Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Consumption and Demand are Obsolete

by Ralph Sat Jun 28th, 2008 at 10:08:01 AM EST

Those happy ideas -- consumption and demand -- are even now -- almost unconsciously -- perceived as the engines of economic activity. But such imagery is left over from a time when fuel was abundant and almost free.

In that exciting era, more demand and more consumption translated effortlessly into more use of fuel. More use of fuel obviously benefited the extractors and sellers of fuel, but it also helped those who processed and stored and transported the fuel, and of course also those who fed and clothed the processors and transporters, and on and on and on.

Diary rescue by Migeru


Even more significantly, all that fuel-driven activity left permanent infrastructure in its wake: buildings, roads, machinery, pipelines, railroads. Of course such infrastructure multiplied the ability of the society to generate even more economic activity, more artifacts of the civilized good life.

The result? Exponential growth of wealth! Happy times are here again!

But now a time arrives when fuel is scarce or expensive, and suddenly none of the above works. Suddenly "demand" simply translates into the old demons of Want, Need, Deprivation.

(In a society with, say, insufficient water, generating more demand for water does not help the economy. When food is short, we are not cheered by more demand for food.)

The whole idea of consumption and demand being good for the world only makes sense when there is an actual surplus of fuel, just the situation we have come to experience as normal. From the beginnings of the Oil Age, around 1860, the extractors of "rock oil" always ended up with more of the stuff than they (or anyone else) knew what to do with.

Naturally those extractor companies wanted to increase demand! Naturally they lobbied to replace public transportation systems with automobiles and airplanes! Naturally they encouraged wars, which use lots and lots of fuel!

Who could realistically argue with that kind of success? Certainly not politicians! Surely not business leaders. Obviously not bankers.

And not the public, who (then as now) love cars and roads, the 20th century embodiments of Freedom.

Let me ask you, then, next time you read something about "stimulation" or "demand," to please remember exactly what is being stimulated, what is being demanded: the ever-faster approach of a moment of truth such as even the most pessimistic among us hardly dare to imagine.

Display:
nice diary, you sum up the situation really well.

i think any society that encourages people not to save, may well be beyond saving.

the moment when the 'consumer economy', and worse, 'faith in the consumer economy' became make-or-break pivots, should have woken more up to the fact that all good things come to an end, and woe to the unprepared...

sobering stuff.

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 11:26:46 AM EST
I think that you are confusing "demand" in the sense of "want/need" and in the sense of "want/need and has the ability to acquire."

In econo-speak, a starving person does not "demand" food, because he has no money with which to buy it. So, giving a starving person money to buy food with will increase demand. He will, after all, go out and look for food to buy. Robbing the same starving person of his new-gotten money will reduce demand, because now he won't go to the market and try to buy food.

So I would suggest that there are kinds of demand stimulation that are good and there are kinds that are not so good. Building tanks create demand, but is probably on balance not a good idea. Feeding the starving create demand, and is on balance probably a very good idea.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 12:37:15 PM EST
Feeding the starving create demand, and is on balance probably a very good idea.

You are assuming there is food to be had in exchange for money. No amount of money can feed the starving when food itself is lacking.

The idea that demand is good for an economy only makes sense when that demand can be filled, and when the process of filling it in turn creates additional demand, which, once again, can be filled.

In a pre-industrial economy, the ultimate input for all human activity consists of recently harvested energy from the sun.

Starting about seven centuries ago, cheap and abundant fossil fuel became a major additional source of the energy (strictly speaking, Gibbs Free Energy) necessary to fill demand.

Finally, at the present time, fossil fuels provide almost all the net input which, flowing through our dizzyingly complex system of agriculture and production, makes possible the satisfaction of almost any kind of demand.

In the near future, unless we can "fund" the creation of goods and services from some exogenous source of energy, neither want nor need can stimulate anything except, perhaps, rioting in the streets.

by Ralph on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 01:13:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The idea that demand is good for an economy only makes sense when that demand can be filled, and when the process of filling it in turn creates additional demand, which, once again, can be filled.

Demand is "good" for business because it is necessary for profits. secondarily it is good for employment because if there is low demand and therefore low expectation of profits, owners of productive assets will leave them idle and lay people off.

