Industry and industrial production in the new age

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

I am going to play the Devil's Advocate here and will say that industry and industrial production will not, as it is being claimed, go over to total robotic production but will, in fact, cease and that in the not so distant future. And that regardless of what governments and industry and economists proclaim.

Why? Because it is dependent on a great deal of energy, especially of electricity and gas, and to all intents and purposes there is a very limited amount of oil and gas, upon which our energy production and on it industry depends, left to go around (despite the fact that the price of oil did fall quite significantly in the late part of 2014 and the early part of 2015 but that is a political ball game rather than oil and gas being abundant still) and renewable energies such as wind and sun just cannot provide the high voltages and wattage that are required by industrial production as we have now and the one that they are envisaging for the future.

The future of production will be small scale industry again – that is, at least, the way that I (and also others) – see it and much will be made more or less by hand again rather than by large machines, by production lines and robots. Without the power to do so it just cannot compute.

However, we keep being told that robots will take our jobs and that almost everything in the not so distant future will be performed by robots, many of them being what is referred to as “humanoid” robots. In the BBC Radio 4 program Analysis of March 2, 2015 entitled “When robots steal our jobs” this was very much being hinted at and also, it is claimed, that when this happens we all will have so much more free time to do what we want.

Hello! And what about money to live? Oh, some say, everyone will be given a basic universal income. Yes, sure, and pigs fly.

While the idea of a basic income is a great idea and one that should be supported and for which trial are now being carried out in some places, it will, probably, however, never come to pass in the capitalist system as we have it today. It will require a new system that has other ideals, a system where man and Nature are valued and stand in the center and not profit for corporations and shareholders. And one where no longer perpetual economic growth and the acquisition of wealth by business owners and others is the aim and name of the game.

This system will come about when capitalism collapses, as it must and will, and we return to a different way of production when also, as it must be, the means of production will be in the hands of the workers and not of the state. True socialism is not state capitalism and is the only system that abolishes and eliminates the distinction between the bosses and the workers.

But it has to be said here that in the post-industrial age production will be of a different kind and conducted in a different way than most of us have come to know and understand over the last century or more. The kind of production that we have known for so long ever since the “Industrial Revolution” will become a thing of the past and, like the motorcar, will be seen, later, as but a blip in human history.

Does anyone really believe that those robots, that are claimed to be taking jobs, can be made and run in a world where non-renewable resources are becoming scarce and where we need to get away from fossil fuel derived energy? I, for one, do not and that simply because of the fact that due to the restraints that will be forced upon us if we do not want the Planet to be destroyed entirely neither their manufacture nor their use will be feasible in due course. They will just remain ideas in the heads of the capitalists.

The new world will be very much like the old world before the industrial revolution and production (and other work) will be performed again in the ways of old. Sounds dreadful to many, I know, as the consumer goods will neither be abundant anymore nor cheap, cheap, cheap, as they are presently and as the consumers today demand them to be. That those products, that are so very cheap, come too us at a very high cost of exploitation of people and the Planet no one seems to want to know about. In addition to that those goods are not cheap in other ways as they are designed to break down in a very short space of time resulting in the fact that we have to buy new again, and again. But that is the way this present capitalist system has been set up, especially ever since the Second World War.

Before that time, and even for a while thereafter, especially in certain countries, products were made in a way that they lasted and that they could easily be repaired. However, the capitalist saw there profits disappear if they were to create new products that were better and learned from what had happened during the war where they were suppliers to the military. Products that get destroyed all the time would have to be replaced with the same products again and again and they basically put a self-destruct mechanism into the goods they made and sold. This mechanism is built-in obsolescence and non-repairability. If something breaks down after a short while, designed actually to do so, and then made in such a way that it cannot be repaired you do not have to invest all too much in research and development of new products; you can just sell your “old” ones over and over again. A total win-win situation for the capitalist and a total lose-lose situation for the consumer.

Years ago, and that will be the way again that things will be produced in the future, products, today often referred to as “durable goods” and given a lifespan of about three years, used to last for decades for they were made to last, and they were repairable and that is why they did last, for when something did break it could be fixed, often by the owner him- or herself. Those durable goods of today are not fit the name durable as they are rather the opposite. While that means that such products, like we once had, will be more expensive initially this cost, spread over the years that the product will actually last, coupled with repairability, will make them cheaper in the long run.

In the German Democratic Republic an entire repair sector existed in the economy, from small shops to industrial complexes almost that were geared to repair whatever the customer might bring along, from clothes and other textiles as well as, obviously, shoes and boots, over household appliances and such to vehicles. You could even get your knives, scissors and other cutting tools sharpened, reset and such, and all at a reasonable cost. But, to some extent, I digressed a little.

Industrial production in the new age of no-fossil fuels to power everything will, nay must, by virtue of lack of the amount of power required by the large-scale production we know today, return to much small scale and thus products will be made in a different way and must be made to last and be repairable as they will be more expensive.

But to be perfectly honest the cheap goods that come to us today more often that not are not made in a sustainable way and the fact that they are – predominantly – non-repairable makes them, in the long run, more expensive than the kind of products and goods that we had before that we, although more expensive, repairable. Personally, I don't think that such a change is a bad thing at all.

© 2017

Why upcycling must become an economic sector

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Upcycling is, in general, the process where (at least) some of the shape and properties of the original waste product are retained – though not always, and we will come to that later – and where another useful product is produced from it. Though at times it might also (just) be a decorative item or a piece of art.

Ideally, however, upcycling should be about turning an item of waste into a useful item and product rather than a work of “art”. Although there are times when making artworks out of such waste is the only answer to throwing it and that is still better then than not doing that.

So why should upcycling become an economic sector then, you may ask, and part, the first part, probably, of the waste management economy.

Because recycling, as it is being done at this the present time, simply does not cut it. So-called recycling, and I am talking here about commercial recycling, mostly recycles nothing really but only downcycles. The problem with our current way of recycling is that it, actually, destroys the “waste” product and more often than not this product is not recycled but downcycled.

Glass is a prime example here where in the majority of instances, aside from being broken into fragments anyway in the first case, it is ground down to make road aggregate, a glass sand, rather than new glass. In other words they are turning it almost into the material that glass is made from in the first place, namely sand. But, as all the colors are being mixed together it is not possible to make new glass products from them, or so they say. Why not make multicolored glass tumblers and such?

Many other “waste” products in commercial recycling also are downcycled rather than properly recycled into what they originally were, hence recycling should always be the very last resort to turn to when everything else has failed. But, for some unexplainable reason, there is no infrastructure there for a proper reuse and upcycling economy, so to speak, and everyone concentrates in commercial recycling on what actually is downcycling.

