Connect with us

Featured

Scarcity or Abundance: The Horizonal Nature of Social Relations

Published

on

SCARCITY (OPPOSITION)

I was taught the defining feature of economics is scarcity: it’s all about tradeoffs and either/or choice. You do this or that. I or you get something. One or the other; life is choice. Resources – scarce – serve unbounded wants. We’re stuck in a game where we slice up pies. What you get, I don’t. Like it or lump it. Love it or leave it. We eat or have cake. “Let them eat pie!” I was taught this. And I believed…

Economists stress opposition. We struggle for goods. I envy all yours. How can we coexist? You have stuff I want. There’s no escape from this conflict. If we object, tough noogies! That’s the way of the world. Reality has the last laugh.

This system permits survival of the fittest, or is it the fattest? Do rich grow richer as poor people languish? Or will wealth trickle down and out? How does our world work? Is it fair? Do gains spread? What of Fate? Do lucky ducks win while the rest of us starve? What is economy, anyway? How well does it meet our needs?

Economists seek control over oppositional forces. Theories face an Existence Proof to pass muster in science, to show they yield stable outcomes. A model limns a balance of forces for this equilibrium mandate, for legitimacy. Such frames are pleasing, with tradeoffs resolved. Contests shake out the strongest desire; high bidders win! This process is for the best, for all; it fosters efficiency. Or so we say.

“Value” expressed in dollars stands on “willingness to pay” (WTP), yielding trade to mutual gain. A buck’s worth a buck; it’s nicely objective. Worth in dollars opens our route to “the best of all possible worlds” in its social welfare results.

It all seems so perfect. But then, I strayed. What of appendectomies? Bill Gates’ “value” exceeds my own! Is his life worth more than mine? My “appendectomy standard of value” upturned my world. Bucks’ worth varies. Gates’ll put up a few billion, while I can’t pay a grand. Where does that leave us? What is “worth”?

Charging what the market will bear – whatever we’ll pay – means Gates subsidizes my cure. Is that “fair”? Or should we both pay the same? That would charge Gates but a fraction of worth to him, while I go untreated. Tough luck for me?

Is it my fault for lacking money? Are there no lucky ducks here? Wait a sec! A uniform price subsidizes the rich, who underpay while the rest of us starve. Is that efficient or fair? Is individual pricing better? Do we reify money by using it as an “objective” measure of value? What is wrong with this picture?!?

Such is the social welfare case for progressive fines and taxation. The emotional burdens should be equal, adapting to dollars’ shifting worth. The rich pay more to equalize cost. That’s simple economics: the marginal value of dollars soars, the fewer of them you have. Prices should reflect that change; a few bucks to me are worth thousands to you, due to our relative wealth. The same price to all lifts the rich and downs the poor. Does that make sense? Is it just?

Uniform pricing may be unfair. If I charge what the market will bear, I can help poor folk for free! The gains trickle down, not up. Isn’t that better?

But I was taught to rank efficiency over equity here; fairness has costs, they said. Though uniform pricing may be unfair, might it be efficient? No way. Individual pricing is more efficient than charging one price to all (due to avoidable welfare loss). I sell in excess of unit cost, and use my profit to help the poor. What’s so wrong with that? Why is price discrimination illegal if not justified by cost? Who is served by this rule? Everyone? Or just the rich?

What is efficiency, anyway? The goal of efficiency is reached with all gains from trade exhausted. That’s the best of all possible worlds in social welfare terms. We’re all as happy as we can be, with no unfulfilled deals. Whoopee!

In my economic principles course, I’d start by selling a rose, posing “the economic problem” as getting it to who wants it most. Students bid, as I talked about “things” vs. “goods” and the role of imagination.

What does imagination have to do with economics? Everything! The whole system moves on creativity, hopes and dreams. Subjective value is emotional, projective, framed in our minds: it directs endeavor. We choose imagined results, standing on theories of how things work: if I kick thus, this’ll occur. Our views of cause and effect turn us onto the paths we take. Creativity is central in all economic acts!

So what do we mean by cost? Choices weigh alternatives. What we do is evaluated against what we might do instead: its “opportunity cost” lies in the worth of what we shunned. That makes cost theoretical, untestable, unobservable and invisible, living only in mind. These imagined depictions of value cannot be seen or realized; they open to no confirmation. Costs stem from projective fantasies of what we did not do, both in its factual limits and, as well, in what it would feel like to wear!

That’s a very tall order; it’s no trivial task. Worth is elusive, fantastic, conceptual, and diverse in us all, based on subjective values in mind. Theory is central; it frames our options. Sure, reality upsets illusion and knowledge calls for realistic conceptions, but how do beliefs meet truth? This is a matter of life vs. death, of gain vs. loss; it turns on the fit of resources to aims, and of ideas to facts.

Theories shape all we do, and direct the course of our lives. How we address social conflicts of value affect how we act toward others. Scarcity rules, while the market resolves – through a system of mutual gain, it is said. The claim is seductive, fed to us all. Thus we live in “the best of all possible worlds,” or so we believe.

An economics of scarcity and tradeoffs – of either/or choices, of conflicts of value – is one where competition quells strife in an optimal way. We all gain from willing exchange. And so, for now, we sleep peacefully, while life feels so good!

