When pollution or environmental disasters are reported or when depletion of resources is reported, an efficient and fair policy of charging fees to industries that pollute or deplete resources in pursuit of profit should also be mentioned.
When poverty or wealth disparity are reported, a moral precept that says natural wealth belongs to all should be mentioned. Sharing proceeds from environmental impact fees is a possible solution to the problem of poverty and wealth disparity.
When (if) we account for economic externalities, industries that cause the most ecological damage will either shrink, transform themselves into something more benign, or disappear. When we share proceeds from environmental impact fees to all people, no one will live in poverty. Why are solutions to systemic problems not mentioned when the symptoms of those problems are reported? Systemic problems include economic externalities and our failure to share natural wealth.
When economic instability and contentious arguments about interest rate adjustments are in the news, the stabilizing effect of sharing natural wealth should be mentioned in those news reports. If we manage environmental impacts by charging fees to industries that pollute or deplete resources, we will notice that fees increase when the economy is in an expansive mode (assuming that we are aiming for fees that are set just high enough to hold impacts within limits acceptable to most people). When the economy expands, there will be more demand for pollution permits, etc., so the fees would necessarily increase. This would put an automatic damper on further expansion. There will be no need, then, to manipulate the money supply to curtail economic activity. Sharing natural wealth produces a dynamically-stable economic system. Fees, set at the appropriate amount, will promote sustainability over the long term by motivating industry to reduce impacts on the environment.
The tendency for an expanding economy to be held in check when natural resource extraction fees respond to economic conditions is complimented by the tendency of a slowing economy to bring a gradual reduction in the amount of the natural wealth stipend. A gradual loss of stipend income would motivate some of the people 'sitting on the sidelines' to seek employment opportunities. Millions of people entering the job market or seeking to increase working hours will make business expansion easier precisely when economic conditions call for expansion. These feedback mechanisms are analogous to the physiological mechanisms that keep conditions within biological organisms at a dynamic steady-state.
A natural wealth stipend paid to all citizens will sustain economic activity that provides basic goods and services, regardless of economic climate. The natural wealth stipend enjoyed by all will be enough to live on, in the view of some people. [A comprehensive estimate put the value of natural wealth at about $45 per day for each person. (Nature, 2014)]
Some citizens in a society that respects public and private property rights will choose to work few or no hours for wages and instead will aim to live frugally and within the limits of their natural wealth stipend. With this alternative paradigm, if the economy is slowing, the amount of the stipend will decrease over time, as lower environmental impact fees associated with a slowing economy reduce the funds that are the basis of the stipend. More people seeking opportunities to earn a wage, and lower environmental impact fees, create a counter-cyclical influence on the pace of economic activity. There will be no need to inject new money into circulation with low or zero interest rate loans as a form of economic stimulus. Downturns will simply not get to such a degree of severity, and will not imperil essential economic function, in a society that fairly shares (a monetary representation of) natural wealth and accounts for externalities. With a natural wealth stipend going to all people, the essential functions of the economy will be insulated from the worst vicissitudes of the business 'cycle'. People will continue to spend money on food. They will continue to support the food- and shelter-producing capacities of the economy. People will continue to spend in support of basic needs, even during economic downturns.
News reports should mention shared (equal) ownership of natural wealth when problems that could be solved by equal ownership of that wealth are reported. You should mention efficient and fair means of accounting for economic externalities when you report problems caused by externalities. ("Externalities" a.k.a. "market failure" or "tragedy of the commons".)
When there are two serious problems that seem unrelated, but they can both be solved by a single policy, we might take that as a hint that the problems are related. You should report policies that offer systemic solutions when you report symptoms of systemic problems. (Charge fees to those who cause adverse impact on the environment; Give fee proceeds to all.)
John Champagne
Civilization can be made sustainable and just
Systemic flaws are not reported
A sustainable and just civilization requires that we use our moral sense
Systemic flaws are not reported
