Chrematistics is the art of maximizing the accumulation by individuals of abstract exchange value in the form of money in the short run. Although our word “economics” is derived from oikonomia, its present meaning is much closer to chrematistics. The word chrematistics is currently relegated to unabridged dictionaries, but the reality to which it refers is everywhere present and is frequently and incorrectly called economics. 

The three decades following the Second World War saw a period of economic growth that was shared across the income distribution, but inequality in taxable income has increased substantially over the last four decades. This report seeks to quantify the scale of income gap created by rising inequality compared to a counterfactual in which growth was shared more broadly. We document the cumulative effect of four decades of income growth below the growth of per capita gross national income and estimate that aggregate income for the population below the 90th percentile over this time period would have been $2.5 trillion (67 percent) higher in 2018 had income growth since 1975 remained as equitable as it was in the first two post-War decades. From 1975 to 2018, the difference between the aggregate taxable income for those below the 90th percentile and the equitable growth counterfactual totals $47 trillion.

Called “How Big Utilities Are Impeding Clean Energy, and What We Can Do About It,” the report from the Institute for Local Self-Reliance does more than explore how corporate concentration in the energy and electricity sectors is a serious problem that impacts nearly all Americans and contributes to a range of economic and environmental burdens — it also explains how we got here, and how we can address the problem. It lays out three key principles that could stop the power grab of electric utilities and help build a cleaner, more efficient, and affordable electricity system. 

The defining characteristic of institutional and ecological economics is interdependence: everything causally interrelates with no bound to resulting effects. Every act ripples out through social and physical space onto all living creatures, whether we know it or not. ‘Time, Space, and Nature’ are ‘seamless wholes’ without ‘joints’ for a ‘carver’ … . The whole System moves in concert: dynamic, chaotic, complexly unfolding in patterns seemingly of its own making, combining components in new ways selectively understood by us. ‘The new biological conception … the organismic epistemology … is a belated recognition of the existence of novelty by combination’ that ‘contributes something that is not deducible from the properties of the individual components’.

“Neoliberalism’s emphasis on free-market absolutism has outlived its usefulness, as evidenced by the fact that it’s worsening some of our biggest problems, like skyrocketing wealth inequality and the unfolding climate crisis. But addressing problems like these requires more than one-off policy ideas, activist pressure, and incremental change. We need a new way of thinking about policy, law, and the proper role of government to shift the underlying terms of debate and open up space for solutions that neoliberalism is currently choking off,” Hewlett Foundation President Larry Kramer said.”

The capitalist system, dependent on a logic of never-ending growth from its earliest inception, confronted the plenty it created in its home states, especially the United States, as a threat to its very existence. It would not do if people were content because they felt they had enough. However over the course of the 20th century, capitalism preserved its momentum by molding the ordinary person into a consumer with an unquenchable thirst for more stuff. The prospect of ever-extendable consumer desire, characterized as “progress,” promised a new way forward for modern manufacture, a means to perpetuate economic growth. Progress was about the endless replacement of old needs with new, old products with new. The commodification of reality and the manufacture of demand have had serious implications for the construction of human beings in the late 20th century.

The circular economy has become, for many governments, institutions, companies, and environmental organisations, one of the main components of a plan to lower carbon emissions. The circular economy – the newest magical word in the sustainable development vocabulary – promises economic growth without destruction or waste. However, the concept only focuses on a small part of total resource use and does not take into account the laws of thermodynamics. Several scientific studies describe the concept as an “idealized vision”, a “mix of various ideas from different domains”, or a “vague idea based on pseudo-scientific concepts.” A more responsible use of resources is of course an excellent idea. But to achieve that, recycling and re-use alone aren’t enough. Since 71% of all resources cannot be recycled or re-used (44% of which are energy sources and 27% of which are added to existing stocks), you can only really get better numbers by reducing total use.

What do you see when you peek behind the curtains of neoliberal capitalism? Well, you see a mythological character. An apparition that haunts our collective consciousness. A specter that permeates our institutions and that has epistemologically imprisoned us: Homo Economicus. The term Homo Economicus, or economic man, is a core principle in mainstream economic thinking. It’s a portrayal of humans as being inherently rational, greedy, and self-interested. The Upstream Podcast’s producers first got interested in the idea of Homo Economicus when they started noticing a consistent barrier that many people have with the possibility of imagining a more just, solidaristic, and sustainable economic future, stems from their assumptions about human nature.

One way to speak about solidarity is to call it the social glue, or the cement of the society. This refers to the types of social bonds that cannot be traced back to coercive
power or self-interest. An essential question for societal solidarity is how various goods are distributed. In this discourse the most central topics are income distribution, social services, and taxation: for example, in the Nordic welfare states the high level of taxation and social services is justified through solidarity. So instead of societal income distribution being based on voluntary charity, the right of each individual to basic income and tolerable living conditions has been institutionalized.