respond

R1:  Max Neef was very opinionated on how the whole economic system here in the world should behave and he also knew the flaws that make our system less great than what it could be. In the interview he described how the impoverished people held better values than those who were of a higher social status. His knowledge of poverty comes from the fact that he has lived amoung those who are poor, thus making him very knowledgeable on the subject and making the interview more informative to those who view it. Max Neef claims that the economic system here in the world is not effective and if it is to continue onto the future that there are changes that need to occur to secure it.

There is a huge difference in the words of knowledge and understanding. Knowledge can be acquired by anyone who can read about a certain subject and learn all the statistics behind it. Like for example going off poverty the economic experts know that it exists since they are well informed on all of it like how many people are living in poverty and they pretty much single story them by only seeing them as the poverty class, since they only know the knowledge that labels them. Understanding is completely different to the knowledge aspect. With understanding poverty the person is well informed of the issue, but unlike with just knowledge they also understand what it feels like to be in poverty. They understand what it is like to live with those who are poor by living where they live, eating what they eat, and participating in their activities to get a real feel of poverty.

Max Neef mentions about how the values and principles of those in poverty and those not in poverty differ from each other. For example those in poverty have different values when it comes to what they own such as they may share with others that are in their position so that way more can benefit from something rather than people of higher class who have the same possession but only utilize it for themselves. He also mentions how the people in poverty tend to more creative than those who aren’t due to that being more of an essential to survival. People in poverty, as mentioned by Max, also do not notice those out of poverty as people would expect. This can go hand in hand with how greed is the most dominate value in today’s society. This is typically seen as the lower on the social economic scale you are, the more greedy you tend to be. This as mentioned by Neef is completely false, it is rather the opposite way saying that people higher on the social ladder are way more greedy and poor people are more likely to be more generous to help out others.\

The five main principles to economics are important to determining how it all goes. The first one being “the economy is to serve the people and not the people to serve the economy”. This pretty much is self explanatory on how the economy should work for the people and not the other way around. The second step is “development is about the people and not about objects”. This step is an important one since now in days people only care about developing the economies of places that need it while they neglect the fact that the people often get left behind. The third one is “growth is not the same as development, and development does not require growth”. As stated by Max growth eventually will reach its limits, while development has no ends or limitations making it the better option. The fourth step being “no economy is possible in the absence of ecosystem services”. This pretty much stating that an economy must have guides on how it shall be ran or how it can be improved. Finally the fifth step being “the economy is a subsystem of a larger finite system, the biosphere, hence permanent growth is impossible”. This pretty much stating that once again growth can only go so far before it reaches its limits. 

America is a prime example of the idea called under-development which is affecting the world in todays time. Under-development is when only a small percentage of a population is increasing in economic scale, while the remaining percentage only dwindles down further on the ladder. America being prime example because only 1% is increasing while the remaining 99% is dropping slowly down further. Leaving to most of the country not being equally developed which may lead to future problems such as a huge gap between the “elite” and the rest of the population.

Max Neef was very informative on his outlooks of the economic sector of the world pointing out all the flaws that need to be addressed if the system is to continue. He gave plenty of examples to reinforce his statements while giving plenty of information to make sense of his argument. The economic system is not fair to all of the social classes often leaving those in poverty out of every situation while the top receives most of its benefits.

R2: Manfred Max-Neef talks and shared his knowledge and understanding in universal values and principles and takes a overall cynical tone in the video full of his many criticisms of the economy. Telling of how the difference between knowing and understanding is how humanity today has more knowledge than ever before but understanding is different because understanding is holistic. This is what allows us to view our problems in a way that doesn’t hinder us. By allowing society to look at things from the outside we humanize our decisions. Manfred Max-Neef  tells of how knowing the values of holistic understanding ultimately helps the way you can view the world. It improves your knowledge and understanding by being able to examine someone from multiple viewpoints. Having this understanding provides people with a deep appreciation of the world and most importantly shows everyone to understand the world as it is. The values and principles that Manfred Max-Neef shared in the video are very important as he goes on to discuss how the economy has become dehumanized. Rather he believes this to be quite frightening and Manfred Max-Neef himself believes that we are right on the edge of humanity and that the futures uncertainty is a sign, he warns that this is the product of greed.

