The Meaningful Economy
Musings of a Non-Economist

Why is it good that

That, it seems to me, is what 'The Economy' demands. Do we need to rethink Economy?

BUT ... The Economy has become so complex, so entrenched, that easy calls for rethinking won't work, and will only raise problems elsewhere. Any genuine, radical rethink needs to take all aspects of The Economy, and of economy, into account. To this end, I have been collecting reflections on a myriad of topics and issues for a decade. This is where they have been collected.

There is a difference between what happens and what needs to happen. I am interested in the latter. What needs to happen is an expression of the fundamental laws woven to make the fabric of Creation, and of what is good rather than harmful. They are the transcendental (necessary and universal) conditions that make economy possible.

See also Discussions on the 2020 Reith Lectures, in which Mark Carney, ex-Governor of the Bank of England, discusses "How We Get What We Value" especially in the light of the Credit, Covid and Climate Crises.

Introduction

Do we not need a new way of thinking about the economy and economic or financial affairs? I want to understand the whole, and all its parts, in a way that does address such questions at their core. I want an overall understanding, but not one that is so purely overall that it cannot give due respect to those who bring their own specialisms into the debate. Within each specialism - e.g. jobs, finance, banking, environmental responsibility, - it needs to speak in ways that make sense within the specialism, even if it might question some of what is currently taken for granted in the specialisms. This page is an attempt to explain it to myself; it might be helpful to others.

There are attempts to address some such questions, with e.g. circular economy, green economies and happiness indices, but I don't find them able to address the whole, or else they are so overall that they break down when faced with reality. So I'm collecting ideas, from which one day I hope that someone might construct a better approach. I'm collecting ideas mainly to indicate what needs to be taken into account, rather than as theories to adhere to. I presuppose that all theories in economics or all its related specialisms are to be questioned, though not rejected a priori.

This is not yet a finished page - and indeed might never be finished. Currently, it is a collecting place for notes and ideas on The Economy and related matters, including finance, business and management. The plan is to go through these notes and ideas, to formulate a more holistic approach from them. Some, I expect, will be discarded. The notes are collected under BITS below.

Alternative Introductions 2, 3

For those of us with some disposable income, most that we buy is largely unnecessary, irrelevant and meaningless. This is true of services as well as goods.

The economy seems to consist mainly of "How can I persuade you to shift the money out of your pocket into mine?" And what do with the money in my pocket? If I don't hoard it, I shift into pockets of others. The shifting of money around is what is measured in GDP, and politicians and economists almost universally treat increasing GDP as a Good Thing, even as sacrosanct. Is money-shifting the primary Good Thing in life? Surely not!

Should not the Economy be serving a higher Good? It seems a very Meaningless Economy. Can we find a Meaningful Economy? Might not the Economy encourage the Good, the Relevant, the Necessary, the Meaningful and discourage the Evil, the Irrelevant, the Unnecessary, the Meaningless?

What does a Meaningful Economy look like? How might we achieve it?

On Meaningfulness

This book is not just about the so-called recession, but may be relevant to it. As I write, the recession still continues, longer than experts expected. I write at a time when the British Prime Minister has warned about 'red lights' flashing, warning that we might be going into a third recession. The 'old normal' cannot understand the 'new normal' (as they are calling it). I propose that the 'new normal' can be understood if we think primarily in terms of meaningfulness.

Even Earlier Introduction

Meaningful Economics confines itself to the field of human activity that is economic in nature, but gains its confines from philosophy rather then seeking to encroach on other areas. In so doing it finds we can understand the ways in which it relates fruitfully to other areas - technology, education, health care, the natural world, transport, religion and ethics to name a few.

Questioning Assumptions

• Why should we make efficiency so important? Why should be expend so much effort and attention throughout all our organisations in reducing costs?

  Suppose we are inefficient and have costs slightly higher than the minimum. It means that we give money to others more than needed. Is that not a good thing, in that it helps those others?

• Why should we the affluent keep growing in income and wealth?

  When I have enough, why do I want more? Is it only greed, coveting what I see others have even though I don't need it? What's the point? (The Skidalskis suggest a consumption tax.)

A New Way of Thinking about Economics

==== now intro from paper on walk.

Economic theory is not a good enough foundation for a rethink. Not even by reacting against extant theories. Because theory does not just state what is believed to be true but also what is believed to be meaningful and, by implication, what is deemed irrelevant or to be ignored. Instead, we must look at the whole of practice, of what happens and has happened, and discern as many aspects in this as possible. We need philosophy to help us, a philosophy that respects the wide diversity of ways in which things can be meaningful and especially things ordinarily overlooked. e.g. the faith aspect and its deep impact on the economy. So the following collects together thoughts that arise from and during the midst of life as it happens.

BITS - DRAFT NOTES AS THEY OCCUR IN THE MIDST OF LIFE

• Tyranny of Market - Grabbing Money 10 August 2021. The Old Water Mill at Aberfeldy, a town in Scotland that has many tourists, used to grind good qua;ity oatmeal. I remember visiting it some years ago.and having a tour of the mill, and purchasing some of its oatmeal. Yesterday (210809) I visited it again, to find it no longer grinds oatmeal, nor offers any tour of the mill, but has become a mere cafe, book and gift shop, and gallery. Presumably, it found that more lucrative than grinding good quality oats - but which is more useful, which is of more real value? Sadly, the pressure is on businesses to replace valuable activity with that by which they can cause money to flow from tourist pockets into their own..

• Humility 30 July 2021. There is a serious lack of humility in business. E.g. 'miracle' products. Yet humility is part of the very success-law of Creation. When humility is exercised then a healthy life ensues, including the economy - because it is a good-functioning in the ethical aspect. 'Miracle' products often let us down.

• Convenience 21 July 2021. One of the big drivers of today's economy and its growth is desire for, worship of, convenience among the wealthy. Not just pleasure, pride or comfort. So much of what we are persuaded to buy - and to create for sale - is marketed to us on the basis of convenience. Convenience is the hidden corrupter of the economy. Few economists allow for this. Dasgupta merely hides it in the mathematics.

• Capital 15 June 2021. What is capital? Not a thing but a functioning. It is an economic object, a generated object then a prior object. However, to be capital, as distinct from potential capital, other aspects must function: social agreement that certain things have value as capital, pistic reliance on this, and juridical ownership. (This was after a discussion by UN SNA2025 group about whether AI is capital or labour. It is both, in that it is produced but also it makes decisions.)

• Economic growth - maybe expresses something good? 12 June 2021. I tend to question the importance of economic growth. However, a thought came: If humankind is mandated to bring extra good into the world, and good is value, then does not this entail that our mandate is to secure ever-increasing good (value)? Insofar as value is meaningful in the economic aspect, then might our love for economic growth be an echo of this? However, it is a very flawed and distorted echo partly because it is very restricted in what it counts as value or good.

• The Destitute Widow 11 June 2021. Jesus and the disciples watched as people came and put money into the Temple treasury. The wealthy put in a lot. A poor widow came and put in two tiny coins. Jesus told his disciples, "She put in more they all the others; they gave of their surplus; she gave all she had to live on." In the past I have tended to spiritualise this as speaking about worship of God and heart attitude alone. It is those, but might it also apply in the secular economy too? - Might it be not the quantitative amount of money that matters, so much as the attitude in which it is given, and especially when given out of sacrifice? This cannot be explained from the laws of the economic aspect alone; but might it be explained when all aspects of life are taken together, the economic along with the ethical and pistic aspects, for example? See also The Multi-aspectual Economy.

• *** The Multi-aspectual Economy 11 June 2021. To see economy activity (including 'the economy') not just in its own terms but as one aspect of the whole of human activity, alongside other aspects. Human activity is multi-aspectual functioning. Aspects are mutually irreducible spheres of meaningfulness and law that enable reality to Be and Occur, and Reality functions in all aspects simultaneously. Such a view was explored best (so far) by Dooyeweerd; see Aspects of Reality. Then what happens has an economic but also ethical, juridical, biotic, etc. aspects. The laws of one aspect cannot be reduced to any other, and each aspect thus opens up a kind of possibility that is inexplicable to others. Each aspect has its own rationality, which does not 'make sense' to any other. Is that why in the real world economic theories have so often proven inadequate: they try to explain things solely from the rationality and laws of the economic aspect alone without reference to other aspects?

• Wealth 10 June 2021. Wealth is not wrong; it's false.

• Mammon 11 June 2021. Is this part of why Jesus said "You cannot serve God and Mammon" - where Mammon is not coinage or currency, nor even riches as such, but the system of money, in which we all tacitly agree to depend on money and make money all-important in our lives?

• Inequality and injustice 9 June 2021. Equality is not the same as justice. But somehow we feel inequality as an injustice. Why? why is it that so many equate the two, at least loosely? Why do inequalities feel unjust? E.g. our ire at the ultrawealthy paying so little tax compared with the rest of us.] Might Dooyeweerd help us with inter-aspect analogy? Might it be that Justice is a juridical issue while equality is an economic issue that echoes the juridical idea of justice? i.e. an analogy of the juridical in the economic? (I mean equality of income, wealth, resource, etc. and maybe also of opportunity, though the latter also has some formative aspect.)

• The ultrawealthy 9 June 2021. ProPublica has just issued the report of a study of the ultrawealthy in the USA, such as Geoff Basos and Elon Musk, and found that when we consider "wealth flow", i.e. actual income, such people pay very little tax compared with average (3% r.t. 14% in USA). This raises ire over inequality (see above) that they who can afford much more tax should pay much less than the 'rest of us'. But why? What is actually wrong with people being ultrawealthy, if their money-flow actually means that others get paid income to deliver the goods and services for the lifestyle they lead? I try to discuss this elsewhere. I conclude that "Poverty Matters; Wealth Doesn't", that wealth is an issue meaningful in economic aspect, while poverty is an issue meaningful in the juridical, and that while justice is a juridical matter, equality is an economic matter with juridical analogy.

• Toqueville Effect / Paradox 29 May 2021. As social conditions and opportunities improve, social frustration grows more quickly. See the Wikipedia page on it, which offers no explanation. Dooyeweerd could explain it however, as a functioning in the pistic aspect in response to changes in the economic, social and juridical aspects. This is why, from the perspective of those three aspects, it seems paradoxical: it is a response in an aspect of which they know nothing except by analogy-echo.

• Cuts before 29 May 2021, from envelope. Cuts do not help the economy. Because less money is flowing and less human functioning associated with the cuts [the cut money?] goes on. So the question is not "Which things do we cut? Which things do we devote 'our' limited funds to?", but "Which human functioning do we want: taking into account the Good and Harmful functioning in each aspect?" See also Good, Harmful, Useless.

• Wanting to make money 25 May 2021. This is tempting but harmful.

• Jobs As Reason for Harmful 14 May 2021. When anyone suggests restricting a harmful operation or part of the economy, the cry goes up, "What about the jobs that will be lost!" Often, those harmful sectors are large operations, put into vulnerable communities with high unemployment decades ago, and the memory of unemployment at those times is still alive. A recent example in the UK is the new coal mine by West Cumbria Mining that was given the go-ahead by the local council, in the year the UK hosts the CoP26 Climate Change summit! "500 jobs" were given as the excuse to allow this - and it was in a community relatively isolated from the rest of the UK (Whitehaven). (Often, in these situations, "jobs" can include part-time jobs, and sometimes expected jobs from support operations. In the case of West Cumbria Mining, they are 504 "roles".) We need a sound way to think beyond this: to allow all communities, especially those with memories of pain, a reasonable provisioning of reasonable lifestyles, without relying on harmful jobs.

