Ann Davis: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
"Whereas accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere is time dependent. Mainstream economics also ignores history and so assumes markets are infinite and perfect and there is no need for any other solution." | "Whereas accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere is time dependent. Mainstream economics also ignores history and so assumes markets are infinite and perfect and there is no need for any other solution." | ||
"Truth is never to be expected from authors whose understanding is warped with enthusiasm." John Dryden<Ref>John Dryden was an English poet, literary critic, translator, and playwright who in 1668 was appointed England's first Poet Laureate.</Ref> | |||
"Coase's theorem<Ref>The Coase Theorem states that under ideal economic conditions, where there is a conflict of property rights, the involved parties can bargain or negotiate terms that will accurately reflect the full costs and underlying values of the property rights at issue, resulting in the most efficient outcome.<Br>assumptions for the Coase Theorem include <Br>(1) two parties to an externality, <Br>(2) perfect information regarding each agent's production or utility functions, <Br>(3) competitive markets, <Br>(4) no transaction costs, <Br>(5) costless court system, <Br>(6) profit-maximizing producers and expected utility-maximizing consumers, <Br>(7) absence of wealth effects, and <Br>(8) parties will arrive at mutually advantageous bargains when no transaction costs are present.</Ref>, which is brilliant.<Ref>allows people to negotiate, if I'm bothering you, I negotiate with you and you give me a payment so that I feel better. | |||
So whether it's secondhand smoke and you pay me so I can smoke. But then if you get secondhand cancer, is financial compensation sufficient? And Coase also assumes zero cost of negotiation, good faith. The payments can go either way with no problem so there's no income constraint. It's brilliant because it recognizes externalities which are usually not recognized. It's an individual property owner solution. </Ref> | |||
"It doesn't address the systemic issues related to climate change." | "It doesn't address the systemic issues related to climate change." | ||
"So Nordhaus, who won the Nobel Prize for his work on climate change, calls it the very most difficult problem that economics is facing.<Ref>William Dawbney Nordhaus is an American economist. He was a Sterling Professor of Economics at Yale University, best known for his work in economic modeling and climate change, and a co-recipient of the 2018 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. Steve Keen, a research fellow at University College London stated “When it comes to climate the guy[Nordhaus] is an idiot: an idiot savant, but still fundamentally an idiot.”<Br>"His models, it turns out, are fatally flawed, and a growing number of Nordhaus’s colleagues are repudiating his work. Joseph Stiglitz, former World Bank chief economist and professor of economics at Columbia University, told me recently that Nordhaus’s projections are “wildly wrong.” Stiglitz singled out as especially bizarre the idea that optimization of the world economy would occur at 3.5 C warming, which physical scientists say would produce global chaos and a kind of climate genocide in the poorest and most vulnerable nations." '''[https://theintercept.com/2023/10/29/william-nordhaus-climate-economics/ When Idiot Savants Do Climate Economics]''' ''How an elite clique of math-addled economists hijacked climate policy.'' Christopher Ketcham, October 29 2023, 8:00 a.m.</Ref> | |||
So Nordhaus, who won the Nobel Prize | |||
for his work on climate change, | "And so he's like the leader, but he admits, in a way, that he doesn't have a solution. Climate change is a systemic problem which the existing framework essentially blocks out. | ||
And so I would refocus the framework on a holistic relationship of humans to the Earth. | |||
calls it the very most difficult problem | |||
that economics is facing. | |||
And so he's like the leader, but he admits, | |||
in a way, that he doesn't have a solution. | |||
Climate change is a systemic problem | |||
which the existing framework essentially blocks out. | |||
And so I would refocus the framework | |||
on a holistic relationship of humans to the Earth. | |||
Property is one of those relationships. | Property is one of those relationships. | ||
So economics is concerned with me and my property. | So economics is concerned with me and my property. | ||
So I have incentives to make the best use of my property | So I have incentives to make the best use of my property | ||
to get the most income, but in fact, my property is affected by other people's property. | |||
to get the most income, but in fact, my property is affected | So it's beyond nuisance, it's beyond externality, it's a systemic relationship." | ||
by other people's property. | |||
So it's beyond nuisance, it's beyond externality, | |||
it's a systemic relationship. | |||
Revision as of 23:13, 5 February 2024
Ann E. Davis is an Associate Professor of Economics.
