I totally Agree ! This gentalmen. Has been long overdue that 1 of the main reason's i won't fully Participate! 👎 Not to the point of an🌐Earthly and Economic And bio'sspheric destruction🌀⚡🌋🤞👏!
He gets a lot of things right, for sure. but he could go further and talk about the true root problem. And that is the underlying structure of market economics that is the negative incentive that he alluded to and that toxic, unsustainable structure is what needs to addressed and changed if we hope for an ecologically sustainable balance and sustainable economy that ends the waste and oppression.
Americans, do your part and SHARE THIS VIDEO! This conversation happened almost a decade ago, and not an inch progress has been made. It is NOT a coincidence that no U.S. federal politicians are talking about this. They are knowingly smashing this knowledge into the ground with their collective heels, and sneering in our faces. A tsunami of change is coming. Before it does, our current way of life must necessarily come to a grinding halt. Tell your friends.
Also share a more structuralist view and viable alternative system viewpoint with Peter Joseph's Zeitgeist Films, the current Revolution Now podcast and "economic calculation in a natural law resource based economy" lecture.
That's 1 of the main reasons i why iwon"t fully participate in the 🎁 sent day happening' s is because i have been engendering. an exstinction rebellion. manfest. Psychosis for 👍 year s just needeed their manufest. destiny to bring it forward
He gets a lot right, he could go further to explain the true root problem which is the monetary-market economic incentives that are unsustainable. That is the structural problem we should be addressing if we hope for system change that can create a better world. There are viable alternative systems that would be more sustainable, and provide better health and well-being for us if we transitioned to a natural law resource based economy, for example. It wouldn't be easy, but nothing is going to be easy going forward if the status quo remains.
I'm sorry you wasted your time reading Marx. This is the Atomic Age. We are no longer concerned with outproducing other countries in GigaTons of Pig Iron and Steam Locomotives. Assassinating Daddy Warbucks and Scrooge McDuck is not the solution that we need. We need new ideas. We need ideas that can not be found by arguing back and forth along the line between Left and Right. The new solutions are not on that line. Read my comment, above.
The whole point of my comment is that this information presented by Rees is not new, yet, he never mentions Marx who, in fact, talked about almost everything he just said two hundred years ago. And who said anything about outproducing? I know I didn't. It sounds like you haven't read Marx, or you're referencing one particular thing you have a problem with. Or maybe you have a knee-jerk reaction to the name like so many Americans. Marx was concerned with production, Micro level analysis (unlike the Macro level changes done in China and the Soviet Union which probably had Marx rolling in his grave). To bring democracy to the workplace was his central point. By doing this, we would cease to create a class of people who buy the political system and shape society in their interest. Marx's surplus analysis explains systemically why there's a 1% and a 99%. We live in an oligarchic plutonomy, this is political and economic fact. Surplus theory explains how this could be. If you have a better systemic analysis for how capitalism creates such huge gaps between rich and poor, I'd love to hear it, and so would the world. Marx's analysis is new to the US because for the past 50 years it's been a taboo to discuss such ideas. We live in a society that has a fundamental commitment to democracy, yet, we spend most of our time in institutions that are fundamentally undemocratic. Yeah, you're probably right, nothing wrong with that situation, no need to read about why capitalism creates inequality. Maybe the 62 people now who have as much wealth as the bottom 3.5 billion can consolidate that wealth even further until it's just two assholes who own everything. I'm sure the environmental crises will get better then.
We have great beautiful people who are constantly aware of the ecological need and human greed. And each in their own time is trying the best to bring awareness. Pray more n more people not only become aware n start acting now to sustain our beautiful universe. Thank you.
It should be mentioned that along with all of the suggestions made by Dr. Rees, considerable efforts should be directed at lowering populations. William Ryerson is doing such work, although a recognition of the necessity of community-directed birthrate reduction programs is very rare, and Dr. Ryerson is reduced to doing his best to implement birth control education programs for young women in Africa. Dr. Rees is somewhat more hopeful than myself that international cooperation will occur.
Population is always not mentioned and is a taboo subject by the media, companies, religious organizations, and governments for obvious reasons. Bringing down the population is the only thing that can save our planet, but the 8 billion people have their heads in the Sand. People need to have one child or less. It's that simple.
