[Lore]

I like Dexys Midnight Runners... "Come On Eileen"!

[Oneaboveall]

Capitalist Suck
Capitalist Suck
Capitalist Suck

You can't tell your wants from needs
You buy America and do a good deed
Create a job, don't bite the hand that feeds

Capitalist Suck
Capitalist Suck
Capitalist Suck

All of your goals are the ******* same
As every other jerk in this stupid game
Your brains have been washed and hung out to dry
You don't doubt it and you don't know why

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceIw8quGv2Q

[Graeme]

Graeme, we have built a society where the people who produce nothing are rewarded with SS or a fat wage growing in excess of inflation. If reward were based on function and utility- perhaps a circular economy might have a chance.

More info can be viewed here. If you wish, you can google for other refs. Apparently, the first annual summit on the circular economy was held in London on June 19. The circular economy is also a response to the failure of the Laissez Faire or "linear" economy, which according to Professor Hopkinson, now requires government support.

Spotting the winners for investment purposes then becomes a whole lot easier. Accelerating the transition to a circular economy at scale will be enabled by public and government intervention and support, but the business and economic case for change has been made.

[ralfy]

From what I gathered, a circular economy employs re-use, recycling, etc., to ensure profitability. The results are still the same as that of capitalism as profitability leads to increased consumption and money supply, greater concentration of wealth among a few, environmental damage due to greater extraction of resources, and the same predicaments described earlier if supply chains are disrupted.

[Graeme]

Please view Figure 4 and read chapter 2 in the link I provided above. To ensure there is no disruption of supply circles, regulation would be required.

[davep]

IMO, until we revoke corporate personhood, make corporate lobbying over the good of the populace illegal and remove the fractional reserve system we are never going to get back to real entrepreneurial capitalism.

[SeaGypsy]

Crowdfunding is an emerging alternative which is rapidly gaining ground, offering a truly democratic source of investment for all kinds of projects of little or no interest to corporate financiers. IMO the coolest real thing to come about from the internet.

[Graeme]

The 5 Biggest Obscenities of Capitalism Today

Committed capitalists fail to recognize that individual success is a result of collaborative effort.

Committed capitalists don't seem to recognize that people depend on each other, and that individual success is a result of collaborative effort, usually over a long period of time. The less free-market thinkers are regulated, the less they seem to care about others. They ignore the fact that America's most productive eras were driven by progressive taxes that funded entrepreneurship in the middle class. And they fail to see the deficiencies in a system that relies solely on profit-making to the exclusion of social responsibility.

Like the images of a dreaded disease, their beliefs might best be defined as obscene.

1. The Market Works. Just Wait.
2. Taxes: Who Needs Them?
3. Global Warming is a Hoax
4. Students Are Our Finest Product
5. Money Can't Buy Me Gov

alternet

[ralfy]

Please view Figure 4 and read chapter 2 in the link I provided above. To ensure there is no disruption of supply circles, regulation would be required.

I was looking at the title of Chapter 4. As I pointed out earlier, the need to make profits (and in this case, even more profits from what is recycled) eventually leads to resource depletion and increased money supply.

I am also not certain how supply chains may be preserved, unless we are looking at some incredibly powerful global government disallowing competition (if that is so, then where will all that economic opportunity to profit come from?) and regulating almost all aspects of economies, never mind a financial elite competing with each other over greater returns on their investment.

[Graeme]

I believe part of the problem is education. I don't know all the details of such an economy. Perhaps reading a text book is required by both of us. But I found a definition in the link above:

A circular economy, however, advocates the increasing use of a ‘functional service’ model for technical materials, in which manufacturers or retailers retain ownership of their products (or have an effective take-back arrangement) and, where possible, act as service providers, selling the use or performance of products, not their consumption.

I also believe that if companies, cities and countries understand the principles involved, then regulation may not always be required.

[ralfy]

What essentially drives growth in capitalist systems, whether free market or state, is profit, which includes interest or a return on investment.

Thus, even as resources are reused or recycled, more resources will still be needed, as the profit is used to expand operations and meet increasing demand.