ABUNDANCE (CONSILIENCE)

I first saw “abundance” as nonsense! Economists study tradeoffs and want. The focus is choice; there’s none without limits. So I was befuddled to find these absurdities in any serious science. What could these people be thinking (if at all)?

But I knew ecology, and was studying the British canals. I’d also wrestled with interdependence; it threw me for a loop. In school I’d learned to split things up, to break them into pieces: partial models were accepted, and systems simply ignored.

But I was stuck on how a canal should price a route tied to others. No parts stood out here; they were all intertwined. I explored theories of feedback control loops, temporal lags, open networks of fractal, dynamic complexity, organizational management tracts, all I could find on these subjects. My Ph.D. thesis advisor told me to “get off this theory stuff, and just do the canals!” I thought that was absurd…

“The only way out is through” became my dissertation mantra. One mentor left transport for models of fully diversified, interactive firms. So maybe linking canals with all else was the right way to go. A waterway network – capturing public goods and increasing returns – spun me into a troublesome morass of controversial issues on which great theorists had foundered. What could I have been thinking?

It taught me a lot of economics, too much to elaborate here! I spent many years reading all I could find on the economics of pricing, capital, time, knowledge and change; on organizational management theories; psychology; education; history; natural science of all sorts; philosophy; you name it! I explored diverse systems…

The interdependence of the canals suggested a question in need of an answer: how to relate these entities in the absence of well-behaved markets. Each canal linked to all others in a tangle of factors, with substitution and complementarity joined in an unholy mess. How could I sort all this out? What were the organizational limits of dynamic complex systems? For substitutes, competition is good; complements call for cooperation. Their balance gave me no institutional guidance or resolution…

Remember the scarcity question: for thirst, I drink beer or wine; their profits are opposed. These substitutes suffer a conflict of interest, so rivalry is a good rule. Monopolization – collusion – does harm. That was the easy part. The problem lay with wine and cheese, beer and pretzels, chips, and/or movies! What about all the radiant impacts of any decision? Ecology unfolds interdependence into a systems approach, where all we do engenders effects spreading outward to all.

Did this mean what I feared? That we are also responsible for all the results we start? In all their radiant tracks, for better and for worse? That was a very hard pill to ingest. How would I cope? Did it make sense? Where was I going with this?

I weathered the crisis, and racked my brain. I ignored my thesis adviser. We live in an Information Age of network connections suffusing all lives. An understanding of British canals should illuminate this situation. I thought about network effects…

The relation of beer to wine was like two parallel lanes; you chose one or the other. But wine and cheese, or beer and pretzels, simulate end-to-end ties, used jointly or not, in both/neither relations. Beer and wine were substitutes for a thirst; wine and cheese (or beer and pretzels) were complementary goods. However, for my next party (vs. the movies or bowling), they were all complements! Such patterns stand on intentions and context. One person’s substitutes are another’s complements, based on position and purpose. No single relational type pertained in this system.

Each action entailed a balance of substitution and complementarity in its impact throughout the system. A price hike would succor rivals and disrupt supportive firms; sales shift to the first (who welcome the change) and away from the latter (who lose). This is why a merger between them has inverse effects: substitution demands separation, while complementarity yearns for alliance. These are relational types: conflicts or concerts of value; negative vs. positive feedback.

Competition was not the answer, but neither was cooperation; this was a mixture of both. That in itself was important. The scarcity model in economics scored just one form of interconnection when there were two at play. The ruse of grouping firms into markets had packaged an answer right into the question through the way it was framed! Decentralization or full integration? How should these systems structure themselves to maximize social welfare? I had no way to resolve this enigma…

Here is what I knew. For substitutes, competition is good, and – for similar reasons – complementarity yields a case for cooperation. For rivalrous outputs, separate them: mergers hike fees and cut sales (assuming a uniform price). With goals aligned, we join to sell more. That is the way of our world. So how do we organize systems? Is there an answer to this? That’s why I did all that research!

But let us sidestep here. I started this section with “abundance” and how foolish it seemed, in the face of “scarcity” theory. I saw no way around the tradeoffs central to economics (as a study of choice). Either/or. Never both. That’s the essence of substitution vs. complementarity, of conflicts vs. concerts of value, of beer/wine vs. wine/cheese. The latter’s needs are aligned, not opposed!

One way into the question might be to ask which weighs more. The answer could tell me if this system – or any network connections – should be apart for rivalrous struggle or merged into a cohesive whole. Perhaps it would shed some light on the issue to think about what these two worlds are like: one with conflicts – the other, concerts – of value guiding us all. Where would that take us?

We already know what a world based on substitution is like! That is the one we inhabit: a realm of opposition, where rivalry is the norm, where we vie with each other for goods and – at least sometimes – get what we want. This is familiar turf.

But what about complementarity? If your needs and mine are aligned, then when I help you I advance my own goals. Indeed, there is no distance between us; we will strive together to realize mutual hopes and dreams: it all works better that way… You and I share a community sense of fellowship practiced by all like-minded folk in our realm. Our efforts and motivations are resonant and reinforce each other as we advance our common aims. There is no conflict here. We rise and fall together.