He states that greed is the dominant value today in the world. Then Manfred Max-Neef goes on to discuss five principles of barefoot economics. The first being the economy is to serve the people and not the people to serve the economy. The second is development is about people and not about objects. Third point being growth is not the same as development and development does not necessarily require growth. The fourth principle is that no economy is possible in the absence of ecosystem services. The fifth is the economy in a subsystem of  a larger finite system which is the biosphere, hence permanent growth is impossible. Finally Manfred Max-Neef also shares an important point in sustaining a new economy. How it shouldn't be about economic interest and how no circumstance can be about the relevance of life. That was the five main principles and the fundamental value in maintaining a new economy in Manfred Max-Neef’s barefoot economics.

Towards the end of the video he discusses a very important idea of how development is the liberation of creative possibilities. Manfred Max-Neef tells how he is able to describe something like economic growth. Describing how if you cross a point where there is so much economic growth the quality of life begins to change. Then towards the end Manfred Max-Neef brings to light the idea that the United States are becoming underdeveloped today. I think his example of how the one percent of the United States are doing better and better and then how the other ninety-ninety percent are going down. I believe this best shows the point and that his criticism is welcomed here because the issues are full of misunderstandings and his viewpoint of how the economy be should be looked at brings up many valid points.

Although I found myself being intrigued by his views of the economy I can't fully say I would be in support of his views for a economy. He makes a point to show how economics is a more complex system than is what is seen, but then he loses my interest when he continues to bring up the point of how we are going towards direct catastrophe because of the way this economy is. Also bringing up points like how the university is at fault for us becoming so far of course in our understanding of the economy to be a little bit too harsh. I didn't really see the reasoning for his outlook on how everyone else is ignorant or his point on how economists didn't know anything on ecosystems. I find these points that he makes in his video to not have good backing support and from my point of view I took his criticism as kind of  a mockery of the idea of an economist not being able to understand economics. Overall the amount of criticism towards our economy is helped out by Manfred Max-Neef’s deep understanding of how our economic ecosystem is very intricate and currently unbalanced.

R3:  In this interview by Democracy Now with Manfred Max-Neef, he expresses that our developed nation is falling into a new category of development called underdeveloping. Max-Neef has spent time in poverty stricken areas to understand the way they live and how in an active sustainable perspective, it is a more functional society. Greed is this dominant value that is causing this new, presumably unstoppable, shift within our nation which he aims to resolve.

            Max-Neef starts off by saying that the outside world, in this case developed nations, only know but do not necessarily understand. Someone can only understand in which they become a part. When someone is separate they can acquire book knowledge but never truly understand a situation much like poverty. I do believe that what Max-Neef is saying between knowing and understanding is absolutely true within our developed nation. If we lived in poverty than our nation would understand many concepts like active sustainability in which greed is not a factor. If we cared for the next generation rather than our own benefits, than this cause of a dysfunctional society would be uprooted. In previous posts for this class I have expressed that greed is our nation’s biggest enemy and am a strong believer in what Max-Neef is saying. This difference between knowing and understanding ties in with the different morals and principles of the poor and the wealthy societies.

            In poorer areas the people’s values and principles are focused on the well-being of one another rather than themselves. They value family and friends to come before themselves which ensures great relationships and happiness for the less fortunate. An example in the video had said that a woman could make two ponchos in a day with her hands and be able to support her family. She then received a machine that could make twenty ponchos in a day which would drastically increase her profits. Although despite the possible financial increase, she continues to only make two ponchos a day. When asked why, she said she wants to spend the remaining time with her family. These values are scarce in our nation because we always want more than the person next to us. Max-Neef had said that it is surprising to see that people in these developed countries are less happy than those in the developing ones who don’t have nearly as much.

