How Atlantic City inspired the Monopoly board
The popular game has a backstory rife with segregation, inequality, intellectual theft, and outlandish political theories.
08 April, 2021
Credit: Davis DeBard, with kind permission.
- The streets on a classic Monopoly board were lifted from Atlantic City.
- Here's what it looks like if we transport those places back onto a map.
- Monopoly started out as its opposite: a game explaining the evil of monopolies.
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img class="rm-lazyloadable-image rm-shortcode" type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNjAyOTA3Mi9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyNzA1Mjk0NH0.OUhuxT8IF-YHqZ7M7z4Z1OEZBDEck8U6SdvXsTn3Zag/img.png?width=980" id="9b7e2" width="1611" height="1008" data-rm-shortcode-id="720f276323a52b8bbb3252fdf21124c4" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="Add Photo Caption..." spellcheck="false">Atlantic City's crowded Boardwalk, in front of hotels Schlitz and Dunlop, ca. 1913.</small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="Add Photo Credit..." spellcheck="false">Credit: Geo. A. McKeague Co., Atlantic City, New Jersey – <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Crowds_and_Hotels_Schlitz_and_Dunlop,_Atlantic_City,_New_Jersey.png" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">public domain</a>.</small></p><p><span></span>There have been several attempts to turn <em>Monopoly</em> the game into a Hollywood movie, one with Ridley Scott directing, another starring Kevin Hart. If none have succeeded so far, it's not for lack of an exciting backstory.</p><p><span></span>Dig deep, and you'll find racial segregation, economic inequality, intellectual property theft, and outlandish political theories. But let's start with the board—a map of sorts and a story in itself.</p><p><span></span>There's a customized Monopoly board not just for virtually any country in the world but also for movie and TV franchises (Avengers, Game of Thrones), brand experiences (Coca-Cola, Harley Davidson) and just about anything else (bass fishing, chocolate, the Grateful Dead).</p><p><span></span>To aficionados of the game, however, the names of the streets on the "classic" board have that special quality of authenticity, from lowly Baltic Avenue to fancy Park Place. Those places sound familiar not just if you like Monopoly, but also if you drive around Atlantic City, New Jersey's slightly run-down seaside casino town.</p><p><span></span>In fact, all the street names were taken from (or near) the city once nicknamed "America's Playground." Going about town, it's almost like you're traveling on the board itself. No wonder its other nickname is "Monopoly City."</p><p>This map transposes the streets on the board back onto the map, maintaining the color scheme that groups them from cheap (dark purple) to expensive (dark blue). Here's how they run. </p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img class="rm-lazyloadable-image rm-shortcode" type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNjAyOTA3Ny9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0Nzg1MDYyNH0.xQwY7X3QxtEVUBLjpd3uToqUs1_UZ7N1XqG1hDpcnkQ/img.png?width=980" id="dbac5" width="1538" height="728" data-rm-shortcode-id="49088b55dcb1495957fd5f754d111495" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="Add Photo Caption..." spellcheck="false">The Monopoly board takes its street names from Atlantic City and a few neighboring places.</small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="Add Photo Credit...">Credit: Courtesy of <a href="https://twitter.com/imaginedavis" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Davis DeBard</a>.</small></p><p><strong>Dark purple</strong></p><p>Mediterranean Avenue and Baltic Avenue are parallel streets in the middle of town, running southwest to northeast. They are perpendicular to most other streets on the board, and as such, cross or touch five other colors.<br></p><p><strong>Light blue</strong></p><p><strong></strong>Three avenues in the east of town. Oriental runs southwest to northeast and crosses Vermont and Connecticut, which run parallel to each other.</p><p><strong>Light purple</strong></p><p><strong></strong>Three streets branching off Pacific Avenue: Virginia Avenue, a long street towards the northwest; and St. Charles Place and States Avenue, two short spurs towards the southeast. St. Charles Place is no more; it made way for a hotel-casino called the Showboat Atlantic City.</p><p><strong>Orange</strong></p><p><strong></strong>New York and Tennessee Avenues run parallel and next to each other, northwest to southeast, the former all the way to the Boardwalk. St. James Place is in between both, south of Pacific Avenue.</p><p><strong>Red</strong></p><p><strong></strong>Indiana, Kentucky, and Illinois Avenues are the furthest west of the five street groups running northwest to southeast. In the 1980s, Illinois Avenue was renamed Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard.</p><p><strong>Yellow</strong></p><p><strong></strong>Past O'Donnell Memorial Park—featuring a rotunda dedicated to Atlantic City's World War I soldiers—Atlantic Avenue continues west to Ventnor City as Ventnor Avenue. It is pictured as an inset (<em>left</em>) on this map, which also features Marvin Gardens. That place, in Margate City, is actually spelled <em>Marven</em> Gardens—an error for which Parker Brothers apologized to the local residents only in 1995.</p><p><strong>Green</strong></p><p>These opulent streets are well-connected in more than one sense. Green is the only color to touch every other color.</p><p><strong>Dark blue</strong></p><p><strong></strong>The Boardwalk is as huge as Park Place is diminutive. Both are close to the beachfront, the most desirable location in any seaside resort.</p><h2>The darker history of Monopoly</h2><p>These names weren't picked at random. In the early 1930s, various informal versions of Monopoly were played throughout the northeastern United States, with local street names inserted for each city. The game's appearance and rules were perfected as it was being played. Around that time, an Atlantic City realtor named Jesse Railford hit upon an innovation: to put not just names but also prices on the properties on the board. Since he knew the lay of the land in his home city, those prices reflected the hierarchy of real estate values at that time.</p><p>That hierarchy and those prices were informed by the segregation that was rife in 1930s America. As one of the gateways of the Great Migration in the early 20th century, Atlantic City was a waystation for countless African-Americans leaving behind the stifling oppression of the South for better economic opportunities in the North. However, what they encountered on the way and upon arrival was the same racism, in slightly different form.</p><p>Railford played the game with the Harveys, who lived on Pennsylvania Avenue. They had previously lived on Ventnor Avenue and had friends on Park Place—all of which fall into the pricier color categories on the board.</p><p>In 1930s Atlantic City, these were wealthy and exclusive areas, and "exclusive" also meant no Black residents. They lived in low-cost areas like Mediterranean and Baltic Avenues; the latter street is actually where the Harveys' maid called home. In many local hotels at the time, African-Americans were only welcome as workers, not as guests. Atlantic City schools and beaches were segregated.