I’m reading the thing, and I do think there is something to be said for democratizing monetary policy, but this article is caught up in a lot of vague language “real justice,” (whose defintion of real? of justice?) without proposing exactly what a truly democratic money supply. Monetary supply is something I’d like to learn more about — but what this proposes isn’t democracy, if people aren’t making choices for themselves within it. So far all of the writing is quite vague “we’d do a thing, and then all of this would be taken care of.” There’s a link in there missing, and I don’t see yet at all how it necessarily helps us stave off climate catastrophe…? Would love to hear your thoughts on that, Stephen!
Far more importantly, it doesn’t once (so far in my reading of it) get to the point that we in developed countries grossly over-consume relative to the planet’s resources. We cannot have a future if we don’t shrink our economies (that is, our extraction of resources) substantially. What I’m positing in this essay is that, rather than shrink our economies by virtue of trying to save the world, a mentality shift can arise from embracing a potential Doom scenario that would effectively mimic the process of degrowth if we truly gave up hope of a future. Hope for our survival could lead to fear, hoarding, erecting “fortresses” around ourselves, and increasing the now-pervasive threat of fascist/authoritarian rule. But if there were no tomorrow? These constructed systems of value that are pervasive in our society would crumble. We’d focus on what actually matters to humans — connection, community, nature, family, love, good living. Accumulating wealth would be pointless. Accumulating status would be pointless. It would catalyze the very culture, mentality and consumption shift needed.
Last, “democratic capitalism” is a misnomer. By its very nature, capitalism requires ownership of the means of production that is separate from those who work the means of production. Democratic enterprise == worker’s cooperative. Capitalism is authoritarian. You can still have non-state ownership of resources without control of those resources being private (it can be collective) and here we get to commons transition.
Last.. as you say, you’re 66. You’ve lived your life. So, why aren’t you using every ounce of energy and time you have building genuine solutions instead of waiting for us younger folks to do more? Maybe you are, but from your comments, I find that ethos of passing the buck onto a younger generation highly immature.