• Measuring Health of Economic Activity / System 11 May 2021. To measure the out-of-kilter-ness of the economic system, look at organisations that do good, such as social entrepreneur enterprises. They often depend on multiple income streams, like donations, grants, public funding and self generated profit (Doherty, et al., 2009: 28). In a well-functioning economy, as God intended the economy to contribute Real Good in all its aspects in harmony, such an organisation should be able to exist wholly on self-generated profit. So the proportion of self-generated profit or maybe income, divided by total income, summed across all organisations that do good, may be a useful measure of the well-working of the economic system. (Doherty, B. Foster, G. Mason, C. Meehan, J. Rotheroe, N. and Royce, M. (2009). Management of social enterprise. Sage: London.)

• Prices and markets 9 May 2021. British universities put up fees. This is because they can. 1. Market competition does not prevent this. Because any university that charged less would be tacitly admitting "We offer less worthwhile degrees." No university will do that. That market does not work. 2. They charge more for international students than for British ones. This leads to injustices: Money is redistributed from poorer nations to wealthier ones like Britain. 3. It means that UK students must pay more; most of them get a loan, and these loans are longterm and many not paid off. This inculcates the idea of living on debt. And it means that the rest of the economy pays for their university education - but not those from overseas who need it. ** Injustices all round.

• Carbon credits 8 May 2021. [From Niekerk] "However, what is today known as the carbon credit market experienced a significant collapse in May 2013. As a commentator critical of the growing market in carbon credits, Monbiot (2013) explained that this collapse was a result of an oversupply of credits which swamped the market and which in turn were orchestrated by the lobbying power of large businesses. He argues that rather than creating a sustainable process of natural resource utilisation, it has had the effect of rationalising the polluting practices of the private sector (Monbiot, 2013)." [Monbiot, G. (2013). The Market is no friend to Nature. The Guardian, 26 April.] Shows that credits are useless as a market commodity because credits can be created at will whereas commodities are limited. Therefore credits have no value. The number of Carbon credits issued depends on the issuer's decision as to how much carbon is allowable, and this is driven by beliefs and attitudes, which are impacted by powerful lobbies. And also by complacency about how much time we have left before we need to act. Therefore more credits were issued than the emergency allows, and as Monbiot says "rationalised" the harmful practices.

• Human work - rethinking jobs? Luther on Work 7 May 2021, from Sytse Strijboss final chapter in Cannot Go On. "Finally, to put the same thing in a different way, listening to the voice of Luther at the break of the Middle Ages and New Age in Western history, almost five centuries ago:

  The little birds fly about and warble, make nests, and hatch their young. That is their task. But they do not gain their living from it. Oxen plow, horses carry their riders and have a share in battle; sheep furnish wool, milk, cheese, etc. That is their task. But they do not gain their living from it. It is the earth which produces grass and nourishes them through God's blessing. (...)

  Similarly, man must necessarily work and busy himself at something. At the same time, however, he must know that it is something other than his labor which furnishes him sustenance; it is the divine blessing. Because God gives him nothing unless he works, it may seem as if it is his labor which sustains him; just as the little birds neither sow nor reap, but they would certainly die of hunger if they did not fly about to seek their food. The fact that they find food, however, is not due to their own labor, but to God's goodness (Luther 1999:311)."

  Working, human functioning, is more than for-sustenance.

• Home-making 7 May 2021. Home-making (what used to be call Housewife) is multi-aspectual human functioning that has a huge potential for good, yet is unpaid, so is completely overlooked, ignored by the money-centred economy and downplayed in society and denigrated in the media. Yet it has a huge potential for bringing Good into the world - multiple kinds of Good, in the realms of health, mental development, skills, language, relationships, learning, security, economy, harmony, fun, justice, love and beliefs. And, of course, a potential for harm there too - which may be partly why politicians and media turned against it (the cause of the harm may be seen in the prevailing beliefs of society, such as individualism). See also Jobs.

• *** What is Business? Nature of Business 30 April 2021. If you treat business as primarily a way of making money - whether for workers or owners - you will reap selfishness, corruption, cheating, and poor customer service. This is because, when a market sector expands (such as cycling increased 45% year-on-year comparison during the lockdown), then the large unscrupulous businesses will muscle in to make money in it, without any care. It is because whatever motivates us (pistic functioning) is our idol and all else is sacrificed to it.

• *** Fundamentals; Rethinking Economics 29 April 2021. What happens, or has happened, is not what need to happen, nor what is good to happen - those who depend on it happening in the future are unwise. So, e.g. just-in-time inventory supply - its stupidity shown by the pandemic, and its environmental damage needs to be recognised.

• Economic theory and marketing. 31 March 2021 In some rational economic theory, including "buyer beware", the principle is that producers can do whatever they want to sell stuff (within law) whether it produces good or bad, and it is assumed that buyers will buy only that which does them good and does the world good, because they are rational. That takes no account of marketing and selling [lng]that is directed to maximising sales in competition with [eth] other suppliers, by whatever means [jur][eth]. Nevermind whether it is Good, harmful, useless.

• *** What are jobs? The nature of jobs 4 March 2021. (Labour criticised the 3 March 2021 budget by putting jobs above all.) Labour sees jobs as something the state should 'supply', a commodity, an infrastructure. Jobs are neither, though could be seen narrowly as such when seen from the economic aspect of reality alone. No. Jobs are human functioning, tasks done and to be done. Some are paid for. Some are paid for with wages and salaries, with a contract of employment: do this job and we'll pay you. Continued 12 March 2021: Jobs should be to bring good that is essential / important / meaningful, not to bring harm and especially not harm that is non-essential, of which there are several kinds, such as bullshit jobs, bauble-making and beating avoidable wrongs. See Non Essentials. See also Jobs example and also several below. See Home-making, Human Work Rethinking. See also Jobs As Reason for Harmful.

• Greed 1 March 2021. Why do most people want more money? (most: i.e. not the very poorest, who want more money for their families etc.). # Pride: so that they can think they are worth something. # To beat those they see as rivals, e.g. colleagues. # They look always at those who have more not those who have less. # They feel a sense of achievement in managing to negotiate more. # Materialistic greed, always wanting more expensive baubles. # Fear: a sense of 'if I have more I'll be secure'.

• The Mission Economy 18 February 2021. Book. Sounds like it discusses the pistic aspect of the economy. Quote from author (Prof. Masichato?) on BBC Radio 4 Today programme, "Not about picking the winners but picking the willing."

• Prosperity and Increased Bullshit 12 February 2021. Does not prosperity lead to increased administrative burden and the advance of Bullshit Jobs? Management is awarded higher salaries, and then has to justify itself, so thinks it requires more and more information from those underneath it. Such information cannot just be got or given; it has to be "transparent" and "fair" for this whole new reporting structures must be set up in the organisation in order to ensure this. This extra bureaucracy becomes entrenched, and those who have to fill in the forms have increased administrative burden. And of course, prosperity allows us to spend money on the IT infrastructure in order to put the forms online - which then has to be maintained, usually by paying some external IT company, and the online version is so slow, cumbersome and rigid. All this occurs because of prosperity.

• Why we need money? 2 February 2021. The economy is for moving money and resources around. Why do we need / use money? How much we really need depends on what we use it for, and some of those uses as harmful or non-essential (see Good, Harmful, Useless. As far as I can see, we need / use money for:
  • To live
  • To give to others (this was THE reason Paul gave for urging his readers to earn money, not for other reasons)
  • To achieve innovate or extra things, which advance flourishing of all Creation (including humanity and including SOME human technological ability or culture)
  • For self-aggrandisement

  I suspect that the fourth is a huge user of money in wealthy nations and cultures (e.g. fashion-purchases for the party you are going to, the fuel to get there, the expensive exotic food and drink there. e.g. unnecessary conferences and business meeting. e.g. bullshit jobs; see Non-Essentials.)

  RESEARCH: Need figures on them. Also, are there any more?

• Ethical Aspect of the Economy 27 January 2021. The ethical aspect of reality is that which makes self-giving love meaningful and good. It goes beyond what is due (juridical aspect of right and wrong, into real goodness and attitude. Though attitudes are held by individuals they also pervade communities and societies. How The Economy runs is deeply affected by this pervading attitude, and all the individual decisions made that contribute to the Economy, are influenced by individual attitude. The impact of the ethical aspect is long-term, and the harm that results from self-centred attitudes cannot be handled by recourse to the juridical aspect of blame and reparation. It runs deeper, and everyone involves shares juridical culpability. Example: Builders used unsafe cladding on buildings; now who should pay the costs of replacing those unsafe claddings? In the competitive attitude of the construction - note: competitive attitude is a dysfunction in the ethical aspect and has long-term harmful results in both society and the Economy - most construction companies and their accountants felt they were 'obliged' to cut costs as much as possible, using lower-cost unsafe cladding. When those in the construction industry pointed out that using such cladding was immoral, they were silenced by the supposed imperative of cutting costs. Moreover, the suppliers of unsafe cladding 'reinterpreted' the fire regulations to get their materials to pass them - often performing biased and unsound experiments. Thus we see how dysfunction in the ethical aspect generated dysfunction in other aspects, such as the lingual (lying or almost), analytical (rigging tests), and lingual (stifling warnings). Housing companies and associations would also put pressure to keep costs low, because they were prioritizing their own interests (another ethical dysfunction). Apartment renters and purchasers wanted to protect their own financial situation and were pleased to have lower rents or prices. Mortgage suppliers also felt they had to squeeze costs down. In all these there was the ethical dysfunction of self-interest - and it all combines to cause the problem highlighted in the Grenfell Tower disaster. Note also the local authority, Westminster Council, had put less funding etc. into that area even though it was one of the wealthier councils. Now, the juridical question: who should pay the costs? Who is to blame? Everyone? It is a meaningless question because the ethical aspect - and ethical dysfunctioning of self-centred attitudes - is not a valid topic of law. Not only does society suffer, but so does the Economy. Not as measured by GDP, which is benefited by money-flow of any kind, but as measured in terms of Good, Harmful and Useless in that the money-flow that developed and put up the unsafe cladding was Harmful, and the money-flow that replaces it is Useless, i.e. should never have occured.

• Capitalism's Contract with Work 25 January 2021. Interview with Robert Verkaik BBC Radio 4 25 January 2021 09:00 hrs, who wrote Why You Won't Ger Rich. He pointed out that it is no longer the case that "if you work hard you can expect to get rich". I WONDER whether this is because money flow is an expression of human functioning (multi-aspectual) and hard work is one kind of human functioning (over-emph formative aspect) and society's agreement and belief over what is the link between work and money has shifted. Money used to more express functioning in the formative aspect but now work and money now focus on different aspects, so the link is broken.