</p><p>Belying both the binary prejudices of the time and the sliding price scale of the Monopoly board, Atlantic City back then was in fact a place of opportunity where a diverse range of communities flourished. Black businesses thrived on Kentucky Avenue. Count Basie played the Paradise Club on Illinois Avenue. There was a Black beach at the end of Indiana Avenue. For Chinese restaurants and Jewish delis, people headed to Oriental Avenue. New York Avenue had some of the first gay bars in the U.S.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img class="rm-lazyloadable-image rm-shortcode" type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNjAyOTA5MC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzMDI2NDc3NH0.UiDX62DC9l0q13YizbQpK6baWswSJ_Ro9LAAlX-mgWk/img.jpg?width=980" id="f0208" width="1500" height="1500" data-rm-shortcode-id="a00f35e0a63ab5bbc68a5372286f8a9d" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="Add Photo Caption..." spellcheck="false">Lizzie Magie (née Phillips), the anti-monopolist who invented… Monopoly.</small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="Add Photo Credit...">Credit: <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lizzie_Magie_-_My_Betrothed,_and_Other_Poems.jpg" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">public domain</a></small></p><h2>It should have been called "Anti-Monopoly"<br></h2><p><strong></strong>An Atlantic City-based board was sold to Parker Brothers by Charles Darrow, who claimed to have invented the game in his basement. Parker Brothers marketed the game as <em>Monopoly</em> from 1935. The rights to the game transferred to Hasbro when it acquired Parker Brothers in 1991.</p><p>But Darrow didn't invent Monopoly. The original idea, as became widely known only decades after its "official" launch, came from Lizzie Magie (1866-1948), née Elizabeth J. Phillips.</p><p>Magie was a woman of many talents and trades. She worked as a stenographer, a typist, and a news reporter; she wrote poems and short stories; she was a comedian, an actress, and a feminist (she once published an ad to auction herself off as a "young woman American slave," to make the point that only white men were truly free); and she patented an invention that made typewriting easier.</p><p>Despite that impressive resume, she is now remembered mainly—and barely so—as the inventor of <em>Monopoly</em>. Except that the board game she developed was called <em>The Landlord's Game</em>. She patented it in 1904 and re-patented a revised version in 1924. The game was innovative because of its circular pattern—most board games at the time were linear. But its real point was economic, political, and ultimately, fiscal. <em>The Landlord's Game</em> illustrated Magie's belief in what was later called Georgism.</p><p>Known as the "single tax movement" and popular in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, its concepts were formulated by the economist Henry George. He suggested that rather than taxing labor, trade, or sales, governments should derive their funding only from taxing land and the natural resources that derive from it.</p><p>As already observed by earlier thinkers such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo, a land tax is economically more efficient than other taxes, since it places no burden on economic activity. It would also reduce property speculation, eliminate boom and bust cycles, and even out economic inequality.</p><p>Although Georgist ideas were influential for a while and continue to be discussed—among others by Ralph Nader during his 2004 presidential candidacy—they are no longer a vital political force, except in the related field of emissions trading. One popular counterargument to modern Georgism, now also (but not entirely interchangeably) known as "geoism," "geolibertarianism," and "earth-sharing," is that government expenditure has increased by so much since George's day that it can no longer be covered by a land tax alone.</p><p>Back around the turn of the 20th century, Magie devised The Landlord's Game to educate its players about the evils of real estate monopolies and, implicitly, about the benefits of a single tax on land.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img class="rm-lazyloadable-image rm-shortcode" type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNjAyOTEwMS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY3MDAyNzgzMX0.2jm0KH2R_qG34gP544jcynK3IH0gFvkj41PJY09Hah0/img.jpg?width=980" id="4331b" width="1800" height="1800" data-rm-shortcode-id="d89edec668e4c6c9499417802a697724" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="Add Photo Caption..." spellcheck="false">The Landlord's Game, Lizzie Magie's forgotten precursor to Monopoly.</small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="Add Photo Credit..." spellcheck="false">Credit: Thomas Forsyth, owner of <a href="http://landlordsgame.info/games/lg-1906/lg-1906.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">The Landord's Game</a>® / public domain</small></p><p>She created two sets of rules: an anti-monopolist one, called <em>Prosperity</em>, in which all were rewarded for any wealth created; and a monopolist one, called <em>Monopoly</em>, in which the aim was to crush one's opponents by creating monopolies. In the latter version, when a player owns all the streets of one color, they can charge double rent and erect houses and hotels on the properties.<br></p><p>Taken together, these two versions were meant to illustrate the evil of monopolies and the benefit of a more cooperative approach to wealth creation. It's very telling of human nature that it's the opponent-crushing version that came out the winner. But, in the light of what happened to Magie, perhaps not entirely surprising.</p><p>When Darrow claimed Monopoly as his own, Magie protested. In the end, her patent was bought out by Parker Brothers for a mere $500, without any residual earnings. Parker Brothers continued to acknowledge Darrow as the inventor of the game. Magie's role was not recognised until decades later. </p><p><br><em>For more on the intersection of Monopoly, Atlantic City geography and 1930s segregation, read <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/02/racism-your-monopoly-board/618098/" target="_blank">this article</a> in <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/" target="_blank">The Atlantic</a> by Mary Pilon. She is also the author of a book on the subject, called <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Monopolists-Obsession-Scandal-Behind-Favorite-ebook/dp/B00GN7FDQ0" target="_blank">The Monopolists</a>.</em><br></p><p><em>Many thanks to Robert Capiot for alerting me to the article. And many thanks to mapmaker Davis DeBard for permitting the use of his work. Follow him <a href="https://twitter.com/imaginedavis" target="_blank">here</a>.</em></p><p><em></em><strong>Strange Maps #1078</strong></p><p><em><strong></strong>Got a strange map? Let me know at <a href="mailto:strangemaps@gmail.com">strangemaps@gmail.com</a>.<br></em></p><p><em>Follow Strange Maps on <a href="https://twitter.com/FrankJacobs" target="_blank">Twitter</a> and on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/VeryStrangeMaps" target="_blank">Facebook</a>.</em></p>
Keep reading
Show less
Why the capitalist market model destroys the safeguards of some professions
The neoliberal call for more 'choice', seems hard to resist.
28 March, 2021
Alvaro Calvo/Getty Images
The young doctor was desperate. 'I need to talk to my patients,' she said, 'and give them time to ask questions."
