Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Globalisation vs Sustainability

I'm guessing he'd say that it would need to happen multi-laterally.

That is to say, as part of that 'mass popular acceptance' thing you mentioned, you get smaller regions doing a lot of the autonomous stuff anyhow and probably acting as a proof of concept/source of advocacy for the international level stuff.
 
Interesting that you see things like this happening in the US with regards to climate change, with individual states unilaterally proposing emission cuts etc... There is hope!
 
Thing is though, all sorts of nasty little 'accidents' can very easily happen to regions or countries that seriously try to disconnect from the 'Washington Consensus' economic model. It's almost as though that consensus cannot allow a successful proof of concept of such alternatives to exist.

Of course, you do get exceptions. But they usually have nukes, or equivalent levels of deterrence and in many cases would not be fun places to live e.g. North Korea. More hopefully though in many of the more recent South American cases, some relatively civilised social democrat types are taking advantage of the US being hopelessly bogged down in Iraq and elsewhere, to move further away from the consensus.

List of countries with governments opposed to the Washington Consensus.
 
Opposition is building in unlikely corners too:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5344752.stm
The UK is withholding £50m it had pledged to the World Bank in protest at conditions it attaches to aid.

International Development Secretary Hilary Benn voiced concerns that the Bank is telling poorer nations how to run their affairs.
Latin America is where it's at in terms of civilised, secular alternatives though, that's for sure. Spent a wonderful six months there the year before last and there's so much going on. Can't wait to go back.
 
slaar said:
Opposition is building in unlikely corners too:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5344752.stm

Latin America is where it's at in terms of civilised, secular alternatives though, that's for sure. Spent a wonderful six months there the year before last and there's so much going on. Can't wait to go back.

When you see stories like this you wish that the EU would do a 'manchurian candidate' on the white house, or at least heavily invest in liberal politics in the USA. Remember when bush imposed steel tarriffs on the EU, and the EU started putting tarriffs on American goods and Bush dropped the tarriffs within 6 months of initiating them.
 
Absolutely. I do see many signs of world patience having run out with the US administration, not least things like this, and the refusal of all countries, with the exception of Poland who seem to be on some military drive, to provide more troops for Afghan 'nation building'.

I'm really quite hopeful about the near future.
 
Bernie Gunther said:
I must admit I don't recall him saying that, although I'm no expert on his views.

Could you point me to the passage in question please?

You have to read between the lines. He talks about the good old days of gold, when money was backed up by something of value; then he goes on to discuss the evils of reserve currencies.
 
JC - you apparently haven't bothered to read any of the stuff I posted above which explains precisely what he does think about this.

Posts 55, 56 have the quotations where he's explaining his views on the best way to organise an international exchange medium. If you had read them, it would be clear to you that a return to the gold standard would not have the effects which he was proposing to achieve via an energy-backed currency.

Perhaps you prefer your 'between the lines' goldbug strawman because it's easier to dismiss as lunacy than what he actually did say?

I find it hard to understand how you missed the material in question given that it's right under the post you're replying to above.
 
slaar said:
Absolutely. I do see many signs of world patience having run out with the US administration, not least things like this, and the refusal of all countries, with the exception of Poland who seem to be on some military drive, to provide more troops for Afghan 'nation building'.

I'm really quite hopeful about the near future.
I wonder if the US doing something monumentally unacceptable, like nuking Iran or allowing Israel to do so, would push other nations into pulling the plug on them?

The US as the principal beneficiary of our present unsustainable economic system is obviously not going to let a significant chunk of the world's population move to a sustainable one without a fight. So perhaps it's a question of taking away their power to enforce their preferred 'consensus' somehow?
Q9. Can the American war machine be stopped?

It’s difficult to know the way things will go. The rest of the world has a lot of power over the United States. If it realized it did. If everybody realized that by accepting American dollars or by holding American assets you were in fact aiding and abetting the United States, [then] the best way to stop this war is in fact to do what the Americans did to Britain at the time of the Suez crisis, I mean they threatened to pull the plug on the pound.

