannot claim neutrality or indifference to the consequences of our arguments. Rather, we should work harder to understand the big picture economy-environment dynamics, and overcome inherent disciplinary biases.

Given the biosphere’s depleted regenerative capacity, Daly suggests that it’s too risky to simply research and develop further warrants for steady state economic reform before encouraging a transition. He explains:

As important as empirical measurement is, it is worth remembering that when one jumps out of an airplane, a parachute is more beneficial than an altimeter. First principles make it abundantly clear that we need an economic parachute. Casual empiricism makes it clear that we need it sooner rather than later. More precise information, though not to be disdained, is not necessary, and waiting for it may prove very costly (Daly, 2007, p.22).

Every discipline, and every student, should be (re)considering what kind of future they think they’re preparing for. A creative, unconventional framework is exactly what we need.

A Business Built for Resilience

by James Magnus-Johnston

Johnston_photoWhat does business look like in a steady state economy? I’m often asked whether or not a steady state economy would somehow lead to the stagnation of free enterprise. Yet all around us today, we’re witnessing the flourishing of ‘social enterprise,’ a business model designed to maximize human and environmental wellbeing rather than accumulate profits for shareholders. From not-for-profit and cooperative models to the birth of the B Corp (benefit corporation), we find ourselves in the midst of a profound shift in business–away from growth and profit as an organizing principle, and towards one that respects the social and ecological limits to growth. With a planet under profound stress and a Ponzi-inspired economy poised for decline, there’s no harm in trying something a little different.

As policymakers waste time hand-wringing about embracing alternatives to growth, social enterprise provides individuals and communities with the ability to demonstrate the viability of the post-growth paradigm. Measuring social and ecological outcomes can be challenging, but some models (such as the B Corp) have adopted a specific method to measure outcomes using a point-based system. Others are using simple tools to reduce waste and ensure a fairer, more equitable working environment.

Fools&Horses

I have recently been involved in starting a pair of social enterprises, which stand as humble examples of business models for resilience rather than growth. The first is RISE Urban Incubator, which promotes and mainstreams innovations to reduce waste; the other is Fools & Horses, a coffee shop with a triple bottom line. Both businesses have been structured according to a relatively simple principle–do more good than harm–by tackling problems such as inequality and environmental degradation. Fools & Horses was named after the beloved British sitcom Only Fools and Horses, about a group of people who spend all their time trying to come up with “get rich quick schemes” and, ironically, work all the time. What better way is there to describe an economy designed for growth-at-all-costs?

Our Fools & Horses wants to demonstrate the benefits of a more flexible, equitable work arrangement for its employees. Workers earn a living wage when they join us, are invited to have a say in how the business should be run, and are given the opportunity to become owners. Worker-owners look forward to more than the accumulation of money and a periodic hike in their hourly rate. They are given greater autonomy in their work, freedom to experiment and innovate according to their talents, and enough flexibility in their schedule to pursue other interests or spend time with family and friends. Autonomy and flexibility are not just tolerated, they are encouraged.

More interestingly, perhaps, the coffee shop is designed to provide the incubator with the cash it needs to experiment with projects that systemically reduce waste, including the use of permeable pavement and solar technology. Any waste streams we do have are audited so the businesses will offset more waste and emissions than they create.

The businesses have also been designed to provide benefits to the local economy by keeping dollars circulating locally. Fools & Horses is designed to re-localize the economy wherever possible by supporting budding entrepreneurs in the local food industry, including farmers, bakers, craft brewers and roasters, and chefs. Eventually, we hope to help foster a network of local suppliers, which also helps reduce fossil fuel requirements. Each of our producers offers only the highest-quality products, fostering an economy of quality rather than an economy of quantity.

There are other sustainable business models out there, and people doing far more important and captivating things to shift the economy in a new direction. But this is one example of a small effort to demonstrate the shift in thinking at the macro level. One of the other, less intangible things Fools & Horses will foster is a sense of conviviality and good living. In Dutch, it’s called ‘gezellig,’ and in German, it’s called ‘gemütlichkeit,’ both of which connote a sense of warmth, coziness, and belonging. In a steady state economy, what we need to accomplish above all else is the re-connection of people with one another. Perhaps it says more about the present state of business–and the prevalence of monopolies–that it’s considered novel to do so.

Full Employment Versus Jobless Growth

by Herman Daly

Herman DalyThe Full Employment Act of 1946 declared full employment to be a major goal of U.S. policy. Economic growth was then seen as the means to attain the end of full employment. Today that relation has been inverted. Economic growth has become the end, and if the means to attain that end — automation, off-shoring, excessive immigration — result in unemployment, well that is the price “we” just have to pay for the glorified goal of growth in GDP. If we really want full employment we must reverse this inversion of ends and means. We can serve the goal of full employment by restricting automation, off-shoring, and easy immigration to periods of true domestic labor shortage as indicated by high and rising wages. In addition, full employment can also be served by reducing the length of the working day, week, or year, in exchange for more leisure, rather than more GDP.

Real wages have been falling for decades, yet our corporations, hungry for cheaper labor, keep bleating about a labor shortage. What the corporations really want is a surplus of labor. With surplus labor, wages generally do not rise and therefore all the gains from productivity increase will go to profit, not wages. Hence the elitist support for automation, off-shoring, and lax enforcement of democratically enacted immigration laws.

Traditional stimulus policies do little to reduce unemployment, for several reasons. First, the jobs that workers would have gone back to have largely been off-shored as employers sought cheap foreign labor. Second, cheap foreign labor by way of illegal immigration seems to have been welcomed by domestic employers trying to fill the remaining jobs at home. Third, jobs have been “outsourced” to automation — to robots in the factory and to the consumer, who is now her own checkout clerk, travel agent, baggage handler, bank teller, gas station attendant, etc. And fourth, quantitative easing has kept interest rates low and bond prices high to the benefit of banks’ balance sheets more than employment. The public benefits from lower mortgage rates, but loses more from reduced interest earnings on savings, which does not help employment.

These facts argue for a return to the original intent of the Full Employment Act of 1946 — specifically that full employment, not growth, should be the goal. Let us consider four further reasons for this return.

First, off-shoring production and jobs cannot be justified as “trade.” The good whose production has been off-shored is sold in the U.S. to satisfy the same market that its domestic production used to satisfy. Off-shoring increases U.S. imports, and since no product has been exported in exchange, it also increases the U.S. trade deficit. Because the production of the good now takes place abroad, stimulus spending in the U.S. largely stimulates U.S. imports and employment abroad. Demand for U.S. labor consequently declines, lowering U.S. employment and/or wages. It is absurd that off-shoring should be defended in the name of “free trade.” No goods are traded. The absurdity is compounded by the fact that off-shoring entails moving capital abroad, and international immobility of capital is one of the premises on which the doctrine of comparative advantage rests — and the policy of free trade is based on comparative advantage! If we really believe in comparative advantage and free trade then we must place limits on capital mobility and off-shoring.