            Max-Neef gives five principles of barefoot economics in order for a country to be in ideal health economically, structurally, and environmentally. The perception that the economy is to serve the people and not vice versa is a very important principle. This cannot be done with the people serving the economy because greed would take over causing people to be exploited. Another principle is development is about people, not objects. If development is about objects, then that fuels peoples greed creating a deepening problem. The next principle is the notion that growth is not the same as development. Max-Neef had said that everything eventually stops growing. Regarding development, this is not the case because this can keep going and get stronger and more refined. His next principle I thought made a very good point, which was no economy is possible in the absence of ecosystem services. He was saying that economists are treating the environment as a subsystem of the economy which is foolish. We need to buy products made in our country rather than trade with other countries that have a comparative advantage in making goods. These imports and exports are slowly killing our environment and without an environment there’s no economy. We need to bring consumption closer to production to aid this. The last principle is the economy is a subsystem of a larger finite system in the biosphere hence permanent growth impossible. Me not knowing exactly the full affects these principles would have on our world; I agree with Max-Neef completely. He is coming from an angle that has an active sustainable approach to forever create a sustainable economy. He is creating a viewpoint to have our nation stick and thrive in this developed category rather than slip into this new underdeveloping section. The underdeveloping class is when the 1% will go higher and the remaining 99% will constantly go lower.

            This video has opened a new perspective in my eyes on how our world should be taking an alternative path to benefit generations to come. Max-Neef has said that greed is the dominant trait that constantly drives our nation into an economic downturn. He had made valuable principles that could be a great benefit to our nation.

R4: Manfred Max-Neef is really a great economist with foresight and sagacity, he has his special original views and standards about the economic system in our society nowadays. At the beginning of the interview, he described the past situation that he lived with those people who suffered from poverty badly, and he developed his reasoning and theory from the experiences. Manfred argued that the economic system we have today, and many values related to it, is not preforming in its best way and need to be changed.

Knowing and understanding seems similar, but they are two completely different concepts in this world. Knowing is about the surface and is separated, you can know a knowledge just by studying; but only when you fall into it (just like love), you can understand it. Just like the example Manfred mentioned: those economists who are studying and analyzing poverty in their nice offices, watching, computing, and making models about the data on the computer; they know almost everything about poverty, but they do not understand poverty. For Manfred himself, he gained the knowledge and understanding them by experiencing the poverty in the earlier example. That makes him a different economist comparing to most of the others.

       People’s value and principle are differed from groups to groups, according to Manfred. He said that people in poverty really do not think as people outside the poverty do. When he lived with those poor people, he found that they are not very interesting in wealthier people and do not have much greed thoughts about become richer. A lot of them are more likely to enjoy the life they have now and will not push themselves to make more. However, richer people think they do have the wish to change their lives and that is the difference of value and principle between different groups of people. We all know that wealth is a passport to enter the mainstream of society, but the problem is: “the more you have, the more greed you become.” Richer people want to seek more wealth while people in poverty want to spend more time with friends and family, so greed became the dominant value of today’s world and created so many problems including economic crisis and pollution.

       The five principle of barefoot economics is the principle he wants to teach young economists and let them save the system and the world. The first one is “the economy is to serve the people, not the people to serve economy”, it explains the real function of economy which it does not reflect now. The second is “development is about people, not about objects”, mentioned what ruler class of society should obey. The third is “growth is not the same as development, and development does not necessary require growth”. The fourth is “no economy is possible in the absence of ecosystem services” and the fifth is “the economy is a subsystem of a larger finite system, the biosphere, hence permanent growth is impossible.” They do remind upper class and economists again the real goal and functions of an economic system, and nothing can be important than life.

       I really agree with Manfred’s rationale and theory in this interview. In the last part, he said that United States is a good example of “under-developing” country. Only 1 percent of people are doing better when rest of people are going down, there are so many people suffering right now and the upper class ignore them completely. People who made decisions for the country focus on the growth, so they made wars, spending a lot of many on the things do not related to their people. But as Manfred said, growth will stop at one point, but we can continue developing as long as we live. The values and principles of them need to change, so the system can be improved.

R5:  Economist Max Neef sees modern society as having many issues and many misguided beliefs. He believes that there needs to be a change very soon or humanity may die out. He begins by stating that one problem is that economists know poverty but they do not understand it. The idea that knowing something does not equate to understanding it is something Neef explains. The example he gives to help the reader understand is that one can study for years and years and learn everything there is to know about love, but that person will never understand it until they fall in love. He means that knowing information about something is not the same as being a part of it and understanding what it feels like. This is a very well said point that makes a great deal of sense and does explain why so many wealthy people care so little about those that are impoverished.

            Neef goes on to explain how the values and principles of those that live in impoverished communities are much different than those present in wealthier societies. He says that values in impoverished societies lie in community and relationships while in societies like America, people are often individualistic and greedy. People in those communities focus on being happy through having leisure time and building good relationships with their friends and family while people in our society focus on money and nonstop work. Having seen both types of communities I agree completely with what Neef has said about values and principles. Neef continues on by addressing greed.

