Independent confirmation

Any one who has read my series describing the relationship between ecosystems and economies knows how I think economies actually work:

Econology Part 1a: It's not the economy, Stupid; it's economics
 
Econology Part 1b: The depth and breadth of economies

Econology Part 2: The ecology of economies

Econology Part 3: Eleven economics lessons from ecosystems

Econology Part 4: Emergent flaws of Capitalism (1, 2)

 Econology Part 5: The Next Economy

A major conclusion is that the currency of change/evolution in ecosystems/economies is genetic information/information. Thus, the take home message is that control of information underpins the concentration of power in economies. The types of 'economic' policies proposed by policy makers, lobbyists and most economists don't address this; the only true reform of economic systems is essentially complete information transparency.

Not being an economist, I have very little background knowledge on which to draw support for my thesis and the mainstream economic thinking discussed in the media completely counter my ideas. But just recently, I came across a video series where an Australian economist, Peter Drahos, describes the impact of ever tighter control of intellectual property on the larger economy... and much of what he says concurs with my reasoning - Yes! If you can spare the time, it's worth a listen/view.

Gaius Publius posted 'TPP Is a Monopoly Protection Scheme, the Exact Opposite of a "Free Trade" Deal' at Down with Tyranny blog.

I left this comment:

The most valuable commodity is information. Information about boundaries define nations and states; information about military assets ('soft' information like logistics; 'hard information of weapons plans) define military strength/power; 'popular' information (music, literature, fashion, news) define cultures; corporate/trade/safety information (patents, wages, exposure risks) define and determine profits. This being the case, any and all policy(ies) regulating trade and economics regulates information; including multi-national trade pacts. A truly free market would have near information transparency. Information transparency *may* also circumvent the need for regulation; in your example of certified measuring devices, transparency would enable consumer experience to establish valuable information/data on quality of sellers and their goods.

The original post focused on specifically on TPP. It's important to understand all policy has economic consequences.

Economic drivers of humanitarian aid

One of the major themes that run through many of these posts is how entwined economic decisions are with all personal, cultural and political life at essentially all levels. A recent interview at NPR brought to mind some of the links between economics and humanitarian aid.

Firstly, the need for humanitarian aid is often (but not always) the direct or indirect outcome of economically driven policy. Two major examples: (1) war refugees - war is often waged to forcefully take resources from another sovereign nation. Civil wars are internal conflicts for control of resources. All wars have economic winners and losers. (2) climate refugees - victims of climate change intensified natural phenomena (droughts, storms, etc.); refugees whose native ecosystem can no longer grow the food needed for survival. Climate change is the consequence of economies spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere through the consumption of fossil fuels to make stuff. The fossil fuel industry and all fossil fuel powered industry have profited from this.

Three telling points/quotes from the interview:

"In your report, you found that conflicts last two times longer than they did in 25 years ago..." 

"...the aid sector is bigger than it's ever been before, with 4,500 known relief organizations around the world..."

"...Organizations have become businesses in many ways, held back by interests that are very corporate. Success is not measured in terms of the quality of the aid you provide, or how much you're working in partnership with other NGOs. It's about how many places you're in, how much staff you have, how much is in your budget..."

Put together, it seems that rich powerful players extract wealth from the poor to the point where they exist at the barest edge of survival and forced into the position of needing external aid (aid refugees). These rich powerful people then 'very generously' donate tiny amounts of the wealth they've extracted from the aid refugees to boost their charitable/humanitarian bona fides. But as the linked interview implies, much of this is a scam. The spending of aid money has more to do with boosting the balance sheet of the organization than actually helping people in need.

The worldwide economic system is set up so that resources are stolen from the poor and the supposed return of some of these stolen resources as aid are actually ways to further launder those stolen resources back to the rich. Aside from the immorality and injustice of such a system, it's also environmentally unsustainable. Either human societies lives within the constraints of the planetary ecosystem or the ecosystem will force us to. In case of the latter, recall what Tennyson wrote... "Nature, red in tooth and claw..."