If the rest of the world pulls the plug on the dollar at the moment by selling dollars, selling dollar assets, then the United States would lose its power. It has only got its power because we’ve been happy to supply it with our goods and services and take payment in dollars, which we haven’t spent. We’ve just lent back and taken interest payments in dollars. The rest of the world can stop the United States.

Now what happens though, when people take their dollars and tell the Americans ‘we don’t want to sell to you in dollars anymore, we’ve already got too many dollars, you’ll have to pay for our goods in our own currency in future’.
source
 
I would hope so. Nuking Iran would be as catastrophic a policy mistake as Hitler's decision to march on Moscow. Both strategically and, probably, in terms of lives.

There's a big cost to selling dollar reserves en masse though, in that your remaining dollar reserves would also tank in value. A big decline in the dollar in the next couple of years really isn't that unlikely though.
 
Definitely, the causality works both ways. There are already signs that East Asian Central Banks are beginning to shift their portfolios towards other currencies, not surprising given the precarious US trade deficit.

Now if you added in concerns about US foreign policy that would add a political dimension, but the extent this had an impact would depend on how independent (dependent in fact) Central Banks were from politics in each country.
 
So, assuming that Douthwaite's proposals looked workable and desirable, what if any economic/pragmatic leverage would there be over the next decade or so to get govts and central banks in the EU and developing world to start moving that way?

Douthwaite seems to think that the onset of peak oil might do the trick for example, but I'm imagining that you'd need a lot of popular pressure too, in order for such a non-mainstream approach to even receive consideration.
 
Bernie Gunther said:
JC - you apparently haven't bothered to read any of the stuff I posted above which explains precisely what he does think about this.

Posts 55, 56 have the quotations where he's explaining his views on the best way to organise an international exchange medium. If you had read them, it would be clear to you that a return to the gold standard would not have the effects which he was proposing to achieve via an energy-backed currency.

Perhaps you prefer your 'between the lines' goldbug strawman because it's easier to dismiss as lunacy than what he actually did say?

I find it hard to understand how you missed the material in question given that it's right under the post you're replying to above.

You edited: but as I recall, pre edit, you included passages from other article written by this guy. However, those explanations aren't included in the article cited in the op.
 
Well, let's try a shorter quote. Wouldn't want to tire you out JC. :D
Why does our present money system lead to a long-term misuse of resources?

The prices set by the market at any given moment have nothing to do with long-run values because of the type of money we use at present. As a result, they are entirely inadequate for determining the development path that we should select. The problem arises because the market is a human construct that works according to rules people have devised for it. Currently, those rules prevent millions of people without money from affecting the price levels in the market. The needs of the unborn cannot be reflected in market prices either. Consequently, the prices that emerge from the market merely reflect the immediate wants of that fraction of the world's present population fortunate enough to have the money to be able to express them.

The ideal use of resources over the years can only be assessed in terms of one's objectives. At present, the system's objective is simply to minimise costs from moment to moment in terms of market prices that are determined largely by the current pattern of income distribution. This inevitably leads to a gross misallocation of resources in favour of the present. A key step toward sustainability is therefore to establish a unit-of-account currency that represents absolute amounts of something important to the whole world's population, present and future, rather than current transitory price levels determined by a temporary minority.
Ecology of Money

Now, you may in your present state of dim awareness of what the chap is saying, immediately jump to the incorrect conclusion that he's talking about gold in that last bit. Not so my friend. He's suggesting instead, linking the value of money used for international trade with energy use and carbon emissions.

This idea is expounded in more detail in my posts 55 and 56 above.

The point, if you want to skip the details, is that in order to have the effect of providing economic incentives to act sustainably instead of incentives to act unsustainably, the value has to be linked to energy and emissions.

It simply wouldn't have the desired effect if you linked it to gold, because that has nothing much to do with sustainability one way or the other.
 
Bernie Gunther said:
So, assuming that Douthwaite's proposals looked workable and desirable, what if any economic/pragmatic leverage would there be over the next decade or so to get govts and central banks in the EU and developing world to start moving that way?

