On a weekend where The Green Party laid out its vision for NZ, I came across an article in the “Weekend” magazine section of the Press about junk food, schools and kids eating poorly. The article, by Paul Christensen (I’ll try and get a link to it), reports on concerns about child obesity and how some schools are taking action by growing and cooking their own food.

As Russel Norman noted in his address to the Green Party,

“There are 20,000 New Zealand children going to school each day without food, or shoes or raincoats”

This is a major issue facing NZ. Poor health and nutrition impacts hugely on the ability to learn and on general outcomes in life. As Jamie Oliver has shown with his Food Revolution, starting early in schools can change behaviour before it becomes embedded and beyond repair. The Sustainable Kids Programme has been a real winner so far but we need more of this. Sadly the National Party over turned a previous policy on health eating in schools. It’s these types of programmes that are being slowly squeezed in the name of cutting spending. This is the classic mistake many governments make when trying to cut costs….they don’t realise that this ends up costing us all more in the long run.

We should be investing hugely in our children. In an employment constrained world, in an outsourced world, in a world of highly competitive manufacturing, we need our people to be as well as possible. They are our future. If we are going to develop a hi-tech, productive and efficient economic system then we need smart kids with good habits and a good understanding of how systems work. Food and nutrition is a perfect example of where this kind of learning can come from. If you ever seen the faces on children who have grown their own food and then cooked and eaten it then you will know what I am talking about.

We are in severe need of new jobs. Well here is a start: get every school a food and nutrition specialist, with a garden alongside. Make it a core part of the curriculum. It’s as important as P.E. (if not more important according to research). I would love to see all schools with a canteen, cooking and supplying a healthy lunchtime meal. For some children this may be the most important meal of the day. Now imagine how many jobs that could generate (with 2000 primary and secondary schools in the country).

The main argument against this approach has been of interfering in what should be a parental responsibility and also taking away to choice to eat crap, unhealthy food. Well my response to that would be to argue that schools have the advantage of scale: they can teach many kids at once. Scale is the pathway to efficiency. The most efficient way to get healthy eating into our society is through our schools and our children. They children will then take that back home and slowly change will take place.

It’s this type of vision that we need to see. Hopefully the Green Party will be the ones to bring it to the Parliamentary table.

Thank you to Jason for alerting me to the new Zeitgeist movie: Moving Forward  (ZMF) which was showing in odd spots around the world recently. It’s now available online and is highly recommended (if not compulsory viewing). I would advise you to see Zeitgeist Addendum (ZA) first (I have posted that up in a previous blog) as that is more focused on the monetary aspects of our societal dysfunction. So here’s the promised review of the film.

The film follows the theme of the previous two movies, namely the issue of debt slavery and the monetary system that underpins it as well as the Venus Project (TVP) which envisions a different societal structure. What is different to ZA is the structure of the film: it splits into four parts: human nature, the market, inequality and the resource based economy. This gives the film, and ultimately the proposition, more depth and more connection for viewers. I know some people still grapple with the explanation of the money system (though my 16 year old son saw the logical answer as quite obvious: why doesn’t the government create the money. doh!) so a look at our innate and determined nature helps to provide some context to the discussion.

Why do we behave the way we do? Does poverty, racism, inequality drive our behaviours? Is our society sick from its institutions and structures? Why does the monetary-market structure treat the well-being of society as irrelevant. Going back to Locke and Smith we see that racism and inequality within the market system was well anticipated. The drive to individual success at all cost (especially social and environmental) was paramount as a system based on cyclical consumption and demand for product was created.

The film posits, quite correctly, that we are stuck on a spin cycle of consuming to be happy even though we must work like slaves to be in this position, that slavery defined by the debt we must accrue in order to enjoy the products paraded before us. That the production process is almost anti-economy, building in obsolescence and focusing on the short term simply puts my pressure on both resources and available money. In essence product sustainability is inverse to economic growth. Yet politicians keep saying they will speed up economic growth. They never say we will build a more healthy society. Perhaps that is because they have swallowed too many blue pills.

So if efficiency, sustainability and preservation are enemies of the current economic system the we have a problem. Crime, war, terror are positives for the economy. Does any of this make sense? Certainly it feels like the US has been gutted by the corporatocracy and inequality is at an all time high. ZMF draws a picture showing how our monetary-market system and socio-economic structure has raised inequality to never before seen levels. The rise of the super-elite is complete.

So far so good. I don’t disagree with anything in this film. In fact I’ve been aware of it for many years now….so whilst I appreciate the diligent work that Peter Joseph has done on these films, what do we do about it? The answer, as alluded to in ZA, is The Venus Project. TVP lays out a move to a resource based economy with no institutions, laws, money and a world based on abundance for all based around the very smartest of technology. Think of it as a techno-utopia. It’s certainly visionary and I leave it to the individual viewer to imagine it and see for themselves. It’s certainly not unachievable.

My main question would be “how do we get there?” This isn’t dealt with in the film but the general suggestion is to somehow opt out of the current system and to move to a more localized and transition based economy. This is all good stuff but the most important message of the film for me is still that we must take back control of our money supply and issue it interest free.

