Plants are intelligent too

I generally read Howy Jacobs’s editorials with both interest and amusement, often enjoying his insight into a diverse range of topics. However, with reference to his June 2012 editorial, At the cliff’s edge, I think he has allowed himself to be completely misled. Howy states that, “political leaders are desperately in search of immediate and reliable advice on how best to handle the current financial crisis”, but points out that the advice they have received is next-touseless because it is so diverse. He argues that “economists remain fundamentally divided over the diagnosis, which does not stop some of them from offering unsolicited advice,” and concludes that “our colleagues in economics need to be cautious, applying level-headedness and humility in the face of trends that cannot accurately be predicted, let alone shaped by policy.” However, I take issue with his assertion that our political leaders are actively in search of this advice, and that there is no consensus about the course of action needed. In fact, many commentators agree on solutions to the current crisis and the prevention of future ones. The fact that their suggestions have not been acted on suggests a lack of political will or courage, and undue influence on the government of interested parties. These suggestions include: (i) greater regulation of the financial markets, starting with a ‘Tobin tax’ on financial transactions—this would put a brake on the financial games that are the major cause of the crisis; (ii) a major cut to military spending, which is arguably the worst spent money on Earth; (iii) a higher rate of tax on high salaries—up to 92%, following the example of US President Eisenhower in the 1950s; (iv) the separation of commercial banks and financial banks, with different rules and responsibilities for each, as is being undertaken in the UK; (v) the direct provision of money to people—that is, an increase in salaries, a genuine subsistance salary for the unemployed, expanding the public sector, support for small and medium enterprises, support for the green economy—rather than the existing style of ‘quantitative easing’ that passes it to banks who use it to bolster their capital rather than lend it to boost the economy; (vi) a cap on executive pay; and (vii) a cap on the money spent on lobbying governments. Any one of these policies would help those who are suffering most from the crisis by redistributing wealth or modifying behaviour, rather than increasing the wealth and influence of the few, as is the existing trend. I wonder how many of us are truly aware of the extent to which our politicians are personal stakeholders in the financial world [1]? Why is it that the richest 1% of nearly every population become richer every day, whereas the rest stagnate or become poorer [2]? I am not trying to say that things are simple, or that everything can be solved quickly and inexpensively. However, politicians should act on behalf of the people, not surrender to the will of corporations. Growth forever is simply impossible: this is a lesson that biologists could impart to economists. In relation to Howy’s other point, that academic economists should be more careful in making sweeping proposals on the basis of their own pet theories, it follows from my comment that it does not matter what they say anyway, given that EU politicians seem determined to please the markets, rather than supporting their own people. This mindset is most clearly demonstrated by the fact that the success of political agreements is measured primarily in terms of credit ratings, rather than Step back from the edge