It is unfortunate that none of this is accounted in other terms than money, in particular nonrenewable resource use doesn't figure in the analysis unless it is priced explicitly.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jun 28th, 2008 at 09:59:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It is unfortunate that none of this is accounted in other terms than money  (my bold)

More than unfortunate, I would say.  More like "the externality that ate society."  Or will be if we cannot rapidly amend our current pernicious economic paradigm.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sat Jun 28th, 2008 at 03:22:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
on a related note, I'd also like to deconstruct the whole notion of "productivity", as in "industrial productivity."

industrial activity is almost invariably destructive rather than productive.  it "produces" a tiny technomass of machinery or other artifact at the cost of destroying enormous volumes, weights, and energy potentials of "raw" (low-entropy) materials.  I have read that the amount of slag heap generated by the manufacture of one gold wedding ring is sufficient to cover the 2-car driveway of the newlywed couple's idyllic suburban home;  behind each item "produced" by the industrial economy lurks a similarly disproportionate slag heap of contaminated air/water/soil, dead critters, devastated biotic communities, etc.

when our leaders call for "stimulation" and "increased demand" and "increased productivity," what they are calling for is increased dissipation of energy in heat-intensive industrial processes, increased destruction of raw materials and of the biotic communities that "get in the way" of our access to them, increased contamination of air, water, and soil... aside from a tiny, shiny iceberg tip in the form of a car or an iPod or whatever, the only thing that has been produced is mountains of trash.

we should start measuring Gross National Destruction, i.e. the amount of fossil fuel destroyed by combustion, the amount of water dissipated as steam or contaminated by chemicals, the amount of soil disturbed/displaced by mining, the number of animals and other biota killed (heck, we don't even account for the number of human beings killed), the amount of waste heat vented into the atmosphere, and so on.  the cost of the Gross National Destruction in terms of health and happiness is incalculable, but its cost in terms of reduced "productivity" tomorrow may be w/in the scope of bean-counting, and is staggering.

an end to the fantasy of "productivity."  there is only one productive activity on the planet's surface, and it is photosynthesis.  [the extremophile bacteria in black smokers are running on a different model but they are a minority and operating in a non-human-friendly environment, so I leave their remarkable volcano-biotic productivity out of the picture for the moment.]  photosynthesis is the only productive activity, the basis of the food chain and of the life of every one of us.  it destroys nothing and creates nutrients out of sunlight.

while we're at it, an end to the fantasy that we "create wealth."  what we do is destroy biotic wealth, to convert live things into dead things with abstract symbolic value that has no reference point outside human culture.  all the wealth we "create" is imaginary;  and we ourselves are, essentially -- like all other large land mammals -- created by trees.   wealth -- the astounding wealth of macro-biotic life whose evolutionary gyrations spat out our curiously maladaptive species -- is created by sunlight and photosynthesis.  we are destroying that wealth of life as fast as we can (do we have to recite the species extinction rates again?  they should be featured on every billboard).

so -- as well as "stimulating demand", and that old insane bugaboo "growth", let us kiss goodbye to the silly fantasies of "wealth creation" and "productivity."  wealth streams down on us from the sun, wealth is generated inside chloroplasts and fantastically elegant ATP chains, wealth is created daily by the ceaseless labour of phyla for which we have nothing but ignorant contempt.  we "create" nothing;  we eat what other biotic communities create, and we dissipate that hijacked energy in creative and sometimes pretty ways.

sometimes we seem to me like the baker's children, playing on the shop floor with stolen loaves, rolling them in the ashes and pretending that we are "creating" things -- a village, furniture, donkeys.  when all we are doing is spoiling the loaves, rendering inedible the staff of life.  no matter how ingenious our little dough sculptures, they're no longer fit to eat and we haven't learned a damn thing about making bread.

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 02:03:58 PM EST
I would beg to differ. When an osmotic power plant extracts energy from the mixing of fresh and salt water at a river mouth, it preserves free energy that would otherwise have been converted to heat. When a windmill spins, it preserves free energy that would be otherwise converted to heat. These effects arguably create something from nothing (granted, the free energy in question will eventually turn into heat, but we can make it power a train for a while first).

Even if we make an accounting in terms of free energy, biodiversity and/or similar figures of merit, it will still be possible to create wealth. Not at the rates and in the ways we do today, no. But still possible. If a factory takes a pile of metals and uses wind, solar, tidal and other similar power sources to turn it into a roof that protects people from the rain, then it would be hard to dispute that it has created value.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 02:28:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
ah, but where did the pile of metals come from?  and was it more valuable as a roof (that rusts away in a generation or two) than the biotic productivity of the land devastated by the mining process?  can we answer that question?  people lived w/o tin roofs pretty happily for millennia, but no one can live w/o plants and bugs, birds and fish etc.

nevertheless, I'll grant you the windmill (and the tidal rotor and some other harvestings of coriolis force etc) as energy conversions by ingenuity rather than by digestion -- always reserving the ground position that the neurons w/which we are manifesting the ingenuity, are themselves wholly powered by photosynthesis and microbial activity...