@ThePretentiousPanda Nah, we grow by 206,000 more humans per day NOW. Allowing us oldsters to just pass away is an undeniable partial solution. At 76 and with minimal medical care, I carry a DNR card in my pocket in all times and my cremation is prepaid. But what about our accumulated wisdom in a time of social media mind pollution and climate collapse denial? Stress R Us
"What's the main message you're trying to put forward?" Too many humans are using too many natural resources and producing too much pollution. "Capital" is a surplus that has value in trade and came about when sedentary agriculture and pastoralism produced the first stationary surpluses: grains, oils, herbs, dried vegetables, dried meat, etc. As surpluses grew due the the high nutritional value of these Capital goods, so grew the populations necessary to grow and process them. That's how we got into this mess. Stress R Us
The decoupling of economic growth from ecological resources will only end with UP TOP regulation & taxation, instead of trickle down economics, coupled with over regulation of the 99%. Believe it or not, most of the disenfranchised already understand this now, without attending Ivory tower universities we can't afford.
One of the most hubristic ideas I've heard is the idea of "absolute decoupling." Those who propose that idea really need to get a grip on how reality actually works.
Given adequate discipline - typically delivered via good schools and/or media - one can believe all manner of nonsense. It's not only weak but outright hazardous.
The fusion power is already on its way and it could definitely improve our life standard, but if the policies of today's economics don't change, then we as humans are getting in for a hell of a spiral ride.
Great So True! We need Leadership in Canada! Dr. Williams Rees, Candidate for the Prime Minister Post, soon one may Dream. June 13 2011. Ten years ago. What may we learn? With nods to Hermann Daly. Thank you!
At 14:00 ... I think we can turn this around and get rid of the nasty word 'collective'... I argue that sustainability is an 'individual' problem rather than a collective one. Do a little digging in your own cabinets...look at your own ecological footprint... There are groups of people moving away from all of the madness of the consumer lifestyle, call them zero wasters, DIYers, call them voluntary simplesists, or permies, with their bicycles and tiny homes, gardens and cotton shirts, and homemade soups. No need for a 'collective' solution, tangled in with the love affair between the governments and Industrial interests. Stopping this insane consumption will shrink us down to the one earth that we live upon.
Here is how we do it. Introduce a new Economic Indicator that is not the GDP but is a better indicator of true value. It could be called the Gross Value Product. (GVP) It would be calculated like the GDP but dollar transactions that do not produce anything of true value would not be added in. So the GVP would not include the dollars that flow as a result of Fashion, Pro Sports, Motor Racing, Gambling, Recreational Drugs etc. (Wants) Dollars that flow for purposes of food, shelter, Health Care, Education, Energy, Transportation, etc. (Needs) will be added into the GVP. This could be done in greater detail by setting up a "needs-wants spectrum". According to this classification, things like Art, Entertainment, Recreation could be added in at some percentage. ie dollars that flow for recreation purposes could be added into the GVP at 50%. (If you think this looks too complicated, just look at our present economic model and method of Taxation.) Also, there would be amounts that would be subtracted from the GVP. These would be dollars that circulate because of Crime, Disasters, Car Accidents etc. Also, there are other changes that need to be made, to transform the Economy. Each Sector of the Economy needs to be reexamined. Some Sectors are working well now so don't need changing. Others like "The RealEstate Sector" are not working and need a major renovation. Over time, the new GVP would replace the GDP as the major economic indicator. I have a name for my new system. It is called "Henry Ford Capitalism." (HFC) I call it this because we need to eliminate certain things in our current system that are anti-Capitalism and destructive. These are things like Lobbying, selling short, subsidies on Fossil Fuels, etc. Also, the name, HFC, is less scary to many people. In fact, our present system is only ~50% Capitalism and the new system could also be ~ 50% Capitalism. It is my idea that we need some of the negative feedback loops that are found in the basic structure of our present model. These negative feedback loops make the system somewhat self-regulating and that is a good thing. So... What is the alternative? Huh? How else can we achieve the necessary changes? . . .. . Dictatorship? Yes, this would work but people don't like Dictatorships. See how "Mobilization of the Economy for War" in ~1939 was a Dictatorship, and it worked to achieve the goal. After all, this is the degree of change that we need. Is it not? In a Dictatorship, the Government could stop the manufacture of Fossil Fuel powered vehicles. For example. The Government could order that Coal Power Plants be shut down, as is happening in Germany, today. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. All of these things are possible because the Economy is just something that we fabricated out of thin air. We can make up a new and better one.