Post-consumer waste paper, in most cases, is not made into new paper for writing, printing and books, but rather into packaging materials, and also paper insulation for buildings. Unlike in the German Democratic Republic where post-consumer waste paper became new paper for school exercise books, for books and for newspapers, elsewhere it is generally not post-consumer waste paper, or only between thirty to fifty percent. The rest is made up of pre-consumer waste, that is to say waste from the paper manufacturing industry and even virgin pulp. True 100% recycled paper from post-consumer waste paper is very rare and then only used for printing books, predominately paperbacks.

100% recycled sounds very good but in many cases it just is not true. This also goes for many “100% recycled” plastic products. Some beverage brands claim to have 100% recycled plastic (or 100% plant-based plastic) but when one reads the small print then one finds that the contents of the recycled (or the plant-based) is less that 40%. That does not equate 100%.

The problem is that post-consumer plastic, when remade, is not of a good enough quality for many new products, with the exception of the likes of garden furniture, and products such as benches, and others, that are made from so-called “plastic wood”. But that is a different story.

That is why upcycling has to become a main part of the equation also and especially on a commercial level, from small independent craftspeople to SMEs as recycling does recycle very little and mostly downcycles the materials. This may be good, to some extent, for the large operators and their shareholders but not for the Planet.

Some of us may have already seen the little gadget and “trick” about turning PET bottles into string that makes for an extremely strong rope. There is potential in small and larger scale recycling or upcycling of such bottles (yes, in this instance the original shape is not retained) and using the material thus garnered to make ropes, but also woven products such as mats, and others. And that is just via one simple method.

Making furniture and other things from pallet and pallet wood, as well as other “waste” wood, one could call recycling but, even this, as with the PET bottle being turned into a string, is more of an upcycling process as a product of a higher use value is being made. We are cycling the product up rather than re or down. Each and every time that we are making something better out of an item of waste rather than the same or a lower product we are upcycling.

While recycling, if it were done “properly”, is, no doubt, important upcycling is by far better and reuse, and the rest of the Rs that were discussed in a precious piece, also. That is because recycling simply, on a commercial level at least, is not done the right way, and only leads to products of a lower value and grade. It is for that reason that upcycling must become an economic activity and sector. There is a great deal of scope for it and as those products, in the main, will be made by hand they will also be made to last – or so, at least, one should hope, so as to break the cycle.

An example for an upcycling company is US-based TerraCycle, though the making of the products is outsourced to places such as Mexico, China, etc. TerraCycle “makes” a large range of different products from pre- and post-consumer waste. Another example would be Feuerwear, based in Germany, who upcycle old fire hoses into a variety of bags and such. Aside from those two there are others from very small to larger businesses in other countries, including (and especially) Third World countries, that are upcyclers, who upcycle things like bicycle inner-tubes, etc., but even combined all of those together they are but a drop in the ocean. That is to say we need more of them, many more, and upcycling must become a serious economic activity.

© 2017

Crude oil prices continue to fall drastically

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Crude Oil Prices continue to fall drastically and some investment banks predict the recent stockpile drops with continue after the summer season ends. As growing US output could reverse the inventory trend later this year.

Despite this, however, energy companies have and are increasing their prices claiming high the wholesale price of oil and gas being the reason for the price hike. We must, therefore, come to the conclusion that either the prices for oil (and gas) are falling and the companies are lying to us or that the analysts are wrong; take your prick. Nor, I am sure, has the motorist noticed any reduction in the price at the pumps. It always amazes me that when the costs go up the prices immediately do too but when they go down, the costs that is, there is barely a downward movement, at least not a significant one in line with the drop in costs.

The Bank of England voted to keep their Interest Rates low and cut it's forecast for growth and wages as it warned that Brexit was weighing on the country and previous speculation was over-estimated. This gloomier outlook has impacted on the strength of the Pound, with Sterling hitting a nine month low against the Euro shortly after the announcement.

Prices in UK shops fell slightly faster in July, say the statisticians, though not that most shoppers would have noticed, than a month before but are likely to pick up again later this year. As a result of the increased cost of imports after Brexit, food prices were pushed up, however, contrasting to the deflationary trend of the last 4 years due to supermarket price wars, say the “experts”.

So, the food prices were pushed up with the increased costs after Brexit, even though we actually have not left the EU and the customs unions as yet. So who is trying to make a quick buck out of something that has not, as yet, happened?

While it may be true that import costs for food (and other things) have somewhat increased due to the Pound having fallen in value in comparison to the Euro there seem to be some things that do not completely add up.

On the other hand it shows, yet again, that our dependence on food imports is not a sustainable position and that we must produce more food for home consumption. But farmers seem to be, often, more concerned out exporting their produce and animals rather than with the home market. Each and every time we hear them on the radio, for instance, they are worried that Brexit will impact on their exports. What they seem to all forget is what the job of the farmer is, namely to produce food for the people in the country. Export should only be a secondary thought, as to exporting surplus that cannot be sold at home.

© 2017

The repair, reuse and upcycling economy

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Taking possessions to be repaired, be it bicycles, clothes, shoes, or anything else, instead of throwing them out and replacing them is green gold. But reuse and upcycling should and must also be and become part of this economy. For it is not “just” repair that we must be looking at.

In the reuse sector we would have the secondhand stores, charity shops and even flea markets and car boot sales. While in the upcycling sector all those that rework – upcycle – items of waste of all kinds.

The little unassuming repair shop on the high street may not look like a major disruptive force. However, being able to extend the lifespan of your possessions by getting them fixed is one of the most effective green direct actions that are available. The problem is though that often neither the shops nor the repairability of the products are available.

Repair shops are often few and far between and those that there are, such as some of the so-called “shoe & boot menders” are not very capable in that department when it comes to things that cannot be done by the machines that they have, such as sewing back a midsole to leather uppers, for instance.

In addition to that there is the problem that many goods cannot be repaired as they have actually be designed in such a way and furthermore that for those that may, possibly, be repaired the costs of repair is several times that of buying the same product new. Here we are faced and confronted with a dilemma that needs to be overcome.

Making all the stuff that we buy requires raw materials and energy. Across the European Union now, recycling and recovering energy from waste when it is burned, only captures around 5% of the value of the original raw material used to make all the products in the first place. But consumption in 2030 is predicted to be twice that of 2010. A very troubling prospect given that it is already responsible for between 50% and 80% of total land, material, and water use.

The cycling community is at the forefront of the repair economy. An increase in people using their bikes and an abundance of independent bike retailers offering repair services (there are 2,500 retailers across the UK) means repair is booming. The reason for that is, though, that bicycles can be repaired and that, theoretically, quite easily.

