Politici , economen en visie

Details

Published on Wednesday, 22 February 2012 23:20

Written by Bram Meulenbeld

In haar opiniestuk van 20-02-2012 doet Aafke Steenhuis in de Volkskrant een oproep aan linkse politici om op zoek te gaan naar gelijkgestemde visionaire economen. 

De kern van haar betoog is helder en scherp. Zo is het een terechte constatering dat, anders dan de titel doet vermoeden, niet alleen economen, maar juist ook andere sociale wetenschappers betrokken dienen te worden bij het nadenken over alternatieve vormen van het inrichten van onze economie. Sterker nog, ook ecologen, biologen, geologen, natuurkundigen, maar bijvoorbeeld ook filosofen en kunstenaars dienen hierbij betrokken te worden. De economie draait immers niet om geld. Geld is een middel en geen doel. Economie is niets anders dan een kader waarbinnen de gehele samenleving haar behoeften optimaal kan bevredigen, dat alleen veel meer moet worden gebonden aan het draagvlak van de aarde (ecologische randvoorwaarde) en van de mensheid zelf (sociale randvoorwaarde). Het is dan ook aan de gehele samenleving om hierover mee te denken. Het verdient juist geen aanbeveling om dit over te laten aan Cartesiaans denkende economen. 

Toch moeten er ook wat nuances worden aangebracht. Allereerst moet er niet alleen vanuit een globale blik naar alternatieve vormen van economie worden gekeken, maar juist ook vanuit een lokale blik en de wisselwerking tussen globaal en lokaal. Sociale cohesie is namelijk het sterkst in de eigen directe omgeving en aan ecologische randvoorwaarden kan het beste worden voldaan als er zoveel mogelijk lokaal geproduceerd wordt.

Daarnaast is er geen reden om alleen gelijkgestemden bij elkaar te zetten. Het verdient eerder aanbeveling om de dialoog aan te gaan met een enorme diversiteit aan mensen. 

De grootste nuance is echter nog wel dat politici, en dan gaat het niet eens om links of rechts, niet zozeer op zoek moeten gaan naar denkers over alternatieve vormen van economie, maar dat ze er meer voor open moeten staan.

Het Platform voor een duurzame en solidaire economie (PSDE) is een mix van economen en niet-economen dat als doel heeft het publiek, en daarbinnen de politiek, te informeren over de misstanden binnen de economie en de financiële wereld, veelal veroorzaakt door het monetair denken van het neo-liberalisme en wat mogelijke alternatieven zijn. Zo werd het boek 'Plan voor een Duurzame en Solidaire Economie' (John Huige en Lou Keune) bewust gepresenteerd aan de Christenunie, de SP, PvdA en Groen Links. Ook werd de Fair&Green deal aan politiek Den Haag aangeboden en werd onder andere een notitie voor politieke samenwerking richting een duurzame en solidaire economie aangeboden aan Groen Links en de PvdA. Daarnaast is het Platform actief betrokken bij het Duurzaamheidsoverleg Politieke Partijen (DOPP). Ook andere initiatieven zoals het Sustainable Finance Lab hebben concrete aanbevelingen aan de politiek gedaan als het gaat om het anders inrichten van de economie en het veranderen van de financiële sector.

Politici hoeven dus niet zozeer op zoek te gaan, ze krijgen de alternatieven zelfs aangeboden. Zij moeten het zelf weer aandurven om visionair te zijn. The Great Transition (een internationaal initiatief) naar een duurzame en solidaire economie is een proces dat de vierjaarlijkse herverkiezing overschrijdt en alleen al vanuit dat oogpunt niet hoog op de lijst staat van politici. En dat terwijl juist de politiek hierin een grote rol kan en moet spelen door de dialoog aan te gaan met deze initiatieven en van daaruit ruimte te scheppen voor het experimenteren met verschillende vormen van economie en democratie: het stimuleren van alternatieve vormen van geld of het ter beschikking stellen van door gemeenten afgeschreven en onverkoopbare stukken grond voor regionale voedselvoorziening om enkele voorbeelden te noemen. 

Het Platform DSE organiseert dit jaar op 23 maart een conferentie over de financiële sector in samenhang met de crises. Daarnaast zal het in de loop van dit jaar vanuit de gedachte van de The Great Transition bijeenkomsten organiseren over alternatieve vormen van economie, minder werken, publieke middelen en herdefiniëring van de begrippen groei en vooruitgang. Het is voor politici zeer aan te raden hierbij actief betrokken te raken.

Money

Details

Published on Sunday, 18 December 2011 23:53

Written by Bram Meulenbeld

 What I just don't get is that so many people miss out on causality. What is  actually wrong with the financial sector? Why is it so unsustainable? Lies the problem in the fact that it's unsustainable in itself? Because it's a root cause for unsustainability as a whole?