Second, for those jobs that have not yet, or cannot easily be off-shored (e.g., services such as bartending, waiting tables, gardening, medical care, etc.), cheap foreign labor has become available via illegal immigration. Many U.S. employers seem to welcome illegal immigrants. Most are good and honest workers, willing to work for little, and unable to complain about conditions given their illegal status. What could be better for union busting and driving down wages of the American working class, which, by the way, includes many legal immigrants? The federal government, ever sensitive to the interests of the employing class, has done an obligingly poor job of enforcing our immigration laws.

Third, the automation of factory work, services of bank tellers, gas station attendants, etc. is usually praised as labor-saving technical progress. To some extent it is that, but it also represents substitution of capital for labor and labor-shifting to the consumer. The consumer does not even get the minimum wage for her extra work, even considering the dubious claim that she enjoys lower prices in return for her self-service. Ordinary human contacts are diminished and commerce becomes more sterile and impersonally digitized. In particular daily interaction between people of different socio-economic classes is reduced.

Fourth, a “Tobin tax,” a small percentage tax on all stock market, bond market, and foreign exchange transactions would slow down the excessive trading, speculation, and gambling in the Wall Street casino, and at the same time raise a lot of revenue to help close the federal deficit. This could be enacted quickly. In the longer run we should move to 100% reserve requirements on demand deposits and end the commercial banks’ alchemy of creating money out of nothing and lending it at interest. Every dollar loaned by a bank would be a dollar previously saved by the owner of a time deposit, respecting the classical economic balance between abstinence from consumption and new investment. Most people mistakenly believe that this is how banks work now. Our money supply would move from being mainly interest-bearing debt of private banks, to being non interest-bearing government debt. Money should be a public utility (a unit of account, a store of value, and a medium of exchange), not an instrument by which banks extort unnecessary interest payment from the public — like a private toll booth on a public road.

Cheap labor and funny money policies in the name of “growth and global competitiveness” are class-based and elitist. Even when dressed in the emperor’s fashionable wardrobe of free trade, globalization, open borders, financial innovation, and automation, they remain policies of growth by cheap labor and financial delusion. And we wonder why the U.S. distribution of income has become so unequal? We are constantly told it is because growth is too slow — the single cause of all our problems! That we would be better off if we were richer is a definitional truism. The question is, does further growth in GDP really make us richer, or is it making us poorer by increasing the uncounted costs of growth faster than the measured benefits? That simple question is taboo among economists and politicians, lest we discover that the falling benefits of growth are all going to the top 1%, while the rising costs are “shared” with the poor, the future, and other species.

Too Many Jobs

by Max Kummerow

Without doubt unemployment blights people’s lives. Those who want to work need jobs. But an even more fundamental economic problem is too many people beavering away, wrecking our home planet. Politicians and economists assume population growth means more people need jobs, so the economy must grow. Better to reverse that logic, starting instead by calculating the level of output the world’s environmental resources can sustainably support. How can jobs and economic output keep growing on a damaged planet with shrinking resources?

Some economists claim that technology or human ingenuity is the ultimate resource, but such platitudes ignore the realities of technological advance. The truth is that technology both creates and destroys jobs. Labor-saving innovations often increase productivity by reducing employment. And the downsides of technology abound. Fanatics use the “ultimate resource” to build bombs. Nuclear physics gave us an energy source and medical advances, but also atomic bombs and toxic pollution. The Green Revolution that helped double or triple world grain yields relies on fertilizer made from natural gas that will eventually run out. Meanwhile, populations needing food have tripled since the inception of the Green Revolution. Growth enabled by technology puts humanity further out on a limb, increasing ecological and economic risks.

If we are so smart and technology can solve every problem, why hasn’t every problem been solved? Historians list dozens of collapsed societies. Why didn’t brainpower save past empires? Why are carbon dioxide emissions still increasing? Why, after the global financial crisis affected so many people and communities, did banks go back to speculating in derivatives? Why are a billion people stunted by malnutrition? Why are so many species going extinct? Why do war and arms races persist? And so on across a range of unsolved local and global problems.

A sign of too many jobs: this eyesore (a modular worker colony) sprouted at the Bakken shale oil deposits near Williston, North Dakota.  Photo by Ben Garvin, Reuters.

A sign of too many jobs: this eyesore (a modular worker colony) sprouted at the Bakken shale oil deposits near Williston, North Dakota. Photo by Ben Garvin, Reuters.

Perhaps the greatest irony is that even though we are counting on technology to save us, the U.S. is cutting research funding. At the same time, the cost of attending college is becoming unaffordable. In 1992 dozens of Nobel Prize-winning scientists signed a “warning to humanity” saying we should stop changing the earth so rapidly. When the world ignores scientists like Jim Hansen (NASA pioneer climate modeler), isn’t public indifference squandering the “ultimate resource?” What a contradiction: relying on science to save us and then ignoring the recommendations of our leading scientific experts.

The ecological footprint reveals that the world economy is already too big. Ecologists calculate that sustaining current levels of output would require 1.5 earths. If everyone lived like Americans, more than four planets like earth would be required. Scientists have identified nine key areas where the scale of human economies could damage earth’s ability to support us for the long run. Three of the nine “planetary limits” have already been exceeded, reducing the planet’s capacity to support human life. Current levels of economic output require drawing down planetary “savings accounts” (soils, fossil fuels, species diversity, etc.) that are rapidly being overspent and depleted.

We’re caught in a dilemma. We have too many jobs — too many people are consuming too many resources as they go about their jobs — and yet huge numbers of jobless people struggle to meet their basic needs. At the same time, policies are geared toward growing the economy with the hope of adding more jobs, while disregarding the problem of overconsumption. What can we do?

Several commonsense jobs policies could help us achieve full employment within planetary limits. In the short term we could share employment more fairly. The U.S. could achieve full employment by increasing vacation time — we get two weeks where Europeans get five weeks. We could cut back to a four-day work week, lower retirement age (say to 60), offer more part-time work or job sharing, and send more people back to school to upgrade skills. Incomes would be reduced and social security taxes would increase due to these measures, but we would enjoy more fairness in distribution of income; less crime; more leisure time; more time for family, friends and community; and improved quality of life. We might even live longer — people in half a dozen well-off European countries live two years longer than Americans.