In 2011 Bill is talking about political change, now in 2021 he's talking about de-growth (population!). Where does that put us in, and approaching 2031? Forward thinkers will be talking about how to survive the then global socio-economic collapse. And 2041? We'll all be fighting to survive extinction. Humanity will not grow a brain, or a conscience any time soon.
Steve keens debt jubilee on an international scale would help tremendously to revamp the middle class, hence free up people to be involved in environmental public works😀
EVs are rechargeable, so there actually are cars that run, not on their own exhaust, because they don't have any, but on the limitless energy in renewables. I think, in order to speed up the transition to EVs, car makers must make a cheap and reliable model and do so quickly. The Biden administration slapped a 100% tariff on cheap Chinese EV imports. Unless we can compete, this only to protect our auto industry, which has yet to mass produce a cheap EV alternative.
How many professional sports teams take airplanes across the continent for 1 or 2 games? How many tons of carbon per day does that generate? What's the story with recreational racing of hydrocarbon vehicles. Big denial.
This is a decade ago and yet not a damned thing has changed. We are not going to solve it, period.
This interview and this man needs to listened to by more people. His "lectures" now that you can find on YT are extremely eye opening.
I totally Agree ! This gentalmen. Has been long overdue that 1 of the main reason's i won't fully Participate! 👎 Not to the point of an🌐Earthly and Economic And bio'sspheric destruction🌀⚡🌋🤞👏!
look at this 1 of him too and see how he now knows were not gonna make it.
ua-cam.com/video/VPV7uW7LxFQ/v-deo.html
@@janklaas6885 thank you. Another good video.
It's so hard to keep from slipping into despondency over this...
every student of economics should watch this. he's right, we are in denial.
He gets a lot of things right, for sure. but he could go further and talk about the true root problem. And that is the underlying structure of market economics that is the negative incentive that he alluded to and that toxic, unsustainable structure is what needs to addressed and changed if we hope for an ecologically sustainable balance and sustainable economy that ends the waste and oppression.
Americans, do your part and SHARE THIS VIDEO! This conversation happened almost a decade ago, and not an inch progress has been made. It is NOT a coincidence that no U.S. federal politicians are talking about this. They are knowingly smashing this knowledge into the ground with their collective heels, and sneering in our faces. A tsunami of change is coming. Before it does, our current way of life must necessarily come to a grinding halt. Tell your friends.
Also share a more structuralist view and viable alternative system viewpoint with Peter Joseph's Zeitgeist Films, the current Revolution Now podcast and "economic calculation in a natural law resource based economy" lecture.
great conversation, certainly much needed in today's world.
That's 1 of the main reasons i why iwon"t fully participate in the 🎁 sent day happening' s is because i have been engendering. an exstinction rebellion. manfest. Psychosis for 👍 year s just needeed their manufest. destiny to bring it forward
He gets a lot right, he could go further to explain the true root problem which is the monetary-market economic incentives that are unsustainable. That is the structural problem we should be addressing if we hope for system change that can create a better world. There are viable alternative systems that would be more sustainable, and provide better health and well-being for us if we transitioned to a natural law resource based economy, for example. It wouldn't be easy, but nothing is going to be easy going forward if the status quo remains.
Rees is a pioneer in the field of Ecological Economics. His brilliant mind and down-to-Earth style are refreshing beyond the pale. KUDOS!
Rees is talking about what Marx called the "metabolic rift" two centuries ago.
I'm sorry you wasted your time reading Marx. This is the Atomic Age. We are no longer concerned with outproducing other countries in GigaTons of Pig Iron and Steam Locomotives. Assassinating Daddy Warbucks and Scrooge McDuck is not the solution that we need. We need new ideas. We need ideas that can not be found by arguing back and forth along the line between Left and Right. The new solutions are not on that line. Read my comment, above.