It took me a while to see it, but this is the realm of “abundance,” so it started to gain some meaning for me. I still considered it unrealistic, if an attractive fantasy, but gave it a bit more credence. A universal linkage of both analyses – swirling around in lockstep – buttresses the notion of framing complex systems around their relations, given this balance of forces.

So I turned to canals, when free markets overcame mercantilism, inviting Industrial Revolution. Their history had three stages: construction; operation; decline. The first showed two “mania” booms, where rational homo economicus shuns such foolish excess. So even at its start, this system meandered from mainstream models. Phase two was the Age of Canals, from the 1760s to the 1840s, and it transformed the British economy, lifting bulk goods off the roads, so paving a way to MacAdam. During this time, the earliest projects used the Canal Bill approval process to block new rivals from entry, or to restrict them in nefarious ways.

These entities fought and bickered incessantly, like bitter rivals often do, and thus impeded a network expansion that would have been good for them all. Trapped in a Prisoner’s Dilemma – where cooperation helps everyone, but only if faith is kept – they wallowed in a level of conflict that doused any hope for resolve.

They also were subject to a fatal “Carriage Trade Restriction” in which privately-owned canals were barred from carrying goods or booking trade, depriving them of any incentive for growth and development tactics. As a result, they acted like local monopolies with high prices on traffic, gouging custom for profit while not keeping up plant and equipment, dooming the system to rapid decline.

And during the 1830s, the era of railroads began. Folks were so fed up with canals that funds gushed into the new technology just to break canals’ stranglehold. The waterway interests knew what to do: they used the Railroad Bill process as a means for richly-rewarded exit! In three short years, from 1845, a third of the 3,000-mile network cascaded into railway ownership; by then this system was broken, and the ploy ran out of steam. Why was all this so worth understanding?

What was going on? A magnificent, capital-intensive, long-term investment that thrived for a time brought on its own demise in its failure to develop potential. What went wrong? This story intrigued me.

THE HORIZONAL NATURE OF SOCIAL RELATIONS

The facts screamed an answer at me! I just had to pay heed. Canal Manias. Crazy behavior? Irrational exuberance? Herd mentality running amok? That’s the story of phase one: self-feeding capital booms seeking gargantuan profit in excessive flows of investment due to bandwagon effects. People leapt into the venture; waterway engineering grew with amazing, creative vertical lifts and devices aimed to overcome problems such as land-level changes. So phase one opened this story…

The second phase showed canals resisting new entry and fighting their rivals. This antagonistic conflict disrupted the smooth operation of an interrelated whole; linkages were contested due to discordant ties. Profit-taking and lack of maintenance alienated boatmen and agents, who grew fed up with these ownership practices. By 1830, canals had become an object of scorn and rage: rails were sought as a rescue.

And then, in three short years, the system fell into ruin. A few main routes survived, but the Canal Era was done. Railroads were rapid and more reliable; water would do for bulk goods – the staples of the economy like coal, wool, stone, etc. – but all other freight and most passengers traveled by rail after that.

How to explain all this? Initial investments were crazed, though they earned their owners a good return during the early years. Subsequent projects were often encumbered in order to get their Canal Bill through; the network grew, but slowly. Expansion threatened what was had, rather than inviting growth. Then came the collapse! So much enduring capital stock was sabotaged due to a fleeting political moment when opportunism pummeled the system into failure in just three years. The story is sad and dramatic. What does it teach?

Let us revert to the question posed in the sections above. Scarcity? Or abundance? Substitutes? Or complements? Beer vs. wine? Or wine and cheese? What we have in networks is more of an interlinked tangle. In interdependent systems, all is glued together; there are no seams to guide any carver.

The system is connected; every part jiggles the rest! That is the way of our world, and a mainstay of ecology. Only in orthodox circles – scarcity theories of substitution – is interdependence shunned through partial equilibrium models. Other approaches – like institutional and ecological economics – start with interactive phenomena, but they are treated as alien to mainstream points of view. With networks, I could find no escape from facing interdependence. Somehow.

Here we have not only beer vs. wine, but cheese, pretzels, movies and bowling. Everything kicks all else, spreading outward for better and worse. We all bump into each other. That is scary and wonderful. We matter!

Our existential importance is something we should fully embrace.

So what was the message shouted at me by the British canals? I was stuck on the irresolvable balance of interdependence, where one agent’s alternate tracks were another’s end-to-end ties, with that difference so context and purpose specific it could not be unmixed. That is the case with every activity; each costs everything else, while all our moves entwine with the rest. How can this be resolved?

That is the point of my essay. Let me say it now: social relations are horizonal.

Huh? What do I mean? I’ve spent almost 50 years thinking about this solution. It changes everything in economics, if anyone were to pay heed…

The balance of substitution and complementarity across social relations – inherent in the radiant impact of every human decision – is shifted by “horizon effects” in a predictable way. To explain this, I must introduce you to “planning horizons.”

Think about how we make decisions. We don’t choose among known outcomes, but rather between imagined projections of what might happen if we act thus vs. doing that. Those projections have a range I call the planning horizon.