When it comes to the bicycle much of the repairs and more can be done by the user with a little knowledge, including rebuilding “new” from old. But again here often the cost of spares is astronomical. And properly adjusting, say, Shimano gears, can, even at a repair shop, take several hours and thus the labor charges here can make getting a new (cheap) bike almost cheaper than the repair. I have been quoted more than once – I was just checking really – around £75 for that job. That is one of the reasons that I have converted all my bikes (yes, plural, but most are rebuilds from abandoned bicycles that have been found in parks and open spaces) to single speed by simply removing the gears and setting the chain onto one of the cogs in the back cluster.

What is missing sadly, is proper repair services for clothing and also for shoes and other goods. The few small attempts by certain sectors do not make up for the lack of the repairers we once used to have, in both clothing, shoes, boots, and leather goods.

Neuroscience research claims to have shown that our consumption of low-cost consumables, including fashion, activates dopamine receptors in the pleasure region of the brain and it is difficult to compete with our hard-wiring. Repair needs to not only make environmental and moral sense, it needs to make us feel good, too. But that is just what it should do, anyway.

Personally, unless I am hard-wired in a different way, and that is why I do not buy into the neuroscience research, find it much more pleasurable to be able to extend the life of something that I have rather than buying new. But then, I am strange.

In addition to repair, as said, we need to also accommodate the other parts, that is to say reuse and upcycling, into the economy and also, maybe, the teaching of repair, reuse and upcycling as part of that economy.

Repair, in some way, is also reuse as you continue to use the item repaired, while reuse can be secondhand, and that's where the particular stores and shops come in, but also reusing things found and items of what generally might be considered waste directly by us as individuals and households.

Upcycling is going a step above simple reuse, as far as items of “waste” are concerned, as it may come in a couple of forms. The first one is the simple reuse of something for a higher purpose, such as, say as glass jar becoming a drinking vessel. The next level is the transforming an item into something new, without, necessarily, destroying the shape and such while the third, which still is not recycling (though that word is always, erroneously, used there) but is close to it, is taking the material and reworking it into something new, combining elements from more than one items, and such.

The simple reuse, as mentioned earlier, like reusing a glass jar that had some produce in in as a storage jar, and that of the upcycling such as glass jar into drinking vessel (and those are just examples) is something to that most can do at home in the way that our parents, grandparents and their parents did. While it is not part of the economy – so to speak – it is a way for us to save money that we can circulate into the economy in another way.

The other upcycling, reworking, etc., again is part and must be part of the economy. This is what is done my craftspeople, artisans and such who make things from waste and material that others have declared to be waste.

But, as far as repair is concerned, the first thing that needs to happen is that industry actually starts producing again goods that can be repaired and for which spare parts (and repair) do not cost more than a new product.

Just by way of an example allow me to tell you this true story: Some years ago I was using an Epsom PC printer that cost then £35 to buy. It lasted about six months (well within the warranty period of a year). When I contacted Epsom I was told: “The waste ink reservoir is full. You are printing too much with it, Sir.” They were not going to honor any warranty because of that claim from them and as to repair I was told: “Yes, can be done. Part will be £70 and labor, not counting sending it back and forth, £75”. When I told the person from Epsom that I could buy more than four new printers of that make for that money I was told: “Well, I would suggest anyway that you buy a new one.”

That kind of attitude from manufacturers has to change first of all and products, all products, must become repairable, at a reasonable cost, again, though ideally they should also be repairable by a user who likes tinkering around. It once was that way with most things, today though it is exactly the opposite. Often goods cannot be opened even without specialist tools, if even then.

Only when that happens again and when repair is actually economically will we also see the return of the repair shops of all kinds to the High Street, and the not so high one, and the true repair economy, that we once had, will return.

In addition to that a change of mindset amongst the people is required and it has nothing to do, in my view, with any hard-wiring the neuroscience research claims, but with the fact that people have been brainwashed into a perpetual consumption mode, to buy everything new. Then again, as long as repair is not possible or simply not economical what else is one to do when something breaks?

But the mindset is a problem. We can see that every time a new iPhone, or whatever, hits the market. People will queue for hours and hours to be the first to get this new model even though they still have the previous one – in some cases less than a year old and still working perfectly – simple because they have to have it.

Well, that shall be all in the food for thought department on this subject for this time. I have talked enough, I think.

© 2017

The pathological consumption of the majority

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

The pathological consumption of the majority, for I do know that not all participate in it, has become so normalized that we scarcely notice it.

The way the majority buys things that is, aside from the essentials, with which we are not concerned really when it comes to consumption for we all have to eat, have at least some clothes to wear, need toilet paper and other things.

What I do mean here with pathological consumption is buying the things that really they don't need and only buy because the latest version is on the market or whatever. It is killing our Planet, other people and ourselves in the end.

There is nothing really that they need, nothing that they don't own already, and still they keep on buying. The new smartphone that has more bells and whistles than the one they only got six months ago and which they still have not used to its full potential, and so on and so forth. And then there are all those things that really are of little use, such those unitaskers for kitchen and elsewhere that will never, actually, be used but be just white elephants. And yes, alas, I have also managed to buy one or two proverbial white elephants for the kitchen at times. Some people work just so they can afford the next new gadget, etc..

Researching her film The Story of Stuff, Annie Leonard discovered that of the materials flowing through the consumer economy, only 1% remain in use six months after sale. Even the goods we might have expected to hold onto are soon condemned to destruction through either planned obsolescence, meaning that they are designed to break or fail quickly and cannot be fixed or perceived obsolescence, that is to say by becoming “unfashionable”. When the new iPhone comes out it is obvious that an old one is unfashionable; or at least so we seem to have been programed.

Grown men and women devote their lives to manufacturing and marketing often a load of rubbish, and dissing the idea of living without it. “I always knit my gifts”, says a woman in a television ad for an electronics outlet. “Well you shouldn’t,” replies the narrator. An advertisement for Google’s latest tablet shows a father and son camping in the woods. Their enjoyment depends on the Nexus 7’s special features. The best things in life are free, but we’ve found a way of selling them to you, and we, the majority at least, have been brainwashed enough to believe that we need those things for our enjoyment of life. Things have gone so far that people go for hikes in the woods, along trails, etc., either glued to the screens of their smartphones and/or having earphones on or in and listening to some music, or podcast, or whatever. Pray, what's the point?

The growth of inequality that has accompanied the consumer boom ensures that the rising economic tide no longer lifts all boats, not that it ever really did. In the US in 2010 a remarkable 93% of the growth in incomes accrued to the top 1% of the population. The old excuse, that we must trash the planet to help the poor, simply does not wash and the trickle down economy does not work and it is a load of hogwash.

