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 shared here she speaks as if "Ann Davis" knows something about what the topic of economics and the natural psychology of humanity. But apparently she has 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:

"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."

So, 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 to influence governments through education, media and applying pressure at all levels with little or no moral scruples.

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 has been predicted.

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.

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

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" are.

She foes onto 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.

And neither has Miss Davis who sales down with no understanding of the problems, and there are many, saying:

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

---

"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 "think it's a social collaborative systemic problem" is.

And so she 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.

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.

---

---

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.

And so you have smart people, you have resilient planet.

That's where growth comes from, not from money itself, it comes from people and land.

So I see the international institutions like the IMF and the UN and the environmental program and WTO, they're all kind of specialized and fragmented.

Seems to me we take global institutions and we put them together with ecological knowledge.

And then the investments and the credit are based on restoring people and the planet.

During the last two decades she has met with those who are labeled as leading scholars of our times but whom seem to be blending what they call the humanities and economics to determine what they believe to be the ultimate solution for what they perceive as the problems with or within the world today.

The ultimate solution they espouse echoes the potter that permeated the society that produced the final solution in the time when millions would die at the hands of those who sought social control through force and the power of government that exercise authority through a political and economic systems of socialism.

People like:

John Searle

John Searle who believes any "value judgment" is epistemically subjective which another way of saing there is no standard or universal vale.

Alan Ryan

Alan Ryan, who is an advocate of Modern liberals which generally believe that national prosperity requires government management of the macroeconomy in order to keep unemployment low, inflation in check and growth high. They also value institutions that defend against economic inequality.

Mary Poovey

Mary Poovey whose recent books include The Evolution of the Property Relation: Understanding Paradigms, Debates, and Prospects, Palgrave MacMillan, 2015, and Money as a Social Institution, Routledge, 2017.

She seems to also feel inclined to venture into the world of economics attempting to make sense of its description or explanation.

These scholars and achedemics may be willing proclaim they are out of their element or do not understand or even see a solution in all they share but may seek to blaim that lack of comprehension on the fact that economics have become defined by the language of mathamatics.

Mary Poovey makes the statements:

[52:47] "offering three observations about models in general and about how our reliance on them constitute what counts as knowledge now

first as all of my examples make clear models abstract from immediate experience and observed particulars in order to generate simplified manipulable simulations of actual conditions in doing so they alter not only one's relation to the real but also what could count as knowledge about the real

because models are both performative and recursive Moreover extensive reliance on them increases the likelihood that models will beget a reality that takes its form from the models or even that models will beget more models.

Second as models incorporate and are organized by mathematical principles the mathematical form which they call the syntax increasingly dictates the way that the economic or financial content which they call the semantics can be understood this increases the potential for simplification and clarity in the model but it also means that the rules of mathematics dominate one's experience of messy economic and financial transactions

It also means that formulations that are particularly convenient for mathematical procedures sometimes take precedence over other formulations that might be less mathematically useful but that are more responsive to human concerns. This is the case for example with the gdp the gross domestic product which is the headline aggregate featured. In the macroeconomic estimates called national income accounts the prominence of the gdp makes it easy to see whether the overall income of a nation is increasing but difficult to see how wealth is being distributed among parts of the population The gdp also makes it very hard to see how efforts to increase the gross dometic product might adversely affect the environment which is not represented at all in the national aggregates. So every time an aggregate is made those features of the economy that it does not include become literally invisible so this is the case for example of the contributions that domestic

55:30?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://scholarworks.smith.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D2286%26context%3Dtheses&ved=2ahUKEwjR7c-xpYyEAxWGJDQIHWpaBPcQFnoECBEQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2uKiuCQC16O5nDOjRCrDMt

Ann E. Davis" "WEF"

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

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 imagining a solution without taking into consideration the natural side effect or consequence of human nature. Clearly she is suffering from a delusion of the mass psychosis coming out of modern universities.

Wealth redistribution is Capital allocation or Capital reallocation

CAPITAL ALLOCATION IS THE POWER OF CHOICE OR SLAVERY