it has a name

[mellowtigger]

I've been doing some websurfing to try to learn more. My economic view has a name after all. You'd never guess what it is. I was surprised when I found it.  I'll give you a hint first.

You cannot have a satisfactory society made up of competitive, self-interested individuals! In a satisfactory society there must be considerable concern for the public good and the welfare of all, and there must be considerable collective social control and regulation and provision, to make sure all are looked after, to maintain public institutions and standards, and to reinforce the sense of social solidarity whereby all feel willing to contribute to the good of all.
- Ted Trainer

Note that first sentence. Does it give you any ideas? :)  It turns out that the name I found is "Post-Autistic Economics". Imagine that! *laugh*

One group has been publishing a newsletter since 2000 September 01. So of course I expect to be doing some reading of their archives in the coming weeks. A few other people seem to have hit on the same idea, including one guy who has thoughts on how to transition from one economy to another, rather than just waiting patiently for the inevitable implosion.

The links:
http://www.paecon.net/, Post-Autistic Economics Network
(created by French economics students, later joined by Cambridge students)
http://ssis.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/, "The Simpler Way" by Ted Trainer
http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/, New Economics Foundation

So I'm not the only person to see the fatal flaw in any economic system based on growth.  Growth happens, and it must be accounted for in any stable economic system.  Growth is the flaw, though, rather than the salvation.  Change is the only certainty.  Growth is not guaranteed.

Comments

Interesting

[otterlover01.livejournal.com]

I've always had a deep distrust for the "rowth" economical system we have adopted in occident too. Very simply put, the flaw I think is that that "growth" has to be at the expense of something and that in th end means draining matter and energy of the surrounding immediate environment of our societies, meaning the Geo and Bio resources. If the population is growing more or-less exponentially trying to sustain "growth" at all costs, sooner or later the system will implode. We just have to look around. It is magistrally ironic that the name is "Post Autistic Economics", really. Thank you for the very interesting posting and for the very intersting links too Terry, you clever man. Hugs, Luis.

[snousle.livejournal.com]

You cannot have a satisfactory society made up of competitive, self-interested individuals!

Therefore, you cannot have a satisfactory society.

On to the next issue.

[mellowtigger]

Self-interest is a powerful force that has succeeded in shaping evolution for many millions of years. Self-interest increases experimentation. Competition is necessary to determine the success of these experiments.

As with a visual blind spot, though, individual self-interest doesn't really involve long-term planning. (Meaning timespans counted in millenia.) Societies can think in such terms, defining laws that take into account the constraints posed by nature itself. The patent office does not accept applications for perpetual motion devices because they are impossibilities. Perpetual growth should be recognized as the same class of impossibility. Unless you're advocating anarchy (which seems unlikely), then the issue is how to restrain endeavors that attempt to accelerate growth indefinitely. Charging interest, for example, is fine. Charging compounded interest, however, is not.

It seems to me quite possible that people can create a stable long-term society that lives within limits that are mathematically justified. The universe applies constraints that are amoral. Humans, making the best of a bad situation, can create moral systems within those boundaries.

[snousle.livejournal.com]

can... should... can... can...

Change just these four words to "won't" and I'd be in complete agreement.

I have no doubt that the current course is unsustainable and will probably end badly. But any political philosophy that is predicated on changing human nature is pretty much dead on arrival, because that has never happened, and, IMHO, never will.

[mellowtigger]

Aren't all laws predicated on the belief that they can change human nature? You're sounding anarchist again to me. As I've said before, "There wouldn't be commandments against rape unless people wanted to rape. There wouldn't be laws against murder unless people wanted to murder. We wouldn't be putting thieves in jail unless there were thieves among us."

As for your smoking, drinking cherub icon, I'm all for people slowly killing themselves in imaginative and enjoyable ways. Total denial obviously doesn't work (witness the Prohibition period of American history, and today's current Drug War) but facing problems realistically and enforcing artificial/legal consequences only when personal behavior threatens the stability of other people's lives (witness smoking and drinking laws currently) actually does change human behavior.

Changing the definition/laws of our economy is not about removing all rewards for self-interest. It is about changing the methods that can be taught/promoted for achieving personal gain. Theft is an obvious way to achieve personal gain (heck, some societies have been based on the raid process) but we no longer allow it. Same with slavery. We even survived the Cold War without nuclear incident, when lots of people assumed that short-term gain would influence somebody's mind to make a bad long-term decision.

I agree that a complete denial of human nature is a dangerous proposal. But can't you agree that human nature is very malleable and has, throughout history, been slowly channeled (by accident or by intent) into activities more constructive and less destructive when some great insight has explained the difference between the two paths.

[snousle.livejournal.com]

Aren't all laws predicated on the belief that they can change human nature?

No, the purpose of the law is to resolve conflicts, and when successful it does so in ways that are relatively easy to enforce. It has nothing to do with changing people's values, merely prohibiting certain clearly defined behaviors.

But can't you agree that human nature is very malleable and has, throughout history, been slowly channeled (by accident or by intent) into activities more constructive and less destructive when some great insight has explained the difference between the two paths.

This is exactly what I don't agree with. While people are much less personally violent today than in, say, the Middle Ages - which is no small accomplishment - I see no reason whatsoever to believe that most people's behavior will ever be driven by anything other than self interest. I mean, sure, it would be nice, but you have not suggested any mechanisms by which this can be achieved. That's because there aren't any.

And no, I'm not an anarchist; as expressed in my previous writings, I am generally progressive, favor strong government, high taxes, and a robust social safety net implemented through minimally intrusive means. I think it's kind of funny how people try to pigeonhole my opinions and get it wildly wrong every time.

[khrysso.livejournal.com]

I'll be tracking your comments on this topic with considerable interest!

[transmodal.livejournal.com]

Great post and thanks for the links.
The Ted Trainer quote sums up my thoughts completely...I never could have stated it so clearly!

[babylonandbeyond.blogspot.com (from livejournal.com)]

http://babylonandbeyond.blogspot.com/2007/05/book-at-end-of-world.html

may be of interest.