Worried about the shit hitting the fan on climate change and other major crises? Good. Because those crises prove that we have an unprecedented opportunity to change the world.
...
Far from being all doom and gloom, continuing global economic fragility is symptomatic of a fundamental shift in the very nature of civilization itself. The new era of slow growth and austerity has emerged because the biosphere is forcing us to adapt to the consequences of breaching environmental limits.
...
This fundamental shift has also brought about significant changes that offer profound opportunities for systemic transformation that could benefit humanity and the planet. These five interlinked revolutions in information, food, energy, finance and ethics are opening up opportunities for communities to co-create new ways of being that work for everyone. This year we could discover that the very disruption of capitalism itself is part of a major tipping point in the transition to a new post-industrial, post-capitalist paradigm.
THE INFORMATION REVOLUTION...
The world is currently, quite clearly, at the dawn of a huge technological revolution in information that has already in the space of a few years transformed the way we do things, and is pitched to trigger ongoing changes in coming decades.
THE ENERGY REVOLUTION...
Seba told me that conventional EROIE calculations are potentially misleading because they ignore critical costs and externalities, especially in land and water usage, waste and pollution. Applying the concept of Energy Payback Time (EPBT) to photovoltaic (PV) solar panels—where EPBT is how long it takes to produce the same quantity of energy that was used to create and install the panels—Seba notes that recent thin film technologies will pay back this energy in around just one year. After that point, effectively, energy is generated for free. If a thin film panel produces energy for 25 years, then its EROIE is 25. “This is far higher than the published results for most forms of energy today, including oil, gas, wind, and nuclear,” Seba said....
THE FOOD REVOLUTION...
With global food prices at record levels in the context of these challenges, combined with the pressures of climate-induced extreme weather, volatile oil prices, and speculation by investors, the incentive to develop greater resilience in locally accessible food production is also growing....
THE FINANCE REVOLUTION...
The information, food and energy revolutions are being facilitated by a burgeoning revolution in finance. Once again, the emerging trend is for new models that give greater power to the crowd, and undermine the authority and legitimacy—and even necessity—of the traditional, centralized banking infrastructure....
THE ETHICAL REVOLUTION...
The old and new paradigms can be clearly related to two quite different value systems. The first paradigm, which is currently in decline, is that of egoism, crude materialism, and selfish consumerism....
In contrast, a value system associated with the emerging paradigm is also supremely commensurate with what most of us recognize as ‘good’: love, justice, compassion, generosity. This has the revolutionary implication that ethics, often viewed as ‘subjective’, in fact have a perfectly objective and utilitarian function in the fundamental evolutionary goal of species survival. In some sense, ethics provide us a value-driven benchmark to recognize the flaws in the old paradigm, and glimpse the opportunities for better social forms.
The model that is fast developing and disrupting this paradigm from within, is one premised on open access to information; distributed and effectively free, clean energy; local, community and democratic ownership over planetary resources; and a form of prosperity and well-being that is ultimately decoupled from the imperative for endless material accumulation.http://motherboard.vice.com/en_uk/read/the-end-of-endless-growth-part-2 (http://motherboard.vice.com/en_uk/read/the-end-of-endless-growth-part-2)
You are not just a consumer. You are a citizen of this Earth and your responsibility is not private but public, not individual but social. If you are a resident of a country that is a major carbon emitter, as is nearly everyone in the English-speaking world, you are part of the system, and nothing less than systemic change will save us.
http://www.salon.com/2014/12/27/rebecca_solnit_the_age_of_capitalism_is_over_partner/ (http://www.salon.com/2014/12/27/rebecca_solnit_the_age_of_capitalism_is_over_partner/)
Catholic Bishops from every continent denounce fossil fuel use and capitalism, "which is a human creation."
Striking a similar note to Naomi Klein’s recent book, “This Changes Everything,” the bishops’ statement also argued that global capitalism and its economic systems, as currently designed, are incompatible with long-term ecological sustainability: “The main responsibility for this situation lies with the dominant global economic system, which is a human creation. In viewing objectively the destructive effects of a financial and economic order based on the primacy of the market and profit, which has failed to put the human being and the common good at the heart of the economy, one must recognize the systemic failures of this order and the need for a new financial and economic order.”
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/12/11/3602596/bishops-end-fossil-fuels/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/12/11/3602596/bishops-end-fossil-fuels/)
In recent months, the pope has argued for a radical new financial and economic system to avoid human inequality and ecological devastation. In October he told a meeting of Latin American and Asian landless peasants and other social movements: “An economic system centred on the god of money needs to plunder nature to sustain the frenetic rhythm of consumption that is inherent to it.
“The system continues unchanged, since what dominates are the dynamics of an economy and a finance that are lacking in ethics. It is no longer man who commands, but money. Cash commands.
“The monopolising of lands, deforestation, the appropriation of water, inadequate agro-toxics are some of the evils that tear man from the land of his birth. Climate change, the loss of biodiversity and deforestation are already showing their devastating effects in the great cataclysms we witness,” he said.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/27/pope-francis-edict-climate-change-us-rightwing (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/27/pope-francis-edict-climate-change-us-rightwing)
Equity crowdfunding will be huge: CEO
In fact, the demand for crowdfunding, whether it be for projects or for financing start-ups, is becoming so mainstream that it will define the decade, he said.
"It's a really exciting industry, the 80's was all about desktop computing, the 90's was all about online commerce, and the early 2000's was all about social networking," Rubin said. "And this decade will go down as the decade of funding by the time it's over."
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101693940 (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101693940)
Solar-roadway backers set crowdfunding record
http://www.cnet.com/news/solar-roadways-tops-1-5-million-sets-indiegogo-record/ (http://www.cnet.com/news/solar-roadways-tops-1-5-million-sets-indiegogo-record/)
My problems can't be fully fixed if those aspects of this version of capitalism (the limitlessness) aren't fixed.
"wouldn't this result in an increase in consumer spending?"
The richest aren't consumers?
My problems can't be fully fixed if those aspects of this version of capitalism (the limitlessness) aren't fixed.
Fair enough if we have different views.
I want a capitalism where the government sees an important role for itself in internalising the externalities where these are or are likely to become problems. This is the standard economics answer when externalities like carbon pollution is a problem. 'Crony capitalism' should also be seen as an abhorrent crime.
While vast and growing difference in wealth vs poverty is not desirable, I see adverse effects in trying to reduce them. That doesn't mean do nothing but the benefits and adverse effects have to be considered for each possible remedy to see if it is sensible rather than assuming the goal of reducing inequity is more important than any possible adverse effect which seems the implication of a ban on further inequality.
I think I would suggest that ensuring social mobility through success is possible may well be more important than wealth redistribution.
The wealth distribution problem seems a separate problem to climate change issues to me. In fact if there was some magic solution to wealth distribution so that wealth was spread more evenly, wouldn't this result in an increase in consumer spending?
Is it not true that if we look at the history of capitalism it is fair to say that it did not exist in any form (many would argue not at all) before the rise of the industrial revolution? Which was in turn driven by the increasing per capita energy available?
If one digs into the structure of capitalism and how it functions it seems pretty apparent that it simply cannot function without constant growth and continuing access to vast amounts of cheap energy. The growth of the capitalist economic practices and access to vast amounts of cheap energy is exactly what has driven us into our current predicament.
our so badly exceeding the Earth's carrying capacity
Before this time the typical rural dweller worked well under 8 hours a day.
I think I would suggest that ensuring social mobility through success is possible may well be more important than wealth redistribution.
Micro-celebrity and self-funding alone probably can't sustain an artistic middle class community. But Patreon's $10 million milestone and Kickstarter's almost $1.5 billion in pledges are evidence of a promising new infrastructure that helps artists make a living in the era of free content.http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-02/omg-the-new-patron-of-the-arts-is-you.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-02/omg-the-new-patron-of-the-arts-is-you.html)
So are you saying you would prefer the industrial revolution not to have happened? Is that the cause of climate change problems now or would it have been preferable for industrial revolution to have happened and a carbon tax implemented 25 years ago when it was clear that the externalities of fossil fuel burning were going to become a problem?
I have seen people assert things like 'cannot function without constant growth' but I haven't found much in the way of evidence that I accept. Maybe I am just blinkered into not believing it or am not looking hard enough.
Have we? Where is the evidence that we cannot grow GWP more in sustainable directions when there are suitable taxes/fines discouraging unsustainable activities?
Before this time the typical rural dweller worked well under 8 hours a day.
Really? I would suggest farmers work long hours.
the market economy isn’t a beautiful self-correcting machine, as neoclassical economists would have you believe. It instead voraciously consumes the society and natural environment in which it sits unless it is curbed.
we seem to have the veneer of democracy while in fact moving strongly in the direction of an authoritarian business-state combine, an improved version of Mussolini-style corporatism.
Even though it seems unlikely that this system will unravel, the dissolution of a much more successful-looking world order was simply inconceivable in the summer of 1914.
Highly-integrated cross-border market systems are more fragile than they seem, and we are stressing this one in far more ways than was the case a century ago.
Toyota has announced that it will allow its competitors to use any and all of its 5,680 patents for hydrogen fuel cell cars, a move the company hopes will jump-start the widespread commercial production of cars powered by zero-emission hydrogen gas.http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/01/06/3608292/toyota-hydrogen-fuel-cell-patents-for-everybody/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/01/06/3608292/toyota-hydrogen-fuel-cell-patents-for-everybody/)
...
If the move sounds familiar, that’s because it is very similar to what famously innovative electric car company Tesla Motors did this summer. In June, Tesla CEO Elon Musk announced that the company would let its competitors use its patents under what Bloomberg Businessweek called “open-source-inspired agenda” at Tesla. “Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology,” Musk said at the time.
The reason both Toyota and Tesla would want competitors to use their technology is simple: without more production of these low-emission cars, there is little incentive to create the expensive infrastructure needed to make them mainstream. Electric cars need recharging stations; hydrogen cars need hydrogen gas filling stations. Without that infrastructure, it is unlikely that either electric or hydrogen cars would be able to compete with the massive gas-powered vehicle market.
... Porter has been less interested in how companies can get a leg-up on their rivals and more concerned with improving the planet. His theory is called "shared value," and it says that companies can and should solve social problems—and they can make money doing it. He believes that companies are entering a third phase in their relationship with society. The first was about philanthropy, where business donates money to causes. The second was about "corporate social responsibility," or minimizing their social or environmental harm. The third is about solutions: actual products and services with a social purpose.www.fastcoexist.com/3039695/never-mind-corporate-responsibility-companies-can-solve-actual-social-problems (http://www.fastcoexist.com/3039695/never-mind-corporate-responsibility-companies-can-solve-actual-social-problems)
"The ultimate impact businesses can have is through the business itself," he says in an interview. "There are huge unmet needs in the world today. The question now is how to get capitalism to operate at its best because capitalism is fundamentally the best way to meet needs. If you can meet needs at a profit, you can scale."
(CNN)"When there is a very difficult situation, women are called in to do the work. To sort out the mess."http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/06/business/christine-lagarde-leading-through-crisis/index.html (http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/06/business/christine-lagarde-leading-through-crisis/index.html)
Christine Lagarde is the woman who has been tasked to do just that. She has led the IMF since 2011 amidst the organization being in the center of scandal; regarding its former managing director as well as a global economic crisis.
...