• Division of Labour. Paying Others To Do Menial Work 12 January 2021. What about paying someone to do my menial work so that I can be freed up to do stuff that delights me - and have what society believes to be the aesthetic life? i.e. I pay a servant to menials for me. (Terminology: "Aesthetic" refers not just to art but anything where I delight in it, and can for example refer to university researchers who follow research to their own delight, or writers, journalists, media people, sports people, etc. "Servant" whether that servant is employed by me directly as in days of yore or is employed by an agency as part of the service industry, or is paid by a manufacturer of goods I don't want to bother making for myself). This presupposes (a) the supremacy of what society holds to be aesthetic, over what it considers menial (pistic aspect, beliefs; maybe even idolatry). (b) In my aesthetic activity I can make enough money in order to pay someone else to do the menial. (c) Society agrees a higher money-worth on my aesthetic than her/her menial. As a result, my money gives me power over my servant. Should it be so? If not, what is the root of wrong? Is it power per-se or is it found among the presuppositions (a), (b), (c) above? Dooyeweerd's aspects can perhaps

• GHU employment 6 January 2021. Allowing (and especially supporting) employment in Harmful sectors of the economy not only generates harm but it also denudes Good sectors of quality employees. See Good, Harmful, Useless.

• Investment 3 January 2021. Investment gives firms and people extra resources to do what they want to do. (Maybe it is an issue of shares, maybe it is a gift, maybe it is a grant or loan.) That seems good, even from a philosophical view: it echoes the ethical aspect of self-giving. However it can also lead to waste, in that we think we have plenty for the frivolous additions. That is bad.

• Rethinking Wealth 30 December 2020. Paying an army of people to vaccinate us: is that wealth? Is that Good rather than Harmful or Useless? It is employment and security, but is it wealth? If we had no Covid-19 it would not be needed. And if we had not bloated the aviation and other holiday and business travel sectors, we would not have got a pandemic. It is a Good in some ways but it is a negative Good of the GDP [not sure what I meant by that note]. ***

• Rethinkng wealth 13 December 2020. Wealth is not owned. With wealth comes responsibility. We do not have it to spend it on ourselves (whether selves are individuals, organisations, companies, states). Wealth flows through us, and is an opportunity for us to do good in the earth. ***

• Powerful sectors 6 December 2020. When a harmful sector is powerful, it protects itself, so its harm persists and becomes even more entrenched - and causes rifts in society between those who love the Harm and those who love the Good. See Good, Harmful, Useless. Of course, powerful sectors have the ear of government, can argue that they are essential to the economy (which is the government's idol) and can fashion the venue in which such discussions occur to make themselves of absolute meaningfulness and importance, downplaying others. Yet their importance is not as great in reality as they demand, and we do better in the long term without their harm. Examples: Gambling, aviation, roads, tourism, agrochemicals. We need *some* of each of those, perhaps, but they are bloated. ***

• Cheaper 5 November 2020. Surely there is something fundamentally wrong with an economic system in which it is cheaper to do evil than to do good. Can we not find an economic system where it is the other way round? Surely God intended the economy to be good not evil, and to encourage good not evil? Evil is, for example> throwing away, polluting and plundering the earth rather than repairing, reusing and recycling; oppressing people rather than properly resourcing them; getting goods from afar rather than near, with consequent climate change emissions; and so on.

• Creativity without servants 2 November 2020. Ludwig van Beethoven had servants who would cook and clean for him, which allowed him time to develop and express his creative genius. When he had no servants, he became dishevelled and dirty, mistaken for a tramp. By contrast, those who spent all their own time on growing, cooking and cleaning, were seldom creative (maybe an exception is Robert Burns). Before the Industrial Revolution, creativity seemed to depend on having servants, but technology has replaced servants in the economy. Is that a good or bad thing? Or does society and reality (Creation) not really need what we deem creativity? If creativity is a Good Thing, intended by God for all humans, how do we facilitate it without either the injustice of servanthood or the planet-destroying irresponsibility of technology? Maybe the Scripture Union author [===] has the answer: technology should develop at a slow, patient pace, not driven by idolatry nor competitiveness.

• Underfunded 30 October 2020. Sector X, Y and Z all claim to underfunded. It seems we are all underfunded. So what does "underfunded" mean? We need to rethink. I suggest that we need to take into account the Good that the sector contributes and also the Harm, and also what proportion of it is Useless. ***

• *** Good, Harmful, Useless 30 October 2020. How do we decide how much of our economy (GDP, claims to underfunding, etc.), and what parts of the economy as a whole, are Good, Harmful and Useless. See also Why we need money?.
  • How do we decide what is Good or Harmful? We need clear ideas of the kinds of normativity of reality. One conceptual tool that might help is Dooyeweerd's aspects, which are fifteen spheres of meaningfulness and law, of which in 13 we can differentiate Good from Harm. We can ask to what extent (some part of) the economy is Good versus Harmful in the following ways:
    • Biotic: (to do with life functions) - health versus disease
    • Sensitive: (to do with sense, feeling, emotion) - emotional health versus dysfunction
    • Analytical: (to do with distinguishing and logic) - clarity versus confusion
    • Formative: (to do with deliberate forming, as in planning, design, structuring, technology, history and culture) - industry and innovation versus laziness or destruction
    • Lingual: (to do with symbolic signification that makes data possible and enables communication) - meaningful information and communication versus deceit or equivocation
    • Social: (to do with social interaction and agreement that enables working together) - friendship and togetherness versus enmity
    • Economic: (to do with frugal use of resources) - frugality versus waste or greed
    • Aesthetic: (to do with harmony, surprise, fun) - harmony and enjoyment versus boredom and fragmentation
    • Juridical: (to do with appropriateness and 'due', rights and responsibilities) - justice versus injustice
    • Ethical: (to do with self-giving love, going beyond due) - generosity and self-giving attitude versus meanness or self-protective, self-promoting attitude
    • Pistic: (to do with belief, aspiration, commitment, ultimate meaning, religion/ideology) - commitment and meaningfulness versus cowardice or meaninglessness.

  • Of course, such considerations must primarily be qualitative rather than quantitative, but some quantitative indication might be helpful.

  • We probably need to do this for each sector, in light of all other sectors.

  Re Good-Harmful-Useless, See Also:

  • Measuring the Health of Economic Activity / System

• Greed and luxury 21 October 2020. We've just got used to too much.

• Economic Planning for GHU 21 October 2020. If we try to decide top-down which businesses or sectors to shrink ...

• Jobs 28 October 2020. BBC Radio 4 Today programme interviewed a young guy with a masters in aeronautical engineering, who was employed for a few months and then cast off when Covid-19 struck. He looked for jobs but now is working in a supermarket. Supermarkets have been booming during lockdown because they provide essentials of life, whereas the aviation sector is largely non-essential to life. So, is it any wonder that his job proved to be ephemeral? Many jobs in the affluent economies are non-essential and are ephemeral. In David Graeber's terms they are "bullshit jobs". Has not the jobs market become like a bubble, blown up by its own self-importance? Jobs have existed that are not only bullshit in Graeber's terms, but actually harmful to environment and society. are not many in aviation like that? And are not many more, especially in hospitality and fashion based on the bloat of greed, hubris and vanity? Is it not time to focus on the Good rather than on Harmful Non-essentials? See What are Jobs?.

• Economic freedom? 18 October 2020. Why do economists of all kinds conflate of Good, Harmful and Useless into a single presumed Good that is called "the economy" or GDP? Why do they overlook the difference between Harmful and Good? Partly, because of the Nature-Freedom Ground-motive, we presuppose that freedom is of Absolute Importance, including freedom to spend 'our' money as we wish. Two problems with this. (a) The absolutizing of freedom automatically denies the difference between Good and Harmful and conflates them. (b) It presupposes ownership of money, i.e. money is not flow but entity. Yet money only works when it flows; when it is static it loses its characteristic, its function and perhaps even its existence as money. So economic freedom is a myth. The grain of truth in it is about justice rather than freedom: each person is due a reasonable life.

• *** "Reviving the economy" 13 October 2020 (see also Shutting down the economy). Covid-19 has shut down much of the economy. The UK economy shrank by 20% in April-June 2020 and by 9% for the year as a whole. The UK government wants to "revive the economy". BUT, given that the economy is not wholly good, but is Good, Harmful and Useless, I say,

  "Revive the Good economy;
  don't revive the Harmful economy;
  and don't waste time on the Useless economy".

• Travel and trade 11 October 2020. One is tempted to remark that all that travel and trade have done is to advance and plesure the affluent, the elite, allowing them to selfishly enjoy while the poor and the biosphere suffer even more, and in this the affluent are protected from being aware of the injustice they are perpetrating even unwittingly. Of course, travel and trade have done more than that. They have done some good, sometimes facilitating necessary resources to be shared more equitably. In the New Jerusalem, which we assume is as God intended Creation to function, the goods and glory of all the earth are brought it, presumably by travel with offering even if not by trade. So, perhaps it is better to remark that humanity has so distorted the potential of travel and trade that it has become the means whereby the affluent gain baubles and pleasures at the expense of the poor and the biosphere.

• "Shut down the economy" 3 October 2020 (see also Reviving the economy. This is how some people described what happened during the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020. But what does this mean? The UK economy for those three months shrank by 20%. But people began to do things that did not need financial money flow - and it is likely that the proportion of Good in those things was higher in the things they did when they spent money on things before. e.g. people took exercise more, and people helped each other more, and there was a better attitude in society (until the Dominic Cummings event perhaps?). Instead, let us look at the sum total of human functioning, and what proportion of that is Good, Harmful and Useless, and then see if during lockdown the proportions changed. After all, 'the economy' is not there to be served, but only to serve the sum total of human functioning; see Good Harmful Useless below.

• *** The success of the firm 29 September 2020. A firm (or corporation) is usually seen as 'successful' if it grows, or if it beats rivals. But this means that when a firm grows but then stops growing, it is deemed a failure, or at least attracts derogatory labels like "tailing off", "sleepy", "dormant", etc. The CEO who grows a firm is much sought-after, but woe betide the CEO who takes over after a period of growth. Even though such a CEO might actually be more skilful, honest, generous, just, etc. There is something wrong with how we deem the success of the firm. The idea of multi-aspectual functioning offers a sound alternative. Success of a firm is seen as the Good that the firm does, reduced by the Harm it does and to some extent the Useless activity that it encourages in place of Good. As discussed below, Good and Harm can be understood per aspect. They may even be quantified per aspect if one wishes.

• *** Purchases 28 September 2020. Especially when thinking about tactics for increasing Good and decreasing Harm in the economy. Conventionally, what is cheap is bought more. But economists know that does not predict fully. But in multi-aspectual economics, what is fashionable is bought more, what is convenient is used more and so that which is needed for it is bought more, what people feel is gift is bought more, what people believe in or is important is bought more. Aspects: The conventional sees only the economic aspect. But if the ecnonomy expresses multi-aspectual human functioning, then these others come into play too: the aesthetic, formative, ethical and pistic respectively - and probably most of the others too. e.g. biotic: what sustains.

• *** Economy Enabling Human Functioning 26 September 2020. (see also below). 'The economy' is not a good in itself but it enables some portion of human functioning - that portion that is enabled by money-flow. The human functioning that is enabled can be Good, Harmful or Useless, as all human functioning is. See also below.