<p>"Some of them are foreign-born and struggle with the language, and all of them are in distress! But I hardly have the time to explain the essentials to them. There's all the paperwork, and we're constantly understaffed.'</p><p>Such grievances have become sadly familiar – not only in medicine, but also in education and care-work. Even in more commercial environments, you're liable to hear similar objections: the engineer who wants to deliver quality but is told to focus on efficiency only; the gardener who wants to give the plants time to grow, but is told to focus on speed. The imperatives of productivity, profitability and the market rule.</p><p>Complaints come from the other side of the table as well. As patients and students, we want to be treated with care and responsibility, rather than as mere numbers. Wasn't there a time when professionals still knew how to serve us – a cosy, well-ordered world of responsible doctors, wise teachers and caring nurses? In this world, bakers still cared about the quality of their bread, and builders were proud of their constructions. One could trust these professionals; they knew what they were doing and were reliable guardians of their knowledge. Because people poured their souls into it, work was still meaningful – or was it?</p><p>In the grip of nostalgia, it's easy to overlook the dark sides of this old vocational model. On top of the fact that professional jobs were structured around hierarchies of gender and race, laypeople were expected to obey expert judgment without even asking questions. Deference to authority was the norm, and there were few ways of holding professionals to account. In Germany, for example, doctors were colloquially called 'demigods in white' because of their status vis-à-vis patients and other staff members. This is not exactly how we might think that citizens of democratic societies should relate to one other now.</p>
<p>Against this backdrop, the call for more autonomy, for more 'choice', seems hard to resist. This is precisely what happened with the rise of neoliberalism after the 1970s, when the advocates of 'New Public Management' promoted the idea that hard-nosed market thinking should be used to structure healthcare, education and other areas that typically belonged to the slow and complicated world of public red tape. In this way, neoliberalism undermined not only public institutions but the very idea of <a href="https://www.nomos-elibrary.de/10.5771/0340-0425-2018-2-189/markt-oder-profession-die-politik-zweier-wissenslogiken-jahrgang-46-2018-heft-2" target="_blank">professionalism</a>.</p><p>This attack was the culmination of two powerful agendas. The first was an economic argument about the alleged inefficiency of public services or the other non-market structures in which professional knowledge was hosted. Long queues, no choice, no competition, no exit options – that's the chorus that critics of public healthcare systems repeat to this day. The second was an argument about autonomy, about equal status, about liberation – 'Think for yourself!' instead of relying on experts. The advent of the internet seemed to offer perfect conditions for finding information and comparing offers: in short, for acting like a fully informed customer. These two imperatives – the economic and the individualistic – meshed extremely well under neoliberalism. The shift from addressing the needs of <em>citizens</em> to serving the demands of <em>customers</em> or <em>consumers</em> was complete.</p><p>We are all customers now; we are all supposed to be kings. But what if 'being a customer' is the wrong model for healthcare, education, and even highly specialised crafts and trades?</p>
<p>What the market-based model overlooks is hyperspecialisation, as the philosopher Elijah Millgram argues in <em>The Great Endarkenment</em> (2015). We depend on other people's knowledge and expertise, because we can learn and study only so many things in our lifetimes. Whenever specialist knowledge is at stake, we are the opposite of a well-informed customer. Often we don't <em>want</em> to have to do our own research, which would be patchy at best; sometimes, we are simply unable to do it, even if we tried. It's much more efficient (yes, efficient!) if we can trust those already in the know.</p><p>But it can be hard to trust professionals forced to work in neoliberal regimes. As the political scientist Wendy Brown argued in <em>Undoing the Demos</em> (2015), market logic turns everything, including one's own life, into a question of portfolio management: a series of projects in which you try to maximise the return on investment. By contrast, responsible professionalism imagines work-life as a series of relationships with individuals who are entrusted to you, along with the ethical standards and commitments you uphold as a member of a professional community. But marketisation threatens this collegiality, by introducing competitiveness among workers and undermining the trust that's needed to do a good job.</p><p>Is there a way out of this conundrum? Could professionalism be revived? If so, can we avoid its old problems of hierarchy while preserving space for equality and autonomy?</p><p>There are some promising proposals and real-life examples of such a revival. In his account of 'civic professionalism', <em>Work and Integrity</em> (2nd ed, 2004), the American education scholar William Sullivan argued that professionals need to be aware of the moral dimensions of their role. They need to be 'experts and citizens alike', and 'learn to think and act cooperatively with us', the non-experts. Similarly, the political theorist Albert Dzur argued in <em>Democratic Professionalism</em> (2008) for a revival of a more self-aware version of 'old' professionalism – one committed to democratic values, and an ongoing dialogue with laypeople. Dzur describes, for example, how experts in the field of bioethics have opened up their discussions to non-experts, reacting to public criticisms, and finding formats for bringing doctors, ethics consultants and laypeople into conversation.</p>
<p>Similar practices could be introduced in many other professions – as well as areas not traditionally understood as specialist vocations, but in which decisionmakers need to draw on highly specialised knowledge. Ideally, this could lead to trust in professionals being not <em>blind</em>, but <em>justified</em>: a trust based on a grasp of the institutional frameworks that hold them accountable, and on an awareness of mechanisms for double-checking and getting additional opinions within the profession.</p><p>But in many areas, the pressures of markets or quasi-markets prevail. This leaves our front-line professionals in a difficult spot, as Bernardo Zacka describes in <em>When the State Meets the Street</em> (2017): they are overworked, exhausted, pulled in different directions, and unsure about the whole point of their job. Highly motivated individuals, such as the young doctor I mentioned at the outset, are likely to leave the fields in which they could contribute most. Perhaps this is a price worth paying if it brings huge benefits elsewhere. But that doesn't seem to be happening, and it makes all of us non-experts vulnerable, too. We cannot be informed customers because we know too little – but we can't rely on being simply citizens any longer, either.</p><p>Up to a point, professionalisation is built on the persistence of ignorance: specialised knowledge is a form of power, and a form that's rather difficult to control. Yet it's clear that markets and quasi-markets are flawed strategies for dealing with this problem. By continuing to accept them as the only possible models, we forgo the opportunity to imagine and explore alternatives. We must be able to rely on other people's expertise. And for that, as the political philosopher Onora O'Neill <a href="http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rmhttp/radio4/transcripts/20020403_reith.pdf" target="_blank">argued</a> in her 2002 Reith Lectures, we must be able to trust them.</p><p>The young doctor I interviewed had long considered leaving her job – so when the opportunity to get a research-based position came up, she jumped ship. 'The system was forcing me to act against my own best judgment, again and again,' she said. 'It was the opposite of what I thought being a doctor was all about.' Now is the time to help reimagine a system in which she can recover that sense of purpose, to everyone's benefit.<img src="https://metrics.aeon.co/count/762c9a35-2314-40db-ae4c-edb5055426b0.gif" alt="Aeon counter – do not remove"></p><p>Lisa Herzog</p><p>This article was originally published at <a href="https://aeon.co/?utm_campaign=republished-article" target="_blank">Aeon</a> and has been republished under Creative Commons. Read the <a href="https://aeon.co/ideas/why-a-market-model-is-destroying-the-safeguards-of-the-professions" target="_blank">original article</a>.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Nearly 3,000 shipping containers have fallen into the ocean since November
What's to blame for the recent uptick in containership accidents?