The video shared here she speaks as if she knows something about what the topic of economics and the natural psychology of humanity. But her recomendations and viewpoint will lead to destruction.[1]
A Paradigm Shift Towards Ecological Restoration
https://youtu.be/nLWIxjmvlJI
Ann E. Davis (1978) "wrote that it is problematic for urban-born and trained mental health professionals to be responsive to the culture in a rural area. Compounded with the rural population's low rates of mental health literacy, it is clear to the authors that the existing community mental health service system is not meeting the needs of rural citizens"
Prof. Davis regularly teaches Environmental Economics and International Economics and imagines she is wise in her own eyes and the eyes of all those people also imagine the same things.
In the video she states at the end of the video and at the beginning:
"And so you have smart people, you have a resilient planet. That's where growth comes from, not from money itself, it comes from people and land."
So she concludes that "the international institutions like the IMF, and the UN and the environmental program and WTO, they're all kind of specialized and fragmented." And she wants to take these "global institutions and we put them together with ecological knowledge." which appears to be the goal of the WEF bring in a new world order through the same institutions that have been instrumental in exploiting most of the third world for the last half century.
Ann Davis even goes so far to state that the "the investments and the credits are based on restoring people and the planet" but the record shows they have been doing the opposite.
She continues with fallacious logic saying that "mainstream economics has several assumptions which render climate change invisible." The reason climate change is invisible is that the actual data if you read it and examine all of it does not show climate change is caused by human activity and none of the doomsday models that have been predicting radical climate temperature increases have actually followed the outcome which has been predicted.
She even says that "One of them (assumptions) is zero cost of disposal. So you can produce something and put it in a landfill with no impact." No one in business nor in government sees cost of disposal as zero. This is patently false assumption.
Also "mainstream economics" does not "assumes instantaneous equilibrium" nor does it say there involves "no time" which she again falsely states.
"Whereas accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere is time dependent. Mainstream economics also ignores history and so assumes markets are infinite and perfect and there is no need for any other solution."
"Truth is never to be expected from authors whose understanding is warped with enthusiasm." John Dryden[2]
"Coase's theorem[3], which is brilliant.[4]
"It doesn't address the systemic issues related to climate change."
"So Nordhaus, who won the Nobel Prize for his work on climate change, calls it the very most difficult problem that economics is facing.[5]
"And so he's like the leader, but he admits, in a way, that he doesn't have a solution. Climate change is a systemic problem which the existing framework essentially blocks out.
And so I would refocus the framework on a holistic relationship of humans to the Earth.
Property is one of those relationships.
So economics is concerned with me and my property.
So I have incentives to make the best use of my property
to get the most income, but in fact, my property is affected by other people's property.
So it's beyond nuisance, it's beyond externality, it's a systemic relationship."
She states, "And I think with the Anthropocene,[6] we've reached a point where human population is the dominant force of Earth systems and we can't do that on an individual basis."
She seems to complains that "mainstream economics assumes the individual" has God given rights.
And goes on to tell us more about what she "think it's a social collaborative systemic problem." And so she imagines "it's really beyond the reach" of the individual and because of her ignorance and bias thinks only governments which exercise authority can solve these problems. China has such authority and is one of the greatest polluters in the world while much of America has been cleaned up because the actions of individuals coming together to use an uncorrupted court system to clean up pollution in America.
"So Locke says, Okay, God created the Earth. We enjoy it in common as humans, but I can extract from the commons for my own survival. That ignores the fact how I use my property affects the survival of everyone else."
That is not what Lock says. While he does say "The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom." he also clearly states, “Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.” Each of us, Locke argued, has “a property in” his or her person, and that property is inalienable, that is, it cannot be transferred to another.
She continues to rattle on with more false information saying, "And if we all cut down all the forests, which we're close to doing, the earth systems don't sustain any of us."
