Is there a way everyone is able to get well compensated using their specialized skills, as they work towards a common goal?
- Universal basic income?
What’s the unifying goal that connects all humans?
- most humans want to see their children prosper, not experience famine, war, heatwaves, societal collapse. Not all, but most.
How can we get everyone on board despite their different worldviews?
- we won’t. But thankfully there are more people who will be better off under a different economic framework than there are people who are benefiting from this system. We need to harness these people, the numbers are on our side.
I am afraid human health is much too narrow and anthropogenic centred. It needs to specifically include the health of the biosphere, because without a function biosphere there is no future for the human race on this planet. Of course, in a sense the health of the biosphere is implicit in promoting long-term human health, but it is too indirect to be effective in my opinion. However, think about unifying goal that unites everybody to work in the same direction is a brilliant idea. It also makes sense from a systemic perspective. Whatever, that idea might be, I think it will turn out to be completely incompatible with capitalism. Perhaps, the concept of ‘furthering the general good / interest’ as a guiding objective for all organisations could fulfil that role.
In my proposed economic framework the standard of value is humankind's physical health. Ecological limits, which protect the health of the biosphere, are based on environmental budgets. It's futile to look for a single standard or principle in two discrete domains. See bit.ly/3Dyp4Vq.
Hanns-Jürgen, you make great points. I think we agree that human health is a direct offshoot of a well functioning biosphere. It might be too indirect for some but for now it does connect most of the dots. Also, I too am skeptical of capitalism but what if there was a way to use capitalism as a tool (and not a religion) that is aimed at maximizing justice and wellbeing. It sounds impossible but I've been having some interesting conversations lately that I'll share in upcoming posts. The ideas are still being formed. We can't give up hope!
Thanks for your reply, Brad and, of course, I agree that we can’t give up. The great American environmental and systems scientist Donella Meadows said that one of the most effective leverage points to influence a system’s behaviour is to change its goal. If companies could somehow be persuaded to seek maximising justice and well-being instead of profits that would change everything: systems always find ways to achieve their goals. But how could such a transformation achieve acceptance? And if capitalism would no longer be concerned with amassing capital, could it still be called capitalism? Having said this, I believe the idea of finding some goal that implies pursuing a value that we can all accept is an excellent idea and well worth exploring.
Thanks Brad. As always you have the knack of articulating ideas brilliantly. I’ve thought about your suggestion and an idea has occurred to me that might make linking capitalism to wellbeing feasible. Whilst the goal you want to achieve is brilliant, I think the mechanism you describe for achieving it isn’t very clear. There needs to be a mechanism that is clear and at the same time self-reinforcing.
For example, products and services could be colour coded to reflect their ‘well-being-content’ and to indicate the 'well-being mark-up' that companies would be allowed to add to them. So, ‘grey’ would not allow companies to mark up a product or service and they could sell them only at cost, since the colour indicates zero well-being content. ‘Blue’ products could be marked up by 10%. ‘Green’ products by 25% and ‘yellow,’ the product with the highest well-being content, could be marked up by 50%. That would incentivise companies to concentrate on the ‘well-being’ content of their products or services, since wellbeing would-equal-profit. In addition, achieving products that are consistently ‘yellow’ would enhance the prestige of the company and the social prestige of the customers who acquire them - a self-reinforcing mechanism could establish itself. What do you think of that idea, Brad?
I think it's brilliant. It's very similar to a conversation that I had yesterday. My colleague explained that there's a huge problem in helping consumers recognize the wellbeing or carbon impact of a product...and since we're already trained to compare products and services by price, why not use that reflex to help consumers make better choices. But not with complicated add on information that makes no sense to anyone (see article) but rather boil it down so that it's part of the price. I need to find out how much of his ideas I can share before I say anymore BUT it's very interesting. Thanks again for sharing your ideas!
This sets out a methodology for assessing the ROI of non-carbon/energy factors that are substantially greater than the energy benefits but rarely feature as monetised value in the business case. This is vital because the higher the new build or retrofit spec (ie net zero) the faster the payback (incentives) to deliver value that resonates with eco-resistant owners.
