Ann Davis

A Paradigm Shift

The world is has been in a paradigm shift for generation and of course Jesus and Moses brought a bought a paradigm shift. A paradigm shift is defined "a fundamental change in approach or underlying assumptions." The definition gives an examples with the statement "geophysical evidence supporting Wegener's theory led to a rapid paradigm shift in the earth sciences".

Alfred Wegener published a paper explaining that the continental landmasses were “drifting” across the Earth, sometimes plowing through oceans and into each other. Well, many of the assumption and fundamental approach of Ann Davis is drastically different than many people of the world that have gone before. But others of the past also had a similar approach and assumption which brought about undersigned consequences.

Ann E. Davis is an Associate Professor of Economics and desires to think the reasoning in her assumptions and approach are right. They are not right reasoning but will she be able to see her error? Will you be able to see her error?

She is not alone in her delusions.

The video

In the video shared here "Ann Davis" speaks as if she knows something about the topic of economics and the natural psychology of humanity. But apparently she may have no idea that her recommendations and viewpoint will lead to disaster and destruction.

Professor Davis regularly teaches Environmental Economics and International Economics and imagines she is wise in her own eyes and the eyes of all those people also imagine the same things.

Ann E. Davis back in 1978 was showing a bias between those who lived in her world and those who lived in a more urban environment. She "wrote that it is problematic for urban-born and trained mental health professionals to be responsive to the culture in a rural area. Compounded with the rural population's low rates of mental health literacy, it is clear to the authors that the existing community mental health service system is not meeting the needs of rural citizens"

In the video A Paradigm Shift Towards Ecological Restoration she states at the end of the video and at the beginning:

Wise people

"And so you have smart people, you have a resilient planet. That's where growth comes from, not from money itself, it comes from people and land."

But who gets to decide who those smart people are for many are wise in their own eyes only.

She then concludes that "the international institutions like the IMF, and the UN and the environmental program and WTO, they're all kind of specialized and fragmented." And she wants to take these "global institutions and we put them together with ecological knowledge." which appears to be the goal of the WEF bring in a new world order through the same institutions that have been instrumental in exploiting most of the third world for the last half century.

Ann Davis even goes so far to state that the "the investments and the credits are based on restoring people and the planet" but the record shows they have been doing the absolute opposite. The IMF, UN, and WTO are some of the most corrupt organizations in the world. The World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization are often referred to as the Bretton Woods Institutions.

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is "dedicated to one-world government" and funded by wealthy corporate entity to influence governments through education, media and applying pressure at all levels with little or no moral scruples.

Assume

She continues with fallacious logic saying that "mainstream economics has several assumptions which render climate change invisible."

The reason climate change is invisible is that the actual data, if you read it and examine all of it, does not show climate change is caused by human activity and none of the doomsday models that have been predicting radical climate temperature increases have actually followed the outcome which they have been predicting.

She even says that "One of them (those assumptions) is zero cost of disposal. So you can produce something and put it in a landfill with no impact."

No one in business nor in government sees the cost of disposal as zero. This is patently false assumption.

Also "mainstream economics" does not "assumes instantaneous equilibrium" nor does it say there involves "no time" which she again falsely states maybe so she can go on to say.

"Whereas accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere is time dependent. Mainstream economics also ignores history and so assumes markets are infinite and perfect and there is no need for any other solution."

In truth Mis Davis ignores history or is ignorant of it.

"Truth is never to be expected from authors whose understanding is warped with enthusiasm." John Dryden

Theorom of Coase

She goes on to say that, "Coase's theorem, which is brilliant."

She goes on to say that this Coase's theorem "allows people to negotiate, if I'm bothering you, I negotiate with you and you give me a payment so that I feel better."
"So whether it's secondhand smoke and you pay me so I can smoke. But then if you get secondhand cancer, is financial compensation sufficient?"
"And Coase also assumes zero cost of negotiation, good faith. The payments can go either way with no problem so there's no income constraint."
"It's brilliant because it recognizes externalities which are usually not recognized."
"It's an individual property owner solution."