In the long run, we must stabilize or decrease population. Society should subsidize the first child and allow a second child without penalty, but require parents who choose to have more than two children to pay the full costs of educating and providing medical care and old age support for those extra children. People who expand population take more than their fair share of everything while imposing costs on the rest of us by collectively pushing up prices for housing, land, food and energy. Crowding makes life more stressful in many ways — traffic congestion, longer lines, more competition for jobs and college admissions, higher unemployment, lower wages and higher taxes. Extra kids contribute to climate change, pollution and resource depletion. Requiring those with large families to bear the costs their extra children impose on others would incentivize responsible family planning decisions. Far from being repressive, having smaller families corrects market failure, liberates women and makes families and children better off. The world’s best educated women voluntarily choose small families as shown by the below-replacement fertility rates in some of the best educated countries.

Reversing direction to optimize the total number of jobs, rather than pursue unlimited job growth, won’t be easy. Economists must accept a major paradigm shift. Such a shift has been described in the literature for over 200 years starting with Malthus, Ricardo and John Stuart Mill. Classical economics theory included limits to growth — a “stationary state.” Sharing jobs and stabilizing population won’t solve all economic and ecological problems. Many other reforms need to be included on the agenda to achieve a steady state economy that features environmental protection and sustainable levels of consumption — reforms like a carbon tax, conservation of species diversity, and redistribution of wealth.

For such laws to be passed in democracies, the public would have to be far better informed to understand why these changes make sense. Pro-growth messages come at us incessantly from mass media, the Internet, and pro-growth lobbyists, politicians and businesses. A keystone reform will be to overhaul the way we fund our information-providing institutions. We currently use information from these institutions to make important decisions. The trouble is that much of the information is actually misinformation, because the institutions obtain their revenues from advertising that pushes the infinite-growth agenda.

Abandoning the ideology of growth so firmly embedded in economic theory, popular culture and the media will be difficult. But economic theory reform, media reform, job sharing and changing human fertility behavior will be far easier than changing the inescapable laws of physics, expanding the land area of the earth, or doing business in cities inundated by rising sea levels. Difficult is still a lot easier than impossible.

Why Bargains are Bad

by Marq de Villiers

Bargain-hunting has become a cultural obsession (my father in law, bless him, used to drive a good way across town so he could buy day-old bread that a flyer had promised was a nickel a loaf cheaper; my neighbor trolls the Internet for wine a dollar cheaper, or a lawnmower he can get for a hundreds buck off — whether or not he needs another lawnmower). Thrift hasn’t disappeared; it just mutated into the endless search for cheaper stuff.

This search has had many savagely negative effects: it has persuaded manufacturers to set price, rather than quality or service, as the single prime necessity. It no longer matters that something lasts, or does what it was supposed to for longer than it takes to unwrap it, as long as it was cheaper than the competition. This means that things can no longer be fixed, only thrown away, and the next cheap thing bought in its stead. It has driven down wages, and led to the globalized search for an ever cheaper work force. It has led to a world in which advertising tells greater and greater lies. It has led to a world in which predatory discounters routinely drive smaller businesses into bankruptcy, devastating small towns everywhere. It rewards scale. It led to Wal-Mart, the world’s largest retailer, and arch pusher of vast amounts of Adam Smith’s unnecessary things.

Much has been made recently of Wal-Mart’s plans to reduce its environmental impact, and to enforce environmental and social standards on the millions of suppliers that fill its stores. Wal-Mart has switched to environmentally benign light bulbs in its stores. Its trucks are no longer kept idling while their drivers take a lunch break. But meanwhile, Wal-Mart still keeps its prices as low as possible. It works this way: a factory in a small town, say Winchester, Virginia, makes, say, rubber goods. Call it, oh, Rubbermaid for short. It is a good-sized firm, and it has always operated in a socially responsibly way — it has a stable workforce, pays livable wages, makes products that endure, and sells a good many of them to Wal-Mart. By 1994, the company was doing so well that it was voted the most-admired American company by Fortune magazine.

But a few years later, as Joe Bageant put it in Deer Hunting with Jesus, “North America’s largest plastic products company was a foundering corporation, brought down by the boys from Benton, Arkansas… In 2001, Wal-Mart’s executive management team heavied up on Rubbermaid, demanding ridiculously low prices despite an 80 per cent increase in the cost of raw materials, and personal pleas from Rubbermaid CEO Joseph Galli. Galli begged. Wal-Mart stood firm. Later, when Rubbermaid refused to go along with Wal-Mart’s utterly unworkable price, Wal-Mart dropped the hammer. It pulled Rubbermaid products off the shelves, replacing them with knockoffs… After seeing its sales drop 30 per cent, Rubbermaid caved.” Rubbermaid shut down 69 of its 400 facilities, fired eleven thousand workers and planned to shift half its production to what it delicately called “low-cost countries.” Five years later, Rubbermaid’s profit was up — net income of $108 million. But the workers were still out of work, and the town devastated. “The fact that stock rises — and its owners along with it — in the wake of mass firings says more about what corporations consider an asset than a million mealy-mouthed Human Resources brochures and Wal-Mart smocks,” as Laura Penny so trenchantly put it.

What is gained? It is easier to see what is lost. Workmanship and product integrity are lost. Paying jobs are lost, and workers who feel good about themselves and where they work. A good corporate citizen is lost, and with it a tax base for another small town. In a larger sense, a culture that understood standards, workmanship, and the value of craft is degraded, along with the sturdy but apparently obsolete capitalist notion that competition leads to stronger, more highly evolved industries through the process of “creative destruction.” Instead, we get price wars and the relentless erosion of standards. We get big box stores with no roots and no conscience. We get the commodification of jobs that has ravaged the middle class.

So ask again, who benefits? Here’s the answer: when Caterpillar moved its operations to right-to-work (i.e. anti-union) states with low wages, its employees could no longer afford to buy houses or send their kids to college, but the company’s profit jumped, in 2006, by more than 70 per cent, and the CEO got more than $14 million in what is laughingly called “compensation.” You can call it compensation, if you like. I call it swindling.

So what happens when we stop shopping?

This is the great conundrum. The economy is built on consumption and the early obsolescence of things provide jobs, and keep the economy ticking over. How do you manage a transition, if people stop spending? Before, you could always rely on technological advance. People could stop buying buggies, and the buggy manufacturers went out of business, but people bought cars instead, and car makers prospered. But what happens if they stop buying something — and buy nothing to replace it? If men stopped shaving, thousands of workers would be laid off, because their jobs are to make razors and razor blades and batteries for shavers, and shaving cream and lotions, and devising marketing campaigns for shaving systems. This dilemma is replicated in every industry, in every town, in every region, in every country. Andrew Revkin, The New York Times’s wise ecology correspondent, pondered the question not long ago, though he put it this way: How do you grow an economy without the jobs and the taxes that these unnecessary things produce? And he added: “The market, unfortunately, does not differentiate between good and bad. If the people want junk, the market will provide. So we have to fall back on the conscience of our business leaders.” In which he was surely being sardonic.

