New World Order
See other New World Order Articles
Title: Unless It Changes, Capitalism Will Starve Humanity By 2050
Source:
Forbes
URL Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/drewhan ... humanity-by-2050/#7bc8a19e4a36
Published: Feb 16, 2016
Author: Drew Hansen
Post Date: 2016-02-16 17:54:41 by Willie Green
Keywords: None
Views: 28562
Comments: 163
Capitalism has generated massive wealth for some, but it’s devastated the planet and has failed to improve human well-being at scale. • Species are going extinct at a rate 1,000 times faster than that of the natural rate over the previous 65 million years (see Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School). • Since 2000, 6 million hectares of primary forest have been lost each year. That’s 14,826,322 acres, or just less than the entire state of West Virginia (see the 2010 assessment by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN). • Even in the U.S., 15% of the population lives below the poverty line. For children under the age of 18, that number increases to 20% (see U.S. Census). • The world’s population is expected to reach 10 billion by 2050 (see United Nations’ projections). Capitalism is unsustainable in its current form. How do we expect to feed that many people while we exhaust the resources that remain? Human activities are behind the extinction crisis. Commercial agriculture, timber extraction, and infrastructure development are causing habitat loss and our reliance on fossil fuels is a major contributor to climate change. Public corporations are responding to consumer demand and pressure from Wall Street. Professors Christopher Wright and Daniel Nyberg published Climate Change, Capitalism and Corporations last fall, arguing that businesses are locked in a cycle of exploiting the world’s resources in ever more creative ways. “Our book shows how large corporations are able to continue engaging in increasingly environmentally exploitative behaviour by obscuring the link between endless economic growth and worsening environmental destruction,” they wrote. Yale sociologist Justin Farrell studied 20 years of corporate funding and found that “corporations have used their wealth to amplify contrarian views [of climate change] and create an impression of greater scientific uncertainty than actually exists.” Corporate capitalism is committed to the relentless pursuit of growth, even if it ravages the planet and threatens human health. We need to build a new system: one that will balance economic growth with sustainability and human flourishing. A new generation of companies are showing the way forward. They’re infusing capitalism with fresh ideas, specifically in regards to employee ownership and agile management. The Increasing Importance Of Distributed Ownership And Governance Fund managers at global financial institutions own the majority (70%) of the public stock exchange. These absent owners have no stake in the communities in which the companies operate. Furthermore, management-controlled equity is concentrated in the hands of a select few: the CEO and other senior executives. On the other hand, startups have been willing to distribute equity to employees. Sometimes such equity distribution is done to make up for less than competitive salaries, but more often it’s offered as a financial incentive to motivate employees toward building a successful company. According to The Economist, today’s startups are keen to incentivize via shared ownership: The central difference lies in ownership: whereas nobody is sure who owns public companies, startups go to great lengths to define who owns what. Early in a company’s life, the founders and first recruits own a majority stake—and they incentivise people with ownership stakes or performance-related rewards. That has always been true for startups, but today the rights and responsibilities are meticulously defined in contracts drawn up by lawyers. This aligns interests and creates a culture of hard work and camaraderie. Because they are private rather than public, they measure how they are doing using performance indicators (such as how many products they have produced) rather than elaborate accounting standards. This trend hearkens back to cooperatives where employees collectively owned the enterprise and participated in management decisions through their voting rights. Mondragon is the oft-cited example of a successful, modern worker cooperative. Mondragon’s broad-based employee ownership is not the same as an Employee Stock Ownership Plan. With ownership comes a say – control – over the business. Their workers elect management, and management is responsible to the employees. REI is a consumer cooperative that drew attention this past year when it opted out of Black Friday sales, encouraging its employees and customers to spend the day outside instead of shopping. I suspect that the most successful companies under this emerging form of capitalism will have less concentrated, more egalitarian ownership structures. They will benefit not only financially but also communally. Joint Ownership Will Lead To Collaborative Management The hierarchical organization of modern corporations will give way to networks or communities that make collaboration paramount. Many options for more fluid, agile management structures could take hold. For instance, newer companies are experimenting with alternative management models that seek to empower employees more than a traditional hierarchy typically does. Of these newer approaches, holacracy is the most widely known. It promises to bring structure and discipline to a peer-to-peer workplace. Holacracy “is a new way of running an organization that removes power from a management hierarchy and distributes it across clear roles, which can then be executed autonomously, without a micromanaging boss.” Companies like Zappos and Medium are in varying stages of implementing the management system. Valve Software in Seattle goes even further, allowing employees to select which projects they want to work on. Employees then move their desks to the most conducive office area for collaborating with the project team. These are small steps toward a system that values the employee more than what the employee can produce. By giving employees a greater say in decision-making, corporations will make choices that ensure the future of the planet and its inhabitants. 