While she does not seem to grasp the practicality of the Coase's theorem" she seems to only give it lip service so she can say:

"It doesn't address the systemic issues related to climate change."

Of course, she assumes there are or she knows what those "systemic issues related to climate change" actually exist.

Nordhaus eco nomics

She goes on to say, "So Nordhaus, who won the Nobel Prize for his work on climate change, calls it the very most difficult problem that economics is facing."

She goes on praising the William Dawbney Nordhaus saying, "And so he's like the leader, but he admits, in a way, that he doesn't have a solution. Climate change is a systemic problem which the existing framework essentially blocks out."

The real problem is he not only does not have the solution he has not identified the problem.

Dynamic Integrated Climate-Economy model, [DICE model], is a neoclassical integrated assessment model developed in 2018 by William Nordhaus that integrates in the neoclassical economics, carbon cycle, climate science, and estimated impacts.

Steve Keen, a research fellow at University College London stated:

“When it comes to climate the guy [Nordhaus] is an idiot: an idiot savant, but still fundamentally an idiot.”
"His models, it turns out, are fatally flawed, and a growing number of Nordhaus’s colleagues are repudiating his work. Joseph Stiglitz, former World Bank chief economist and professor of economics at Columbia University, told me recently that Nordhaus’s projections are “wildly wrong.” Stiglitz singled out as especially bizarre the idea that optimization of the world economy would occur at 3.5 C warming, which physical scientists say would produce global chaos and a kind of climate genocide in the poorest and most vulnerable nations."

Nordhaus published The Spirit of Green: The Economics of Collisions and Contagions in a Crowded World in which he advocates a global carbon tax. But according to David R. Henderson of the Hoover Institute Nordhaus arguments have "gotten worse".

"Nordhaus doesn’t seriously consider the arguments of global warming skeptics and instead calls them “deniers.” That response can only be evidence of Nordhaus being a science denier since real scientists argue evidence not simply name call.

There is no real conclusive evidence that whatever climate change may be occurring is actually Anthropocene.

If it is not man caused the models should have been more accurate but no one should resist having the debate or refuse to look at all the evidence no matter how much your department is offered or how much you fear backlash.

Shutting down the conversation with accusatory phrases like "climate skeptic" or "climate denier" is neither scientific nor wise.

This is especially true if 90% of your model data is based on correlation and not upon causation.

He also gives short shrift even to his own Dynamic Integrated Climate-Economy (DICE) model, a model whose bottom line is that too high a carbon tax can be more destructive than a zero carbon tax."

If a $40 per ton carbon tax produced revenues of $180 billion annually that would enrich governments but they are historically incompetent to manage money and the largest producers of carbon. There was a concerted effort to have a war in the Ukraine and little to no effort to avoid it. And war produces carbon at a rate almost no one is desiring to explore nor acknowledge.

Nordhause also does not acknowledge taxes reduce the incentive to invest which is an attack on "workers and consumers" and will hurt the poor the most, citing that it would "take a higher percent of income from low-income households than from high-income households."

Before people destroy economies with carbon tax models they need to continue the debate concerning the weather models that have continually failed. January 2012 Wall Street Journal op-ed titled “No Need to Panic About Global Warming,” quotes sixteen scientists wrote, “Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over ten years now.”

More science

Willie Soon on Climate Change

Astrophysicist Willie Soon, Ph.D. is the author of “The Maunder Minimum and the Variable Sun-Earth Connection” https://www.ceres-science.com/

This Man Has You Fooled About Fossil Fuels https://youtu.be/k7Q8cECbq9w

"The sun is warming the whole solar system."

The Climate Change Hoax, with Professor Willie Soon video.

John Stossel The Truth About Climate Change https://youtu.be/m3hHi4sylxE

The Climate Hustle https://youtu.be/ZBGCjqUdQJQ

Global warming: why you should not worry https://youtu.be/pwvVephTIHU

Miss Davis with no understanding of the problems the true state of human relationships says:

"And so I would refocus the framework on a holistic relationship of humans to the Earth."