Do I account for my impact on you right now or into the future? Do I act in accord with the needs of living creatures around me, whether human or not? Am I devoted to making this world a better place for all, or do I not give a fig about you? Is everything always all about (((❤❤❤ !ME! ❤❤❤)))? Or am I part of a loving crowd of folks who cherish and nurture each other? The way we relate to the world around us is a horizonal matter, based on our range of focal awareness.

But any horizon is dynamic, adjusting at every instant to the factors around and inside us. I would present a complex story of planning horizons to students that ended with: “This is the point: Don’t make important decisions when you’re drunk or tired!” You could feel the relief in the room. They knew about “drunk or tired”!

Horizons shift with knowledge, confidence, stability, familiarity, care, fear, anger, energy, etc. “Horizon effects” entail changes in the range of projective vision embedded in decisions. They open and close like a breathing eye.

Another relevant matter is that horizon effects are contagious. They spread like a virus, infecting us all. Take one hypothetical case: imagine if someone became President who was a narcissistic charlatan caring for nothing beyond herself! Falsity emanates onto us all, leaving us more myopic. And when a leader with vision appears, supporting and inspiring us, we’ll strive for a higher realm.

These are horizonal changes that transform a social culture, radiating hope and joy or writhing in fear and division. We swim through these currents, swayed and diverted. Take any argument with a friend about some passing slight. Who is first to step back and evaporate the rage? So will perspective foster resilience.

What does this teach us about canals? The intractable balance of feedbacks says the case for competition is based on opposition, due to a grouping of firms into “markets” with no heed to alignment. But there is no escape from interdependence in network connections, whether of transport or love! The only issue is how we are joined, through conflicts or concerts of interest. Do we pull apart or together? Are we friends or foe? How do our rewards shift us toward or away from each other?

This is an organizational question that we need to resolve: how will competition or cooperation affect our behavior? How will these systems shape planning horizons? What do canals have to say about that? My encounter with British canals suggested the right question: How did prolonged myopic behavior affect their development pattern? From manic investment through rivalrous strife to tragic collapse, they bought their retreat. This system of durable, long-lived capital led to abortive failure; they never got their poop in a group! What is the story it tells?

As said above in this section: social relations are horizonal. The ongoing balance of substitution and complementarity in any system – of conflicts vs. concerts of value, of fear with love (if you will) – is sensitive to horizonal length, the ranges of vision embedded throughout our private and social decisions. As planning horizons extend, the balance shifts away from rivalrous struggle to consilient ties. This is why education matters; it benefits us all by an expansion of planning horizons.

Though planning horizons spread through learning, caring and other role model effects, such expansion develops slowly in an accretion of conscience and growth. The collapse of our range of projection can occur in an instant, however: think about how a flash of furor reduces spans of attention into the moment with nary a warning at all. In this sense, horizon effects are akin to a gain or loss of trust as a way to address such matters. So what? Why should we care?

The lesson is stark. Competition nurtures output in the presence of substitutes; that is the scarcity model. However, rivalry impedes complements! So where relations are more like wine and cheese than beer vs. wine – if wants are aligned and not opposed – competition destroys. Think of fighting for love in a family! What’s the effect? How well does that work? Intangibles should be shared.

But maybe all this is specious, since complements are ignored. That’s what a lot of economists do. Are abundance stories not “economic”? They avoid tradeoffs in choice. That’s what I thought at first. Then I found papers showing increasing returns mean complementarity rules over all long-run outcomes, based on a macro model of growth. Yikes. I’d crafted a microeconomic case for the same conclusion. Longer horizons shift social relations in favor of friendship, promoting concerts of interest. Increasing returns supporting consilient types of interdependence are more important than opposition? What could this possibly mean?

The implications were stunning. I had long understood that all production of physical goods enjoyed increasing returns to scale. The revelation was that concerts of interest dominate all long-run theory: even in a material realm, complementarity wins over time. Models of short-term marginalism and scarcity were OK, but for ongoing growth this story falls short.

Let us speak of intangible goods, such as information, knowledge, community, art, caring, and love. They are not scarce! Indeed, the act of sharing them produces more for all. These are realms of complementarity, of giving for social gain. We find no rivalry here; aspirations and dreams are aligned in a concert of values and goals. An economics of love is one of open growth opportunity.

Let me say it again. The process of competition – of systems structured for opposition – deters such flows of free goods. We see how property rights on knowledge stop us short in science, where restrictions stifle learning for people locked outside the wall. I understand this too well.

Economists say human relations suffuse substitution and conflict, so rivalry makes systems efficient; these terms are seen as synonymous. The costs of competition are invisible in a scarcity world. Though once we understand abundance, we ask why orthodox standards shun concerts of value. Rivalries stifle cooperation: this is how networks fail. That’s the lesson these British canals shouted at me in the dark.

Economic development transforms output away from material goods to information, knowledge, status, social linkage and love. If physical needs, once met, dry up, intentions shift to intangibles. This is how our relations favor consilience as horizons extend, restoring ethics and conscience.

