I increasingly think though that Gus Alperovitz may be onto something that while we may not get a clear chance to vote in a big set of reforms all at once, the opportunity to try these reforms will open up steadily at different scales, as neoliberalism struggles with a more uncertain world we seem to be already definitely heading in to (including uncertainty as we fully enter the age of peak oil and have to try innovations in multiple ways, not just via renewable energy but with different approaches to governance, economics, society … )

When I read “By generating income from common assets” I thought: Great! I guess it must be about starting co-ops and other vehicles which can own and develop productive common assets and then fairly share the income generated. “The money won’t come from government spending or redistribution, or from new taxes on business.” hinted at the same. But these proposals *would* require government action that *would* create new costs for businesses. Doesn’t mean they’re not doable or shouldn’t be done, but painting them as things that could just be done seems a bit misleading to me.

Perhaps a good companion piece to the new retrospective on Elinor Ostrom’s ideas about managing the Commons, “The Sustainable Economics of Elinor Ostrom”, by Derek Wall (review at http://aworldtowin.net/reviews/DerekWall-ElinorOstrom.html).

I have heard a criticism of “Pigovian taxes” on environmental damage is that they actually create a perverse incentive to allow the damage to continue, since govts could become reliant on the tax income stream. So I guess the design of Barnes’ ‘common wealth trusts’ would be important to avoid this issue – probably something he addresses in the book.