Human relationships begin like humans within the family and the demise of the negative effects of extreme individualism must take place within the natural family. It is first the love and sacrifice of the family that tempers the selfishness of the individual.

The same is true of society. The artificial systems of legal charity through the politics of force and violence that robs society of the tempering of selfishness and greed within society through the love and charity of its voluntary institutions of care and aid. Take away those institutions of free assembly and you take away the soul of society.

----

Property and its purpose

"Property is one of those relationships."
"So economics is concerned with me and my property.
"So I have incentives to make the best use of my property to get the most income, but in fact, my property is affected by other people's property.
"So it's beyond nuisance, it's beyond externality, it's a systemic relationship."

She even states, "And I think with the Anthropocene, we've reached a point where human population is the dominant force of Earth systems and we can't do that on an individual basis."

She seems to complain that "mainstream economics assumes the individual" has God given rights.

And goes on to tell us more about what she "thinks" and that it is "a social collaborative systemic problem".

The means and manner of that collaboration will determine its outcome.

But Ann again ignores history and imagines "it's really beyond the reach" of the individual and because of her ignorance and bias thinks only governments which exercise authority can solve these problems.

China has such authority and is one of the greatest polluters in the world while much of America has been cleaned up because the actions of individuals coming together to use an uncorrupted court system to clean up pollution in America.

That "uncorrupted court" no longer exists and Ann has no clue why but neither do most people, bit Christ did, and said as much.

She then goes on to invoke the name of John Locke: "So Locke says, Okay, God created the Earth. We enjoy it in common as humans, but I can extract from the commons for my own survival. That ignores the fact how I use my property affects the survival of everyone else."

That is not what Lock says. While he does say "The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom." he also clearly states, “Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.”

Each of us, Locke argued, has “a property in” his or her person, and that property is inalienable, that is, it cannot be transferred to another.

Forest for the trees

She continues to rattle on with more false information saying, "And if we all cut down all the forests, which we're close to doing, the earth systems don't sustain any of us."

What she seems to be also ignorant of is that "overall, the U.S. has 8% of the total forests in the world and reached a point in 1997 where growth “exceeded harvest by 42%,” and we were growing forests at a rate of roughly four times faster than we were in 1920 "

Estimates in the past have been that there are less than a half a trillion trees on the planet but numbers are now believed to be in excess of 3 trillion and the statement that 15 billion trees are cut every year and only about 5 billion are re-planted is deceptive because trees reproduce themselves and do not always require replanting.

Many trees come back from the roots and cutting increases both their numbers and their health. Indian and aborigines burned off thousands of hectors of forest because trees reproduce like weeds, killing out all diversity as a climax species.

Ann is the enemy of the individual and therefore is an enemy of true diversity while claiming to be their ally.

Most of the clearing of forest that ecology has suffered has been where the IMF loaned money to build roads which indebted governments, funded corruption, caused inflation which impoverished the people make the elite wealthy and the working individuals desperately poor and yearning for financial recovery. In Brazil and many other countries this caused migration first to the cities and slums and then on the roads financed by the IMF to the rain forested areas of the Amazon just to survive. The only ones who profited were the international bankers and their corporations who bought off the corrupt people in the very institutions and governments Ann wants to impower at the expense of the people.

Most of the successful replanting has been done by true capitalist who see a value in trees. But the moral capitalist must see men as trees and care about them as mush as they do the trees.

Immoral and corrupt governments and courts will thwart the natural checks and balances of righteous capitalism.

Capitalism is not a political system. If you want capitalism you must bring you own morality which is what John Locke was talking about.

Rules and rulers

"And to have a solution, we need a collective set of rules that restore the ecology. To me, it's almost like a paradigm shift."

"... we understand that the sun doesn't revolve around the Earth, it's the reverse. The Earth revolves around the sun.

And now we have to, I think, have another significant shift that the Earth is not there for human enjoyment.

The Earth is fragile and humans need to protect the Earth for survival.

So it's no longer my own work as an individual feeds me.

