Forum Post: Does an economy serve human beings...
Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 7, 2012, 7:06 p.m. EST by opensociety4us
(914)
from Norwalk, CT
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
or do human beings serve an economy?
very good question - here is max neef on the subject --MANFRED MAX-NEEF: First of all, we need cultured economists again, who know the history, where they come from, how the ideas originated, who did what, and so on and so on; second, an economics now that understands itself very clearly as a subsystem of a larger system that is finite, the biosphere, hence economic growth as an impossibility; and third, a system that understands that it cannot function without the seriousness of ecosystems. And economists know nothing about ecosystems. They don’t know nothing about thermodynamics, you know, nothing about biodiversity or anything. I mean, they are totally ignorant in that respect. And I don’t see what harm it would do, you know, to an economist to know that if the bees would disappear, he would disappear as well, because there wouldn’t be food anymore. But he doesn’t know that, you know, that we depend absolutely from nature. But for these economists we have, nature is a subsystem of the economy. I mean, it’s absolutely crazy.
And then, in addition, you know, bring consumption closer to production. I live in the south of Chile, in the deep south. And that area is a fantastic area, you know, in milk products and what have you. Top. Technologically, like the maximum, you know? I was, a few months ago, in a hotel, and there in the south, for breakfast, and there are these little butter things, you know? I get one, and it’s butter from New Zealand. I mean, if that isn’t crazy, you know? And why? Because economists don’t know how to calculate really costs, you know? To bring butter from 20,000 kilometers to a place where you make the best butter, under the argument that it was cheaper, is a colossal stupidity, because they don’t take into consideration what is the impact of 20,000 kilometers of transport? What is the impact on the environment of that transportation, you know, and all those things? And in addition, I mean, it’s cheaper because it’s subsidized. So it’s clearly a case in which the prices never tell the truth. It’s all tricks, you know? And those tricks do colossal harms. And if you bring consumption closer to production, you will eat better, you will have better food, you know, and everything. You will know where it comes from. You may even know the person who produces it. You humanize this thing, you know? But the way the economists practice today is totally dehumanized..
AMY GOODMAN: And if you’re teaching young economists, the principles you would teach them, what they’d be?
MANFRED MAX-NEEF: The principles, you know, of an economics which should be are based in five postulates and one fundamental value principle.
One, the economy is to serve the people and not the people to serve the economy.
Two, development is about people and not about objects.
Three, growth is not the same as development, and development does not necessarily require growth.
Four, no economy is possible in the absence of ecosystem services.
Five, the economy is a subsystem of a larger finite system, the biosphere, hence permanent growth is impossible.
And the fundamental value to sustain a new economy should be that no economic interest, under no circumstance, can be above the reverence of life.
AMY GOODMAN: Explain that further.
MANFRED MAX-NEEF: Nothing can be more important than life. And I say life, not human beings, because, for me, the center is the miracle of life in all its manifestations. But if there is an economic interest, I mean, you forget about life, not only of other living beings, but even of human beings. If you go through that list, one after the other, what we have today is exactly the opposite.
AMY GOODMAN: Go back to three: growth and development. Explain that further.
MANFRED MAX-NEEF: Growth is a quantitative accumulation. Development is the liberation of creative possibilities. Every living system in nature grows up to a certain point and stops growing. You are not growing anymore, nor he nor me. But we continue developing ourselves. Otherwise we wouldn’t be dialoguing here now. So development has no limits. Growth has limits. And that is a very big thing, you know, that economists and politicians don’t understand. They are obsessed with the fetish of economic growth.
And I am working, several decades. Many studies have been done. I’m the author of a famous hypothesis, the threshold hypothesis, which says that in every society there is a period in which economic growth, conventionally understood or no, brings about an improvement of the quality of life. But only up to a point, the threshold point, beyond which, if there is more growth, quality of life begins to decline. And that is the situation in which we are now.
I mean, your country is the most dramatic example that you can find. I have gone as far as saying — and this is a chapter of a book of mine that is published next month in England, the title of which is Economics Unmasked. There is a chapter called "The United States, an Underdeveloping Nation," which is a new category. We have developed, underdeveloped and developing. Now you have underdeveloping. And your country is an example, in which the one percent of the Americans, you know, are doing better and better and better, and the 99 percent is going down, in all sorts of manifestations. People living in their cars now and sleeping in their cars, you know, parked in front of the house that used to be their house — thousands of people. Millions of people, you know, have lost everything. But the speculators that brought about the whole mess, oh, they are fantastically well off. No problem. No probles max neef on the subject --
An "economy" isn't a sentient being, it's a collection of things, entities (behind which are people). An economic system, loosely speaking, is simply the way a group of people arrange their society. It has generally been the case that societies form hierarchical structure. Ideas like leaderless protest movements, democratic capitalism, etc. are novel in human history (they're not the norm), so we shouldn't expect ideas like this to catch on immediately, but they really don't have to. People understand what OWS is all about (it's not a mystery), and so ideas like leaderless structure will prove their merit by caveat of the success of movements like OWS (or conversely ... you get the picture).
What does an "economy" serve? It serves nothing (a word can't think and it doesn't have purpose) :)
So an economy or economic system is the result of human activity.
