The Daily Gregg  

Green economics is a topic I am studying, and will continue to study for some time to come.  I don't plan to get a degree, and I don't expect that I will ever become an expert in anyone's eyes, but I do intend to push my ideas of what a Green economy will look like.

A discussion on Green economics developed from a message I posted about which economists Cynthia McKinney said she looked to for her perspectives on the economy.  Many Greens seem to believe that the choices are government control or corporate control.  I believe this is a very narrow way to look at an economy.

To do this successfully I will have to come back to this question many times over the next few months.  

I'll begin by discussing Garrett Hardin.  Hardin proposed what he called the  "Tragedy of the Commons.  The basic idea was, something held in common, like a field where sheep might graze, will be overused until it can no longer sustain it's purpose if people are allowed to use it without limits. 

Say the field can handle 100 sheep and yield the best outcome.  The grass has enough time to renew itself, the water is able to sustain that number of sheep, and the waste is little enough that nature itself can dispose of that by-product alone.  With ten shepherds that works out to ten each.

Now, so long as no one is restrained by an outside force, the incentive to each shepherd is there to go beyond the limits of the field by adding more sheep.  If the total rises from 100 to 101, the system does not collapse, and the shepherd with 11 sheep is a bit better off then the other nine, then others may look at the situation and conclude that they too must add to their flock.  The system may not collapse at 110 sheep, or even at 200 sheep, but eventually the system does collapse, leaving all the shepherds without a place to raise their sheep.

The two basic ideas presented by most economists faced with this dilemma are, make the commons into private property so the land owner can keep it from over grazing, or allow for regulations which will limit the number of sheep each may own.  I believe there must be at least a third way, a Green way, to protect the commons.  I intend to find that way, and perhaps many others, as I look into Green economics.  I hope you'll be listening.  And please, make a comment or two to help me learn as I go along.

When the people of the United States went into revolt against the British government, we had not yet organized into a true nation.  It wasn't until after the end of the revolutionary war, and after the nation had failed to prosper under the Articles of Confederation, that the military, political and financial leadership gathered to create a new Constitution for the nation.

That Constitution was created with as much wiggle room as possible.  The framers of the Constitution did this, I assume, in part to provide for gradual change as times changed.  The document has served the nation well as the people expanded across mountain, prairie, river and mountains again until the entire continent had been covered.

But, serving the nation well does not mean it has served the people well.  From the First Americans, to enslaved Africans to women, the Constitution either did not see, did not care, or actively oppressed some of the new nation's citizens to benefit others.

To this day the Constitution is interpreted to give rights to corporations, as if they were human beings instead of legal phantasms created by the rich, for the rich.  The Constitution has been twisted to allow the United States to torture, maim, and perhaps torture to death, prisoners held as part of an international war.  The Constitution has been used not to defend the innocent or protect the commons, but to persecute the innocent along with the guilty and to allow private interests to use and abuse the commons as if they were private property.

Let's remember that the Constitution is a tool we use to shield the people from the corporations and excesses of extraordinarily powerful people.  It is not supposed to be a cruel yoke to put over the shoulders of working people, and it cannot be used to grow the power of the already too powerful.

While Democrats and Republicans sing the praises of Constitutional Law, they have ignored it and twisted it to suit their needs with little protest from the "other" side.

Why start a new web project?

I intend to make this a daily Green and Gregg briefing.  To be sure all my cards are on the table so to speak, this daily piece is not authorized by or a part of any other Internet site.  I do write at www.GreenPartyWatch.org, as well as at Green Commons, American Chronicle, OpEdNews, my personal blog, Independent Political Report, so one could ask quite reasonably why I would start another site.

I believe that we Greens need people to articulate their perspectives as individuals in addition to representing the Green Party line, so to speak.  As has been noted many times, the decentralization value in the Green Party means, for many of us if not most, that state and local Green Parties are free to use the tool that is the Green Party in ways they see as best suited to their situation.  No state or local chapter would go out and make recruitment of youth for military service one of their goals, but if a group did do so the rules are flexible enough to allow for other Greens to set up another group that better represents Green Party values from their perspective.

So, here every day you should hear a two minute or less statement, and I'll post it here in text as well, since I know I must read something I have written in advance if I expect people to take the time to listen.

Obviously I will not be doing interviews, but I will continue to do that at Green Party Watch Radio.  I think that format works and the audience for GPW Radio will grow if this webcast is a success.

So, grab the text that you can use to make a button for my show at your site and help the program grow.  I believe we all will be better off if we get out there and spread our personal vision of a Green future.