The Doughnut Economic System
While we have gone on and on agnausium about capitalism vs socialism, a new economic system is being developed which is supposed to be much more sustainable. The Doughnut Economic System.
I admit I do not know much about it, but I would rather talk about it then the old tired debate about capitalism vs socialism.
I admit I do not know much about it, but I would rather talk about it then the old tired debate about capitalism vs socialism.

Comments
My first association to to the doughnut idea was to think of the dachshund of time
Well, unfortunately for you, it's very much mired in the old tired debate about capitalism vs socialism.
Doughnut Economics relies on deliberately restricting over-exploitation of natural resources beyond which the environment cannot regenerate, so that a population lives in a status quo with its surroundings. Capitalism, with its fetishisation of private ownership and unlimited growth is inimical to sustainable living, and thus to Doughnut economics. Socialism, and in particular a form of communitarianism that holds the natural environment as a Commons, is broadly compatible with it.
Having read the book (and seen her talk a couple of times) I'd critique it as having very little wiggle room between over-consumption of the environment and the poverty of the population, if you try and keep capitalist structures in place - which she tries to do.
Raworth's argument was that 20th century Economics put 'economic man' at the centre, as it were, and worked the whole system around 'him', failing to take into account that this left out many important features of the economy, such as the work of women in the home or the phenomenon of families looking after their older members. 'Man' was treated purely as an economic animal. The result of this was to elevate Money to a position that even Adam Smith would probably not have been happy with. I would like to think Doughnut Economics offers an answer. It certainly highlights the problem that Economics 'is not enough'.
As I said, the solutions ought to require the almost total dismantling of the entire capitalist economic system, but I'm really not sure that she goes there. I should probably re-read the book at some point.
Isn't 'a vast amount of unpaid labour' a feature of other economic systems also?
I don't think the concept of 'economic man' is designed to encompass the whole range of human activity and values, but is an ideal type used to model and explain economic activity, including unpaid labour. Without such a model Keynes, for example, would not have been able to generate his theories that have been so beneficial to the social democracies so many of the contributors to the ship applaud.
That would be "anausia", surely? In "agnostic" the a- prefix modifies the Greek "gnostic".
In some of the more extreme forms of socialism all labour is unpaid.
By unpaid labour we mean care for one's household fellows, who actually don't need it, child raising beyond child allowance, and ultimately oneself? Is there any other? It's a feature of life.
If we bypass the money and ask what the money is for then the need for payment to be in the form of money is not obviously necessary. If the system provides everyone with a quality home to live in, the utilities needed to keep it warm and lit, the food needed to put on the table, clothing and all other essentials for a quality life, then is that not a form of payment? Even if no money changes hand.
You're quite right that the form of payment is irrelevant, and what the payment is for is what's important.
If everybody gets the same home, utilities, food, clothing and other essentials then that payment is simply for existing, rather than for any work that might be done. It's the baseline, the amount that everyone gets whether they work 12 hours a day 7 days a week or never work at all. It follows that any work done under such a system is unrewarded, and thus all work is unpaid. The fundamental problem with such a system should be evident.
This obviously only applies to systems in which everyone is given the same access to resources with no (legal) ability to get more. A system that, say, provides a minimum income to all but allows people to earn as much on top of that minimum as they want/are able wouldn't necessarily have the same problem. But that's why I specified "extreme forms".
It does not appear to be about "capitalism versus socialism", and it is not just about the pay workers get. Discussed is the "true price initiative" where consumers will pay actual costs for things: these are the things economists call "externals" or some such: things they leave out of their economic analysis.
Some examples might be the cost of the fuel to send, say an apple to the store, the impact of the farming on the climate, that the store workers need to have paid sick leave. This reminds me of "natural capitalism" which has the same concepts aimed at the environmental costs. We've discussed factoring into costs the costs of pollution. Thus: you pay for car fuel, but also must pay to discharge carbon dioxide out the tailpipe, the embodied cost of the manufacturing of the car in terms of coal to make the steel and oil pollutants costs for the plastics, in advance paying for the recycling costs for the car**. It is a socialist outcome but it is also about paying true costs.
** this one is interesting: for your car, you should pay the cost when you buy it, for the plastic, metal recycling, the cost to ship the electronics to Bangladesh where workers will cook the electronic parts on the beach to harvest rare metals, the pollutant costs of doing that and everything else, then the landfill (garbage dump) costs.
Do you have anything like this where you live? When I buy any drinkable liquid, there is a recycling deposit paid. For example a 750ml wine bottle I pay an extra 32¢ to buy it. I get 25¢ back if I return the bottle for recycling.
It's good enough for Star Trek.
Thus, this doughnut idea, how does it fit with a generous social welfare situation funded by specifically not paying the true costs of things re the environment?
No, you're thinking of capitalism. The corollary is that those who don't labour are the ones who get paid.
The other way of looking at it is that (most) people will freely choose to look after their relatives, but there’s no way they’ll make widgets in a factory unless they’re getting paid for it.
You need a way to convince people to do things they don’t want to do. Altruism or an appeal to their better nature will work for some, but not nearly enough. Appealing to their self-interest (by offering a reward - i.e. payment) is far more effective.
The problem is the assumption that everyone will want to work, rather than living a life of leisure.