Thank you. Based upon what you wrote, would I be correct in saying that the merit of an economy can only really be measured in terms of its outcomes as it relates to human beings, ie, what it does for human beings?
[Removed]
Under the Constitution, we, the people, are sovereign. Whether the economy serves the few or the many is our choice.
A dog-eat-dog unregulated economy will always leave only the biggest, most rabid dogs still standing, and with all the power. We need to curb the big dogs, and may have to put down the rabid dogs.
Such concentrations of economic power that they overpower democracy cannot be allowed.
It's a big question but in modern market economies the needs of the market determine social behaviour, whereas in pre-industrial and primitive economies the needs of society determine economic behaviour.
I do not think human beings have figured out a good way, yet, in modern times, to ensure that an economy serves human beings and not vice versa.
It seems to me that economy (just like government and all public instruments) is a slave to our culture. If we define culture as the patterns of beliefs and behaviors that make up a society, and if our public entities are indeed slaves to these beliefs and behaviors.. then, in order to fix a problem that is caused by culture, I believe we need to figure out what beliefs and behaviors are causing it.
So far, the trend of history has been very Nietzschean (a will to power sort of thing). This has been pattern human behavior, and I'm sure there's very good sociological and evolutionary reasons for this. Nonetheless, to paraphrase Carl Sagan, I do think humans are capable of greatness.
Thanks. Call me a crazy individualist, but I'm having a hard time accepting that we as human beings should relegate ourselves to a commodity in a metaphysical entity (economy) that we ourselves bring into existence. Or maybe that is a cost we must incur to reap the benefits of "organization"? I don't know.
I completely agree, and I don't think efficient organization inherently requires relegating ourselves in the way you describe. I think we're still in an intermediate stage of our sociological evolution. This isn't an excuse for the poor behavior of our leadership, because notwithstanding the social progress that still lies in our future, we know and they know that things have become very fucked up (and we know what should be done to improve and restore our country).
"I don't think efficient organization inherently requires relegating ourselves in the way you describe"
I think you're right. The "relegation" is probably just what we sell each other in our negotiations. The "relegation" does not, inherently, have to be a race to the bottom in order for efficient organization to exist (all participants reap benefit). I guess this is why the laws banning child labor didn't kill capitalism.
Economics is a very young science. Much like psychology. I'll note that psychology has now changed direction a few times as it matures into an accepted science. Why do we trust the current view of economics to be the correct one?
My position is that we are only pawns in a large experiment that has gone on for too many years. This is the time to level the playing field.
Corporations, of current legal definition, are not historically players in the business world. We have to get through the lobbyist's view that they are the same as people. We have to bring morality back to businesses.
I really don't care if the butcher adds a touch of thumb to my purchase... as long as he needs it to make his payroll. I do care if he's planning to purchase a new yacht for the lake and doesn't take into consideration his business volume and quality of product.
We need to look at what our businesses affect.
I'm for lower prices. I'm not for losing jobs to another country to lower prices. I don't use the self-checkouts at the grocery store as they send jobs offshore to create another 1/3200 of a cent for a shareholder. Yes, I do hold stock in a few companies.
Currently, I believe that humans serve the "economy" for the sake of a few. You may know who they are.
[Removed]
An economy is human beings.
Can we assume that an "economy" is a result of human activity, or does an economy have a metaphysical existence outside of human beings? ie, which came first, the human being or the economy?
Wall St and finance, the realm of the 1%, is abstract economy. The real economy is the production and distribution of the real things we consume to maintain our lives. Any economy that serves well only 10% of the population is seriously flawed. Ours is broken. The real economy is dominated and debilitated by the abstract economy of finance and banking. The 1% who own most everything and control our livelihoods are a threat to the survival of the Human Race. They're Tory traitors to the American Revolution, freedom and democracy in general.
Economies need a strong central Government, which would promote science, invention, industry and commerce. To provide political and financial independence.
The economy would be to benefit the population and prevent economic and financial chaos.
Government is essential for improvement of transportation and other infrastructural systems, and to protect inventions by a patent system. It should be directed to provide political and financial Independence for the nation.
Our current economy serves a very few humans all the time. Some humans, some of the time. And most humans, none of the time.
Well they do serve corporations and as far as the law is concerned corporations are human beings.
Good question. Economies serve human beings as long as people believe its premises. But do we have an economic system or a chrematistical one?
btw - that's an interesting question re a chrematistical economy
Can we assume that "economies" are a result of human activity, or do economies have a metaphysical existence outside of human beings? ie, which came first, the human being or the economy?
It was pointed out to me by a colleague that the word economics comes from the Greek words that refer to "managing a household" -- that's what an economic system should be, but that is hardly what we have....
The economy is just an idea nothing more nothing less, and like any idea it will only work if people put their faith in it. So one could argue that humans serve the economy but at the same time the economy can help people get rich. In conclusion it's a give and take relationship.
Question....Have you ever written a pay check....no that is what i thought
I've written plenty, including ones to myself, but I don't know what you mean. Please explain.
Stop asking rhetorical question. This ain't philosophy class.