But in Revkin’s question lie the seeds of an answer. He asked, how do you grow an economy without the taxes and jobs… ? The beginning of the answer surely is, don’t grow. As Tim Jackson puts it, “consuming less may be the single biggest thing you can do to save carbon emissions, and yet no one dares to mention it. Because if we did, it would threaten economic growth, the very thing that is causing the problem in the first place.”

Marq de Villiers is an award-winning writer of books and articles on exploration, history, politics, and travel. He is also a graduate of the London School of Economics, and his latest book puts his training in economics to good use. Our Way Out: Principles for a Post-Apocalyptic World offers a refreshing menu of economic options for an overly consumptive population living on an environmentally stressed planet.

Occupy the G-8

by Brent Blackwelder

This is the text of an address delivered by Brent Blackwelder to the Occupy Movement, in Frederick, Maryland, May 18, 2012 on the occasion of the annual meeting of the G-8 at Camp David.

Terrible economic times are facing billions of people worldwide. Where are the jobs? Roughly half of new college graduates in the U.S. cannot find work. Who’s getting all the money? The gap is widening between the one percent and the 99 percent.

At the same time, the world’s oceans are being devastated by overfishing, forests are being obliterated, mountains are being blown apart to get at the coal, and rivers around the world are being dammed, diverted, and drained of their water. A quarter of the species on the planet are headed toward extinction. Compounding these effects, the earth’s climate is being destabilized by emissions of greenhouse gases.

Driving this fiasco are casino economics, cheater economics, and futureless economics. It’s not a pretty picture. Why can’t we do better? What can we do about it? Are the powerful leaders of the G-8 nations gathered here going to provide the solutions?

If the past record of the G-8 is any guide, promises will be made, the World Bank will be assigned the role of savior, but monetary pledges won’t be fulfilled, and nothing major will happen to shift the status quo.

I propose to you today a bold paradigm shift in our economy — away from the futureless economics, away from the casino economics, and away from the cheater economics that run the global economy. We need an economics for the earth, its people, and all the life on this planet.

I suggest that the Occupy Movement could bring about an economic paradigm shift by adopting the steady state economy as its macroeconomic policy goal. That means an economy with stabilized levels of production and consumption, which means stabilizing population and per-person consumption. It means an economy that operates within the carrying capacity of the Earth and does not threaten present and future generations with its overbearing, bloating size.

Cheater Economics, Casino Economics, Futureless Economics

The global economy treats natural resources as if the Earth were a business in a liquidation sale. The global economic system of today is undermining the life-support systems of our planet.

One major shortcoming of capitalism is that it does not reveal the real ecological costs of commercial products. Furthermore, today’s capitalism allows corporations to externalize the damaging health and environmental costs of their activities. Today’s capitalism also tolerates massive taxpayer handouts to highly polluting corporations.

In the Casino Economy billions in profits are made without providing any goods or services — they are made with complex financial instruments sometimes referred to as derivatives. Complex financial instruments enable the avoidance of taxes. The financial sector in today’s U.S. economy is now about three times as large as the manufacturing sector.

In the aftermath of the big bank bailouts and the passage of the Dodd-Frank law to curtail high-risk lending, JP Morgan Chase recently announced a loss of $2 billion from its risky trading (now the bank says it’s over $3 billion). Hand-in-hand with cheater economics, many huge corporations put their profits in offshore tax havens and escape paying an estimated $100 billion to the U.S. Treasury.

In current economic practice, corporations are evaluated on their quarterly returns. There is little long-range thinking. Mainstream economists tell us 100 years from now is not worth worrying about. (One dollar a century from now is only worth pennies today.)  But such thinking runs counter to the values of most people. Parents are concerned about what kind of world their children and grandchildren will live in.

Futureless economics, casino economics, and cheater economics have no place in a steady state economy. But here are some examples of the damage they cause in the current economic sectors of energy extraction, agriculture, mining, and forestry.

1) Fossil fuels. Extractive industries are going to the most remote and riskiest places, such as the Arctic Ocean, to obtain oil. Uncleanable spills will be the inevitable result. Some of the most biologically diverse regions, such as the tropical rainforests, are being decimated by oil drilling. Oil and gas companies are extracting the dirtiest of fuels, such as tar sands in Alberta, Canada. Coal companies are using techniques like mountain-top removal to get at the coal in West Virginia. In the process they are creating a Martian landscape by obliterating the forested green mountains and destroying the entire hydrologic cycle.

Most extractive industries enjoy substantial handouts from governments. The U.S. is set to provide $110 billion over the next decade to the oil and coal industries. That’s right — some of the world’s richest companies enjoy taxpayer handouts, and some do not even pay income tax.

The health and environmental costs of oil extraction in places like Nigeria over the last 50 years are huge, but oil and gas companies like Shell have not cleaned up the more than 5,000 spills that have wrecked fisheries, polluted drinking water, and harmed the health of local people who have borne the brunt of the contamination.

2) Agricultural lands. Powerful agribusiness giants like Monsanto are trying to patent all seeds and control agriculture from top to bottom. Major meat companies like Smithfield operate gigantic animal factory slums that cause serious water pollution and load the air with noxious fumes that harm people’s health and displace local family farms.  As with fossil fuels, governments subsidize the polluters. Time Magazine showed that some of the biggest animal factory farms receive all sorts of handouts from state and local governments.

3) Forests: the world’s forests are rapidly being destroyed. The U.S. has set a horrible example going back to the 1800s when, for example, the state of Michigan was almost totally deforested. Instead of creating sustainable logging operations for the state, the timber industry abandoned Michigan and kept moving west. After seeing some of the horrendous logging along the West Coast, President Franklin Roosevelt said, “I hope the bastards who did this are roasting in Hell.”

The U.S. Forest Service is notorious for providing “below cost timber” sales in our National Forests. Corruption and bribery characterize logging operations around the world.

Friends of the Earth England and Friends of the Earth Ghana combined efforts to show that lumber in Ghana was being extracted, but taxes were not being paid on the real volume of timber being cut.