So effectively have governments, the media and advertisers associated consumption with prosperity and happiness that to say these things is to expose yourself to opprobrium and ridicule. When the world goes mad, those who resist are denounced as lunatics. Well, let's be lunatics then and swim, like living fish, against the current of this madness.

The problem is that the system is not broken but that it was designed in this way. So, what are we to do? May I suggest we break the system and make a new one, one that benefits all of the Planet; people, animals, and the biosphere as a whole.

To some extent some of us are already doing it by moving away from the consumer culture and -society, by reusing, upcycling and by making do and mending. By growing some of our own food and by making things that we want and need ourselves, even, as I love to do, from items that others regard as waste.

However, those that are doing this not only encounter ridicule at times, as said above, but are even seen and proclaimed – by governments even – as a threat to the economy and the nation. Thriftiness was declared by some politicians (in the UK) not so long ago as akin to domestic terrorism.

© 2017

The way to save the planet: shrink the economy

The oil and gas industry claims that the 11 percent drop in reported U.S. carbon emissions between 2007 and 2013 was due primarily to the growth in fracking ("When Human Consumption Slows, Planet Earth Can Heal"). However a recent study in Nature Communications determined that 83 percent of the 2007-2013 reduction was the result of decreased consumption and production during the great recession, while only the remaining 17 percent was due to changes in fuel type. That makes sense; less economic activity lowers carbon emissions.

This simple truth has far-reaching implications. Our current economic system, based on growth, can't adjust to this fact. But that doesn't change the fact: the way to save the biosphere is to shrink our economy.

Progressive environmental activists know we must reduce our carbon footprint, but for strategic reasons, we advocate a mélange of solutions. We fight to ban fracking, stop the XL pipeline and divest from fossil fuel companies. This makes sense: if applied globally these actions, in combination with conservation, would significantly decrease economic activity, and thus lower carbon emissions. We also promote increased efficiency in heating and cooling appliances, air and automobile travel, better public transportation, recycling, and alternative solar generation. These actions, while reducing the carbon footprint of the products we buy and trips we take, may not lower total emissions if they result in our buying and traveling more, or using more cheaply generated solar power.

Read more here.

Five myths about economic growth

We were sent this by CASSE – the Centre for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy. Love it – there are so few organisations pointing out the insanity of the quest for perpetual growth (image: http://www.polyp.org.uk).

We particularly like the observation that the service economy can’t be de-materialised, and therefore can’t grow forever. Think about it – can you think of a service industry that doesn’t involve anything material? The information economy is often quoted, but where would that sector be without computers, electricity, mobile devices, phone masts, satellites, cables etc? And, of course, a growing information sector means that the amount of money paid as salaries in that sector grows as well. Then how do you ring-fence those salaries so that they’re not spent on material things? The answer is that you can’t, which means that the economy can’t grow forever, and neither can any sector of it.

Over to Brian.

Myth #1. It’s economic

To be economic, something has to be worth more than it costs. Economic activity, per se, is more beneficial than detrimental. Technically speaking, “marginal utility is greater than marginal disutility.”

If you liked a rug, but liked your grandkids more, it wouldn’t be smart to grab the rug out from under them. That’s basic microeconomics. Yet if we look around and reflect a bit, doesn’t it seem like all that economic activity is pulling the Big Rug out from the grandkids at large? Water shortages, pollution, climate change, noise, congestion, endangered species… it’s not going to be a magic carpet ride for posterity.

Growth was probably economic for much of American history. But we have to know when times have changed and earlier policy goals are outdated. In the 21st century, when we’re mining tar sands, fracking far and wide and pouring crude oil by the ton into the world’s finest fisheries, trying to grow the economy even further is looking like a fool’s errand. That’s basic macroeconomics.

Myth #2. Economic growth is often miraculous

Right now we’ve got the Chinese miracle. We’re supposed to be on the cusp of an Indian miracle. Seems like we already had a more general Asian miracle, having to do with “tigers.”

We’ve had Brazilian, Italian, Greek (yes Greek), Spanish and Nordic miracles. There’s been the Taiwan miracle, the miracle of Chile and even the Massachusetts miracle. Don’t forget the earlier Japanese miracle and more than one historic German miracle.

Read more here.

Sixteen Building Blocks of a Green, Entrepreneurial, Cooperative Economy

The transition from a capitalist to a cooperative economy could be one of the defining achievements of the 21st century.

In history, everything changes. The foundations of capitalism were built by merchants and mercantilists in the 16th and 17th centuries in response to the oppressiveness of feudalism. It developed into full-fledged industrial capitalism in the 18th and 19th centuries, and into financial capitalism at the end of the 20th century, using global free trade, shadow banking and offshore tax havens to overpower and sidestep much government taxation, regulation and control.

During the past five centuries, powered by the phenomenal stored energy of fossil fuels, the genius of free market capitalism has enabled the most incredible transformation the world has ever seen, lifting billions out of hunger and poverty, advancing science and engineering to incredible achievements, and enabling parallel social advances in literacy, education, health care, welfare, civil rights, communications and democracy. Its human and environmental costs have been huge, but we should not deny it its achievements. We are all the beneficiaries of its success, whether through health-care advances, digital technologies or the development of global consciousness thanks to the ease of travel.

Today, capitalism may appear stronger than ever, but its strength is increasingly delusional. It almost collapsed in 2008, and was only revived by a massive infusion of public money. Its financial foundations are deeply cracked, with trillions being staked on high-risk financial derivatives few can understand, and its social license is rapidly evaporating. A popular revolt is brewing, fed by three factors:

• Deep resentment at the accumulation of untold wealth in the hands of tax-avoiding corporations and elites while the majority of humanity struggles, and while communities and individuals all around the world suffer pollution and contamination as a result of capitalistic activity;
• The increasing indebtedness of state and national governments due to tax evasion and corporate influence over tax regimes, resulting in painful ‘austerity’ cuts to welfare, healthcare, education and other essential services;
• The well-referenced reality that global free market capitalism is driving global civilization towards the cliffs of climate and ecological collapse, threatening disaster to humanity and the species we share the planet with.

In response, a new green, entrepreneurial, co-operative economy is arising. Capitalism may appear to be a complex integrated system, but it was built over time, block-by-block and law-by-law by individuals and teams of people. The same is true of the new economy: it is being built block-by-block and law-by-law.

We do not have centuries to play with, however, as the founders of capitalism did. The need to prevent ecological and climate collapse is so urgent that if we are to stop the rising global temperature from blowing through the 2°C mark we need to reduce our carbon pollution by 10% a year—far faster anything being considered in global climate negotiations.

Read more here.

B&Q to close 60 stores and axe 3000 jobs

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

DIY chain B&Q is to close as many as 60 stores in a shake-up set to impact on 3,000 jobs.