"It's a common trait of women, to be concerned about the collective success more than about their individual visibility respectability and success."
Etsy's initial public offering is about to question Wall Street's conscience: Will investors embrace a company that wants to do good while it does well?http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-02/etsy-s-ipo-is-a-direct-challenge-to-wall-street-s-beliefs (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-02/etsy-s-ipo-is-a-direct-challenge-to-wall-street-s-beliefs)
For three years, Etsy has been what's called a certified B Corporation—a distinction given to companies that pass demanding standards of benefiting the community, environment, employees, consumers, and suppliers. At Etsy, this includes giving all employees 40 hours of paid volunteer time every year, paying employees more than 40 percent above the local living wage, and covering 80 percent of workers' health insurance premiums, according to the company's 2013 Values & Impact Annual Report.
In Etsy’s pursuit of investors—and a $1.8 billion valuation— the company's values are central to the pitch. It is asking future stockholders to be OK with a management team that refuses to squeeze every penny of profit out of its 1.4 million active sellers or sacrifices community benefits to slash costs.
Mr. Price’s small, privately owned company is by no means a bellwether, but his unusual proposal does speak to an economic issue that has captured national attention: The disparity between the soaring pay of chief executives and that of their employees.http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/business/owner-of-gravity-payments-a-credit-card-processor-is-setting-a-new-minimum-wage-70000-a-year.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/business/owner-of-gravity-payments-a-credit-card-processor-is-setting-a-new-minimum-wage-70000-a-year.html)
The United States has one of the world’s largest pay gaps, with chief executives earning nearly 300 times what the average worker makes, according to some economists’ estimates. That is much higher than the 20-to-1 ratio recommended by Gilded Age magnates like J. Pierpont Morgan and the 20th century management visionary Peter Drucker.
OneNYC is the most ambitious strategy in the nation to link the fight against income inequality with climate action and may inspire officials in other municipalities to follow.http://insideclimatenews.org/news/24042015/new-york-mayor-champions-economic-justice-sustainability-plan (http://insideclimatenews.org/news/24042015/new-york-mayor-champions-economic-justice-sustainability-plan)
...
Besides the income equality component, the other major addition is a new plan to reduce New York City's landfill waste to zero by 2030 through aggressive composting and recycling programs. Cutting New York's waste will also help the city reach its goal of slashing greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050, known as 80x50, which de Blasio announced in September.
The target will require drastic reductions in greenhouse gases from buildings, which account for 75 percent of the city's emissions. The de Blasio administration also said it will expand development of renewable energy sources and will cut energy consumption at wastewater treatment plants to reach the 80x50 goal.
If exercise stops, then my health goes downhill. With the loss of physical health my productivity at work goes down. I become depressed. I lose motivation to do the things that makes my business successful. I’ve learned firsthand that excellence in one area of my life promotes excellence in all other areas of my life. Exercise is the easiest area of my life to control. It’s easy to measure. Either I get it in, or I don’t. When I do, it lifts up all other areas of my life, including my business.http://time.com/3843445/exercising-higher-priority-business/ (http://time.com/3843445/exercising-higher-priority-business/)
also, wealth accumulation has been a bad habit of homo sapiens ever since it was possible to store wealth, with the rise of agriculture and the cultivation of grain.
but there is no ability to accumulate wealth at allSo someone who wants to save up for a more comfortable retirement and is willing to forego some current spending to have that higher level of spending later is prohibited from doing so? Sounds rather dictatorial, don't you think?
Storing grain to avoid famine if there is one year with bad weather causing crop failure is a bad habit???? What about coping with 2 years with bad weather? What about 3? When does it become a bad habit? Surely there is some level at which it is good?
So someone who wants to save up for a more comfortable retirement and is willing to forego some current spending to have that higher level of spending later is prohibited from doing so? Sounds rather dictatorial, don't you think?
how much does a person need. Not an awful lot
also, wealth accumulation has been a bad habit of homo sapiens ever since it was possible to store wealth, with the rise of agriculture and the cultivation of grain.
Storing grain to avoid famine if there is one year with bad weather causing crop failure is a bad habit???? What about coping with 2 years with bad weather? What about 3? When does it become a bad habit? Surely there is some level at which it is good?Quotebut there is no ability to accumulate wealth at allSo someone who wants to save up for a more comfortable retirement and is willing to forego some current spending to have that higher level of spending later is prohibited from doing so? Sounds rather dictatorial, don't you think?
"wouldn't this result in an increase in consumer spending?"
The richest aren't consumers?
Of course the richest are consumers but their propensity to spend their wealth is less than that of poorer people.
Storing grain to avoid famine if there is one year with bad weather causing crop failure is a bad habit???? What about coping with 2 years with bad weather? What about 3? When does it become a bad habit? Surely there is some level at which it is good?
It becomes a bad habit as soon as it breaches the limit of necessity + a bit.QuoteSo someone who wants to save up for a more comfortable retirement and is willing to forego some current spending to have that higher level of spending later is prohibited from doing so? Sounds rather dictatorial, don't you think?
That depends on the standard of living. If someone is hoarding 10 billion dollars in assets, whereas 10 million would be more than enough for one family (3 generations at least), that should be prohibited. Because that 10 billion is paid for by other people and by the environment.
It all boils down to the question: how much does a person need. Not an awful lot, even if advertisements try to make us believe otherwise.
The cap needs to be put in capital.
here's an option for transitioning away from capitalism: employee owned businesses. i've actually seen 2 success stories here. in spring grove, il, scot forge is widely reputed as the best place to work. all their workers are well paid and many retire in their 30's and 40's. it's an employee owned steel factory.
in the rio grand valley, tx, vtci is the local phone coop. it pays back all profits to its customers as dividends, which the customers LOVE! it also creates a strong incentive to invest in the business, so the company laid miles of fiber optic cable throughout this tiny rural area in south texas in the late 1990's. even now, their internet and phone plans are higher quality than what's available in chicago, il, AND they still paid dividends to all their customers every year (on a 4 year delay, the only complaint).
richard wolff has a lot to say on the subject, here's an interview. you can also find his videos on youtube.
http://www.rdwolff.com/content/democracy-work-cure-capitalism (http://www.rdwolff.com/content/democracy-work-cure-capitalism)
"For the life of me, I will never understand how a family like the Koch brothers, worth $85 billion, apparently think that's not enough money."http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-koch-brothers_55d9ca6ee4b0a40aa3ab3642 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-koch-brothers_55d9ca6ee4b0a40aa3ab3642)
What If the Richest Person in Every Country Gave All Their Money to the Poor?
It'd mean more in Sweden and not much in India
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-22/what-if-the-richest-person-in-every-country-gave-all-his-money-to-the-poor- (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-22/what-if-the-richest-person-in-every-country-gave-all-his-money-to-the-poor-)
How silly is this? First they say 'what if the rich gave all their money to the poor', then they reduce that to just the richest person, after which they conclude it wouldn't amount to much, because some countries have a lot of inhabitants and others don't.
Cards Against Humanity, the popular and politically incorrect party game, offered a Black Friday deal like no other this year: you shell out $5 and get absolutely nothing in return.http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/cards-against-humanity-makes-71-000-selling-absolutely-nothing-n470526 (http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/cards-against-humanity-makes-71-000-selling-absolutely-nothing-n470526)
American consumerism, which is all about maximum options, holds ridiculous conversations about private health insurance being superior to government health insurance because you have many more choices.
It's all a big lie.
America really does have the best system of civil liberties in the world outside remote Amazonian tribes that can do whatever they want but Americans are not happy inspite of being so free.
It's a measureable fact.
It turns out that fairly highly regulated countries in Europe have the highest happiness and satisfaction levels. So another big lie about freedom is that it has even a correlation with happiness.
Obviously we are not talking about places where political freedoms are severely compromised.
Although even there, one of the things I discovered talking to people that had grown up in East Germany was that they don't remember the time as being that bad because with the repression came a whole body of things they did't have to worry about.
You didn't have to worry about having a place to live, having enough to eat, having a place to go to school or health insurance. So paradoxally I suspect even a place like East Germany was less unhappy in toto than Texas is now because it's this constant stress: so many choices, so many things you have to take care of by yourself because we are free, free, free.
No one can stop you and let's not even get into the freedom to bear arms. Just look at the body count in America ...
Imagine this: as you're worried about how to pay bills and make your rent, you get a check from the government for $876. Every month.http://mashable.com/2015/12/06/finland-basic-income-800-euros/ (http://mashable.com/2015/12/06/finland-basic-income-800-euros/)
That's what Finland is doing. The Nordic nation is getting closer this month to finalizing a solution to poverty: paying each of its 5.4 million people $876 tax-free a month — and in return, it will do away with welfare benefits, unemployment lines, and the other bureaucracy of its extensive social safety net.
The concept, called basic income, has been a popular source of debate among academics and economists for decades, though Finland would be the first nation in the European Union — and the first major nation anywhere — to actually implement the idea on a universal basis. The basic income was popularized by the economist Milton Friedman in the 1960s as a "negative income tax."
In the Nordic countries, on the other hand, democratically elected governments give their populations freedom from the market by using capitalism as a tool to benefit everyone. That liberates their people from the tyranny of the mighty profit motive that warps so many American lives, leaving them freer to follow their own dreams—to become poets or philosophers, bartenders or business owners, as they please.http://www.thenation.com/article/after-i-lived-in-norway-america-felt-backward-heres-why/ (http://www.thenation.com/article/after-i-lived-in-norway-america-felt-backward-heres-why/)
Maybe our politicians don’t want to talk about the Nordic model because it shows so clearly that capitalism can be put to work for the many, not just the few.
Extract: "The creation of a new economic system, Rifkin argues, will help alleviate key sustainability challenges, such as climate change and resource scarcity, and take pressure off the natural world. That’s because it will need only a minimum amount of energy, materials, labour and capital.
"We must have a comprehensive and globally shared understanding of how technology is changing our lives and that of future generations," says Schwab.
Given that Oxford University academics warned recently that robots threaten mankind's very existence, he surely has a point."
After I Lived in Norway, America Felt Backward. Here’s Why.
A crash course in social democracy.QuoteIn the Nordic countries, on the other hand, democratically elected governments give their populations freedom from the market by using capitalism as a tool to benefit everyone. That liberates their people from the tyranny of the mighty profit motive that warps so many American lives, leaving them freer to follow their own dreams—to become poets or philosophers, bartenders or business owners, as they please.http://www.thenation.com/article/after-i-lived-in-norway-america-felt-backward-heres-why/ (http://www.thenation.com/article/after-i-lived-in-norway-america-felt-backward-heres-why/)
Maybe our politicians don’t want to talk about the Nordic model because it shows so clearly that capitalism can be put to work for the many, not just the few.
As you can see on the slide (slide 7), there are some countries with higher birth rates than Norway, but except for Iceland, these countries have low labour market participation among women. There are also countries with higher employment rates, but many of these are struggling with low fertility rates.
The unique combination of high labour force participation and high birth rates is crucial for sustaining Norway's good economic performance.
To begin with, explains Swedish scholar Nima Sanandaji, the affluence and cultural norms upon which Scandinavia’s social-democratic policies rest are not the product of socialism. In “Scandinavian Unexceptionalism,” a penetrating new book published by the Institute of Economic Affairs, Sanandaji shows that the Nordic nations’ prosperity “developed during periods characterized by free-market policies, low or moderate taxes, and limited state involvement in the economy.”
