There have been lots of articles in the newspapers recently which are reporting that Global Warming has stopped. I wish it had but I am not celebrating.
Deniers of anthropomorphic climate change are again cherry picking the data. The rate of increase in global warming has slowed down it has not stopped. Why is this? The oceans are transferring heat from the atmosphere to the lower regions of oceanic water.
The oceans sometimes release back heat into the atmosphere especially during El Nino events. The trend for the atmosphere is to show an inexorable rise in temperatures as the concentration of greenhouse gases.
increases.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/has-global-warming-stopped-no--its-just-on-pause-insist-scientists-and-its-down-to-the-oceans-8726893.html
Climate models are inaccurate but we can look back into the past to see how the Earth reacted when it came out of or back into an ice age. The temperature did not gradually rise or fall. When we came out of the last ice age and there was a long term trend when temperatures were rising we saw reversals and temporary lapses into ice age conditions. These changes happened rapidly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
The same thing could happen in the future so we play with climate change at our peril. Pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere will have dangerous consequences if not for our generation then for the ones to follow.
What a great legacy to leave to our grandchildren.
Tuesday, 23 July 2013
Monday, 15 July 2013
Community Enterprises
There has been a failure of global corporate capitalism to meet the needs of the societies which they serve. The economic collapse resulting from the 2007 international banking crisis nearly brought the world economy to its knees. We faced a dangerous economic, political and social situation.
At the moment there are increasing numbers of people in the western world who are relying on food handouts. The poor people of the third world are working in conditions which are almost tantamount to economic slavery. The gap between the rich and poor is widening. Wealth is not cascading down from top to bottom.
The redistribution of wealth promised by traditionalist economists and politicians has meant wealth being taken from the poor and the middle classes and being re-distributed to the super wealthy. Global corporations have not been held to account by our governments and politicians
Had there been a complete economic failure, who knows what would have happened? There could have been unwanted violence on the streets and divisions among the nation states which could have lead to new war. There are certainly parallels and lessons to be learnt from the experiences of the 1920's, '30's and '40's and we are still not out of the woods. It is quite possible that the current economic model is self-destructive.
I am not arguing a case for some form of communism or public ownership of all enterprises. We need healthy economies driven by some sort of free enterprise to provide the wealth which allows all of our citizens to thrive and be healthy. We therefore need enterprise which meets the needs of our communities to ensure that everyone has a fair stake in the wealth of society and that everyone who wants to work or start an enterprise has the opportunity to do so.
Capitalism is not an economic system which is based on some sort of state of natural affairs. It is a creation of the human mind and it has been allowed to flourish by the consent of our society. Our community allows for the legal, social and economic framework for joint stock and limited liability companies to exist but we have allowed some companies to trade solely for the generation of profit for the shareholders.
Companies should take into account all of the stakeholders of the society which allows them to operate. If capitalism fails it could quite easily be replaced by something unpalatable for all of us. Therefore there is an obligation for global corporations to improve their act.
There is also an obligation for our society to provide other means of creating wealth; means which are outside of the orbit of both global capitalism, state capitalism and communism.
Let us examine the following example. My wife and I went into a woman's clothes shop the other day to buy a pair of ladies trousers. There was a pair on sale at the reduced price of £90. These trousers were of exceptionally poor quality; they were for fashion only. Normally they were on sale for much more. They had been made in a third world garment factory.
They were probably made and transported to the UK for a cost of about £5. Where did the bulk of gross profit margin of £85 go ?
I opine that it did not go to garment factory workers in the third world. It did not go to a worker in the UK as most of the garment industry has gone out of business here. It did not go to the shop's retail staff. I suggest that the transport companies did not take much of the margin. So who is left to take the money?
The margin, I suggest, has gone to marketing companies and international retailing conglomerates.
This economic model does not really serve the communities in the third world that produce the garments nor the UK manufacturers who have gone out of business as a result of the transfer of capital and the means of production.
At a local business network meeting I met an entrepreneur who wants to change this business model so that it serves the community. He sells garments which are made in the UK and these garments cost much more to make than they would in a third world sweat shop. He sells the garments to University students for a fair price which is much less than the price of the fashion trousers described above. His margin is fair.