B&Q's parent company Kingfisher, which also owns Screwfix, wants to cut about 15% of surplus space through the review of its 360-strong B&Q estate.

Staff at Southampton, Dundee, Baums Lane in Mansfield, Stetchford Road in Birmingham, Hyde in Greater Manchester and Barnsley have been told that their stores are closing. The locations of the other shops on the closures list, however, have not been disclosed.

The company said it believes it can meet local customer needs from fewer stores and stressed that the closures were not in response to signs that Britons are becoming less keen on DIY. Already in 2014 rival DIY chain Homebase announced that it would close a quarter of its stores – about 80 outlets – in the period up to early 2018.

While Britons may not be becoming less keen on DIY the fact that they can purchase everything much easier online than in a physical store, and a great majority are doing so, is probably the main factor, asides from the economy, here.

Kingfisher said it expects to offset the B&Q jobs impact by opening a similar number of shops at sister business Screwfix and through redeployment.

The changes were announced at the same time as the company posted a 7.5% drop in annual profits to £675 million after sales fell by 1.4% to £11 billion in the year to January 31, 2015. This performance was impacted by trading in France, where Castorama and Brico Depot were hit by the weak economy and low consumer confidence.

B&Q UK & Ireland's total sales, on the other hand, were up 1.9% to £3.7 billion in the financial year, with sales of outdoor seasonal and building products up 4%. Profits were 16% higher at £276 million.

In contrast, profits in France were 12% lower at £349 million as Kingfisher announced it will also close a small number of stores in that country.

The state of the Euro economy is impacting on the sales figures on the continent for sure but also where they are on the up, such as in the UK and Ireland operations people now spend money on home improvements and such rather than on say foreign holidays, etc. That too is a sign that the economy is far from on the up for it has also a great deal to do with the fact that prices are low, due to an almost deflation rather than any inflation.

The perpetual growth economy is anyway history and capitalism, make no mistake about it, is very much on the way out and that will mean that those large corporations are also going to be destined to the scrap heap of history. On a finite Planet perpetual growth and a perpetual growth economy cannot be sustained, ever.

Time too wake up and make some drastic changes...

© 2015

Consumerism: The scourge of our world

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Ever since the end of the Second World War the developed world – and also some other countries have followed suit now – has headed for the consumer society and industry created built-in obsolescence.

Companies had made huge profits from the war as the military was using stuff at the rate of knots and then some. Now, with the cessation of hostilities, they saw their profits diminish like the proverbial furs escaping down the river.

In order to counteract this they realized that if they could but produce goods in such a way that they could not be repaired (no user serviceable parts inside, used to be on many products), and then even to such an extent that even repairmen could not longer do it, or if they could be repaired make it in such a way that parts and labor would be more expensive than buying new and design products in such a way that they had but a limited lifespan and would break down, irreparably, in a short number of years, they could keep selling the same product to people over and over again they would be on to an absolute winner. And so they did just that. This also meant that they did not have to invest too much in designing new and better products and thus also saved in that department and made bigger profits still.

There was a time when products were well made and made to last and could be repaired, often even by the users themselves. New sales were mostly achieved only by designing and making new and better products and such.

Repair constituted an entire sector of the economy with small repair shops for everything in even the smallest towns. Today the so-called show repair shops can't do more than glue a rubber sole (leather, if you are lucky) on a shoe or boot. Don't ask them, though, to resew upper to midsole, for instance; the majority can't do it as they “haven't got a machine to do that”, as I was told. This is how far we have fallen!

Not so long ago everything was made in such a way that it would be repaired and spare parts were available for those products almost ad infinitum today, even it something can be repaired, spares cannot be had after five or ten years, even if the product would continue for a long time were they available.

This is just another way of manufacturers making sure that we have to buy new all the time, as with the built-in obsolescence where a PC, a printer, or what-have-you will, literally, stop working after a given time and it is designed so that it cannot be repaired, thus requiring new products, of the same kind, all the time to be produced, putting a great strain on the resources and the environment.

Ever after World War Two, as already mentioned, the course has been set for this stupid way of making us into consumers and forcing us to buy more and more and as we would not do so if products would last and be repairable as they used to be they just simply moved the goal post and made things so that they could not be repaired or limit the availability of spared to but a few years and bingo; a new this or that will have to be bought, and that goes for (almost) everything.

But it is also people who have become shall we say lazy and are not even – but things are changing with some – prepared to learn simple DIY repair skills such as sewing on a button on a shirt, for instance. They rather throw is and buy a new one and the fact that sweatshop produced garments are sold so cheaply nowadays also makes for that. Rather than putting on a new button, even if a spare may be sewn into the shirt somewhere, they throw it away and buy a new one and the same goes, alas, for so many other things.

We have been conditioned to consume and to consume ever more to make ever more profits for the corporations, to the detriment of our wallets and especially the Planet and all its inhabitants. But, the good thing is that we can change it through how we buy and by demanding to have things changed back to a proper way of doing things and that means also that products are, once again, repairable, for instance. This is not going to happen by itself. It is us who have to bring this change about.

© 2015

Cameron predicts new economic crisis

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

In mid-autumn 2014 the British Prime Minister David Cameron stated that the Euro zone is teetering on brink of new third recession and he may, in fact, not be far off this. The fact is that, despite what they are telling us, the economy is not doing very well at all and also not in Britain.

It is being suggested to us day in day out that the economy is on the up – in Britain at least – and that we have lower rate of unemployment for decades. That may look fine on paper but the reality, alas, is somewhat different. Many of those that have “found” jobs and are off the unemployment register are in part-time or very low-paid employment only and thus have very little purchasing power.

The only way, and they are hard at work on that one, to grow the economy, is to have another lovely big war or why does anyone think has NATO started a new cold war against Russia?

The austerity drive to “reduce” public spending definitely is not helping the economy to grow one bit. In fact it is having the exact opposite effect especially as so many public sector employes have faced job losses and those that retained their jobs pay freezes, which actually amount to loss in income due to other costs rising, and now, after a year or two having been given a miserly one percent increase in their wages the talk is of yet more cuts and more pay freezes.

At the same time they, and not just Britain, waste Billions on armaments and new aircraft carriers (that will not have any aircraft for them as the one that is supposed to fly from the, the new US-made F-35 has still got problems even getting off the ground properly, literally), a Trident replacement and also a ring-fenced foreign aid budget of Billions upon Billions. All of this could get the economy at home working nicely. Then again the perpetual growth economy is (1) not sustainable and thus (2) has to be abandoned. On the other hand such monies would do nicely for the health service and social housing.

