Phil and I started a free class last night on Fundamental Economics at the Henry George School. It was an interesting experience. The majority of the class period was taken up answering a questionnaire that introduced many economic elements. The point, in part, was to make those introductions but also to acknowledge that people in the class think differently about various aspects of the economy.
I'm very challenged by economics and I don't know much about it. Thankfully I was able to avoid it in high school and college because I would have been thoroughly overwhelmed. So I was of two minds when filling out this questionnaire. Some questions completely baffled me, like "Are periods of recession and unemployment unavoidable in a market economy?" I don't understand enough about market economy or recessions and unemployment to answer so I answered based on my distrust of the market and said no, that these are avoidable. But in answering other questions I tapped into non-economic learning I've had. For instance, the question: "Can earth's resources support an increasing population?" prompted immediate no's from both Phil and I because we've often discussed overpopulation especially what Albert Bartlett has to say about it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY).
What I found most interesting about this first class was listening to how entrenched the other students are in the current economic mindset. Some of those students answered the last questions by saying yes. Another question asked us whether we consider various circumstances as wealth. Two of the items listed were: "Trees in a virgin forest" and "Wood in a lumber yard". I said no to the first one because I believe that just because you have a virgin forest doesn't mean that you need to create wealth with it. It has value outside of wealth just as it is. Others in class looked at it as potential wealth, that you could hold onto it with the intention of eventually selling it when you can make a good profit on it, much like a house or stock.
I was reassured about where the class was going to go when the instructor concluded the class by writing down what he called the Georgist Syllogism:
All human beings have a right to live.
No one can live without natural resources.
All human beings have a right to natural resources.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Congratulations on discovering the Henry George School. Using Henry George's ideas and turning around our struggling urban areas is a specialty my foundation.
Such cities as Sydney, Harrisburg, Hong Kong, and many others have employed at least a version of the Georgist idea.
Right now, Scott Stringer, the Manhattan Borough President is seriously exploring them occasions for using George's ideas to provide affordable housing and smart growth, while preserving green space.
Good luck, and try to stick to the class. Let me know how it worked out for you.
I too recently discovered Henry George and I'm reading all his books. It was my first exposure to Economics also. I count myself lucky I wasn't perverted by current ways of thinking that exclude land and nature as fundamentally important and distinct from labor and capital. Ethics and justice are totally foreign concepts to modern economic thinking which makes it a dangerous enemy of humanity. If we don't change our ways we will not survive for long nor will we deserve to.
Thanks, Joshua and Tom.
It's good to know that there are others who are looking for alternative views on economics especially during election season. It's very discouraging to hear political candidates praise our free market economy.
Post a Comment