Democracy and sustainability

[Santalum]

Are democracy and sustainability incompatible given that the vast majority of the general public are largely science illiterate?

 

 

[John Cuthber]

If the problem is that the people are uneducated then there is a solution: educate them.

I'm not sure that's the only issue.

[Santalum]

If the problem is that the people are uneducated then there is a solution: educate them.

I'm not sure that's the only issue.

 

 

A great many people will not be educated, fundamentalist muslims and Jew for example.

 

Even among the general public, if you make some basic science a compulsory subject through high school and university then they are likely to resist even though it is in their wider interests and that of society.

 

So if people have a tendancy to resist being educated then democracy remains a problem for sustainability.

[TonyMcC]

Are democracy and sustainability incompatible given that the vast majority of the general public are largely science illiterate?

 

I think that the problem of sustainability within a democracy goes well beyond a lack of scientific knowledge. I think that selfishness and a lack of altruism is a major, perhaps the major, factor. For example in a democracy we vote for our leaders. But when we make our choices we selfishly think "who will do most for me in the short term?" We don't worry about the thought that the promises can't be met without the government borrowing or printing money. The result (IMO) can be seen in the present state of the global economy. I don't know how it is to be achieved, but we need to think "What is best for the world?". Some of the best educated people are among the most selfish.

Edited February 2, 2012 by TonyMcC

[doG]

Are democracy and sustainability incompatible given that the vast majority of the general public are largely science illiterate?

Democracy and sustainability are incompatible largely because the vast majority of the general public is greedy. A growing percentage of the public votes for those that promise the most gifts from the public treasury. The public never votes for those that promise to cut them off from unsustainable programs.

[Santalum]

Democracy and sustainability are incompatible largely because the vast majority of the general public is greedy. A growing percentage of the public votes for those that promise the most gifts from the public treasury. The public never votes for those that promise to cut them off from unsustainable programs.

 

 

Therefore, given the above, democracy is not compatible with sustainability. Perhaps we need authoritarian governments as in China?

[John Cuthber]

"A great many people will not be educated, fundamentalist muslims and Jew for example."

 

 

At the risk of being shot by the PC police, religious fundamentalists are generally inconsistent with democracy.

As I said, I don't think scientific illiteracy is the only issue.

 

I'm a scientist, but I know little about economics. Should I be permitted to vote on questions like the UK's possible membership of the Euro?

[Santalum]

"A great many people will not be educated, fundamentalist muslims and Jew for example."

 

 

At the risk of being shot by the PC police, religious fundamentalists are generally inconsistent with democracy.

As I said, I don't think scientific illiteracy is the only issue.

 

I'm a scientist, but I know little about economics. Should I be permitted to vote on questions like the UK's possible membership of the Euro?

 

Economists seem to have a vetoing say in scientific and environmental matters so perhaps you should indeed have a say on the above matter John.

[iNow]

I'm a scientist, but I know little about economics. Should I be permitted to vote on questions like the UK's possible membership of the Euro?

Off topic, but... Whatever your background or skills, you should probably vote, no. Having your own currency allows you to inflate or deflate value quickly and cushion yourselves against volatility and market shock. Countries with their own currency have fared FAR better than those holding a shared currency under silo'd leaders.

[John Cuthber]

Even further off topic but...

Way back the different states of the USA had their own currencies. They decided to amalgamate.

As far as I can tell the OP didn't really make sense.

It's like asking "Are democracy and sustainability incompatible given that the vast majority of the general public don't know how to make marmalade?"

If the only thing preventing their compatibility was a lack of understanding then that's a relatively easy thing to deal with.

[CaptainPanic]

If the problem is that the people are uneducated then there is a solution: educate them.

I'm not sure that's the only issue.

The people can democratically choose not to be educated. For example, if Americans would vote Santorum for president, that would be a vote against education, and still completely democratic. The public can vote itself into oblivion, and still democracy would function as it is meant to do. It's a weird system, and far from perfect.