• *** GDP 26 September 2020: GDP is an expression of the Good, Harmful and Useless human functioning that is enabled by money. See also Good, Harmful, Useless and Why we need money?, GDP, Internet retailing, GDP, free stuff, GDP, measure, GDP, why?, Prosperity increases Bullshit, Why GDP?.

  Note: Calculated differently in different countries. In the UK it is calculated by output while in the EU it is calculated from wages and salaries of those employed. So in the lockdown, the UK economy shrank by 20% while the EU ones SEEMED not to because the wages were still being paid.

• *** Just Wages and remuneration 26 September 2020. Today wages, salaries, and other remuneration are presumed to be governed by the norm of maximization, which is a norm meaningful in the quantitative and formative aspects of reality, whereas it should be governed by the juridical norm of appropriateness, reasonableness, due and justice. The quantitative norm is seen, for example, poverty is defined in purely quantitative terms as "less than $1 per day". The formative norm is present in that when we talk about wage maximization, attempt and effort to achieve that lurks in the background: maximisation is deliberate human functioning. The juridical norm is that All our remunerations should be reasonable, neither too high nor too low according to the real needs of each. The economic aspect on its own retrocipates the formative and quantitative aspects, and hence maximization can be seen as meaningful within it, but it has no inkling, by itself, of the juridical norm of reasonableness or appropriateness or justice, because the juridical aspect is later than the economic. See also Good, Harmful, Useless

• Keynes and his opposite Friedman?===== 26 September 2020. The problem with both of them is that they see the economy and money as things-in-themselves. ===== believes 'the economy' runs by itself and is will run best when not interfered with while Keynes believes the economy cannot run by itself but requires government intervention. But the government has no other purpose, for Keynes than to put money into the economy - it serves the economy and the economy is its own meaningfulness, its own reason for existing. For ===== the problem with the government is only in reference to the economy. Both treat the economy as a thing-in-itself, as meaningful in itself, and as the origin of meaningfulness for itself and all other sectors of society, and as something to be served by other sectors of society. MY VIEW, is that the economy is only meaningful in relation to all other sectors of society as all of them together and in harmony fulfil the potential====norms of the diverse spheres of meaningfulness that is reality.

• Keynes 23 September 2020. Keynes said that the economy cannot run by itself but that some government intervention is needed [for the economy to run properly]. What is wrong with this is not government intervention, nor whether or not it can run by itself, but putting the economy at the centre. The economy is a manifestation of only one of many aspects of reality, and by no means even the most important one. The economy, especially as understood as GDP or similar measures, is only an expression of human functioning in all its aspects. Can the economy run by itself? Yes and no. Yes in the sense that, the economic aspect of reality has its own set of fundamental laws that enable reality to function economically, including as 'an economy'. No in the sense that the economic aspect depends on all other aspects both earlier and later than it for the manifestation====reaching of its full meaningfulness and good. Government intervention is another human functioning in reality, qualified by different aspects, especially the juridical, and its impact on an economy is one manifestation of the inherent link between economic and juridical aspects. "Government intervention" as meant by Keynes probably refers solely to the injecting of money; that is a distorted meaning of government intervention, just the quantitative part of the economic aspect of government functioning, and hence Keynes saw it wrong.

• *** Kingdom Economics 20 September 2020. Matthew 19:27-20:16. Grace to those who were hired last (Grace: amazing to some, infuriating to others, Kenneth ====; Paul Wintle). All chosen, selected by the Owner himself. 'Workers' = working with God, representing God, in God's work. But what does this say about the economic aspect, as well as juridical and ethical aspects? The socialist idea "to each according to his needs, from each according to his ability" finds its roots here, but there is a lot more than this. If we see the working not as just paid work nor even money, but as working in God's vineyard - the human functioning that is Good (rather than Harmful or Useless).

• What is a market? 15 September 2020. My definition: "A flow of beneficial resource" (or maybe "what enables the flow of beneficial resource"). Conventional definitions: "An area of arena in which commercial dealings are conducted" "A regular gatheringof people for the purchase and sale of provisions, livestock and other commodities" verb: "to advertise or promote something". These are all insufficient because they lack differentiation of GHU and recognition of the human and other functioning that is represented in the provisions, livestock, commercial dealings, etc.

• *** Firm as Entity - Survival of the Firm 15 September 2020. The supposed need for survival of the entity that is the firm is often used to justify evil and Harm, and often hides much Useless or non-essential.

  Example, a farmer justifies atrocious animal welfare (a Harm) with "but I cannot afford it; I would go under if I looked after the animals". And yet all the time the farmer has an expensive car or has expensive hobbies or tastes, e.g. shooting.

  And it is even worse when survival is replaced by competition.

  Example:

  Usually, there are many non-essentials in the firm that we want to survive or compete.

  To overcome this, we need to question whether survival (or competition) is an adequate excuse: why should the firm survive? Quick replies like "to preserve jobs" are insufficient because those jobs could usually be 'provided' elsewhere. Instead, we need to question the whole notion of the firm as an entity. We need to shift from an entity presupposition to a presupposition of responsible functioning. For this, we need to redefine what a firm is, and why it exists. See What are Jobs?.

• *** Implications of GHU (differentiating Good, Harmful, Useless) 15 September 2020.
  • We should invest in Good rather than merely in trying to maintain the value of our money against inflation or to receive a return for ourselves. (But is there a danger that we will lose out? Maybe, but the self-giving ethical aspect of reality actually works.)

• *** What is a firm / company? 15 September 2020. (See also below.) Not primarily (i.e. defined by/as)
  • "to increase owner value"
  • "to make and keep a customer"
  • a legal entity

  • or something else?

  Those do not differentiate between Good, Harmful and Useless, which is what we need. Also they are too narrow in what they cover. "Legal entity" presupposes entity rather than functioning. But

  • "A unit of responsibility for managing the beneficial availability of resources." (shorter) Purpose: "to manage the beneficial availability of resources".

  • "A socio-juridical unit ... certain kinds of resource" (longer; see below)

  • "That functioning in which a group of people have particular responsibility for managing resources of a certain kind to produce good" (original long)

  The second definition includes "certain kinds of" because the purpose stated when a company registers usually idenfifies a market sector, and thus a particular kind of resource. It includes "socio-juridical" to express the fact that a firm is a social institution and has legal existence; it also goes with responsibility and implies ownership.

• *** Money flow 18 October 2020. Money only works as money when it flows, that is, is employed as a token of value in a transaction between people, whereby one of the people obtains goods (including services) from the other. While money is static, it is not true money; it does not function as money, and, arguably, does not even exist as money.

• *** Good, Harmful and Useless 15 September 2020 modified 18 October 2020). Money flow enables human functioning, which can be Good, Harmful or Useless. If GDP measures the total money flow, then GDP leads to Good-Harmful-Useless so we need to get the economy going on the Good and refuse to reopen the Harmful, and give the Good priority over the Useless.

  29 May 2021: I originally put GHU together as a triple, but Useless is not the same as Good and Harmful. G, H are opposites of each other in the norms of aspects. But U can be G or can be H. For some months I wondered about this. Today, on reading Marianna Mazzucato 'Value of Everyting', I was struck by her focusing on the 'takers' as opposed to the 'makers', the 'rent seekers' r.t. the wealth creators. It did seem to me that her distinction is between Useful and Useless, and Good v Harm does not much come into her thinking. Her tirade is against the Useless.

  See also

  • Just Wages
  • GHU 30 October 2020,
  • Economic theory and marketing.
  • Measuring the Health of Economic Activity / System

• Harmful, list of 15 September 2020. Again, provisional because not all the statistics are at hand.
  • Damage to the natural world (RSPB report 13-14 Sep 2020); extinction (David Attenborough film).

  • Products that come from deforested areas in the Amazon, Indonesia, etc. - and their supply chains. 18 October 2020.

• Non-essentials 15 September 2020. Be warned: If you seek a job in a non-essential then do not complain if your job suddenly disappears when a pandemic occurs.

• Non-essentials / Useless, defined 15 September 2020. 'Defined' as jobs or financial transfers, the main purpose of which is to shift money from others to self, more than providing important benefit. See above re benefit. # Most competition is of this kind. # Note: it may be objected that sometimes there is a crucial good that emerges from the non-essential, for example keeping certain people in subsistence, but I would counter that such crucial good can often be obtained otherwise.

• What is "beneficial"? 15 September 2020. Contributing to the net, overall good of the whole Creation / Temporal Reality. Not definable precisely in quantitative terms, because many aspects of it are qualitative. It is our responsibility to separate out and 'balance' the qualitative benefits and harm, as appropriate to the historical and cultural context. So we need a way to separate out different qualitative kinds of benefit (versus harm). This may be done well by Dooyeweerd's aspects.

• Non-essentials list 15 September 2020. The following list is provisional, because I will not have been able to gather suitable statistics of appropriate reliability yet for all of them. See Some Non-Essentials (24 September 2020)

• The entity that is the business 14 September 2020. (see also above) survival of the business or its standing among and against others: takeovers are 90% motivated by those. (I don't know the exact %).

• The entity that is the business 26 November 2019. The entity that is the business - why does it have to survive? Much of the hidden motivation behind what goes on in any business is the survival of the business; the rest is the growth and hubris of the business. Much that goes on in a business is morally questionable, shady or even downright heinous, but it is justified, ultimately, on the grounds that the business must survive. Why? Why does the entity that is the business have to survive?

  We are immediately offered a superficial answer: to provide jobs. But - let's face it - is that a real disaster, enough to justify the heinous practices that go on in pursuit of survival? Is it not the case that the 'loss' of jobs is usually not a disaster, more an inconvenenience when considered from the wider scheme of things? And if the jobs of one business are saved, will not the jobs in another business be lost instead, in most markets? What is so sacrosanct about these jobs, that those jobs should be sacrificed to save them? Do not most people who lose their jobs when a business closes find other jobs? And do not some even receive useful payoffs? So why is the survival of the entity that is the business so important? See What are jobs?.

  The other part of the motivation is the growth and hubris of the business in competition with others. That is even worse.

• GDP, why 20 November 2019. Why is GDP a meaningful thing to consider (and measure and aim to increase)? Of what good thing is it purported to be a measure (even if a flawed measure)? The answer seems to be that it is a measure of human formative activity, presupposing that all human formative activity is beneficial and meaningful. If this is correct, and we take this into account, then it might help cut through some of the blether and confusion of the debate about GDP. See also: GDP, main entry.

• Foundations of economics. 2 October 2019. New foundation for economics. Not money, not commodities, not resources, not production and consumption, not increase in owner value, not that workers have enough to stay alive, not equality of material goods. But that each and every human can make the world a better place. // All the others are inward-looking, towards humans and their needs; this is outward-looking, from humans to the rest of the world. The others make humans either dependent on or slaves of resources; this gives dignity and responsibility to human beings. // What kinds of "better"? (so we don't misunderstand) Ecology, technology, health, socialityy, harmony, justice, attitude, morale, etc. We have to discuss the "etc." and indeed this whole range of aspects of "better". Those who believe in God might wish to add glory to God. Humanists might refer to Maslow's hierarchy of needs - but centring on "needs" is more negative than this perspective welcomes and Maslow's hieraarchy downplays ecology, the planet, other species and what is due to animals. Dooyeweerd's suite of aspects might be better; though Dooyeweerd claimed it is not yet finished, it seems the most comprehensive suite so far available. // A "better place" is not something that (the bulk of) humans receive from others (governments, corporations, scientists, etc. and those in 'developing countries' who supply 'raw materials!) but something that all humans - every human being - has a hand in giving. Every human contributes to crafting this "better" together. The other views are self-serving, self-centred, narrowing and stifling; this view is self-giving, broadening and creative. ***

• "Price optimization". 7 July 2019. Price optimization is the name given to the practice and intention whereby companies maximize the price of their products to whatever the market will stand. It is probably taught in business schools as a standard technique of Good Business. The opposite, for which I have no name, but is practised by some of discount stores is price minimization, which is to lower prices as far as possible and yet still make a reasonable return (profit).