4) Minerals. Leonardo DiCaprio’s film Blood Diamond illustrates a typical problem with mining operations that seek gold, copper, diamonds, and other minerals. The use of cyanide to extract gold causes major pollution all over the world. The mining lobby in the U.S. has been so strong that the 1872 Mining Law and its subsidies have not been changed. The “pollute-and-run” practices of the past continue today on steroids.  As with oil, coal, and gas extraction, the damages to health, crops, and the air, land, and water are externalized on the public.

Elements of an Economics for the Earth: A Steady State Economy

There is no magic formula that can move the world to a sustainable, steady state economy. However, by pursuing any of the following actions, countries and localities can move in the right direction and set the stage for a paradigm shift to occur.

1) Get rid of polluter subsidies.  Give subsidies only to clean energy; no more subsidies for fossil fuels, agribusiness, and the like. About half the states exempt pesticides from their sales tax. Senator Sanders (I-VT) and Congressman Ellison (D-MN) have introduced legislation to eliminate all subsidies to the fossil fuel industry — a measure that would save $110 billion over the next decade.

2) Shift to a clean-energy basis for the global economy. It is technically feasible to run the global economy on a carbon-free and nuclear-free basis. Amory Lovins has a new eloquent description of his plan. Arjun Makhijani in Carbon Free, Nuclear Free provides another. California physicists Jacobson and Delucchi offer a slightly different plan in Scientific American (Nov, 2009) as does Lester Brown in World on the Edge.

3) Adopt the measures proposed by Senator Levin on tax dodging. Senator Levin (D-Michigan) is chairman of the Senate’s Permanent Investigation Subcommittee and has exposed a wide range of scandalous tax-dodging activities by corporations in American that deprive the Treasury of over $100 billion annually. A miniscule tax on global financial transactions and on currency transactions would yield hundreds of billions, while forcing players in the casino economy to pay at least something.

4) Change the indicators. The gross domestic product (GDP) is taken as a measure of society’s well-being, but in reality it measures how fast a nation is converting its natural resources into waste. It fails to account for the depletion of natural resources. Some states, including Maryland, have adopted the genuine progress indicator. And Bhutan has adopted Gross National Happiness as a better measure of well-being.

5) Restructure jobs. Adopting a four-day workweek can help reduce unemployment, spread the work, and provide time for people to spend with their families. The clean energy strategies described above would provide vastly more jobs per dollar than the fossil fuel industry. These jobs can materialize from dispersed renewable energy projects while our energy dollars remain in the community.

6. Support local investing. Michael Shuman’s new book Local Dollars, Local Sense: How to Shift Your Money from Wall Street to Main Street provides evidence that local investment does better than Wall Street stock purchases. The book presents a variety of examples of opportunities for investing in local businesses, local banks, and local exchanges. About two dozen studies have shown that such local spending and investments can provide several times as many jobs compared to investments in nationwide business. For example, for every $100 spent in a national book chain about $13 would remain in the local economy, whereas with $100 spent at a local bookstore, about $45 would remain.

Is a steady state economy just an idle utopian dream? Tim Jackson’s report, Prosperity Without Growth, prepared for the UK Sustainable Development Commission, provides a detailed discussion that makes a convincing case. Canadian economist Peter Victor has shown how the transition to a new economy can be accomplished in such a way that per capita income increases, unemployment declines, and poverty decreases.

In a world where propaganda and big money have undermined governance and the media, the Occupy Movement has a vital role to play by confronting decision makers, protesting polluting corporations, calling for an economic paradigm shift, and giving visibility to the paths for a healthier future.

An Open Letter to Peter Kent, Canada’s Minister of the Environment

by James Johnston

Regarding Your Modest Proposal for Preventing Canada from Remaining Cold

Dear Minister Kent,

On December 12, from the foyer of the Canadian House of Commons, you irrationally rationalized why it is a good idea for Canada to pull out of the Kyoto Protocol. I would like to congratulate you on your cheeky display of hyperbolic satire — there was so much cognitive dissonance and misleading rhetoric in your statement that it couldn’t possibly have been serious! I can’t wait for the day when you reveal that your government’s position is one big elaborate hoax designed to taunt the world into acting on climate change. I want to point out where your satire was effective but also give you a little bit of advice on how you could have made your statement even better.

First of all, you could have come right out and given the “real” reason why the “Harper Government” (TM) is getting out of Kyoto: because global warming is in Canada’s national interest! Developing the tar sands and pumping out greenhouse gasses to the max has the obvious benefit of improving Canada’s national temperature.

We all know that international forums are talk-fests that amount to non-binding statements of procrastination, but I laughed out loud when you pretended not to understand the symbolic value of forums like Kyoto and Durban. This rings especially true for a government that has proven its media savvy by virtue of authoritarian-style message control. Indeed, Kyoto has become a misplaced symbol of climate justice. But standing before a global audience and shamelessly teasing the world with such irresponsible nonsense! Priceless!

You were pretty convincing each time you conjectured that it is possible to create “jobs and growth” while also reducing emissions. Surely someone of your intellect and stature knows that at no time in history have we had economic “growth” without a corresponding increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Certainly not when the figures are adjusted to track the export of pollution at the planetary level. Development, maybe, but not growth! Man, I have to tell you, the joke became more cruel each time you repeated it (which happened a lot). Use it sparingly next time.

Your goal to reduce emissions via a “legally binding agreement to address global emissions that allows us to continue creating jobs and economic growth in Canada” hints at how elaborate the government’s hoax must be. At present, the Canadian government is shaping an economic agenda where more and more “growth” is coming from unsustainable oil production, natural resource extraction, and real estate inflation. No sane person thinks this is a good trajectory for the planet. Talk about wanting it both ways! Must be Christmas (well not quite, but almost — a few more sleeps!!). The world will be so shocked when you reveal the truth — about the Canadian position, I mean (not about Christmas).

Speaking of Christmas, I had an idea when I saw you pretend to stand up to big emitters like China and India. Way to goad them into action, by the way. But you know what would have been even better? Declaring that you are “standing up to preserve the Canadian holiday tradition of consuming an excess of cheaply manufactured Asian goods.” Then, when emissions go up in Asia as a result, you can stomp and huff that it’s “all their fault.” You missed a few opportunities like this to set yourself up for future satirical tantrums.

There were a couple of moments when your sense of humour went a little too far. Like when you repeated the government’s nonsensical target for emissions. The promise that you will focus on “reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 17 per cent over 2005 levels by 2020” — effectively doing less than the previous government and pretending that it will save us from climate disaster — that’s so funny it hurts (my children). You can’t keep that joke up forever. But I double over with laughter each time you say your target is somehow the previous liberal government’s fault. Those genetically incompetent liberals!