26 March, 2021
Credit: Andreas via Adobe Stock
- At any given time, 6,000 containerships are moving the vast majority of global trade on the world's oceans.
- The average number of annual containership accidents has been on a downtrend for the past decade, but accidents have become more common since the start of the pandemic.
- One factor behind the recent rise in containership accidents could be rising demand for imported goods from U.S. consumers.
<p>In November 2020, the containership ONE Apus was sailing from China to California when a severe storm struck. The 364-meter ship began rolling heavily. Soon, nearly 1,800 of the ship's containers—some of which were carrying dangerous goods like fireworks and liquid ethanol—came loose. Some crashed onto the deck. Others spilled into the ocean, lost forever.</p><p>The ONE Apus incident was one of at least six major containership accidents that occurred since November, which altogether have resulted in the loss of 2,980 containers. That's more than double the annual average number of lost containers from 2008 to 2019, according to a recent report from the World Shipping Council.</p><p>What's causing the uptick? It's likely a combination of bad weather and heavily loaded ships, some of which are packed to the brim due to increased U.S. imports since the beginning of the pandemic. The Bureau of Labor Statistics <a href="https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ximpim.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">reported</a> that January brought the largest monthly increase in U.S. imports since 2012.</p><p>To be sure, the World Shipping Council notes that containership accidents have been on a downtrend over the past decade, writing "containers lost overboard represent less than one thousandth of 1% of the roughly 226 million containers currently shipped each year."</p>
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="390d8d65604bc10fbd0557c4438d25ef"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kSpesP7-6vo?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>But that fraction of a percent adds up over time. After all, international containerships move more than 80 percent of global trade, representing a roughly $4 trillion industry. And while accidents are relatively rare, they pose significant threats to crew and the environment, not to mention the economic costs.</p><p>In its recent report, the World Shipping Council notes several ways the industry has been working to improve safety standards, including increased inspection programs and updated packing practices.</p><p>Still, accidents are bound to happen among the 6,000 containerships that are sailing the world's oceans at any given time. One reason is parametric rolling, a phenomenon only experienced by containerships.</p>
<img
class="rm-lazyloadable-image rm-shortcode" type="lazy-image"
data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTg4MjgzMC9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzNzY5MzA1N30.XMNl-h3p48I0JCQFaqHOyMO3-cbOo1XWbcIc-HzfuVA/img.png?width=980"
id="82b40"
width="645"
height="390"
data-rm-shortcode-id="c3b0368a5367edd5e5bbe13c483b5b60" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
The World Shipping Council
<p>In short, parametric rolling is a sudden side-to-side movement of a large ship caused by a specific alignment of waves, usually during a storm. Parametric rolling can send containers, which are sometimes stacked six stories tall, toppling over each other.</p><p>Bigger ships tend to be more at risk.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"The new container ships coming to the market have large bow flare and wide beam to decrease the frictional resistance which is generated when the ship fore end passes through the water, making it streamlined with the hull," <a href="https://www.marineinsight.com/marine-safety/what-is-parametric-rolling-in-container-ships/" target="_blank">wrote</a> Marine Insight.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"As the wave crest travels along the hull, it results in flare immersion in the wave crest and the bow comes down. The stability varies as a result of pitching and rolling of the ship. The combination of buoyancy and wave excitation forces push the ship to the other side."</p><img
class="rm-lazyloadable-image rm-shortcode" type="lazy-image"
data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTg4Mjg4NS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2Njk5MjIwM30.5Q2MWgk1sxgwvlIvEUMwsTSxK0u8lxaCtZY4tAR9PtM/img.jpg?width=980"
id="39ba9"
width="1920"
height="1293"
data-rm-shortcode-id="e388ca5e749c52effbdff3ea0eb4f1e3" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Credit: Pixabay
<p>On a broader scale, the cost of shipping goods by any method—train, truck, air, ocean—is rising as supply chains are becoming congested and demand for imports keeps increasing. For the most part, companies are fronting the bill.</p><p>As for U.S. consumers? They might start paying a premium for imported goods, or for goods that feature imported parts.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Most prices along the supply chain have gone in one direction, and that's up, so it has to appear somewhere," Joanna Konings, a senior economist at ING, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/26/business/global-shipping-supply-chains/index.html" target="_blank">told</a> CNN Business.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Learn the fundamentals of financial accounting from an actual CPA
Understand everything that goes behind payroll, debits, credits, and more with this 25-hour course collection.
16 March, 2021
- Taking charge of the finances behind your business can be a daunting task.
- You can learn the fundamentals of financial accounting from an actual CPA for just $35.
- Understand everything that goes behind payroll, debits, credits, and more with the Ultimate Financial Accounting and CPA Certification Training Bundle.