  It seems to me that price optimization is supplier-centred rather than customer-centred, self-centred rather than other-centred. It treats the customer as merely another resource tributary to one's own success, not as genuine customer. Self-centredness is not to be seen as an option but as a dysfunction that undermines the whole. We may see this in the fact, as I deem it to be, that of the companies that have lasted a hundred years, most began not with a self-centred motivation but a self-giving one in service of a higher aim such as justice for the poor. (c.f. Dooyeweerd's philosophy self-centredness is an evil, a dysfunction in the ethical aspect that disrupts and undermines the success or shalom of reality as a whole.)

• Home-makers as 'economically inactive'. 3 July 2019. Heard the statement "Most of those who are economically inactive are women." The speaker was emphasising gender-pay-gap (which is a concern) but here I question the phrase "economically inactive". She was meaning homemakers - those who do not have a paid job yet do a huge amount of real work that is arguably more valuable and meaningful than many paid jobs.
  • Are homemakers economically inactive in the wider, extra-financial sense? Not at all. They use resources. They even produce valuable resources of many kinds, not least years to what we could call training of people aged zero to eighteen! So it is not economically but perhaps financially inactive.

  • Are homemakers financially inactive? They do not receive a financial income. But they spend, so through them money circulates in the economy and pays other people. So they are not financially inactive at all. (From where do they get the money to spend? Many possible sources but usually from their spouse.)

  So, homemakers are far from economically inactive. Let us no longer denigrate them.

• Choice. 12 April 2019 from note. There is meaningful choice and meaningless choice.

• Grudge Spending. 12 April 2019 from note. BBC Radio 4, Thinking Allowed, 160201 00:15 hrs. Example: Spending on security, which we have to do, but don't really want.

• Artificial divisions. 31 January 2018 but put in Intro much earlier. Why should economics be split into bits? - global v national v local ecoonmics, private v public, formal v informal, business v family economics Are they not all bound together? By addressing the second question, Meaningful Economics also addresses the first. It provides an integrating foundation for them, a wider picture into which they all fit.

• Selling 8 January 2018. The current economies are based around and founded on selling. Rather than supplying good resources. That is an error, and wicked and meaningless. Past economies might have been based on production and efficiency, and that is equally an error and wicked and meaningless. Error, wicked and meaningless because the role of the economic aspect in reality is frugal management of resources in order to achieve and undertake good as defined by other aspects. See Role of Economy; Both those views of economy are 'economy for economy's sake'.

• Role of Economy 8 January 2018. Schuurman argued that 'technology for technology's sake' is counterproductive. So is economy for economy's sake.

• How to see money 3 January 2018. I see money, not in terms of obtaining stuff for me, but in terms of whom I can benefit - which company rather than another deserves to benefit. To me, money is a kind of vote for one rather than another.

• City of London props up economy. 161110~. The City of London props up the UK economy, so that its inherent weaknesses are hidden and get worse.

• Debt 24 September 2017. Not only whether debt, nor how much debt are important, but what the debt is used for. e.g. Maidservants in Edinburgh in 1600s would purchase alcohol from their masters and then go out on the street and sell it and thus make some money for themselves. At events, people would put themselves in debt in order to appear generous ("I'll buy this round"). Or a flamboyant wedding. Debt is used for flamboyance and drunkenness. But some debt is used to establish a house (mortgage). Some debt in between, e.g. to buy a new car when we don't really need it, except to keep up appearances, or avoid the inconvenience of responsibility for repair.

• Work 7 August 2017. Work is not something to be 'provided' by society or state or businesses. Instead, work is something that provides good for the world. If it is something to bring good, then it does not primarily matter who does it, as long as they do it well.

• "Meaningful work" 24 September 2017. Paper on this in tablet.

• "immigrants steal our jobs" 7 August 2017. If the meaningfulness of work is to provide good, then this is wrong way to look at it. It makes sense only if jobs as a commodity rather than something to bring good. However, there is a juridical element in this, in what is due to people. We need to tackle that directly, and not let it hide behind jobs-see-as-commodity.

• Lending 7 August 2017. BBC Radio 4, on 5 August 2017 "Stone-age lending would prevent the economy growing at all." This was a remark by an investment banker during a discussion of the behaviour of investment bankers in "the age or irresponsibility" (1990s-2007). Two things may be questioned: 1. The words "stone-age" imply they want to convince by connotation and fashion in place of an argument, and that in fact that there is nothing actually wrong with the thing they are disdaining====. 2. Why does the economy have to grow? (That programme was on the anniversary of the French bank that gave stopped three investments with notice that it could not work out the value of them -which signalled junk. They had mixed in too much inappropriate risk.)

• Spreading risk; Hedge Funds 7 August 2017. Spreading risk. They treat it as a formative and economic matter, treating risk as a commodity. But risk is by nature a juridical matter, or responsibility. People take investment risks on the basks that they will be responsible for the risk. Spreading risk seems good from an economic perspective but evil from a juridical perspective.

• Meaningless national economy 19 June 2017. Brazil expanded in the boom years - because everyone involved believed what they had been told was 'the Good', i.e. growing GDP, and investing in one's own stuff. But nothing has meaning in itself. Not even a country. The economy should always be FOR something other than the economy. e.g. it should be for justice or compassion. This is what made the British economy great in the 19th C.

• Corruption 19 June 2017. Brazil had corruption. But what's actually wrong with corruption? Surely from point of view of economy, the people who receive bribes will spend them and so GDP still goes up? Part of the problem is that the bribe itself is not counted in GDP. So GDP does not go up as much as it could. Is this the reason people say corruption is bad for the economy? i.e. the problem from their point of view seems to lie solely in that the corruption-monies are not measured. If we measured them and added them into GDP, would GDP be healthier? BUT No! That is not the reason corruption is bad; it is the juridical not ecoonmic aspect that defines corruption as bad.

• Jobs 14 March 2017. "They steal our jobs", a cry heard in recent years against immigrants. But that only make sense if work is a commodity to be provided by government or business organizations. That makes work meaningless, except as something to own and indirectly as a source of cash. In the meaningful economy, work itself is meaningful, in that all work should bring good. And every human being can work to bring good. Even if an immigrant replaces me in e.g. my call-center role, I can then go and use my time for even more meaningful good, such as producing food or equipment.

• Meaningfulness 12 February 2017. "The crisis of meaning in the workplace" with (a) repetitive drudgery, (b) jobs so specialised that they seem valueless.

• Survival of businesses 4 February 2017. Survival of business is treated as the most important thing, which acts as a terminator for all other discussions. "We must do this in order to survive." But this slides into "grow" and then into "move up the league tables". Of course, there is some meaningfulness in this, but it is not direct, but (a) analogical (b) derivative. Analogical: survival and growth are biotic. Ultimately it matters little whether a business survives as an economic organization or not. Derivative: the arguments put forward for the importance of survival or growth are things like: it provides jobs, and (if a large business) its demise will hit the community. However, those who most urge for survival are those who are most happy to see other businesses die. Moreover, jobs - as the past 30 years has shown - can be provided by other businesses. Furthermore, we might even question the sanctity of jobs.

• Internships 2 August 2016. Free work seen as robbing the young. But all human labour is free in the sense of being widely available. The problem is not economic but juridical: justice, or ethical: taking-advantage.

• Voluntary work 2 August 2016. Free work. But all human labour is free in the sense of being widely available. "Might undermine the GDP economy"?? So what -- GDP is meaningless. The problem is not economic but juridical: justice, or ethical: taking-advantage.

• Massive levels of disposable income 2 August 2016. Usually seen as a Good Thing by those who are entrapped in GDP-thinking. But is it good? It encourages people to spend on what they don't need or even want, more than is good for them and others. e.g. fosters pride, hubris, arrogance, competitiveness, and showing-off, and superficiality, as well as making us unhealthy through lack of exercise and obesity. And the provision of the goods and services it entails depletes and destroys the earth.

• Austerity for the ok-off is a good thing? 7 December 2016

• Voluntary reduction 2 August 2016. The Christian boss who cut his pay to be that of his workers. Pistic, ethical aspects.

• transport 30 October 2016. Transport is integral to an economy. But what is its main meaningfulness in the economy? Should it be used to merely increase GDP? No. Is its main meaningfulness is to get things to other places? Yes - but only if it's not just for the rich to enjoy.

• Meaningless businesses 10 July 2016. Flower farms in Africa or other developing countries. Removing valuable food-growing land in order to send baubles to the rich nations. Why does this happen? Because the economic system is set up so that people seek highest financial return from their land. And, where food is grown for subsistence, and no money is involved, the grower (a) feels good about getting some money, (b) assumes they can use that money to buy the food they need.

• Meaningful economic activity 10 July 2016. Subsistence farming is meaningful economic activity. it might not be financial or commercial activity (to do with money or commerce), but it is economic activity (to do with resource). It is meaningful in the sense that it serves a valid need rather than merely producing baubles.

• Protecting industries 160319. Why protect industries? Steel, nuclear, construction, water bottling(!)? OK, national skills, some of which take long to build up. Not OK: national pride, personal agendas of those at the top. Protected industries hold us to ransom. They overween.

• Idolatry of career 160319. The idea of career. An idol.

• Public privte 29 April 2016. It does not matter whether Google or Apple is bigger. It does not matter whether money is public or private. What matters is good meaningful work.

• Meaningful jobs 2 April 2016, on threatened closure of Port Tablot Steel works, and interview of Longbridge worker (UK car industry demise). "I proud to be a steel worker" "I a bread winner; but I cannot provide for my wife and family". These are the dignity of people. Is it right that these should be the dignity?

• Decision to purchase; Price 17 March 2016. Can most of us in affluent cultures afford most things? The decision to buy is not solely based on price, but on other factors. Example: CarParking iPhone app gained its greatest sales when a warning was published in a positive review of a price jump from £1.79 to £2.99 (both low prices). Decision to buy is based on a variety of meaningful issues, not just price itself.

• Meaning of work and pension age 3 March 2016. Increase of pension age. Horror at idea that in 2120 we might retire at 81 because life expectancy is 110. What is the meaning of life? Why should an 81-year-old not work in meaningful ways while they can?