 Is the problem money creation? Interest? Fractional banking ? Or is it lack of diversity, a low Tier 1 or that liabilities and equities don't have the same fiscal treatment?

I will give you my view: The financial sector is, as every sector and almost every company, unsustainable in itself. Around 2 billion people are unsustainable. And not just unsustainable, but in such a way that they even unsustainalize the rest of the global population. Of course the financial sector loves to show that they have (or are planning) carbon neutralized offices and electric lease cars, an increasing percentage of women in top positions, etcetera, and they probably do. It doesn't make them sustainable though.

And, besides that, but much more important, the financial sector also accelerates unsustainability. That's because the financial sector is just the realization of our financial system which is a result of our human behavior: We just want more for less. Unfortunately we run into a boundary: Nature. And I am not only talking about climate change, global warming, deforestation, salinization, expanding desserts, extinction of species, and much much more. I am also talking about ourselves: Our internal competition often leading to specialization. We always have to outdo the other and we can be best at that fully specialized (which too often gets confused with rationality): Whether physically or mentally. One can argue that this is darwinism. Some sort of survival of the fittest.

However we, as human beings, have been blessed with intelligence. That's how we got to darwinism in the first place. We are intelligent creatures. Which means that we can also communicate in a relatively high manner, rationalize and decide. We can decide to do things. Which means we can also decide not to do things. Most of us want our own house, own car, own tools, far-away-vacations, the best healthcare, the best education, re-furnishing, re-painting, lots of clothing, going out to different things, and what have you not. You cannot. Just because some of us have none of this, some of this, all of this and lots more, doesn't mean everyone can get it, eventhough marketing techniques will have you believe otherwise. It creates a rat race. A run of the means behind the median, like chasing a carrot on a stick. And you can decide whether you take part in this race. You can decide that for yourselves. Whether humanity is and should be up for that task is a big question, because we are, on the one hand, completely connected, and at the same it seems like we become a bit disconnected.

If we are, I think we also have to completely re-think our financial system, which is primarily driven by money; Money is considered to have three functionalities: exchange, save and calculate.The financial sector should solely deal with the first two and not with the latter.

Unfortunately, interest and money creation with no real value behind it, have caused pricing of money, making it a service in its own and thus making money a goal. With the genius, but completely unsustainable, of making money pure out of money. These aspects have become a valuation function directly influencing, and not just supporting, the saving and exchanging function.

Money should be a means for people to exchange goods and services because they cannot have a one on one spacial or physical delivery. This should be solved by being honest (e.g. admitting we are all the same human being) and create abundance instead of scarcity, which would lead to a moneyless society. I don't think this will work straight away and money still has its 'value', but we should understand again it's a means and not a goal.

And that should be the main driver behind every financial institution: Completely transparent facilitate money flows.   

Sustainable top 100

Details

Published on Tuesday, 08 November 2011 23:53

Written by Bram Meulenbeld

Each year a newspaper in the Netherlands creates a sustainable top 100 list which sums up the 100 most influential Dutch people in the area of sustainability. This is based on 6 criteria: 'broad vision', 'intelligence', 'charisma', 'networking', 'drive/spirit' and 'innovativeness '.

My first reaction to this is why a top 100 is even necessary. Why create this hierarchy? What is the added value? Why always this strong urge of competition? To me, this is exactly what goes against sustainability. But than again, if I read that they regard sustainability according to the 3 p's, which in my opinion is a CSR related assumption and not one off sustainability as a whole, I get the feeling this is already why I simply don't understand it. 

Than you start looking deeper into it and you wonder why these criteria have been chosen. And why, in my opinion, the most important criterion is being left out of the equation: How sustainable are these people themselves? There are a huge number of people on this list that fly and drive to every place on the planet. That have incomes that are far from sustainable. Property that is far from sustainable. You name it. But, as is often the case in the world of green and sustainable, the goal apparently justifies the means... 

Anyway it is based on these 6 criteria, that are of course, highly subjective. Therefor a panel of 'experts' has been chosen who individually assign a rating per criterion per person. One of these so called experts is the guy who organizes the national sustainability congress which was subject to one of my previous columns. I have nothing against this man. I don't know him personally. But I have a totally different view on sustainability than he has. And yes, maybe different panel members have different views so it melts together and thus reflects the total population. Statistically it's probably well worked out. I assume that at the least. But no matter how good statistics are, if underlying assumptions are disputable, so are the statistics derived from it. 

In this case the newspaper (or someone else, it's not clearly mentioned) collects 400 names. It doesn't say based on what. Perhaps they run a query of how many times people have been mentioned matched with certain sustainability related words in their own database. They do at least use this technique to assign 50% of the charisma criterion. Or of all newspapers. In any case this is already a highly subjective number and choice. Meanwhile maintaining a definition of sustainability that is highly discussable. For instance profit in the equation of sustainability. Who says we need profit? What is profit actually good for? Our economic models assume that profit drives innovation drives profit and so on, and for instance that profit is necessary for 'business continuity' which somehow is absolutely necessary. These are just assumptions that hold no validity at all. Innovation can come from many other means than profit. Business continuity is no prerequisite for human development. It's only in a business' own interest, and they are nobody. They are means to facilitate people in a more efficient way. If at a certain point they can no longer do that, fine. Profits create losses, that is the only truth about profit. All the other aspects of it are human conditions that can just as well be different with a different mind-set. 

