Jen Lamoureux Writes In Support Of Sustainability

Jen Lamoureux writes with approval of Philip Brookes’ argument about having values greater than money. She also elaborates on her economic and social ideas. It is quite provocative. You should read it. jp

So true! We cannot expect eternal economic growth. At some point, an economy will either stabilize (optimistically) or will decline. A growth of 4%-5% may not sound like much, but compounded over time, it is simply unsustainable. 4% is actually a very large sum of money when one is talking about an economy. One must also consider who the consumers are. One must either export goods and/or services, which means depleting the economy of another country by monopolizing their citizens as our own consumers, or one must continually find new ways to increase the money being spent within the economy of one’s own country. That, in turn, means finding ways to increase efficiency. Typically, increasing efficiency in this country means more deeply exploiting the work of the lower classes so that the higher echelons may earn more money. This causes the disparity between the upper classes and lower classes to widen. At some point, we must see that allowing a small portion of people to control the wealth and monopolize the consumer power in this country is not a sustainable model. At some point, we must realize that this sort of disparity causes social unrest and a dehumanization of those with less earning capability. And, at some point, members of the upper classes will have reached a critical mass in the amount of goods and services they are able to consume, which will lead to a decline in consumer spending, and thus penalization of the lower classes in the forms of pay-cuts and layoffs. I am not necessarily advocating for communism or even socialism; rather, I advocate for a model in which workers are paid a living wage by their employers and people are allowed a fair chance at creating pleasant lives for themselves. While it may be true that a labor force of unskilled workers is easily trainable and thus, replaceable, it is no less true that their labor is what creates the goods and services being sold and managed by those who are “skilled.” The idea of any company, good, or service is absolutely worthless if one does not have the labor capital necessary to change those goods and services from concept to reality. If we continue without acknowledging these very basic truths of labor and commerce, the societal effects will indeed be dire.

Philip Brookes Argues There Is More To Our Lives Than Money

My buddy, Philip Brookes, writes in reply to my blog post, “No Telecommunications Company Would Deny Another Telecommunications Company The Use Of Its Lines?”

(He praises me which is very kind and much appreciated but to get posted after a good comment does not require that you approve of my post. What I want is a reasoned, intelligent comment or argument and if you can provide a new source, an article or a book, that is particularly delightful. If we are going to make the world a better place, one of our tools will be thought and skilled writing is a tool of a developing civilization.)

Philip Brookes has his own web site, Get Aktiv. It’s a good read. I recommend it. Here is Mr. Brookes’ comment –

Right on, James, write on!

I’ve just been reading an interesting article from Psychologies magazine, July 2010, which highlights that mental illness is peculiarly endemic to ‘selfish capitalist countries’ – unselfish capitalist countries (you’ll need to read the article!) suffer half as much mental illness, and developing countries such as Philippines, etc… have very little mental illness as well. Similarly, suicide rates particularly of professional men, will reveal a lot about our society!

Another debate that’s been raging here in Australia the past few days/weeks, and ties into your discussion about business ethics, is the issue of the rate of migration into our country. Whilst many people are open to multi-culturalism and humanitarian migration, it completely astonishes me how many ‘leaders’ (political and business/economic) can look you straight in the face and argue that the only way our society will survive is if we continue to achieve economic growth of 4-5% per annum, indefinitely. Obviously, this logic is fundamentally flawed on numerous fronts: there must, of course, come a time when this planet will groan under the punishment of 11+ billion people trying to co-exist here; and this argument is based purely on economic analysis to ensure we keep earning money at such a rate as to support our western lifestyles, with absolutely zero consideration of societal effects!

Oh, that us human beings would wake up and acknowledge that our life on this earth is about so much more than money in the bank account, and possessions we can purchase!!

Is China The Next Global Superpower? NO

Is China The Next Global Superpower? NO

Over and over again, I hear people say with complete confidence, “China will be the next world power.” Occasionally the will express sadness at the decline of the United States but continue to express confidence that soon we here in this country will be the second greatest economic power on the planet.

No, it’s not going to happen. The United States will remain the world powerhouse economic center for probably at least the next fifty years.

Why do I think this? First, the Chinese have been claiming a growth rate of 10 percent a year for the last thirty years. Very funny. I am being told that communist totalitarian state has a growth rate roughly six percent higher per year than the United States for the last forty years. The Soviet Union made similar claims. So, did the nations of Eastern Europe. How did that work out?

Since we can be totally confident that the Chinese government is cooking the books, how can we gain insight into the Chinese economy? Well, we have to use anecdotal information.

Guess what? A nineteen year old sticks a knife into the heart of a party official and becomes a local hero. The locals contend that the party official used his position for personal enrichment, stealing land and other economic possessions while having his opponents (the victims of his thefts) beaten up.

Of course, there really wasn’t any large number of sympathizers, just 20,000 or so. These people petitioned the court for leniency. The youth was sentenced to death anyway. It would set a bad precedent if you could wack a party official for corruption. Other anecdotal evidence as well as various studies says the same thing. There is an incredible amount of corruption ongoing in the “People’s” Republic of China.
But don’t just take my word for it. Take a look at this news report from AlJazeera.

Let’s be a little more skeptical about Chinese economic growth. I hear the praises of free enterprise and democracy rising to high heaven all over this country. How come we don’t apply our principles to the Chinese Communists? How come free enterprise is the best economic system in the world but they have a yearly growth rate of 10percent in a government controlled economy? Someone is lying. What’s your call?

James Pilant