• GDP, measure 10 January 2016. Why is GDP good as a measure, and as a thing in itself? Need to understand that before we criticise it. Maybe it shows to what extent human beings are actively productive. But the problem then is: what with? Is what they produce meaningful? According to www.revisionguru.co.uk, the benefits of a growing economy as measured by GDP are: see GDPgrowthBenefits-Probs.txt on tablet in p-otehrs/a/econ/. Most include like following, which is not quite like the above:
  • Increases tax income to governments

  • Rising demand and output encourages further investment in new captial machinery ("income induced investment")

  • Increases business confidence, if sustained growth

  • Increase in real GDP per capita suggests improved living standards, but not quality of life

  Problems of GDP growth:

  • Inflation, if growth stimulates demand more than supply

  • Externalities: pollution, congestion, etc. which damages social welfare

  • Inequality in income per person, and between regions.

  See also: GDP, main entry.

• Book 24 January 2016. Tomás Sedlácek. Economics of Good and Evil: THe Quest for Economic Meaning from Gilgamesh to Wall Street. 20.30 Monday 25 January 2016. *** a useful starting point. See smy and rvw on tablet a/econ/. Aspects can provide the needed philosophical foundation for this book; rvw said he should have done philosophical consideration of what good and evil are.

• wealth and its meaning. 24 January 2016. Wealth is sometimes defined as deferred consumption; we decide to not spend until later. But for billionaires this is meaningless because they would never consume all their wealth anywey. Jan 2016 Oxfam issued a statistic that the richest 62 people have more wealth than half the world's population. But it is meaningless to make that comparison. We need to consider the meaningfulness of wealth: what it can achieve in the world. Aspects can help.

• Markets 15 January 2016. The idea of a "properly working market" was raised==== in a discussion of why energy prices in the U.K. to the consumer had not decreased when suddenly the wholesale price of oil had dropped to below $30 per barrel [BBC Radio 4, Today Programme, 15 January 2016]. The implication was that the large corporates were artificially keeping prices high. However, that discussion was itself flawed, in that it considered only one way in which the market was meaningful, namely the financial aspect of price. It did not consider, for example, that low energy prices lead to increased unnecessary energy use, exacerbating climate change emissions at a time when we should be reducing them. One member of the U.K. Parliament did recognise another aspect, of jobs, which itself is a shorthand for certain other aspects such as meaningful work, but even these are reduced to the economic aspect by calling them 'jobs'. In a meaningful economy, a "properly working market" is one judged not solely in price terms, but in terms of all the other aspects the economic functioning serves, such as biotic (ecological diversity), aesthetic (enjoyment), ethical (self-giving attitudes), etc.

• Skills fostered by governments 24 October 2015. If government puts money into training e.g. to boost the steel industry, then that very training is a covenant with those people that when that industry goes, the government will look after the people with those skills, especially those who have become too old to learn new skills. Directing skill training implies a covenant.

• Core of economy, tax / benefits system 11 September 2015 BBC R4 Today: author of book about statistics about life expectancy (in Glasgow, most affluent area, 82 years, most deprived, 54 years) said "Life expectancy should be at the very centre of the tax / benefit system". In 1970s environemtalists had said "Environmental responsibility should be at the centre of the economic system". Economics should not be driven solely by its own norms, but norms of all other aspects. c.f. Schuurman 1980.

• Non-absoluteness of economics 11 September 2015. Budget in local authorities; forced to not pay proper rates for people. What happens if they go ahead and pay? What sanction? "Go into debt"? But so what. The sanction is non-economic; government higher authority would close them down. How/why? Not by force of arms. Not by refusing to send them gold (money is now only symbol). But by legal authority: to close them down as a legal body.

• The Sharing Economy 27 July 2015. Share what we have. ICT and social media make it possible. It's not just for the money, but it's for the social side too: you can meet people. Multi-aspectual economy, meaningful in more than just money.

• Government borrowing 26 July 2015. From whom? Who benefits? Why borrow - because of cowardice and because of absolutization of the political?

• Unnecessary spending 25 July 2015. Unnecessary economy or spending, on:
  • Trivial
  • league table chasing
  • reputation
  • using other issues as an excuse

  e.g. unnecessary construction work. e.g. continual reorganisation in organisation. e.g. subsidies, support for someone's pet idea.

• exporting 8 July 2015. Exporting seems an easy of getting more funds that your rival nations do. But it is false and harmful when its meaningfulness is considered.

• Robbing poorer nations 8 July 2015. Encouraging doctors etc. to come from developing countries to here robs those nations of their skilled and knowledgeable people. That is wrong. However there is something to be said for those doctors etc. coming and experiencing another culture in their profession.

• Gambling 21 April 2015. What is the meaningfulness of gambling? Apparently, fun and money for gamblers themselves and the gambling companies, but to others its meaningfulness is injustice, penury and destruction of life. In-game gambling especially is like this, where the whole purpose is to take advantage of others by being 'clever' with timing. There is no real meaningfulness of gambling, and the world would not be worse off without it.

• Meaning of meaningfulness 21 April 2015. Ask "In what way is the world better off with it?" and "Would the world be worse off without it?"

• Survival and dominance of the firm 19 April 2015. The whole of the economy seems to be driven by three combined motives: survival of the entity and dominance of the entity. What makes such entities so meaningful that their survival, health and dominance dominate==== current economic policy? Of course they have some importance, but why one entity rather than another? They are important (meaningful) for reasons unconnected with the entity itself: providing an opportunity for sustenance and fulfilment for workers, and providing meaningful products and services from limited resources. But these can be provided by other entities almost as well. Why do we acquiesce to applauding that one entity wins compared with another? Why, even, is it important that a particular entity survives? Their workers can usually gradually get jobs elsewhere, their products and services are usually supplied by others, so why does it matter so much?

• Paradigm 19 April 2015. "Why (in what way) is it meaningful?" is the question to ask. Both critically and positively.

• Debt. 13 March 2015. All money is debt. It would not exist without national debt. All money is a promise. We trade promises. [But promises of what? meaningfulness]

• Debt. 7 March 2015: national debt for war. Government borrows from people who can give money to pay for the war. Meaningfulness: war. [Is not Part of the repayment of that debt global or national security. ; that enables the givers to enjoy life? so maybe they should not be repayed so much interest.] [Must reduce debt by changing aspirations, not by changing structures. Spiritual revival.]

• Marginal cost 10 March 2015. What is marginal cost? It is a transduction from the economic notion of value to the quantitative notion of amount, and all such transductions lose something meaningful.

• Price competition 2 February 2015. If we steal (pay nothing for) our raw materials, if we rob our workers of fair wages and working conditions, if we avoid paying for the damage we cause by our operations or from use of our products or services, then we can lower prices and undercut others. We would seem to be a success. But in the long term we fail. God says to Psalmist and to Jeremiah "Don't worry about the wicked; they seem to prosper for a time but in the end they will disappear." This is because of at least two things. 1. Their greed with overreach itself. 2. Resentment will build up against them that is hard to dissipate. What this is about is that there are multiple spheres of meaningfulness, which all apply in real life even if ignored in finance-oriented economics.

• Fear 2 February 2015. Fear as that which makes much management self-protective and unfair and unwise.

• Bloated sales and rebound 7 January 2015. Bloating sales is followed by de-bloating. Sainsbury's has just announced a drop in Christmas period sales, and that is causing concern. Increasing sales by means that are meaningless to customers -- whether by a firm or by an entire sector like the retail sector in cahoots -- will inevitably be followed by a reaction when people realise how meaningless the increased purchasing was. This can lead to problems later, for example falling share prices. When bloating (meaningless increases in monetary activity) happens across an entire world economy, the de-bloat (return to what is meaningful) is a recession.

• Innovaton, competition6 January 2015. Competetition might stimulate innovation, but it limits the effective benefiting from innovation. It makes firms guard their innovations so that as few people as possible benefit from it.

• Make do and mend 27 December 2014. Anglesey economy, according to a paper interviewed by 'Thinking Aloud' is a 'make do and mend' economy. The author and host seemed to be see this as slightly negative, derogatory. But why should it be derogatory?

• Personal meaningfulness 14 December 2014. "Loneliness and the feeling of being unwanted is the most terrible poverty." Mother Theresa.

• Attitude 21 November 2014. treating finance as a 'game' to win at . especially by investment bankers.

• Communism long before 19 October 2014. Communism eschews both money and nations. Meaningful Economics does not eschew them but questions their meaningfulness. Then remembers their meaning.
  • the meaning of goods and services
  • the meaning of money
  • the meaning of the individual
  • the meaning of nations
  • the meaning of revolutionary movements
  • the meaning of capital
  • the meaning of global economics.

  All these require us to understand their meaningfulness.

• GDP, free stuff 17 October 2014. 300 bn USD in free stuff, including downloads etc. GDP does not measure the real value of life. It measures also silly stuff like crime. Brynjolfsson TED talk 2013. See also: GDP, main entry.

• "What's Tesco For?" 21 July 2014. Philip Clark, boss of Tesco, has resigned after news of continued falling market share and falling share prices. Tesco used to be the UK's largest supermarket, and always expecting to grow. So the present situation is a shock and difficult to reverse in an organisation where everything is geared to growth. In an interview on BBC Radio 4 Today programme today, the commentator posed the question "What's Tesco for?" as a way of explaining Tesco's problems. It is being threatened by the low-cost supermarkets, and also by the high-end quality supermarkets. "People use Tesco but they don't choose Tesco." Other points:
  • Tesco has long been arrogantly flouting planning laws - building larger than it was allowed but local authorities who might contest it lack the financial muscle to take it on. I suspect that arrogance is something that puts people off from choosing it; I certainly boycott Tesco.

  • Tesco spent a lot of money trying to get into the US supermarket market, but ultimately failed to do so and pulled out. That was before Philip Clark took over. I suspect that Tesco's attempt was self-serving.

  • Years ago Tesco, with the others, muscled their way to get the law changed to allow them to compete in the corner-store sector.

  What's Tesco for? It seems that its own answer is "For itself". Pure self-interest is no sustainable or substantial answer to that. Meaning, says Dooyeweerd, has the character of referring. Meaning can never be located in the thing itself. Meaning can only occur when a thing is 'for' others rather than itself.

• "economy is culture" Prof. Manuel Castells? (LSE) BBC R4 Mon 121015 8.30 am. lots people know the most important thing in lives are not economic. but 'economy is culture'. if not trust, there is no society. the de-growth movement. marx never understood value. bk. '==== aftermath of economic crisis'.

• de-growth movement. see Castells above.

• marketing . before 12 May 2014. investing in markets and construction? is a way of shifting other peoples money into my pocket. self-centred. a way of almost stealing. -ve in ethical aspect. meaningless.

• Structure of Page, Book before 12 May 2014. 'How can we grab market share?' --> commitment --> bad, unjust decisions --> meaningless (meaningful = good). chapter 'towards meaningful economy'. "all is meaningless"? no, some is meaningful in each, esp to the person for a brief time. but is that meaning meaningful? no, it's isolated, reduced. 3 parts:
  • meaningless economy: a staccato set of meaninglessness in all areas, and arguement of isolated meaning
  • meaningful economy: proposal for meaningful economy, brief. and integration of all areas
  • what is meaningfulness? why that will work. philosophy.

• Meaningfulness 14 April 2014.
  • that which we deem of importance, especially of most importance

  • that which we use to end all arguments, as a fundamental justification of things

  Meaningfulness is a religious or ideological aspect.

