Interesting read.. I'm stil lworking my way through it..
Participatory Economics (Parecon for short) is a type of economy proposed as an alternative to contemporary capitalism. The underlying values are equity, solidarity, diversity, and participatory self management.
The main institutions are workers and consumers councils utilizing self managed decision making, balanced job complexes, remuneration according to effort and sacrifice, and participatory planning. This page links to articles, interviews, talks, instructionals, Q/A sessions, and books about parecon and closely related matters.
Also a wee bit from the parecon site ..... food for thought..life after capitalism..
H
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
A wee bit about sensible economics:
Industry and markets founding their costings which do not include social aspects of our society are surely doomed to failure. Should we not encourage sensible economics and sensible accounting practices to factor in these very important areas?
Surely it is up to us, the people who can change this.
Surely we *should* be factoring in costs which will affect our children and future generations?
As it is just now, they have no baring on current costing models, the cost of increasing pollution in the environment which could increase deaths of our children have no current value and so are irrellevant. Is this not wrong?
We have the principle of opportunity costs, can they not include social costs and future enviromental costs?
Adbusters have an interesting piece*:
"A new paradigm is waiting in the wings, one that values nature flows and money flows equally. One that addresses the social and environmental costs of the current model."
*http://adbusters.org/metas/eco/truecosteconomics/neoclassical.html
H
Industry and markets founding their costings which do not include social aspects of our society are surely doomed to failure. Should we not encourage sensible economics and sensible accounting practices to factor in these very important areas?
Surely it is up to us, the people who can change this.
Surely we *should* be factoring in costs which will affect our children and future generations?
As it is just now, they have no baring on current costing models, the cost of increasing pollution in the environment which could increase deaths of our children have no current value and so are irrellevant. Is this not wrong?
We have the principle of opportunity costs, can they not include social costs and future enviromental costs?
Adbusters have an interesting piece*:
"A new paradigm is waiting in the wings, one that values nature flows and money flows equally. One that addresses the social and environmental costs of the current model."
*http://adbusters.org/metas/eco/truecosteconomics/neoclassical.html
H
Sunday, November 07, 2004
2004 Presidential Election
What can I say? I got the turnout right, sort of - not found any official figures on that yet.
But, Bush? Why oh why?
1. The Media - Still overwhelmingly obsessed with the idea that being patriotic is not questioning the President / Administration. They certainly had a go at times on his military record but not the real issues - Iraq, the fiscal defecit, healthcare etc.
2. Moral Majority / Christian Right - They came out to vote in enough numbers to add to Bush's 2000 total. The Democrats need to learn from this.
3. Kerry - Not compellingly different enough. Too much critisicm without presenting sufficiently different, alternative ideas (Very reminiscent of the problem the Tories have in the UK).
Of the post-match analysis, I liked this piece by Simon Schama.
I think the one thing that we, in the UK in particular, is that the US Presidential Election is not about policies and manifestos, it's a popularity contest and basically it's like this :
Presuming those dodgy e-voting machines worked properly and weren't tampered with - Just over half of the people who can be bothered voting in the US like a man with these qualities in charge :
Decisive - Refuses to admit any mistake or revisit any decision.
Poor Verbal Skills - No fancy words or rehetoric - simple aphorisms only please.
Nationalist and Unilateralist - The US does not need anything from the rest of the world right? Doh! Wrong. The USA needs money from the rest of the world invested in it in order to keep it's economy going. It also needs the rest of the world to sell it all the stuff that it consumes which the US does not manufacture - and there's a whole lot of that...
The bizarre thing to me about this result is it is kind of like the inverse of what happened with Labour and the Tories in the 80s, especially from a Scots point of view.
Then the North and Scotland voted for Labour but got the Conservatives because the richer folks in the South-East voted for them.
In the US the richest folks are more likely to be liberal (That damn Liberal Elite again....) so they vote Democrat. Meanwhile, all the poor folk who can't get jobs love Bush because he promises to protect them from the bogey men he likes to invoke to scare them, all the while he is taking dollars from their back pockets and passing them out to rich Corporations.
Here's hoping the other 35% who don't vote wake up and realise they are needed to swing this in a more sensible direction in 2008 for President (Mrs) Clinton the second....
What can I say? I got the turnout right, sort of - not found any official figures on that yet.
But, Bush? Why oh why?
1. The Media - Still overwhelmingly obsessed with the idea that being patriotic is not questioning the President / Administration. They certainly had a go at times on his military record but not the real issues - Iraq, the fiscal defecit, healthcare etc.
2. Moral Majority / Christian Right - They came out to vote in enough numbers to add to Bush's 2000 total. The Democrats need to learn from this.
3. Kerry - Not compellingly different enough. Too much critisicm without presenting sufficiently different, alternative ideas (Very reminiscent of the problem the Tories have in the UK).
Of the post-match analysis, I liked this piece by Simon Schama.
I think the one thing that we, in the UK in particular, is that the US Presidential Election is not about policies and manifestos, it's a popularity contest and basically it's like this :
Presuming those dodgy e-voting machines worked properly and weren't tampered with - Just over half of the people who can be bothered voting in the US like a man with these qualities in charge :
Decisive - Refuses to admit any mistake or revisit any decision.
Poor Verbal Skills - No fancy words or rehetoric - simple aphorisms only please.
Nationalist and Unilateralist - The US does not need anything from the rest of the world right? Doh! Wrong. The USA needs money from the rest of the world invested in it in order to keep it's economy going. It also needs the rest of the world to sell it all the stuff that it consumes which the US does not manufacture - and there's a whole lot of that...
The bizarre thing to me about this result is it is kind of like the inverse of what happened with Labour and the Tories in the 80s, especially from a Scots point of view.
Then the North and Scotland voted for Labour but got the Conservatives because the richer folks in the South-East voted for them.
In the US the richest folks are more likely to be liberal (That damn Liberal Elite again....) so they vote Democrat. Meanwhile, all the poor folk who can't get jobs love Bush because he promises to protect them from the bogey men he likes to invoke to scare them, all the while he is taking dollars from their back pockets and passing them out to rich Corporations.
Here's hoping the other 35% who don't vote wake up and realise they are needed to swing this in a more sensible direction in 2008 for President (Mrs) Clinton the second....
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
Monday, November 01, 2004
Eloquent View from New Jersey
From a Talking Point page on news.bbc.co.uk
"Whoever is elected President will be dealing with a very rapidly changing world. Economic wealth is shifting, instability and the resulting security threat is growing, an ever more 'aware and educated' world community is demanding justice, equality, honesty, and fairness. America must eventually understand and accept that it has no choice, but to become a full and integral part of a global society. If we deal with these challenges with an open mind, America and the world will be a much better place for our children, but if not, we as well as the rest of the world are in for a 'very rough' and dangerous ride. A new world is coming whether we like it or not and I just hope that whoever we elect as President understands this.
John, NJ, USA"
I wish all US voters were as wise as John here. Smart man.
From a Talking Point page on news.bbc.co.uk
"Whoever is elected President will be dealing with a very rapidly changing world. Economic wealth is shifting, instability and the resulting security threat is growing, an ever more 'aware and educated' world community is demanding justice, equality, honesty, and fairness. America must eventually understand and accept that it has no choice, but to become a full and integral part of a global society. If we deal with these challenges with an open mind, America and the world will be a much better place for our children, but if not, we as well as the rest of the world are in for a 'very rough' and dangerous ride. A new world is coming whether we like it or not and I just hope that whoever we elect as President understands this.
John, NJ, USA"
I wish all US voters were as wise as John here. Smart man.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)