 

I agree with the words of Churchill, who said: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

 

I'm a scientist, but I know little about economics. Should I be permitted to vote on questions like the UK's possible membership of the Euro?

Economists also know little about economics. I agree with your point in general, but I think you chose a poor example, as nobody seems to understand the economy.

[JohnB]

Since "sustainability" is a fantasy that has no meaning in the real world, then "sustainability" and any form of real world government are incompatable.

 

But don't let reality get in the way of a good fantasy.

[Tres Juicy]

It's like asking "Are democracy and sustainability incompatible given that the vast majority of the general public don't know how to make marmalade?"

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/marmalade

 

I've saved us all!

[Santalum]

The people can democratically choose not to be educated. For example, if Americans would vote Santorum for president, that would be a vote against education, and still completely democratic. The public can vote itself into oblivion, and still democracy would function as it is meant to do. It's a weird system, and far from perfect.

 

I agree with the words of Churchill, who said: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

 

 

Economists also know little about economics. I agree with your point in general, but I think you chose a poor example, as nobody seems to understand the economy.

 

Churchill also said that the best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter.

 

The recent global financial crisis is a pretty good indication that most economic experts are largey punching while blind folded.

[CaptainPanic]

Churchill also said that the best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter.

 

The recent global financial crisis is a pretty good indication that most economic experts are largey punching while blind folded.

Yup.

 

Our experts are clueless. The voters are clueless. And as a whole, we iterate ourselves forward. There is no plan. And if it all goes horribly wrong, we change course in another random direction.

 

That's democracy for you.

[iNow]

Economists also know little about economics.

Some do. A few have, in fact, had a remarkably accurate record and been fairly consistently correct these past several years.

[doG]

Economists also know little about economics. I agree with your point in general, but I think you chose a poor example, as nobody seems to understand the economy.

No. They actually know a lot about economics. The problem is that we listen to the ones that spin the truth instead of those that tell the truth. This guy nailed it but no one listened

 

[CaptainPanic]

iNow, doG,

When you take 1000 economists, and they predict 1000 truths, there are going to be a few who are spot on, and some who are horribly wrong... and you will also get all the opinions in between completely right and completely wrong.

 

It's just a statistical distribution (perhaps a normal distribution - not sure). In retrospect, it is always easy to say that someone was right.

 

If the majority of economists would have been right about the crisis, then I would still believe in them. But they weren't. A lucky few had it right. Not enough to make me believe they are anything but ordinary charlatans. Fortune tellers are about as trustworthy.

 

Take a deck of cards. Ask 100 people to predict the next card. I would estimate (without bothing to do the statistics) that about 2 people will guess it right. Looking back at the event afterwards, you can say: "Those two were the fortune tellers - we should have listened to them!". And you'd be right... you should have listened, because they were right.

 

But does that give you any guarantees for the future?

 

No.

 

[iNow]

As with anything else, there are some who display consistently accurate results, and others who make up explanations to suit their ideology.

 

Those who have ignored econ 101 to suit an ideology have been wrong practically every time. Those who have adhered to it have been accurate. You cannot blame the entire domain of study because people have chosen to go against its root principles and have been repeatedly wrong.

 

http://www.economist.com/comment/1238350

[calabi]

It doesnt help that the people directly in charge of the banks Benanke and Mervyn King dont have a clue about economics.

 

We dont really have fully functioning Democracies at the moment or ever, so arguing against what we havent had, is moot at this point.

 

People are generally stupid, its becoming proven that people will vote against their own interests. Science isnt just about teaching people things, some guy rote telling them things. That wont work, some other guy will come along and tell them something else. People have to be taught the scientific method, to think for themselves, to question things.

[CaptainPanic]

As with anything else, there are some who display consistently accurate results, and others who make up explanations to suit their ideology.

 

Those who have ignored econ 101 to suit an ideology have been wrong practically every time.

Econ 101?

 

Which one from this list is "Econ 101"?

 

(source: Wikipedia page on "Schools for economics").