(Credit: ZINIYANGE AUNTONY/AFP/Getty Images)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 47.
#15. To: All (#0)
This is really funny as it has been capitalism has been feeding much of the world for quite sometime now.
should this be so it is because it is profitable to do so, but then it depends on how you define "much". has capitalism donated food to Etheopia? does capitalism feed China or India? I think by much you mean the middle class of the western world. Does capitalism produce surpluses because government subsidies them, they would not do it otherwise.. the argument is flawed
IDM it's being done by a capitalistic system, not a commie or socialist system but a capitalistic one. b"ut then it depends on how you define "much". Try this on for size, the U.S. is the world's largest agricultural exporter in the world. And not by a liitle, in 2008 the value of U.S. agricultural exports was $118.3 billion vs. the next country at just $79 billion. China was 10th at $35.9 billion. How do you like dem apples?
Here's some more apples for your pie. For the period of 1988-2009 the U.S. has been the world's largest supplier of food aid - and not by just a little. The U.S. was consistently 5 to 10 times higher in tonnage each year than the 2nd place European Community as a whole and 10 to 100 times higher each year than China. India has occasionally been in the top 25 over this period. Russia has only sporadically been in the top 25 supplier countries and only since 2003. So suck on those facts for awhile.
A few more facts for you to chew on.
It's an argument worth having. I just don't agree that "sustainability" is no more than a code word for "socialism". This is a classic legal problem of the commons, how to use a common resource for the benefit of all without destroying it for everyone. Let's look at the crisis in groundwater around the world via some articles posted here at LF. In California (and China and some Arab countries), wells are going dry due to overpumping. China is socialist, California (more or less) capitalist, Saudi Arabia theocratic. Yet all three are having to drill new water wells several miles deep and facing shortages. LF: California Land Subsidence Hits Record Levels, nativist nationalist, 2015 LF: US to overtake Saudi Arabia in oil as China's water runs dry, A K A Stone, 2012 LF: Pumped beyond limits, many U.S. aquifers in decline, TooConservative, 2015 LF: Seas Beneath The Sands, A K A Stone, 2007 LF: Time, Water Running Out for America's Biggest Aquifer, war, 2010 So is the depletion of groundwater by overpumping a socialism problem, a capitalism problem, a theocracy problem, or a sustainability problem? I'd say sustainability is the culprit, far more so than political or economic systems.
Returning to my earlier post on sustainability and the growing global aquifer crisis, I thought I'd cite an example of the Boston Common from colonial America which applied to Britain and its empire around the world. This is an example of the "tragedy of the commons", well-known in politics and law. The concept of the commons is generally taken to mean any shared and unregulated resources such as atmosphere, oceans, rivers, fish stocks, or even an office refrigerator; as distinct to the centuries-old use of the word "commons" when colloquially used to indicate formally-recognised common land in its collective sense. The tragedy of the commons concept is often cited in connection with sustainable development, meshing economic growth and environmental protection, as well as in the debate over global warming. It has also been used in analyzing behavior in the fields of economics, evolutionary psychology, anthropology, game theory, politics, taxation and sociology. The term tragedy of the commons was probably coined by Lloyd and later used by Hardin in his article.[1] Although commons certainly have been known to collapse due to overuse (such as in over-fishing), many examples of commons exist where commons prosper without collapse. Elinor Ostrom stated that it is often claimed that only private ownership or government regulation can prevent the tragedy. It is however in the interests of the users of a commons to keep the common running and complex social schemes are often invented by the users for maintaining them efficiently.[3][4]
The classic example used in Economic classes is wheat farming in the U.S. There is a significant time delay between when wheat is planted and when its is brought to market. The individual farmer most make a decision each year on how much acreage he will plant for wheat versus other crops. The farmer looks at the then current price of wheat and other crops to help guide his decision. The higher the price of wheat at the time of planting the more wheat he likely will plant. But all or most individual farmers will do the same thing. So by the time the wheat comes to market there either will be a glut and therefore the market price of wheat will drop or there will be a shortage and the price will soar. It's called the Cob Web theory. The point is that rational behavior at the micro (individual) leave can and often does led it irrational outcomes at the macro (societal) level. But the real question is who decides how the ground water is rationed and how is the rationing implemented? And this is a question of the political, social, economics and governance of a society not of sustainability. Is the solution by gun point or by Adam Smith's Invisible Hand? Will it be right, fair and just or will the powerful continue to get more than their fair share? How well did the Command and Control economies do in providing wheat for their masses? What has history taught us about what to expect from human nature? Oh, wait, yes, I forgot about Shangri-La - how silly of me.