The logic can be applied in other building settings like homes, hospitals, schools and universities etc too .... as all buildings account for 40% of emissions.
If you only talk about energy (and carbon, which most people don't understand and can't visualise) you get stuck in unconvincing paybacks. If you build in health, productivity, increased educational outcomes, reduced crime and social value you create a compelling case that makes people WANT better homes and workplaces. I've been working on this on and off since 2008.
Hi Sarah, thanks for sharing. I was looking for a broader focus but you make a good point about carbon...for most people it's very hard to understand how can a gas have weight?
I've been waiting for someone to ask this question.
The unifying element is a new economic theory such as my Economics of Needs and Limits (ENL). This is based on precisely what you suggest: human health. It's "socially neutral" to include both progressives and conservatives, it seeks to modify capitalism as little as possible, and it strives for sustainable well-being. See bit.ly/3Dyp4Vq.
Frank, thanks so much for sharing your ideas and the link to your book, "The Economics of Needs and Limits: A theory for sustainable well-being." There's a lot to digest there. Can you summarize how your model would engage the different "worldviews" so that we all work towards the same goal?
The framework started (early 1990s) as a progressive response to standard economics in the context of the ecological crisis. Over the years I realized that the progressive perspective was too narrow: the crisis requires engagement across the political spectrum. In the book's latest edition I subscribe to "social neutrality", which grants equal respect to the progressive and conservative views of society.
I also distinguish between capitalism's ecocidal economic logic (goal, assumptions about humankind and nature, etc.) and its institutions (markets, legal infrastructure, etc.). The logic is categorically rejected, but the institutions are selectively retained in suitable forms.
For a soft introduction, see chapter seven in bit.ly/3EDOanm.
Brad: what's happening with this discussion? Are you still seeking unity? Why can't you be reached? Why can't I read your latest article? Very frustrating ...
In answer to your questions:
Is there a way everyone is able to get well compensated using their specialized skills, as they work towards a common goal?
- Universal basic income?
What’s the unifying goal that connects all humans?
- most humans want to see their children prosper, not experience famine, war, heatwaves, societal collapse. Not all, but most.
How can we get everyone on board despite their different worldviews?
- we won’t. But thankfully there are more people who will be better off under a different economic framework than there are people who are benefiting from this system. We need to harness these people, the numbers are on our side.
I am afraid human health is much too narrow and anthropogenic centred. It needs to specifically include the health of the biosphere, because without a function biosphere there is no future for the human race on this planet. Of course, in a sense the health of the biosphere is implicit in promoting long-term human health, but it is too indirect to be effective in my opinion. However, think about unifying goal that unites everybody to work in the same direction is a brilliant idea. It also makes sense from a systemic perspective. Whatever, that idea might be, I think it will turn out to be completely incompatible with capitalism. Perhaps, the concept of ‘furthering the general good / interest’ as a guiding objective for all organisations could fulfil that role.
In my proposed economic framework the standard of value is humankind's physical health. Ecological limits, which protect the health of the biosphere, are based on environmental budgets. It's futile to look for a single standard or principle in two discrete domains. See bit.ly/3Dyp4Vq.
Hanns-Jürgen, you make great points. I think we agree that human health is a direct offshoot of a well functioning biosphere. It might be too indirect for some but for now it does connect most of the dots. Also, I too am skeptical of capitalism but what if there was a way to use capitalism as a tool (and not a religion) that is aimed at maximizing justice and wellbeing. It sounds impossible but I've been having some interesting conversations lately that I'll share in upcoming posts. The ideas are still being formed. We can't give up hope!
Thanks for your reply, Brad and, of course, I agree that we can’t give up. The great American environmental and systems scientist Donella Meadows said that one of the most effective leverage points to influence a system’s behaviour is to change its goal. If companies could somehow be persuaded to seek maximising justice and well-being instead of profits that would change everything: systems always find ways to achieve their goals. But how could such a transformation achieve acceptance? And if capitalism would no longer be concerned with amassing capital, could it still be called capitalism? Having said this, I believe the idea of finding some goal that implies pursuing a value that we can all accept is an excellent idea and well worth exploring.