It's that we as a human collective need to figure out new ways to relate to the Earth.

And I think we're close. I think our system science is already there.

We're just not listening. So instead of individual private property, "This is mine. And I reap the rewards of how I use it."

You know, in terms of food if I'm a farmer, in terms of financial if I'm an investor, individual property is no longer a foundational principle that's sustainable.

Needs to be collective property of various kinds.

There are examples of collective property like co-ops and co-housing and condominiums and parks and preserves and conservation areas and cities.

We have collective property, but we don't see it and we don't think that humans know how to use it.

"So like Garrett Harden would say, if it's collective we abuse it and it doesn't work."

In 1968, the term “tragedy of the commons” was used for the first time by Garret Hardin in Science Magazine. This theory explains individuals' tendency to make decisions based on their personal needs, regardless of the negative impact it may have on others.

I think we as humans are capable to communicate, to understand the problems, to address them, and to have new rules of use of land.

So I think new property relates to land.

We need different practices of land use

to understand how each parcel is part of a whole and what are these global systems that affect that parcel?

And how do I as as a person understand those global impacts and work with them, not against them.

So a few years ago, I participated in a project like, "Okay, what's your utopia?" And so, yes, it was fun to think about.

"And so I'm starting with the idea from Karl Polanyi and others that part of the reason people are desperate is they have to work to live,to get enough money to buy food and housing."

According to Polanyi, in a post-capitalist society – namely once the fictitious commodity nature of labor, land and money is abolished – social regulation will take the form of a democratic, participatory management of the production process, through the intervention of such institutions as the state, the trade unions, the cooperative, the factory, the township, the school, the church, etc. (Polanyi, 2000: 290-292).

Housing and food are conditional on wage labor.

And that makes us all a little desperate.

You know, we need to work to live.

Instead of having my home depend on my wage labor,

which is conditional on my employer and his profit,

I would start the other way and say, "Assume you have a home

and that you are in this home with other people

and you have rights to reside in this home

as long as you observe the ecological principles

that avoid damage to the extent possible

and that restore the landscape of that area."

And so, one thing is to reduce the contingency of my residents so that I can invest in it.

I can invest with my neighbors and we together can build a livable community.

So just to digress a little bit, real estate is now valued based on location. 6:56 The location is based on transportation, foods, parks, school districts.

And so the things that really give value to that individual house, that individual parcel, are public goods.

But we forget that and we say,

"Oh it's just the house and it's just the market, okay."

So I would internalize that and make a community aware of its ecology and work together to preserve it.

I've lived in Hudson Valley, New York for now some decades.

I grew up near a river and I live near a river.

And the watershed strikes me as a coherent concept.

People, I think, understand the watershed

like the river and the tributaries and the water cycle.

I think people learn in elementary school. 7:42 I don't think this is rocket science,

but I think it's fundamental to human understanding

of how we need to change the way we live. 7:51 I think watershed is an example

of a concept that is ubiquitous

and people need water to live.

And many times settlements were near rivers

for transportation and in irrigation.

And so I think people know where the water comes from.

And early settlements, like New York City and Los Angeles, went in search of the water 'cause they knew the city can't grow without it.

And so, given that we need water, we can design the boundaries.

The watershed is- the water flows towards the river from a certain height.

It's pretty, pretty fundamental.

You can take a hike in the Adirondacks and you can understand that people wanted to preserve the Adirondacks for water in New York City.

There's a connection.

And if you don't already understand it, I think it's pretty clear to learn about it and then to take pride in it to protect the water quantity and quality, as opposed to emergencies we're facing now with the Colorado River, with the Nile River.

So sometimes we have shortages of rivers and sometimes there's flood or sometimes there's melting ice caps, but water is a place that's very basic to begin to understand the interconnections.

The production is the basics.

People in the community work together, first, to protect the environment, second, to invest in each other, health and education, socialization.

So everybody has a job, which is to take care of everyone else.

And so the incentives could be developed within a community, within rules.

So the local part, I think, is pretty straightforward 'cause we already live in communities that are distinct from markets.