[all of it, in the end, every wriggling bit of life, all about different charges each side of a membrane...

a proton here, an electron there... pretty soon you're talking serious complexity :-)]

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 03:09:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You assume that the land must be devastated by the mining process. This is not necessarily the case. The minerals are underground. In principle, there is no reason why you cannot make an arbitrarily small hole in the ground and dig out the minerals through it without disturbing the topsoil.

Furthermore, people might live without metal roofs, but they did not live without roofs, whether for shade or for insulation. At least not in anything approaching the number of humans the planet has to accommodate at the moment. So comparing metal roof to no metal roof is not an apples-to-apples comparison.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri May 30th, 2008 at 11:19:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You've missed a basic rule of doom mongering: technological improvement can never make things better.  We not only won't improve, we can't improve. It's unpossible.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri May 30th, 2008 at 12:29:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
These effects arguably create something from nothing (granted, the free energy in question will eventually turn into heat, but we can make it power a train for a while first).

In fact, the entire biosphere exists by feeding on natural flows which mostly go to waste. WHat makes humans different is that they are able to create their own flows (say, to turn all the stored fossil carbon into a flow of free energy).

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jun 28th, 2008 at 10:06:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have read that the amount of slag heap generated by the manufacture of one gold wedding ring is sufficient to cover the 2-car driveway of the newlywed couple's idyllic suburban home;  behind each item "produced" by the industrial economy lurks a similarly disproportionate slag heap of contaminated air/water/soil, dead critters, devastated biotic communities, etc.

Much, if not most, of the negative consequences of extraction and manufacturing industries are directly the result of those industries getting a free ride on the environmental consequences of their disposal of detritus. Neo-Classical Economics treats these factors as "externalities," and protest that including clean-up would increase costs to consumers. Their real concern is that regulations dealing with these "externalities" could could raise prices, thus reducing sales and reducing competitive advantages verses alternatives. I believe this is, or should be viewed as one of the most damaging aspects of The Anglo Disease.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 02:33:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And if these externalities are accounted for properly in the environmental regulations and tax system, then the cost will be reflected in the price of the gold ring, at which point the consumer can decide whether or not to pay for it.

The problem is that identifying the externalities and determining an appropriate cost for them is difficult, and somewhat subjective (compare the value of clean air to a warm house) and thus prone to manipulation by cynical politicians. The result is a system where we have things like the recent American "farm bill" that applies massive distortion to the agricultural economy in the name of fairness and reliable food supply and level playing ground and environmental awareness, but it actually a method to channel cash to the rich and their buddies in Washington.

What is needed is massive distortion to the agricultural economy to reflect the objective externalities. Good luck getting a politician to support that...  :-(

by asdf on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 04:08:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I never said the disease was easy to treat.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 04:25:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... when we first sorted out that the simplifications of hydraulic Keynesianism were over-simplifications, and the full fledged General Theory reasoning is required to talk about employment, interest, and money.

I'm hoping that monetarism, New Classical Economics, Real Business Cycle theory, and the Natural Rate of Unemployment nonsense can be taken as read and discarded, and we can move forward from the realizations of the late 70's in a more fruitful direction ... pure allometric growth without a change in technology or composition of output requires an unemployed complement of labor, natural resources, and productive equipment. Ergo, in order for demand generating policies to function in a context where pure allometric growth is not on offer, it must function in a way that shifts the composition of output toward goods and services that economize on those resources that are scarce, at the expense of consuming those resources that are, in terms of long term sustainable use, unemployed or underemployed.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 02:31:06 PM EST
Amen to that!

Investing in long-term renewable energy supplies, especially where the sun is the ultimate source, especially with solar and wind, can, with refinements and  reductions in life cycle cost, produce a continually declining cost for energy, especially when externalities are included.  For this reason there is a huge difference in the long term economic effect between a coal fired power plant, even with CCS, and a wind farm.