What drives increasing demand is a global population where most lack not only middle class amenities but even basic needs. Thus, the opportunity to profit is there.

What makes matters worse is that some will make money not by producing and selling goods but by earning from interest or receiving a return on investment. This adds to money supply, which increases the need to produce even more goods.

When there is greater emphasis on profits, especially profits needed to meet greater returns on investment, then several businesses will start concentrating on the amenities, where profit margins are much higher. And as more from the same global population avail of middle class amenities, then products and services related to that, which include game consoles, vacations abroad, expensive Hollywood movies, and late-model passenger vehicles, become more attractive.

Given that, the best that proponents of a circular economy can do is to require more recycling or reuse of resources, but for reasons given above, this will not lead to a decrease in resource consumption.

Finally, when I think of the "functional service" model, I am reminded of plans in the software industry not to allow consumers to own software but have to pay a subscription fee. In that case, I assume that people don't own various physical assets (such as houses, passenger vehicles, computers, or even books) but have to pay a rental fee for their use.

[Graeme]

The circular economy is non-profit (see speech by Van Ogtrop at bottom of link). For the moment, it is utopian because for the most part we are still using a linear economy. Fossil fuels are not part of the picture only 100% renewables are allowed. So you see this will take some time to introduce, evolve and likely enforce.

[ralfy]

According to the report shared earlier and linked here:

http://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinse ... onomy.ashx

the main goal is increased profitability. In fact, Chapter 4 emphasizes that.

[Graeme]

I can only suggest that the McKinsey report represents a transitional phase because van Ogtrop was the founder and he said that it is non-profit. Intuitively, it makes sense because otherwise you would be right that increasing profits would require increasing use of natural resources. The only case where increasing profits might work is when a service has expanded. These are the sort of details that must be explained in a text book or regulation.

[ralfy]

I read the report featured in the website and linked here:

http://www.circle-economy.com/sites/def ... IMSA_0.pdf

and pp. 12-13 definitely refers to profit-making, and in this case, more profits earned thanks to minimization of wastage. In addition, the need to profit is mentioned several times in the report, with the suggestion that care for the environment, etc., be incorporated in profits, etc. And yet limits to growth are acknowledged on p. 10.

My guess is that this type of economy acts as a sort of transition towards localization, and given the three predicaments mentioned previously, I think it will not be enforced by governments or followed given the luxury of choice but will take place because societies won't have a choice.

What will cause problems include a financial elite that requires increasing production and consumption of goods to keep the value of their "wealth" intact, military forces that will act in their own interest, a growing global middle class that will continue wanting amenities, a global population that will require necessities which may require resources that are beyond biocapacity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... _footprint

and ecological damage and global warming which may decrease biocapacity further.

[Graeme]

The IMSA Dutch report on a circle economy you quoted was excellent. The main points I saw were that they describe a circle economy that is transitional to a circular economy (CE), and recommend that tax be shifted from labor to natural resources. There is no blueprint to make this transition. On page 5, you can see that there are 14 obstacles. It's not going to be easy.

I also searched on google scholar and found more than 2,500 references with "circular economy" in the title. On the first (and subsequent) page(s), most are about the CE in China. Obviously they are taking it quite seriously. Here is a British report written by Chatham House about the same subject, which is also an excellent summary of the state of play. They talk about the Chinese experience. It is clear that a lot of companies are already using many of CE principles particularly in the Electronic, Carpet, Construction, Automobile, Clothing and Waste sectors (page 9). Table 2 (page 16), lists "smart" regulations. To me, it's still not clear whether ultimately a global CE will be non-profit. I haven't done enough reading.

[ralfy]

As revealed in this interview,

http://www.emg-csr.com/blog/circular-economy/

wastage is a major concern for developed countries and a global middle class. Unfortunately, the problem is not just wastage but overconsumption, e.g., around 15 pct of the world's population responsible for over 60 to 80 pct of personal consumption, a country like the U.S., which has less than 5 pct of the world's population but must consume up to 25 pct of world oil production.