It was cute how you pretended that “Canada’s position” is shaping a global consensus among the “EU… the United States, Australia, New Zealand, [the] least developed countries and the group of 43 small island states.” Cute, because Australia’s Minister for Climate Change implied they were leading the way by instituting a carbon tax, and don’t tell me that you’ve changed your “position” on that one! That would ruin the hoax! Beyond that, judging from how irked tiny Tuvalu was about your statement, you must have known that you were pushing a few buttons. Ian Fry, Tuvalu’s lead negotiator at Durban, said that “it’s an act of sabotage on our future.” Seriously, though. Tuvalu? Who knew that was even a country, right? ;)

Just when I thought you were going too far, you made a point so absurd that it reassured me of your comedy genius. The pièce de résistance was when you quipped that Kyoto would require Canadians to remove “every car, truck, ATV, tractor, ambulance, police car and vehicle of every kind from Canadian roads; or, closing down the entire farming and agricultural sector and cutting heat to every home, office, hospital, factory and building in Canada.” Well light my hyperbolic pants on fire and sound the alarm. Sure it would… if we choose exclusively to develop the tar sands instead! You’re such a drama queen. I’m glad you know Canadians aren’t stupid enough to believe such misleading statistical play. Who could ever dream of taking their ATV off the off-road anyway!?

And finally, regarding your plea at the end for “an agreement that works” for jobs …and growth …in Canada …and China …and Tuvalu …and for emissions reduction. Frankly, it was getting a little convoluted. Next time you should just let out a loud fart in front of the press, apologize for the emissions and then, in a fit of despair declare “what’s the point!? By the time global warming starts wreaking havoc, I’ll either be out of government or dead. What a waste of time. Stupid liberals.” Boy would that ever ignite a global response!

Anyway, you’re cutting it pretty close. It’s just about too late to stop runaway climate change and it’s making us all very nervous.You’re going to have to reveal your true position pretty soon and stop taunting us with these clever hijinks.

In the meantime, I’m looking forward to seeing more of this precious, mind-bending stuff. And soon. It’s truly a joy to watch.

A New View of Work

by Christian Williams

Many of us have been raised according to the “Protestant work ethic.” That is to say, we were encouraged to work hard and thus become a successful and productive member of society. But what if this advice is wrong? As the economy reaches and breaches the limits to growth, working long hours causes market failures, giving weight to the idea that governments should intervene to reduce average working hours.

In the “empty world” of the past, hard work was a public good with few negative externalities on society. In today’s “full world,” work has become a common-pool resource, vulnerable to over-exploitation. In the absence of social or cultural norms to take care of this common-pool resource, governmental intervention is the best option for preventing market failure and encouraging an optimal amount of work. Unfortunately, our work ethic is worsening the situation.

Doesn't a shorter work week seem like a good idea?

Technological development over the past few centuries has allowed for a combination of reduced hours of work and increased consumption. Indeed, these are the only options for dealing with higher labor productivity (and labor productivity has consistently risen) while still maintaining high employment rates. But as the economy hits the limits to growth, the option to maintain employment through further increases in consumption becomes unavailable, meaning that work sharing becomes necessary. But OECD statistics reveal that over the past three decades there has been very little reduction in the amount of time people spend at work. Instead, consumption has risen drastically while unemployment has remained unacceptably high. If governments in high-consuming nations shift their focus from economic growth to wider sustainability objectives, they will quickly see that there are many benefits of a shorter work week.[1]

Here are some of those benefits:

  • Energy consumption would decrease, especially energy spent on getting to and from work;
  • Resource consumption would decrease as people trade some of their wages for more time;
  • With extra time, people could make more sustainable lifestyle choices (e.g., bike, walk, exercise, eat well, garden etc);
  • People would have more time for family and friends, less stress and better health;
  • Fewer people would be unemployed, and they could make an easier transition to retirement;
  • There would be more time for democratic participation, education, and exploration of other avenues to personal and community enrichment;
  • A better-rested workforce is likely to be more productive;
  • Both employers and employees could take advantage of more flexible employment circumstances.

Despite these and other potential benefits, we need a stronger case to justify government intervention. And that case begins with the recognition that “free” labor markets are far from free. Employees, even if they are aware of the benefits of working less, are often unable to reduce their working hours. Previous work time reductions have not originated through individual choice, but through strong union influence or state legislation, such as the Ten Hours Act (1847) in the UK or the Fair Labor Standards Act (1938) in the U.S. Juliet Schor and other scholars have suggested that a rising imbalance of power between employers and employees over recent decades has led people to work longer hours than they would otherwise choose. Most workers simply can’t ask their boss for a four-day week.[2] Other analysts have suggested that the power of marketing has led people to spend above their means and then work more to pay their debts. Furthermore, in times of economic crisis, people feel anxious about losing their jobs. Such anxiety can drive them to work harder to protect themselves, resulting in a work intensification that contributes to the tragic “jobless recovery.”

If people will not or cannot choose to work less, what are the implications? Society suffers from three market failures:

  1. We have an overworked workforce, resulting in social costs from broken families to higher healthcare costs.
  2. We have a large, disenfranchised group of people who can no longer find work, a breach of their human right to work (Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
  3. Long hours contribute to greater production and, in turn, consumption, with a larger ecological burden being placed on future generations and other species.

These failures are the result of a rush to secure a share of a depleting common-pool resource. But as the amount of work becomes increasingly scarce, it is natural that people try to maintain and enhance their share — a “tragedy of the commons” scenario as described by Garrett Hardin. We can’t deal with this tragedy using outdated, empty-world tactics. In the empty world, we responded to technological improvements by increasing consumption. Moving forward, we must either learn to work less and be content with an excess of leisure, or reject the technological innovations that replace human labor — that is, reject the focus on efficiency and labor productivity.

To ensure that we do not contribute to the impending tragedy, we must all aim to work less. This also requires a social overhaul of the work ethic, and a new respect for idleness and leisure. Keynes, writing some eighty years ago, saw that adjusting to a life of leisure was the primary challenge for coming generations (us), as opposed to meeting basic needs as had been the challenge for all of human history. “To those who sweat for their daily bread, leisure is a longed-for sweet — until they get it”.[3] Personally, a shorter work week sounds fine to me.

[1] See for example, the report from the New Economics Foundation in the UK titled 21 Hours.

[2] For an interesting discussion on individual labor supply curves and hypotheses, see David George (2000): “Driven to Spend: Longer Work Hours as a Byproduct of Market Forces” in Working Time: International Trends, Theory and Policy Perspectives, (eds.) Lonnie Golden and Deborah Figart, Routledge, London. George refers to Schor’s book The Overworked American (1991) among others.