So what’s the bottom line? If longer and broader planning horizons support more peaceful intentions, then a free system of education benefits all as a “public good.” Learning will lengthen planning horizons. Information, a complementary good, ought to be freely available to willful learners. Competition impedes intangibles; such suggests some horizonal losses from a competitive frame.

This is the bottom line. Competition is spawning and reinforcing a myopic culture. Its symptoms surround and drown us in ethical and ecological loss, short-term practice, and a slow and painful erosion of vital integrity. As horizons extend through personal growth – as human needs shift from material to intangible goods – social institutions should evolve from competition to cooperation or this progress stops. A simple look around us shows surfeits of validation for these social losses.

The economic case for competition as efficient does not apply to long-run effects. Our lovely planet is dying, due to a myopic culture rolling in filth. The problem is invisible to a materialistic conception; it takes a horizonal understanding of how cognitive faculties work. We are doing it wrong. Our systems are coming apart.

The problem is not just in economics. The poison of competition has corrupted academic concerns; selfishness simply fails in this setting. Knowledge should be shared, to open its ample loving embrace. Let us start by encouraging cooperation in ourselves and each other, and nurturing greater trust. When truth – too fragile, left untold – triumphs, so we move forward. This is the key to it all.

There is a fertile promise here in all that will open to us, if we can unify in love for each other. That is the unexplored magic of a world we might share…

All we must do is join together: “We’ve met the enemy, and he is us.”

 

Source: Resilience

Get Mobilized and Make Love Go Viral!
Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Featured

Truths or Consequences: Failing State or Shining Light?: The USA Role in the Twenty-first Century

Published

on

Note from the Publisher: In order to create the changes we want to see in the world, it is essential to have a clear understanding of the deep rooted systematic failures that corrode our abilities to truly thrive. Mobilized is proud to present our new slate of programming that takes a deep dive into the underworld of society so that we can shine a light on what’s not working so we can shine the light into systems, services and policies that we need for the optimal health and well-being of all life.  A special thanks to “The Other” Chuck Woolery for bringing this show to Mobilized and our special guest, “Monty G. Marshall.”

About Special Guest, Monty G. Marshall, Center for Systematic Peace
Dr. Monty G.  Marshall left the university system in 2010 after holding a position as both a Research Professor and Director of Research for the Center for Global Policy at George Mason University. He is now president of a private research enterprise: Societal-Systems Research, Inc. This private initiative will continue to produce the high quality information resources that form the foundation of the Center for Systemic Peace. Since 1998, he has been the director of the Polity IV project, which provides annual assessments of autocracy, democracy and regime transitions, and the Armed Conflict and Intervention (ACI) project, which monitors all forms of armed conflict and international influence structures. Also since 1998, Dr. Marshall has served as a senior consultant with the US Government’s Political Instability Task Force (PITF; formerly known as the State Failure Task Force). He has consulted frequently with the United Nations, US Agency for International Development, UK Department for International Development, the National Geographic Society, and many other national agencies and international organizations. Before taking his most recent academic posting at GMU, he was a Senior Research Associate at the Center for International Development and Conflict Management (CIDCM), University of Maryland, where he directed the Integrated Network for Societal Conflict Research (INSCR) program from 1998-2005. He is a co-founder and was principle author, editor and researcher for CIDCM’s Peace and Conflict series. He also co-authored the original Minorities at Risk data series (with Ted Gurr) and was a Co-Director of that project.

Dr. Marshall’s current research focuses on systems analyses of societal conflict processes and the impact of global influence networks on local conflict dynamics. His theory and evidence detailing the problem of political violence within the context of societal and systemic development processes and the diffusion of insecurity in protracted conflict regions are reported in Third World War: System, Process and Conflict Dynamics. Other recent publications include the Global Report annual series (2007-present) and Peace and Conflict biennial series (2001-2005); other recent publications are available here. Dr. Marshall holds degrees in political science from the University of Colorado, University of Maryland and the University of Iowa; he held a prestigious University of Iowa fellowship from 1990 to 1993. He began his professional career teaching courses full-time at the University of South Florida, 1994-1997.

About the Series
In this era of truth decay this program will focus on the “Truths” that “WE hold” “to be self-evident.” The fundamental truths derived from “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God”*  Drawing distinctions between such fundamental principles as:  inalienable human rights to life, liberty and health, no child should die before their parents,  preserving one’s freedoms and security requires virtue and responsibility and alternative principles humans invented like; ‘peace through strength’  ‘market forces or technology will solve the problem’. ‘national sovereignty’‘democracy’

*(Introduced in the Declaration of Independence.  A title that should have been the “Declaration of separation” given that independence exists nowhere in the known universe, but only as an illusion within our mind.  An illusion that is responsible for most of the death, suffering, and environmental destruction up till now.)

Produced by “The Other ” Chuck Woolery and Jeff Van Treese
Executive Producer is Steven Jay

Get Mobilized and Make Love Go Viral!
Continue Reading

Featured

The Undertow: The Corrosion of Corruption: Cleaning up the Chaos with Heidi Cuda

Published

on

Note from the Publisher: In order to create the changes we want to see in the world, it is essential to have a clear understanding of the deep rooted systematic failures that corrode our abilities to truly thrive. Mobilized is proud to present our new slate of programming that takes a deep dive into the underworld of society so that we can shine a light on what’s not working so we can shine the light into systems, services and policies that we need for the optimal health and well-being of all life.  A special thanks to Mark Metz for hosting “The Undertow” and our first special guest, investigative journalist, Heidi Cuda.

