Sobering. And needed. I did learn a few things last night that I want to pass along. One is this...if you can't pay $50 for a lecture....see if the person will be interviewed on your local npr or community station. If they have a book to promote then their spiel will be virtually the same for free over the airwaves. But, you might get some additional remarks "live"...and then there's the social aspect of congregation but I digress....
Mr. Krugman is very connected to Mr. Bernanke as they served at Princeton together. Mr. Krugman said that Mr. Bernanke had been, "...demoted to run the world..." That got some laughs.
But that connection, I hope, has deeper roots. Mr. Krugman can probably affect more change from his position as a Nobel Laureate, Economic Genius and pundit than he could if he were at Treasury. Here are some things he noted that I would guess are being heeded by his former boss:
Temporary nationalization of the Financial sector is probably needed.
We have an "ugly several years..." ahead of us.
We will likely get to "at least 9% unemployment"
If we do not stimulate enough we will have a depression.
and, Only in America...will we see millions more lose health insurance and fall into deep poverty because of the insufficiency of our social safety net.
and on the question of where stimulus money will go...
he said that he thought money would go to municipalities and suggested that maybe investing in Muni's might be a thing to do.
On localized economies he was not as enthusiastice as I would have predicted. He said that on a small scale, and he mentioned "produce" (as in farms), that local revitalization would have some benefits...but that the utter scale of what needs to be done forces global action and that we , "cannot turn back the clock on globalization."
He went further to say that, "a total local economy is not fair to the developing world". He talked about how the developing nations needed global markets to improve.
He also alluded to the lack of manufacturing and product creation in our own society by saying that, "Eventually we need to sell things to China." And he means things other than IOU's. That got a laugh but it probably shouldn't have.
Afterwards I asked Mr. Krugman if he would write about Steady State Economics on his blog. He said he'd try. He seemed pretty darn tired and I guess a book tour will do that to a person.
I was very inspired by the two World Affairs Council awards that were given out to a teacher, Bob Mazelow, and school administrator, Karen Kodama. Their stories about how they bring the world into their classrooms and their students out to the world were quite inspiring.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Saturday, January 3, 2009
A Worse Hell
$700 Billion is a lot. I cannot conceive of it. It is like thinking about how long ago the dinosaurs roamed the earth. Let's not become extinct because of bad decisions.
If this bailout money follows the money that got us into this mess then hell will be revisited upon our children's children. It is how the money is used now to CHANGE the world, especially the world of business, that will yield a better, cleaner, more vibrant and sustainable world.
Here is what I mean: The auto companies must make much more fuel efficient vehicles, plug-in electric vehicles, CNG vehicles and the like. They must adopt "lightweighting" carbon fiber construction like the next generation of jets. (there is a reason Mr. Mulally went from Boeing to Ford, isnt there?)
See this link for an interview with Amory Lovins about what the car companies need to do.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10112893-54.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20
In general, the bailout money for ALL industries must go, in some large part, to fix the dirty industrial cycle that has polluted our world and further segmented our society. It is the R&D into sustainable business and the kinds of goods that get made and purchased that will ensure we do not repeat the dirty industrial cycle. This money cannot revive the same fiscal, environmental and socially unaccountable enterprise that created the problem.
There was an opinion piece in the NY Times Sunday December 28th by Bob Linglis and Arthur B Laffer (Laffer Curve, Supply-Side economist) called "An Emissions Plan Conservatives Could Warm To". I was astonished to read that they support moving gas and oil subsidies into "greener" pastures. They support a tax policy that drives behaviors we want (using less carbon dioxide) and keeps more of what people need (money!). This is strong sustainable thinking. Essentially they agree with Amory Lovins, Al Gore, and others, to say that they, and Conservatives, could support, "a carbon tax offset by a payroll or income tax cut."