What she seems to be ignorant of is that "overall, the U.S. has 8% of the total forests in the world and reached a point in 1997 where growth “exceeded harvest by 42%,” and we were growing forests at a rate of roughly four times faster than we were in 1920 " Estimates in the past have been that there are less than a half a trillion trees in the world but numbers are now believed to be in excess of 3 trillion and the statement that 15 billion trees are cut every year and only about 5 billion are re-planted is deceptive because trees reproduce themselves. Many trees come back from the roots and cutting increases both their numbers and their health. Indian and aborigines burned off thousands of hectors of forest because trees reproduce like weeds, killing out all diversity as a climax species.
Most of the clearing of forest that have suffered has been where the IMF loaned money to build roads which indebted governments, funded corruption, caused inflation which made people desperate for financial recovery and cause migration to rain forested areas to survive. Most of the successful replanting has been done by capitalist who wee a value in trees.
3:39
And to have a solution,
3:40
we need a collective set of rules that restore the ecology.
3:45
To me, it's almost like a paradigm shift.
3:48
So from Tomi to Copernicus, we understand
3:53
that the sun doesn't revolve around the Earth,
3:55
it's the reverse.
3:56
The Earth revolves around the sun.
3:58
And now we have to, I think, have another significant shift
4:02
that the Earth is not there for human enjoyment.
4:05
The Earth is fragile
4:07
and humans need to protect the Earth for survival.
4:10
So it's no longer my own work as an individual feeds me.
4:14
It's that we as a human collective
4:17
need to figure out new ways to relate to the Earth.
4:20
And I think we're close.
4:21
I think our system science is already there.
4:23
We're just not listening.
4:25
So instead of individual private property, "This is mine.
4:28
And I reap the rewards of how I use it."
4:31
You know, in terms of food if I'm a farmer,
4:32
in terms of financial if I'm an investor,
4:35
individual property is no longer
4:39
a foundational principle that's sustainable.
4:42
Needs to be collective property of various kinds.
4:45
There are examples of collective property
4:47
like co-ops and co-housing and condominiums
4:50
and parks and preserves and conservation areas and cities.
4:55
We have collective property, but we don't see it
4:58
and we don't think that humans know how to use it.
5:01
So like Garrett Harden would say, if it's collective
5:04
we abuse it and it doesn't work.
5:07
I think we as humans are capable to communicate,
5:10
to understand the problems, to address them,
5:13
and to have new rules of use of land.
5:18
So I think new property relates to land.
5:21
We need different practices of land use
5:24
to understand how each parcel is part of a whole
5:28
and what are these global systems that affect that parcel?
5:32
And how do I as as a person understand those global impacts
5:38
and work with them, not against them.
5:40
So a few years ago, I participated
5:42
in a project like, "Okay, what's your utopia?"
5:45
And so, yes, it was fun to think about.
5:48
And so I'm starting with the idea
5:50
from Karl Polanyi and others
5:52
that part of the reason people are desperate
5:55
is they have to work to live,
5:56
to get enough money to buy food and housing.
6:00
Housing and food are conditional on wage labor.
6:03
And that makes us all a little desperate.
6:05
You know, we need to work to live.
6:07
Instead of having my home depend on my wage labor,
6:11
which is conditional on my employer and his profit,
6:14
I would start the other way and say, "Assume you have a home
6:19
and that you are in this home with other people
6:22
and you have rights to reside in this home
6:24
as long as you observe the ecological principles
6:29
that avoid damage to the extent possible
6:32
and that restore the landscape of that area."
6:36
And so, one thing is to reduce the contingency
6:41
of my residents so that I can invest in it.
6:45
I can invest with my neighbors
6:47
and we together can build a livable community.
6:51
So just to digress a little bit,
6:53
real estate is now valued based on location.
6:56
The location is based on transportation,
6:59
foods, parks, school districts.
7:02
And so the things that really give value
7:04
to that individual house, that individual parcel,
7:07
are public goods.
7:08
But we forget that and we say,
7:09
"Oh it's just the house and it's just the market, okay."