He wants to share some of the profits of the enterprise with the community. He wants to be a millionaire and deserves to be. He is not interested in becoming a multimillionaire or a global capitalist. He also believes in free enterprise in the genuine sense of the word. He is not interest in living in a business world dominated by oligarchs and monopolies. Adam Smith would be proud of him.
Some of his business colleagues have tried to convince him that it is best to have his garments made in the third world. He is not interested in this as he wants to help British industry. After all, we are a world of nation states but this model could be repeated in any country to the benefit of the local community.
This business model allows for the trickle down effect to to support the workers in the industry and other businesses in the community. It is a model which allows for private enterprise, the community and workers or even unions to invest in the company and become stakeholders and investors.
Such business models could run alongside traditional capitalist industries such as car making, electronics and telecommunications. It would not replace global capitalism but would provide an alternative form of economic activity which is more stable and sustainable and one which serves the community. Community enterprises could also fill in the gap if global corporate capitalism fails; it would be ready to form a backstop.
The Community would be able to guarantee that essential services are maintained and that everyone is fully employed.
Do you want to live in a world where global corporations dictate what economic model we live by?
Do you want to live in a world where third world sweat shops are used to make cheap goods which are sold in the richer economies at an exorbitant profit margin?
Do you want large supermarkets to dictate to farmers how food should be produced and at what cost?
Do you want your local high street to be full of charity shops?
Do you want essential services, such as care for the elderly, to be under the complete control of large corporations?
Or, would you rather?
Live in a world where large corporations are held to account by a strong democratic government and operate in the best interests of themselves and the community.
Third world workers are given fair wages and working conditions.
Farmers are given a fair deal and local retail shops are encouraged to thrive.
Local services are controlled and owned by the communities they serve in co-operation with local entrepreneurs.
Global capitalism has served us well in some instances; the electronics and software industries are classic examples. I am not advocating that this form of enterprise is abolished. But we could control our economies far better if there was an improved mix of different forms of enterprise. Everyone could benefit from this - including large corporations.
Is it not time that our traditional political parties, unions, and other political and economic groups sat up and thought of a democratic alternative to what we have now?
The public also have a role to play by supporting enterprises and ideas which will change the economic model.
It is time for a change and it is possible to create and encourage new forms of enterprise using a legal, social and economic framework that does not impinge on anyone's individual freedom or rights.
At the moment there are increasing numbers of people in the western world who are relying on food handouts. The poor people of the third world are working in conditions which are almost tantamount to economic slavery. The gap between the rich and poor is widening. Wealth is not cascading down from top to bottom.
The redistribution of wealth promised by traditionalist economists and politicians has meant wealth being taken from the poor and the middle classes and being re-distributed to the super wealthy. Global corporations have not been held to account by our governments and politicians
Had there been a complete economic failure, who knows what would have happened? There could have been unwanted violence on the streets and divisions among the nation states which could have lead to new war. There are certainly parallels and lessons to be learnt from the experiences of the 1920's, '30's and '40's and we are still not out of the woods. It is quite possible that the current economic model is self-destructive.
I am not arguing a case for some form of communism or public ownership of all enterprises. We need healthy economies driven by some sort of free enterprise to provide the wealth which allows all of our citizens to thrive and be healthy. We therefore need enterprise which meets the needs of our communities to ensure that everyone has a fair stake in the wealth of society and that everyone who wants to work or start an enterprise has the opportunity to do so.
Capitalism is not an economic system which is based on some sort of state of natural affairs. It is a creation of the human mind and it has been allowed to flourish by the consent of our society. Our community allows for the legal, social and economic framework for joint stock and limited liability companies to exist but we have allowed some companies to trade solely for the generation of profit for the shareholders.
Companies should take into account all of the stakeholders of the society which allows them to operate. If capitalism fails it could quite easily be replaced by something unpalatable for all of us. Therefore there is an obligation for global corporations to improve their act.
There is also an obligation for our society to provide other means of creating wealth; means which are outside of the orbit of both global capitalism, state capitalism and communism.
Let us examine the following example. My wife and I went into a woman's clothes shop the other day to buy a pair of ladies trousers. There was a pair on sale at the reduced price of £90. These trousers were of exceptionally poor quality; they were for fashion only. Normally they were on sale for much more. They had been made in a third world garment factory.
They were probably made and transported to the UK for a cost of about £5. Where did the bulk of gross profit margin of £85 go ?