Climate change is caused by geoengineering

I occasionally comment on articles at Truthout. I've seen some interesting (meaning thoughtful) discussions. Then I read a post with an incredibly silly series of comments - no I won't link to it; I don't believe in spreading silly conspiracy theories. Suffice it to say, many comments about chemtrails, contrails, geoengineering and climate change... and the majority of them very confusing. So I just wanted to make a few points:

(1) Responsible scientists do not expect or plan for the eventuality that geoengineering will rescue the planet from global environmental collapse caused by climate change. This is because there is no way to test the accuracy of climate theory before applying it and the risk of a bad outcome because a theory was incomplete is too high. There's only one planet Earth; an inadequate geoengineering theory could cause more problems than it solves.

Here's an illustration:
A pet store has a sudden outbreak of a disease in their puppies. Without knowing if it's caused by a known virus or bacteria or something completely different, it would be reasonable to theorize they have a bacterial or viral infection and thus treat all the puppies with antibiotic and/or anti-viral medication. This is because even if all the puppies in that store die, other stores have more puppies; there is no risk of loosing that breed or all dogs. If the treatment cures the disease, then the theory is likely correct and other pet stores can use the same treatment

A collector who has the only living dog would be very careful about how they treat any illness because there are no other dogs to test medications on. If the theory of the disease is wrong, the treatment may further injure the only dog in the world. With only one planet, if the climate theory is wrong, geoengineering can make matters much worst.

(2) Climate change is caused by inadvertent geoengineering. Human activity that pumps greenhouse gases/chemicals into the atmosphere is geoengineering the climate of the planet. This proves the point that without a thoroughly tested theory of climate, any outcome of geoengineering is driven in part by accident.

(3) Given we know that pumping greenhouse gases/chemicals into the atmosphere is bad and we don't have a scientifically proven geoengineering 'easy fix', the only real solution is to stop making the problem worst and support the ecosystem as best we can to help it recover.

One of my repeating themes: climate change is the consequence of human economies. The people who control the fossil fuel industry do everything they can to create demand and sell more and more fossil fuels (source of greenhouse gases) ... so they concentrate wealth. The question in the end - what can they buy with all their wealth on an ecologically ravaged planet?

Economically driven patterns

A recent article posted at Truthout.org describes an ongoing battle between a Texas rancher name Eleanor Fairchild and TransCanada which has not upheld their agreement to restore her land after building a pipeline through it.

The story brings up issues of corporate power, eminent domain, citizen's / landowner / individual rights, enforcement, unequal power and environmental stewardship.

(1) Eleanor Fairchild's story along with the ongoing protests by Native American tribes at Standing Rock, ND over the Dakota Access pipeline also brings to mind the treatment of Native Americans by European settlers and the U.S. government. Foreign settlers forced Native Americans from their homes, deliberately exposed them deadly pathogens from which they had little defense, stole their land and territory, negotiated treaties conferring certain rights and those treaties often weren't worth the paper they were written on. Whether signed or not, the U.S. government often imposed its will regardless.

And Eleanor Fairchild's story is extraordinarily similar. Her land was trespassed on and damaged before any rights were transferred; then accused of eco-terrorism for defending her land; and after damaging her land to put through their pipeline, failed to honor their agreement to restore her land.

In both cases, larger powers either used the power of the state (military intervention in Native American relationships, treaties between 'states'; judicial system, eminent domain) or the deliberate abrogation of state power of oversight (broken treaties; lack of enforcement/accountability for TransCanada) to force their will on the less powerful.

The U.S. Constitution is the supposed foundation of laws in this country and establishes the concept of equality under the law. In practice, the powerful have always had the law at their backs. Land hungry early settlers used the military to grab land from Native Americans; now power takes the form of paper entities like corporations to grab land and land rights from their owners. (International trade agreements repeat the same pattern - confers greater rights to corporations at the expense of nations and their citizens.) It makes me question if the true intent of the Constitution was the lofty descriptions taught to schoolchildren. The second amendment compromise to appease the slave holding south suggests those who drafted the Constitution had multiple motives, not all of them pure.

