Adapted from a comment on the Greek debt reporting.
I don't pay a whole lot of attention to the machinations of the financial world, but my understanding is that US banks lent their expertise at obfuscation, learned while bundling the multitudes of tiny slices of crappy mortgage loan debt, (they sold their expertise, I should say) to those who wanted to obfuscate the financial state of Greece so that, even beyond the point where Greece was in a good position to be borrowing more money, people could still believe or claim that more lending is appropriate.
So maybe there is plenty of blame to go around.
We in the US are borrowing much still, even after the point where we have saddled the next generation with an enormous debt -- to China and other bond-holders.
Our president said he would cut the deficit by half (grow the debt more slowly), but we've doubled the deficit, instead, I think.
As goes the economy, so goes civilization. The boom and bust of the business 'cycle' is the same phenomenon as the thriving and collapse of civilization, but seen at a different scale, a different magnitude.
We are heading for collapse of our global civilization. But there is a solution for this instability.
The natural rights of man can provide a basis for a sustainable and just society.
We are almost completely neglecting commons or public property rights, which Thomas Hobbes, John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith, Thomas Paine and John Locke all referred to in one form or another. (Joseph Mazor has compiled references to these writers where they have asserted a need to respect the right of the people to have access to natural wealth. Mazor explains that we all have equal claim to the right to enjoy natural opportunities.)
If we accept that we have a political right to share in deciding limits to levels of pollution and rates of taking of natural resources, then it follows that actual limits should reflect what the people say they should be. To know what the people say on the topic of limits to various kinds of human impacts, we could take a random survey.
If we believe that we have equal right to enjoy the benefits of natural wealth, then to the extent that some would take (and benefit from) resources more than others, those who take more ought to pay some compensation to those who take less. An effective, efficient way to carry out a policy aimed at achieving this would be to charge a fee to those who take, and give the proceeds to all people, to each an equal amount.
Instability of the economic system is reduced. Upswings in economic activity are automatically dampened because, as demands for natural resources increase in an expanding economy, the limited number of permits available will cause the price of permits to increase. This price increase will tend to dampen economic activity and prevent overheating.
On the other hand, a shrinking economy will maintain its vital functions because all citizens will be receiving an income from their shared natural wealth stipend. Business contractions will be moderated by the fact that all people will maintain some significant level of confidence in their ability to spend money. No one will entirely stop spending. The most essential goods and services would continue to be produced, since we would all have our public property or natural wealth dividend to protect and insulate us from abject poverty.
With less economic hardship associated with loosing a job, (since our job would no longer be our sole source of income) we could eliminate government regulation of the hiring and firing process. We would not need government stimulus or jobs programs.
We could be more selective in our choice of employment. Time spent at gainful employment might decrease, leaving more time available for other pursuits. The pay for the most difficult jobs would increase.
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment