Sometimes a new message can't be heard or a new idea understood because compelling reasons for change are not apparent enough. If the old ways of doing things still bring enough money into bank accounts, keep cars filled with gas, roofs over heads, lights on with the flip of a switch, and plates heaped with food, then why bother doing anything differently?

But with Thomas Friedman, popular promoter of globalization, questioning the prevailing economic paradigm and reports that India is doing better than other countries because it is less connected to the global market and has a strong locally-oriented agrarian economy, I thought this essay written nearly a couple of years ago could finally resonate.

What do readers think? Are you finding that resistance is weakening when you try to bring up subjects that were formally considered wacky? Is disillusionment an opportunity? Will everybody now hang on my words because I have basically made some great calls over the past few years, as in: "Get out of the stock market because it is a bubble," "Energy and food prices are soon going to skyrocket," and "Don't permit that new suburban subdivision because you will have trouble selling new homes soon?"

Introduction

Here are a few of my predictions: Many trends of the last century or more, made possible by cheap and abundant energy sources, are going to be reversed. These trends include population growth, centralization of political and economic power, vastly increased quantity of global trade, and mass tourism.

I thought this evening's Campfire post might connect well to Gail's article this morning. If the financial system is at a risk of collapse, and if so many of our basic goods depend on the financial system, then what, if anything can we do to be more resilient to economic shocks? Below the fold is a description of a project I am working on that may provide some answers.

Image 1. Front and back sides of a Mendo Credits slip. Our first printing of Mendo Credits was for 600 notes sold at $10 each. Proceeds from the sale of Mendo Credits allows us to purchase 8000 pounds of grains and dry beans. Mendo Credits are 100% backed by specific quantities of pinto beans, triticale, and white and brown rice.

As a kid did you ever fantasize about Monopoly game money becoming real? I know I did. Perhaps that’s why I left the printer shop the other day with a sense of bemusement. I had just designed and printed $6000 of money called Mendo Credits. I felt confident that people would accept it, and I also proudly considered that Ben Bernanke doesn’t make money as good as this.

Now before you call the Treasury Department to report me, listen to my story. It may sound funny, but the reality of money is deadly serious. This is perfectly legal and I want you to play copy cat.

As the world slowly awakens to the concept that all wealth perhaps can't be measured by digits in the bank, the global economic and political elite have been meeting to potentially form a "new Bretton Woods," kick started by global guarantees of banking deposits, direct government investment in banks, and global rate cuts. Though the markets have so far reacted with glee (or short covering), pumping fiat money into the system with no biophysical linkage to the real economy has (at least) two major problems. First, it accelerates the growing gap between financial capital and real capital, and second, it tacitly acknowledges our current "ends" as acceptable, and that all forms of capital can and should continue to be directed towards the positional consumption of "stuff" that our culture currently advocates (perhaps via momentum alone). In crisis times such as these, our leaders would do well to recognize that the human economy is a subset of a larger, finite system, and is subject to the natural laws forthwith. Furthermore, a plethora of new economic, psycholgic, and neuroscience research also suggests that "more" does not equate with "better".

Below the fold is a guest commentary explaining these themes written by my thesis co-advisor, Robert Costanza, director of the Gund Institute for Ecological Economics at the University of Vermont.

On theoildrum.com, we discuss the particulars of our energy supply/consumption situation. Less frequently do we have content outlining potential macro solutions that may be necessary to mitigate problems facing human systems. This is such a post - adapted from a paper from last week's Sustainable Development Commission written by Herman Daly, who popularized the term "Steady State Economy" over 3 decades ago. While it doesn't discuss energy per se, it does get at the heart of how we value and use energy - for growth - and the systems underlying this growth.

It is doubtful we can adequately inform energy policy without addressing the linkages between equity, the environment, finance, and our end goals. I post this on theoildrum not only because Herman is one of my tribal elders but because his eloquence, courage and foresight on these issues have historically been, and continue to be, ahead of the curve. During his resignation speech from the World Bank, Herman recommended the Bank take "a few antacids and laxatives to cure the combination of managerial flatulence and organizational constipation giving rise to such a high-pressure internal environment." To improve interactions with the external world he prescribed "new eyeglasses and a hearing aid."

Nearly 15 years later, here is Professor Daly's current synopsis of the state of economics and his prescriptions for change.