(2) A major by-product of corporate profit making activity in this country is environmental degradation - fracking and agriculture pollutes water; oil spills/ fires/ explosions destroy structures, infrastructures, damages air/water quality... And this is reminiscent of the damaged environment of China and the former USSR. In these cases, powerful authorities could and did override the will and wishes of local residents to determine what industries, what individuals and what interests could do as they wish in any given location. In the U.S., government is not making the decisions but its enforcing corporate decisions.

Has the U.S. ever been a state where voters make decisions? These patterns suggest otherwise.

About the minimum wage...

In the recent Democratic presidential primary, Bernie Sanders made the $15 minimum wage a key aim of his agenda. His appointees to the platform committee were able to embed it into the 2016 Democratic platform. Increasing the minimum wage would have a positive effect on the economy - it will increase the circulation of functioning capital in the economy.

But why do politicians always define the minimum wage at a fixed dollar amount instead of indexing it to a updated metric? The current minimum wage of $7.25 was effective as of July 24, 2009 - 7 years ago! Inflation has increased prices across the board for all consumer goods, yet the minimum wage has not increased. The poorest earners have had the least capacity to improve their incomes to meet their daily needs. But instead of resolving the issue once and for all, Congress, more accurately, the partisan politicians in Congress, use the minimum wage as a wedge issue to their own ends. Republicans claim it will hurt jobs and young (meaning teenage)/part time workers. Democrats argue it would increase demand which improves the economy overall. Both sides aim to divide the electorate into pro or con minimum wage increase for party tribalism.

This is harmful and disrespectful of voters and workers and damaging to the economy by allowing the whims of Congress-persons to order the survival and well being of a large swathe of the population. Congress should instead peg the minimum wage to an annual metric. There are several that would work. I happen to think a full time minimum wage should equal half the per capita GDP of the prior year. For example, as of July 2016, GDP per capita was $51,486.00. Round to a easier number - 51,500 - and divide by 2 for $25,750 annual salary. $25,750 annual salary is equal to $13.34 per hour - less than the $15/hr in the Democratic platform but would increase or decrease based on economic performance as a whole. This approach would do much to protect low wage workers from the vicissitudes of public office holders.

When nice is not nice

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died unexpectedly this past Saturday. And like many public figures, death compels hagiographic remembrances...

He was a consistent jurist; he was enthusiastic and lively; he was best friends with Ruth Bader Ginsburg; he was steadfast and sincere in his beliefs.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend a number of years ago about his friends and which, if any of them, could be considered 'nice'. (Most of our mutual friends are nice; most of his are questionable :).)

The division comes into play over the superficial usage of 'nice' which describes people who are overtly pleasant and polite. These are good conversationalists who do not stir the pot in social situations. But there's the deeper sense of 'nice' which involves a spiritual generosity that goes beyond many people. To be truly nice, there must be an intentional care to not harm others, regardless of a personal relationship. Nice people value their friends, their relationships (with people and the environment) and they behave in accordance with their values. A 'nice' vegetarian avoids leather goods for example. Using this definition, nice people are not obligated to be pleasant but nice people make the very best friends. (By the way, nice doesn't include rigid or judgemental. Many evangelical and fundamentalist religious followers fail in this. I fail when I judge members of religious communities.)

Going back to Antonin Scalia, many of the articles written about him since his death focus on his superficial niceness. But his rulings as a Supreme Court Justice and his legal philosophy run opposite of the deeper meaning of nice.

I actually prefer a president who is nice in the sense they value much of what I value but not nice in that they are ruthless in fighting to achieve what I want to achieve. But on the Supreme Court, we should have properly nice Justices; humanitarian jurists with impeccable judicial scholarship who interpret the Constitution in a manner meaningful to the issues of today. The late Justice Scalia failed in this regard. Cross your fingers and hope his replacement will be better.