What, as it would appear if we look at it without blinkers on, we are really heading for is not just a little third recession, and not just the Euro zone but all of us, but a full-blown Depression more likely greater than that so-called Great Depression of the 1920's/1930's but the powers-that-be do not dare to even suggest such a thing openly, not even by way of a warning.

Why not?, you may ask, but the answer to this is very simple. It would put the proverbial feline amongst the columbidae and cause panic because, unlike in the 1920s when the Great Depression struck, and even though it was bad for people, they knew, in general, how to make do and how to make and do things for themselves. Not so people in today's entitlement culture who believe that government – or someone – has to do this or that for them and that the government – or someone else – is responsible if they have problems.

Our parents, grandparents and their parents were much more capable of handling many of such things and problems as they did not have the entitlement mentality that the powers-that-be have brainwashed the population with. They knew how to look after themselves, their families and also others in the community and in turn everyone looked after one another. Today most people do not even know their neighbors and often do not want to get to know their neighbors either. Sharing and helping each other, thus, is no longer being done, in most cases, and community does not exist in all but name.

The next Great Depression is coming and it, more like than not, will be worse than the one in the 1930s and it is time – high time, in fact – that we all got back to some sense in our lives and got to know one another and learned to help where help is needed once again without expecting a reward in return.

© 2014

Reuse Economy

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

This is not about reusing the economy but about an economy of reuse rather. Reusing what we have and this reuse can, does and will take many different forms.

It will, however, stifle the economic growth – and a good thing that will be too – that the powers-that-be keep telling us we must have in order to prosper; they that is, not us, the ordinary man and woman.

The economy today, the one that they promote, is an obsolete model. It is not broken, however. It was designed this way. It is, however, not fit for any purpose on a finite Planet and is only designed to exploit both man and beast and the Earth.

Douglas Rushkoff has said that we are living in an economy where productivity is no longer the goal, employment is. That's because, on a very fundamental level, we have pretty much everything we need. America is productive enough that it could probably shelter, feed, educate, and even provide health care for its entire population with just a fraction of us actually working.

That is what is called overproduction and has nothing to do with making things that are needed but with keeping “slaves” employed – and only that to some degree – and thus built-in obsolescence in products, graveyards for newly produced cars, etc.

Industry keeps producing things that no one buys, because they do not have the money to do so, to make it appear as if the economy is booming. In the case of cars they go even so far as to register those – even though those new cars are destined to be scrapped as no one buys them – to themselves and their agents to make it appear that x-amount of new cars have been bought.

In the main the reuse economy will operate at home and in the community and it is about what it says on the tin; reusing. Reusing what we have and extending the life of everything that we have as well as and especially making use of all those “free” things such as waste materials in form of packaging, such as glass jars, tin cans, cardboard boxes, etc. and also about repairing the goods we have. (More repair in the “repair economy”).

Reusing what we have got instead of buying new and passing on to others those things that still work well and that are good but which we no longer use so that someone else can make use of them.

But, it does not end there!

There are different kinds of reuse that form part of the reuse economy.

The first is reuse per se which means actually to keep using what you already have got instead of buying new simply because it is new (and has more bells and whistles you never will use in a lifetime). The old American adage “If it ain't broke don't fix it” would apply here with but to read “If it ain't broke don't toss it out”. And before you toss it out because it no longer works also see as too whether it can actually be fixed and then kept going. That is the first part of the reuse economy.

The second part of the reuse economy is, as far as I see it, reuse of waste, predominately packaging waste, to repurpose for another, “higher”, use. This is often also called nowadays upcycling. When I was a kid no such names were available and it was just something you did and glass jars became storage containers and even drinking vessels, to substitute glasses; shoe-boxes became filing boxes; tin cans were used also for all manner of things, and the list could go on.

If you would see my kitchen cupboards and counters you would know that I do not just preach it but that I practice it too. There are drinking glasses that are repurposed glass jars, cutlery bins that are tin cans, containers made from milk jugs to hold cleaning materials and tools, and so on. I do not believe in buying something when I can make it myself for nothing, or almost nothing. Why should I throw those glass jars and other things out. After all, indirectly and theoretically, and also practically, I have paid for them when buying the good which were packaged in them.

The reuse economy, so to speak, on a third level is still very active when people, neighbors, pass children's clothes, for instance, that their children have grown out of to others whose children and younger and the same for toys. And then there is the other level of “freecycle” and similar Internet sites and places, and also places in the real world, where items no longer in use in one home (or office) find another good home elsewhere and will continue to be used.

This also goes for the reusing of perfectly good furniture, or items of furniture that may need a little TLC and tuning, and mix and match for furnishing the home was once the way and it is becoming a trend again with some. And why not?

But, as said, the powers-that-be do not really like this kind of economy as it does not help the GDP and the corporations. Tough luck to them. Let them call me a terrorist and yes some government people have just done that some time back when they accused all those people who are thrifty and are reusing and such as equal to domestic terrorists as they – we, as I include myself, thank you – are not spending to grow the economy, the one that they are promoting.

We need to change the economic model to one that benefits both man and Planet and not the big corporations and in fact there is more than one economic model that we must combine to make things work in the right way. Reuse is part of this, as is repair.

© 2014

Beyond the Fear of Living Without Money

Living without money is an issue that many are concerned about but not many people are talking about solutions. Many of us already live in either poverty or near poverty levels.  Is the answer found in government assistance and the material world or is it found in going beyond this ego-centered, materialistic world and finding a new way of living?

The world’s economy is based on economics, which is backed by the banking system that is designed to create debt.  For example, imagine that I am your local conglomerate bank and there was only $100 in existence. If I lent you that $100 and expected you to pay me back $110, how can you possibly do this when there is only $100 in existence?  Where are you going to come up with that $10 extra dollars that never existed? This is the global Ponzi scheme that banksters have been playing since the inception of currency.

The mainstream media continues to push ego-centered, materialistic programming while its advertisers support this mentality.  In the meanwhile, we are blinded by reality as we play into the system that has entrapped us as being economic slaves to the elite.  It’s a no-win situation.  The rich get richer at the expense of our hard work. Is this our true, divine reason for being here?

Read more: http://www.bodymindsoulspirit.com/beyond-the-fear-of-living-without-money/

Loving Local: Place, Economy and Community

A block of brownstone row houses in West Philadelphia became my place in the world – a place where I aspired to start a business, raise a family, and help build a strong and joyful community. Making a commitment to this place and taking responsibility for its well-being was the first step I took toward helping to build a sustainable local economy in my region. After opening the White Dog Cafe on the first floor of my house in 1983, I soon began buying from local farmers. Fresh local food not only became a hallmark of my business, but also the way I learned about broader economic issues for my region and beyond.