Hydro is usually the cheapest part of base load for a utility. Especially discounting the very non-negligible externalities. Part of this is that so much of the power is delivered long after the construction costs have been paid and the operation and maintenance costs are so low compared to a fossil fuel plant, which still has operation and maintenance costs apart from fuel.

While durable goods production such as EVs, PHEVs, more efficient heat pumps or air conditioners, etc. and production of weapons systems for the military both stimulate the economy and provide employment, there is a big difference between the "benifits" derived from the use of those two product classes.  The first provides mobility and comfort. The second provides death and destruction.  And if we don't use the military goods the effect is rather like manufacturing locomotives that we run off a pier into a deep, offshore canyon.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 02:54:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... the effect is rather like manufacturing locomotives that we run off a pier into a deep, offshore canyon.

ARGeezer, your image describes much of our current economic activity. If we could only eliminate all the pointless money-making games that pass for productivity, I suspect the US could survive for years wihout energy imports -- maybe even long enough to watch the population start decreasing without a cataclysm.

by Ralph on Mon Jun 30th, 2008 at 11:52:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... of course, it had pernicious effects when it was not obsolete, but if you can assume unemployed resources are there to be used in conjunction with unemployed labor, then the only structural unemployment is when you do not have enough equipment in place to provide the productive capacity.

But productive capacity in this context is plastic ... put out the effective demand for long enough, and the productive capacity will be put into place. Hence procurement programs for military goods where the individual production order is over such a long period from a buyer that cannot go bankrupt (in terms of domestic currency, at least) are always going to be an effective stimulus.

However, what about when you cannot assume that the natural resource complement is there? Then producing the products to preferably have them go unused is locking up resources that are not available as a complement for the production of goods that we hope to use.

And in the new environment, we have to think about the resource efficiency of the stimulus. Military-Industrial-Complex Keynesianism is grossly inefficient in terms of job per natural resource input. Far more efficient is a combination of Job Guarantee program with works for public employment and a National Infrastructure Works program for those capital intensive works that are useful complements for national productivity ...

... to avoid this being entirely handwaving, for example a national grid of dual track Express speed electrified passenger rail and freight (that is, the top speed in regular ROW, which while HSR in the US Congressional legislation is not HSR in the European sense), combined with a HV inter-regional electricity redistribution network.

Combine that with a feed-in tariff for delivered wind power, and there will be an explosion of wind turbine development in the Dakotas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, to name just a few ... and with turbines delivering power as they come on line, not waiting for the whole wind farm to be deployed, ongoing incremental import substitution of imported energy for domestically harvested energy, which is a classical General Theory Keynesian stimulus.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Jul 1st, 2008 at 10:40:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
in order for demand generating policies to function in a context where pure allometric growth is not on offer, it must function in a way that shifts the composition of output toward goods and services that economize on those resources that are scarce, at the expense of consuming those resources that are, in terms of long term sustainable use, unemployed or underemployed.

Wait, are you saying we should use expensive resources as opposed to cheap ones? And how is that going to be achieved?

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jun 28th, 2008 at 10:02:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
By making the "cheap" resources expensive by fiat?

By internalising the externalities that make the "cheap" resources cheap in the first place?

By rationing the "cheap" resources?

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Jun 28th, 2008 at 03:52:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
We are assuming that this is occurring in the context of a functioning market.  By one formulation of Occam's Razor, it must be possible to falsify a statement in order for the statement to be meaningful.  We are in a situation where there is almost no amount of money that will significantly increase the supply of light sweet crude oil.  The curve of price vs demand approaches the vertical asymptotically. Is there any condition under which we will say that a market no longer exists?  If not , then Jake's questions become very relevant?

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Mon Jun 30th, 2008 at 12:31:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Rather, if so, they become moot, as the resource is not "cheap" and there is no market.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Mon Jun 30th, 2008 at 12:34:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You know, I have a headache and it's early in the morning but I can see I was interpreting Bruce totally backwards. He takes 'scarce' and 'underemployed/underutilized' to be relative to long-term sustainable use as well as misreading economize on as capitalize on or something... Ugh.

The issue is not that "no amount of money will increase the supply of light sweet crude oil" but that no amount of light sweet crude oil supply is long-term sustainable. We could probably set a global scale of consumption of nonrenewable resources, say 1% of reserves per year, and add a tax as a function of how the current rate of extraction compares with the scale. In effect, rationing. You can create a market around it (cap and trade) if you want. One justification for the tax is as follows: in the absence of tax you have a very high market price for a resource that is relatively cheap to produce, just can't be produced in sufficient amounts. The tax should be on the order of the "scarcity premium" so the extraction operation make a "reasonable" margin on the product as oppose to an insane one. In other words, tax the rent.