ASLR
Yes there is a lot of great talk out there...but no progress. A lot of this talk addresses sustainability, waste, the problems with the profit motive, 'old' industries and the like. But when you really look at what is going on it is pretty much falls into the talking about it to feel good category. These types of statements are anything but new as they have been being made by environmentalists and political scientists as far back as the 1970's - in political science terms for a couple of hundred years. And the sophistication of the talk is no more complex now either. We have spent my entire life listening to talk like this.
So it is essential for Norway to maintain a high birth rate to sustain its economic performance. Need I point out this is a big ass problem and sort of contrary to the suggestion that there is something sustainable about the way Norwegians live?
As to the how, Steve Keen one of the few eonomists who called the 2008 crisis has been advocating a helicopter drop of money for about 10 years. It looks like the Swiss may try it.
"With Citi's chief economist proclaiming "only helicopter money can save the world now," and the Bank of England pre-empting paradropping money concerns, it appears that Australia's largest investment bank's forecast that money-drops were 12-18 months away was too conservative. While The Finns consider a "basic monthly income" for the entire population, Swiss residents are to vote on a countrywide referendum about a radical plan to pay every single adult a guaranteed income of around $2500 per month, with authorities insisting that people will still want to find a job." http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-29/helicopter-money-arrives-switzerland-hand-out-2500-monthly-all-citizens (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-29/helicopter-money-arrives-switzerland-hand-out-2500-monthly-all-citizens)
Personally I'd prefer it if every adult citizen had access to a limited amount of credit from their central bank, on the same terms as the bankers. In the UK £72,000 would do it, make that available at the rate of £12,000 a year, if you have debts you must use it to pay down part of those debts, if not you get it as credit at the beginning of the month. Same for those working and not, but if your not working you lose all other benefits.
http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2009/07/15/no-one-saw-this-coming-balderdash/ (http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2009/07/15/no-one-saw-this-coming-balderdash/)
You rarely see poor bankers and it's largely because of their priviledged access to cheap credit, why should that be?
. . .
Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity. I began with the most basic question:
This changes everything — how?
Naomi Klein: So the ‘this’ in This Changes Everything is climate change. And the argument that I make in the book is that we find ourselves in this moment where there are no non-radical options left before us. Change or be changed, right? And what we mean by that is that climate change, if we don’t change course, if we don’t change our political and economic system, is going to change everything about our physical world. And that is what climate scientists are telling us when they say business as usual leads to three to four degrees Celsius of warming. That’s the road we are on. We can get off that road, but we’re now so far along it, we’ve put off the crucial policies for so long, that now we can’t do it gradually. We have to swerve, right? And swerving requires such a radical departure from the kind of political and economic system we have right now that we pretty much have to change everything.
We have to change the kind of free trade deals we sign. We would have to change the absolutely central role of frenetic consumption in our culture. We would have to change the role of money in politics and our political system. We would have to change our attitude towards regulating corporations. We would have to change our guiding ideology.
You know, since the 1980s we’ve been living in this era, really, of corporate rule, based on this idea that the role of government is to liberate the power of capital so that they can have as much economic growth as quickly as possible and then all good things will flow from that. And that is what justifies privatization, deregulation, cuts to corporate taxes offset by cuts to public services — all of this is incompatible with what we need to do in the face of the climate crisis. We need to invest massively in the public sphere to have a renewable energy system, to have good public transit and rail. That money needs to come from somewhere, so it’s going to have to come from the people who have the money.
And I actually believe it’s deeper than that, that it’s about changing the paradigm of a culture that is based on separateness from nature, that is based on the idea that we can dominate nature, that we are the boss, that we are in charge. Climate change challenges all of that. It says, you know, all this time that you’ve been living in this bubble apart from nature, that has been fueled by a substance that all the while has been accumulating in the atmosphere, and you told yourself you were the boss, you told yourself you could have a one-way relationship with the natural world, but now comes the response: “You thought you were in charge? Think again.” And we can either mourn our status as boss of the world and see it as some cosmic demotion — which is why I think the extreme right is so freaked out by climate change that they have to deny it. It isn’t just that it is a threat to their profits. It’s a threat to a whole worldview that says you have dominion over all things, and that’s extremely threatening.
. . .
Not much chance of this happening but it is what is required.
Nearly 40 years ago.
The days of dealing with stolen food vouchers and prepaid electronic cards are gone for Syrian refugees in northern Jordan. Instead, they can now pay for groceries with their eyes when checking out at the supermarket.http://www.takepart.com/article/2016/02/17/refugees-are-using-their-eyes-pay-groceries (http://www.takepart.com/article/2016/02/17/refugees-are-using-their-eyes-pay-groceries)
On Tuesday, those living in King Abdullah Park refugee camp started purchasing food simply by looking into a machine.
The technology, headed by the United Nations World Food Programme, is nothing new, considering the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees already uses iris-scanning technology to identify refugees when they first register with the agency; in March, the agency also partnered with Jordan-based banks so refugees could get cash from ATMs through the eye-scanning system. However, this is the first instance of it being implemented in select supermarkets.
“We are really capitalizing on technology that already exists,” Dina El-Kassaby, regional communications officer for WFP, told Mashable. “We are just giving this technology a retail spin.”
The system analyzes biometric registration data supplied by the UNHCR that can identify a refugee quite literally in the blink of an eye. Once a person is confirmed as a refugee in the UNHCR’s data bank, payment is deducted from the individual's monthly food allowance, and a receipt is printed.
... A 'circular economy' would turn goods that are at the end of their service life into resources for others, closing loops in industrial ecosystems and minimizing waste (see 'Closing loops'). It would change economic logic because it replaces production with sufficiency: reuse what you can, recycle what cannot be reused, repair what is broken, remanufacture what cannot be repaired. A study of seven European nations found that a shift to a circular economy would reduce each nation's greenhouse-gas emissions by up to 70% and grow its workforce by about 4% — the ultimate low-carbon economy (see go.nature.com/biecsc).http://www.nature.com/news/the-circular-economy-1.19594#auth-1 (http://www.nature.com/news/the-circular-economy-1.19594#auth-1)
...
Circular-economy business models fall in two groups: those that foster reuse and extend service life through repair, remanufacture, upgrades and retrofits; and those that turn old goods into as-new resources by recycling the materials. People — of all ages and skills — are central to the model. Ownership gives way to stewardship; consumers become users and creators3. The remanufacturing and repair of old goods, buildings and infrastructure creates skilled jobs in local workshops. The experiences of workers from the past are instrumental.
...
A circular economy is like a lake. The reprocessing of goods and materials generates jobs and saves energy while reducing resource consumption and waste. Cleaning a glass bottle and using it again is faster and cheaper than recycling the glass or making a new bottle from minerals. Vehicle owners can decide whether to have their used tyres repaired or regrooved or whether to buy new or retreaded replacements — if such services exist. Rather than being dumped, used tyres are collected by waste managers and sold to the highest bidder.
...
Yet a lack of familiarity and fear of the unknown mean that the circular-economy idea has been slow to gain traction. As a holistic concept, it collides with the silo structures of academia, companies and administrations. For economists who work with gross domestic product (GDP), creating wealth by making things last is the opposite of what they learned in school. GDP measures a financial flow over a period of time; circular economy preserves physical stocks. But concerns over resource security, ethics and safety as well as greenhouse-gas reductions are shifting our approach to seeing materials as assets to be preserved, rather than continually consumed.
Ten canned food items will give you a $15 credit on parking citations; most parking meter citations in the area are for that amount. And for tickets that are more than $15, you can bring in more cans!http://www.today.com/kindness/lexington-kentucky-accepts-food-homeless-parking-ticket-payment-t57456 (http://www.today.com/kindness/lexington-kentucky-accepts-food-homeless-parking-ticket-payment-t57456)
The Lexington Parking Authority collected 10,000 canned goods and other food items as part of its five-week “food for fines” program.http://www.kentucky.com/news/local/counties/fayette-county/article52957725.html (http://www.kentucky.com/news/local/counties/fayette-county/article52957725.html)
The program — now in its second year — allowed people to pay traffic and parking fines with canned goods. All donations received by LexPark were given to God's Pantry Food Bank.
According to God’s Pantry, 10,211 pounds, or 5 tons, of food were received, which is the equivalent of 8,370 meals. The program started Nov. 16 and concluded Dec. 18. In 2014, only parking citations were eligible for the food for fines program. This year the program was expanded to include traffic citations. Last year, LexPark collected 6,200 food items.
The climate crisis, by presenting the species with an existential crisis and putting us on a firm and unyielding science-based deadline, might just be the catalyst we need to knit together the great many powerful movements bound together by the inherent worth and value of all people, and united by the rejection of the ‘sacrifice zone’ mentality.”http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/naomi-klein-argues-climate-change-is-a-battle-between-capitalism-and-the-planet-1.2647166 (http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/naomi-klein-argues-climate-change-is-a-battle-between-capitalism-and-the-planet-1.2647166)
Canadian writer and activist Naomi Klein made these remarks in London last week in a lecture (available online) commemorating Palestinian theorist Edward Said. She was inspired by his argument that many peoples have been classified by imperial powers as “the other” – less than fully human – and said the climate crisis was entrenching inequality across the globe.
...
Bellamy Foster says an “ecological civilisation” is a necessary transitional society beyond capitalism, defined by far more substantive equality of global resources and burden-sharing of cutbacks in consumption between rich and poor states and people.
In Copenhagen, bicycles take undisputed priority over cars and even pedestrians. A sizzling restaurant scene has made foodie fetishes of moss, live ants, and sea cucumbers. Despite a minimum wage not far below $20 an hour and some of the world’s steepest taxes, unemployment is almost the lowest in Europe. Parents happily leave infants unattended in strollers on the sidewalk while they stop in to cafes.http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-06/denmark-land-below-zero-where-negative-interest-rates-are-normal (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-06/denmark-land-below-zero-where-negative-interest-rates-are-normal)
Clearly the usual rules tend not to apply in Denmark. So it’s no surprise that the country in recent years has added a major new entry to its sprawling repertoire of eccentricities: Since 2012 it’s been a place where you can get paid to borrow money and charged to save it.
Scandinavia’s third-largest economy (the population is 5 million, and there are about as many bikes) is deep into an unprecedented experiment with negative interest rates, a monetary policy tool once viewed by mainstream economists as approaching apostasy, if not a virtual impossibility. Companies—though not yet individuals—are paying lenders for the privilege of keeping funds on deposit; homeowners, in some cases, are actually making money on mortgages.
The Communist Party of China, it is frequently asserted, is a misnamed organization. That's because, since the party began experimenting with private enterprise in the 1970s, it has shed much of the intellectual baggage associated with Marx, Lenin and that ilk.http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-08/this-chinese-dynasty-needs-a-name (http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-08/this-chinese-dynasty-needs-a-name)
...The dynasty model works like this: After a period of decline or even chaos, a new ruler takes power -- usually by military means -- and establishes a new dynasty. Some of these are short-lived -- the first imperial dynasty, the Qin, lasted just 15 years -- while others bring centuries of peace and prosperity.
From a Chinese historical perspective, then, the American republic at age 240 looks like a quite successful dynasty that's been showing signs of age lately, not necessarily the "end of history."
