So the question "What is wrong with economics?" is addressed to each and every one of those. 1. What is wrong with banking, finance, business and economics as strictly delineated? 2. What is wrong with each of those dozen things? For example:
In fact, we could add "And why?" to each one of those questions. Usually, when we use the word "economics" on its own, it should be reasonably clear from the context which is meant.
Finally, we use "economics" as an adjective or qualifier in many places, because we need to differentiate it from the meaning of "economic" that signifies frugal or efficient. For example, an "economic theory" refers to a theory in any field that is efficient and elegant, governed by Occam's Razor, while "economics theory" refers to a theory about economics as such. Likewise "economic practice" and "economics practice". HOWEVER, in the draft, we often mistakenly use "economic" as in common practice, when we mean we should use "economics"; these mistakes will be corrected gradually.
Note on Real and Ideal. With Adam Smith, Ronald Coase and others, we seek to understand 'real-world' economics, and hence question extant theories. Where we might depart from, or go beyond, Smith and Coase is in how we understand the 'real world' in all its diversity, coherence, joy, sorrow, good, evil, despair and hope. For example, whereas Coase was content to study real markets, we also look at what markets do in and to the rest of life and reality. We want, if possible, to find a way of understanding economics that is guided by what some call ideals, which, when people try to implement it, does not need to be compromised (even though details must be worked out) because it already caters for all kinds of real-world eventualities without reduction in principle. Our approach to the real world is enabled by a philosophy with a clear understanding of its diverse aspects and how they 'hang together'.
So, in its present form (2024) how much help can it be, except on the general concept of pluralism, and maybe its network? What a shame.
Note on Use of Word, Aspects. Architects speak of the south and east aspects of a building as two ways of seeing and understanding the building; in our case, aspects are a way of seeing and understanding reality. This involves the observer but it also is something about the building itself; so aspects of reality are neither subjective nor objective but involve the observer and also the reality that is observed. Just as the south and east aspects of a building differ and cannot be explained in terms of each other, so each aspect of reality cannot be explained in terms of others; they are irreducibly distinct.
Note on Dooyeweerd's Discussion of Aspects. His in-depth discussion of how to distinguish aspects and the fifteen that emerged may be found in Part I of Volume II of [Dooyeweerd 1955]. A summary of this may be found in Basden's [2019] discussion of Dooyeweerd's understanding of meaningfulness, and in the Dooyeweerd Pages. Discussion of the aspects may be found at http://dooy.info/aspects.html, in more systematic, summary form at http://dooy.info/aspects.smy.html.
Note on the word 'Ethics'. Mostly, when 'ethics' is discussed in relation to business, economics, etc. it refers to issues meaningful in the juridical aspect, such as justice, fairness, and rights. When we use the word "ethical" we refer to self-giving love, mercy, generosity, openness, etc.
Note on "Antecipation". Dooyeweerd used the more usual word "anticipation". Strauss [?date] suggested "ante-" meaning "preceding" and we follow him, using "antecipation" for the order of aspects and "anticipation" for human expectation.
Note on Religion. By religion, Dooyeweerd does not mean creeds or rituals, nor even belief in God, but defines it in a philosophically-relevant way as "the innate impulse of human selfhood to direct itself toward ... {an} absolute Origin of all temporal diversity of meaning" [NC,I, 57]. Religion is deep belief or commitment that motivates and directs what we do or think, including what we presuppose and, in research, operating within paradigms.
Note on the Labour Movement. The Labour movement was 200 years ago, and still is largely, inspired into being by the plight of labour oppressed by wealthy uncaring owners of businesses. Recently in the UK, it is the Labour movement that has resisted transition away from fossil fuels, on the grounds of losing the jobs of workers.
Note on Dooyeweerd. ===== explain why he is best philosopher of meaning and also of everyday life so far, and some of his background.
Note on Comparing Suites of Aspects. See Tabular Comparison of Suites of Aspects.
Note on Meaning and Being. Dooyeweerd differs from most philosophers, in turning our attention from entities or processes to Meaning, which, he argued, is their very foundation. Things do not just exist or function, but exist-as and function-as, where the "-as" refers to an aspect, which is a "modality of meaning", and hence also a "mode of being" and "mode of functioning" (terminology Dooyeweerd used). (This echoes Wittgenstein's claim that we do not just see, we see-as.)
For example, a pen exists-as and functions-as a writing instrument by virtue of its meaningfulness in the lingual aspect, -as a colouring instrument by virtue of the psychical aspect, and (sometimes) -as a status symbol by virtue of the social aspect.Similarly, money exists-as and functions-as a token (lingual), of value (economic), of exchange (social), -as a measure (quantitative) and a flow (kinematic), -as owned (juridical), -as a motivator, even an idol, (pistic), and so on. (Might this explain Adam Smith's various functions of money?)