[3] Keynes, John M., 1963, “Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren” in Essays in Persuasion, (first published 1930), W. W. Norton & Co., New York.

Christian Williams recently completed a Master’s in Sustainable Development at Uppsala University (Sweden). His thesis focused on the shorter work week as part of a transition towards a steady state economy, including a case study and political analysis from New Zealand. If you would like an electronic copy of his thesis (with a more comprehensive version of the above argument), please contact him by email.

Why Do So Many People Believe in the Fantasy of Infinite Growth on a Finite Planet?

by Rob Dietz

How do you feel about the economy these days? How about the environment? Do you think we’re sitting in a better spot than we were ten, twenty, or thirty years ago? It’s hard to find folks who are satisfied with either economic or environmental conditions. In the first place, the way we run the economy is producing appalling results. We have a mix of financial fiascos, unacceptable unemployment, and a dismal disparity between the haves and the have-nots. And if you’re not soiling yourself (or at least somewhat concerned) about what’s happening on land, sea and air, then you’re not paying much attention to the omnipresent signs of environmental breakdown.

Each day it becomes more apparent that we are on a misguided mission. Pursuit of perpetual economic growth is not a winning proposition for a lasting prosperity. Building a bigger economy can make sense in some circumstances, but always aiming to build a bigger economy means taking an ever-bigger chunk out of the earth’s ecosystems and the life-support services they provide. Why, then, do so many people believe in the fantasy of infinite growth on a finite planet? Is it because we can’t come up with a better idea? Is it because the rich and powerful have trapped the rest of us in their web of conspiracy? Is it because people are hopelessly greedy and materialistic?

At various times and places we might answer these questions affirmatively, but we can more commonly answer, “No, no, and no.” Putting aside conspiracy theories for the moment, there are three honest (but bogus) reasons why we pursue economic growth past the point of effectiveness and reason.

Bogus Reason #1: We think we have to have economic growth to create jobs.

People, and especially politicians, want jobs. We’ve used the blunt tool of economic growth to create jobs for decades, but do we really need economic growth to have good jobs? It’s true that there are typically more job openings in a growing economy, but there are other, less costly ways to make sure jobs are available. Growth, however, gives corporate elites an easy out. They can point to economic growth as the job creator while doing what they want without considering the impacts of their decisions on jobs.

If jobs are really the priority, then we wouldn’t replace people with machinery. And we wouldn’t eliminate service jobs to shift more and more burden onto people to serve themselves. My friend Chris works as a gas station attendant and provides a valuable service pumping gas for customers. He wouldn’t have a job, however, if he lived elsewhere. He happens to live in Oregon where the law says that only professional attendants can pump gas. In most states, gas station attendants have been replaced by customer labor and credit card readers. This sort of substitution has become commonplace in the name of efficiency — policy makers find it easier (or at least they’ve found it easier in the past) to avoid considering jobs explicitly. Just grow the economy and let Chris find a job elsewhere — that’s just the way it goes if his job is eliminated and the customer is forced to pick up the slack.

The truth is that we can have good jobs without producing and consuming evermore stuff. For starters, we can institute policies to make job-sharing an attainable reality. Many people would gladly trade some salary for more time. We can also stop the process of eliminating jobs through outsourcing and machinery-for-people swaps. Of course stopping this process would require a change in corporate incentives…

Bogus Reason #2: Screwy corporate incentives require growth.

Shareholder corporations are severely flawed. In my household, let’s say my overriding goal is to maximize my earnings. What would I do? I would take the highest paying job I could get. I certainly wouldn’t be involved in public policy or a not-for-profit enterprise. I wouldn’t spend much time with my wife or daughter — that would be time away from my career, and it could eat into my earnings (cue the Cat’s in the Cradle). If the goal is so single-focused, the results aren’t surprising. Profit maximization, whether it occurs in my household or in a corporation, produces perverse outcomes.

We know this about shareholder corporations. We know there are better ways to set up productive enterprises that have more worthy goals, but we don’t make the change. The reason is that we are addicted to two things corporations do well. First, we’re addicted to consumer novelty. We’ve gotta have the latest and greatest. People chase after I-phones, I-pods, I-pads, and plenty of other I-wants. Second, we’re addicted to receiving unearned income from investments in stocks or mutual funds. People who can afford it are invested in corporations. Their personal wealth is tied to the ability of corporations to grow. We’ve become accustomed to the idea of passive investment — we put extra money into an account and do absolutely nothing but watch the size of the account get bigger. Are we really entitled to get something for nothing?

Bogus Reason #3: We refuse to pay attention to the downsides of economic growth.

Few people are studying ecology and understanding how economic growth is degrading environmental resources. In fact, a whopping 21% percent of college students are business majors. And as Dr. Seuss noted in his classic book, The Lorax, “Business is business, and business must grow!” While we continue to tempt fate by disrupting and dismantling natural systems that we only partially understand, our attention is locked on the results of reality TV shows, Tiger Woods’s sex life, Jennifer Anniston’s and Justin Bieber’s haircuts, fairytale weddings of figurehead monarchs, and other matters of critical importance.

While we’re failing to pay attention, those who benefit most from growth — the corporate elites — will keep on doing what they do, and they’ll keep on selling it to the rest of us. If we don’t start asking, “why?” real soon, our kids will one day be asking “How did we let this happen?”

Sir Thomas Enough: Utopia and the Steady State

by Christian Williams

Editor’s note:  The connotation of utopia has become somewhat negative over time.  Utopians are often labeled as being overly idealistic or impractical.  Yet the very point of formulating policy or running an economy is to strive for a better society – to move in the direction of utopia.  This essay was first published on Smacademia.

Sir Thomas More’s Utopia was written almost 500 years ago, in the early 16th century.[1] The book has since influenced many a philosopher interested in the concept of Utopia, in theory or in practice. It is an attempt to outline the workings of an ideal state – in this case a small island state in the New World. Written originally in Latin, the book was dangerous in that it directly challenged the authority and wisdom of the ruling Crown – a standpoint that later resulted in the author’s execution by King Henry VIII. As I began to read this book, I was startled by the early realization that this book is nothing short of a 500-year-old vision of a steady state economy. In this article, I will review the book and show the many parallel aspects between the two visions; comparing Utopia with the vision of a steady state economy as outlined recently in the report from the Steady State Economy Conference, Enough is Enough. [2] (The following headings are chapters from the report, followed by comparisons with material in Utopia).