The whole point of my comment is that this information presented by Rees is not new, yet, he never mentions Marx who, in fact, talked about almost everything he just said two hundred years ago. And who said anything about outproducing? I know I didn't. It sounds like you haven't read Marx, or you're referencing one particular thing you have a problem with. Or maybe you have a knee-jerk reaction to the name like so many Americans. Marx was concerned with production, Micro level analysis (unlike the Macro level changes done in China and the Soviet Union which probably had Marx rolling in his grave). To bring democracy to the workplace was his central point. By doing this, we would cease to create a class of people who buy the political system and shape society in their interest. Marx's surplus analysis explains systemically why there's a 1% and a 99%. We live in an oligarchic plutonomy, this is political and economic fact. Surplus theory explains how this could be. If you have a better systemic analysis for how capitalism creates such huge gaps between rich and poor, I'd love to hear it, and so would the world. Marx's analysis is new to the US because for the past 50 years it's been a taboo to discuss such ideas. We live in a society that has a fundamental commitment to democracy, yet, we spend most of our time in institutions that are fundamentally undemocratic. Yeah, you're probably right, nothing wrong with that situation, no need to read about why capitalism creates inequality. Maybe the 62 people now who have as much wealth as the bottom 3.5 billion can consolidate that wealth even further until it's just two assholes who own everything. I'm sure the environmental crises will get better then.
200 years ago Marx was 3 years old.
Corruption has prevented any action on saving our selves don't say we weren't warned
We have great beautiful people who are constantly aware of the ecological need and human greed. And each in their own time is trying the best to bring awareness. Pray more n more people not only become aware n start acting now to sustain our beautiful universe. Thank you.
It should be mentioned that along with all of the suggestions made by Dr. Rees, considerable efforts should be directed at lowering populations. William Ryerson is doing such work, although a recognition of the necessity of community-directed birthrate reduction programs is very rare, and Dr. Ryerson is reduced to doing his best to implement birth control education programs for young women in Africa. Dr. Rees is somewhat more hopeful than myself that international cooperation will occur.
Population is always not mentioned and is a taboo subject by the media, companies, religious organizations, and governments for obvious reasons. Bringing down the population is the only thing that can save our planet, but the 8 billion people have their heads in the Sand. People need to have one child or less. It's that simple.
That's happening as we speak ... vaccines will across the board, take care of much more of the surplus than we yet know.
@ThePretentiousPanda Nah, we grow by 206,000 more humans per day NOW. Allowing us oldsters to just pass away is an undeniable partial solution. At 76 and with minimal medical care, I carry a DNR card in my pocket in all times and my cremation is prepaid. But what about our accumulated wisdom in a time of social media mind pollution and climate collapse denial? Stress R Us
Thank you Bill.
"What's the main message you're trying to put forward?" Too many humans are using too many natural resources and producing too much pollution. "Capital" is a surplus that has value in trade and came about when sedentary agriculture and pastoralism produced the first stationary surpluses: grains, oils, herbs, dried vegetables, dried meat, etc. As surpluses grew due the the high nutritional value of these Capital goods, so grew the populations necessary to grow and process them. That's how we got into this mess. Stress R Us
The decoupling of economic growth from ecological resources will only end with UP TOP regulation & taxation, instead of trickle down economics, coupled with over regulation of the 99%. Believe it or not, most of the disenfranchised already understand this now, without attending Ivory tower universities we can't afford.
One of the most hubristic ideas I've heard is the idea of "absolute decoupling." Those who propose that idea really need to get a grip on how reality actually works.
Given adequate discipline - typically delivered via good schools and/or media - one can believe all manner of nonsense. It's not only weak but outright hazardous.
The fusion power is already on its way and it could definitely improve our life standard, but if the policies of today's economics don't change, then we as humans are getting in for a hell of a spiral ride.
Fusion won't help. We can't electrify tractors and combines.
Great So True! We need Leadership in Canada! Dr. Williams Rees, Candidate for the Prime Minister Post, soon one may Dream. June 13 2011. Ten years ago. What may we learn? With nods to Hermann Daly. Thank you!
Wow only 21 comments. This needs to go viral!!!
What has happened to the depreciation of durable consumer goods since WWII?
At 14:00 ... I think we can turn this around and get rid of the nasty word 'collective'... I argue that sustainability is an 'individual' problem rather than a collective one. Do a little digging in your own cabinets...look at your own ecological footprint...
