David Suzuki explains the fallacy of conventional economics, in an interview done for the BBC. The song is "Outro" by M83.
the films "Sacred Economics" and "The Revolution Is Love" by Ian MacKenzie.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This video may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes only. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 106A-117 of the US Copyright Law.
Site de David de Suzuki Les solutions sont dans notre nature.
The machine stands for the translation of the real economy into a world of figures and numbers. Because we have given this translation a value in itself, it has over time become more important than the real economy.
The economy is split up into a real economy and an arithmetic variety, a functional accounting system as a mirror image of the real economy. This accounting system gives an insight into and a grip on what is going on in the real economy. If you look at accounting from this angle, it seems to me to be a very useful and indispensable tool. But what if we give this accounting system a value in itself? Then that is exactly the moment at which it is separated from the real economy. This is easy to overcome by having the bookkeeper share and participate in the real economy so that the accounting system remains part of the actual economy and does not separate itself from it.
What is happening today!? A company makes a product or delivers a service, sells it and then checks the accounts to see if it’s made a profit or a loss. If a profit has been made, it’s normal to pay tax on this. The initial idea behind this will hopefully need no explaining, and in terms of its intention, I can well understand it. But to understand this petition it is essential to realise what it is we are actually doing here and that this ultimately goes against the original intention.
(prochaines mois très peut de publications)
The documentary "A jungle of profit" is an innitiative of the dutch association the club of Rome by Tineke Lambooij en Bas Jurres.
Good intentions but unfortunately very little sense of reality.
Let me try to say why otherwise my own "good" or "bad" intentions show little sense of reality.
Some of the people interviewed in this pre-edit are (former dutch) politicians from wich I appreciate for exemple Ruud Lubbers, former prime-minister of the Netherlands. This doesn't mean that a fully agree with him! "The laws of profit" have there own dynamics and if you leave your inner-judgments out of that, then you only will create a sort of sustainable-fascism. If profit as leading technocratic mechanism is left out of the discussion as a sort of untouchable dogme, politicians and ordinary businessmen well stay trapped in its bureaucratic (sustainble ;-) ) prison.
Profit seen from within the actual context is about how to dominate others, you can label it as "economic", "just", "sustainble" or whatever other good intention it will be one dominating the orther. So in the end it will not work, wich means we stay trapped in the jungle of bureacratic profit.
But is very nice to see that former enviromental minister Hans Alders is pin-pointing the problem/challenge very well when he expresses his experiences when he talks with "the business world" when the ask or even cry out:
What can we do, tell us what can we do !!!!! ????
Profit is today is a bureacratic translation, change "profit" in "living-priorities" and we may find new ways of economic-communication, much less paronoid and confusing as it is today.
What’s the alternative course?
Integral (integrated) economy
Today, we are experiencing several crises at the same time, all of which are interrelated below the surface and all of which come down to one and the same synthesising question: How can we co-exist? While the theoretical answer to this question is fairly simple, it is much harder to put it into practice – it takes two to tango. ;-)
A. The foundations of society
A healthy and living foundation for society requires certain conditions that promote life and survival. The simpler these preconditions are, the clearer and thus more effective they will be. What needs do we all share? The need for drinking water, food, clothing, shelter, education and health care. The constitutional state is responsible for these conditions and maintaining the foundation of society while we, the people, are responsible for the practical concretisation of this foundation by working together. In political terms this means solidarity and the ability to share what we have and what we need.
B. The absolute necessity of integrated individualisation
Without integrated individualisation, the foundation of society is doomed. If you understand this interaction, you have the seeds of the pragmatic concretisation of a fairer society within your grasp. No political, social or commercial (market) party (whether majority or minority) can claim the exclusiveness of the foundation of society. That foundation is humanity as a whole and disallows any exclusivity on the part of any single individual. Once the preconditions for the foundation of society have been met, this will automatically create a breeding ground for integrated individualism, which is nothing other than the complete freedom to develop as an individual. This self-development should not, of course, be at the expense of the foundation of society. In political terms, this can be called integrated individualism, integrated liberalism. We can then put the synthesis of the foundation of society and integrated individualism into practice and call it integral economy.
- Pas de nouveau billet avant le 15 mars -
Un petit livre à n'est pas rater pour comprendre le sujèt: L'esprit et la pensée de Krishnamurti, pour nous les soi-disant intelectuelles!!!! ;-)
Is the (economic) survival of the fittest constitutional?
It may be difficult to answer this just like that.
The negative side effects of ‘competition’ are not as tangible in a world where relatively few people live. Imagine a world with half a billion people and you can imagine that there is a place under the sun for everyone. In a world becoming ever more crowded, the side effects of ‘mutual competition’ will be ever more apparent.
It might be important to ask several questions:
For whom is ‘mutual competition’ efficient?
For those who already have a head start, the government, the losers, the winners, or the economy in general?
What happens to communication between the government and the people when ‘mutual competition’, which leads to ‘profit and growth’, is the most important social principle?
What does this do to the self-regulating ability of individuals in their interrelations within a society?
Do not people (and companies) become ever more dependent on the government as a result?
What does ‘mutual competition’ do to participation within a society, the independence of each individual and tolerance towards others?
How (economically) efficient is ‘mutual competition’, when you take profit and growth as a starting point instead of people and democratisation?
How democratic is our society if ‘winners’ have more rights than ‘losers’?
How much credibility does the government and the constitutional state have if winning is a more important social (economic) principle than coexistence?
What promotes an individual’s independence in society?
Do we compete against each other or do we create the conditions necessary for individuals to face society’s challenges and share them by participating and learning to co-operate?
Where does competition end and do crime, terrorism and war start, and what roles do politics, the legal system and the individual play in this?
I hope these questions and points of view are interesting for you, as a reader and, more importantly, as a fellow human being.
Roquetaillade – Aveyron