7:11
So I would internalize that and make a community aware
7:16
of its ecology and work together to preserve it.
7:21
I've lived in Hudson Valley, New York
7:24
for now some decades.
7:26
I grew up near a river and I live near a river.
7:28
And the watershed strikes me as a coherent concept.
7:33
People, I think, understand the watershed
7:36
like the river and the tributaries and the water cycle.
7:40
I think people learn in elementary school.
7:42
I don't think this is rocket science,
7:45
but I think it's fundamental to human understanding
7:48
of how we need to change the way we live.
7:51
I think watershed is an example
7:53
of a concept that is ubiquitous
7:58
and people need water to live.
8:00
And many times settlements were near rivers
8:03
for transportation and in irrigation.
8:06
And so I think people know where the water comes from.
8:11
And early settlements, like New York City and Los Angeles,
8:14
went in search of the water
8:16
'cause they knew the city can't grow without it.
8:18
And so, given that we need water,
8:20
we can design the boundaries.
8:24
The watershed is- the water flows towards the river
8:27
from a certain height.
8:28
It's pretty, pretty fundamental.
8:30
You can take a hike in the Adirondacks
8:32
and you can understand that people wanted to preserve
8:35
the Adirondacks for water in New York City.
8:38
There's a connection.
8:39
And if you don't already understand it,
8:41
I think it's pretty clear to learn about it
8:44
and then to take pride in it
8:46
to protect the water quantity and quality,
8:49
as opposed to emergencies we're facing now
8:52
with the Colorado River, with the Nile River.
8:55
So sometimes we have shortages of rivers
8:57
and sometimes there's flood
8:58
or sometimes there's melting ice caps,
9:00
but water is a place that's very basic
9:04
to begin to understand the interconnections.
9:07
The production is the basics.
9:10
People in the community work together,
9:11
first, to protect the environment,
9:14
second, to invest in each other,
9:16
health and education, socialization.
9:18
So everybody has a job,
9:19
which is to take care of everyone else.
9:22
And so the incentives could be developed
9:25
within a community, within rules.
9:27
So the local part, I think, is pretty straightforward
9:30
'cause we already live in communities
9:32
that are distinct from markets.
9:33
So we could say, "Okay, communities first,
9:35
market is down the line."
9:37
But then looking at the global level, we say,
9:41
"Oh, we all live in communities,
9:42
we all live in watersheds, various types."
9:45
We need to understand the connection among them.
9:48
And so if they're at this fragile
9:50
and if humans are now multitudinous,
9:53
we need to take the fragility of the Earth as primary,
9:56
as priority.
9:58
And then if we use resources
9:59
like cutting down trees, we say,
10:01
"Okay, what's the impact of that on the global system?"
10:05
If we have enough trees,
10:06
if forests are regrowing, then okay, fine,
10:11
cut them for wood and furniture and art projects and so on.
10:14
But if they're not, then you say,
10:16
instead of cutting trees we need to plant more
10:19
and we need to understand the global relationships
10:21
of where we plant, what kind of trees we plant,
10:24
to make the habitat and to have biodiversity
10:27
so that then the whole system becomes more resilient.