That is the first and most important step on the road to a people centered world.

Today John Key revealed the policy what we have all been waiting for: privatisation or, in his words, partial asset sales. Let me be clear that I am not against privatisation as a whole but certainly I am very concerned about the sale of key and core infrastructure assets. I also noticed how John trotted out the “TINA” message: there is no alternative otherwise S+P will downgrade us. Expect to hear this being repeated as some kind of mantra…..otherwise saying we are dependent on the opinion of the same guys who rated dodgy Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs) as AAA.

There are some key human requirements for any society. We are lucky to be blessed by all of them: plentiful water, energy generation and food production. Any decent society with these assets should be able to provide them to all people at the lowest possible cost. Why? Because it can.

We are already well into a fight over NZ’s water assets and consumers are paying through the nose for basic food items especially dairy in which we are global leaders. Energy is also costing us more and more each year as the dysfunctional electricity market continues to fail.

Contact Energy has already been sold off to foreign investors with Australian energy company Origin owning 51%. Expect more pain in the pricing policy we have witnessed since this company was first floated. I have never understood the need for energy generation (water is even more inexplicable) to be a competitive process between private companies. Deregulation has not delivered cheaper prices and yet more privatisation is on the cards.

The deregulation of the 80s made was driven by a desire for greater efficiency and more dynamic management as well as the demand from financiers for new investment prospects. But change could have been brought about in different ways such as simply instituting new management, guidelines etc. It would be very possible to run a state owned company focused on providing electricity, in all forms, with the sole focus of the customer.

So instead of selling off more energy assets we should be thinking about changing the model. I favour looking at some form of  quota based allocation which comes at the cheapest possible price (a break-even number) with market pricing on top of that. These quotas could be traded (as in DTQs 0r Domestic Tradable Quotas) as part of a generalised carbon trading scheme. But the important issue is that energy is a basic human need and in New Zealand this can and should be provided at the cheapest possible cost. I do not believe, and have seen no evidence, that the current system delivers this.

We should also address the silly argument about “mum and dad” investors. Please no more of this patronising label. Lots of people are investors, not just these mythical and no doubt unsophisticated “mums and dads”. But let’s point out the very obvious hole in this argument. We already own these companies, yes us taxpayers, mums, dads and bubs…we own it already so why do we need to re-buy into it? plenty of money for the investment banks involved in the float (they have been pushing this for ages). More importantly there will be losers: low income people who simply could not afford to buy into the share bonanza….it’s just another process for transferring wealth from low to high income earners. This will look great for some but ultimately we all lose in the end and inequality is further increased.

Privatisation is only going to make things worse. It’s time to put people before profit.

Sorry John, there is an alternative.

Greetings earthlings……i was wondering how to kick off 2011 but was a bit stumped. I mean what’s new? Same old, same old. So i had a look back at my first post of 2010 and figured I’d say the same thing again but maybe add some colour this time. So here was my conclusion a year ago:

“When I look back over the last decade and forward to the next, it seems as if the same themes will recur:

- Financialisation of Economies: Can we remove the yoke of derivative financial instruments from the real economy?

- Technology: Will social media enable the development of a networked based economy?

- Global Politics: Can we move to a multi-polar world without the necessity of the United Nations as a de facto world government?

- Climate change: How do we manage the change in our climate and the resulting shifts in population and its attendant baggage?”

So we saw the Fed continue to print new money and hand it to the banks so they could pay out decent bonuses again. All that new cash managed to pump up the stock markets to new highs and generate hot money flows into commodities and emerging markets thus creating quite nicely the set up for new bubbles. What could the Fed have done? Just directly credited the bank accounts of every citizen thus boosting bank deposits and giving people money to actually spend into the economy or pay down debt.

Oh well, maybe next time.

2010 has seen China flex its international muscles and appear more focused on international relations. And of course Vladimir Putin has been flexing his too but that’s more for Russian domestic consumption. But clearly there’s been an acknowledged shift in influence with the BRIC countries all putting their hands up. Europe has been a huge mess with Auntie Angela having to clear up after the  big party. 2011 will see more shifts as power moves from the USA and spreads all over the globe. I guess it doesn’t help when you national debt is $14trln and rising (great site by the way). How this all plays out will be very interesting but I imagine we will see another crisis within the US insurance market and more derivative catastrophes. There will be huge write offs and if someone owes you a lot of money you may be collecting thin air…..that’s the problem with land…you can’t take it away.

And 2010 was officially rather hot. Well tied with 2005 and 1998. Weather was quite unpleasant all around and the severe flooding in Pakistan, China and now Australia and Brazil. Don’t mention the big freeze in the US and Europe. There’s no answer to this really. Either we bite the bullet now and take action or we’ll just have to adapt and buy a Sealegs amphibious boat (dec: I am a shareholder in Sealegs).

So I think really it’s more of the same for 2011. It’s going to be a year of adjustment before the big one in 2012. We have an election here in NZ in November which might be interesting if we can get financial reform into the debate. Maybe all the politicians should have to watch this film and then discuss (more on this in my next post). Buckle up!