Also, I recently heard someone articulate a difference between a "resource" and a "reserve": a reserve is an economically exploitable resource. Example: tar sands used to be a resource until the price of crude suddenly catapulted Canada to the top of the table on oil reserves. So, the "reserve" level used to set the 'sustainable" rate of consumption should be audited in a careful way as it is price-dependent.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 30th, 2008 at 02:17:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As you can see, I was having my own difficulties last night. :-)

Your suggestions regarding taxation of nonrenewable resources make a lot of sense.  Unfortunately, that probably precludes them as feasible solutions, at least at present. The concern that had been gnawing on me all day was the sense that, for some resources, we were moving into situations where conventional assumptions produce undefined results, as when the denominator of an expression approaches zero.  

In the limit, that could mean that the price of the last portion of said scarce resource could be all of the worlds remaining wealth.  Of course it won't get to that point.  There will come a point where, even in the USA, and of necessity, the political will re-emerge in "political economy."  Only then will common sense solutions be possible, though not inevitable.

Jerome has written of the problem faced by the major oil companies who no longer have access to significant fields they can develop.  Meanwhile, they are continuing to produce significant volumes of oil from old fields at costs that were profitable at $20/b.  Given marginalist economics, those barrels are sold at the cost of the most expensive barrel on the market.  The justification for that has alway been that they had to use the vast profits to search for increasingly more expensive oil to extract.

But the sustainability of that process is now clearly in question.  We cannot drill our way out of this problem, even if every field under the control of the USA were made available for exploitation, the situation will be far worse by the time those fields were brought into production, unless the economies in China and India collapse.  

At what point will there be  some political demand to intervene in the destructive  operation of the current economic paradigm?  The oil companies won't likely do it.  Neo-classical economics has been privileged to operate as an autonomous sphere in GB and the USA because that was in the interest of the dominant elites.  Will those elites retain that privilege when they can no longer deliver the goods and the society based on their paradigm is collapsing around them?  

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Mon Jun 30th, 2008 at 11:39:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Jerome has written of the problem faced by the major oil companies who no longer have access to significant fields they can develop.  Meanwhile, they are continuing to produce significant volumes of oil from old fields at costs that were profitable at $20/b.  Given marginalist economics, those barrels are sold at the cost of the most expensive barrel on the market.  The justification for that has alway been that they had to use the vast profits to search for increasingly more expensive oil to extract.

The problem with that reasoning is that the barrels are not sold at the cost of the most expensive barrel on the market. The price of oil was $20/bbl in 2002, hit $40 in 2004, 80 in 2006 and is over $140 now. But just two years ago the long-term oil futures prices were still around $50. Which means no oil resources that cost more than $50/bbl to develop are actually in production now and at least 2/3 of the price of oil is rent. Does that mean that the "jusitification" for the price goes away? It's still as close as it gets to an auction, as far as markets go.

I am not sure that this is a particularly 'destructive' consequence of the "current economic paradigm" - in this case we have a pretty unmistakeable price signal coming from the market. Unless you're talking about the consequences of the "economic paradigm" in doing away with "political economy". Now, that is destructive.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 30th, 2008 at 03:52:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The perspective of the price points when investment decisions were made is important.  But I think my question remains.

Does that mean that the "justification" for the price goes away? It's still as close as it gets to an auction, as far as markets go.

But that assumes the answer, i.e. the only way to allocate a vital scarce resource is by a price auction.  The question is whether there are any conditions where another approach is appropriate?  The justification I was citing is the one often given by the major oil companies for the price they charge.  I.e. that is what it will cost them to replace the resource they are selling.  

But if in fact they cannot replace that resource at a rate even close to the rate at which it is being depleted, is that auction price still justified? What is paying that price precludes investment in sustainable energy sources?  In other words, why take the entire world economy down on a sinking ship just because the captain refuses to abandon ship?  Mutiny? That could be what the reemergence of the political in political-economy looks like.  I don't know.  I had to pawn my crystal ball to buy gas. :-(

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Mon Jun 30th, 2008 at 10:36:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In the international arena, I think the only alternative to market-based allocation is more and more war. But within each country's domestic economy, the disadvantaged have to be, at a minimum, allocated something to eat.