<p>If you're overwhelmed by all the layers behind your business' finances, join the club. You're not the only one who doesn't have it all in order, but the<a href="https://shop.bigthink.com/sales/the-ultimate-financial-accounting-cpa-certification-training-bundle?utm_source=bigthink.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=the-ultimate-financial-accounting-cpa-certification-training-bundle&utm_term=scsf-480935&utm_content=a0x1P000004eiDHQAY&scsonar=1" rel="noopener" target="_blank"> Ultimate Financial Accounting and CPA Certification Training Bundle</a> is your chance at a fresh financial start. </p><p>This online e-training experience features eight courses, with a total of 146 lessons, and 25 hours worth of instruction. It'll start off with basics, such as the ins and outs of financial statements, alongside accounting transactions including debits, credits, and more.</p><p>You'll also be in good hands, as the course is taught by a certified public accountant (CPA) Robert Steele. He's received high ratings from over 3,200 students who have successfully completed the training bundle. Other major concepts that will be discussed in the classes are depreciation, payroll calculations, the difference between accounts receivable and accounts payable, and the list goes on. </p><p>It's no surprise that the<a href="https://shop.bigthink.com/sales/the-ultimate-financial-accounting-cpa-certification-training-bundle?utm_source=bigthink.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=the-ultimate-financial-accounting-cpa-certification-training-bundle&utm_term=scsf-480935&utm_content=a0x1P000004eiDHQAY&scsonar=1" rel="noopener" target="_blank"> Ultimate Financial Accounting and CPA Certification Training Bundle</a> is regularly worth $1,592. Fortunately, though, you won't have to pay that hefty fee to be able to take advantage of the training. </p><p>If you sign up here, you'll only have to pay the small price tag of $34.99. With the end of tax season right around the corner, don't wait to purchase the bundle and take control of your finances sooner rather than later. </p><div data-react-checksum="1645700834" data-reactid="1" data-reactroot="" style="position: relative;"><a data-reactid="2" href="https://shop.bigthink.com/sales/the-ultimate-financial-accounting-cpa-certification-training-bundle?utm_source=bigthink.com&utm_medium=referral-cta&utm_campaign=the-ultimate-financial-accounting-cpa-certification-training-bundle&utm_term=scsf-480935&utm_content=a0x1P000004eiDHQAY&scsonar=1" rel="noopener" target="_blank"> </a>
<div data-reactid="3" style="border: 1px solid #000000; padding: 35px 10px 35px 35px; text-decoration: none; display: flex; align-items: center;">
<div data-reactid="4" style="flex: 30%;"><img data-reactid="5" src="https://cdnp0.stackassets.com/2914aa3b38a186242cb7b1bc428851d9b94a7ee8/store/8f5bccf2a40516fcccf397314e43edbe23617e4de585b3efa404a49b6594/sale_40096_primary_image.jpg"></div>
<div data-reactid="6" style="padding-left: 2.5vw; flex: 70%; justify-content: space-between;">
<div data-reactid="7"><strong data-reactid="8">The Ultimate Financial Accounting & CPA Certification Training Bundle - $34.99</strong><br data-reactid="9"><br data-reactid="10"><a data-reactid="11" href="https://shop.bigthink.com/sales/the-ultimate-financial-accounting-cpa-certification-training-bundle?utm_source=bigthink.com&utm_medium=referral-cta&utm_campaign=the-ultimate-financial-accounting-cpa-certification-training-bundle&utm_term=scsf-480935&utm_content=a0x1P000004eiDHQAY&scsonar=1" rel="noopener" target="_blank">See Deal</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div><p><em>Prices subject to change.</em></p><script type="text/javascript"> (function (s,o,n,a,r,i,z,e){s['StackSonarObject']=r;s[r]=s[r]||function(){
(s[r].q=s[r].q||[]).push(arguments)},s[r].l=1*new Date();i=o.createElement(n),
z=o.getElementsByTagName(n)[0];i.async=1;i.src=a;z.parentNode.insertBefore(i,z)
})(window,document,'script','https://www.stack-sonar.com/ping.js','stackSonar');
stackSonar('stack-connect-p', '393');
</script><ul class="ee-ul"></ul><p><em><em><em><em><em><em>W</em><em>hen you buy something through a link in this article or from <a href="https://shop.bigthink.com/" target="_self">our shop</a>, Big Think earns a small commission. Thank you for supporting our team's work.</em></em></em></em></em></em></p>
Keep reading
Show less
Growth is killing us: An interview with Jason Hickel
The British economic anthropologist Jason Hickel proposes "degrowth" in the face of recession.
10 March, 2021
DOUG KANTER/AFP via Getty Images
What would happen if we waved goodbye to capitalism and instead focused on nurturing trust? The British economic anthropologist Jason Hickel tells Paulina Wilk that a better world is possible – but we only have 20 years to build it.
<p><strong>Paulina Wilk: In the middle of a pandemic caused by a new virus, you have published a book in which you call for a revolution and set humanity a new challenge that will require not only courage but also imagination. Is it really a good moment for that?</strong></p><p><strong>Jason Hickel: </strong>On the face of it, I was worried that I chose the worst possible time. Many economies are falling into recession and people think what we need right now is growth and consumption, while I propose the opposite: degrowth. However, what I see is that the crisis has made people eager for alternatives. We need change, we need a different proposition for the world. It is now clear that the way we have been running our economies is exactly what has gotten us into this crisis in the first place. Growth-driven incursions into the natural world triggered the development and the expansion of the virus. Also, in the West the obsession with protecting growth makes it very difficult for politicians to respond in a way that would protect people's health. People have now realized that we need economies organized around human wellbeing and ecological stability, not around the accumulation of capital. Any attempt to come out of the pandemic through even more excessive growth would be deeply counterproductive because we are facing an even greater problem: the climate crisis. Therefore we ought to respond to two crises at the same time, which requires rethinking the way we've organized the economy. The more I talk about it to people from all over the world, the more I feel the eagerness for a change.</p><p><strong>Do you find this eagerness among ordinary people, or among politicians and the business elite?</strong></p><p>I find it mainly in the interactions during my public lectures, as well as when talking to scientists. Even people from the Deep South of the US – who are overwhelmingly Republican voters – are of the opinion that supporting ecological stability is more important than growth. Surveys show that for Europeans, protecting the ecosystem is necessary even at the expense of economic growth. I think a lot of this emerges from what has happened over the past 10 years, after the global financial crisis. It has become clear that growth only really benefits a small fraction of our societies. We are watching billionaires get richer, and yet wages are stagnating. In the US and the UK, we are witnessing a decline in happiness levels. Growth is not delivering the good lives we were promised it would. And so people are asking: "What's in it for us?"</p><p><strong>You tackled economic inequalities in your previous books. But isn't the pandemic the great equalizer? Everyone can get sick, even a Hollywood star. Or is it the other way round: maybe it deepens the divide between the privileged elites and the rest of us?</strong></p><p>It has very clearly exacerbated the inequalities. US billionaires in the past few months alone have increased their wealth by $600 billion. Meanwhile, since March the debt of the poor has been rising by $5 billion a day. The crisis is pushing hundreds of millions of people into poverty. What becomes obvious is that we need a different kind of recovery – a recovery without growth. The problem is not that GDP is too low. The problem is that people don't have access to the livelihood they need. We need to answer this directly rather than stimulating the economy in the false hope that the trickle-down effect will magically solve everything, which it virtually never does.