Dooyeweerd's view, grounding being and functioning in meaningfulness rather than in themselves or each other, has important implications in both theory and practice, in theory because it shifts the focus from entities to aspects, and in practice because it (a) avoids marginalising values (overcoming the seeming Is-Ought dichotomy) (Chapters 5,7), (b) reduces the pressure to define types of thing too precisely, (c) encourages us to consider the functioning of economics more precisely (Chapters 6,7), and it (d) frees us from misleadingly attributing too much agency to things like money or banks (Chapter 8), and (e) brings the value and functioning of non-human, such as plants and animals and planet, into economics. Dooyeweerd's view breaks the 2,500 year old tradition, continued since the Greeks, of treating existence as fundamental. For more, see Basden 2019.
Some find the metaphor of ocean of meaningfulness helpful. Just as it is the ocean in which fish swim and exist and that enables them to swim and exist, so aspects constitute an 'ocean of meaningfulness' in which we, and all things, function and exist, and which enables all functioning and existence.
Note on Animal Behaviour. Though Dooyeweerd argues that animals function as subject only up to the psychical aspect, some argue that some animals function as subject in later aspects too but only in limited ways.
Note on Types of Money. In gold coins, the physical functioning of its material and mass serve via the quantitative aspect to symbolize its value. With copper coins and paper notes, the value is symbolized by numerals stamped or printed. The physical functioning is important to hold this. In bank funds and cryptocurrencies, the value is symbolized by data in computers, and the physical functioning is electric charges ordered spatially into what we call bit patterns, which are then interpreted via designated codings as quantitative amounts.
Note on: Are Religions Narrow?. Some may be surprised at our claim that religion motivates an holistic viewpoint, believing that religion makes people narrow-minded. Narrow-mindedness among religious people has two elements, (a) they have let tribalism contaminate their religion, (b) they believe that their version of religion applies (holistically) to all and when society rejects it, society is going wrong and it is their duty to uphold it. Good religion, especially Biblical, avoids both. We believe that it is actually those who try to reduce all life to material, evolution, psychology, social constructs or even economics, that are narrow-minded.
Note on Ideology, Idolatry and Religion. Ideology, idolatry and religion are functioning in the pistic aspect, the aspect of commitment and loyalty, and it is this that provides normative impetus and motivation to live and act in a particular way. What's the difference? Ideology grasps a aspect (or two) of reality as Absolutely demanding our loyalty and sacrifice. For example the ideology of Marxism: economic and juridical and social aspects; of Capitalism: economic and formative aspects. Idolatry usually treats some fact-side thing or system of thought that is meaningful in one aspect as Absolutely demanding our loyalty. Religion posits a Divine that transcends all aspects, so all aspects are important. The weakness of ideology and idolatry is that it can be contested by those who, reasonably, point to other aspects that are equally important. See discussion of idolatry in Chapter 4.
Note on Love. "God is love", from John's letter, may be seen as the supreme expression of God's character. In Dooyeweerd the ethical aspect that makes love meaningful comes after the juridical aspect that makes authority meaningful, so the mandate of humans is more than just authority. Love comes near and engages with what is beloved, so from the Jewish (and Christian) perspective, the God who has compassion on all, is involved with the people and indeed with all Creation.
Note on Human Heart. In the Jewish and Christian Scriptures - as well as many other places - what is called "heart" is the wellspring of all our thinking, saying and doing and even our lifestyle. David was "a man after God's own heart"; Moses was the meekest man; the people of Israel were of stubborn heart; "Out of the heart come all the issues of life" [Proverbs 4:23]; the heart is deceitful and "desperately wicked"; God "looks on the heart" rather than on "outward appearance" [I Samuel 16:7]. in the Christian Scriptures Jesus tells us that all kinds of evil thoughts, words and deeds come out of the heart, and calls us to "die to self". Other words are sometimes used (such as "stubborn", "stiffnecked", Greek noos) but still indicate something right in the centre of each human and people, unseen yet controlling. In this rethink, we understand the heart as composed of our functioning in the ethical and pistic aspects, our attitude and mindset. Heart and intuition are not identical, though there is much overlap, and heart is usually part of intuition. Some other religions also recognise the importance of the heart, especially in the form of devotion to God but, in the Jewish Scriptures, it goes beyond devotion to something more substantial as obedience and trust, especially as something that directs our partnering with God.
Note on Three DImensions of Salvation. God is the one who saves all Creation, by changing our hearts. Romans 8 shows three Dimensions of this: D1, made acceptable with God (v.1 "no condemnation"), D2 the Spirit indwells us so we experience God here and now (v.14 "led by Spirit ... Abba Father") and changes our very attitude and mindset (Galatians 5:22-23 "love, joy, peace, ... self-control"), and D3 such people treat Creation aright "v.19 "Creation eagerly awaits"). See Three Dimensions of Salvation. This can include economics and economic activity.
Note on Scholastic Economics. Briefly, Scholastic economics was based on Aristotle, crystallized with Aquinas, and had four main elements all governed by justice and sometimes mercy. Mueller [===] argues how Adam Smith ignored two of them. The limitation of this is (a) it reduces economics to the juridical aspect and does not explore the nature of the economic, in the way we argue that Smith tried to do, (b) it elevates the juridical and ethical aspects over others, relying on charity to overcome the evil of poverty, (c) it centres everything on human flourishing and ignores the rest of Creation, presupposing it as an unlimited resource.