I opine that it did not go to garment factory workers in the third world. It did not go to a worker in the UK as most of the garment industry has gone out of business here. It did not go to the shop's retail staff. I suggest that the transport companies did not take much of the margin. So who is left to take the money?
The margin, I suggest, has gone to marketing companies and international retailing conglomerates.
This economic model does not really serve the communities in the third world that produce the garments nor the UK manufacturers who have gone out of business as a result of the transfer of capital and the means of production.
At a local business network meeting I met an entrepreneur who wants to change this business model so that it serves the community. He sells garments which are made in the UK and these garments cost much more to make than they would in a third world sweat shop. He sells the garments to University students for a fair price which is much less than the price of the fashion trousers described above. His margin is fair.
He wants to share some of the profits of the enterprise with the community. He wants to be a millionaire and deserves to be. He is not interested in becoming a multimillionaire or a global capitalist. He also believes in free enterprise in the genuine sense of the word. He is not interest in living in a business world dominated by oligarchs and monopolies. Adam Smith would be proud of him.
Some of his business colleagues have tried to convince him that it is best to have his garments made in the third world. He is not interested in this as he wants to help British industry. After all, we are a world of nation states but this model could be repeated in any country to the benefit of the local community.
This business model allows for the trickle down effect to to support the workers in the industry and other businesses in the community. It is a model which allows for private enterprise, the community and workers or even unions to invest in the company and become stakeholders and investors.
Such business models could run alongside traditional capitalist industries such as car making, electronics and telecommunications. It would not replace global capitalism but would provide an alternative form of economic activity which is more stable and sustainable and one which serves the community. Community enterprises could also fill in the gap if global corporate capitalism fails; it would be ready to form a backstop.
The Community would be able to guarantee that essential services are maintained and that everyone is fully employed.
Do you want to live in a world where global corporations dictate what economic model we live by?
Do you want to live in a world where third world sweat shops are used to make cheap goods which are sold in the richer economies at an exorbitant profit margin?
Do you want large supermarkets to dictate to farmers how food should be produced and at what cost?
Do you want your local high street to be full of charity shops?
Do you want essential services, such as care for the elderly, to be under the complete control of large corporations?
Or, would you rather?
Live in a world where large corporations are held to account by a strong democratic government and operate in the best interests of themselves and the community.
Third world workers are given fair wages and working conditions.
Farmers are given a fair deal and local retail shops are encouraged to thrive.
Local services are controlled and owned by the communities they serve in co-operation with local entrepreneurs.
Global capitalism has served us well in some instances; the electronics and software industries are classic examples. I am not advocating that this form of enterprise is abolished. But we could control our economies far better if there was an improved mix of different forms of enterprise. Everyone could benefit from this - including large corporations.
Is it not time that our traditional political parties, unions, and other political and economic groups sat up and thought of a democratic alternative to what we have now?
The public also have a role to play by supporting enterprises and ideas which will change the economic model.
It is time for a change and it is possible to create and encourage new forms of enterprise using a legal, social and economic framework that does not impinge on anyone's individual freedom or rights.
Friday, 5 July 2013
Two Wrongs Do Not Make An Egyptian Right
In my opinion there can be no justification for the military in overthrowing a democratically elected government. There is no justification for the arrest of key members of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
The Muslim Brotherhood after all were the strongest peaceful opposition to military rule in Egypt over the course of many years.
It is my view that the best form of government is a secular democracy which has all the checks and balances needed to ensure a fair society and the rights of everyone. To impose a theocracy does not guarantee this and it is clear that a substantial number of Egyptians, although religious, do not want a state run by clerics.
The best course of action would be for the military to remain loyal to the Egyptian electorate and desist from intervention.
Egyptian religious leaders should support a secular and democratic constitution and remove themselves from politics.
This is the best method of assuring the rights of everyone and the peace.
The Muslim Brotherhood after all were the strongest peaceful opposition to military rule in Egypt over the course of many years.
It is my view that the best form of government is a secular democracy which has all the checks and balances needed to ensure a fair society and the rights of everyone. To impose a theocracy does not guarantee this and it is clear that a substantial number of Egyptians, although religious, do not want a state run by clerics.
The best course of action would be for the military to remain loyal to the Egyptian electorate and desist from intervention.
Egyptian religious leaders should support a secular and democratic constitution and remove themselves from politics.
This is the best method of assuring the rights of everyone and the peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