• Contradictions of meaningless economy 14 April 2014. Absolutizing economics leads to contradictions. A growing economy needs innovation. But if we reduce education to economics (students paying for education, and then being aware of how much they owe afterwards) then they become docile, not critical, which reduces their ability or tendency to innovate.

• Other aspects of meaningful 14 April 2014. e.g. increasing anger around the world allied to economy. either the occupy movement, or people angry about their living standards being threatened, or about those they deem richer. Anger is a sign of meaningfulness of various kinds. We get angry when we believe in some meaningful way we are disadvantaged by the actions of others. Anger is not of the economic aspect but of other aspects, especially pistic and juridical.

• Global economics 24 March 2014. Minsky moments, Stability is destabilizing. People don't bother paying back mortgage on house hoping that its value will increase enough so that when they sell it, they will get enough money to pay off both capital and interest.

• Money 9 February 2014. Why do we need money? Answer we give shows what we see as meaningful. For food etc. of course. But also for keeping up with fashion, with latest technology, and for selfish pleasures. These are unnecessary, meaninglessness.

• Purchasing behaviour 9 February 2014. An opinion on why recession is longer than expected. People are not purchasing. Recession. Why are they not returning to purchase more? Partly because they realise (internally if not in conscious mind) that previous purchasing was meaninglessness.

• vision 9 February 2014. "If you want people to build a ship, don't force them to collect timber and organise a ship-building programme. Teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea." Anon. Quoted BBC Radio 4 , 121202, during the service at Church of Mary and the English Martyrs, Canterbury.

• Marketing, attitude 9 February 2014. Marketing is no longer motivated by giving people information, but by trying to convince people to shift their money into your pocket.

• Poverty 14 December 2013. Poverty as a meaningful concept. Poverty defined as below 1$ / day. But that is only quantitative meaningful. And it is meaningful for those who look on, comment and discuss - as a convenient label, and as a rallying cry for politicians. But the real meaning behind it is weak and complex, and lost. "We don't need money," I was told in Uganda, "because we grow our own food and build our own houses [I saw local brick kilns burning]. All we need money for is hospital fees and education." That person did not feel 'poor', yet he was telling me in effect that 1$ / day is meaningless as a determiner of whether we have poverty. "But," rich Northern commentator might respond, "if he spends all his time in growing food and building his house, how can he have time for enjoyment!" I, also Northern commentator, respond, "But enjoyment can be found in any pursuit. It is the attitude of 'I hate' that suppresses enjoyment."

• poverty 14 December 2013. Gap between rich and poor. Is not the real meaningfulness of this is not quantitative amounts of money, but justice, what is due, attitude, and greed, (which is a form of idolatry, insights Paul)? Should we not address those directly, rather than some meaningless figures?

• Trade 7 December 2013. BBC R4 Today: WTO World Trade Organisation came to its first agreement in Bali, on global 'trade facilitation', so countries can trade with each other more easily. (Developing) countries allowed to subsidise their farmers now. Hailed as good; could expand global GSP by $500bn. But is it good? Mere GDP is meaningless. And mere trade is harmful. It was the symbols of world trade in New York that God allowed to be destroyed - yet we didn't listen.

• Finance meaning 7 December 2013. The push in economy today is coming from other disciplines, such as housing and banking. Housing: one meaning of economics.

• New ideas 6 December 2013. Student group at Manchester university 'Post-Crash Economic Society'. York 'Institute for New Economic Thinking.

• University teaching courses 6 December 2013. BBC R4 Today interviewee claimed in university course, he was given a lot, but no understanding of what a bank is or does. Students are given no understanding of causes and how markets work.

• Older people 19 November 2013. A meaningful economy does not assume that older people are useless. It looks at their meaningfulness. The notion of mental capital does that too. Older people have accumulated wisdom and experience, which can be brought to bear on life. While younger people tend to focus on one aspect and are able to excel in that, older people take many aspects into account, and have experience of how those aspects interrelate. It has been said that companies started by older people tend to grow faster than those started by younger, because of this.

• Heartbeat Economy an economy where things that increase your heart rate (anger, etc.) are taken into account, and avoided. 12 October 2013 bbc r4 In Business. cf. meaningful economy: anger etc. are meaningful, not just money and resources; taking the psychic aspect into account as well as the economic. "all suppliers have the duty to reduce the heartbeat or pulse rate of their customers".

• KThe Support Economy - an economy seen not as producing goods but as supporting the way we want to live. 12 October 2013 bbc r4 'in business'. cf. meaningful economy: the way we want to live lives = what is meaningful and normative to us. involves many aspects of meaning;

• Accountancy-driven 7 October 2013. Accountancy driven organisations = money as the most meaningful thing. --> Cutting costs, and everything measured by cost or price. ==> Prevents the organisation going for important stuff. Because (a) focuses on costs and veers==== focus away from other important things. (b) when you have reined in your costs, it makes you believe that things are sorted when they are not, and the root of the problem is still there. (importance of pistic aspects). and you lose incentive to seek the real root of problem and to get those things things right. c.f. Prosperity Increases Bullshit.

• Prestige products 7 October 2013. Prestige as the main meaningful thing. (pistic dysfunction). e.g. plasma screens on walls in homes. envy of neighbours or imagined neighbours, who will say "Wow!". but plasma screens are hungry power consumers, leading to climate change. Lose sense of responsibility. Usually prestige products are purchased when (a) we have surplus income or easy credit (b) our lives are meaningless. Link to 'Surplus income'.

• Surplus income 7 October 2013. Usually seen as a Good Thing, aspired to by economists and politicians, partly explained on grounds that it increases Freedom. But large % of surplus income is spent on meaningless things, or rather irresponsible things, such as prestige products. Surplus income combined with meaninglessness in life leads especially to such irrespy.

• Understanding Organisational spend 17 August 2013. Spending money on reviews that are never implemented, as the UK government often has done. The notion of meaningful economy can help us understand why the spend occurs. e.g. which aspect motivated the spend? And was the motivation + or - in the aspect?

• Management judgement. 29 Oct 2012 BBC Radio 4 'Today': A UK Government Select Committee criticises the City watchdog for not blocking the takeover of ABN Amro by Royal Bank of Scotland. The judgement of the Chief Executive and Deputy were "flawed".

• idolatry societal. expectations of continuing prosperity and growth. 23 June 2013

• idolatry business information systems in business and in life. Seen by business as:
  • within business as merely usefulness

  • in life as an opportunity to sell

  Idolatry of what they see as meaningful, coupled with self-interest. Going against pistic and ethical aspects. 23 June 2013

• businesses. Productivity: why meaningful? Muhammad Yunus introduced the idea of social business: the purpose of a business is not to make money for owners but to address a social problem. e.g. a firm whose purpose is to provide employment in a Bangladeshi village. Owners get zero dividend. This would tend to reduce 'productivity' of the workers in terms of output per wage, which under usual ideas of meaningfulness, would be a Bad Thing. But it need not be. It is only a Bad Thing because reducing wages per output is seen as a Good Thing. Of course, if this firm were to compete in markets on grounds purely of cost per output and per worker then it would not do well, but those are assumptions not truths. How to overcome that? Will need a new vision. But new visions come slowly not fast.

• The home, the local, the national economy. Stay-at-home Mums. Meaningless to conventional economics. Important in Meaningful Economics, because of the human activity they undertake, and the resources used. 26 May 2013

  principle: In economic measures, all human activity should be considered, even when it does not get monetary reward. 26 May 2013

• personal After striving to be wealthy, people tire of it and give some away. Wealth is meaningless in itself. Why is this? 26 May 2013

• How investment banker behaved:. BBC R4 130325.
  • self-congratulatory emails about deals
  • "Pay as little as you can to keep him here"
  • Pay bills much greater than the firm earned [cos daringness applauded? "Oh you naughty boy"?]
  • shareholders group comes to believe "that's what bankers earn; we must pay them that" Didn't look critically at stupid remunerations until 2008.
  • To 1970s people not much attention to share price. But 1980s share price increased in importance.
  • Wants and needs; 'enough'. Wants are insatiable.
  • If we end up valuing selves by wants we will end up unhappy because there is someone more than you.
  • Cityboy column
  • Asymmetric risks encourage risk taking
  • The culture [ethical aspect]: The Whole year effort / functioning focused on the bonus [not on doing good, but on my bonus; ethical dysfunction]
  • Everyone can see X making lots of money. leads to close to temptation. leads to insane work hours.
  • Ever more detailed rules, e.g. clawback [I think they were saying how futile these were; how they enjoy challenge of getting round them]
  • Constantly felt an imposter. Imposter syndrome. [= meaningless?]

• I(nternational finance and justice [bbc radio 4 Today 4 May 2013, 7.50 am] The world gives £48bn aid to Africa - and extracts £350 bn worth of minerals and other resources every year. Africa has 60% of the world's agricultural land. Africa provides 50% of the [mineral?] world's resources.

• the economy, ethical aspect [my thoughts before 1 May 2013]
  • innovation with competition ===>
  • ===> people doing things that are harmful without caring or realising it
  • ===> need more regulation and burocracy
  • e.g. racing horses. Bute toxin given to horses. In horse carcases. Put into horse meat market. ===> calls for stricter more centralized regime of horse passports for all horses.
  • (cos they have incentive to not-think about it carefully, and to justify what they are doing by elevating, and forcefully telling about, one aspect's logic). They are "arrogant and unconcerned".

• measurement of economy. Consumer confidence, consumer demand and consumer sentiment indices. Consumer confidence index (in US, 5000 households are asked about):
  • current business conditions and for the next six months
  • current employment conditions and for the next six months
  • total family income for the next six months

  CCI tends to correlate with the ability to get and keep good jobs, with retail purchases, especially large-ticket items, with demand for credit, and with home construction. Consumer demand surveys measure expectatiojns of buying cars, white goods, TVs, PCs, furnsihings, toys, etc in near future. Consumer sentiment surveys measure how people feel about the overall economy and how the government is doing in looking after its economy. In 2011 CDS rose and fell when CCI and CSS fell and rose. To what extent is each meaningful? 26 April 2013

• GDP, Internet retailing. Internet retailing, so easy and convenient: has it distorted the growth figures with people buying more? 26 April 2013 See also: GDP, main entry.

• economy. Social Progress Index. 12 April 2013

• Principle. All should be guided by what is meaningful, at all levels. Can use aspects to help us think about what is meaningful, (danger: people will use them to justify what they want to do, since each aspect has its own irreducible logic).

• Meaning of money? JK Galbraith: the connection between money and freedom. The cause of unfreedom is "a complete absence====lack of money". Mgt Thatcher believed that. [but was that the main/only reason, or was it an excuse?]

• The economy Adam Smith is Mgt Thatcher's guru. Free market.

• The economy. Mgt Thatcher: the little man, the grocer. 9 April 2013

• Economy, public v private 130403. Difference between public and private finance is meaningless. Public spend puts money into private firms; so does private spend. Private spend is on big business. We still restricted in the options we have because private sector gets rid of option.
  • e.g. energy suppliers.

  • e.g. Indesit taking over Hotpoint-Cannon around 2010. (heard from gas fitter 8 April 2013). cannon cookers were always good for 90 years. Indesit made 'cannon's are rubbish.