</p><p><strong>You want us to wave goodbye to the concept of growth on which capitalism is based; to reject the blind faith that growth brings prosperity and wellbeing. Instead, we should focus on actual human needs, not on abstract indexes. It is a lot to ask. Do you consider it a radical idea, or is it in fact a lot easier than one might think?</strong></p><p>The concept of degrowth is not radical. It has widespread support from scientists. Just last year, 11,000 scientists signed an open letter in the journal <em>BioScience</em> calling for world governments to abandon GDP growth as a political and economic objective. Now, the reason for that is quite simple. The more we grow the global economy, the more energy it requires and the more difficult it is for us to supply renewable alternatives able to meet the demand. We know we have to reach zero emissions before the mid-century. It is a very short timeline. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is clear that the only way we can accomplish such a rapid transition is to scale down energy demands and unnecessary industrial production.</p><p>Right now, we live in a global economy in which the dominant belief is that all industries must grow rapidly all the time. In an era of ecological breakdown, this is irrational and unfeasible. We need an open democratic conversation about what industries we still want to grow (like, for example, renewable energy, public health, public transportation) and which industries are big enough already and we should scale down (maybe SUV production, private jets production, advertising). It would help us solve the climate crisis because this approach takes into account many things: deforestation, soil depletion, fish stock depletion, mass extinction of species. All these things are driven by excessive exploitation of resources. By scaling down industrial production we would take pressure off the living world and bring the economy into balance with it.</p><p><strong>What about the losses?</strong></p><p>The crucial thing is that all this could be done while improving people's lives. We've been sold the lie that human wellbeing increases with GDP. Actually, the correlation is very low and in time breaks down completely. In high-income nations, additional GDP has nothing to do with wellbeing. Take, for example, the US. The GDP per capita there is $60,000. Now compare that with Portugal, where the GDP per capita is 60% less. And yet Portugal has higher life expectancy and higher happiness levels than the US. How does it accomplish that? By investing in things that matter for human wellbeing – by reducing inequalities, guaranteeing good wages, and investing in robust, universal public services such as education, healthcare and housing. This is the secret to a flourishing society. It can be accomplished in high-income nations without additional growth.</p><p><strong>When you say it, it all sounds surprisingly simple.</strong></p><p>Because it's much easier than we think. And it's a more rational and effective approach to human progress. My proposal is not radical; it is in fact very sensible. The radical idea would be to stick to the status quo and not face any pressing problems.</p><p><br/></p>
<p><strong>You want us to change the way we think, especially the way we think about capitalism. But wasn't capitalism, in its inception, a good and noble idea? It has many apologists who point out that it went wrong only in its late, neoliberal phase.</strong></p><p>Let's take a look at the history of capitalism. The growth of rich countries in Western Europe and North America was possible because of colonization and the slave trade. Europe's industrialization relied on the appropriation of land, resources and labour from the Global South. Therefore, for hundreds of years capitalism had negative consequences for the indigenous populations in many parts of the world. The crisis was there from the very beginning – just not a crisis for Western Europe. We must put capitalism into perspective. When we say 'capitalism' we mean trade, private enterprise, markets, and so on. But those things existed long before capitalism came into being in the 16th century.</p><p>What makes capitalism distinctive is that it was the first economic system in history organized around constant growth. That might have been be fine for a while, but you quickly reach a point where you are causing ecological and social problems. For a long time, the West has been exporting those problems to the Global South, but it's no longer an option – now we're all facing the climate crisis. So when I call for a transition to a post-growth economy, I mean essentially a post-capitalist economy. We shouldn't confuse this with a command economy, like in the communist states of the 20th century. We simply need a new order that isn't organized around constant expansion and is in balance with the living world.</p><p><strong>You've brought up the spectre of communism, so let me ask you a question from the perspective of someone who grew up in </strong><strong>a </strong><strong>socialist economy. For the first 10 years of my life, I did not know growth – only scarcity. I remember borrowing, fixing, exchanging things. I remember not having the things I wanted. Then a shock doctrine was employed to effect the transition to a new capitalist economy; people in Poland paid a steep price for the so-called 'transformation' and for the free market. Some, for example, lost all their savings. Can you assure me that degrowth will occur without this kind of turbulence?</strong></p><p>If we do nothing, we'll end up in a crisis anyway, simply because of climate change. Around the world right now, we see many tragedies. People are losing their homes and resources, communities are being destroyed. Nigeria has just lost 25% of its crops due to flooding. We need to change our path. I'm calling for a transition that is focused on ensuring stability and human wellbeing. The crisis that happened in Poland was very destructive for many people, though some benefited tremendously. But I'm arguing for something that is exactly the opposite. The new transition will have to be organized around protecting and benefiting the lives of the majority of people.</p>
<p><strong>The experience of socialism also brought us the ability to exchange and to share resources. Can th</strong><strong>e</strong><strong>se skills and social practices serve as tools for building a new future? Can the change come from societies that are able to imagine new and different ways of organizing economies?</strong></p><p>Poland is an interesting example. I've talked to a lot of Polish people on this issue and I found that they are very divided. Some of them are in ideological lockdown and defend free-market capitalism because they still fear the past. So the answer to your question is: yes and no. There are people who can draw on knowledge about different economies in the past and imagine different economies in the future. This is a powerful intellectual resource. But at the same time, the kind of economy that Poland had throughout much of the 20th century is not what I'm calling for. It wouldn't solve any current problems. After all, the Soviet model was also organized around growth – it competed with the US and wanted to expand as much as possible. Which led to catastrophe, because the Soviet economy was exploiting human and natural resources just like the American economy was, only in a different way. All in all, the 20th century doesn't provide us with a solution. We need to evolve an entirely new system fit for the realities of the 21st century.</p><p>That said, there are many promising ideas emerging in the Global South. We see it in Indigenous philosophies, in movements like La Via Campesina – namely the movements of peasants working towards food sovereignty. We see it in the Indian concept of ecological flourish. But there are also some interesting developments in the Global North. Just last year, New Zealand decided to abandon GDP as an objective in their next budget, which inspired the leaders of Scotland and Iceland. I think we are witnessing the birth of a global alliance of countries – although at the moment only small ones – that are keen on developing new economic models.