David Cadman

Suppose for a moment that we are looking at things upside down.  Suppose that the dismay and fear associated with a “failure” to return to a growth economy is misguided.  Suppose that what is happening is not a kind of death but a kind of birth.

With these eyes the present disruption and confusion is no more than an unwillingness to move.  For the old economy is trying to find a way to be reborn into a new form.

There can be no doubt that all that is happening signifies a system in transformation.  The questions we need to ask are these: what is the new form to be, how can we best enable its birth and how can we be a part of it.

What appears in the old language to be “recession” is an economy seeking a lower and more sustainable level of consumption.  Given the limits to continuous growth, this would seem to be a good thing – and those that have most will have to give to those who have least. Those who do not have enough will need the support of those who have more than enough.

What is important is not a frantic struggle to prop up the old economy but imagination and generosity to help the new economy take form.

The failure of our banking system is emblematic of our present time.  On the one hand it purports to represent stability and responsibility and be the measure of the best of life; on the other it would seem to represent instability, foolishness and recklessness.

Suppose banks lend ten times the money they have and then suppose that the collateral for this money that has been lent by banks is now worth say 60% of what it was, is not some kind of catastrophe inevitable…in time?  Or have I missed something?

Suppose casino banking adds nothing to our well-being.  Is it then sensible to give lots more money to the banks?

There is only the moment and the only way to future goodness is to live this moment aright, and this one, and this one, and this one…

This is from “Better World Economics”, Issue 18 Autumn 2011, which is a Quaker newsletter:

…rather than seeking to maximise an economy’s size, economic policy should aim to optimise the size of the economy so that its scale and use of resources is consistent with the constraints of the biosphere.  The economy should also be structured in a way that distributes resources, income and wealth in an equitable way.

http://steadystate.org/

Suppose the economy, as a living organism, is trying to find the level and for of consumption that can be sustained within it.  If this is so, seeking to boost consumption, especially in the old “growth” form, is foolhardy.  We need to align ourselves with the nature of the emerging economy.

Of course we have to reduce our levels of personal debt and reduce our spending if we are to allow the economy to find its new form.  Cameron was right to say so and wrong to recant!  It would seem that the new economy requires that we consume less, and reduced spending is exactly what is needed.  In the meantime, those of us with more than enough must help those most in need.  If a short period of higher taxation would help, we should be happy to accept it to “do our bit”.  The benefit in the medium term is for us all.

Once an economy is moving inextricably to a new form, any action of “resistance” by way of a clinging to old forms will be very damaging.  We need to learn, turn and move.

Dismiss all discussions of “growth”, high or low.  The economy is a living organism, which, following a mighty shock and disruption is trying to find a new form.  The task is not to seek to recover an old economy addicted to “growth” but to understand where it is the economy if going and then how to get there.