Dario Ruggiero was provocative in his blog in this link – http://www.lteconomy.it/blog/2020/02/17/the-nonsense-of-short-termism/#comment-316.
i will try to response with some measure of provocation as well.
while i do agree with the gist of the messages, i am not sure i can accept the forms mentioned especially when i try to pull the thoughts of the 3 articles together
ECONOMIC EXPANSIONISM – can economies grow without making money being made somewhere? the issue is not about making money but the problems lie with how they are made with regards to sustainability and honesty and how they are shared benevolently and fairly to bring about a more equitable society. but then how do one define fairness? is there fairness in limiting what an entrepreneur can make and then try to equalise their wealth and earning with others in their society? is it fair to restrict individual rights to make more money than those who do not have that capability? is it fair to give higher regards to the majority rights over individual rights? or should the needs of the majority take precedence over those of the individuals? how do we achieve this in modern societies, especially in the western democratic world, that uphold the notion of individual rights over the majority? where do we draw the line?
how do we handle this in a world with declining moral values. this decline in values has eroded the sense of fairness. what is fair to one party will be unfair to another. what are the guiding principles as there is no measures that can just for all. how do one determine which is the lesser of two evils?
harvey-scholes mentioned airports but as a broader issue, there is nothing wrong in building infrastructures that support sustained economic growth. many economies suffer because of the lack of modern infrastructures. the dramatic economic growth of China is build upon developing the necessary infrastructure, starting from schools to commuting highways. there are developed countries facing slow growth because of the lack of good infrastructures to support economic activities at the detriment of productivity.
admittedly i have to submit that they did it with detrimental costs to the environment. but read this – https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/09/china-leading-sustainable-development/ they are doing something. whether they doing enough is a different issue but then their effort is laudable in comparison to some western developed countries. one president even claimed that climate change is a hoax! read this https://time.com/5622374/donald-trump-climate-change-hoax-event/
my point is this we need to impress on the need to practise good hygienic practice – to put it crudely we must flush the toilet after use. we needs to clean up the mess
PEOPLE FIRST APPROACH – this is a very laudable endeavour. in highly sectorised or fragmented societies, who are the people? targeted groups or the whole of humanity? if the whole of society, is it fair to ask those who prefer meat to eat vegan? despite all the claims, a vegan diet is not necessarily environmental friendly – pl read this https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200211-why-the-vegan-diet-is-not-always-green
should we listen to sound bites or follow the facts?
OLD VS NEW – i am getting tired of repeating this – we should not throw out the baby with the bath water! we should not throw out what is old just because they appear dated. if one read the works of ancient philosophers, especially the chinese sages, one can see the jewels in their old way of thinking. they have clearer thoughts than modern because they do not have to content with the TMI syndrome – TOO MUCH INFO. their thoughts centred on bringing about the better 3Ps – prosperity, planets and people.
in fact it is modern thinking that is fault when we have gone from systemic thinking to reductionistic thinking. the world is not linear based on the binary yes/no logic but it is in reality multidimensional. long term thinking will be futile without learning how to handle a fast changing dynamic VUCA world.
we need to look a fresh look at the world. Chinese expounded the wisdom to look at the substance of the issue not its forms,to look at events in isolation but as a chain through time. this approach will give us an understanding on the dynamics of change going through the systems.
to bring about the necessary changes in LTE we do need future thinking based on a holistic systemic approach. this will bring entirely different approaches which will be more strategic and effective than many of the approaches out there