I have to admit, my curiosity was still present so I quickly went through the list. And already at number two I was lost: The CEO of Unilever. Because he has the guts to 'sustainabilize' the entire food &cosmetics chain. I am getting a bit acquainted with food and agriculture. I know personally what it takes to grow food for 3 persons. If you put some economy of scale into that you would probably make more yields, but that requires a substantial amount of land. If you run out of land, the only two options are increasing yields further or getting your agricultural products somewhere else. We have done both. Both without much success to use an understatement. We are responsible for so much depletion of natural resources. We have destroyed so much good land for all kinds of different reasons (erosion, salinization, over-exploitation, deforestation, (oil) mining, etc.). That has to stop. Creating sustainable palm oil, or transporting sustainable grown pineapples from Costa Rica to the Netherlands can not be sustainable. We don't have that much land and energy and we simply also don't need it. Forcing the transition through the same mind-set that everything is possible will just create more and more problems. 

We have to focus on how to create sustainable primary living conditions for every human being. At least all those who want that and have their fair and right share on this planet. 198 or so countries have agreed to that in the universal declaration of human rights in 1948! Amongst a lot of other things we apparently cannot even adhere to this. It's probably a shitty list in most people's minds. 

But hey, we have another list, someone won again, and we have just look at the positive things and be cheerful. 

I guess I will never make to any list.

Sustainable Finance Lab – Financial professionals, caretaker of the customer?

Details

Published on Monday, 10 October 2011 23:53

Written by Bram Meulenbeld

This evening I visited a gathering of the Sustainable Finance Lab. The subject of this specific gathering was as explained in the title. I was amazed about what was being presented by the people holding the introductory talks. All of whom are supposed to be professors at different Dutch universities. The most sensible thing I heard was at the beginning saying that most consumers behave on bounded rationality. From thereon my belief in our educational system which wasn't already very high plunged a little further.

One of the professors gave the audience four theses to which they replied whether they agreed on the specific action or not. The first was whether it's morally justified to sell a holiday insurance to an old lady who never leaves town and who just came to withdraw some money. The second was whether it was morally justified to sell short on Greek government bonds. The third was whether we should agree on ABN AMRO taking over Deutsche Bank. The fourth was whether to agree on Deutsche Bank taking over ABN AMRO. From the answers this clever man could make a distinction between whether you are a supporter of the free market or whether you are a supporter of a regulated market. Since I didn't raise my hand on any of the thesis (not because I had a strong opinion on any of the thesis but because they were impossible to answer with a simple yes or no with so little information) I was apparently an extreme supporter of the free market.

Is it morally justified to sell a holiday insurance to an old woman who never leaves town and just comes to the bank to withdraw money?

Is it morally justified to sell a holiday insurance to anyone at all? Is it more or less morally justified to sell a holiday insurance to a young woman? Do bank employees know travel habits of all their customers? Don't consumers have any kind of responsibility? How on earth am I supposed to judge the morality of other human beings at all?

Same goes for someone who bought put options on Greek government bonds. In my opinion the problem lies with the latter three words instead of someone who traded in them. What is Greek or Greece or a Greek? It's just a human concept. I can explain here and make this very long, but I think my friends at http://www.ardvanderlinden.com have already explained it very nicely. Who offered those bonds? Why did people buy call options in the first place? Why do governments offer bonds at all?

Would you agree if ABN AMRO would buy Deutsche Bank once it has been returned to the stock market and 'recreased' it's size to it's original size? Do I have to have an opinion on this? What size? What bank wants to buy what bank? Is it different with any other bank(s)? Does size matter with take-overs? How the hell am I supposed to think about an unlikely event with an even more unsure outcome?

So, I didn't raise my hand and from this I am clearly a supporter of the free market, whatever that is, and by some logical deduction I couldn't follow, I also support bonusses...

Another professor answered, in reply to a question in the room, that she also didn't like negative outcomes from researches but that she always continues searching for positive outcomes. Are negative outcomes bad? She for instance found out that female investors made 65% better results before the crisis. What are better results? We're talking about investors and I am a man, so I suspect she means net profit (of course it can also be a completely different kind of better result) but is more profit better? Why this focus on gender, she made a few other differences between gender as well, anyway?

To be frank, I didn't understand why the series about sustainable finance started from a customer perspective. It seems to me that you have first have to discuss from a holistic point of view, like what the role of a financial institution actually should be. It seems that this topics will be covered, so I am looking forward to the next conference.