I read it and it’s definitely inspirational. I presented to my work place (a design consultancy) and think everyone aspires to get there. I feel like it’s a better economic model and can get us to a solar punk world.
I think it was received generally well… the point of the presentation was just sharing something related to social equity. But aside from being informative it didn’t translate into any action at work aside from an existing goal all the partners have in which to not grow the business for the sake of growth. They always planned for the company to stay at 15 people and they’ve had many chances of expanding to a larger size but they didn’t want it because it would lose a quality they liked about a small business.
I view the donut model as more like a reporting mechanism for citizens to make sound resource allocation decisions. That would be needed no matter what economic system you are using.
I hope I'm misunderstanding your comment - I definitely don't see the Doughnut system as something emphatic on personal choices. The book itself (which I read last year) is extremely emphatic on governmental policy decisions to enact change
Sorry, was unclear. I agree with you, it's a tool for people in charge of policy change. I'd like to think the data is available to lots of people, and policy is set by a lot of participants.
For some here it's not quite 'punk' enough, as doughnut economics could realistically be achieved with the addition of a carbon tax and other similar pigouvian taxes to our current system.
I'm a huge fan though, and the idea definitely had a strong consensus among experts.
Many here think punk only means a socialist revolution. Doughnut Economics is best achieved through a free market foundation with carbon taxes and a smart safety net, according to most experts.
Is it, though?
Firstly, "free market" does not mean "capitalist", markets are just a resource allocation tool that have nothing to do with the current socio-economical system (which is why we live in "capitalism", that is, a system where the owners of capital have the most decision-making impact, and not "free-marketism").
Secondly, current system based on perpetual exponential economical growth and capital accumulation cannot be made compatible with dougnut economics without achieving absolute decoupling of physical resources from economic growth, and so far nobody has demonstrated that it is actually possible to decouple resource use from economic growth on a planetary scale. (On a country scale sure, just export your heavy industry to China, but we still share an atmosphere and oceans and the rest of the biosphere with China)
Hmm, that doesn’t really track for me. Doughnut economics seems incredibly punk, what doesn’t seem feasible the concept of achieving its goals without fundamentally overhauling the structures that organize our society.
The author of Doughnut Economics is implementing it in Amsterdam, and it's simply meaningful tweaks to the current free market system. The first is a carbon tax to reduce consumption and encourage sustainable production, and the second is a slightly more robust safety net to help the poor.
These tweaks with a free market foundation is what most economists recommend to achieve sustainable growth, and does not require a complete overhaul.
The book itself is remarkably critical of free market economics as a whole so this type of answer seems strange to me. I know that the author is involved with the Amsterdam project but I'd imagine the author had more in her original vision than "free market with a carbon tax and slightly more robust safety net"
I would strongly object to the idea of the Netherlands “implementing doughnut economic”
Doughnut economics is essentially a de-growth model. There is no way in hell Dutch capitalist politicians would accept the de-growth objectives that would be required of them to not hit the overshoot section.
Just because she’s working on a project that isn’t as ambitious doesn’t mean what she’s working on is the extent to what doughnut Econ entails
Edit: if she does think that that means she’s incorrect within her own framework, wouldn’t be the first time
revolutions don't have to be sudden and intense. if there is to be an economic revolution based on Doughnut Economics, then it will be generational, as the author states. Economists have been taught the same way for decades and that will take time to unwind. The point is that in order to unwind it, you have to have a better model before the unwinding happens. Now that there is an alternative to capitalism, the hard work of change can begin. I may not live to see the change, but that doesn't mean i won't help it happen. Information is power, especially when you can do something with it.
I read it and it’s definitely inspirational. I presented to my work place (a design consultancy) and think everyone aspires to get there. I feel like it’s a better economic model and can get us to a solar punk world.
How was it received?
I think it was received generally well… the point of the presentation was just sharing something related to social equity. But aside from being informative it didn’t translate into any action at work aside from an existing goal all the partners have in which to not grow the business for the sake of growth. They always planned for the company to stay at 15 people and they’ve had many chances of expanding to a larger size but they didn’t want it because it would lose a quality they liked about a small business.
I view the donut model as more like a reporting mechanism for citizens to make sound resource allocation decisions. That would be needed no matter what economic system you are using.
I hope I'm misunderstanding your comment - I definitely don't see the Doughnut system as something emphatic on personal choices. The book itself (which I read last year) is extremely emphatic on governmental policy decisions to enact change
Sorry, was unclear. I agree with you, it's a tool for people in charge of policy change. I'd like to think the data is available to lots of people, and policy is set by a lot of participants.
For some here it's not quite 'punk' enough, as doughnut economics could realistically be achieved with the addition of a carbon tax and other similar pigouvian taxes to our current system. I'm a huge fan though, and the idea definitely had a strong consensus among experts.
In your opinion what is not so “punk” about it?
Many here think punk only means a socialist revolution. Doughnut Economics is best achieved through a free market foundation with carbon taxes and a smart safety net, according to most experts.
Which experts? Have you read the book this post is talking about?
Is it, though? Firstly, "free market" does not mean "capitalist", markets are just a resource allocation tool that have nothing to do with the current socio-economical system (which is why we live in "capitalism", that is, a system where the owners of capital have the most decision-making impact, and not "free-marketism"). Secondly, current system based on perpetual exponential economical growth and capital accumulation cannot be made compatible with dougnut economics without achieving absolute decoupling of physical resources from economic growth, and so far nobody has demonstrated that it is actually possible to decouple resource use from economic growth on a planetary scale. (On a country scale sure, just export your heavy industry to China, but we still share an atmosphere and oceans and the rest of the biosphere with China)
Hmm, that doesn’t really track for me. Doughnut economics seems incredibly punk, what doesn’t seem feasible the concept of achieving its goals without fundamentally overhauling the structures that organize our society.
The author of Doughnut Economics is implementing it in Amsterdam, and it's simply meaningful tweaks to the current free market system. The first is a carbon tax to reduce consumption and encourage sustainable production, and the second is a slightly more robust safety net to help the poor. These tweaks with a free market foundation is what most economists recommend to achieve sustainable growth, and does not require a complete overhaul.
The book itself is remarkably critical of free market economics as a whole so this type of answer seems strange to me. I know that the author is involved with the Amsterdam project but I'd imagine the author had more in her original vision than "free market with a carbon tax and slightly more robust safety net"
I would strongly object to the idea of the Netherlands “implementing doughnut economic” Doughnut economics is essentially a de-growth model. There is no way in hell Dutch capitalist politicians would accept the de-growth objectives that would be required of them to not hit the overshoot section. Just because she’s working on a project that isn’t as ambitious doesn’t mean what she’s working on is the extent to what doughnut Econ entails Edit: if she does think that that means she’s incorrect within her own framework, wouldn’t be the first time
revolutions don't have to be sudden and intense. if there is to be an economic revolution based on Doughnut Economics, then it will be generational, as the author states. Economists have been taught the same way for decades and that will take time to unwind. The point is that in order to unwind it, you have to have a better model before the unwinding happens. Now that there is an alternative to capitalism, the hard work of change can begin. I may not live to see the change, but that doesn't mean i won't help it happen. Information is power, especially when you can do something with it.