How much misery do we still need to endure before we finally realize that there is a better alternative to the current economic system? Why are large parts of the population struggling to make ends meet while a tiny percentage of billionaires are making more money than ever? Amsterdam has started to shifting toward a new economic system that covers that the basic needs of every single citizen while distributing the collective wealth in a fair way.
Great. I can even remember a country that tried to do the same some 100 years ago
I don’t think that the doughnut approach has ever been tried before.
A bit confused about the ‘doughnut’
Have you read the article?
Yes, I have. Looks like combination of green concerns with left-wing ideas. As one grown up in communist ideology (though not perfectly absorbed it due to my natural slackness) I can’t help sympathising things like that. But, to begin with, I don’t particularly like that comparison of endlessly growing GDP with cancer. It may lead us to surgery measures in form of revolution. On the other hand, growing population demands growing GDP so we have to admit that human species itself is cancer.
Since we live on a planet with finite natural resources I don’t think infinite growth of GDP is possible especially since this economic system has been causing more harm than good. Besides, the article raises and answers a lot of questions regarding our view on humanity and progress.
Actually I agreed that the existing economic system entices reckless overconsumption. But I believe people should be really careful with changes because destroying is way easier than building.
I have been to Amsterdam a couple of times and didn’t get the impression that the Dutch government is planning to destroy their economic system. The doughnut principle is aiming at destroying anything. It’s a framework designed to give every person the opportunity to live in ‘safe and just space for humanity’. Our planet provides us with sufficient resources for every single individual if we adjust our current system.
Also, here is an interesting quote:
If wages had kept pace with productivity gains since 1968, the current minimum wage would be more than $24 an hour.
That’s today. Not 5 years from now. Today.
Ok. Let’s rely on Dutch common sense. Actually, in the article I can’t see anything new but another idealistic theory. Kind of let’s-do-good-things-instead-of-bad-things. And no answer to why have we been doing bad things so far.
By the way, you seem to take everything I say seriously. Never mind. I’m quite a naughty thing, you know. Sometimes, being in proper mood, I can say something I don’t really think just to provoke further speculations. Thank you for keeping conversation
So, what do you make of the following statement:
The price of not lifting everyone out of poverty is much higher than the price of lifting everyone out of poverty, and ending poverty forever.
You really consider that something new? Just remember your childhood in GDR.
Do you really think that society doesn’t evolve? I mean, are you honestly saying that anyone is trying to bring back the GDR?
Recently, I’m very worried about the environment, but at the same time, I don’t know what to do to change things. I just think and do… nothing. I want to change.
Replacing capitalism would be interesting to save the planet, to reduce the consumption and mainly to us that would have an opportunity to stop and think about everything that is happening in the world, not only be a consumer society, but it involves equality and it isn’t a good aspect to the governments.
The policies that result in economic growth are seen to be beneficial for society… Why? This way, we think we are happy and spend more and more money and the minority can continue rich.
I agree that the price of not lifting everyone out of poverty is high, but why think about it now if they are winning? They don’t care because they don’t know what is poverty. I’m talking about my country, Brazil where we see people in lines without assistance because the money destined for the hospital was stolen.
Rather the ADR. Wouldn’t dare to allege but if something looks like a cow, lows like a cow and gives milk like a cow most probably it IS a cow.
Now I understand what you mean by just kidding around. Let me know if and when you are ready for a serious debate.
Torsten, concentration of wealth in the hands of a few is a global phenomenon since it is natural for the rich to become richer though the poor may not become poorer in the same degree!
Hi Lawrence, the crucial fact here is that it’s wrong to believe that the current economic system can’t be changed. I know that the vast majority of people is not ready to or capable of thinking about how societies emerge and develop but in order to bring about major changes we don’t need the majority of people to get involved. A percentage of around 3.5 is sufficient. For those few people who are interested in what the solution to the current economic problems might be here is some food for thought:
A healthy economy should be designed to thrive, not grow | Kate Raworth
Yes, sustainability is more important than growth. “To meet the needs of all people within the means of this extraordinary unique living planet” - I think it is possible in a state of fairness and equity! “Dynamic balance” is a good concept.
Hi Sheila. It’s frustrating to realise that any good intention always crashes against human imperfection. In the Soviet Union we had kind of a saying: all people are equal however some are just a bit more equal than the rest. Sounds sad but true.
Fancy playing football some day?