Adam Smith’s Critique of International Trading Companies… (http://ptx.sagepub.com/content/36/2/185.abstract)Adam Smith, Timothy Worstall and large international companies (http://www.brusselsblog.co.uk/adam-smith-timothy-worstall-and-large-international-companies/)
Such companies, in Smith’s view, had corrupted and captured many European and non-European governments and undermined their societies’ ability to engage in peaceful transnational affairs and equitable self-rule. In contrast with Smith’s well-known concerns about the rise of commerce in modern Europe in his four-stage account of social development— which were outweighed, in his view, by the many material benefits and personal liberties brought about by the eclipse of feudalism—his narrative of globalization offers a trenchantly critical appraisal of commercial practices that ultimately undermine many of the gains that the initial rise of modern commerce once made possible…
The United Kingdom government held talks with Royal Dutch Shell Plc and BP Plc to ensure British energy companies were “well-placed to pick up contracts in the aftermath” of the Iraq invasion in 2003.Chilcot report: oil groups lobbied UK government ahead of Iraq war (http://gulfbusiness.com/chilcot-report-oil-groups-lobbied-uk-government-ahead-iraq-war/)
Given limits to growth,
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/limits-to-growth-was-right-new-research-shows-were-nearing-collapse (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/limits-to-growth-was-right-new-research-shows-were-nearing-collapse)
the only way out is a global state capitalist system, with resources used to meet basic needs of the most number of people. Any surplus will have to be kept and used for emergencies such as natural disasters. Wants can be met only when population, etc., stabilize.
Unfortunately, this will require widespread understanding of points concerning limits to growth, extensive cooperation between various groups, the removal of profit-making, higher degrees of empathy, etc.
welp, I guess rapid climate change, the final crisis of capitalism, yet again demonstrates the superiority of the science of dialectical materialism and marxism-leninism 8)
...Even now many people fail to grasp the true meaning of the word “austerity”. Austerity is not eight years of spending cuts, as in the UK, or even the social catastrophe inflicted on Greece. It means driving the wages, social wages and living standards in the west down for decades until they meet those of the middle class in China and India on the way up.....
...why would all learning and information technology disappear?...
.........Regular readers know my baseline scenario: we are in for a world of hurt, having failed to deal with Climate Change until beyond the point of no return. This is added to the radical mismanagement of the economy due to neoliberalism, ecosphere collapse, radical depletion of aquifers and so on. Technology is enabling (and already has created much of) a radical dystopic panopticon like the world has never seen.
Nonetheless, I see reasons for hope. Oh, sure, a billion or more, way more, deaths are baked into the cake. They’re going to happen, the only question is how large the number.
But neoliberalism is dying.
I will state that in ten to fifteen years, maximum, almost no states will still be running based on neoliberal policies or ruled by neoliberal parties.
Neoliberalism has failed, and it is seen to have failed, by the younger generations and even much of the older ones. As demographics shift, as the old die and retire, neoliberalism will no longer be viable.
The future belongs to the populist right and left, and to those who are willing to stomp the boot hard. Yes, there’s been boot stomping already, but in the first world it has been mild compared to what will be needed to maintain control.
Humans are a wasting asset. As we move to autonomous fighting robots and to other forms of true automation, our lords and masters will be willing to give up much of the consumer society or will run it as a vast welfare gulag...
The dashed line needs to be moved to run just underneath the word 'now' where Information Era is shown as we are well beyond the global carrying capacity already. Optimistic estimates are that we are at 1 1/2 Earths and pessimistic ones are about 4 Earths. In any case we are already in overshoot. The actions we take now and in the next decade (after another decade it will not matter either way) will determine how hard the collapse will be. That is my constant point...we are already beyond the dashed line so options which assume we are below it are not viable. Time has already run out.
... “the most surprising loser will be the current global economic elite, particularly the US…China will be the winner.”...
...Adopting human-centered initiatives targeted at addressing both population growth and consumption habits, ranging from the individual to trans-national level, are our best hope for achieving a sustainable future."
I am in agreement with the end of your post with one large caveat.Quote...Adopting human-centered initiatives targeted at addressing both population growth and consumption habits, ranging from the individual to trans-national level, are our best hope for achieving a sustainable future."
They are not our best hope at all. They are the minimum level of effort and totally insufficient by themselves to actually solve the problem. A sustainable future absolutely does not result in a rising standard of living (as all the things promoted in that paragraph describe) as what is required is that all of the wealthy dramatically reduce this standard of living along with those of middle level wealth. We all need to become poor essentially. We can't grow our way out of this problem..we have to deflate our way out of it. Raising educational levels and empowering women is just what we should do because it is the right thing, but to think it will reduce fertility enough to make a meaningful difference is just to be ignoring the demographics. We are past the point where gradual changes will make a meaningful difference in the end result..we have to take dramatic actions to do that.
Regards.
The dashed line needs to be moved to run just underneath the word 'now' where Information Era is shown as we are well beyond the global carrying capacity already. Optimistic estimates are that we are at 1 1/2 Earths and pessimistic ones are about 4 Earths. In any case we are already in overshoot. The actions we take now and in the next decade (after another decade it will not matter either way) will determine how hard the collapse will be. That is my constant point...we are already beyond the dashed line so options which assume we are below it are not viable. Time has already run out.
I’ve always treated neoliberalism as a political project carried out by the corporate capitalist class as they felt intensely threatened both politically and economically towards the end of the 1960s into the 1970s. They desperately wanted to launch a political project that would curb the power of labor......
With respect to labor, the challenge was to make domestic labor competitive with global labor. One way was to open up immigration. In the 1960s, for example, Germans were importing Turkish labor, the French Maghrebian labor, the British colonial labor. But this created a great deal of dissatisfaction and unrest.
Instead they chose the other way — to take capital to where the low-wage labor forces were. But for globalization to work you had to reduce tariffs and empower finance capital, because finance capital is the most mobile form of capital. So finance capital and things like floating currencies became critical to curbing labor.
At the same time, ideological projects to privatize and deregulate created unemployment. So, unemployment at home and offshoring taking the jobs abroad, and a third component: technological change, deindustrialization through automation and robotization. That was the strategy to squash labor.
What’s missing here is the way in which the capitalist class orchestrated its efforts during the 1970s and early 1980s. I think it would be fair to say that at that time — in the English-speaking world anyway — the corporate capitalist class became pretty unified.
They agreed on a lot of things, like the need for a political force to really represent them. So you get the capture of the Republican Party, and an attempt to undermine, to some degree, the Democratic Party.
From the 1970s the Supreme Court made a bunch of decisions that allowed the corporate capitalist class to buy elections more easily than it could in the past.
For example, you see reforms of campaign finance that treated contributions to campaigns as a form of free speech. There’s a long tradition in the United States of corporate capitalists buying elections but now it was legalized rather than being under the table as corruption.
One of big moves of neoliberalization was throwing out all the Keynesians from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in 1982 — a total clean-out of all the economic advisers who held Keynesian views.
They were replaced by neoclassical supply-side theorists and the first thing they did was decide that from then on the IMF should follow a policy of structural adjustment whenever there’s a crisis anywhere.
In 1982, sure enough, there was a debt crisis in Mexico. The IMF said, “We’ll save you.” Actually, what they were doing was saving the New York investment banks and implementing a politics of austerity.
The population of Mexico suffered something like a 25 percent loss of its standard of living in the four years after 1982 as a result of the structural adjustment politics of the IMF.
Since then Mexico has had about four structural adjustments. Many other countries have had more than one. This became standard practice.
What are they doing to Greece now? It’s almost a copy of what they did to Mexico back in 1982, only more savvy. This is also what happened in the United States in 2007–8. They bailed out the banks and made the people pay through a politics of austerity.
So to the degree that resistance has disappeared, labor doesn’t have the power it once had, solidarity among the ruling class is no longer necessary for it to work.
It doesn’t have to get together and do something about struggle from below because there is no threat anymore. The ruling class is doing extremely well so it doesn’t really have to change anything.
Yet while the capitalist class is doing very well, capitalism is doing rather badly. Profit rates have recovered but reinvestment rates are appallingly low, so a lot of money is not circulating back into production and is flowing into land-grabs and asset-procurement instead.
There are also a variety of ways of talking about capitalism, such as the sharing economy, which turns out to be highly capitalized and highly exploitative.
There’s the notion of ethical capitalism, which turns out to simply be about being reasonably honest instead of stealing. So there is the possibility in some people’s minds of some sort of reform of the neoliberal order into some other form of capitalism.
I think it’s possible that you can make a better capitalism than that which currently exists. But not by much.
The fundamental problems are actually so deep right now that there is no way that we are going to go anywhere without a very strong anticapitalist movement. So I would want to put things in anticapitalist terms rather than putting them in anti-neoliberal terms.
And I think the danger is, when I listen to people talking about anti-neoliberalism, that there is no sense that capitalism is itself, in whatever form, a problem.
Most anti-neoliberalism fails to deal with the macro-problems of endless compound growth — ecological, political, and economic problems. So I would rather be talking about anticapitalism than anti-neoliberalism.
Sustainability is the transformative economic catalyst that also happily aligns with our own basic self-interest. Specifically, it’s about “sustainable growth,” by which I mean increasing prosperity while at the same time improving environmental and social performance.http://ensia.com/voices/5-reasons-sustainability-will-transform-the-global-economy/ (http://ensia.com/voices/5-reasons-sustainability-will-transform-the-global-economy/)
Why does sustainable growth matter so much? Because the great movers of our global economy are orienting toward it, rewarding better performance and punishing risk. ...
...
5. Values
With all of this movement toward finding and enforcing sustainable growth, we inadvertently are finding a common language across cultures, religions and even politics. The headlines are full of news about what divides us ideologically and spiritually, but these belie the great areas of commonality shared by the vast majority of human beings: the instincts we share for preservation of those we love and the desire to see subsequent generations enjoy meaningful and healthy lives.
Sustainability and sustainable growth will help to make these ethics transparent and explicit. It will celebrate them. Sustainability taps this common spiritual and psychological space, and creates a common ethical language around which the world’s innovators, investors, regulators and consumers can rally. And in this common space, we can find a new global prosperity.
Gross domestic product is so twentieth century.http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-21/inside-the-global-hunt-for-a-better-way-to-measure-the-economy (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-21/inside-the-global-hunt-for-a-better-way-to-measure-the-economy)
The measure has risen from humble beginnings during the Great Depression to be an essential gauge for governments and central banks the world over. Long-term investors allocate capital based on its findings; traders buy and sell stocks, bonds, currencies and commodities in the blink of an eye after readings flash on their screens. One such closely-watched report comes this Friday, when the U.S. releases its revised estimate of second-quarter GDP.
Problem is -- whether compiled by production, income or expenditure approaches -- GDP is increasingly struggling to keep up with the pace of economic change.
In an age where $10 can buy one compact disc or a month of unlimited music streaming, it’s getting tougher to put a price on economic output. And as an aggregate measure that ignores distribution effects, GDP has masked rising inequalities that helped fuel anti-establishment politicians like Donald Trump or the backlash that contributed to Brexit.
So as governments in the rich world and emerging markets alike struggle to reproduce the growth rates and productivity leaps of previous decades, a more urgent search is under way to make the economic yardstick fit for purpose.