Note on Power Structures. Power structures are usually discussed in juridical terms (oppressive rules or legislation), but probing more deeply reveals pervading attitudes of control for reasons of self-centredness and/or strong beliefs. The juridical, ethical and pistic aspects might align with Giddens' [1984] structures of legitimation, power and meaning [Basden 2020, 275-7; 297-302].
Note on Culture., not as in art or music, but as in organisational culture or Western culture, "a toxic culture" is seen by many sociologists as an expression of what is meaningful to people, which is society's pistic functioning, targeting particular aspects that give this meaningfulness. (While Marxist cultural studies presuppose a single, dominant meaning, feminists and others, presuppose multiple meanings - which happens to align well with Dooyeweerd's idea of multiple meaningfulness.) Culture also involves our ethical functioning of attitude. For example a toxic culture has been described as "non-inclusive, unethical, cutthroat, abusive and where people are not respected" [===]. See also Note on Toxic Culture.
Note on Trusting God. In the Jewish Scriptures we find many instances of people not trusting God to partner with them. A big one is after God brought the people of Israel out of Egypt with many powerful interventions, provided good water in the desert, and providing manna for food, they still grumbled "Has God brought us out in the desert just to kill us?" This is why God was (at least) disappointed with them. Let us not make the same mistake; look at the evidence and trust.
Note on Paradigms. The idea of paradigm in science was introduced by Kuhn [1960] as a way of explaining the occasional shifts in ways of thinking, which would generate a burst of new ideas. A paradigm is a belief about and commitment to some aspects it deems meaningful to study in research [Basden & Joneidy 2019] - a bit like the worldview of a group or society - and is what determines what is included in theories in the field. Within each paradigm, a distinct combination of kinds of rationalities reigns.
Note on Dooyeweerd's Understanding of Theoretical Thought. Whereas, to many academics, theoretical thought is neutral and a 'higher' route to truth than is pre-theoretical thought, Dooyeweerd questioned this. So have many other thinkers since then, without knowing about Dooyeweerd: Kuhn alerted us to paradigms, Habermas, to human interests in knowledge, Foucault, to power relations that determine what is deemed knowledge, and so on. Though earlier then them, Dooyeweerd's view is still important because he took a route they did not, making not only an immanent critique (as Habermas did), to show it never has been neutral [NC,I, ===], but also a transcendental critique of theoretical thought itself, to show that it never can be [NC,I, 4-60; NC,II, Part II].
In the transcendental critique, starting from the question, "In what way does theoretical thought differ from pre-theoretical?" and offering the answer, "Theoretical thought abstracts from the world, whereas in pre-theoretical thinking we engage immanently with the world", Dooyeweerd posed three "transcendental questions" and argues an answer for each (the following is an interpretation of Dooyeweerd's transcendental critique that is easier to understand, especially for non-philosophers):
All levels of theoretical thought (analysis, scientific theory-formation and philosophical reflection) involve all three of these, but analysis finds the first most important (looking for issues that are meaningful in chosen aspects and ignoring others as irrelevant), scientific theory-formation requires this but then the application of rationalities to undertake inductive reasoning to generate new knowledge from the data obtained during analysis, and philosophical reflection requires the third, especially because it requires reflection on the self that reflects. The third is important in scientific theory-making and in analysis as a wider critique of the validity of what their outputs (theories and analyses).
All three stages, Dooyeweerd argued, are inescapable for any full, good theoretical thought, and each stage inserts a non-neutrality into it: our choice of aspects when abstracting, our choice of aspectual rationalities and how they 'work' together in reasoning, and the ground-motive that underlies our view of what is meaningful. Therefore, though theoretical thought is more able than pre-theoretical to incisively investigate the laws of individual aspects in depth, and thus might be more technically precise, it is narrow, ignoring all other aspects and their influences on it. Pre-theoretical thought, by contrast, embraces all aspects, even if never with theoretical precision, and hence, it may be argued, is a better guide.
Note on Ground-motives. What Dooyeweerd called ground-motives are presuppositions about the nature of reality. Though taken for granted as obvious, the prevailing ground-motive is never a truth but a "spiritual driving force that acts as the absolutely central mainspring of human society" in that it "not only places an indelible stamp on the culture, science, and social structure of a given period but determines profoundly one's whole world view" [Dooyeweerd 1979, 9]. In this sense they are "religious" presuppositions [Note: Religion] and are usually hidden.
Dooyeweerd discussed four ground-motives that have steered Western thought over the past 2,500 years:
Ground-motives are what Dooyeweerd called an "origin of meaning", which govern theoretical thought at its deepest level by telling us what is most fundamentally meaningful (see section on Philosophical Reflection. The Greek, Scholastic and Humanist ground-motives are dualistic in nature, while the Biblical one is pluralistic - which is perhaps why Dooyeweerd was 'free' to posit fifteen modalities of meaning, i.e. aspects. In effect, each dualistic ground-motive offers just two aspects (as an alternative to Monism which offers only one).