TooConservative advocated " a reasonable social-welfare state within a capitalist framework". I agreed, it's a workable system... 'Three hots & a cot' provided for those who need it, --- and dog eat dog (within the rule of constitutional law) for everyone else. Everybody wins...
Which is heading head long at a rapid pace towards socialism via gun point a la government regulation. BTW, Adam Smith never argued or advocated for unbridled, unrestrained, uncontrolled capitalism. He, like any rational person, understood the darker side of human greed and lack of self-restraint and the need for a gun every now and then.
" a reasonable social-welfare state within a capitalist framework". I agreed, it's a workable system... 'Three hots & a cot' provided for those who need it, --- and dog eat dog (within the rule of constitutional law) for everyone else. Everybody wins... History tells us that capitalism works, but that human nature will tear it down if it is unrestrained by the rule of law. ---- And the only type of rule of law that has worked, -- is American constitutionalism. We are about to correct that trend in this election. - hopefully. You expect me to disagree about guns?
#48. To: tpaine (#47)
You expect me to disagree about guns? I am referring to the gun point of legislation/regulation not the right to bear arms, i.e. gun point of heavy handed government vs. Adam Smith's the Invisible Hand.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestUnless It Changes, Capitalism Will Starve Humanity By 2050
#16. To: SOSO (#15)
capitalism has been feeding much of the world for quite sometime now
#22. To: paraclete, Willie Green, A Pole, All (#16)
Does capitalism produce surpluses because government subsidies them, they would not do it otherwise..
#25. To: paraclete, Willie Green, A Pole, TooConservative, All (#22)
#26. To: paraclete, Willie Green, A Pole, TooConservative, All (#25)
#27. To: SOSO, paraclete, Willie Green, A Pole, nativist nationalist, A K A Stone, Pericles (#26)
A few more facts for you to chew on.
LF: What California can learn from Saudi Arabia’s water mystery, Willie Green, 2015
#33. To: All, SOSO, paraclete, Willie Green, A Pole, nativist nationalist, A K A Stone, Pericles, nolu chan, Vicomte13 (#27)
The Common's purpose has changed over the years. It was once owned by William Blaxton (often given the modernized spelling "Blackstone"), the first European settler of Boston, until it was bought from him by the Puritan founders of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. During the 1630s, it was used by many families as a cow pasture. However, this only lasted for a few years, as affluent families bought additional cows, which led to overgrazing, a real-life example of the Tragedy of the commons.[8] After grazing was limited in 1646 to 70 cows at a time,[9] the Boston Common continued to host cows until they were formally banned from it in 1830 by Mayor Harrison Gray Otis.[10] The tragedy of the commons is a situation where individuals acting independently and rationally according to their own self-interest behave contrary to the best interests of the whole by depleting some common resource. The concept was based upon an essay written in 1833 by the Victorian economist William Forster Lloyd, who used a hypothetical example of the effects of unregulated grazing on common land in the British Isles.[1] This became widely-known over a century later due to an article written by the ecologist Garrett Hardin in 1968.[2]
So this argument about sustainability is not particularly unique to capitalism and it is certainly nothing new in public policy.
#44. To: TooConservative, paraclete, Willie Green, A Pole, nativist nationalist, A K A Stone, Pericles, nolu chan, Vicomte13, All (#33)
It has also been used in analyzing behavior in the fields of economics, evolutionary psychology, anthropology, game theory, politics, taxation and sociology.
#45. To: SOSO, y'all (#44)
SOSO, --- this is a question of the political, social, economics and governance of a society not of sustainability. Is the solution by gun point or by Adam Smith's Invisible Hand? Will it be right, fair and just or will the powerful continue to get more than their fair share? How well did the Command and Control economies do in providing wheat for their masses? ---- What has history taught us about what to expect from human nature-- ?
History tells us that capitalism works, but that human nature will tear it down if it is unrestrained by the rule of law. ---- And the only type of rule of law that has worked, -- is American constitutionalism.
#46. To: tpaine, TooConservative, All (#45)
And the only type of rule of law that has worked, -- is American constitutionalism.
#47. To: SOSO, y'all (#46)
SOSO, ------- What has history taught us about what to expect from human nature-- ?
Which is heading head long at a rapid pace towards socialism via gun point a la government regulation.
BTW, Adam Smith never argued or advocated for unbridled, unrestrained, uncontrolled capitalism. He, like any rational person, understood the darker side of human greed and lack of self-restraint and the need for a gun every now and then.
Replies to Comment # 47. BTW, Adam Smith never argued or advocated for unbridled, unrestrained, uncontrolled capitalism. He, like any rational person, understood the darker side of human greed and lack of self-restraint and the need for a gun every now and then.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 47.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]