... No less remarkable are the ways in which traditional corporations and B (short for Benefit) Corporations — for-profit enterprises both committed and legally obliged to use “business as a force for good” — are becoming increasingly aligned in their goals and purpose. Chief among those goals is creating value and impact for a broad range of stakeholders.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shannon-schuyler/why-b-corps-hold-the-future-promise-of-business_b_9399654.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shannon-schuyler/why-b-corps-hold-the-future-promise-of-business_b_9399654.html)
The movement is global. B Corps thrive in 130 industries in 50 countries. They are restaurants. Telecommunications firms. Pharmaceutical manufacturers. Producers of frozen foods and canned soups and wine. Companies that make cleaning products. Accounting firms and construction companies. So many kinds of businesses can and have found ways for their enterprise to be a force for good.
This fall, The Huffington Post is taking a hard look at the negative environmental effects that result from our excessive shopping habits.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wearing-the-same-thing-everyday_us_57ebe81de4b024a52d2be5db (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wearing-the-same-thing-everyday_us_57ebe81de4b024a52d2be5db)
We’ve reported on the sheer volume of waste we create ― America produced 15.1 million tons of textile waste in 2013, and 85 percent of it ended up in landfills. We’ve cringed over the reality of what happens to our clothing once it’s been donated. We’ve also educated ourselves on ways to shop smarter and take better care of the clothes we already own.
But everything we’ve learned is for naught if we can’t practice what we preach. Can we, ourselves, stop buying excessive amounts of clothes and make do with a smaller wardrobe? We’re putting ourselves to the test with one seemingly simple experiment.
Two editors at HuffPost, a man and a woman, were each asked to wear one outfit of their choosing to the office every day for an entire week. The goal was to discover, once and for all, if one can truly get away with repeating the same outfits over and over again. Would it be socially acceptable among their colleagues? Would our male editor have a different experience than our female editor? And would anyone dare make rude comments to them?
I'm confused at that experiment that they didn't even consider washing the clothes themselves. ???
Computers, intelligent machines, and robots seem like the workforce of the future. And as more and more jobs are replaced by technology, people will have less work to do and ultimately will be sustained by payments from the government, predicts Elon Musk, the iconic Silicon Valley futurist who is the founder and CEO of SolarCity, Tesla, and SpaceX.http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/04/elon-musk-robots-will-take-your-jobs-government-will-have-to-pay-your-wage.html (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/04/elon-musk-robots-will-take-your-jobs-government-will-have-to-pay-your-wage.html)
According to Musk, there really won't be any other options.
"There is a pretty good chance we end up with a universal basic income, or something like that, due to automation," says Musk to CNBC. "Yeah, I am not sure what else one would do. I think that is what would happen."
In a country with universal basic income, each individual gets a regular check from the government. Switzerland considered instituting a universal basic income of 2,500 Swiss francs ($2578) a month this summer. Voters ultimately rejected the plan, but it sparked a broad, global conversation.
Also this summer, President Obama addressed the idea of a universal basic income in an interview with the Director of MIT's Media Lab, Joi Ito, and Scott Dadich, editor in chief of WIRED: "Whether a universal income is the right model — is it gonna be accepted by a broad base of people? — that's a debate that we'll be having over the next 10 or 20 years."
You can't afford a basic income if a very small percentage of the population requires a maximum, limitless income, and the whole system is geared towards that. What will happen, is further enslavement of the population, that will be increasingly jobless, living in cities, totally dependent on a welfare that is just enough to scrape by, buying the unhealthiest kind of food (based on sugar and wheat) and addicted to all kinds of unhealthy entertainment (drugs, Hollywood culture).
Change the system, and then, yes, automation can free us from labour, so that we can all do the work we want to do. Now, that would be mind-blowing.
Basic income, Standing says, is more than good policy. He calls it “essential,” given that more and more people in developed economies are living “a life of chronic economic insecurity.” He sees this insecurity fueling populist politicians, boosting far-right parties across Europe and the rise of Donald Trump in the U.S. Economic stagnation increases the appeal of extreme politicians, and unless those insecurities are addressed, Standing said, that appeal is only going to get stronger.http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/universal-basic-income/ (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/universal-basic-income/)
In his first radio broadcast after the demonetisation of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1,000 notes, Prime Minister Narendra Modi urged for a movement to turn India into a cashless society. He asked young people to teach mobile banking and other e-commerce technology to at least 10 families.http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/Modi-urges-country-to-become-a-cashless-society/article16710453.ece (http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/Modi-urges-country-to-become-a-cashless-society/article16710453.ece)
What Would Happen If We Just Gave People Money?QuoteBasic income, Standing says, is more than good policy. He calls it “essential,” given that more and more people in developed economies are living “a life of chronic economic insecurity.” He sees this insecurity fueling populist politicians, boosting far-right parties across Europe and the rise of Donald Trump in the U.S. Economic stagnation increases the appeal of extreme politicians, and unless those insecurities are addressed, Standing said, that appeal is only going to get stronger.http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/universal-basic-income/ (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/universal-basic-income/)
I presume this is a typo. Did you mean to write 'socialist' in place of capitalist? There are some extremely strong arguments out there which come to the conclusion that there is no solution possible in a capitalist system...whether global or national in scale.
I am in agreement with the end of your post with one large caveat.Quote...Adopting human-centered initiatives targeted at addressing both population growth and consumption habits, ranging from the individual to trans-national level, are our best hope for achieving a sustainable future."
They are not our best hope at all. They are the minimum level of effort and totally insufficient by themselves to actually solve the problem. A sustainable future absolutely does not result in a rising standard of living (as all the things promoted in that paragraph describe) as what is required is that all of the wealthy dramatically reduce this standard of living along with those of middle level wealth. We all need to become poor essentially. We can't grow our way out of this problem..we have to deflate our way out of it. Raising educational levels and empowering women is just what we should do because it is the right thing, but to think it will reduce fertility enough to make a meaningful difference is just to be ignoring the demographics. We are past the point where gradual changes will make a meaningful difference in the end result..we have to take dramatic actions to do that.
Regards.
It seems to me that because we have not invested enough in improving individuals (not just their wealth but themselves), no one is willing to follow your call for dramatic actions, rather they all are more interested in looking after their own individual self-interests. Which why we both agree that some form of socio-economic collapse is all but inevitable.
Thanks for the links, ASLR
Now if only I could figure out how to motivate decision makers to move beyond greed, materialism and objectification and into working on how to create an environment in which to develop the full human potential; we might start to make progress towards a more sustainable situation.
Now if only I could figure out how to motivate decision makers to move beyond greed, materialism and objectification and into working on how to create an environment in which to develop the full human potential; we might start to make progress towards a more sustainable situation.
You need to get a discussion going on how much one person should own. How much is enough? 20 million? 50 million? 100 million? Once there is a limit on how much one person can own, greed won't disappear, but you will have put a brake on its system-altering properties. This is the only way the system can be changed.
Once enough people are convinced that this is the solution to make all other solutions possible, it can be accomplished policy-wise. I don't know how exactly, and I'm not saying it will be easy.
But at some point the rich have to stop getting richer. It's better for them too. Not many people can handle being rich.
Now if only I could figure out how to motivate decision makers to move beyond greed, materialism and objectification and into working on how to create an environment in which to develop the full human potential; we might start to make progress towards a more sustainable situation.
You need to get a discussion going on how much one person should own. How much is enough? 20 million? 50 million? 100 million? Once there is a limit on how much one person can own, greed won't disappear, but you will have put a brake on its system-altering properties. This is the only way the system can be changed.
Once enough people are convinced that this is the solution to make all other solutions possible, it can be accomplished policy-wise. I don't know how exactly, and I'm not saying it will be easy.
But at some point the rich have to stop getting richer. It's better for them too. Not many people can handle being rich.
...I find it quite scary.
Yours,
Gerontocrat.
but as we know this is a huge topic that is filling entire libraries, basically just wanted to express my pleasure about each individual that is able to see behind the curtains and willing to name it.
but as we know this is a huge topic that is filling entire libraries, basically just wanted to express my pleasure about each individual that is able to see behind the curtains and willing to name it.
It took me a while to get there. I though I was there when focussing on economic growth and how nothing can grow forever in a finite system, etc. That insight came rather suddenly, having read about it in many places, of course. I even wrote a blog post about it somewhere else: Infinite Growth and the Crisis Cocktail (http://planet3.org/2011/10/12/infinite-growth-and-the-crisis-cocktail/).
I was nearly there, but then slowly it dawned on me that the problem isn't the economic system, but why it is the way it is. And for whom. It's to make the rich richer at an exponential rate.
So, to return on the title of this thread: If not Capitalism... then What? And, How?
I think the What? is largely irrelevant, or at least less important than the How?. It's about creating a system(and thus an economy and culture) in which power never gets concentrated to the point that it starts to violate limits.
I'm still working on this, but I know that this is as deep as you can go with this. If you go any deeper, you enter the realm of the spiritual and the embedded genetic flaws in the make-up of homo sapiens. I don't want to go that deep, because it makes it harder to explain and thus less convincing to others.
My wife says that's a fundamental mistake. I think I agree. But as much as I like philosophy and spiritual teachers, the food has to come from somewhere and someone needs to clean the toilet. And Jiddu Krishnamurti himself says that the inner and the outer transformation go hand in hand. That's my usual reply to my wife. ;)
Now if only I could figure out how to motivate decision makers to move beyond greed, materialism and objectification and into working on how to create an environment in which to develop the full human potential; we might start to make progress towards a more sustainable situation.
You need to get a discussion going on how much one person should own. How much is enough? 20 million? 50 million? 100 million? Once there is a limit on how much one person can own, greed won't disappear, but you will have put a brake on its system-altering properties. This is the only way the system can be changed.
Once enough people are convinced that this is the solution to make all other solutions possible, it can be accomplished policy-wise. I don't know how exactly, and I'm not saying it will be easy.
But at some point the rich have to stop getting richer. It's better for them too. Not many people can handle being rich.
Canada should manage the potential negative distributive impacts of a coming wave of automation that will ultimately boost national productivity, the Bank of Canada’s second-highest ranking official said.https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-18/canada-must-manage-harmful-effects-of-automation-wilkins-says (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-18/canada-must-manage-harmful-effects-of-automation-wilkins-says)
In a Toronto speech meant to tout the benefits of adopting new technologies such as artificial intelligence, Senior Deputy Governor Carolyn Wilkins spent much of the time discussing the need to keep income inequality from worsening.
“If we seek out and embrace new technologies while successfully managing their harmful side effects, we will create inclusive prosperity,” Wilkins said in a speech entitled ‘Blame it on the Machines?’
“That means proactively managing the transition period and the longer-term implications of the distributions of incomes,” she said....
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg called on the need to consider universal basic income for Americans during his Harvard Commencement Speech.http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/25/mark-zuckerberg-calls-for-universal-basic-income-at-harvard-speech.html (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/25/mark-zuckerberg-calls-for-universal-basic-income-at-harvard-speech.html)
Zuckerberg's comments reflect those of other Silicon Valley bigwigs, including Sam Altman, the president of venture capital firm Y Combinator.
"Every generation expands its definition of equality. Now it's time for our generation to define a new social contract," Zuckerberg said during his speech. "We should have a society that measures progress not by economic metrics like GDP but by how many of us have a role we find meaningful. We should explore ideas like universal basic income to make sure everyone has a cushion to try new ideas."