10:30 And so I think the work of the humans residing 10:33 in a given place depends on the ecology of that place. 10:36 And then, if you have surplus, you can trade it 10:39 or you can travel or you can understand cuisines 10:42 and art from different cultures. 10:44 But the first priority is restoration. 10:47 Well, I think the Climate Leviathan is interesting 10:49 because there would need to be rules 10:51 that people would follow based on ecology. 10:54 So yes, those are rules you have to follow. 10:56 But if there's understanding among the public, 10:59 if there's education, and I'm saying, 11:01 like the water cycle, it's pretty basic. 11:02 I don't think ecological knowledge is 11:06 beyond most people's understanding. 11:08 I think it's accessible 11:10 and we need to just educate ourselves. 11:12 But then we have the regional communities, 11:15 we have a global collective that's looking 11:17 at the global indicators like temperature, 11:20 like CO2 accumulation, like nitrogen runoff. 11:25 We know what those indicators are. 11:27 So at the global level, 11:28 we have people looking at the science 11:30 and collaborating among the regions. 11:33 And then the regions understand, 11:35 well, let's say I'm a desert, 11:36 but you're an area with lots of water. 11:40 How do we make use of each unique aspect? In common. 11:46 If I have surplus water, maybe I export it to you. 11:50 Okay, water's hard to transport. 11:52 Or maybe with solar panels, I do desalination. 11:57 And so there could be exchange of knowledge, 12:00 not just commodity production and trade, 12:03 but knowledge collaboration and innovation. 12:06 Okay, so is fusion gonna work? 12:07 Is that gonna be so successful 12:09 we should make that the priority of investment? 12:12 Or is solar panels really viable 12:16 and wind are already available, they're getting cheaper. 12:20 We simply do the renewables first. 12:23 But I think the prioritization 12:25 of the ecology and the human skills and education, 12:29 if people understand the ecological urgency 12:34 that we can make it a priority for education 12:38 and participation, so get back to the Leviathan. 12:42 Once people understand the urgency 12:45 and the need to collaborate, 12:47 I think you could have a democratic system 12:50 instead of top down. 12:51 Finance is relevant here because since 1688, 12:57 more or less, 12:58 we've had a fiscal military state 13:00 which builds on commodity production and trade, 13:03 takes the revenue, reinvests it in the state 13:06 to build more military and market capacity. 13:09 So the existing fiscal systems are assuming competition 13:15 among competing states, often with military. 13:19 So I think we could have an alternate system where 13:24 credit is based on this kind of ecological restoration. 13:27 And so you have smart people, you have resilient planet. 13:31 That's where growth comes from, not from money itself, 13:35 it comes from people and land. 13:36 So I see the international institutions like the IMF 13:39 and the UN and the environmental program and WTO, 13:43 they're all kind of specialized and fragmented. 13:45 Seems to me we take global institutions 13:48 and we put them together with ecological knowledge. 13:52 And then the investments and the credit 13:54 are based on restoring people and the planet.
During the last two decades she has met with those who are labeled as leading scholars of our times but whom seem to be blending what they call the humanities and economics to determine what they believe to be the ultimate solution for what they perceive as the problems with or within the world today.
The ultimate solution they espouse echoes the potter that permeated the society that produced the final solution in the time when millions would die at the hands of those who sought social control through force and the power of government that exercise authority through a political and economic systems of socialism.
People like:
John Searle
John Searle who believes any "value judgment" is epistemically subjective which another way of saing there is no standard or universal vale.
Alan Ryan
Alan Ryan, who is an advocate of Modern liberals which generally believe that national prosperity requires government management of the macroeconomy in order to keep unemployment low, inflation in check and growth high. They also value institutions that defend against economic inequality.
Mary Poovey
Mary Poovey whose recent books include The Evolution of the Property Relation: Understanding Paradigms, Debates, and Prospects, Palgrave MacMillan, 2015, and Money as a Social Institution, Routledge, 2017.
She seems to also feel inclined to venture into the world of economics attempting to make sense of its description or explanation.
These scholars and achedemics may be willing proclaim they are out of their element or do not understand or even see a solution in all they share but may seek to blaim that lack of comprehension on the fact that economics have become defined by the language of mathamatics.
Mary Poovey makes the statements:
[52:47] "offering three observations about models in general and about how our reliance on them constitute what counts as knowledge now
first as all of my examples make clear models abstract from immediate experience and observed particulars in order to generate simplified manipulable simulations of actual conditions in doing so they alter not only one's relation to the real but also what could count as knowledge about the real
because models are both performative[7] and recursive[8] Moreover extensive reliance on them increases the likelihood that models will beget a reality that takes its form from the models or even that models will beget more models.