 

Progressive change in every field is hampered by the confluence of comprised government officials, malign corporate interests, and transnational organized crime. In a word: Corruption. Referred to as The Iron Triangle by Robert Mueller in his 2011 speech to the FBI, this shadowy undertow on the common good is an invisible economy fueled by human suffering diametrically opposed to progress on climate change, human rights, or social justice.

Heidi Cuda is an expert journalist who has been tracking this dark phenomenon for over 20 years. In this essential conversation, you will grasp the scale of the problem and the latest exciting developments to clean up the playing field around the world. Learn how you can help make progress against corruption in your own community for the common good of humanity.

Heidi Siegmund Cuda is an Emmy award-winning investigative producer, broadcast journalist, author, columnist, music critic, screenwriter and free press activist. After 15 years as an investigative producer for Fox 11 News Los Angeles, she resigned to pursue TV development, screenwriting and social justice activism.

Known for her long-form work in the music world such as Crazy Fool, about Bradley Nowell of Sublime; The Ice Opinion, with Ice T; and Definition of Down, with Darlene Ortiz, she is rapidly becoming one of foremost voices on corruption, dis-information, and the battle against autocracy.

Current co-host of the RADICALIZED podcast and US politics reporter for The Byline Times. “It’s Komprocated” a 240-page compilation of her political writings from 2016 to early 2019 is available at Ko-Fi.

Links:

 
Get Mobilized and Make Love Go Viral!
Continue Reading

Featured

How Our Grassroots Energy Projects Are Taking Back Power From Utility Companies

Published

on

From solar power that cuts NYC energy bills and powers streetlights in Detroit to affordable high-speed internet throughout the United States, grassroots utilities projects are delivering on their promises to underserved communities of color.

By Aric Sleeper, – US, United States –

As power outages caused by extreme weather events become more intense and frequent, the efforts by federal, state and local legislators to abate human-caused climate change may seem futile to those on the front lines, who are left sweating or freezing in their homes after the power goes out unexpectedly and at the worst time possible.

Without intervention, these events will only become more recurrent. According to data provided by the National Centers for Environmental Information—which is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and maintains and provides national geophysical data and information—there was an average of around three “weather and climate disasters” per year in the 1980s, compared to a staggering 22 extreme weather events in 2020.

The Biden administration’s participation in COP26, which took place in Glasgow from October 31 to November 13, 2021, was a step in the right direction to address climate change, compared to the previous administration, which derailed any progress made by the U.S. to address the current climate crisis. President Joe Biden, however, still did not go far enough at the international climate conference in terms of addressing environmental justice, systemic environmental racism and the disproportionate support for repairing the damage caused by extreme weather events in impoverished countries and underserved communities in the United States. The actions and projects needed to address these issues and bring about real change on the ground are, meanwhile, being championed by grassroots organizations led by women and people of color who are taking steps within their communities to move away from fossil fuels, power their neighborhoods with clean energy, and stay connected with community-created broadband infrastructure.

In New York City, Making Solar Power Affordable and Accessible Is About ‘More Than Just Putting Panels on Rooftops’

Working at the intersection of climate change and environmental justice in the heart of New York City is the Latino community-based nonprofit UPROSE. Founded in 1966, and based in the city’s largest maritime industrial district, the nonprofit organizes sustainable development projects and advocates for policies in the Brooklyn neighborhood of Sunset Park and throughout all five boroughs. Their Sunset Park Solar project, which “will be New York City’s first community solar project owned and operated by a cooperative for the benefit of local residents and businesses,” will save its participants about 15 percent on their monthly electric bill, once the solar system has been installed and is operational.

The road to the project’s completion has been long and challenging due to the slow-moving gears of the existing governmental processes, according to Summer Sandoval, energy democracy coordinator at UPROSE.

“Sunset Park Solar is about more than just putting panels on rooftops; it’s about creating a scalable and replicable community-led model for the development of solar projects that build long-term community wealth and exhibit a Just Transition,” Sandoval says. “This project builds on the traditional community solar model but is vastly different from anything that’s been done before, and it’s challenging to navigate our way through processes, financial models and incentive programs that weren’t built for projects like this.”

Sunset Park Solar would allow for about 200 subscribers to utilize renewable energy and would not require any of them to install solar panels on their homes or pay any upfront costs, as UPROSE and its partners in the project have already done the heavy lifting. The panels for this project will be installed on the Brooklyn Army Terminal rooftop and will provide 685 kilowatts of clean electricity. In addition to the tangible cost-saving benefits to residents, the project has shown that community-led clean energy projects are possible.

“Even before construction, this project has demonstrated that the climate solutions are coming from the people on the front lines, and hopefully decision-makers see that as well and invest their resources directly into those front-line communities,” says Sandoval.

A Bright Spot in Detroit With Solar Streetlights

In Highland Park, Michigan, a city that sits within the City of Detroit, the nonprofit Soulardarity has been fighting for energy democracy since 2012.