Given an average ecological footprint roughly equivalent to that of Turkey and, unfortunately, at overshoot given biocapacity per capita, then the only way out is for 15 pct of the world's population to cut down consumption drastically and for some of the remaining 85 pct slightly, towards an ecological footprint per capita equivalent to that of Cuba.

Thus, not only circle economies but even a circular economy are transitions towards localization, where one tries to meet basic needs given resources that are located only within a few km from one's dwelling.

[Graeme]

Consumption is one of the main areas that CE is supposed to address. There should be none. Elimination of waste is another major area. I saw this today.

UK opens 'world's first' coffee cup recycling plant

A £5m plant thought to be the first in the world to recycle disposable coffee cups into high quality paper products was opened yesterday by the Queen.
The technology has been developed by Kendal-based James Cropper, a specialist paper and materials company, which has constructed the fibre plant at its production mill in Cumbria.

The company says the millions of paper coffee cups that are used each year have been unsuitable for papermaking until now because of the five per cent plastic content, resulting in an estimated 2.5 million cups ending up in landfill in the UK annually.

However, James Cropper's unique technology softens the cup waste in a warmed solution, separating the plastic coating from the fibre.

The plastic is then skimmed off, pulverised and recycled, leaving water and pulp that can also be recycled. Impurities are filtered out leaving high grade pulp suitable for use in luxury papers and packaging materials.

businessgreen

[ralfy]

From what I read, CE does not focus on removing consumption but meeting it through recycling, avoiding wastage, etc. That is why the interview points out that it will not take place on a global scale, as even with the removal of wastage we are still at overshoot.

In this case, the issue for the future isn't whether or not recycling plants for coffee cups will be employed but whether or not communities forced to localize will still be able to afford to plant coffee beans, let alone manufacture and transport cups for drinking coffee.

[Graeme]

In a circular economy, there will be no consumption or wastage. That is how it is defined (see above quotes and links). "Manufacturers or retailers retain ownership of their products". In the case of coffee cups, there will be no waste - all components are recycled.

It looks like we will soon transition to a new economy anyway. We have no choice.

Economists forecast the end of growth

The last few weeks has seen bad news for the global economy, with the US and Europe facing growth slowdowns, and even much vaunted economic powerhouses Brazil, Russia, India and China faltering unexpectedly. While mainstream economists continue to predict an ongoing 'recovery', other leading experts point to the end of growth as we know it for the foreseeable future.

Earlier this month, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) slashed its quarterly forecasts for global GDP growth from 3.3% to 3.1%, and revised down growth estimates for other major powers. The US forecast was downgraded from 1.9% to 1.7%, and Europe is expected to contract 0.6% rather than the originally estimated 0.3%. The IMF also downgraded growth forecasts for 2014.

Against this background, evidence has emerged that the era of booming economic growth is over, and that we are entering an age of permanently slow growth - at best.



However, Grantham now highlights two trends that could facilitate the transition to a more stable economy - declining fertility rates and the rise of renewable energy. Garnering data over the last 40 years, he demonstrates a "remarkable drop in fertility" in the US, Europe, the richer East Asian countries including China, and even South Asia and Africa. According to the more optimistic end of UN projections, if such trends continue global population would peak at 8 million by 2050 before declining to near 6 billion by 2100 - a process which could be sped up with appropriate policy measures.

Simultaneously, Grantham argues we may be on the cusp of "a great technological leap that for the first time is accompanied by less energy use – the technologies of solar, wind power, and other alternatives as well as electric grid efficiencies and improved energy storage." By 2025 to 2030, he observes:

"Both solar and wind power are likely to be cheaper than coal... once the capital is found and the project is built, a wind or solar farm delivers far cheaper energy than a coal-fired utility plant, at around one-third of the marginal cost of coal."

He estimates that "nonrenewable energy" could be completely replaced by renewables "in 30 to 50 years", during which the new technologies will become increasingly cheap and efficient.

But Grantham still concurs that these developments cannot herald a return to the era of high growth, although they might smooth the way toward a new economy that is "less overreaching, less hubristic, a lot humbler about growth and our use of resources, and more determined to live in balance with the natural energy we receive from the sun and the heat, food, and water with which we can sustainably be provided."

guardian