I am truly excited about the increasing commentary from Conservatives about agreement on the concepts of sustainability in policy and business. I have not listened to what the likes of Rush Limbaugh are saying on this topic. If Rush is truly a conservative and not a populist wind-bag, then I would expect he would encourage bi-partisan efforts to pass legislation on these ideas and to not identify them as "left" or "radical" etc. But then...how would he get ratings? I do not have faith in him or the radio industry on that topic. But I hope.
The only troubling item stuck in the piece was the support of nuclear power. This is a "sustainability non-starter" Seeing as we are worried about "waste" in the form of CO2 today...why would we not be worried about the grand-daddy of all wastes...the nuclear variety? Makes no sense. Should not be on the table.
So how can we avoid a worse hell for our kids and their kids? Vote with your dollar (you probably already voted with your....vote) and read up on some of these topics. Search for Rocky Mountain Institute on the web, Buy a used copy of Natural Capitalism or Cradle to Cradle or go to http://www.biomimicry.net/ to learn about the concept of biomimmicry.
If you are a business person then please use your knowledge and experience to change just one aspect of your business to be sustainable. Start with energy efficiency. You'll begin to save some money. Put that money to good use elsewhere in your business. Make your impact locally and endeavor to pass along your stories so others can carry on.
If this bailout money follows the money that got us into this mess then hell will be revisited upon our children's children. It is how the money is used now to CHANGE the world, especially the world of business, that will yield a better, cleaner, more vibrant and sustainable world.
Here is what I mean: The auto companies must make much more fuel efficient vehicles, plug-in electric vehicles, CNG vehicles and the like. They must adopt "lightweighting" carbon fiber construction like the next generation of jets. (there is a reason Mr. Mulally went from Boeing to Ford, isnt there?)
See this link for an interview with Amory Lovins about what the car companies need to do.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10112893-54.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20
In general, the bailout money for ALL industries must go, in some large part, to fix the dirty industrial cycle that has polluted our world and further segmented our society. It is the R&D into sustainable business and the kinds of goods that get made and purchased that will ensure we do not repeat the dirty industrial cycle. This money cannot revive the same fiscal, environmental and socially unaccountable enterprise that created the problem.
There was an opinion piece in the NY Times Sunday December 28th by Bob Linglis and Arthur B Laffer (Laffer Curve, Supply-Side economist) called "An Emissions Plan Conservatives Could Warm To". I was astonished to read that they support moving gas and oil subsidies into "greener" pastures. They support a tax policy that drives behaviors we want (using less carbon dioxide) and keeps more of what people need (money!). This is strong sustainable thinking. Essentially they agree with Amory Lovins, Al Gore, and others, to say that they, and Conservatives, could support, "a carbon tax offset by a payroll or income tax cut."
I am truly excited about the increasing commentary from Conservatives about agreement on the concepts of sustainability in policy and business. I have not listened to what the likes of Rush Limbaugh are saying on this topic. If Rush is truly a conservative and not a populist wind-bag, then I would expect he would encourage bi-partisan efforts to pass legislation on these ideas and to not identify them as "left" or "radical" etc. But then...how would he get ratings? I do not have faith in him or the radio industry on that topic. But I hope.
The only troubling item stuck in the piece was the support of nuclear power. This is a "sustainability non-starter" Seeing as we are worried about "waste" in the form of CO2 today...why would we not be worried about the grand-daddy of all wastes...the nuclear variety? Makes no sense. Should not be on the table.
So how can we avoid a worse hell for our kids and their kids? Vote with your dollar (you probably already voted with your....vote) and read up on some of these topics. Search for Rocky Mountain Institute on the web, Buy a used copy of Natural Capitalism or Cradle to Cradle or go to http://www.biomimicry.net/ to learn about the concept of biomimmicry.
If you are a business person then please use your knowledge and experience to change just one aspect of your business to be sustainable. Start with energy efficiency. You'll begin to save some money. Put that money to good use elsewhere in your business. Make your impact locally and endeavor to pass along your stories so others can carry on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)