Note on Dooyeweerd's Humility. Perhaps the clearest expression of Dooyeweerd's humility is in his clear statement about his suite of aspects,
"In fact the system of the law-spheres designed by us can never lay claim to material completion. A more penetrating examination may at any time bring new modal aspects of reality to the light not yet perceived before. And the discovery of new law-spheres will always require a revision and further development of our modal analyses. Theoretical thought has never finished its task. Any one who thinks he has devised a philosophical system that can be adopted unchanged by all later generations, shows his absolute lack of insight into the dependence of all theoretical thought on historical development." [NC,II, 556]
He was also merciful. Though deeply criticising thinkers like Kant and Heidegger he recognised and applauded the quality of their thinking, and even adopted some of their methodological approaches.
Note on Common Good. "Common good" is similar to "Multi-aspectual Overall Good" but has connotations we wish to escape, such as being centred on humankind. We want to include wellbeing not only of humankind but of all Creation - as also environmentalists recognise.
Note on "Reality". Many academics dislike talk of "reality", politically disliking what they call "essentialism" and "realism", and clinging to notions like the social construction of reality. Dooyeweerd allows us to understand the reality of social construction: it does exist, in that social reality is actually generated by humans functioning in the social aspect. To Dooyeweerd "reality" has two sides, fact-side, encompasssing all that exists and occurs temporally, and law-side, the basic aspectual laws by which it all exists and occurs. Even social construction of reality is itself a reality, insofar as there is some aspectual laws that enable it to occur. It is in this sense that we use the term "reality". It is deeper than any knowledge of reality that we might believe we have, and which might be mistaken. In this way, Dooyeweerd was close to Critical Realism, but he distanced himself from it for making reality into a theory.
Note on Contrasting Christian with Other Perspectives. We do not seek to contrast Christian from other perspectives, because we want to contribute. There is a place for contrasting, when some claim to be "Christian economics" but do so falsely - such as some neoliberal or capitalist versions and occasionally some left-wing versions do - and then is a need to clarify and contrast. But not in this Rethink. Whereas the contrastive motivation derives from antagonism (e.g. to socialist or neoliberal economics), ours derives from peace (shalom).
Note on Creator and Creation. The Creator's attitude to Creation, and possible reasons for creating, could be either love, hate, indifference or a butt for practical jokes. Psalm 145 tells us that God has compassion on all Creation, and love for Creation permeates the entire Jewish and Christian Scriptures. The presence of Evil alongside Good is presupposed as eternal in some religions as co-equal, co-existent forces, e.g. Yin-Yan, but in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures it is time-limited, because evil is dealt with and Good does not require nor presuppose Evil.
Note on Monotheism. Monotheism is the belief that the Divine is One, not many (as in polytheism). Even Hinduism, which superficially has 300 million gods, is, at root, monotheistic, in that God is One Reality, of which all the gods are manifestations. Polytheism is philosophically difficult, in that it presupposes some 'higher' logic to which all the gods are subject, the logic of their being separate beings. However, it is in the Bible that the monotheistic character of God, the Ultimate Divine, is revealed most clearly, so that ordinary people as well as philosophers can understand it. Polytheism would allow for disharmony among the Divine, but Monotheism implies deep harmony. It also allows for deep harmony in Creation, depending on whether the Divine is loving, hating, indifferent or a practical joker.
Note on Shepherds of Creation. Humans are not intended to be destroyers or consumers of Creation, and not even mere stewards (a juridical term). Our role is better described as shepherds of Creation. As a shepherd (in the Middle East) leads sheep to good pasture, cares for them, protects them, etc. so they flourish and develop, so humans are intended to 'lead' Creation in such a way it can flourish and develop its potential. There is some self-giving love in shepherding that is absent in stewarding. For theological discussion of this see Role of Humankind in Rest of Creation: Consumers? Stewards? Shepherds!.
Note on Representing God. The theme of a subset representing God to the rest is seen in several forms throughout the Jewish Scriptures (humans representing God to the rest of Creation, Israel representing God as a nation to other nations, prophets representing God to God's people), and Christian Scriptures (Jesus as God representing Godself within Creation, followers of Jesus representing Him as individuals among individuals). See On Representing God. Thus, in our doing of economics as humans (whatever religion or none we espouse) we, in principle, represent God to the rest of Creation - but not always very well.
Note on the Parousia and Overlap. The Parousia (or Eschaton) is, in Christian and some Jewish Scriptures, when God brings this present Creational regime to an end, and renews Heavens and Earth. It is usually seen as when the Messiah comes (a second time, in Christian eyes). Traditional Christianity has seen it as a complete annihilation of the present regime, replaced by a completely new start, but the Greek text of the Christian Scriptures speak of renewal rather than replacement, and much current Christian thought take this view. Christians believe that Jesus is the Messiah, that when He came the first time, He instituted the "Kingdom of God" on Earth, and when He returns the Kingdom of Evil will be terminated, so that between His two comings the Kingdoms of God and Evil overlap. This period, in which we currently occur, is seen as a training ground for the coming regime, and some of what we do will continue through into it - though we are marked for entry into the next regime by our faith rather than just self-originating works. It is a time of bringing some healing, of witness to the work of God through Christ, a time of preparation through experience, and a time of persecution and suffering for God's people. Hope is possible ultimate after the Parousia, but is valid today because of God's work.