Enough Throughput: Limiting Resource Use and Waste Production [2, pg 42]

The Utopians are careful not to be wasteful, thereby minimizing their consumption and waste. They live a non-materialistic way of life with a focus on simplicity and quality. For example, “among the Utopians… men very seldom build upon a new piece of ground; and are not only very quick in repairing their houses, but show their foresight in preventing their decay.” [1; pg 36]

Enough People: Stabilising Population Growth [2; pg 50]

Maintaining a stable population was a priority in Utopia. The way they achieved this, however, is only possible in an “empty world” rather than today’s “full world.” Their cities are limited to 6,000 families. [1; pg 37] To aid in maintaining this balance, “they supply cities that do not breed so fast, from others that breed faster; and if there is an increase over the whole island, then they draw out a number of their citizens… and send them over to the neighbouring continent”. In essence, they use fertile colonies where the land has spare capacity to house any excess people. They likewise recall people from the colonies in the event of plague or any other natural disaster that reduces the population. This would not work in the modern world where all spare productive regions of the world are now populated, yet the importance of a stable population is recognized by the Utopians, as it is within a steady state economy.

Enough Inequality: Distributing Income and Wealth [2; pg 57]

In Utopia, even their chiefs are barely distinguishable from the general population, and all are considered equal. “There is no man so much raised above the rest of mankind as to be the only favourite of Nature, who, on the contrary, seems to have placed on a level all those that belong to the same species. Upon this they confer that no man ought to seek his own conveniences so eagerly as to prejudice others”. [1; pg 48-49] In a “full world,” excessive wealth for one means taking opportunity from another (e.g., one of the one billion people who are not getting enough food).

Enough Debt: Reforming the Monetary System [2; pg 64]

In this respect, the Utopians go far further than the proposals of the modern steady state movement. These proposals aim for currencies issued by public institutions and without being created by debt as a loan from a bank. The Utopians live without any currency in an economy along the lines of a resource-based economy as proposed by Jacques Fresco, where resources are distributed freely among the population according to their needs.  There is no debt in Utopia. Furthermore, “since they content themselves with fewer things, it falls out that there is a great abundance of all things among them.” [1; pg 37]

Enough Poor Indicators: Changing the Way We Measure Progress [2; pg 34]

“We who measure all things by money, give rise to many tasks that are both vain and superfluous, and serve only to support riot and luxury.” [1; pg 34] Residents are not particularly concerned with measuring anything in Utopia, for there is little need for it, but this quote from the narrator’s perspective describes the folly and consequence of a poor indicator (GDP was still more than 400 years short of its invention).

Enough Job Losses: Securing Employment [2; pg 80]

In Utopia, they work little, yet almost everyone is employed. “[The chief] is to take care that no man may lie idle… yet they do not wear themselves out with perpetual toil, from morning to night, as if they were beasts of burden…” [1; pg 34] They appoint only six hours for work – sufficient because it is not wasteful. As is proposed within this chapter of the report, they use working time policy to moderate production and maintain full employment. “When no public undertaking is to be performed, the hours of work are lessened. The magistrates never engage the people in unnecessary labour, since the chief end of the constitution is to regulate labour by the necessities of the public, and to allow all the people as much time as is necessary for the improvement of their minds, in which they think the happiness of life consists” [1; pg 37]

Enough Excess Profits: Rethinking Business and Production [2; pg 87]

In Utopia, most production is done for the community, and is distributed freely to all. It is a society based on cooperation rather than competition, where people support those in need, yet demand an honest contribution from all, achieving this through strong social institutions. This is a vastly different model than our current society. “In all other places… while people talk of a commonwealth, every man only seeks his own wealth.” [1; pg 81]

Enough Unilateralism: Addressing Global Relationships [2; pg 95]

The Utopians are a peaceful society, yet they are still forced to deal with threats from abroad. They maintain close ties with their neighbors although they do not enter into formal leagues or alliances. “[They] believe that if the common ties of humanity do not knit men together, the faith of any promises will have no great effect.” [1; pg 62-63] The Utopians strive for peace, provide help to neighbors when needed, and require unassailable justification for entering into war. The steady state movement recognizes the importance of international cooperation, including the need for overly consumptive nations to enact reforms and support those nations where people are not consuming enough to meet their needs.

Enough Materialism: Changing Consumer Behaviour [2; pg 101]

The Utopians are an extremely non-materialistic society, a prerequisite for it to function without scarcity. There are many examples of this shown in the text. “They take care, by all possible means, to render gold and silver of no esteem.” [1; pg 44] “The Utopians wonder how any man should be so much taken with the glaring doubtful lustre of a jewel or a stone, that can look up to a star, or the sun himself; or how any should value himself because his cloth is made of a finer thread… as if he were a thing that belonged to his wealth.” [1; pg 45-46]

There are also many instances where the general principles of sustainability are visible, aside from those described above.  “They define virtue to be living according to Nature” [1; 48].  They shun short term benefits over long term costs, and think to the future: “No pleasure ought to be pursued that should draw a great deal of pain after it… They take great care that… pleasure may never bread pain.” [1; 47] Meeting all the needs of the population, without compromising future welfare is easily achieved.

Certainly some concepts in the book are less applicable and would be less readily accepted today. For example, it was a surprise to find mention of slaves within this egalitarian society, but after reading further, I realized that their slaves are what we call prisoners or criminals. Even in Utopia, some people in society break the laws and customs of the land, and punishments are handed down. In another example, the uniformity of Utopia – of its towns and its people – seems to under- value diversity. “He that knows one of their towns, knows them all, they are so like one another.” [1; pg 30]  And having “no taverns, no alehouses” [1; pg 42] may be hard to swallow for some.

Regardless of the details, it is hard to miss the similarities between Sir Thomas More’s vision of Utopia and modern recommendations for a steady state economy.  The question is whether it is achievable, and beyond this there are questions of whether it can exist without an opposite. Without hate, would there be love? Without sickness, could we feel healthy?  The Utopians could only appreciate their society through observing the follies of their neighbors. Maybe we can only appreciate the hopeful possibilities of a steady state economy once we’ve observed the profound ecological and economic problems of the growth paradigm.  All the same, both Utopia and Enough is Enough provide striking visions for achieving a better future.

[1] More, Sir Thomas (1997); Utopia. Published by Dover Publications Inc (Dover Thrift Editions), Toronto, Canada.

[2] O’Neill, D.W., Dietz, R., Jones, N. (Editors), 2010.  Enough is Enough: Ideas for a sustainable economy in a world of finite resources. The report of the Steady State Economy Conference. Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy and Economic Justice for All, Leeds, UK.
Available for download at: https://steadystate.org/enough-is-enough/

Christian Williams is a New Zealander working in Sweden on a master’s degree in sustainable development.  His thesis is about the benefits of a shorter working week, based partly on the need for a new, non-growing economic model.