Zuckerberg said that, because he knew he had a safety net if projects like Facebook had failed, he was confident enough to continue on without fear of failing. Others, he said, such as children who need to support households instead of poking away on computers learning how to code, don't have the foundation Zuckerberg had. Universal basic income would provide that sort of cushion, Zuckerberg argued.
Altman's view is similar. A year ago, Altman said he thinks "everyone should have enough money to meet their basic needs—no matter what, especially if there are enough resources to make it possible. We don't yet know how it should look or how to pay for it, but basic income seems a promising way to do this." Altman believes basic income will be possible as technological advancements "generate an abundance of resources" that help decrease the cost of living.
Changing the source of energy from fossil fuels to renewables may simply fuel further the current mix of economic growth that has such dire consequences for the planet.
Money does not need to be created through a private debt-based system, that is simply the financier and rentier friendly system that we currently have.
Between the mid 1930's and the mid 1970's, the Bank of Canada (owned by the Canadian people) directly funded a large amount of the Government of Canada's spending through the creation of debt-free money spent into existence. During that period, the Canadian economy grew very rapidly and with low inflation. Since then, the majority of the Canadian government debt is due to compound interest. The same could be done now to fund extensive renewable energy and energy efficiency investments.
The private banking system has usurped the sovereign's right to create money, which it uses to predominantly fund property speculation (80%+ of lending) and other socially non-beneficial activities (such as increasing business leverage to buy back stocks). Businesses tend to fund themselves from internally-generated funds. Just look at the current craziness in the Canadian housing markets, and the previous one in the U.S. Banks should be safekeepers of money, not creators of money and credit.
Unearned income (now referred to with the fancy title of capital gains) should be taxed at a higher rate than earned income (as it used to be up to the 1970's), this would go a long way to rebalancing things between workers and rentiers. Together with a none debt-based money system, economic and political power would flow back to the citizens in general and workers (rather than financiers/renters) in particular.
Unearned income (now referred to with the fancy title of capital gains) should be taxed at a higher rate than earned income
Thanks, SMN, that's interesting.
I don't believe there can be a universal basic income, unless Zuckerberg's income and wealth is capped. Would he agree to that? I wish I could ask him. 'Mark, how much is enough?'
Thanks, SMN, that's interesting.
I don't believe there can be a universal basic income, unless Zuckerberg's income and wealth is capped. Would he agree to that? I wish I could ask him. 'Mark, how much is enough?'
Although I agree with your idea of a cap on total wealth, there are some worthwhile projects that billionaires make possible to happen. So perhaps personal wealth should be judged separately from "foundation" wealth. Perhaps above a certain amount, redistribution of wealth could be directed to something other than "everyone else." I guess there would have to be some sort of oversight board to assure such projects are beneficial and not harmful.
Thanks, SMN, that's interesting.
I don't believe there can be a universal basic income, unless Zuckerberg's income and wealth is capped. Would he agree to that? I wish I could ask him. 'Mark, how much is enough?'
Although I agree with your idea of a cap on total wealth, there are some worthwhile projects that billionaires make possible to happen. So perhaps personal wealth should be judged separately from "foundation" wealth. Perhaps above a certain amount, redistribution of wealth could be directed to something other than "everyone else." I guess there would have to be some sort of oversight board to assure such projects are beneficial and not harmful.
Absolutely, you can't just take away money from the megarich and then let it get wasted in some form of bureaucracy. In fact, I believe you would somehow have to convince the megarich that their wealth needs to be capped if they don't want to destroy everything, everyone and themselves. For that you'd have to be able to present good ideas on what happens with the money, and how.
Perhaps some sort of referendum, with the megawealthy getting something like a superdelegate vote.
I don't know, I'm still thinking a lot about the idea.
Thanks, SMN, that's interesting.
I don't believe there can be a universal basic income, unless Zuckerberg's income and wealth is capped. Would he agree to that? I wish I could ask him. 'Mark, how much is enough?'
Although I agree with your idea of a cap on total wealth, there are some worthwhile projects that billionaires make possible to happen. So perhaps personal wealth should be judged separately from "foundation" wealth. Perhaps above a certain amount, redistribution of wealth could be directed to something other than "everyone else." I guess there would have to be some sort of oversight board to assure such projects are beneficial and not harmful.
Absolutely, you can't just take away money from the megarich and then let it get wasted in some form of bureaucracy. In fact, I believe you would somehow have to convince the megarich that their wealth needs to be capped if they don't want to destroy everything, everyone and themselves. For that you'd have to be able to present good ideas on what happens with the money, and how.
Perhaps some sort of referendum, with the megawealthy getting something like a superdelegate vote.
I don't know, I'm still thinking a lot about the idea.
Why has there been no effective action on climate change?
Fourteen billionaires announced they have signed the Giving Pledge, formally joining the 154 other billionaires who have promised to give away at least half of their vast wealth to philanthropic causes.http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/31/14-billionaires-signed-bill-gates-and-warren-buffetts-giving-pledge.html (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/31/14-billionaires-signed-bill-gates-and-warren-buffetts-giving-pledge.html)
...
Hey, Neven -- check this out! :)
These 14 billionaires just promised to give away more than half of their money like Bill Gates and Warren BuffettQuoteFourteen billionaires announced they have signed the Giving Pledge, formally joining the 154 other billionaires who have promised to give away at least half of their vast wealth to philanthropic causes.http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/31/14-billionaires-signed-bill-gates-and-warren-buffetts-giving-pledge.html (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/31/14-billionaires-signed-bill-gates-and-warren-buffetts-giving-pledge.html)
...
Hey, Neven -- check this out! :)
These 14 billionaires just promised to give away more than half of their money like Bill Gates and Warren BuffettQuoteFourteen billionaires announced they have signed the Giving Pledge, formally joining the 154 other billionaires who have promised to give away at least half of their vast wealth to philanthropic causes.http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/31/14-billionaires-signed-bill-gates-and-warren-buffetts-giving-pledge.html (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/31/14-billionaires-signed-bill-gates-and-warren-buffetts-giving-pledge.html)
...
I think it would be very hard to get the general public to agree to a limit on wealth. Too many dream of making it big themselves/winning the lottery.
Any limit on wealth would fall foul of a lot of "common sense" ideas about fairness, incentives etc. Better to:
1. Make unearned income (capital gains) taxable at the same rate as earned income
2. Get rid of the hedge fund tax dodges ('carried interest' etc.)
3. Take the ceiling off Social Security and Pension Taxes
4. Remove the fictitious depreciation of buildings used by companies to reduce taxes, plus all the other 'depletion allowances' etc.
5. Raise corporate taxes back to where they were in the 1980's
All of these would be seen as reasonable by the average person, making sure the rich pay at least the same tax rate as them. People paying their "fair share" hits the right buttons.
Buildings tend to appreciate in value
In 2006, Buffett announced plans to gradually donate all his Berkshire Hathaway shares.http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/10/investing/warren-buffett-stock-donations/index.html (http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/10/investing/warren-buffett-stock-donations/index.html)
It was a promise that took on a new life in 2010, when Buffett launched The Giving Pledge with Bill Gates. The initiative encourages the world's billionaires to dedicate the majority of their wealth to philanthropic causes.
As of May, 170 people had signed the pledge across 21 countries.
Businesses do not get to depreciate land. Only "improvements" - buildings, utility connections, parking lots, etc.It has been an accounting standard (assumption) for hundreds (yes, hundreds) of years that land cannot depreciate in value. This is nonsense. In the old industrial city where I live there are many abandoned industrial sites that have negative value due to many years of toxic pollution buried in the ground.
Any land appreciation gets taxed at time of sale.
Businesses do not get to depreciate land. Only "improvements" - buildings, utility connections, parking lots, etc.It has been an accounting standard (assumption) for hundreds (yes, hundreds) of years that land cannot depreciate in value. This is nonsense. In the old industrial city where I live there are many abandoned industrial sites that have negative value due to many years of toxic pollution buried in the ground.
Any land appreciation gets taxed at time of sale.
I am sure it is the same in the rust belts of the USA. Make and Take profits, pollute and abandon.
Well, there are at least a half million brownfield sites in the US, and that's not counting Superfund sites. So devalued, polluted industrial land certainly has been an issue in the US. I would say that the onus is on you to prove that it is no longer one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownfield_land
Because farming has nothing to do with land?? :oI believe about 40% of the world's food supply depends on bees and other insects for pollination. Pesticides are a threat and there is a huge debate about Neonicotinoids, which work as an insecticide by blocking specific neural pathways in insects’ central nervous systems, causing disorientation, inability to feed and death. (if you want to depress yourself google it).
Because farming has nothing to do with land?? :o
I assume that, since you had to resort to diversion, you are essentially admitting that you were wrong about that point. I accept your admission of defeat, and wish you well, sir. ;D
... One fear about basic income is that people will be content living on their subsidies and stop working. But a 2010 analysis of the data, led by Randall Akee, who researches public policy at UCLA's Luskin School of Public Affairs, found no impact on overall labor participation. ...https://www.wired.com/story/free-money-the-surprising-effects-of-a-basic-income-supplied-by-government/
RIYADH, Dec 12 (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia has approved a new round of energy price hikes and a cash handout system for low- and middle-income citizens to offset the impact of the changes, fresh steps in a year-old austerity programme amid low crude prices. ...http://www.nasdaq.com/article/saudi-arabia-to-raise-energy-prices-pay-cash-to-poorer-citizens-20171212-00868
Capitalism, market forces, will solve the electricity generation and most of the transportation GHG problem.Had it been for market forces alone it would have happened much later. There were government subsidies along the way that helped a lot, and people voting with their wallets spending extra on what they knew were premature but green technologies.
We would be wise to add a catalyst to goose things along...
Definately so on my horizon as well, oren.Capitalism, market forces, will solve the electricity generation and most of the transportation GHG problem.Had it been for market forces alone it would have happened much later. There were government subsidies along the way that helped a lot, and people voting with their wallets spending extra on what tbey knew were premature but green technologies.
We would be wise to add a catalyst to goose things along...
Perhaps Bjorn Lomborg has Scandinavia's rulers fooled?Definately so on my horizon as well, oren.Capitalism, market forces, will solve the electricity generation and most of the transportation GHG problem.Had it been for market forces alone it would have happened much later. There were government subsidies along the way that helped a lot, and people voting with their wallets spending extra on what tbey knew were premature but green technologies.
We would be wise to add a catalyst to goose things along...
Here, when our electrical utilities realized that people were using inverters with standard electrical plugs, they banned those dispite beeing approved in other countries. I used my inverters illegaly for many years. Later they were forced to allow grid tie inverters to be permanently connected. Plugs are still banned. We still don't have net metering thanks to our legislation, and there's no use for me to sell the surplus.
Northvolt are struggling to finance their battery factory here. They failed to reach their target for 2017, which was 1 billion euros. Now Scania (VW) entered with 10 million euros and that was considered as big news. Northvolt needs to raise 4 billion euros in total. Scania wants to help, but maybe not too much?
Swedish municipalities are subsidising our airports with tax payers money and have been non existent in supporting EVs (building chargers is one) in general, they are waiting for the market.
It's a merry-go-round. Looks like most of todays market forces still consists of incrementalists, skeptics and denialists and the middle class isn't disturbed yet, climate change will only happen to someone else.
Which reminded me of a couple of old interviews from last year, from a Swedish podcast, so I don't think they have been posted in here. Both in English.
