This is a space to discuss collective efforts to explore and expand the principles of a Health and Wellbeing Economy. Your insights, expertise, and enthusiasm are crucial to shaping our direction and impact.
4 Likes
Core resources shared & discussed by our Health and Wellbeing Economy Working Group
-
WHO Europe: Reimagining economy for resilient and healthier societies that leave no one behind
-
The WHO Council on the Economics of Health For All published its final report on 23rd May. That and its various other briefings etc. are here: WHO Council on the Economics of Health For All
-
The British Medical Association published Valuing health: why prioritising population health is essential to prosperity in October 2022.
4 Likes
Dear, donât you think that public-private partnerships are problematic and that corporate-funded institutions as the WHO or the UN are part of the problem in that regard, as they will defend the interests of âstakeholder capitalistsâ?
1 Like
Thanks for asking! However, may I ask why do you raise the question to me in particular? I have a general understanding that anything in the economy is essentially and conceptually public and private as all parties are systemic beings. And thus entitled to co create realities for themselves and for others. At the same time, while doing so, manifesting the whole possible spectrum of human nature with lights and shades, from egocentrism to altercentrism just to mention some features. Yet, our opportunities include the possibilities to co create economic systemic organizations, instruments and dynamics that can create public goods for all stakeholders, and not only for shareholders, of universal validity apart from those created until now. With the uniqueness that you and I can be the protagonist of these co creations from our own realms. And not expect or delegate all power of innovation to corporations, governments or the UN system for economic or political change.
I am not sure if I am responding to your question. Apologize if not!
1 Like
Thank you Pedro, for your kind response. I agree, but with serious caution. The problem arises when corporations monopolise certain markets and make them inaccessible to cooperative alternatives with state support (for example the credit-monopoly). Moreover, when government policies become dominated by corporate lobbying, outcomes may become seriously harmful, as the corporate bottom line remains âprofitâ (even over people). For example, the SDGâs are still âgrowth drivenâ even, as VN rapporteur Olivier De Schutter obsereves, that the system is âkilling the planet and enriching elitesâ, as precarity increase for billions of people. Capitalism IS a systemic problem.
3 Likes
Thanks, Koen! In our diversity of contextual perspectives and experiences we will continue to search for practical systems solutions within our unique opportunities. And value the expansion of organizational options that can include the different singularities along time.
Whenever you have the time, let me know why you wrote your questions and comments to meâŚbeing myself a very limited theorethical person. I am still very intrigued. Haha!
Cheers from Montevideo!
Hi Pedro, I reacted because the post had a lot of links to the WHO. And I am worried about that, as the WHO is mostly corporate and private funded. This means that for profit policies and gatekeeping are to be expected. Given our socio-ecological predicament, that is something we can not afford. We can not afford capitalism. Please find my paper attached⌠and thank you for your response
3 Likes
Thank you very much, Koen! I appreciate learning from diverse mind sets from different contextual realities! All the best! Cheers! Pedro
Hi all,
@Koen I share your concerns. Here in the United States, it is very clear that end-stage capitalism is starting to cannibalize itself when the poorest 20% of citizens become an âasset classâ in the investment strategies of the top 1%.
For example, private equity firms are going around the country and buying up the land under manufactured housing communities, and then doubling or tripling lot leases for homeowners who own their own homes. Often these homes are no longer movable (although they were âmobileâ to get them in place,) and itâs expressly part of the âinvestment strategyâ to get these poor homeowners to abandon their homes if they get evicted, often for no reason other than that they are unable to pay usurious rates. (One company boasted a 24% rate of return by ruining a community and rendering low-income elders homeless.)
Most states have no protections against this predatory behavior. Having safe and affordable housing is one of the 5 âsocial determinants of health.â
Similarly, it is quite clear that our American âhealth care systemâ makes more money when citizens are sick. The systems of housing creation, the food supply and the pharmaceutical industry all prioritize profit over health.
It is wise to be cautious about adopting parameters from sources that have conflicts of interest when it comes to promoting real health.