The alternative problem, seen in many real-life extreme socialist societies, is the assumption that people must work or suffer imprisonment, exile or even death. There’s a word for that - slavery.
Yeah, right. Have you met humanity?
Star Trek is fiction. You can make any political system result in paradise if your writers can just ignore human nature.
I believe the usual summary of the required system is "fully automated luxury gay space communism".
Whereas the alternative to slaving away in a factory or office under capitalism is called "starving to death". So is imprisonment or exile better or worse than starvation? Where's my coin?
No, that's capitalism again. It's the reason you keep working, right? You've said often enough that you'd rather not have to, and yet here we are, in a capitalist society, where you're forced to work.
Your argument is so awful, it's not even wrong.
Capitalism also has the alternative of being rich enough to have the stuff you want/need without having to work for it. You only have to work if you’re unable to live independently, and even if you have to work now there’s always the possibility - however remote - of becoming rich enough to escape that situation in the future. That’s an important distinction. It permits hope.
The extreme forms of socialism to which I refer offer no such possibility of escape, no such hope.
Perhaps, but I’m only forced to work by my own desires and wants, not anyone else’s. If I chose to, I could quit my job and live on benefits for the rest of my life. Or rely on charity.
Nobody else could stop me. It’s only the fact that I don’t want to live like that that stops me. I’m working because I want to, because I want the pay and the standard of living it provides, not because anyone else is forcing me to do it.
You may not see that as an important distinction. I do.
So does playing the lottery. It's a way to keep the masses down.
Yes. Hope is important, that’s why the lottery is so popular.
The great lie of socialism is that the masses would be any higher under it. Impossible post-scarcity fantasy versions notwithstanding, of course.
No, no you couldn't. You either: don't have a clue as to how the benefits system works, or: this is just performative and I'm calling bullshit.
No, what I see is someone who hates work but loves shiny things. You make a good capitalist wage-slave because you unquestioningly buy into the whole system, and you're desperate to justify that to people who don't.
Does it have to be a quality home?
If you look at the most primitive societies, the labour of the people provided a home (of sorts, but a home), food, and what was used as clothing. There was just no money, it was irrelevant.
I was going to clarify the “shiny things” part, but you know what? I can’t be arsed. I’m just going to own that description. Well summarised.
So that being said, is it any wonder that I dislike a political system that says “no shiny things, just lots of work”?
This is a great load of whataboutery hooey.
I think a realistic economic system should recognise that that describes most people ...
In the context of the doughnut, housing is in there within the layer between the social foundation (which is what I'd class as the poverty level of sub-standard housing) and ecological ceiling (palatial quality housing).
Yep.
That clarifies what I thought was not addressed in your first post. I am only speaking of past governments in my own State, whose aim seemed to be little better than 4 walls, a roof and a floor.
You're just describing capitalism again. You can't help yourself!
Most people in capitalist economies do lots of work and still have no shiny things to show for it. Your system is broken. Fatally.
Well that's just not true.
And even if it was, a system where some people have shinies and everyone else has a chance (however small) to join them is better than a system where nobody can ever have them.
I think it's worse than that. Large numbers of people currently work hard but have little to show for it. Some people do work hard (or are highly skilled or in dangerous or essential work) and receive a good income, which is fair enough. Some are well paid and tell people that they work hard and are appropriately rewarded (wrongly deducing that others who earn less must be whiny, lazy scroungers).
We all agree that, for my specific problem, Jane was a much more useful person for me to have. Assuming that this difference between Jane and John is repeated across several more likely problems, it's clear that a week of Jane's time is worth more to me than six months of John.
So, in your ideal economic system of choice, how would Jane and John be rewarded for their efforts?
"Well, that's not just true".
Pfft.
And there's literally no point in you continually, deliberately and with malice, mischaracterising socialism the way you do. Literally no one believes you. Not even you.
Seems to me that people in general are quite happy to do things in exchange for personal satisfaction and the appreciation of others. If they've time and energy left over after meeting their own wants and needs (and those of the people they care most for). Including wants/needs for rest and recreation.
But the idea that you could run a whole society off voluntary work seems like a quantification error. Ask someone who works a 40hr week how many hours they'd choose to work (for personal satisfaction & the appreciation of others) if they won the lottery. Bet you the average answer's less than 40 hours per week...
I'm bad at this argument, because I would do my job (or at least most of it) without being paid, if I had some other source of funds. But I like my job.
I've had other jobs that I was only doing for the money, and I'd have no interest at all in doing them if I didn't have to. Like Russ, I suspect that most jobs fall in to this category.
I’ll give you “some”, but not “most”.
I’m interested to learn that equality of access to resources is not part of the aim of your brand of socialism. I’d thought it was fairly fundamental?
Perhaps on one of these threads you should set out exactly how your ideal political system would work? It’s rather tiring having to constantly aim at a moving target.
There are many others who would do the same. Just not enough of you to run a functional society.
I'm interested in how you got from what you said to what I said to what you said.
You said that no one under socialism would get any shiny stuff. I challenged that as being not even wrong. You repeated it. Now you're telling me what I think in order to accuse me of inconsistency.
I would certainly argue that there should be a minimum access to resources for everyone. I would go further and argue there should be a maximum too. No one gets to be a billionaire without doing some incredibly sketchy stuff, and high incremental taxes, a proper social safety net, and a decent minimum wage will redistribute wealth back to those who create it.