There are groups of people moving away from all of the madness of the consumer lifestyle, call them zero wasters, DIYers, call them voluntary simplesists, or permies, with their bicycles and tiny homes, gardens and cotton shirts, and homemade soups. No need for a 'collective' solution, tangled in with the love affair between the governments and Industrial interests. Stopping this insane consumption will shrink us down to the one earth that we live upon.
How did you get so brainwashed into thinking “collective” is a bad word? Guess what. You’re part of a collective. Deal with it.
Exactly! :)
Here is how we do it. Introduce a new Economic Indicator that is not the GDP but is a better indicator of true value. It could be called the Gross Value Product. (GVP) It would be calculated like the GDP but dollar transactions that do not produce anything of true value would not be added in. So the GVP would not include the dollars that flow as a result of Fashion, Pro Sports, Motor Racing, Gambling, Recreational Drugs etc. (Wants)
Dollars that flow for purposes of food, shelter, Health Care, Education, Energy, Transportation, etc. (Needs) will be added into the GVP. This could be done in greater detail by setting up a "needs-wants spectrum". According to this classification, things like Art, Entertainment, Recreation could be added in at some percentage. ie dollars that flow for recreation purposes could be added into the GVP at 50%. (If you think this looks too complicated, just look at our present economic model and method of Taxation.)
Also, there would be amounts that would be subtracted from the GVP. These would be dollars that circulate because of Crime, Disasters, Car Accidents etc.
Also, there are other changes that need to be made, to transform the Economy. Each Sector of the Economy needs to be reexamined. Some Sectors are working well now so don't need changing. Others like "The RealEstate Sector" are not working and need a major renovation.
Over time, the new GVP would replace the GDP as the major economic indicator.
I have a name for my new system. It is called "Henry Ford Capitalism." (HFC)
I call it this because we need to eliminate certain things in our current system that are anti-Capitalism and destructive. These are things like Lobbying, selling short, subsidies on Fossil Fuels, etc. Also, the name, HFC, is less scary to many people. In fact, our present system is only ~50% Capitalism and the new system could also be ~ 50% Capitalism. It is my idea that we need some of the negative feedback loops that are found in the basic structure of our present model. These negative feedback loops make the system somewhat self-regulating and that is a good thing.
So... What is the alternative? Huh? How else can we achieve the necessary changes? . . .. .
Dictatorship? Yes, this would work but people don't like Dictatorships.
See how "Mobilization of the Economy for War" in ~1939 was a Dictatorship, and it worked to achieve the goal.
After all, this is the degree of change that we need. Is it not?
In a Dictatorship, the Government could stop the manufacture of Fossil Fuel powered vehicles. For example.
The Government could order that Coal Power Plants be shut down, as is happening in Germany, today.
. . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . ..
All of these things are possible because the Economy is just something that we fabricated out of thin air.
We can make up a new and better one.
@12:34
in retrospect, that's painful.
Of course it takes an academic from one of the most beautiful and lush natural places on earth to educate us about our dependence on nature.
What does this have to do with anything being discussed.
thanks for the video
In 2011 Bill is talking about political change, now in 2021 he's talking about de-growth (population!). Where does that put us in, and approaching 2031? Forward thinkers will be talking about how to survive the then global socio-economic collapse. And 2041? We'll all be fighting to survive extinction. Humanity will not grow a brain, or a conscience any time soon.
Oh!
Steve keens debt jubilee on an international scale would help tremendously to revamp the middle class, hence free up people to be involved in environmental public works😀
Can a sustainable ecology be developed without economics?
Maybe charge for the mining of fossil fuels beneath the earth surface?
EVs are rechargeable, so there actually are cars that run, not on their own exhaust, because they don't have any, but on the limitless energy in renewables. I think, in order to speed up the transition to EVs, car makers must make a cheap and reliable model and do so quickly. The Biden administration slapped a 100% tariff on cheap Chinese EV imports. Unless we can compete, this only to protect our auto industry, which has yet to mass produce a cheap EV alternative.
I'm officially in the 20 acre club.
How many professional sports teams take airplanes across the continent for 1 or 2 games? How many tons of carbon per day does that generate? What's the story with recreational racing of hydrocarbon vehicles. Big denial.
cradle to cradle
We are just 1 species aswell... lol