            Neef believes that greed is the dominant value today. He says that though it would make sense that poorer communities were greedy, that they are in reality not greedy at all while in our society, greed is most definitely the dominant value today. The main goal of almost every American is to become rich. The poor want to be rich and the rich want to be even richer and this is a very unhealthy way of living. Focusing on money takes away from other, more important aspects of life, such as family and friendships. Most people seek money to become happy when in reality, there are many people who have become rich for the same reason and say that more money does not equate more happiness.

            The interviewer and Neef continue on to discuss the principles of barefoot economics. Firstly, Neef says, Economics must exist to serve the people not for the people to serve economics. Second, Development is about people not objects. Thirdly, Neef says that growth is not the same as development and development does not necessarily require growth. Fourth, no economy is possible in the absence of ecosystem services. The fifth and final principal is that the economy is a subsystem of a larger, finite, system, the biosphere, hence, permanent growth is impossible. Reading these principals makes barefoot economics seem like the obvious choice for how the system should run. All of these principals are positive and would help our societies develop in great ways.

            Finally, Neef discusses the idea of underdeveloping, which is the idea that growth and development in a society go hand in hand until a certain point where growth continues on and development stops. At this point, as growth continues, the society begins to underdevelop, or go backwards in a sense. When this happens the quality of life for the members of that society begins to decrease and continues decreasing as the society continues to grow. Neef believes that, currently, the United States is in the process of underdeveloping. I agree with his conclusion because it seems as if our economy keeps growing but inequality and poverty does not seem to be improving. Though the economy continues to grow, it seems as though we have the same problems we had a number of years ago. Max Neef is a very smart man and I believe his ideas about economics and the way our societies are today are very important.

R6: In Democracy Now’s interview with Chilean economist, Manfred Max-Neef, the topic of “barefoot economics” is discussed. Neef starts out the interview by explaining the difference between “knowing” and “understanding.” He believes that knowledge can easily be obtained by examining statistics and data. However, examination of these information will not lead to understanding, as understanding can only occur when one is deeply rooted in that particular environment.  Neef gives the example of how most economists only know what economics and poverty are by their definitions, but they will never understand what poverty actually feels like. Neef also makes the distinction between values and principals in different societal groups. Values and principals differ depending on one’s identity. He romanticizes impoverished people, saying that they often hold more knowledge and value than those of higher class statuses. To him, values and and principals of those who know suffering are completely unalike from those who are not familiar with that particular suffering.

            Neef believes that greed is the dominant value today. According to him, some economic models do not have any reality to them. He gives the example of Neoclassical economics, a model that originated in the 19th century, that is still often applied to today’s economy even though it is outdated. Instead, Neef believes a new concept of economics is much needed. His theory of Barefoot economics is based in the ideology that the economy should serve the people, not the people serving the economy. This ideology is much similar to Karl Marx’s critique of capitalism. To Marx, capitalism keeps people working to live when it should be that people should live to work. He states five postulates: 1) the economy is to serve the people. 2) development is about people and not about objects. 3) growth is not the same as development, and development does not necessarily require growth. 4) no economy is possible in the absence of ecosystem services. 5) the economy is a subsystem of a larger finite system, the biosphere, hence permanent growth is impossible.

            The next topic touched on by Neef is development. According to Neef, the United States is “underdeveloped” because of the reality that the U.S. becoming more of an oligarchy every day. The upper class obsession with obtaining financial growth does not calculate in the overall need for the country’s economic development. Therefore, the disparity between the nation’s richest 1% and the working 99% makes the U.S. development impossible.

            Although Neef makes some insightful observations about the economy his language is ridden with ableism. The intersection of poverty and disability is a reality for billions of people in the world. More often than not, people with disabilities have a harder time obtaining food security, medical care, a stable career with an income, et cetera.  Some time, it is a person’s disability that keeps them below the poverty line. Other time, it is poverty that could possibly cripple a person’s mental, psychological, or physical well-being. For Neef to address empathy for those living in poverty but not understand ableism is an omission of one of the horrific truths of poverty. Overall, though, I do agree with Neef’s argument.