Second as models incorporate and are organized by mathematical principles the mathematical form which they call the syntax increasingly dictates the way that the economic or financial content which they call the semantics can be understood this increases the potential for simplification and clarity in the model but it also means that the rules of mathematics dominate one's experience of messy economic and financial transactions
It also means that formulations that are particularly convenient for mathematical procedures sometimes take precedence over other formulations that might be less mathematically useful but that are more responsive to human concerns. This is the case for example with the gdp the gross domestic product which is the headline aggregate featured. In the macroeconomic estimates called national income accounts the prominence of the gdp makes it easy to see whether the overall income of a nation is increasing but difficult to see how wealth is being distributed among parts of the population The gdp also makes it very hard to see how efforts to increase the gross dometic product might adversely affect the environment which is not represented at all in the national aggregates. So every time an aggregate is made those features of the economy that it does not include become literally invisible so this is the case for example of the contributions that domestic
55:30?
Ann E. Davis" "WEF"
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/WuX7R5KoKDCdVeNX/
Externalities are a side effect or consequence of an industrial or commercial activity that affects other parties without this being reflected in the cost of the goods or services involved. But she is identifying and connecting the dots or side effects or consequences that do not exist and imagining a solution without taking into consideration the natural side effect or consequence of human nature. Clearly she is suffering from a delusion of the mass psychosis coming out of modern universities.
Wealth redistribution is Capital allocation or Capital reallocation
CAPITAL ALLOCATION IS THE POWER OF CHOICE OR SLAVERY
- ↑ “8 Let destruction come upon him at unawares<03045><03808>; and let his net that he hath hid catch himself: into that very destruction let him fall.” Psalms 35:8
- ↑ John Dryden was an English poet, literary critic, translator, and playwright who in 1668 was appointed England's first Poet Laureate.
- ↑ The Coase Theorem states that under ideal economic conditions, where there is a conflict of property rights, the involved parties can bargain or negotiate terms that will accurately reflect the full costs and underlying values of the property rights at issue, resulting in the most efficient outcome.
assumptions for the Coase Theorem include
(1) two parties to an externality,
(2) perfect information regarding each agent's production or utility functions,
(3) competitive markets,
(4) no transaction costs,
(5) costless court system,
(6) profit-maximizing producers and expected utility-maximizing consumers,
(7) absence of wealth effects, and
(8) parties will arrive at mutually advantageous bargains when no transaction costs are present. - ↑ allows people to negotiate, if I'm bothering you, I negotiate with you and you give me a payment so that I feel better. So whether it's secondhand smoke and you pay me so I can smoke. But then if you get secondhand cancer, is financial compensation sufficient? And Coase also assumes zero cost of negotiation, good faith. The payments can go either way with no problem so there's no income constraint. It's brilliant because it recognizes externalities which are usually not recognized. It's an individual property owner solution.
- ↑ William Dawbney Nordhaus is an American economist. He was a Sterling Professor of Economics at Yale University, best known for his work in economic modeling and climate change, and a co-recipient of the 2018 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. Steve Keen, a research fellow at University College London stated “When it comes to climate the guy[Nordhaus] is an idiot: an idiot savant, but still fundamentally an idiot.”
"His models, it turns out, are fatally flawed, and a growing number of Nordhaus’s colleagues are repudiating his work. Joseph Stiglitz, former World Bank chief economist and professor of economics at Columbia University, told me recently that Nordhaus’s projections are “wildly wrong.” Stiglitz singled out as especially bizarre the idea that optimization of the world economy would occur at 3.5 C warming, which physical scientists say would produce global chaos and a kind of climate genocide in the poorest and most vulnerable nations." When Idiot Savants Do Climate Economics How an elite clique of math-addled economists hijacked climate policy. Christopher Ketcham, October 29 2023, 8:00 a.m. - ↑ Anthropocene relating to or denoting the current geological age, viewed as the period during which human activity has been the dominant influence on climate and the environment.
- ↑ performative: Relating to or being an utterance that performs an act or creates a state of affairs by the fact of its being uttered under appropriate or conventional circumstances, as a justice of the peace uttering I now pronounce you husband and wife at a wedding ceremony, thus creating a legal union, or as one uttering I promise, thus performing the act of promising.
- ↑ recursive: Of or relating to a repeating process whose output at each stage is applied as input in the succeeding stage.