Planning for renewables and drastic conservation cannot realistically be accomplished internationally under present conditions. So the oil countries and oil companies will end up with, effectively, all the money in the world.

Yet I don't see how that can matter much. No one could or would transfer the corresponding goods and services to those companies or those countries, regardless of how much paper money they are holding. The major debtor nations will either default or inflate the currency. Either way, such absurdly large debts will disappear. And I think all the major players understand that.

I conclude that the existing international economic system can't last long -- probably not past, say, $35/gallon gasoline. If we're lucky, the existing international system will be replaced by some sort of "cold" wartime truce. If we are unlucky, there will be continual "hot" war on many international fronts.

More significant is the domestic allocation system in each country, I think. That is where the inequality will (must) be ironed out. In the US, at least, I think each region (average size unknown) will find some "revolutionary" way to share resources.

But the US is itself so large and dispersed that we may see the country break up into various sub-countries. Call them states, whatever. In that arena too, we will either have a truce or continuing civil war.

What's next after that? No one knows. Use your imagination. Better yet, think it through and then try to make your vision real.

by Ralph on Tue Jul 1st, 2008 at 10:55:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I conclude that the existing international economic system can't last long --

I agree.  Those countries who are best situated to survive the next two decades will be those who have most effectively transitioned to a post-petroleum energy economy.  Countries with large petroleum reserves may well be on the short end of the transition due to much unwanted attention by more powerful countries.  This will likely only exacerbate the situation, as in Iraq.

This is why we should do all possible to avoid accompanying the captains of the oil industry on a voyage to the bottom of the sea in an empty oil supertanker.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Tue Jul 1st, 2008 at 11:55:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think the microeconomic/game-theoretic arguments that the auction price tends to enforce itself through side payments and exchanges still holds.

A market price doesn't preclude rationing so that everyone has access to some amount of the product.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jul 1st, 2008 at 11:03:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I am not sure that this is a particularly 'destructive' consequence of the "current economic paradigm"... Unless you're talking about the consequences of the "economic paradigm" in doing away with "political economy". Now, that is destructive.

Sorry, I don't follow. What are you getting at when you mention doing away with political economy? Please clarify. Thank you.

by Ralph on Tue Jul 1st, 2008 at 10:05:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Economics used to be called political economy until the Marginalist revolution. Before, people understood that economics is political. After, they pretend it's not. But pretending it's not has destructive political consequences. In particular, it inhibits people who would otherwise dare to have an economic policy.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jul 1st, 2008 at 10:17:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In an economic sense, the resources that are scarce are the more costly. So shifting from the resources that are scarce to those that are unemployed is not shifting from the less economically costly to the more, but rather the other way around.

If the scarce resources are cheaper in the marketplace, it is because there are infant industry costs barriers for new industries required to use some of the unemployed resources, externalities are not included and/or the discount rate applied by private individuals do not permit a long enough decision horizon.

The biggest complement of unemployed resources to look to in the US at the moment are labor (broad unemployment - U6 - nearing 10%), and sustainable renewable energy.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Jul 1st, 2008 at 10:45:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Off topic - my copy of The New Industrial State is in the mail.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jul 1st, 2008 at 11:05:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm a fan of Galbraith. In searching for the book you mention, I found the following:

http://abridge.me.uk/doku.php?id=the_new_industrial_state

The above is supposedly an "abridged version" of The New Industrial State. I haven't looked at the content yet, but in case you might have missed that, I thought you might be interested.

I would have thought copyright problems would prevent the publication of anything along these lines. I guess we will find out.

by Ralph on Tue Jul 1st, 2008 at 12:18:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
An example of economizing on scarce resources by reliance on resources that are presently unemployed is building complex consumer products so that they can be repaired, and having a disposal bond institution in place that favors repair over disposal and replacement ... by, for instance, setting a higher disposal bond rate for items that are not designed to be repaired.

And, indeed, any example of designing for energy efficiency is expending a labor resource to economize on a more scarce resource ... reversing the presumptions of the 1950's, that not bothering to design for energy efficiency is expending an abundant resource, energy, to economize on a more scarce resource, labor.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Jul 1st, 2008 at 10:50:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

And, indeed, any example of designing for energy efficiency is expending a labor resource to economize on a more scarce resource ... reversing the presumptions of the 1950's, that not bothering to design for energy efficiency is expending an abundant resource, energy, to economize on a more scarce resource, labor.