 

1 Ancient economic thought

2 Islamic economics

3 Scholasticism

4 Mercantilism

5 Physiocrats

6 Classical political economy

7 American (National) School

8 French liberal school

9 German historical school

10 English historical school

11 French historical school

12 Utopian economics

13 Marxian economics

14 State socialism

15 Ricardian socialism

16 Anarchist economics

17 Distributism

18 Institutional economics

19 New institutional economics

20 Neoclassical economics

21 Lausanne school

22 Austrian school

23 Stockholm school

24 Keynesian economics

25 Chicago school

26 Carnegie school

27 Neo-Ricardianism

28 Modern schools

29 Current heterodox schools

30 Other 20th century schools

(And #30 splits up again into: )

Public Choice school

Marxian (Marxist) and neo-Marxist economics

Keynesian economics

New Keynesian economics

Post-Keynesian economics

New classical macroeconomics

Austrian School

Neo-Ricardianism

Chicago School

Freiburg School

School of Lausanne

Stockholm school

Institutional economics

Evolutionary economics

Constitutional economics

 

Is there just 1 belief? Are there more beliefs?

I think it's all a big guess. They have developed models that describe history quite well, but they all fail to describe the future. Every time that the world took a new step, they had to develop a new school of economics. That's not a science. And it's all equally worthless to predict even the economy of tomorrow.

 

I will preach the School of Common Sense. And it's just as good as any.

 

Sorry to push this thread so far towards schools of economics. Perhaps we should consider to split it off.

[iNow]

Econ 101?

 

Which one from this list is "Econ 101"?

<snip>

Sorry to push this thread so far towards schools of economics. Perhaps we should consider to split it off.

I'm doubtful I'll make much progress getting you to agree, but if a thread split is in order, we touched on similar themes recently here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/62828-how-do-you-disprove-an-economic-theory/

[calabi]

Here's a great quote from Richard Feyman on Economics.

 

<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">One of my favourite people of the 20th century is Richard Feynman, the Nobel Prize winning physicist who, among other things, pioneered the study of quantum electrodynamics. In a fantastic documentary about him for BBC's Horizon show called "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out" he said something I found moving and profound. He was talking about the "experts" he saw on TV and how although he didn't have any expertise in the area they claimed to have expertise in, he felt quite sure that they didn't know what they were talking about. He said this:

 

"There are myths and pseudo-science all over the place. I might be quite wrong, maybe they do know all this ... but I don't think I'm wrong, you see I have the advantage of having found out how difficult it is to really know something. How careful you have to be about checking the experiments, how easy it is to make mistakes and fool yourself. I know what it means to know something. And therefore, I see how they get their information and I can't believe that they know it. They haven't done the work necessary, they haven't done the checks necessary, they haven't taken the care necessary. I have a great suspicion that they don't know and that they're intimidating people."

 

So if I apply Feynman's test and ask myself how hard most economists worked for their knowledge, I can't help thinking they haven't worked hard for it at all. I don't think they've worked hard to know what inflation is, or whether it can or should be targeted. I think they've just assumed it, and anyone can do that. As Feynman warned, they've fallen into the trap of fooling themselves. They've assumed that inflation can be proxied by the CPI because it's easier to do that, they've assumed that 2% is somehow the right rate for it, and they've assumed they're capable of setting interest rates at the 'appropriate' level

[iNow]

How is that a valid argument? "I think economists haven't taken time to understand inflation, that they just assume stuff... so that's why I don't trust them!"

 

Seriously?

[TruthSleuth]

First off, my agenda is our survival--yours and mine. Seriously. My observations tell me that the government, academics and the media are the reason for the economic mis-education of American voters and similarly in other countries. They have accomplished it like this:

• Academia sold the Government on an economic doctrine (e.g. monetary policy 1913 & later added Keynesianism after WWII) and trains new economists (or engineers in my case) in the same economic philosophy
• The Government hires academics as employees and many others (80%+) as consultants and research grants.
• The media also hires academics to write columns or put on a retainer as subject matter experts to translate economics for the public
• The media interviews The Fed Chairman or a surrogate from the Fed board or academia.
• The public is indoctrinated into the government's doctrine and the circle is completed. The majority have swallowed the blue pill. I'm hoping the readers of this forum have taken the red pill ("embracing the sometimes painful truth of reality"). =)

