From an ecological economic perspective, there are a large number of complex systems that must be designed if we are to mitigate the already existing impacts of our economic activity, much less to move toward an ecologically sustainable economy.

On the one hand, markets cannot design complex systems.

On the other hand a government, whether public or privatized, which can design complex systems, can only do a certain number of things well at any given point in time.

Therefore, high level public governments need to identify the highest priority complex systems that need to be designed, or those that private government is least likely to design well, and tackle those, and establish frameworks that provide incentives for lower level public governments and for private government to design the balance.

The limitations of government implies that we need both market solutions as well as appropriate decentralizations of those goals that lower level public government can effectively pursue. However, making that decision based on the interests of private government is absurd ... corporate charter entitlements ought to exist on sufferance, due to public benefits of the existence of the chartered corporation, and not as some sort of intrinsic right.

Money is an important instrument of that process, but acting as if money is intrinisically important is akin to thinking that diseases are caused by imbalances in the amount of blood, lymph or "bile" circulating in the body.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.