Douthwaite seems to think that the onset of peak oil might do the trick for example, but I'm imagining that you'd need a lot of popular pressure too, in order for such a non-mainstream approach to even receive consideration.
I think it's far more likely to arise as part of a crisis in the global economic system than anything else. Economic conditions are extraordinarily benign at the moment but as the Economist points out this week we're in the middle of an unprecedented change in the location of producing power away from the West and towards the 'developing world':

http://www.economist.com/surveys/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7877959
The central banks' mistake has been compounded by the emerging economies' refusal to allow their exchange rates to rise, piling up foreign-exchange reserves instead. Bizarrely, by financing America's deficit, poor countries are subsidising the world's richest consumers. The opening up of emerging economies has thus not only provided a supply of cheap labour to the world, it has also offered an increased supply of cheap capital. But this survey will argue that the developing countries will not be prepared to go on financing America's massive current-account deficit for much longer.

At some point, therefore, America's cost of capital could rise sharply. There is a risk that the American economy will face a sharp financial shock and a recession, or an extended period of sluggish growth. This will slow growth in the rest of the world economy. But America is less important as a locomotive for global growth than it used to be, thanks to the greater vigour of emerging economies. America's total imports from the rest of the world last year amounted to only 4% of world GDP. The greater risk to the world economy is that a recession and falling house prices would add to Americans' existing concerns about stagnant real wages, creating more support for protectionism. That would be bad both for the old rich countries and the new emerging stars.
That's the economist's take on it of course, others might argue it would open the opportunity for a serious look at 'protectionist' but more sustainable alternatives.
 
Monkeygrinder's Organ said:
No shit.:rolleyes:

The point is the article DOES address that point. Why bring up a point you think the article misses when you haven't even looked at it.

I don't have the inclination to read through the whole article, please summarise how douthwaite intends to coerce people into this venture?
Then tell me how he intends to avoid a post code lottery for certain commodities (i.e. pharmaceuticals goods, food, consumer goods). The idea is unworkable as society stands now. I'm willing to admit that if there was a major shift in people's awareness of the global situation then local citzens (across the globe) would try his proposals. But if such a thing were to happen then you could address climate change. But dispite shock tactics and scientific debate on the matter there hasn't been wholesale change in our energy consumption.
 
Al gore, in an article in the independent, stated that america was borrowing huge amounts of china's surplus, in order to buy oil. correct me if i'm wrong but china's biggest exporter is america. Isn't this mutual dependence? The only thing stopping china from taking over from america as the largest economy is america's stangle hold on oil in the middle east and its own poor infrastructure. America has china and japan in its back pocket, so to speak, and those two make up the second and fourth largest economies in the world.
Surely a break up of american influence in world affairs would require those two nations diversifying it export policy.
 
China has a trillion dollars of mainly US treasury bills as foreign exchange because the US trade deficit particularly with China is huge, so in a sense Gore is right. But the US are taking on big risks with it as well, so it's not like it's a risk-free surplus-for-oil equation.

There are many, many things stopping China from overtaking the US, and most of them are in China.
 
muser said:
I don't have the inclination to read through the whole article, please summarise how douthwaite intends to coerce people into this venture?
Then tell me how he intends to avoid a post code lottery for certain commodities (i.e. pharmaceuticals goods, food, consumer goods). <snip>
If what you say about lotteries is based on the assumption that *everything* is supposed to be local, then I already clarified that in a previous post
 
As far as coercion goes, he explicitly isn't advocating making people do this stuff. He's arguing that it is in their interests to act in this way and likely to become more urgently so due to changing economic circumstances of the kind that slaar and I have been discussing for the last couple of pages on and off.

Arguably any law is coercive in nature and he does advocate changes in law within communities and regions who have adopted this approach. For example, he makes a reasonably convincing case that a sustainable territory would need to maintain some sort of exchange controls, to prevent capital flight to unsustainable and hence very likely more profitable territories. So presumably, first the citizens of that territory or community decide that they are going to govern their affairs sustainably in future, then they pursue policies and where appropriate, enact laws to support that decision.

I think it's stretching a point to say that such proposals thus imply 'coercion' though, or at least do so any more than the status quo does, because the coercive aspect is always there whatever laws we enact.

He's just suggesting we enact different ones in order to correct perverse incentives that currently reward unsustainability.
 
Back
Top Bottom