The first with Kevin Andersson. The interviewer is a Swedish physicist and meteorologist, Martin Hedberg. Beyond One Degree:
We can succeed, but humanity is about to choose to fail.
http://beyondonedegree.com/en/7-kevin-anderson-we-can-succeed-but-humanity-is-about-to-choose-to-fail/ (http://beyondonedegree.com/en/7-kevin-anderson-we-can-succeed-but-humanity-is-about-to-choose-to-fail/)
The second, with Sasja Beslik, one of Sweden’s foremost experts on finance and sustainability.
Sasja Beslik. The Financial Market and Climate Change.
http://beyondonedegree.com/en/4-sasja-beslik-the-financial-market-and-climate-change/ (http://beyondonedegree.com/en/4-sasja-beslik-the-financial-market-and-climate-change/)
Capitalism, market forces, will solve the electricity generation and most of the transportation GHG problem.Had it been for market forces alone it would have happened much later. There were government subsidies along the way that helped a lot, and people voting with their wallets spending extra on what tbey knew were premature but green technologies.
We would be wise to add a catalyst to goose things along...
For Bautista, the cooperative movement is only just beginning to reveal its potential. After nearly a decade of building locally owned-and-operated collaboratives, she says the accumulation of skills, awareness and technical know-how among her clients is paying off. “We are constantly looking for new ways to empower workers, and they are finding lots of inspiration from each other,” she said. “It’s exciting to watch. And we’re hopeful this will just get bigger and bigger.”
This story is part of the New Economies Reporting Project — a collaboration between The Media Consortium and the New Economy Coalition.
The ability of this eclectic mix of stakeholders to force down the costs of an important Hepatitis C medicine has been heralded as a victory for those who argue that it is a moral outrage to keep drugs out of the hands of sick people simply because they cannot afford it. Can the model be replicated elsewhere?
Humanity faces the challenge of how to achieve a high quality of life for over 7 billion people without destabilizing critical planetary processes. Using indicators designed to measure a ‘safe and just’ development space, we quantify the resource use associated with meeting basic human needs, and compare this to downscaled planetary boundaries for over 150 nations. We find that no country meets basic needs for its citizens at a globally sustainable level of resource use. Physical needs such as nutrition, sanitation, access to electricity and the elimination of extreme poverty could likely be met for all people without transgressing planetary boundaries.
I don't have access beyond the paywall. Anyone think the article is worth reading?It was accessible through sci-hub but you have a link in this article:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-018-0021-4QuoteHumanity faces the challenge of how to achieve a high quality of life for over 7 billion people without destabilizing critical planetary processes. Using indicators designed to measure a ‘safe and just’ development space, we quantify the resource use associated with meeting basic human needs, and compare this to downscaled planetary boundaries for over 150 nations. We find that no country meets basic needs for its citizens at a globally sustainable level of resource use. Physical needs such as nutrition, sanitation, access to electricity and the elimination of extreme poverty could likely be met for all people without transgressing planetary boundaries.
The hope was to find at least a few examples of countries that were simultaneously delivering the good life to their citizens while staying within their per capita boundaries for environmental damage — in other words, using natural resources at a rate that would be sustainable even if every person on the planet matched it.
Unfortunately, "we really didn't find that," says O'Neill.
Instead, says O'Neill, "generally the countries that do well on the social indicators do so by consuming resources at a level that could not be extended to all people on the planet." These include Germany, the Netherlands and Austria. "And the countries that do well on the environmental indicators — in other words, that are consuming resources at a sustainable level — don't do well on the social indicators." Examples include Malawi, Yemen and the Philippines.
There are also five countries that do damage above all seven of the environmental boundaries even as they fail to achieve all 11 social indicators. This includes the United States, which misses the mark when it comes to income equality and employment.
Even though China is not one of those five, it is arguably in even worse shape. It exceeds its per capita limits on five of the seven environmental thresholds yet only delivers on three of the social measures.
Only one country comes even close to delivering the good life in a sustainable way: Vietnam succeeds on six social indicators — including a life expectancy above 65 years and providing sufficient nutrition — while staying within its limit on every environmental threshold except carbon emissions.
Should belong to "how" part:
search: The Art of Nonviolence (https://wagingnonviolence.org/?s=art+of+nonviolence):
https://wagingnonviolence.org/column/the-arts-of-protest/
(reminds me on Jains again, and their message to others: "try to be nonviolent")
That Goats and soda article, If We Bring The Good Life To All, Will We Destroy The Planet? (https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2018/02/07/583475222/if-we-bring-the-good-life-to-all-will-we-destroy-the-planet) is based on a new study in Nature Sustainability, A good life for all within planetary boundaries (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-018-0021-4.epdf?author_access_token=k949BRalZ3W7nYuBcTmtlNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NINAtj47DSpAGKNW0NM9Vb_zFNGjmxSFGJSQMCx84RL7YxfgXGFm3Q3uTZ7gpjE3hPBxSg24T_yK5Y20K9x3B3UIUT2BjJs7EL9iZ5Clalyw%3D%3D) by O'Neill et al.
Overall, our findings suggest that the pursuit of universal human development, which is the ambition of the SDGs [Sustainable Development Goals], has the potential to undermine the Earth-system processes upon which development ultimately depends. But this does not need to be the case. A more hopeful scenario would see the SDGs shift the agenda away from growth towards an economic model where the goal is sustainable and equitable human well-being. However, if all people are to lead a good life within planetary boundaries, then the level of resource use associated with meeting basic needs must be dramatically reduced.
Young Republicans are showing that they will not accept politics as usual, they understand climate change is real, and a substantial number of them advocate exactly the conservative policy that could address the matter successfully: carbon fee with 100% dividend uniformly distributed to the public.
We do this in our restaurant...except every meal is free/whatever you can donate. :)
...advanced capitalist societies manufacture the social subjects as consumers of mass culture - as they are consumers of Starbucks coffee or MacDonald's hamburgers - which is to say their subjectivities are the creations of a culture industry, receptacles of a massive body of disinformation that do not just entertain and preoccupy them but, in fact, engineer them as passive receptacles of an ideological domination beyond their recognition or critique. They give them a sense of false autonomy of choice.
What today we call "Western Media" is the paramount example of Adorno and Horkheimer's insight, the production of "news" as perfect examples of commodity fetishism
Our 'tips' don't generally cover even the basic costs of the ingredients, even though I cull much of it from what the local coop grocery decides is not shelf worthy for free. So I am envious of your local Donut Shop having such a generous benefactor! :)
But back somewhat on topic...I actually wasn't sure where to put this, but it seems somehow relevant to some of the discussions on this and similar threads:Quote...advanced capitalist societies manufacture the social subjects as consumers of mass culture - as they are consumers of Starbucks coffee or MacDonald's hamburgers - which is to say their subjectivities are the creations of a culture industry, receptacles of a massive body of disinformation that do not just entertain and preoccupy them but, in fact, engineer them as passive receptacles of an ideological domination beyond their recognition or critique. They give them a sense of false autonomy of choice.
What today we call "Western Media" is the paramount example of Adorno and Horkheimer's insight, the production of "news" as perfect examples of commodity fetishism
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/media-mass-deception-180409092703608.html
The people who do work resent supplying the lazy.
Robert Reich, former U.S. Secretary of Labor, presents a short flip-chart review of Universal Basic Income and why it’s needed.
https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/videos/1936522653026988/ (https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/videos/1936522653026988/)
Robert Reich, former U.S. Secretary of Labor, presents a short flip-chart review of Universal Basic Income and why it’s needed.
https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/videos/1936522653026988/ (https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/videos/1936522653026988/)
Sig
Those of us who don't do facebook can only wonder about what he presented. :(
Terry
Click on the link ad you can listen to him (but not see him) without signing into FacebookRobert Reich, former U.S. Secretary of Labor, presents a short flip-chart review of Universal Basic Income and why it’s needed.
https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/videos/1936522653026988/ (https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/videos/1936522653026988/)
Sig
Those of us who don't do facebook can only wonder about what he presented. :(
Terry
Suppose that a democratically constituted Common Fund were to carry out the compulsory purchase of all financial assets owned by households: stocks and bonds, but also mutual funds and other wealth instruments."
QuoteSuppose that a democratically constituted Common Fund were to carry out the compulsory purchase of all financial assets owned by households: stocks and bonds, but also mutual funds and other wealth instruments."
We might need a version of that once labor is no longer of value. Unless people can trade their time/labor for products then the system breaks down. The companies no longer have customers.
If citizens buy up the 'means' that will leave previous owners with a lot of wealth. They will be free to spend lots on art and solid gold toilets but they won't be able to repurchase 'means'.
By the third generation all that wealth will be pissed away.
The fourth generation can live on their 'fair share' like everyone else.
A likely result of universal guaranteed income would be the rapid defection of a large number of academics from their university positions to intellectual circles where they would once again be able to argue about ideas and research things they actually find interesting
Few cultures still have a need for people that excel at throwing spears, but it's hard to find a University without javelin tossers. ::)QuoteA likely result of universal guaranteed income would be the rapid defection of a large number of academics from their university positions to intellectual circles where they would once again be able to argue about ideas and research things they actually find interesting
Why? Our robotic overlords would have already fully researched all ideas.
Few cultures still have a need for people that excel at throwing spears, but it's hard to find a University without javelin tossers. ::)QuoteA likely result of universal guaranteed income would be the rapid defection of a large number of academics from their university positions to intellectual circles where they would once again be able to argue about ideas and research things they actually find interesting
Why? Our robotic overlords would have already fully researched all ideas.
Terry
The new statesman republished a 1934 interview of Stalin but H.G.Wells. Whatever his other errors and shortcomings, Stalin saw very clearly why Roosevelt's reforms would ultimately fail. It took the capitalists the better part of a century, perhaps longer than Stalin might have imagined, but we now see the ruin of most of Roosevelt's ideas today.
"The aim which the Americans are pursuing arose out of the economic troubles, out of the economic crisis. The Americans want to rid themselves of the crisis on the basis of private capitalist activity, without changing the economic basis. They are trying to reduce to a minimum the ruin, the losses caused by the existing economic system ... Thus, at best, it will be a matter, not of the reorganisation of society, not of abolishing the old social system which gives rise to anarchy and crises, but of restricting certain of its excesses.
"The Luddites were not “anti-technology.”
Stalin and Wells were speaking of internal reform in the USA so i leave the UN out.
Social Security was meant to provide for citizens in old age. Has it done so ? What was the last time one could retire on the proceeds of Social Security alone ?
FHA, Glass Steagal, Fannie and Freddie are in ruins. Bankers rule.
Minimium wage is vastly outpaced by inflation.
Discrimination is rampant. The shocking rate of incarceration and police execution of minorities is not reflected in income and wealth statistics also.
Roosevelt reneged on reform in his second term resulting in economic downturn. What then rescued the economy was WWII.
Annd most of all, the USA is still ruled by corrupt oligarchy.
"Socialism, which Stalin was promoting"
I differ. Whatever Stalin was promoting by 1934, was not, in my view, Socialism. Recall, the trials had begun by then, Trotsky was in exile.
sidd
^ Bear in mind that this was a 1934 Stalin speaking of a 1934 Roosevelt's accomplishments.
Terry
Glass Steagall is gutted, and it's weak shadow, Dodd-Frank is being gutted.
Since the 1970s, say fifty years ago, wages and benefits have stagnated for the working classes as opposed to the rentiers in the USA.