A farmer who supplied my restaurant once told me that successful farming is the balance of masculine and feminine energy – of efficiency and nurturing. Too much efficiency and not enough nurturing means a well run farm, but poor quality products. While too much nurturing may produce great tomatoes, but end in a failed business. I applied this concept to the larger economy and saw that our industrial food system is all about efficiency with little or no nurturing. How much can we squeeze out of the soil, the animals, the workers with as little as possible in return? How little space can we give that egg-laying hen? How little light and air? How little food and water? All to get the cheapest egg possible. No nurturing there.

It’s just as bad for pigs. In windowless factory farms mother pigs are kept in crates so small that they cannot turn around, lie down or take a single step for most of their lives. When I first learned of these conditions in 1999, I was horrified to think that the pork we were serving in my restaurant must come from these animal factories, as most all pork in our country does. I went into the kitchen and announced, “Take all the pork off the menu – the bacon, the ham, the pork chops. We cannot be part of this cruel and unhealthy system.” In our search for a humane source, our supplier of free-range chickens and eggs told us of a neighbor who raised pigs on pasture. We began buying two whole pigs a week, and our chef created recipes to use all the parts of the meat.

Read more: http://theeconomicsofhappiness.wordpress.com/2014/10/19/loving-local-place-economy-and-community/

Welfare reform reinforces growing class prejudice reminiscent of Victorian era

• Study finds people believe work is plentiful and unemployment is a lifestyle choice
• Evidence of an alarming intolerance towards disabled people, with questions over legitimacy of benefits
• Government rhetoric on ‘scroungers’ likely to reinforce these attitudes

British society is becoming increasingly intolerant of unemployed people and other disadvantaged groups, according to academics at the Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute (SPERI).

A study by the University of Sheffield has found there is a growing sense that unemployment is caused by individuals’ personal failings, rather than by structural problems in the economy.

People tend to believe that work is plentiful, and that unemployment was therefore a lifestyle choice, rather than an imposition, and that poverty therefore results from moral deficiencies.

The research also highlighted an alarming intolerance towards disabled people, with participants questioning the legitimacy of benefits for disabled people deemed incapable of working.

It is clear that the derogatory term ‘chav’ remains in popular usage. Middle class research participants tended to identify and condemn ‘chav’ culture so as to validate and re-affirm their own superior social position. Working class respondents were more likely to identify and condemn ‘chav’ culture in order to distinguish themselves from it.

We appear to be witnessing the re-emergence of traditional distinctions between the ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ poor, associated with the Victorian era.

This research identifies contemporary attitudes to the unemployed by drawing on a series of case studies conducted in Leeds, in Northern England. The evidence presented here is based on 90 interviews which were conducted with participants from a variety of different social classes and ethnic backgrounds.

The Coalition government’s welfare policies are in part a response to the kind of popular prejudices identified in the research. However, government rhetoric on welfare ‘scroungers’ is likely to reinforce these attitudes – focussing blame for poverty on individuals rather than on wider structural problems in Britain’s increasingly low-pay, low-skill economy.

There is in fact a danger that misplaced fears and prejudices relating to welfare claimants will present a threat to social cohesion, potentially legitimising policies which might exacerbate, rather than alleviate, social inequality.

Professor Gill Valentine, Pro-Vice-Chancellor for the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Sheffield and author of the report, said: “The evidence is mounting that the coalition government’s austerity agenda has been targeted at the poorest groups in society rather than the most affluent.

“This research shows that this is reinforcing prejudicial and intolerant attitudes towards the most disadvantaged members of society, as the government has been successful in individualising the causes of poverty and unemployment, and marginalising the socio-economic determinants of hardship.”

The full report can be viewed at http://speri.dept.shef.ac.uk/publications/speri-briefs/ .

Today’s publication is the eight in a new series of SPERI British Political Economy Briefs. Through this series SPERI hopes to draw upon the expertise of its academic researchers to influence the debate in the UK on sustainable economic recovery.

Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute

The Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute (SPERI) is an academic institute based at the University of Sheffield. The institute aims to bring together leading international researchers, policy-makers, journalists and opinion formers to develop new ways of thinking about the economic and political challenges posed for the whole world by the current combination of financial crisis, shifting economic power and environmental threat.

The University of Sheffield

With almost 26,000 of the brightest students from around 120 countries, learning alongside over 1,200 of the best academics from across the globe, the University of Sheffield is one of the world’s leading universities.

A member of the UK’s prestigious Russell Group of leading research-led institutions, Sheffield offers world-class teaching and research excellence across a wide range of disciplines.

Unified by the power of discovery and understanding, staff and students at the university are committed to finding new ways to transform the world we live in.

In 2014 it was voted number one university in the UK for Student Satisfaction by Times Higher Education and in the last decade has won four Queen’s Anniversary Prizes in recognition of the outstanding contribution to the United Kingdom’s intellectual, economic, cultural and social life.

Sheffield has five Nobel Prize winners among former staff and students and its alumni go on to hold positions of great responsibility and influence all over the world, making significant contributions in their chosen fields.

Global research partners and clients include Boeing, Rolls-Royce, Unilever, AstraZeneca, Glaxo SmithKline, Siemens and Airbus, as well as many UK and overseas government agencies and charitable foundations.

Source: University of Sheffield

Is the end of the Euro nigh?

Deutsche Bank forecasts crash of the Euro for 2017

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

According to predictions by the Deutsche Bank the Euro is headed for the abyss and it is headed for it at a rate of knots. They predict that the demise of the is about imminent and state that the Euro zone is headed for the largest capital flight in history and estimate that the value of the Euro until the year 2017 will fall to below that of one US Dollar.

After already Goldman Sachs, the leading American investment bank, declared the true and fair value of the Euro to be one Dollar or less the Deutsche Bank is following suit in that analysis. According to prognoses by Deutsche Bank the Euro will only be worth 95 US-Cents by 2017, which would mean a catastrophe for Europe and the Euro.

A fall to 95 US-Cent would mean a devaluing of the Euro by 25%. With this estimate the Deutsche Bank stands, however, almost alone as almost no other bank seems to see it in the same way. However, as the Deutsche Bank is the world's second largest dealer in foreign currencies this estimate should be taken seriously and into consideration.

Currency expert George Saravelos justifies this with the largest flight of capital the Europe will be facing in the near future. The continuing stagnation in Europe – even the possibility of another recession in the Euro zone – which is being likened to the lost decades of Japan, together with low rates of growth (as said, another recession may be in the offing even) and very low rates of interest will lead to investors no longer seeing any return for their investments in Europe and thus will move their money in droves to other places. This would seriously weaken the European common currency.

Saravelos said that the proof for his thesis of the Euro problems are in the economic data. The currency union produces record export surpluses while at the same time the unemployment rate remains at a record high.