Note of Jesus' Poverty. In addition to giving his very life on the Cross for us, in addition to spending all His time during his three-year ministry in healing and teaching, Jesus was poor all his ministry, without any home or place even to sleep. As Paul wrote, "though he was rich, for our sake became poor." Three kinds of sacrifice, of which the third is most directly relevant to economics. Jesus expects His example to be followed, at least in heart and often in economic situation. Sacrificial living is intuitively attractive. (But how much attention should we give the the largely-siren wails about 'appropriation'?)
Note on Definitions. Definitions are an attempt by us to capture in words the full meaningfulness of something and to set a boundary round it. They can be useful in certain analytical and judicial tasks but various thinkers (including Dooyeweerd) warn us that meaningfulness cannot be fully grasped by any thought that makes sharp distinctions, nor any form of words. That is why we do not here seek a definition. However, we do try to gain some inkling of the meaningfulness of economics. Dooyeweerd himself would involve everyday experience, reflections and philosophical tests together in his discussion of the kernels of aspects; so do we.
Note on Meaning(fulness). "Meaning is the being of all that is created, and the nature of our selfhood" wrote Dooyeweerd [1955,I, 4] in the introduction of his magnum opus. Unfortunately, Dooyeweerd himself seemed not to discuss what meaning is but relied on the readers' intuition. Basden [2019] tries to set out and discuss Dooyeweerd's understanding of meaning; see also the web page on Meaning.
Meaning as Dooyeweerd intended it, which we will call "meaningfulness", must be distinghuished from: (a) signification-maning: which is the semantics of words; (b) interpretation-meaning, such as deducing from a pile of feathers that there was bird-kill; (c) attribution-meaning: the meaning we attribute to items, such as my grandmother's old vase; (d) life-meaning, the meaning of life or career, etc. These all presuppose human involvement, while meaningfulness does not. Everything is meaningful, whether humans are involved or not. Types (a) to (d) presuppose meaningfulness to make them even possible.
Meaningfulness arises from the Ultimate. The meaningfulness a person find arises from what they believe to be ultimate; that which society holds meaningful arises from what it takes to be ultimate. As Chapter 4 discusses, this, in a hidden way, affects all we do or think in economics and all spheres of life, so it is more important than usually recognised. If we treat something ultimate, and hence an origin of meaningfulness, which is not actually Ultimate, it will eventually let us down, leaving much damage in its train. That is why idolatry is so harmful, not merely a societal choice or fact. (x Christians and others call the Ultimate "God" and meaningfulness arises from all things having been Created.)
Note on Structuration Theory. See Basden [2018, 275-7; 297-9] and especially Giddens' Structuration from a Dooyeweerdian Perspective (which contains excerpts from that book).
Note: Reality's Revenge. Dooyeweerd believed that there is a reality, including the reality of how we think theoretically and philosophically, that we find ourselves unstuck and lost in antinomies and also societal problems if we go against it. See Reality Avenging Itself.
Note on Understanding. Economics science seeks generic understanding of the way Reality operates in its economic aspect (including its future possibilities not yet realized) and expressing this understanding as theories and/or general rules. In other words, it seeks to understand the laws of the economic aspect and how they interact with laws of other aspects. Here, though, the notions of understanding and theories are broadened to beyond formal academic versions to those informal ones found in everyday life, such as heuristics used by managers or householders, but recognise the special place of formal theory.
Note on Aquinas' Use of Aristotle. Aquinas adopted Aristotle's philosophy as support for Christian doctrines, especially Aristotle's recognition of the material world, his approach to reason and his idea of virtue, but disagreed with Aristotle on humans being inherently virtuous, the cosmos lasting forever and the nature of 'final cause'. It seems, however, that Aquinas accepted Aristotle's deepest presuppositions without question [Clouser 2005].
Note on Frugality. The RLDG were divided on whether efficiency should replace frugality as the norm of the economic aspect. Dooyeweerd [NC,II, 67===] clearly assigns efficiency to the formative aspect. In this Rethink, we adopt Dooyeweerd's view but remain open to the possibility that the norm might be efficiency. Frugality seems to have the economic aspect saying to all its sibling aspects, "I am being careful to minimise my demands on you, so that you are not hindered from flourishing." The norm of an aspect applies in others, and frugality in analytical functioning, for example, avoids the confusion by restricting reasoning to what is relevant (Occam's Razor).
Note on Saving and Frugality. Tendy et al. [2015] reports many statements people made about saving, many of which are about saving for a house or for children. Such saving is not only to build up funds for the future, but also an exercise in frugality here and now. It prevents us spending so much on non-essentials that would waste money. Whereas most respondents in their survey left it at that, a couple recognised the frugality benefit of saving: "=====" and "=====". (Had this survey not been taken during the 2015 culture of spend-spend on me-me-me, might more have recognised or at least admitted this benefit?) This is yet another piece of evidence that the meaning kernel of the economic aspect is frugality rather than consumption or production. Chapter 4 discusses frugality, Chapter 7, non-essentials.
