The Green Party

pogs My nephew has a masters in sustainable growth and food security. I have had a few chats with him and understand it to a minimal level. It is a recognised branch of economics and as I said food security, and I suspect will be something that the world will be forced to turn to as the climate change makes food sustainability much more difficult. As the world population increases resources which are not finite will also be subject to this sustainability theory.

Do not make the mistake of scoffing at this theory. Our grandchildren will need it in future.

I imagine the 'negative growth' model could be likened to a hot water radiator system; the same water continually circulates the system, likewise the same money/resources (?) would circulate, being replaced when worn out, not added to.

This, of course, depends on no-one withholding money/resources from the system by hoarding or off-shoring.

This is also only my personal interpretation of the concept, based on no research whatsoever

The Citizen's or Basic income has been discussed on here before. I think it's a perfectly reasonable concept.

Ah, ww got there before me and is much better informed!

All grist to the mill maize

I did a course on Global Food Security on Futurelearn,which was very interesting and quite frightening.

It looks as though they're intending to run it again,but haven't announced the date.

www.futurelearn.com/courses/food-security

I think from the way I understand our current methods of food production is in itself busy destroying the environment and the ecology and adding to the levels of poverty and starvation.

My understanding (though could be wrong) is that the Greens are less enthusiastic about a Citizen's Income, because the financial modelling showed that providing a meaningful living wage would be prohibitively expensive.

I'm not 100% sure what you mean by your last paragraph POGS. It's easy to "hand out money" without economic growth by devaluing the value of the pound.

Most economists believe the current rate of UK growth is distorted because it's reported in sterling, which is worth far less than it was before the referendum. If it were to be reported in dollars or euros, the UK would have have negative growth.

I keep joining up to those courses then never have time to finish them - I don't know what I do with my life!!! I need to be more disciplined.

Yes daph I think your last paragraph is correct. I was listening to someone in the family explaining it to their Mum the other day.

whitewave

I was NOT scoffing, I am reading their policies.

daphnedil

"I'm not 100% sure what you mean by your last paragraph POGS. It's easy to "hand out money" without economic growth by devaluing the value of the pound."

Where the hell did that come from?????

pogs then I hope my explanation is sufficient. Is there anything else I can help you with?

Not at the moment thank you.

No your explanation was not sufficient but as you say you understand it to a minimum level.

Thank you for trying it was kind of you..

Having skimmed through the posts on the political threads today already, I think I know what you do with your life, whitewave!

Oh I can give you far more information than I did on this thread minimal is all relative you understand. I meant that I am not up to masters level. So ask away

Oh ana would you like to tell me what I have been doing this morning then!?

Posting on GN of course - while I've been out and about.

Many people challenge the idea that constant growth is a good thing. An article in the Guardian in April 2015 argues this point. Here is a synopsis:

" Growth does not create jobs
The way the current economic system is designed, it does the opposite. The constant drive to increase productivity, which is what economic growth really is, requires manufacturers to steadily reduce input costs.
Economic growth destroys jobs.........

" Economic growth does not reduce inequality
Because the system is designed to reward those who already have money and assets, the free market economic model takes wealth from the poor and gives it to the rich. This is especially true since 2008 as government and consumer debts in the rich world have risen and average incomes have stagnated or fallen. The gap between the rich and poor is bigger today than in 1914. The gap between rich countries and poor ones is also much greater.........

" Boosting growth is not the way to solve environmental problems
Economic growth is the cause of them. It requires a constant increase in the flow of raw materials extracted from the planet to be turned into goods, services and waste. The more we grow, certainly using current economic thinking, the more resources we need to use and the more pollution we create......

...."Taking a different approach to economic development will be fiercely opposed by all those who benefit from the current system. Yet a radical change in approach is both possible and necessary."

In my view, the most important issue is the degradation of our natural environment - the plastic "mountains" in the ocean, light and air pollution, etc. No-one, not even the better off, will be immune to disease and malnutrition if we poison our oceans and the land. And yet the growth obtained from the manufacture of more and more unnecessary products and services is applauded, with no regard to the valuable natural resources that are being plundered.

for anyone interested, here is the link to the full article: www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/apr/21/jobs-economic-growth-inequality-environment-club-of-rome

ana Oh! Ok

Then I will tell you what I have really been doing

Apart from all usual housework things - I've watered all pots, prepared dinner and lunch, shopped from Mum and delivered it - she lives 8 miles away, I've changed and made her bed, put away her shopping, ordered her meals for the week (I am away next week ) done her laundry at my home (it is still doing as I post) made her coffee washed up her breakfast stuff and sorted out her lunch. I then came home and have completed lunch. I have in between times posted on here.

This afternoon I will dry and iron Mums laundry, water the entire garden - complete dinner, pack for our holidays and post in between times.

Next week you will be thrilled to know that I will be out and about - does that suit you.? Perhaps next week you may grow a nice gene.

Yes, multi-tasking, don't we all do it? You were the one who wondered what she did with her life...

I like the intentions behind the idea of a Citizens' Income and I believe some countries have already introduced it.

However, I have doubts as to whether it will change things very much in the long run. I believe, as happened when families were increasingly in receipt of two incomes as more and more women went out to work, the extra income would eventually dissipate as prices of goods and services rose to take up the additional income.

It is, in my opinion, the vast gap between the richest and poorest in society that is the issue. Also the fact that the richest 62 people in the world are as wealthy as half of world's population seems to me to demonstrate that the whole economic system needs reviewing in order to meet the needs of the majority rather than the greed of the minority.

it was a rhetorical question as you well know, but you are never one to miss a trick are you?

eleothan yes I think that that is recognised by the Greens and a number of others - largely academics. Many of our young seem to be getting the message though. My nephew lives his life exactly along those lines. As does to a more limited extent my son. I am sure if these issues are not tackled - he'll in a handcart seems highly likely.

Thank you Eloethan. I agree with your posts entirely.

I had a lot of contact with our local Green Party a few years ago when we were fighting the building of an incinerator (sorry Energy from Waste plant) near to us. I found myself in agreement with much of their ideas, but they were just too niaive, impractical and honest to be able to stand up to the selfishness of big business and those 62 people and their friends. I don't know what the answer is. In an ideal world.....

The problem is with a Citizens' Income that it can't pay enough to be a true living wage.

I worked out how much it would cost, if it were paid at current JSA rate and it was more than the UK's GDP. JSA isn't a living wage, so it would have to be paid at a higher rate, which is why (I think) the Greens gave up on it.

I suspect that if we had PR the Greens would receive more votes in elections. ATM I suspect many people think that voting for them is a wasted vote, because they'll never win.

PS.I wish a place could be found for Caroline Lucas in some kind of coalition government. I don't always agree with her, but I think she's one of our few outstanding politicians of any political party.