“The idea of energy democracy is essentially focused on ensuring that the people who are affected the most by the decisions in energy should be the ones with the greatest amount of say in the process,” says Soulardarity Program Director Rafael Mojica.

Energy costs for city residents have been skyrocketing for decades (and continue to do so). The rate hikes were largely at the hands of the investor-owned, state-regulated utility company, DTE Energy, which made an interesting demand when Highland Park residents could no longer afford to pay the maintenance bill for their streetlights.

“In 2011, DTE gave [an] ultimatum to the City of Highland Park that they [either] pay the debt associated with the streetlights’ maintenance costs or lose them, and unfortunately, the city was in no position to pay their debt, so DTE followed through and removed more than 1,000 streetlights from the city,” says Mojica. “They didn’t remove everything. They left the stumps as a reminder to the community of their presence.”

When like-minded community members, led by Highland Park resident Shimekia Nichols (who is now Soulardarity’s executive director), organized as a result of the streetlight removal, they formed Soulardarity to bring light back to the community. After gathering funds from local residents, the first solar-powered streetlight was erected in 2012 in the neighborhood known as Avalon Village in Highland Park.

Soulardarity’s mission isn’t only to illuminate their streets with solar energy but also to shine a spotlight on the failed model of electricity production that for-profit, investor-owned utility providers like DTE Energy represent.

“DTE increases the rates they charge customers on a regular basis, exacerbating financial distress [for] communities of color, and despite the profits they’re raking in, they’re not using it to reinvest in their infrastructure. As a result… [the communities in Highland Park] have a poor level of service,” says Mojica. He adds that in the summer of 2021, “for example, Southeast and mid-Michigan experienced a huge number of blackouts, which are in DTE’s service area.”

Mojica points to the rippling effects of frequent power outages, especially in the summer and winter months, which can lead to refrigerated groceries that cost hundreds of dollars going bad as a result of these outages or can lead to rising hotel costs that may cripple the budgets of poor families living from paycheck to paycheck.

Currently, Soulardarity has been sifting through the language of the latest budget bills to ensure they provide funding for renewable energy projects in communities like Highland Park. Specifically, Soulardarity is seeking funds from the Department of Energy’s Communities LEAP program, which provides “supportive services valued at up to $16 million for community-driven clean energy transitions.”

Soulardarity has also completed an analysis in partnership with the Union of Concerned Scientists to outline what a clean energy, net-zero future would look like in Highland Park in the future called Let Communities Choose.

“Ultimately, we want to break free from DTE, and in this analysis we found that it is doable,” says Mojica. “Not only that, but there are a number of community benefits that would come with the transition to renewable energy in the form of job creation and economic development, and our communities would be healthier and safer—basically, dramatically improving the quality of life for all community members.”

Internet Access for All American Communities as a Gateway to Democracy and Equity

While the replacement of fossil fuels with renewable energy sources like solar is essential to preventing further global warming and boosting local economies, power also comes in the form of information. When access to high-speed internet is controlled by corporations that operate in a similarly monopolistic manner as utility companies like DTE Energy, underserved communities suffer, especially during situations like the ongoing pandemic.

“If you aren’t fortunate enough to live in a place with affordable and reliable high-speed internet, you are essentially locked out of participating in modern society in so many ways, whether it’s distance learning, telemedicine, entertainment or even civic participation,” says Sean Gonsalves, senior reporter for the Institute for Local Self Reliance’s Community Broadband Networks Initiative. “These problems really came to the fore during the pandemic.”

Currently, the high-speed internet market and broadband infrastructure, especially in rural communities, are inadequate, according to Gonsalves. When internet service providers are for-profit monopolies, large segments of the country either can’t afford reliable internet service, or don’t have access to high-speed broadband.

“When a community is reliant on outdated technology like DSL, they can’t even have a Zoom meeting, and good luck sending an email,” says Gonsalves. “In a healthy functioning market, people have choices, but when it comes to broadband, there aren’t options, which leads to high prices, poor customer service and bad coverage.”

To gain more reliable and affordable internet service, cities across the United States have formed their own municipal broadband networks to compete with the existing monopolies. Cities like Longmont, Colorado; Wilson, North Carolina; and Chattanooga, Tennessee, have transformed their economies and communities after organizing to create their own municipal broadband networks.

“The golden child is EPB in Chattanooga, which is a city-owned utility,” says Gonsalves. “Not every community can do what Chattanooga has, but in terms of benefits, the return on investment was $2.7 billion in the first 10 years of operation.” With federal legislation like the American Rescue Plan and Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act setting aside resources to increase and strengthen community broadband networks, Gonsalves and others at the Community Broadband Networks Initiative are hopeful that more communities will organize and take advantage of these opportunities and create their own broadband networks with the use of federal funding.

“The infrastructure bill represents a watershed moment in terms of the largest investment by the federal government in broadband ever,” says Gonsalves. “Even private investors are showing interest in community broadband, and now is the time for communities to start planning and pushing forward in an organized and strategic way.”

This article was produced by Local Peace Economy, a project of the Independent Media Institute.