• employment 9 April 2013. Maybe the only real difference is that public bodies feel they had a duty to employ people, so they would make one man dig a hole and another fill it in. However McCaig's Folly over Oban, was built for same reason, to employ stone masons and retain their skills in a downturn. That was private philanthropy not public.

• economy 130403. Two lorries passing each other on the M6 each carrying biscuits to the other place - meaningless

• Banks Cyprus has been an offshore tax haven for rich Russians etc. with low taxes. Cyprus needs bailout from EU to prevent bankrupcy. EU led by Germany (election year) requires 5 bn euros savings from Cyprus as a condition. They want those who profited from the lax regime, those who were the cause of the problem, to pay at least something [juridically meaningful]. Cyprus government first wanted to make a one-off tax on all bank deposits, but that was resisted. Now, they will tax on bank deposits above 100000 euros and close the second-largest bank which is also the weakest. meaningless: to take in money into banks as a tax haven (am i right?). 25 March 2013

• money: money on its own is meaningful only as a symbol of something else [lingual aspect]; it is meaningless on its own as a commodity, though it seems meaningful at the time of spending or getting it.
  • Meaningfulness of getting it: mainly quantitative and formative achievement.
  • Meaningfulness of spending it: juridical for basic needs. money surplus over basic needs loses its inherent juridical meaning and is often purely aesthetic (style, fun). formative when we use it to achieve something (but we then need another aspect of what we achieve to see whether that achievement is good or bad). economic for investment that helps frugality, but aesthetic or formative-pistic for investment that is intended to 'make a statement' or be 'iconic'.
  • when we spend it on ourselves, it becomes meaningless.

  Money is a symbol (lingual) of the potential in those aspects. 25 March 2013

• money: being-rich is meaningless in itself. it does allow us to spend more, but much of that is meaningless if we spend it on ourselves. however some meaningfulness can be found:
  • philanthropy. better done all the time rather than only once one has become rich

  • as we spend money, it gives other people incomes, which they can get and spend.

• ?: Why is money meaningless in itself apart from lingual meaning as a symbol? Because meaning has the character of referring beyond. So if we try to make something meaningful-in-itself, it loses the modicum of meaning it had. Lingual is the aspect that enables us to explicate and share meaning explicitly by means of symbols. But it also is meaningless except that the meaning borne by the symbol is taken into account. So being a symbol in itself is meaningless. When we try to make the lingual aspect meaningful-in-itself it loses its meaning.

• The individual: Why people desire wealth and more than they need Currently 40% of the world's wealth is owned by the richest 1% of people. That percentage has doubled since ???. (BBC R4 Thought for the Day 12 March 2013). Why do these super-rich keep on getting and wanting more? Probably not purely greed for pleasures and possessions, but something deeper that drives that:
  • league tables of the rich (quantitative aspect)
  • the thrill of, and desire for, achievement; it's creative and challenging fun to keep on; success breeds success (formative aspect)
  • fear. fear lest I cannot cope with less. However rich we are, we feel impoverished if we lose a certain percentage. (economic aspect)
  • they have got used to a particular lifestyle and cannot conceive of doing things differently (aesthetic aspect)
  • expectations, especially from other rich; fear of jibes; keeping up with Joneses. (social aspect)
  • pride. "I am the best" "I deserve this" "I am a self-made man" (pistic aspect)
  • maybe send a message? (lingual aspect)

• Aspectual analysis to understand the real normativity. Those who try to diddle people out of stuff and take advantage of people. Meaningful in formative aspect and normative. Anti-nmv in the ethical aspect (not the juridical, even though it goes against ownership because juridical 'due' is basic due, not as defined by rules or laws, so it is only anti-juridical if they take advantage of the already-poor). 26 February 2013

• ethical aspect: self-protection.

• Jobs and economy; breaking under recession 26 February 2013: The current assumptions no apply: to reduce costs: before could reduce people and expect that people would eventually find other jobs, because of growing dynamic economy, in which many new kinds of jobs were being generated that could mop up unemployment by offering jobs that seemed 'better'. - But were they 'better'? Better in what ways? They were new, but were they as meaningful? no consideration given to whether these jobs were meaningful or not. - The meaningless jobs merely weakened the economy like impurities in molten steel weakens it. So when pressure comes, it breaks. That is what we have just found. - Now d2013 we have to not only reform the steel rods but before that, remove the slag, those meaningless jobs are bursting. We no longer have the state where we can just ddevise new kinds of jobs. - Or, rather, we must ensure that the new kinds of jobs that we devise are meaningful, especially in the last three aspects.

• Marginal Improvements 18 February 2013. What made the UK cycling team win 6 gold medals out of 9 at olympics. e.g. hot pants so muscles did not cool down, hour between heats and final used for relax, etc. Opposite of innovation.

• Creative destruction (Schumpeter, 1940s) - innovation, which means technology 1 is replaced and obliterated by technology 2. Keep innovating. Meritocracy. Steve Jobs as example. Meaningful economy: both technology 1 and technology 2 are meaningful, and should not be obliterated. We still use ships and railways. So using c.d. as a shibboleth, as a fashion-excuse for favouring the 'new', is evil. Often we use CD idea wrongly, as an excuse. Innovation: what is the meaning of it? Ideological support for capitalism. The term is used to try to smooth over e.g. unemployment. But the logic of cd as a force for good in society depends on everyone having equal opportunity. In fact that is not true. Meaningless. CD creates coalitions of losers. And cliques of intellectuals who don't like capitalism.

• taxes - what's meaningful about them 1 February 2013 state

• why burocracy creeps. cos senior management fears and distrusts and looks for more evidence than they need for their job. 2 February 2013 bz, org.

• we make flying part of our bz planning, i.e. we plan events that involve flying without any thought, esp in USA. Just because we can and it's prestigious and convenient. anti- normative 1 February 2013 bz

• meaningless or anti- normative : armed forces. 1 February 2013 state

• all is meaningful at least to the person in the economic aspect. But meaningful = the economic perspective serves something else. 1 February 2013 personal

• spare capacity - people could produce more of what they got skills for. 1 February 2013 skills in economy

• the price of things is determined by what people vvalue (a) elite in london (b) as determined by media (c) indirectly from those (eg price of land and labour)

Meaningless Bit 20 January 2013: university, careers, jobs

# Meaningless Bit: importing 8 January 2013

• climate change emissions especially since these things are flown in
• increasing government expenditure on bio-security
• occasionally things get through, devastating our trees or other things

Answer: only because we stubbornly give absolute priority to business freedom, and to our luxury. These are meaningless ultimately.

# 9 November 2012. Meaningful economy can explain why this 'recession' has lasted years longer than was expected. BBC Radio 4 Today 1.11.12 interview "No theoretical basis".

# 9 November 2012: Payment Protection Insurance over-selling, charging customers 5? times what it really cost (Lloyds-TSB).

# 9 November 2012: Import ash trees despite ravaging fungus that has killed 90% of ash trees in Denmark. Why? Ostensible reason: scientists thought it was the same fungus that was already here (so no point in banning imports). But why did they not check, given its devastating effects? I suspect that it was because they were operating in a mindset that trade is paramount. Also EU rules would not allow.

# 10 August 2012. The economkc collapse. UK economy still zero growth rate 5 years on. still in recession. We had been borrowing lots - but borrowing for meaningless purpose. Borrowing is ok if for a good purpose other than determined by economic means.

# the UK government and media and people forgot about envl and poverty justice as soon as economic collapse. Copenhagen summit 2008 the USA etc led in envl irrespy, in guise of self-protection. Then the economic collapse. God's judgment?

# Keynsian investment should always be into things that are meaningful not meaningless. We usually use it on: » pleasures, comforts » iconic projects » boosting GDP » getting better pay for workers » convenience » competing up the league tables. These might be meaningful in one aspect, but they absolutize that aspect over all others. Leading to ultimate failure. I must explain why each of those not meaningful.

# 7 August 2012. On why M.E. is helpful and important: e.g. Hedgefunds mixing risk. getting the right meaning for risk is important, otherwise unforeseen disasters might occur. If someone had objected at the time to what hedge people were doing, nobody would have listened, because "where's the evidence?" - it had not had time to accumulate. But with meaningful economy we can find out what is the right thing to do even before the evidence is accumulated, before disaster struck. M.E. says: risk is not a commodity but a commitment. Commitment depends on generosity and justice especially. So risk should be entered freely, without forcing people to take risks they know not.

# UK survey of 6000 parents: x% spend 10-49 hours per month ferrying children; x% spend 50 hours or more. 12 April 2012 bbc radio 4 today # 'Unfair competitive advantage' - e.g. minicab drivers in London cannot use bus lanes while black cabs can, complain of unfair competitive advantage. But why is it important, Meaningful, that minicabs have same rights as black cabs? 27 April 2012 after hearing BBC R4 Today. # 7 May 2012. Greeks and French have voted against austerity. But what if my non-austerity means not just austerity but poverty for someone else? # 14 May 2012: SOmeone once told me they would rather steal something than be given it. Why? » because of the thrill of achieving something by one's own cleverness; being given it is boring (aesthetic aspect) » is it not a little demeaning to be given it? pistic aspect Now, get evidence that it is the thrill of achieving something by one's own cleverness that drives much in the financial and business and economy areas. Psychology of financiers? Pensions Fuel prices (keeping warm in cold climates) Family disposable income Charity, gifts Voluntary sector Churches and religious organisations Banks as repository for wealth Investments in industry and business Entrepreneurship Gambling Fun, art Investments by gambling Promises, agreements and contracts for casino economy Contracts for services Shares Having spare capital to invest Technological advance, innovation Maintenance Competition Choice of supply Choice of customer Buyer-seller markets Environmental destruction Energy Climate change emissions Repair of damage Externalised costs Prevention of problems (e.g. climate change, malaria) Market prices The going rate for 'top' people Value to customer Goods v services Manufacturing v service economy The bulk of customers in society (average customer) Government vision Tax Deliberate alteration of prices Public v private Subsidies Growing fat Feeling you have enough Feeling the pinch Anomalies in pricing (e.g. £6.25 to Hadfield, £7.75 to Manchester) Scarcity Shops Distribution Travel and transport Special prices, offers Encouraging people to buy Salespeople Marketing Desire to obtain Nations Corporations Globa finance Ownerless corporations (weak shareholders), Ownership v. governance of businesses Institutional shareholding Need to pay every higher bonuses in order to "get the best" Insurance Risk Companies Small companies Breaking even (bottom line) Income Expenditure Profits Management Labour Owner value (shares) Labour value Ownership Enterprise Innovation Quality of products Debt Foreclosure on debt Liquidation Online retailing Return on capital Return on investment International investment banks City of London (employing French selling to Chinese) Rewards Deposit guarantees National banks Investment banks Deposits Need a lot Money used to do good; Socially useful finance Salesmen in split-up energy companies Living wage London weighting Productivity Equality of pay Currency Exchange rates State currency Standard of living Cost of living Race to bottom Bonds Amount of high quality human effort devoted to trivia (aesthetic or fashion) merely to try to shift money, tricking the fashion-led e.g. supplement of F.T Commercial secrets Financial reserves in banks High-status sales are most-meaningful sales. Arms sales are among the highest-status sales of most countries, especially those countries that want to be 'top'. This is stupid.

Failings of Traditional Economy