So we could say, "Okay, communities first, market is down the line."

But then looking at the global level, we say, "Oh, we all live in communities, we all live in watersheds, various types."

We need to understand the connection among them.

And so if they're at this fragile and if humans are now multitudinous, we need to take the fragility of the Earth as primary, as priority.

And then if we use resources like cutting down trees, we say, "Okay, what's the impact of that on the global system?"

If we have enough trees, if forests are regrowing, then okay, fine, cut them for wood and furniture and art projects and so on.

But if they're not, then you say, instead of cutting trees we need to plant more and we need to understand the global relationships of where we plant, what kind of trees we plant, to make the habitat and to have biodiversity so that then the whole system becomes more resilient.

And so I think the work of the humans residing in a given place depends on the ecology of that place.

And then, if you have surplus, you can trade it or you can travel or you can understand cuisines and art from different cultures.

But the first priority is restoration.

Well, I think the Climate Leviathan is interesting because there would need to be rules that people would follow based on ecology. So yes, those are rules you have to follow.

But if there's understanding among the public, if there's education, and I'm saying, like the water cycle, it's pretty basic.

I don't think ecological knowledge is beyond most people's understanding.

I think it's accessible and we need to just educate ourselves.

But then we have the regional communities, we have a global collective that's looking at the global indicators like temperature, like CO2 accumulation, like nitrogen runoff.

We know what those indicators are.

So at the global level, we have people looking at the science and collaborating among the regions.

And then the regions understand, well, let's say I'm a desert, but you're an area with lots of water. How do we make use of each unique aspect? In common.

If I have surplus water, maybe I export it to you. Okay, water's hard to transport. Or maybe with solar panels, I do desalination. And so there could be exchange of knowledge, not just commodity production and trade, but knowledge collaboration and innovation. Okay, so is fusion gonna work?

Is that gonna be so successful we should make that the priority of investment?

Or is solar panels really viable and wind are already available, they're getting cheaper.

We simply do the renewables first.

"But I think the prioritization of the ecology and the human skills and education, if people understand the ecological urgency that we can make it a priority for education and participation, so get back to the Leviathan."

Once people understand the urgency and the need to collaborate, I think you could have a democratic system instead of top down.

Finance is relevant here because since 1688, more or less, we've had a fiscal military state which builds on commodity production and trade, takes the revenue, reinvests it in the state to build more military and market capacity.

So the existing fiscal systems are assuming competition among competing states, often with military.

So I think we could have an alternate system where credit is based on this kind of ecological restoration.

Means of Allocation

Ann Davis is correct that the "Externalities are a side effect or consequence of an industrial or commercial activity that affects other parties without this being reflected in the cost of the goods or services involved." But she is identifying and connecting the dots or side effects or consequences that do not exist and ignoring those that do. Missing those truths present in human nature she imagines a solution without taking into consideration the natural side effect or consequence of human nature corrupted or ignored. Clearly she is suffering from a delusion of the mass psychosis coming out of modern universities or she, like the witches who put an unnatural hope in the mind of Macbeth of becoming the king of Scotland, desires to put the hope of ruling over your neighbor in your mind.

Wealth redistribution is Capital allocation or Capital reallocation

The form of CAPITAL ALLOCATION you choose will be choice between salvation or slavery.

The End of Individualism

The Book The End of Individualism and the Economy: Emerging Paradigms of Connection and Community was written by Ann E. Davis which supposedly traces the origins of “the individual” in history, philosophy, economics, and social science. She knows that Individualism has been one of the driving forces in the rise of modern capitalism bit she does not understand why capitalism is essential for the growth of mankind.

She has accepted the lie that capitalism is a bad thing. This lie assumes that capitalism is immoral but the truth is capitalism only allows the choice of pursuing immoral or moral behavior. In nature there are checks and balances the rewards from an immoral behavior.

Ann seems to believe that recent innovations in natural and social sciences indicate a shift in thinking away from individualism and towards interconnectedness.

Words of weird sisters

Can the natural and social sciences shift?