Without going into the philosophies of the various economics in CaptainPanic's excellent list in my already long post, let's follow the dollar. It should fit in with this forum, because it involves mathematics. First let's stipulate that both political doctrines have participated in getting us to this crisis point over forty years. Second, let's stipulate that Presidents are at best cheerleaders as far as tax and spend are concerned. Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. constitution says: "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills." The President may recommend tax increases or decreases or veto Congress' proposals. But Congress can ignore a President's veto or recommendations. Therefore, ignore any academics or media blaming Presidents for tax increases or Presidents saying they won't increase (or will decrease) taxes. So, the people need to control Congress. Third, let's stipulate that all Americans (and the world) are in the same ship of state. What happens to the dollar happens to all of us. Fourth, let's stipulate that if the government confiscated (not tax) every penny owned by every millionaire or billionaire in the US, it would only pay one-tenth of the US's total indebtedness.

 

The behind the scenes facilitator for this crisis since its inception in 1913 is The Federal Reserve System of the US (The Fed). Despite the name it's a private banking cartel. In fact one of the share holders is the Queen of England, but that's another story. It creates money by printing dollars and loaning them to its affiliate banks. This creates inflation of the money supply, which causes prices to rise and allows governments to deficit spend. Looking at the Bureau of Labor Statistics's own data (bls.gov) the dollar has lost 95% of it's value since 1913 and 82% since 1971. The Minneapolis Fed's data (www.minneapolisfed.org) shows the CPI virtually flat from 1800 until a bump up about 1914 (WWI), back down, and up again for WWII, where it kept increasing, then it really took off in 1971 creating the hockey stick (exponential like) we see today. Nixon took the US off the gold standard in 1971. Prior to that, The Fed had to have enough gold or silver on hand to cover any amount that the citizens might want to trade their silver or gold certificates for. Therefore, The Fed can't inflate certificate money beyond its current inventory of physical gold or silver. For the same reason, the government can't deficit spend. This forces the government to 'live within its means' just as individuals and corporations must do. There's nothing magical about gold or silver. They are limited in availability, have commercial uses, and unless prevented by governments can be traded for goods and services worldwide. (I fear we'll need to use this barter ability in the near future.)

 

The US debt is indicative of a government consuming too many resources. European governments consume about 49% of their country's GDP. The US federal government currently consumes about 25% of GDP. Even the CBO projects it to grow to 43% by 2050. State and local governments currently consume 10% to 15%. So, the US will have a larger government than any European government today except Ireland. The chronically high unemployment rates and slow economic growth in most of Europe portend what's in store for the US if it stays on its current trajectory.

 

How can the government continue to borrow without revenues (a.k.a. taxes) to service that debt? Or how can the government do what an individual or corporation can't do without going bankrupt? There's no free lunch.

 

Since the US dollar is the world's reserve currency (for now) other countries have been willing to lend us money cheaply. As our creditor countries realize the reality of the situation, they will raise their interest rates and the US will be in Greece's situation. More of the US budget will be spent to service the increased interest rate. Somewhere in this process the US could decide to default on its debts, which will make those holding US Treasury debt instruments upset. We've already seen from the debt ceiling issue in 2011 that there's no political will for the US to default. So, The Fed will create more fiat money creating more debt. All of this will ramp up exponentially and we'll be in hyperinflation. The average inflation rate over the last forty years is about 3.4%, but ln(2)/ln(1+.034) = 21 years. The loan amount will double in 21 years. But that's without an increasing deficit interest, which will make the curve an exponential. People and corporations can't pay suppliers. Suppliers won't accept the worthless fiat money, so, water, food, and gas stop flowing.

 

How bad will it get before an enlightened majority controls Congress to allow sound money and produce a balanced budget? Or will the majority let it get much worse and collapse on its own? All our futures depend on getting this right.