Evonomics – good vs bad growth

Bad Growth vs Good Growth: How to Protect the Earth and Have a Vibrant, More Equitable Market Economy

How do we weed out the negative and accentuate the positive forms of growth?

Several problems with this thesis.

The claim “In nature, evolution isn’t smooth; it proceeds through long periods of near-equilibrium interrupted by short bursts of rapid change” – is not true.
What we see in nature is constant change, what varies is the rate of change. What we see is complex systems in action that have been selected by the process of differential survival over eons of time.
What we see is systems limited in their productivity by some factor, usually energy, often nutrients, sometimes water or temperature, or wind or ……
The idea of equilibrium in nature is mostly illusion imposed by the actual limits to growth.
What we see is some systems developing ever more powerful ways of exploring the systemic spaces available in the infinitely dimensional space of all possible systems.

In respect of using trusts, the sort of trust proposed require coercive power, and traditionally that is the prerogative of the state

The claim made “With such potent new agents on the playing field, the market itself will do an increasingly good job of harmonizing human activity with nature, maintaining good growth and sharing our abundance broadly.” is false.

The idea that a market can share abundance loses cohesion as the degree of abundance increases.
Universal abundance must, by definition, have a zero price in the market (as air does).
In an age where we have the technical capacity to create universal abundance in an exponentially expanding set of goods and services, retaining markets as a lead valuation mechanism delivers a strong set of incentives against any universal abundance.

Because markets require unmet demand to work, they have meta incentives to maintain poverty for some (often many).

Markets are internally incentivised to prevent the delivery of universal abundance.

Poverty is a structural feature of a market based system.

I say we need to start thinking beyond markets, and exploring other sets of technologies that can perform the many very useful functions that markets performed in our past, without the structural incentives against the delivery of universal abundance.

About Ted Howard NZ

Seems like I might be a cancer survivor. Thinking about the systemic incentives within the world we find ourselves in, and how we might adjust them to provide an environment that supports everyone (no exceptions) - see www.tedhowardnz.com/money
This entry was posted in economics and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

Comment and critique welcome

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s