A Critique of Ecological Economics - Part 2 of 2

Ecological economics is an academic field of study that merges ecology with standard economics. Here I outline its faulty historical vision as well as its errors with respect to value, cost, and capitalism. I also suggest that the field, by rejecting the necessary shift to a new mode of civilization, could be contributing to ecological collapse. Ecological economics is a prominent example of Green Reformism, which I criticized sharply in my previous video. The present video is intended for ecological economists, for students of the subject, and for those who may be attracted by the fields environmental strengths without appreciating its pronounced weaknesses. (To obtain the script for this video, email the author: frank_rotering@yahoo.com. For further information, see my website: needsandlimits.org)

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• ecological
• economics
• Daly
• Costanza
• green reformism
• economic growth
• uneconomic growth
• capitalism
• value
• cost
• Soddy
• Boulding
• Georgescu-Roegen
• overshoot
• environment
• natural capital
• optimal scale
• Ruskin
• steady-state
• Keynes
• Frank Rotering

[nicbards]

Nice critique of retaining subjective value. However, it's a critique of Herman Daly, Farley and Costanza. Ecol. Econ is not as unified a field as your presentation suggests, though perhaps some oversimplification is inevitable. Also, Daly, in some voices is less capitalist, in your sense, than you suggest. e.g. in 'The Common Good' the authors actually argue for worker ownership and control of the means of production! They are against is a thoroughly centrally planned economy; seems reasonable?

[frankr29]

@nicbards I keep hearing that there's more to EE than Daly, et al., but no-one provides any sources. Specifically, who and what are you referring to? Re. worker control: "For the Common Good" focuses on worker participation in a capitalist economy. My reading is that Daly's commitment to capitalism is 100%.

[Alexopolux]

I am really troubled with the theories of value. On the one hand, it seems to me that the subjective nature of value advanced by Walras and widely accepted in mainstream - economic thought is correct (a positivist view). On the other hand, it also seems to me that its correctness has been and is dangerous since resources are limited to satisfy the endless wants of (western) people (a normative view).

[frankr29]

@Alexopolux I don't blame you for being troubled here - value is poorly understood and highly ideological. I agree with you that the key is to recognize the split between the positive and normative realms. I make precisely this distinction in my video "Revolutionizing Economic Thought". Have a look.

[ashevillecat]

Please find me one ecological economist that both (a) denies the existence of capitalism, and (b) fails to note growth as it's central tenet. Good luck! Maybe you never read Daly's book, "Beyond Growth"?

[frankr29]

@iboto1 Capitalism was created through immense violence, as described in vivid detail by historian E.P. Thompson in "The Making of the English Working Class". The system is currently maintained by coercion and propaganda. Simply uniting the groups, as you suggest, runs completely counter to these grim realities.

[iboto1]

@frankr29 If you are defining capitalism as "an economic organization based on the separation of society into two main classes: those who own productive assets and those who sell their labor power to these owners" then could we not avoid much of its detrimental aspects by simply uniting the two groups in the form of worker cooperatives (for artifacts produced) and consumer cooperatives (for services rendered to mankind)?

[Alexopolux]

@frankr29 Thanks. After reading Soddy I will! :) 

[slurpeeday]

@frankr29 I can't think of an situation where the incentives proposed by ecological economics have would not be able to achieve sustainability.

That is tragedy of capitalism. Which is why we need to promote a democracy that can control capitalism.

[frankr29]

@slurpeeday I define capitalism as an economic organization based on the separation of society into two main classes: those who own productive assets and those who sell their labor power to these owners. I agree that human behavior can be changed by incentives. 

The statement re. affordability is easily misconstrued. What I meant was that standard economics largely overlooks the fact that the rich can "vote" with their dollars much more easily than the poor.