Or has there been a shifting of our position and therefore our perception in the world and of the truth shifted?

What has caused that shift and is it merely a movement in our minds away from or denial of Right Reason?

First, Natural science has not changed because the Natural Law does not change because it is the same as Divine Will which is the will of the Unmoved Mover and what has become known as Right Reason. Ann or modern science cannot change that Natural science any more than they can change the laws of physics.

There have been people that have attempted to supra navigate these laws through a manipulation of people's perception, a sort of witchcraft of the mind. Like Macbeth and his wife, who were tempted by the promise of power, the witches would seem to prophesy but they also would produced the outcome of the doom and downfall of the Macbeths.

"Double, double toil and trouble; / Fire burn, and cauldron bubble."

Like the snake in the garden all the things that they said were true but the knowledge of the full meaning was obscured by the desire for power. The witches prophecy to Macbeth that he will become king, that no man born of woman can defeat him, and that he will not be vanquished until Birnam Wood should move to Dunsinane. All things were true from a certain point of view but also predicted his end.

Secondly, we should ask 'Do the "social sciences" change as Ann suggests?

We know that "social sciences" means "the scientific study of human society and social relationships."

Has the fundamental nature of people changed?

Does redefining natural relationship with new terms change them or supplant those relationships with artificial substitutes?

Cain and Nimrod moved the people to a city state where their relationship with each other would change. That man created jurisdiction used institutions to bind the people into what became the cities of blood where they were snared in a civil captivity.

The witches' or use words to get into the thinking of Lady Macbeth. Those "weird sisters" have beards which makes their gender a confused element of the story but draws Lady Macbeth out of her own caring nature as a women. After reading her husbands letter, she began to plot to murder the king because she imagines her husband too "full o' th' milk of human kindness" to do what she thinks should be done.

This "milk of human kindness" is the willingness to Care for one another. It is that Care for one another through charity and what Christ called the bride that creates the social bonds of a free society. But if you take up the sword institute the rule of force and violence for the masses like socialism and Marxism through legal charity that always degenerates and dissolves not only the social bonds of liberty but individualism.

Have we been doing that for a generation which is why there is such confusion about the natural gender of man and woman and their role in the institution of God the family from which society springs?

Linguistic witchcraft

The book by Ann draws from a linguistic philosophy which includes an increasing attention to language as a social substrate for all institutions. By redefining words, their meaning and contextual use you can get the Macbeths of the world who are in love with power to bring about their own destruction.

Just change the meaning of words like money, market or capitalism and individual just to name a few and you can alter institutions and the natural relationships they produce and of course the family is first on their hit list. Undermining the role of men and women who are divided by the natural gender of their bodies is a part and a product of the lies and deception of the "weird sisters" of modern feminism.

Ann explores a form of individualism in an imaginary world subverting a class of virtuous consciousness, blinding the reader into a self-righteous state of impersonal financialization with either an ignorance of or a chosen omission of the natural safeguards for the rise or decline of virtue within society.

What appears to be her founding assumption of economics, that the rational autonomous individual with their exogenous tastes, undercuts social solidarity. But like the witches of Macbeth her prediction of utopia and power may tempt the listener to over look the consequences of their ambition and the expense of their neighbor and their natural rights.

An exogenous taste is stimulated by her view of the future which she paints for the people who believe her promises and predictions. It is that taste or appetite for benefits at the expense of others and the habit of receiving them by the confiscation of the property of others and blocks awareness of interconnections and interdependencies of society.

Her incantations of new paradigms and alternative forms of governance, economics, and science which she desires the reader to embrace will by their nature will strangle the productive virtuous individual only to cultivate the greedy and covetous collectives of socialism which precedes the Marxism she truly desires.

This is not a new paradigm but the old lies and promises of Cain and Nimrod which offer the masses their communities, new values, frameworks, and a world view which degenerates the people entangling them in a yoke of bondage.

Footnotes

sources:

https://scholarworks.smith.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2286&context=theses

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/WuX7R5KoKDCdVeNX/