I think we are now in the phase of technology revolution. trying to improve the existing technology or invent new technology by considering the ecological destruction, energy crisis, life span, time, size etc., However, some technology failures and lack of social awareness among the society have caused destruction in the past. Considering strong technology assessment and social awareness in the society could lead to a balance. Therefore, I think we are heading toward solving these issues. By the way, recently I come crossed great speech by Mr. Peter Thiel, he discusses the several disaster scenario often people talk about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HOB7nezuQ7g

Thanks Pari. Gone thru that. some intersting comments are there too!!!

Agree on that..

Reversing all that is making a blue print consist of how limitating the human needs on natural resources

Dr. Palms,:

To mandate this in such clear terms, its not entirely true that the people have lost faith in the politics of the state. There is a simple math if you figure out: the culprit is not those cash machines you say the Fed, its the people behind the walls who dictate such terms of policy practices. When winning and loosing election battles are highly pitched on such consensus like say, unemployment, falling job growth, loss of competitive power and health care reforms, both political idealogies clash on some similar, yet other dissimilar agendas. President Obama tried to implement some good practices, but the Republicans were always in arms against any such proactive policy reforms. Then you say Keynes theory is failing to absorb such economic shock, and again some people say govt. is cutting back on expenditure, while the rest speak about austerity measures, that by itself creates twin paradoxes of what to do and what not to do. Keynes's theory was well applicable in those times. These times are different, but the basic tenets of fighting recession has always been the same. The epistemology of policy practices and reforms are based on welfare state. That is actually missing i suppose.

Dr. Palms:,

People are confused with such differing war of policy goals required to achieve complacency. With a two party system, you don't have any option. Yet, that's far better than a 30 party multi-coalition government that continuously infighting for a common solution in unison. The science of economics doesn't work like a technology with someting like case-based-reasoning. As you know better, what it is. But the real point is to reach at some common definite consensus before the re-election campaign goes off. They need credibility which they lack, while the Republicans lack restraint. The Fed will do its usual job of printing fiat money to fund such endeavors. The govt. needs money, and its hard to raise it. They have a printing machine, but require public mandate. People are depressed by lack of money, but scared about future rebound inflation. People need affordable housing, yet there is oversupply and this time, there is no such easy lunch as subprime market. Banks are cautious with lendings, perhaps they realize the Fed won't back up evertime. In a way, you create more inequality out of available resources at your disposal. That's real ecological calamity. America needs better economic policies, not bundles of corporates that free-fire workers at will and further compress capitalism. This calamity was created by oversupply and underutilization of capital, by capitalists, for themselves. And now, they call for even greater tax cuts and cuts in spendings. Then why spend at all? Save businesses, that will shave off wealth out of the system to the same bank that created it, The Fed. Well, this is the "Great Business Cycle"..$@

Even Prof. Paul Krugman ain't happy at all with the ways the economy is functioning. Today, he mentioned "Leverage Buyout of America (LBO)...¤¿··

Dr. Adhikari,

Is it not fair to say that how wrong economic policies are framing the seeds of ecological destruction, both of human capital and productive capital? Indeed you may agree that there are some definite illeffects of maximizing profits at the expense of workers' rights. One may also agree that more eco-friendly alternatives costs more, but those costs are being passed on to poor countries that are by themselves struggling with conventional methods of productions. The FTA's(free trade agreements) are necessary but not the only sufficient option for achieving the goal of doubling exports. More exports mean more vibrancy in manufacturing operations, but at the cost of environmental degradation, unless such alternatives are enforced which however, increases the cost of capital and thus turns out to be burdensome for developing countries.

To ensure balance between protectionism and liberalization, one should apply the tools of trade agreements optimally, just not by placing undue burden of adjustments on the workers. Consider in the face of a slowdown, firms do often face increasing debt as well excess capacity. So, they lay off workers without proper compensation mechanisms (in developing world). And then again, the compounding effects of forced FTAs to boost exports to partnering countries of the developed nations compromise those developing countries' overall competitiveness in the international markets, as well, the ecology of organizational* and economic growth. One way out of this is further liberalization and more integration with the global economies, calling for greater degree of policy reforms in the tune of allowing foreign players to take stakes in the domestic markets, and removing cap on FDI. That would redistribute those higher cost of capital amongst domestic and foreign players and further create jobs, by filling those excess capacities, or say, building more capacities. So, though it is true that FTAs drive export growth, they can be effectively employed to remove trade barriers, ensure competition, promote exports and lastly, decrease inequality. Yet, such effects of liberalization on workers jobs which were displaced should be dealt concurrently.

Liberalization of trade reforms magnetizes(stimulates) domestic economy that also provide opportunity for foreign players to perform more processing of imports in countries with relatively cheap labour. This creates jobs even for the unskilled or less-skilled workers, further balancing the economy and help restore job growth rate. But that might not mean all the way to think of Asian economies just all about costs, cheap labor and outsourcing. This may otherwise mean new partners of growth that would develop a culture of organizational ecology to work together to share common goals.

Ref:

*Hannan and Freeman;1989, Organizational ecology theory.