Aric Sleeper is an independent journalist whose work, which covers topics including labor, drug reform, food and more, has appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle and other publications local to California’s Central Coast. In addition to his role as a community reporter, he has served as a government analyst and bookseller.

Get Mobilized and Make Love Go Viral!
Continue Reading
INTERVIEWS8 hours ago

The Undertow with Mark Metz : How Corruption in the Energy Sector Sabotages Sustainability

INTERVIEWS9 hours ago

GAIA TALKS: The Earth Speaks: Mohamed Ismail from Egyptians Abroad For Democracy Worldwide

Paradigm Change1 day ago

People Power Now

Paradigm Change2 days ago

An Empowered World: People, we are Ready!

Paradigm Change3 days ago

Conscious capitalism and Raising the Bar of Human Possibility

Paradigm Change3 days ago

Open Collaboration on an Epic Scale: The Future is Cooperatively Decentralized

Paradigm Change3 days ago

Transforming Energy and Transportation

Paradigm Change3 days ago

An information upgrade whose time is now

Paradigm Change3 days ago

Transforming agriculture and food systems for optimal planetary and personal health

Paradigm Change3 days ago

Transforming Planetary Public health

INTERVIEWS6 days ago

Wa’echun Hour: Personal Power and Decolonization

Featured1 week ago

Truths or Consequences: Failing State or Shining Light?: The USA Role in the Twenty-first Century

Featured1 week ago

The Undertow: The Corrosion of Corruption: Cleaning up the Chaos with Heidi Cuda

INTERVIEWS2 weeks ago

The time is NOW to Rethink: James Arbib of Re-Think X

INTERVIEWS2 weeks ago

Savor This: Allan Savory on Real World Solutions Now

INTERVIEWS2 weeks ago

Ecologic Economics and Steady State Economies with Brian Czech

INTERVIEWS2 weeks ago

The unlimited potential of space solar Power with John Mankins

INTERVIEWS2 weeks ago

Understanding the real transition to clean and renewable energy with Professor Chris Rhodes

INTERVIEWS2 weeks ago

The Father of the Environmental Justice Movement

INTERVIEWS2 weeks ago

Sustainable Growth on a Finite Planet is Not Possible

INTERVIEWS2 weeks ago

Help!!! We’re drowning in a sea of Plastic: A conversation with Dr. Julie Peller

The Web of Life2 weeks ago

It is time for a better relationship with our beautiful, blue planet.

Editorials2 weeks ago

As the Golden Globes lose their luster, can we create a better version of Hollywood?

Featured3 weeks ago

How Our Grassroots Energy Projects Are Taking Back Power From Utility Companies

Arts3 weeks ago

How The Pentagon and CIA Have Shaped Thousands of Hollywood Movies into Super Effective Propaganda

Arts3 weeks ago

How The Pentagon and CIA Have Shaped Thousands of Hollywood Movies into Super Effective Propaganda

The Web of Life2 weeks ago

It is time for a better relationship with our beautiful, blue planet.

Featured3 weeks ago

How Our Grassroots Energy Projects Are Taking Back Power From Utility Companies

Featured1 week ago

The Undertow: The Corrosion of Corruption: Cleaning up the Chaos with Heidi Cuda

Editorials2 weeks ago

As the Golden Globes lose their luster, can we create a better version of Hollywood?

Featured1 week ago

Truths or Consequences: Failing State or Shining Light?: The USA Role in the Twenty-first Century

INTERVIEWS2 weeks ago

Ecologic Economics and Steady State Economies with Brian Czech

INTERVIEWS6 days ago

Wa’echun Hour: Personal Power and Decolonization

INTERVIEWS2 weeks ago

Savor This: Allan Savory on Real World Solutions Now

Food4 weeks ago

How Climate Change Narratives are Used Against Us

INTERVIEWS2 weeks ago

The time is NOW to Rethink: James Arbib of Re-Think X

INTERVIEWS2 weeks ago

Sustainable Growth on a Finite Planet is Not Possible

Paradigm Change3 days ago

Transforming Energy and Transportation

Paradigm Change3 days ago

Conscious capitalism and Raising the Bar of Human Possibility

Paradigm Change3 days ago

Open Collaboration on an Epic Scale: The Future is Cooperatively Decentralized

INTERVIEWS2 weeks ago

Help!!! We’re drowning in a sea of Plastic: A conversation with Dr. Julie Peller

INTERVIEWS2 weeks ago

Understanding the real transition to clean and renewable energy with Professor Chris Rhodes

INTERVIEWS2 weeks ago

The unlimited potential of space solar Power with John Mankins

Paradigm Change2 days ago

An Empowered World: People, we are Ready!

Paradigm Change1 day ago

People Power Now

Paradigm Change3 days ago

An information upgrade whose time is now

INTERVIEWS2 weeks ago

The Father of the Environmental Justice Movement

Paradigm Change3 days ago

Transforming Planetary Public health

Paradigm Change3 days ago

Transforming agriculture and food systems for optimal planetary and personal health

INTERVIEWS9 hours ago

GAIA TALKS: The Earth Speaks: Mohamed Ismail from Egyptians Abroad For Democracy Worldwide

Trending

Translate »