Herman Daly, is perhaps the most insightful man that no one ever listened to, at least in exposing the logical fallacies within the neoliberal economic dogma.
http://www.stwr.org/globalization/growth-and-free-trade-brain-dead-dogmas-still-kicking-hard.html
3 comments:
The difference between interdependence and dependency. CASSE is pioneering new economic theories which, if implemented, could uplift all of humanity and fundamentally alter the more depraved aspects built into the current model. My questions are many: what incentives exist to push economists to begin to incorporate new thinking into their models. Why do they not correct the blatant logical errors underlying neoclassical theory. Why do economists refuse to evolve their thinking on these issues? What would it actually take to implement these changes? How can we do this? It is just another example of existing solutions sitting on the shelf. Short term profit dominates the conversation and only a drastic shift in consciousness can stop the circular reasoning and self-deception that allows us to continue to call things like the Gulf oil spill or the obesity epidemic a net gain for the economy and hence, society. When exposed to the simplified graphical representation of these ideas, the response is an immediate acceptance as a matter of course and basic common sense. I can only hope we are reaching a tipping point of informed public opinion that will finally "kick it over!"
To quote from those "kick it over" crusaders-
"A theory, a paradigm, that has worked quite well for many years suddenly becomes problematic. Contradictions emerge; the theory no longer seems to predict reality. The scientific community senses the moment and rises to the occasion. A flurry of experiments are conducted, information shared, papers written and conferences held. out of this intellectual turmoil, a hot new theory emerges. it is subjected to rigorous scrutiny and tested in a myriad of ways. Then if it passes muster, it is finally excepted as new theoretical framework, the new norm, the new "truth." The scientist who came up with the breakthrough are nominated for the Nobel Prize. The community settles back down, but now with a greater understanding of how the world works.
THIS IS A MYTH. What the scientific community and your university would like you to believe. Thomas Kuhn, in his seminal 1962 book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, describes how paradigm shifts really happen. They are almost always nasty, messy, dirty affairs, very much like political revolutions. Thy just unfold like vindictive putsches. The old guard protects its turf jealously. The dissenters are ignored, stonewalled, refused publication and tenure, ostracized and obstructed in every way. Kuhn's most profound insight is that, contrary to the way scientific progress is supposed to happen, an old paradigm cannot be replaced by evidence facts, or "the truth"... it will not thrown out because its forecasts are wrong, its policies no longer work, or its theories are proved unscientific. An old paradigm will only be replaced by a new one only when a group of maverick scientists orchestrate a coup and throw the old school practitioners out of power."
The groundswell of support for a new economic paradigm is definitely growing and with it an outright rejection of the old system: boycotts of economics departments at ivy league universities, mass protests against the scientific basis for austerity and so-called free trade, as well as a massive movement to protect the environment from the dangerous policies that have pushed us to the brink of planetary catastrophe. As these forces cohere, we should see concessions from the establishment.
However, just as the church blocked revolutions in science to maintain its absolute authority, the entrenched interests of the status quo would risk more than their economics departments, rather a success here would open the door to a revolution that could overthrow the entire system. They will do everything in their power to first shut out, then co-opt any change in economic theology. Heretical thought is systematically marginalized through propaganda and constrained debate. One must have already rejected the dominant paradigm to simply hear tell of a new theory. If one is only informed by mainstream media, no alternatives to the current model exist, and the only possible progress would be insignificant reforms.
Even with this systemic vulnerability, I would argue that the only ones who would lose face in the shift away from the current model would be the creators of the model themselves. The existing power structure could easily incorporate the new science while maintaining their control. Yes, corporations would have some difficulty in adjusting their balance sheets, but it could be done. Populations will still require the flow of goods and services, still produce and consume energy and information. It just won't be that big of a deal when it finally comes to pass, and it will, or we are all doomed.
Post a Comment