Thanks for the conversation.
Holly
4 Likes
One of the issues I see, is that regenerative movements are fragmented and as a result fail to cut through to ordinary citizens, mostly concerned with what the media feeds them on a daily basis - cost of living, crime, health services and migration. They seldom hear about the regenerative successes, nor do they see any vision of what the world could be like with a wellbeing economy.
Other organisations, such as the Club of Rome, Capital Institute also have positive ideas about transforming the finance system. Itâs about time there was greater collaboration among regenerative movements and more effort in informing citizens of what the world should be like - a positive view vs catastrophizing.
We need to speak with one positive voice.
5 Likes
It is important to speak with one positive voice, and also to make sense to our common sense.
It just makes sense that we cannot form regenerative enterprises that form regenerative businesses that form regenerative technologies that form regenerative choices to form a regenerative economy and a cohesive society using extractive money.
But the money we are using today to form the enterprises that form the businesses that form the technologies that form the choices that form our economy and society today is extractive. So the economy we are forming with that money is extractive.
Money is the missing link. Not in its physical form, but in its social function, and the logic by which Finance chooses what enterprises to flow money into, and on what terms
2 Likes
True, the positive and constructive, transformative part is the most important aspect. However, I think that we also need to expose existing power structures as organised crime from a colonial era that is ongoing⌠in my papers, I try to do both, but I agree that I often fail to focus on the positive, as it is a kind of rentier-capitalist ruling class, dominating politics, that is frankly holding humanity in chains⌠As an example: we could have an interest-free banking system and rentier-free economy⌠but there is a lot of resistance from the powers that shouldnât be. I am all for organising a socially intelligent economy, based on human rights⌠but central banking monopoly and stuff⌠it is difficult. https://jocrise.unida.gontor.ac.id/index.php/JOCRISE/article/view/49
1 Like
Yes! Please find my paper attached! I have a profound innovation in that regard
We could develop a wellbeing economy by addressing financial mis distributive structures: the interest-on-credit banking system, the stock market and real estate ownership⌠in short, rentier capitalism. Project Free-B aims to reform the global financial system to a passive mutual credit system, interest-free. That opens up ways for investing for all, without financial âreturn on investmentâ, but were the created value is the return! That eliminates ecological destructivity, by eliminating the Ponzi-scheme compounding dynamics and it eliminates a structural cashflow from poor to rich. Rentier free economics is socio-ecologically intelligent economics. Interest-free credit is its foundation!
1 Like
Have you read âToward an Integrated Science of Wellbeing, Edited by Elizabeth Rieger, Robert Costanza, Ida Kubiszewski, and Paul Dugdaleâ? Is a science of wellbeing enough to transform society without taking a strong political position against capitalism?
2 Likes
Dear Vlad, you know me⌠https://youtu.be/vDwMFRr-OTw?si=aY8RmI-An-e1WEx7
Resource. For novices, like me!
Publication.
Creating an impactful and sustainable Wellbeing Economy for better public health. June 2024. EuroHealthNet
Institute of Public Health.
Easy Read in context demonstrating current approaches.
3 Likes
Thanks Greenheart. Yes weâve been in discussion with Suzanne Costello who co-authored the report and may well be putting on some kind of joint event in the New Year
1 Like
Collaboration is indeed crucial to get sufficient momentum, given the size of the barriers to be overcome. This point was made very forcibly this morning in the WEAll Global members meeting by Stewart Wallis, one of the original founders of WEAll
1 Like
Taking a strong political stance against capitalism strikes me as the equivalent of shooting oneself in the foot. Whatâs of greater value is describing the positive impact of a regenerative form of capitalism, and highlighting successes. Why alienate people before they can hear constructive arguments? Mindless allegiance to socialism or neoliberal capitalism eliminates debate, simply entrenching failed mindsets on both sides. We need a higher level of consciousness and awareness that treats the world and all life as sacred. As R. Buckminster Fuller put it, we need a new operating system for Spaceship Earth, and we are all in it together, like it or not.
1 Like