Note. Ecological Footprint. Calculating Ecological Footprint takes into account materials, pollution, energy, transport, resource depletion, biodiversity, climate change emissions, and other things. Ecolgoical Footprint calculators may be found at: =====, =====. One remarkable thing about Ecological Footprint for economics is that is correlates negatively with almost all human wellbeing indices, which all correlate positively with each other. See EU Report on Beyond Growth, Figure 23, p.94.
Note on Hayek's Defence of Economic Isolation and Arrogance. Contrary to Polanyi, Hayek [1988] argued, that self-regulating markets are normatively necessary and what Polanyi called embeddedness is anti-normative, because he (Hayek) reduced all to evolution and biotic life as the sole origin of meaning. The unfettered market is the most efficient way to feed mouths of a growing population. Our Rethink, of course, rejects that, because there is more meaningfulness in Creation than mere biotic survival, but it is interesting that Faria [n.d.] finds a logical inconsistency in Hayek's use of the purposeless mechanism of evolutionary survival to find purpose (c.f. Dooyeweerd: meaning always refers beyond?), and also that in reality Hayek's proposal is self-defeating.
Note on Real Values: Is This Too Harsh? This list is complied from the attitudes rife among people, politicians and media in the affluent West and its actions in and towards the rest of the world. While many in the West hold the opposite of these negative values, especially in its economics dealing, the list reflects the balance between concern and unconcern, generosity and greed, humility and arrogance, collectivism and individualism, selfless cooperation and rivalry, mercy and legalism, genuineness and hypocrisy or hidden agendas (e.g. on climate change), selfless sacrifice and self-centredness, what affluent societies devote much attention, effort and resources to in art, politics and economics. What saves the affluent West from utter condemnation (from a Christian perspective, by God) is that just occasionally the Good shines through.
Note on Resilience. Resilience is hard to place aspectually, because it is almost a synonym for goodness or rightness, which are multi-aspectual: ecological, psychological, technological, social, economic, ethical resilience, etc. However, when we speak of reslience it is usually in relation to which of these we want to achieve or maintain. The wanting is pistic commitment, and the achievement is formative. So we characterize resilience by these two aspects.
Note on Marxian Labour-Capital Conflict. Marx drew our attention to some kind of conflict between labour and capital, but he misunderstood it. It is actually rooted in dysfunction in the ethical and juridical aspects, with those with capital selfishly wanting to maximize their own wealth at the expense of the workers, resulting in dysfunction in the juridical aspect (injustice, oppression). But Marx tried to reduce this to the economic aspect, e.g. as surplus value, value produced over and above what is required to survive, which accrues to the owners of the means of production. While there is some insight in that, he completely ignored the ethical aspect (of self-giving love), presupposing selfishness (grabbing) as a 'fact of nature' rather than a dysfunction in the ethical aspect. We might also ask what "survive" entails; Marx limited it largely to the biotic aspect, but today people would not be content with that. Even those who critique Marx's view, such as Kotz [2007], are trapped in similar reductionisms. From a purely economic perspective, surplus value emerges from the interplay of three things: the length of the working day, the living standard of workers (or, rather, the proportion of the working day needed for workers to earn enough to maintain their expected lifestyle), and the productivity of workers. But what is it that determines these? The living standard is an expectation, thus pistic and ethical aspects. The length of working day is influenced by social and psychological factors. The productivity is determined by worker morale (pistic, aesthetic aspects). (Should this note actually be part of the main text?)
Note on Cipations. =====to be supplied
Note on Mothers at Home Matter. A campainigning group to remind the affluent world that home-making, especially by mothers, matters and is important and not to be under-valued as it is at present. See Mothers At Home Matter.
Note on Volunteering. To be found and inserted here. =====
Note on Klaus Armstrong-Braun. Klaus Armstrong-Braun was born in Poland during World War II, was orphaned, spent the first 18 years of his life in orphanages in Germany, then being shifted from family to family in rural Ireland, then in Barnardos' Home in the UK, before training and working as an engineer. An accident at work invalided him for the rest of his life, so he never had paid work again. He used this time of being 'unemployed' very fruitfully. During his formative years, he gained a deep love for the natural world and so began to take part in environmental action. Rather than merely go on protests, he tackled planning issues, submitting well-thought-out comments during consultations on local and national plans, and then taking part in Public Inquiries. As a result, he was able to obtain change to policies and regulations at all levels, from the most local, up to national (UK, Ireland, Greece) and then at the European Union level. A brief autobiographical account of his story may be found in []. What sparked off his work is an early document, Sustainable Vale Royal [EGP 1987].
Note on Dooyeweerd and Specialisation. This is one place we might disagree with Dooyeweerd. He developed a theory of history and 'progress' that happened to arrive at what was accepted in mid-20th-century Western culture, in which cultures specialise then try to integrate. However, his arguments for why this is normative rather than just-happened-to-have-occurred seem weak and incomplete. See the discussion in History and Progress - Dooyeweerd's Theory.