</p><p><strong>When thinking about degrowth, you take inspiration from the past. You write about the animalists who don't distinguish between the human world and the natural world, you write about Indigenous people who utilize natural resources with care. And you call for going back to an economy that is rooted in actual needs instead of artificially-manufactured desires. Was there a period in history that you consider especially inspiring and hopeful?</strong></p><p>I guess one of the problems we are facing is that degrowth has never been attempted. This is a totally new challenge. But let's take a look at the history of Europe. Feudalism was, of course, a very bad and destructive system. It broke down because of the peasant revolutions against the feudal class in the mid-15th century. The peasants demanded access to the commons, forests and lands for their own use. And they succeeded – between 1450 and 1500 there was a flourishing of revolutionary society, deeply democratic and deeply egalitarian. Wages went up, various indicators of human wellbeing improved, nutrition improved. At the same time, the natural landscape of Europe was regenerating. Why? Because democratic egalitarian societies are intrinsically more ecological. You can focus on human needs rather than on generating a surplus that will then be extracted from you by the elites. Of course, it was all later dismantled by the enclosure movement, which kicked peasants off the lands in order to drive wages down and make labour cheaper for the nascent capitalist class, for the plantations and factories. But there remains this inspiring period in Europe's history that we can look back on and be hopeful about the kind of society we can create.</p>
<p><strong>Looking for positive inspiration in past experiences is certainly helpful, but in order to forge a new and different future, we need imagination. Meanwhile, at least since the beginning of the 21</strong><strong>st</strong><strong> century, we are witnessing a deficit of imagination. The present is so intense and overwhelming that there's not much space left for thinking about alternate scenarios. How should we nurture the power of imagination?</strong></p><p>It's a fascinating question. When you tell people that capitalism is, let's say, problematic, and we need a new system, they immediately shut down. "No, it has to be capitalism." This idea was entrenched in the 1980s by people like Margaret Thatcher, who literally thought there was no alternative. But it strikes me as very odd because we live in a culture that is totally enamoured of innovation and creativity – those are among our highest values. You'd never look at a smartphone and say: "This is the best smartphone that's ever been produced, it shall never be surpassed, and we shouldn't even try to do that." And yet, for some reason, when it comes to our economic operating system, we routinely say it is the best possible one. We need to take a much more innovative and creative approach to the economy. I believe we're perfectly capable of doing that.</p><p><strong>Perhaps what hinders our imagination is the 'kidnapping' of language. In your book </strong><em><strong>Less is More </strong></em><strong>you suggest abandoning or changing some words and concepts. For example, you say that instead of the Anthropocene we should be using the word 'Capitalocene'. But what interests me the most is the concept of abundance. It brings to mind nature, the pulsating diversity of life, the Amazon rainforest. How do you define abundance, and what part does it have to play in the future of civilization? Can we create abundance?</strong></p><p>Capitalism is a system predicated on scarcity. It's difficult to grasp because we look at capitalism as something that produces an incredible amount of goods. Look at all the stuff in the shops, look at the adverts. But in reality, capitalism has always been creating the illusion of scarcity in order to compel people to work and to consume. Advertising itself is a process of creating artificial scarcity. It makes us believe that whatever we have is not enough and we should want more so that capitalism can keep growing. We can solve the problem of scarcity by switching to an economy organized around abundance. When people have access to everything they need to lead flourishing lives, they no longer need high levels of personal income. Therefore we can reverse the pattern of artificial scarcity by introducing organized abundance.</p>
<p><strong>What would it look like?</strong></p><p>Like a fair distribution of existing income. There is no actual scarcity of income in the global economy. However, we experience artificial scarcity at the bottom, because much of the income is captured by the people at the top. A fair distribution of existing incomes and opportunities would enable people to lead good lives. The same goes for public goods, like healthcare, education and housing. The more access people have to robust universal public goods, the happier they are, the more healthy, the better their wellbeing, relationships, gender equality, etc. That is the secret to a flourishing community. If we can guarantee this public abundance, there will be a lot less pressure to continue with the scarcity-driven private consumption that today is the primary feature of the capitalist economy.</p><p><strong>But governments are struggling, we see how poor the quality of political leadership has become, and huge multinational corporations are getting stronger. The pandemic only exacerbates all those problems: Big Tech is the primary beneficiary of COVID-19. How do we solve this? How do we rebuild trust in the power of the state and make people believe in a good public sector?</strong></p><p>Yes, public trust in government is at a crazy all-time low. And the reason is the exploding inequalities we've seen in the last few decades. Those processes are insane and extreme. For example, the richest 1% in the world captures nearly a quarter of total global GDP. And money isn't the only unequally divided resource. Rich people control political processes; political power is also being captured. We have our media systems overtaken by corporate elites. Hence the erosion of trust in social solidarity. Distrust takes the form of right-wing conspiracy theories, of neo-fascist movements, of riots in the streets. Our institutions are collapsing precisely because our political system has been made to serve growth at all costs. People realize that this is a disaster for them and they're desperate for alternatives. We need credible, democratic alternatives on the table, not some pseudo-solutions shot out by media monopolies. Until the imagination lockdown is broken, political polarization will increase.</p><p><strong>Let's talk about how to make change happen. Which brick should we remove first in order to dismantle the whole structure and make space for something truly new?</strong></p><p>I'm not a political strategist, but I can point to some promising examples – movements such as Extinction Rebellion and Sunrise Movement. They are calling for a transition to a post-growth economy that would be organized around the principles of justice, not just nationally but globally. I find that very exciting. The more pressure that we can exert on politicians, the better. Then there's another approach. My book <em>Less is More </em>is primarily organized around policy ideas that could be implemented by our governments. On the face of it, I'm talking about small reforms, but they are actually revolutionary, because they effectively reorganize the way capitalism works. I set out some blueprints for progressive governments – Costa Rica can carry it out, and so can Scotland, New Zealand or Nicaragua. But as far as global change is concerned, I believe mass social movements will have to carry us there.</p><p>Of course, this means going into battle with those who benefit from the status quo. It won't be easy. The global elite will not simply get together at Davos and adopt post-growth principles. Two things will have to come together: robust organized political movements and a powerful alternative vision. And let me emphasize: we don't have centuries to do this. We have two decades at the most to make this transition happen. The key thing right now is to have conversations, to find the courage to confront the old guard, and talk about how the new system could look. My purpose is to open up imaginations and start conversations.</p>
