This is Part 2 of a series on Deep Adaptation and MMT that I am writing. The first part – Deep Adaptation – Part 1 (August 22, 2022) – introduced the concept. I have recently written about the coming together of a number of crises which I consider to be all linked and part of the end of normal business as we have known it. See – The global poly crisis is the culmination of the absurdity of neoliberalism (July 18, 2022). Thinking about the social aspects of that conjunction of crises, we understand that advancing material prosperity is still a goal that we should seek to achieve for millions of the globe’s citizens, who live in abject poverty with little food and housing security. But then, when we consider the ecological dimension we see immediately how the social goals have to be solved within a constrained envelope of overall material deprivation. The question then is how can we move forward towards achieving that duality. There are various propositions out there – Green New Deals, Green Growth, etc. I think they are all flawed and that proponents tend to become captured by the power relations that have created the current mess. That is where I think the concept of Deep Adaptation comes into play. Which brings me to a starting point in understanding where these institutionalised ‘green’ conservations have lost their way. Today, I am writing about growth and degrowth, because there are a lot of misunderstandings out there about this apparent conflict.
I keep reading reports of the rising risk of food riots as food prices soar around the world and vulnerable nations and communities are faced with increased food insecurity, which is a technical term that international agencies use, that actually means risk of starvation. At the same time, governments allow hedge funds to take speculative positions on food as a traded commodity which has been shown to not only increase food prices but also divert supply into storage (long positions) while the ‘investors’ create artificial supply shortages and market instability – while people are being denied their staple food products (for example, corn speculation). There are many things that governments must do in this regard – including investing in sustainable agricultural systems to create local supply certainty, improving the quality of diets (banning high sugar and salt levels), and more. But one of the most significant things that governments could do to keep food prices down and increase food security for vulnerable nations is to cooperate on a global scale to outlaw any food speculation by hedge funds and the big investment banks. It is not only economically destructive to have large proportions of populations living with the constant threat of starvation. It is also unethical.
Neoliberal governments and their supporters have a habit of spruiking gee whiz solutions to the world’s problems, where gee whiz means make it easier for corporations to make profits and harder for workers to get pay rises, claiming that the destiny of individuals is in their own hands (denying systemic failures), and reducing regulations that ensure equity is enhanced. Australia added another dimension to that list (which is not exhaustive) – being mean spirited when it comes to the less well-off nations in the world. The problem with this approach is that it does not live up to promise – it certainly enriches those who are already well-off – but when the rest of us realise something is wrong, the horse has already bolted and picking up the pieces becomes more ‘costly’ than before. In the last few weeks, our government has been bellowing again about China. China is a threat, China is a crook, China is this, China is that. The trigger point this time is the revelation that China’s external strategy has come to the Solomon Islands and the anti-China paranoid gang within the Australian government has a problem. The Solomon Islands are less than 1,700 kms from our mainland and the fear that China will establish a military base there is sending shivers up the spines (euphemism) of our conservative government. Perhaps if we had have been more generous to this region, the Chinese would not have so easily been able to invest there.