UPDATE: This entry was reformatted for presentation on 12/31/14 and the Hawken quote has been added. And the subtitle was added on 7/4/17.
For a long time, I have found valuable ideas missing (or perhaps still developing) from many economic and policy dialogues. As much as I see well-intentioned people in public policy and elsewhere, I find that our priorities, as Americans and Westerners in general, seem off.
How and why we have reached this point in history is not obvious. But clearly, inequality and instability are becoming the hallmarks of today. Furthermore, whether or not people in the United States want to admit it, the balance of power in the world is somewhat in play. It is not clear what the new pattern will look like; it's not even clear that nation-states themselves will come out on top.
Last March Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave testimony before the US Foreign Policy Priorities Committee in the US Senate. The aim of the testimony was in part to secure funding for media outreach. She quickly made a number of points: i) the US needs to portray a more unified narrative, ii) alternative English-language news channels and websites have increasing readership and influence in the world, and iii) these sources focus on 'real news' rather than talking heads and pseudo-analysis. She also said in frank terms that we are losing a supposed information war. (It is worth noting that perhaps all governments are losing this war - not only the US.)
Political Activation and the Information War
For the first time in history almost all of humanity is politically activated...global activism is generating a surge in the quest for cultural respect and economic opportunity in a world scarred by memories of colonial or imperial domination.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, former US National Security Advisor, 2008
Brzezinski's quotes affirm this thinking. He is no Leftist. This is Brzezinski. In short, the jig is up; people increasingly understand how narratives and social construction have been used to manage and manipulate people throughout history. The question of the future is not only political but also and more importantly economic.
The question today is whether democracies can thrive with financial systems that are out of control, that are capable of generating selfishly beneficial consequences only for the few, without any effective framework that gives us a larger, more ambitious sense of purpose.
Brzezinski, former US National Security Advisor, 2012
This is not an OWS protester speaking. Again, Brzezinski. He goes on to say that we are living "without any larger conception about which direction our societies as a whole should be heading". I am not here to advocate central planning; hopefully neither is Brzezinski. But we are in unfamiliar territory: no Cold War, a poorly delineated perpetual War on Terror, a collapsing middle class, fewer and fewer medium and high wage jobs, a weakening infrastructure, struggling education system, and an environmental situation which is misunderstood by all but a growing minority. While we need to balance our budgets over the long term and stay committed to real freedom and liberty, we are toying with calamity by not addressing big-picture questions. Top among those questions are the health of the economy and the environment.
Fortunately, we have an opportunity to re-tool our economic future by realigning the physical economy with the environment. Becoming a service economy serves only a minority of Americans. Physical production serves all Americans. Manufacturing 2.0, if you will, is the re-design and re-engineering of cars, buildings, and energy systems. Physical production generates income and jobs for average people, wealth for managers and owners of capital, and research institutions for the benefit of society. Physical production is the very core and nature of development (as opposed to growth alone*), which will ultimately provide the resources to re-design how markets create and distribute food and medicine. Utopia is not possible. Aiming for greater stability and equality (of opportunity) are possible.
Unfortunately, we are not likely to make such changes with ease and certainly not soon. Introducing change in a system always creates new economic losers even if the net benefit is positive. The people who benefit from the existing order have so much to loose and so much influence on the people who live under them that change will produce enormous economic pain - subjective or not. Furthermore, change will alter the conveniences we all experience, which is hard for people today. We are not the sturdy people we were 500 years ago.
A New Operating System
[Y]ou are going to have to figure out what it means to be a human being on earth at a time when every living system is declining, and the rate of decline is accelerating. Kind of a mind-boggling situation... but not one peer-reviewed paper published in the last thirty years can refute that statement. Basically, civilization needs a new operating system, you are the programmers, and we need it within a few decades.
Paul Hawken, 2009
The rigidities of industrial food, fossil fuel, and conventional medicine along with the nexus of property taxes, public education funding, and institutional discrimination all together make significant policy change difficult. As such, it may well remain that inequality will persist and worsen into future. But the environment is a very different issue. The environment that we all live in today distinguishes us from that of people living as recently as a 100 years ago in that the pace of environmental change is now possibly orders of magnitude faster than before; that claim is not based on climate change but rather on biodiversity, which is a key measure of environmental health. And some speculate that non-linearities in environmental systems may further hasten the speed of environmental change. From an abstract modeling perspective, the picture of chaos is not unreasonable.
Rationally speaking, I do not think we, as a race, will go much further without significant alterations to our numbers, our lifestyles, or our production strategies. We are due for change of some sort either within five years or 25 years. I doubt either our nation and our planet will make behavioral changes until serious suffering has begun at every level of society. However, when I resist the impulse to rely on rationality, I remember, that up to a certain unknown point, we always have options. If people choose food, construction processes, energy, medicines, and transportation goods and services that are clean, healthy and produced in less centralized fashion, anything can happen.
For more info visit my website option3.
* Innovation in the goods and services within the loanable funds market is a form of economic development. But such development is second in importance to development in physical production. In other words, in the super-long run, I value food and health over stocks and bonds. But I digress.