Note: Marxist view. Marx focused on the economic, juridical and physical-biotic aspects, but seemed to overlook the aesthetic and ethical aspects (maybe because he thought that aesthetics was of the bourgeoisie). Marxist aesthetics reduces the aesthetic to the economic and social, and is meaningful only as a contribution to changing social and economic conditions of the oppressed. ANd Marx assumed that while all the proletariat would be generous and work willingly, all the rest were completely devoid of such self-giving generosity - just plain stupid!
Note on Aspectual Understanding of Ostrom. Elinor Ostrom's 8 principles for success in governing complex economic systems may be seen as meaningful and Good by reference to aspects. The following is from Stephen McGibbon, 26th Feb 2024:
"1. Commons need to have clearly defined boundaries. In particular, who is entitled to access to what? Unless there's a specified community of benefit, it becomes a free for all, and that's not how commons work. Spatial aspect2. Rules should fit local circumstances. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to common resource management. Rules should be dictated by local people and local ecological needs. I think this is Social
3. Participatory decision-making is vital. There are all kinds of ways to make it happen, but people will be more likely to follow the rules if they had a hand in writing them. Involve as many people as possible in decision-making. Formative
4. Commons must be monitored. Once rules have been set, communities need a way of checking that people are keeping them. Commons don't run on good will, but on accountability. Juridical
5. Sanctions for those who abuse the commons should be graduated. Ostrom observed that the commons that worked best didn't just ban people who broke the rules. That tended to create resentment. Instead, they had systems of warnings and fines, as well as informal reputational consequences in the community. Juridical
6. Conflict resolution should be easily accessible. When issues come up, resolving them should be informal, cheap and straightforward. That means that anyone can take their problems for mediation, and nobody is shut out. Problems are solved rather than ignoring them because nobody wants to pay legal fees. Aesthetic
7. Commons need the right to organise. Your commons rules won't count for anything if a higher local authority doesn't recognise them as legitimate. Juridical [AB: also pistic?]
8. Commons work best when nested within larger networks. Some things can be managed locally, but some might need wider regional cooperation - for example an irrigation network might depend on a river that others also draw on upstream. Social [AB: Also aesthetic: harmony?]
Note on Basis of Harm. This is a philosophical issue. Most philosophies seem inadequate for this. Oversimplifying somewhat, traditional subjectivist philosophies define harms (and good) by what we happen not to like, objectivist philosophies induce harm from repercussions of past functioning, while Scholastic philosophies refer to authoritative lists of virtues, often rooted in Aristotle. The flaws of these three approaches have been long discussed. Dooyeweerd points us in a different direction, towards meaningfulness: each aspect defines a distinct kind of Good and, from the biotic aspect onwards, a corresponding kind of Harm. See Table ===.
Note: Raworth's Diversity. A possible exception to this is Raworth's Doughnut Economics. She sets out seven principles of "how to think like a 21st century economist" so as to avoid the harms she lists in her "ecological ceiling" while avoiding various harms of dropping below the "social foundation". This is to be welcomed, but the picture is rather fragmented insofar as she does not justify why each component of the ceiling or floor is included.
Note on Toxic Culture. Toxic culture is a loose term, but often refers to pistic dysfunctions like idolatries and hidden agendas among management, coupled with ethical dysfuctions like management seeking employees as merely serving their own interests and even protecting themselves against employees. See also Note on Culture
Note: Harmonization. (We avoid saying "balanced" because that presupposes only two aspects in a zero-sum game, whereas "harmonized" involves multiple aspects and is not zero-sum.) This harmonization cannot be
Note on Constellations. Even these diagrams are neither complete nor fully accurate, but are an initial attempt after 20 years' experience to express the constellation of aspects. The full set may be found in Chapter 9 of Basden [2020] or in the Dooyeweerd Pages.
Note: Idolatry. See the section on idolatry in Chapter 4.
===== following from r7 24 July 2023; to be merged with real note. Note. Ecological Footprint. The ecological footprint of most affluent cultures is around three whole Earths, and that of humanity as a whole is =====; see Table 7t-ecolfootprint.
===== Table 7t-ecolfootprint.
Every economic activity occurs within, and contributes to, a lifestyle. The Ecological Footprint of an lifestyle may be expressed in two ways, either as the total number of Planet Earths that would be needed to sustain the lifestyle if all humanity took part in it, or its inverse, as Earth Overshoot Day, which is how far through the year all the resources available on Earth, which are required by that lifestyle extended to all humanity, are used up. The total Earth Overshoot day for all humanity's average lifestyle is ===== and its Ecological Footprint is ===== Earths.
What this means is that the Earth cannot cope with an abundance of Useless economic activity that drains its resources for no good purpose. The ferrying of biscuits between two cities drains fossil fuel resources. (It also wastes human time; that is an opportunity cost.)
===== the following should go elsewhere. If we wish to continue our Useless activity, are we not saying that we are more important than other people on Earth, demanding that they cut their Ecological Footprint in order to allow our Useless activity?
Reducing an Ecological Footprint from 3.0 Earths to less than 1.0 Earth requires a massive reduction in affluent footprints - no mere 20% drop, but a 67% reduction.