And then repressing the memory of ever having made such a decision and then sacralizing the conclusion.  We can hope that, now that it is a matter of such import, that more people will be willing to revisit this particular "social construction."

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Tue Jul 1st, 2008 at 12:15:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... single-use sprawl residential and trip-generating commercial-only zoning comes in.

We both subsidized and mandate one form of development, and then so-called libertarians go online and point to the fact that the development that took place followed the subsidized and mandated form, and use it as "proof" that the market has spoken.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Jul 1st, 2008 at 12:31:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
We need to have a zero emissions mindset where all waste equals food, as in McDonough's ecological design principles:
waste equals food
use only available solar income
respect diversity
love all the children

The future will be a low energy future, higher efficiency and effective technologies as in the move from incandescent to CFL to LED lights.  To fit within your solar footprint we will have to reduce the load as much as possible.  This is why I start from Solar IS Civil Defense.

We need a swadeshi economy, a local production economy.  Not just Gandhi's spinning wheel, which was the basis for his Constructive Program (Gandhian economics may be a model for a sustainable, restorative world) and his khadi cloth, but also community gardens and feeding programs, permacultural landscapes, small scale and portable solar, wind....

Solar IS Civil Defense

by gmoke on Sun Jun 29th, 2008 at 08:05:50 PM EST
Reminds me of this page: Order of Magnitude Morality. What do you think?

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 30th, 2008 at 02:19:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, similar but not quite the same.  I've read humans use now about 30% of all the biological capacity of the planet.  Paving the world with solar panels is not a future I'd recommend.  This is why I say we will have a low power future, more efficient and more effective technologies.

However, I prefer to try thinking within ecological systems as John Todd does with his water cleaning Living Machines and now with his Buckminster Fuller Challenge  winning proposal for remediating the coal blighted lands of Appalachia, Carbon Neutral World.

Solar IS Civil Defense

by gmoke on Mon Jun 30th, 2008 at 08:11:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
[gsmoke's Crystal Ball of Doom™ Technology]

30 % of the photosynthetic capacity is still only .6 % of total incident solar irradiation (over land, that is, if you average over the oceans as well, you get a figure between .2 and .3, but hey, who's counting...). Take away 30 % albedo on average and we are still using less than half a per cent of total available free energy. The rest goes into water evaporation (which creates tapable energy reservoirs in the shape of rain and snow deposited in higher altitudes and by distilling fresh water out of the oceans) and into maintaining a temperature gradient between the equator and the poles (which can be tapped by windmills). Finally, it is in principle possible to tap the remaining 30 % albedo (although any large-scale change here will cause climatic changes - albeit largely reversible).

Now, don't get me wrong, half a percent of total available free energy is high and really doesn't need to get any higher to be scary. But it's not 30 %, never has been and never will be. That figure is pure doomsaying, and I don't think preaching a gospel of "Repent! For the End is Nigh!" is particularly productive unless you're extremely sure that the end really is nigh - and maybe not even then.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Jul 1st, 2008 at 11:30:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, it's a good way to argue biofuels are not the solution.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jul 1st, 2008 at 11:31:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Granted.

And it's not that it's absolutely and completely wrong, of course. If you scale back the sweeping end-of-civilisation nonsense to something more realistic like "people will occasionally die and periodically suffer considerable discomfort as they experience blackouts and can't heat their homes. Oh, and I wouldn't want to own any coastal property," I wouldn't object too much.

But claiming that the modern state is crucially dependent on fossil fuels is nonsense of the highest magnitude. The modern state goes back to Westphalia (at the earliest) or to the Napoleonic Wars (at the latest) and even by the latter time coal mining was barely industrialised.

(Of course this leaves out what is likely to happen in many third- and fourth-world countries, who will probably be raped even harder than they are now to keep the bread an circuses running in the industrialised world. Unfortunately.)

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Jul 1st, 2008 at 11:56:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But claiming that the modern state is crucially dependent on fossil fuels is nonsense of the highest magnitude. The modern state goes back to Westphalia (at the earliest) or to the Napoleonic Wars (at the latest) and even by the latter time coal mining was barely industrialised.

I don't want to argue about the beginnings of the "modern state," but I believe fossil-fuel-dependent warfare implicitly underlies contemporary national boundaries and the power relationships among countries.

Early coal-dependent warfare was well under way by 1800. Here is just one quickly found reference to "sea-borne coal" dated to 1628.