This is referred to as an economic paradox. The export surpluses are estimated to be soon over 400 Billion Euro per annum and thus will be higher than those of China even. This surplus is, however, not, as it would be common, transferred into local currency in order to pay workers there. The European Central Bank (ECB) creates artificially low interest rates and negative deposit rates and levies penalty interest on the money that is “stored” in banks and shown on the balance sheets the investments of which are over 500 Billion Euro so that investors have no other option but to move their money abroad.

The British Barclays Banks sees the situation equally gloomy as does the Deutsche Bank and also the US bank Morgan Stanley.

Already in October 2014 the Euro crashed from its then value of $ 1.40 to the current level of $ 1.26.

A further devaluation of the Euro of the magnitude predicted and estimated by the Deutsche Bank and others will see the Euro zone hitting rock bottom and as no local, as in sovereign national currencies, exist anymore in the Euro zone countries those cannot even jump into the gap to bridge things.

This could lead to a new Great Depression rather than just a Great Recession in the Euro zone and to a collapse of the economy – at least of those parts of industry and commerce dependent on export – with serious consequences. The 1920s in Germany will look benign in comparison to what may be headed Europe's way should the predictions of Deutsche Bank be to some degree correct.

© 2014

Climate after Growth – Book Review

Review by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Climate after Growth
by Asher Miller & Rob Hopkins
A Report published 2013 by Post Carbon Institute and Transition Network
27 Pages A4 PDF

Downloadable free a Post Carbon Institute (http://www.postcarbon.org/publications/climate-after-growth/)

This report states what I have been saying as well, and that for years already, namely that simply replacing fossil fuels with renewables is not going to work, however nice this would be. Especially as there is no, as such, replacement for fossil fuel in aviation and maritime transportation unless, that is, in the case of the latter, we would go back to sail (and we may actually have to).

The authors drive a coach and horses through the notion of the possibility of the continuation of the perpetual growth economy and also throw some rather large spanners – wrenches, to our American cousins – into the works of those in the “green” movement who believe in the idea of “green growth”.

The ship of “green growth” to solve the climate crisis and to grow the economy is not going to sail. Robust, long-term growth, in overall economic activity, as measured by GDP, is a thing of the past, as the authors say and explain.

The reading of this report is highly recommendable as it will bring enlightenment to many – or so, at least, one should hope.

The one thing that is somewhat annoying, to me, at least, in this report is that the author(s) keep harping on about the things that we need government and institutions to do.

Do we really? People power does not need government! In that respect the authors are missing the point as government is very much the problem and not the solution as regards to change. Otherwise, however, a brilliant report and enlightening read.

© 2014

Parents’ preschool co-op breaks the education mould in Greece

The Greek economic crisis led to devastating cuts in social services, including preschool childcare – but a new model of education is now emerging, with parents forming a co-operative to fill the gap.

The Halandri Parents Social Cooperative Enterprise is only the second co-operative care-giving enterprise in Greece – the first was established on Crete a few years ago – and offers a platform for parents to share information about preschool, primary and secondary education.

It started life in 2011, when parents in the Athens suburb of Halandri formed a committee to oppose the closure of a number of preschool nurseries. At the time, there were more than 2,000 preschool-aged children in the city while five out of nine public nurseries had been shut down, leaving expensive private nurseries as the only alternative for most parents.

“Free, public school services have collapsed – it’s a combination of services not working properly, cuts, and standards not kept – in some cases, they should be closed,” said Dinos Palyvos, a teacher and translator who helped set up the co-op. The team also includes two engineers, two translators, an illustrator, a graphic designer and two teachers.

In a bid to change the way education is delivered, the co-op has developed a number of projects, including a co-operative school of private tuition, which was opened two years ago. It has already doubled its number of students, and teachers’ wages are significantly higher than the market average.

Read more: http://www.thenews.coop/91161/news/co-operatives/parents-preschool-co-op-breaks-the-education-mould-in-greece/

How to Shrink the Economy without Crashing It: A Ten-Point Plan

The human economy is currently too big to be sustainable. We know this because Global Footprint Network, which methodically tracks the relevant data, informs us that humanity is now using 1.5 Earths’ worth of resources.

We can temporarily use resources faster than Earth regenerates them only by borrowing from the future productivity of the planet, leaving less for our descendants. But we cannot do this for long. One way or another, the economy (and here we are talking mostly about the economies of industrial nations) must shrink until it subsists on what Earth can provide long-term.

Saying “one way or another” implies that this process can occur either advertently or inadvertently: that is, if we do not shrink the economy deliberately, it will contract of its own accord after reaching non-negotiable limits. As I explained in my book The End of Growth, there are reasons to think that such limits are already starting to bite. Indeed, most industrial economies are either slowing or finding it difficult to grow at rates customary during the second half of the last century. Modern economies have been constructed to require growth, so that shrinkage causes defaults and layoffs; mere lack of growth is perceived as a serious problem requiring immediate application of economic stimulus. If nothing is done deliberately to reverse growth or pre-adapt to inevitable economic stagnation and contraction, the likely result will be an episodic, protracted, and chaotic process of collapse continuing for many decades or perhaps centuries, with innumerable human and non-human casualties. This may in fact be the most likely path forward.

Is it possible, at least in principle, to manage the process of economic contraction so as to avert chaotic collapse? Such a course of action would face daunting obstacles. Business, labor, and government all want more growth in order to expand tax revenues, create more jobs, and provide returns on investments. There is no significant constituency within society advocating a deliberate, policy-led process of degrowth, while there are powerful interests seeking to maintain growth and to deny evidence that expansion is no longer feasible.

Read more: http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-11-04/how-to-shrink-the-economy-without-crashing-it-a-ten-point-plan

The Impossible Hamster

What the impossible hamster has to teach us about economic growth. A new animation from nef (the new economics foundation), scripted by Andrew Simms, numbers crunched by Viki Johnson and pictures realised by Leo Murray.

We wanted to confront people with the meaning and logical conclusion of the promise of endless economic growth. We used a hamster to illustrate what would happen if there were no limits to growth because they double in size each week before reaching maturity at around 6 weeks. But if a hamster grew at the same rate until its first birthday, wed be looking at a nine billion tonne hamster, which ate more than a years worth of world maize production every day. There are reasons in nature, why things dont grow indefinitely. As things are in nature, sooner or later, so they must be in the economy. As economic growth rises, we are pushing the planet ever closer to, and beyond some very real environmental limits. With every doubling in the global economy we use the equivalent in resources of all of the previous doublings combined.
Concept, script and narration: Andrew Simms
Animation: Leo Murray & Thomas Bristow
Sound: Louis Slipperz
Scientific Adviser: Victoria Johnson

www.impossiblehamster.org