Economics: a discipline that posits theoretical scarcity while assuming practical abundance. 

The Abundance of Scarcity

The irony of our time:  How it is that the central concept in modern mainstream economic theory is "scarcity," while the central operational assumption of modern economic practice is abundance.

(Mis) Leading Indicators

This most recent example from Statistics Canada is telling. Here is a summary of a “Leading Indicator” Report of April 22, 2010 (Earth Day!):

     "Leading indicators

     Economic Accounts: The composite leading index rose 1.0% in March, matching its average monthly increase since July 2009. However, the sources of growth continued to shift away from housing to other sectors of consumer demand and manufacturing.

The housing index rose by 0.2%, its smallest increase since its current upturn began in the spring of 2009. At its peak last summer, the housing index was rising over 5% a month. The recent slowdown originated in a retreat of existing home sales from their record posted late in 2009. Housing starts continued to increase.

     Elsewhere, consumer spending was mixed. Furniture and appliance sale rose 1.3%, their largest advance since June 2006. Spending on other durable goods declined 0.5% after eight months of strong growth. Services employment increased 0.6% with strength evident in both the personal and business sectors.

     Manufacturing demand continued to recover. New orders rose 3.2%, their third increase in four months. The increased ratio of shipments to inventories was driven mostly by higher sales. Export industries have led the rebound in sales, as demand for capital goods continued to languish. Factories remained restrained in hiring, and the average workweek fell again. The outlook for export demand was buoyed by further gains in the leading indicator for the United States."

“Consumer demand,” “manufacturing,” “housing index” (the cost of houses), “home sales,” “furniture and appliance sales,” “spending on durable goods,” “hiring” are all mentioned in the summary of “leading indicators” above. A few questions suggest the limits of these as adequate measures of the wealth of a society. What if consumer demand was for head ache medicine? What if manufacturing was for sandbags to hold back a flood? Why are more expensive houses considered a positive thing? Could more home sales indicate that people are moving to get away from something less desirable to them? Would it not be better for individual families and society overall if we spent less on “durable goods” so that money can go elsewhere (e.g. to education, skill development etc.)? What if hiring is in sectors that are associated with health risk, low income, or generally unsatisfying positions? It does not take much thought to realize that these “leading indicators” do not indicate very much except increases and decreases in transactions in the market. However, given the positive glow that usually surrounds news of increases in virtually any form of economic activity, these indicators might well be renamed: Mis-leading indicators.

Power and Understanding

As long as our pursuit of power exceeds our need and understanding, we will be misaligned with ourselves, our earth and our own sustainability.

Peril-ysis

It is becoming clearer by the day that our inability to act on what we know to be necessary is as urgent as it is elusive. 

Those who aspire to positions for social control are often genuine in their ambition to bring about change and even "contribute to society" in ways they believe to be positive.  But the boundaries of this ambition are restricted to making changes that never call into question the means by which they gained their power.

This is the essence of our modern dilemma.  Knowing what ails us while being powerless to quit.

The Fundamental Challenge of Change

The irony of power is that those who have it possess the strongest ability to bring about fundamental change combined with the weakest inclination to do so... especially when it comes to changing that which requires it most urgently:  The need to change the system by which they got there:  The need to change our ability to change.

"Development" in the Sustainable Sense

When will we finally savour the authentic challenge to ourselves that reaches beyond the ephemeral and ridiculous pursuit of amassing of slips of paper exchangeable for control over material goods?  How can we "develop" in such an environment?

Are we not yet bored with the idea that he who commands the most money wins?  Has this poorly designed and silly game not shown itself for what it really is: ethically contingent and irrelevant to the authentic pursuit of the good life?  At the very least, it is unchallenging to so many of the untapped realms of human skill.

We have seen what material and energy development does for us.  And, as proud as we have been at our many technical powers, we are now familiar with both the vaccuity and the real harm of the endeavour.

The challenge of our age will be the development of our subtlety and sophistication in the sublime faculties of life-enrichment on a personal and social scale: where listening for silence drowns the cacophony; where taste can discern the elements; where the nose can apprehend the flowers a field away; where the hand can see the patterns of the breeze; where musical, poetic, narrative, dance and relational creativity spellbounds; where we reserve our highest recognition and appreciation for each other and the simple and abundant gifts of life.