The Royal Navy: A History from the Earliest Times to the Present (link brings you to the relevant page)

Ships carrying coal and then using that coal in many ways to enhance their crew's and vessel's battle-worthiness must have transformed naval warfare such that an opponent without access to coal would have been at a crippling disadvantage.

Even if the coal was just hitching a ride in 1628...

by Ralph on Tue Jul 1st, 2008 at 01:33:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... more a limiting factor than the access to the coal ... it was not until the shift to crude oil that we see access to fossil fuel being decisive in terms of the shape of the conflict (think, why German troops were in the vicinity of Stalingrad in the first place, why Japan chose the strike south option instead of the strike north option after the US oil embargo, how supplies of oil limited the ability of the western allies to maintain two lines of attack after Normandy, and limited the ability of the Germans to counter-attack early when they were still concerned that Normandy was a diversion).

The move from wind to coal mostly forced the big powers to squabble over dots on the map to use as coaling stations.

The real "sea change" since the Napoleanic age was railroadification creating large continental markets, and swinging the balance of logistical power away from the maritime empire of the UK. And there's no technological/resource reason for the railroadification of large continental economies to go away ... we can do that perfectly well on sustainable renewable power and electrified rail grids.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Jul 1st, 2008 at 02:00:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, coal was still more important overall at the time of WWII for Germany. You needed oil to power your tanks and planes, but you needed coal to build anything and for  logistics (plus lots of hay). It's just that the Germans happened to have access to plenty of coal, but not that much oil. But if the situation had been reversed they would have been utterly screwed, or rather they never would have become a great power in the first place.

Railways and the long distance markets they created were crucial, but so was steamship transport - think of the rise of places like Australia and Argentina in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. A hell of a lot of freight was carried over water. In WWI it was the Germans who ended up starving, not the Brits in spite of the fact that the Germans produced more of their own food than the UK. That was due to British naval superiority.

And in the end, the Brits were replaced as the most powerful state by the Americans. The US used railways for economic development, but it wasn't a direct factor in its military strength, nor was the US the dominant land army until the fall of the Soviet Union.

by MarekNYC on Tue Jul 1st, 2008 at 02:17:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, you could get a ways as a raw material exporter on steam shipping ... but of course, without the railroadification of Argentina, there would not have been all that beef in Buenos Aires, and without the tram system the shirtless ones could never have got to work to get it packed into cans of corned beef.

But being a raw material exporter alone has not been the route to great power status.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Jul 1st, 2008 at 02:34:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Goalpost, meet Mr. Fixit. He's going to move you a little bit.

You were "predicting" the internal collapse of the major industrialised states.

I won't quarrel with the analysis that we will see much more in the way of resource wars when resources become constrained, or that the third world is going to be even more screwed than usually, because it is and always has been seen as a "legitimate" playing ground for proxy wars between the great powers. In fact, I believe that I suggested as much myself in the post you respond to.

But none of this will give you roving bands of armed brigands on the US Interstates, or the German Autobahns.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 12:06:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... biofuels not the solution for?

Plug and play replacement of the consumption of a non-renewable stock of high EROI fossilized energy stores?

There are biofuels that are the solution to specific problems ... but the answer to the "problem" that they are not a plug and play replacement for coal and crude oil is to point out that this is not the target.

The target is a portfolio of energy sources that, if used efficiently, supports a a decent level of basic needs with a surplus available to have fun with.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Jul 1st, 2008 at 12:36:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That 30% figure is in reference to our removing resources from the rest of the biological world.  It will be a mighty lonely world with only humans, our pets and meat animals, the cockroaches, and the rats left among the higher vertebrates.  Of course, most of biological life on this planet is microscopic and will continue producing oxygen and other necessities unless we really, really, really screw it all up.

I'm sorry that you missed my point which is about ecological design and system efficiencies (exergy, exergy, exergy).  I think this is the way out of doom and gloom, however much I enjoy my dank pessimism.  Take a look at John Todd's work to see what I mean.  

We need to expand the biosphere not diminish it.

Solar IS Civil Defense

by gmoke on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 01:35:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That 30% figure is in reference to our removing resources from the rest of the biological world.

Which is relevant only inasmuch as you think our energy has to come from the (present) biosphere. At the moment it overwhelmingly doesn't: It comes from past biosphere. In the very near future, the past biosphere will be unable to provide energy at the levels we use at present, but that does not mean that the present biosphere will have to take over. Think wind, solar, tidal, osmotic (, uranium).

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Jul 4th, 2008 at 05:05:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]