The last time humanity's average Ecological Footprint was less than 1.0 Earths was 1969===== check that. Decades earlier, people might be excused because they did not know, but since 1969 our knowledge has continually increased, and now we have no excuse. This is one major reason why the issue of Useless economic activity, and especially of non-essentials is now extremely important. It should not be ignored by the field of economics any longer! (Christians might recall ==='s "In the past, God overlooked ... but now ...".)
Note: Global South Economies. The production of food and other essentials of life in Global South nations is frequently wrecked by climate disasters like drought and floods, and those nations must then devote considerable economic activity and money to damage recovery and importing essentials, rather than to other economic activities that are more productive of added Good. Given the responsibility orientation of this Rethink, we must link knowledge of that state of affairs with the question of who is and was responsible for the climate change that is having such impacts, especially taking into account the long lead-time of climate change - the nations and people of the Global North. Should not those responsible be the ones to sacrifice to help the others. (We might remember Jesus' words: "To those whom much is given, from those will much be required.") That G7 nations are beginning to help e.g. Vietnam become less dependent on coal is a good example of that. More is needed.
Note: Aspect Details. For more details of each aspect, see "http://dooy.info/aspects.smy.html".
Note: Football. This actually occurred in the north of England 2022-23.
Note. Statistical combination. If p and q are proportions of non-essentials and bullshit, and they are statistically independent factors, then the combination is: p + q - (p*q).
Note: Excessive enjoyment. Is it not often found that when we demand and get excessive enjoyment we find it palls, it becomes boring and we no longer really enjoy it? The Law of Diminishing Returns? Are those in affluent societies really more happy and fulfilled than those in economically restricted societies?
Note on Right to Happiness. Is happiness an essential? "After all, a man has a right to happiness," remarked the man who had divorced his wife to take up with a younger, more exciting girl, on hearing of his ex-wife's suicide. With this story, C.S. Lewis [===] argues "We have no right to happiness" [[Lewis ===].
Note on statistics on non-essentials. The claim that dysfunctional attitudes lie at the root of all kinds of surfeit of non-essentials comes from observation, because the careful emprirical research needed has yet to be carried. Suggests a research project.
Note on Legal. Of course, not every decision should be decided by expensive lawyers; rather, it might be better if economists, politicians, pundits, and indeed all people, were educated more in what makes a good legal decision.
Note: TCD, Town Centre Development. Shown is a screenshot of a knowledgebase constructed by Gareth Jones in 2008, of expertise on how to assess each aspect of town centre development. This is an inference net, in which the lines show inferences from one concept to another, usually probabilistic concepts linked by Bayesian inference. Here it is used simply to show a complex example of qualitative analysis.
Note on Pandemic Figures. On 7 April 2020, the UK Road Haulage Association reported that 46% of the UK truck fleet was parked up because nobody was purchasing "non-essentials" (the word they used). A year later it was found that the clothing sector had reduced by 50% and fuel by 25% (in round figures). These figures could give some indication of the proportion of the economy that is non-essential: nearly half the goods transported or bought were "non-essential".
GDP = Total Good + Total Harm + Total Useless) and subtract from it twice the calculated total Harm and the calculated total Useless.
Created 14 July 2023. Last updated: 9 November 2023 ch 4,5 headings; word "economics". 28 November 2023 p notes. 20 December 2023 RWE. 28 December 2023 Polanyi. 3 January 2024 Hayek. 19 January 2024 labour. 30 January 2024 n-svfg. 2 February 2024 n-rnrw. 17 February 2024 Animal Behaviour. 27 February 2024 ostrom; links. 20 March 2024 n-econ rw, n-rlty. 28 March 2024 emph. 29 March 2024 n-ridl from Ch1. 1 April 2024 n-mgbg rw. 14 May 2024 n-polge. 1 June 2024 n-defn, notes from r4. 4 June 2024 n-aqar. 17 June 2024 n-thry. 22 June 2024 moved to clip; n-ddoa. 26 June 2024 n-ante. 27 June 2024 s-tmny. 8 July 2024 n-idgy; n-cmgd from xn.rethink. 12 July 2024 n-love. 15 July 2024 s-hhrt, heart. 16 July 2024 n-3ds, n-schl. 17 July 2024 n-powr, n-cult; n-econ metrics. 23 July 2024 n-ethx. 30 July 2024 edit n-cult,n-powr. 5 August 2024 n-tGod. 6 August 2024 ed. n-hhrt. 8 August 2024 corrected date of Road Haulage quote from 200408 to 200407. 14 August 2024 n-dutt. 16 August 2024 section on notes from other pieces; n-polx; h3 r.t. h4. 17 August 2024 n-pdgm paradigms. 21 August 2024 ground-motives, n-gmvs. 26 August 2024 n-dyhm, d's humility. 10 September 2024 Polanyi, Hayek. 11 September 2024 n-rtec Rthk Ecx group. 18 September 2024 n-cntx. 21 September 2024 monotheism. 23 September 2024 n-crcr. 26 September 2024 n-shep. 30 September 2024 n-repg. 1 October 2024 Parousia. 2 October 2024 Jesus' poverty. 22 October 2024 started accumulating r5 notes. 28 October 2024 n-ka-b Klaus, n-dysp. 29 October 2024 Marx; n-resl. . 30 October 2024 notes for ch 5.