<p><strong>You also point out </strong><strong>a</strong><strong> new scientific consensus. Experts from different fields want us to see the world as one interconnected system and to get rid of the whole concept of man as separate from nature. Is this now a part of the mainstream? Has the opening up of imaginations already started?</strong></p><p>I do feel hopeful, I think that the conversation is changing. To give you an example: you must have heard of the European Green Deal. It sets out various objectives, such as zero emissions of greenhouse gasses by 2050. And it also represents precisely the wrong kind of response. You can summarize its approach this way: "Let's use the transition to renewable energy sources as an opportunity to accelerate growth." I explain in my book why that's not feasible. But there's already one alternative on the table, proposed by DiEM25 [Democracy in Europe Movement 2025], a democratic movement established by Yanis Varoufakis and Noam Chomsky. Their idea is refreshing. They call for global justice and a post-growth economy. It is clear that the younger generation, people of my age and younger, are eager for such alternatives. And, as I've mentioned before, we're also seeing some innovative national-level policies, for example in Iceland or Costa Rica, where governments are deciding to prioritize wellbeing. I think that's very promising.</p><p><strong>And yet you take some hope away – as well as a sense of agency – when you write that individualism is a myth and that changing our individual attitudes barely matters. Are you telling me recycling or using energy-saving lightbulbs is not important? And if not, what should we do?</strong></p><p>For too long, environmentalists have been focusing on the idea of individual behaviour change. It becomes very blame-oriented. "You should do that or this, you should give up this or that." And of course, people react badly, asking: "Why are you blaming me?" We need to recognize that individuals are victims of the growth-oriented system. We have been made consumers because we live in an economic system that requires perpetual growth and consumption. Individuals can try their best to consume less, but it won't solve our problems.</p><p>Therefore we need to change our mindset and organize collective support for a different kind of economy. Think of the civil rights movement in the US. If you were a white person in the US South during segregation, it wouldn't be enough to just sit in your home and say to yourself: "I'll do my best not to be a racist." That wouldn't change the system. You'd need to go outside, meet your neighbours, join a social movement, organize collectively to fundamentally change an unjust system. And that's the kind of political action we need today.</p><p><strong>What will the role of technology be in all this? You've dismantled the promise of a digital economy, pointing out that it is surprisingly not virtual, meaning it still requires lots of material resources. Can we make better use of technology?</strong></p><p>The technologies we have are actually quite remarkable and they keep getting better. Because of this constant improvement, we assumed that they would reduce our ecological impact. But they don't. Under capitalism, efficiency improvements aren't there to enable us to do the same amount with less – they only enable us to do more. A simple example is the chainsaw. It allows us to cut trees more quickly, and so we cut more and more of them. Technology is merely a tool. If we switch to a different economic system, it will serve new, different goals.</p>
<p><strong>According to you, growth is our obsession. Even planetary boundaries – the Earth's capacity to endure our expansion and aggression, the number of catastrophes, including the current pandemic – are not stopping us. We can't count on any external forces; we'll have to consciously choose a better world.</strong></p><p>That's right. In the 1970s, we thought that there were limits to growth, because once we depleted resources, the economy would crash. What we realize now is that there are no limits. The economy will find ways to grow. We have to make a conscious decision to limit growth ourselves before we reach ecological tipping points. Scientists have already told us what the climate crisis will be like – we cannot plead ignorance.</p><p><strong>Does this decision have to be made by a well-informed majority? That would be more difficult, especially as there isn't much time. As an economic anthropologist, what conclusions do you draw from the history of revolutions and rebellions? Can a minority bring change?</strong></p><p>No, you don't need to convince everybody – you just need a very vocal and active minority. The way social change works is: a new idea emerges, enough people are convinced by it, they talk about it, and suddenly it becomes thinkable. If it's robust and persuasive, a consensus is born. The idea enters into policy discussions without the need to convince everybody one by one. On the other hand, we know there's already a democratic majority that is in favour of the ideas of post-growth. It may not express it that way, but polls show us that people want a different kind of economy, one that is organized around ecology and wellbeing. So the question becomes: if we live in a democracy and a majority of people are calling for a change, why isn't it happening? The reason is that the voices of elites in our media and our political system matter much more than the voices of ordinary people. The solution is, in fact, democracy. If we can have a democratic conversation about post-capitalist alternatives, people will come through for this new kind of approach. But thus far, we've not had this conversation.</p><p><strong>Many critics will point out that democracy and capitalism don't really work without one another. In Poland, we got them both at once.</strong></p><p>There is a common idea that capitalism and democracy go together. I argue that in many ways they are opposites. Capitalism requires extraction and exploitation in order to perpetuate growth, and therefore it is at odds with democratic sensibilities. You can see this in all sorts of scientific experiments – when people have democratic control over economic processes and resource allocation, they make decisions built on principles of sustainability. They save resources for future generations rather than sabotaging ecology for the sake of immediate financial gain. Democratic choice means making post-growth decisions.</p>
<p><strong>You were born in Eswatini, a small African country with an absolute monarchy. Don't you ever wonder whether an enlightened king would deal with all those necessary changes faster and better?</strong></p><p>I get why people fantasize about some efficient dictatorship that would bring about changes. But I really think that democracy is a more promising avenue. The problem is that we don't have real democracies. We need proper democratic reform – to get big money out of politics, to break up media monopolies. That's a precondition for the conversation we must have. Once we have this democratic conversation, all the evidence suggests that we will choose the post-growth alternative. There is no reason to abandon hopes for democracy.</p><p><strong>Allow me to end on a practical note. If we reject GDP as an index of wellbeing, what measure should we choose instead?</strong></p><p>There are lots of different alternatives. If you want a single indicator, then there's one called Genuine Progress Indicator. It starts with GDP and then subtracts negative social and ecological outcomes, which gives you a much more holistic idea about the shape of the economy. Using this indicator is also useful if we want to change people's perception of the global economy. However, even better is to have a conversation about what we want our economy to deliver – be that better wages, universal healthcare, zero emissions – and make those the explicit priority. Let's achieve those goals directly rather than just pursue GDP growth in the vain hope that it will solve any problem.</p><p><em>Introduction and biography translated from the Polish by Jan Dziergowski</em></p><p><em></em>Reprinted with permission of <a target="_blank" href="https://przekroj.pl/en/">Przekrój</a>. Read the <a href="https://przekroj.pl/en/society/growth-is-killing-us-paulina-wilk" target="_blank">original article</a>.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Popular