It's funny you should ask that question. Please let me know what you think of this article where I suggest how to change the goal of capitalism to the creation of wellbeing. https://bradzarnett.substack.com/p/capitalism-is-a-great-systemexcept
Thanks Brad. As always you have the knack of articulating ideas brilliantly. I’ve thought about your suggestion and an idea has occurred to me that might make linking capitalism to wellbeing feasible. Whilst the goal you want to achieve is brilliant, I think the mechanism you describe for achieving it isn’t very clear. There needs to be a mechanism that is clear and at the same time self-reinforcing.
For example, products and services could be colour coded to reflect their ‘well-being-content’ and to indicate the 'well-being mark-up' that companies would be allowed to add to them. So, ‘grey’ would not allow companies to mark up a product or service and they could sell them only at cost, since the colour indicates zero well-being content. ‘Blue’ products could be marked up by 10%. ‘Green’ products by 25% and ‘yellow,’ the product with the highest well-being content, could be marked up by 50%. That would incentivise companies to concentrate on the ‘well-being’ content of their products or services, since wellbeing would-equal-profit. In addition, achieving products that are consistently ‘yellow’ would enhance the prestige of the company and the social prestige of the customers who acquire them - a self-reinforcing mechanism could establish itself. What do you think of that idea, Brad?
I think it's brilliant. It's very similar to a conversation that I had yesterday. My colleague explained that there's a huge problem in helping consumers recognize the wellbeing or carbon impact of a product...and since we're already trained to compare products and services by price, why not use that reflex to help consumers make better choices. But not with complicated add on information that makes no sense to anyone (see article) but rather boil it down so that it's part of the price. I need to find out how much of his ideas I can share before I say anymore BUT it's very interesting. Thanks again for sharing your ideas!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidrvetter/2020/10/26/how-this-company-plans-to-put-a-carbon-price-tag-on-your-jeans-and-sneakers/amp/
I've also been working on the 'paybacks' of health, wellbeing and productivity as the business/economic case to retrofit workplaces. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315658834-23/making-economic-case-good-design-workplaces-sarah-daly
This sets out a methodology for assessing the ROI of non-carbon/energy factors that are substantially greater than the energy benefits but rarely feature as monetised value in the business case. This is vital because the higher the new build or retrofit spec (ie net zero) the faster the payback (incentives) to deliver value that resonates with eco-resistant owners.
The logic can be applied in other building settings like homes, hospitals, schools and universities etc too .... as all buildings account for 40% of emissions.
If you only talk about energy (and carbon, which most people don't understand and can't visualise) you get stuck in unconvincing paybacks. If you build in health, productivity, increased educational outcomes, reduced crime and social value you create a compelling case that makes people WANT better homes and workplaces. I've been working on this on and off since 2008.
Hi Sarah, thanks for sharing. I was looking for a broader focus but you make a good point about carbon...for most people it's very hard to understand how can a gas have weight?
I've been waiting for someone to ask this question.
The unifying element is a new economic theory such as my Economics of Needs and Limits (ENL). This is based on precisely what you suggest: human health. It's "socially neutral" to include both progressives and conservatives, it seeks to modify capitalism as little as possible, and it strives for sustainable well-being. See bit.ly/3Dyp4Vq.
Frank, thanks so much for sharing your ideas and the link to your book, "The Economics of Needs and Limits: A theory for sustainable well-being." There's a lot to digest there. Can you summarize how your model would engage the different "worldviews" so that we all work towards the same goal?
The framework started (early 1990s) as a progressive response to standard economics in the context of the ecological crisis. Over the years I realized that the progressive perspective was too narrow: the crisis requires engagement across the political spectrum. In the book's latest edition I subscribe to "social neutrality", which grants equal respect to the progressive and conservative views of society.
I also distinguish between capitalism's ecocidal economic logic (goal, assumptions about humankind and nature, etc.) and its institutions (markets, legal infrastructure, etc.). The logic is categorically rejected, but the institutions are selectively retained in suitable forms.
For a soft introduction, see chapter seven in bit.ly/3EDOanm.
Brad: what's happening with this discussion? Are you still seeking unity? Why can't you be reached? Why can't I read your latest article? Very frustrating ...