I think that if you asked Mr. Roosevelt today of his vision had lasted, his answer would be interesting.
I agree with Neven that capitalism is not the problem, but the sharing of revenues is the issue.
I agree with Neven that capitalism is not the problem, but the sharing of revenues is the issue.
The question in this case: Is this problem inherent to capitalism? Does it always lead to this? And if it is indeed inherent to capitalism, will it still be capitalism when we take this problem away? Is it enough to put the capital in many more hands?
You can argue that Roosevelt did a better job than Stalin, but maybe this also means that capitalism was much more efficient at burning up resources and this in turn is the main reason we are now faced with huge global problems, AGW being the most prominent.
Anyway, this stuff is complex, and I think that automation and AI are not going to make it simpler. But maybe it's a way out. Much of it is psychological anyway.
What about Tschernobyl ? I wouldn't compare ecological achievements of capitalism and communism. I don't think that one model would have saved us, both believe in growth above the limits.
I think that what Stalin was getting at, was that despite Roosevelt's lofty ideals, he wouldn't succeed, because capitalism is inherently flawed/corrupt.
And he had that from Karl Marx, of course.
Is endless growth not a core feature of capitalism?
Globalisation is a problem. It creates the same problem as these criminal organisations.
Capitalism strong ? They would all be bankrupted without printing money day and night.
What? :oQuoteIs endless growth not a core feature of capitalism?
Capitalism does not require growth. Capitalism allows for faster growth.
Currently, big business is doing very well out of war:
Who said capitalism does not require growth??
QuoteWho said capitalism does not require growth??
Where is the proof that capitalism requires growth? Are you confusing correlation and causation?
One could live in an isolated village that isn't growing or trading outside the village. And one might own an extra house which they rent out, using the rental income to purchase their food and other supplies.
That is capitalism in a non-growing economy.
Ogg could have let Dugg use his really good sharp stick to hunt an antelope in exchange for a portion of the meat. More capitalism without growth.
What? :oQuoteIs endless growth not a core feature of capitalism?
Capitalism does not require growth. Capitalism allows for faster growth.
Who said capitalism does not require growth?? Did Adam Smith make that claim? Do Keynesian economists make that claim? Do Austrian economists make that claim? Are any capitalists making that claim? No. You will not find any capitalists making that claim
Are critics of capitalism making that claim? Of course not, since capitalism's endless growth is a main critique by leftists scholars. There is mountains and mountains of literature describing in excruciating detail the problems of capitalism & growth. I'm not sure how you missed hundreds of prominent academics discussing this problem for decades, but, well, here we are.
How could you come to such an ahistorical conclusion? Did you forget about recessions and depressions? You know, those times where the economy slows down and a bunch of people lose their jobs & homes. Except for the wealthy who seem to actually benefit from these downturn. Is that how forgot about recessions and depressions? You were too busy buying cheap property and collecting rent to notice why thousands of people are living on the street?
Bob, you have been so wrong about so many things. I wish I wasn't knee deep in school so I could unpack everything you've said in this thread.
Watch this, it's only 8 minutes, but does a wonderful job explaining neoliberalism.
And read
https://www.amazon.ca/This-Changes-Everything-Capitalism-Climate/dp/0307401995
This will provide you with a nice introduction to capitalism & climate change.
You have a long way to go. but this should be a good start.
:o :o :o :o :o :oWhat? :oQuoteIs endless growth not a core feature of capitalism?
Capitalism does not require growth. Capitalism allows for faster growth.
Who said capitalism does not require growth?? Did Adam Smith make that claim? Do Keynesian economists make that claim? Do Austrian economists make that claim? Are any capitalists making that claim? No. You will not find any capitalists making that claim
Are critics of capitalism making that claim? Of course not, since capitalism's endless growth is a main critique by leftists scholars. There is mountains and mountains of literature describing in excruciating detail the problems of capitalism & growth. I'm not sure how you missed hundreds of prominent academics discussing this problem for decades, but, well, here we are.
How could you come to such an ahistorical conclusion? Did you forget about recessions and depressions? You know, those times where the economy slows down and a bunch of people lose their jobs & homes. Except for the wealthy who seem to actually benefit from these downturn. Is that how forgot about recessions and depressions? You were too busy buying cheap property and collecting rent to notice why thousands of people are living on the street?
Bob, you have been so wrong about so many things. I wish I wasn't knee deep in school so I could unpack everything you've said in this thread.
Watch this, it's only 8 minutes, but does a wonderful job explaining neoliberalism.
And read
https://www.amazon.ca/This-Changes-Everything-Capitalism-Climate/dp/0307401995
This will provide you with a nice introduction to capitalism & climate change.
You have a long way to go. but this should be a good start.
Capitalism, as an institutional structure, simply does not require growth to persist.
Recessions and depressions never stopped the basic elements of capitalism. Symbolic money, and borrowing and lending for interest are the crux of it. Add property rights and rights to collect rent. Also add limited liability corporations. These, together, constitute a capitalist system.
Nowhere, at no time, has a lack of economic growth imperiled the existence of these elements.
Capitalism does not require growth to persist.
"Capitalism does not require growth to persist."
I do not see a refutation of Smith's arguments here. But more empirically, can anyone point to an existing capitalist economy that does not grow ? Is there even a single example of such a beast ?
sidd
"Capitalism, as an institutional structure, simply does not require growth to persist.
Recessions and depressions never stopped the basic elements of capitalism. Symbolic money, and borrowing and lending for interest are the crux of it. Add property rights and rights to collect rent. Also add limited liability corporations. These, together, constitute a capitalist system.
Capitalism does not require growth to persist."
I see no mention of a competitive market here, which is the basis of Smith's argument. So I do not see a refutation of Smith's arguments here.
Thanks for the Japan example, but i note it is grew before and after, so all that example proves is that periods of stasis are possible. I was asking for an example of a capitalist economy static in size from beginning to end of it's tenure.
Capitalism is an economic system based upon private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets. In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investment are determined by every owner of wealth, property or production ability in financial and capital markets, whereas prices and the distribution of goods and services are mainly determined by competition in goods and services markets.
I was asking for an example of a capitalist economy static in size from beginning to end of it's tenure.
"Capitalism does not require growth to persist."
I do not see a refutation of Smith's arguments here. But more empirically, can anyone point to an existing capitalist economy that does not grow ? Is there even a single example of such a beast ?
sidd
Blindingly obvious examples. Plenty. Japan's "lost decade" for one. A decade of near-zero GDP growth, with minimal inflation, nearly full employment, and high standard of living.
The example of the US Great Depression is illustrative as well. Strongly negative GDP growth. While suffering was immense, the basic institutions of capitalism didn't change, and weren't threatened.
Capitalism simply doesn't require economic growth to persist. That's no theory, it's empirical fact.
PS: Another blindingly obvious example, Somalia. Failed government, massive civil disturbance, famines, civil war. And still, banking goes on:
http://www.centralbank.gov.so/banks.html
These are all examples that do not support your argument. In every single scenario there were adjustments made in order to further replicate the capitalist economy. If no adjustments were made, than a catastrophic failure would occur as conditions deteriorate (revolution).
Just because a black market exists within a communist state, doesn't immediately mean that communism fails. But if that black market persists and grows, than it will destroy the communist state.
And I'm not sure what you're getting with somalia? Just because there's growth doesn't mean that the resources are allocated in the best way possible. You can get rich anywhere. This is capitalism 101
Thanks for the Japan example, but i note it is grew before and after, so all that example proves is that periods of stasis are possible. I was asking for an example of a capitalist economy static in size from beginning to end of it's tenure.
Japan never really exited its lost decade. A percent or so of GDP growth is nothing to point at as vindication.
A decade and more of negligible growth, with zero evidence of strain on capitalistic structures of the economy, and you insist on more proof that zero growth is feasible in capitalism? I think you're straining credulity.
A real stagnation that you are trying to describe would require all the bourgeois to come together and have a nice discussion. They would negotiate how they would not compete with each other, whilst maintaining their wealth. Also known as an oligarchy.
Growth is not necessary for capitalism to persist. It's an empirical fact.
These are all examples that do not support your argument. In every single scenario there were adjustments made in order to further replicate the capitalist economy. If no adjustments were made, than a catastrophic failure would occur as conditions deteriorate (revolution).
Just because a black market exists within a communist state, doesn't immediately mean that communism fails. But if that black market persists and grows, than it will destroy the communist state.
And I'm not sure what you're getting with somalia? Just because there's growth doesn't mean that the resources are allocated in the best way possible. You can get rich anywhere. This is capitalism 101
In every single case, adjustments were made, yes. But capitalism is always making adjustments to changing circumstances. This is capitalism's great strength. No other economic system is as nimble in making adjustments.
The assertion at hand is whether economic growth is necessary for capitalism to persist. These examples I've included are specific examples of persistence of capitalism in the face of zero growth, negative growth, and severe social disorder. Growth is not necessary for capitalism to persist. It's an empirical fact.
2)in the case Mr. Wallace suggested of a market in hunting tools for a share of the surplus (the kill); let me refine that a little:
if the owners of the tools do the hunting, then you have worker ownership of the means of production.
If the owner of the tool (the capitalist) does not hunt, and merely pays the worker (the hunter) a fixed amount of money (meat) per unit time for his labor, regardless of the size of the kill. Then the capitalist takes the risk and the profit. But again this is a monopoly. For a competitive market, let us say you have n capitalists and m hunters and a competitive market. Then Smith's argument would say that the economy will grow. For the moment let us assume the meat does not spoil, and can be accumulated by the capitalists indefinitely.
1) I still do not see a counterargument to Smith: that competetive markets drive growth
regulatory captureDon't worry regulatory capture isn't real. It is just a conspiracy.
The assertion that competitive markets can persist without growth does not address the fact that actually existing capitalist economies do grow.
ya'll probably express frustration towards the tactics used by climate change denialists. But here you are, completely ignoring every single piece of evidence that suggest capitalism requires constant growth. This is denialism. And ya'll have a pretty nasty case of it.
And Steve, you know how climate change deniers will try to use the very small period of time of global cooling to prove that climate change isn't real? Think about what you're doing in this thread.
Other than every single economist and critic claiming that growth is a fundamental principle to a healthy capitalist economy. We have demonstrated in this thread, ironically it was Steve providing this evidence, that a stagnating economy worsens societal conditions. Stagnation leads to recessions and depressions and requires corrections to stimulate growth otherwise a catastrophic collapse may occur.No. Capitalism doesn't require growth. Politicians and the current debt-based economic system require growth. Healthy capitalism does not require inflation either, despite what central bankers might tell you. Capitalism requires rewarding individual initiative, and allowing competition, while avoiding monopolies. It can be improved by limiting or slowing personal accumulation beyond a certain point, and by limiting the ability to pass accumulation to next generations.
This is not a controversial opinion. This reflects reality. This reflects 300 years different capitalist economies from all of the world.
Why is it so hard to accept such a well understood concept.
Other than every single economist and critic claiming that growth is a fundamental principle to a healthy capitalist economy. We have demonstrated in this thread, ironically it was Steve providing this evidence, that a stagnating economy worsens societal conditions. Stagnation leads to recessions and depressions and requires corrections to stimulate growth otherwise a catastrophic collapse may occur.
This is not a controversial opinion. This reflects reality.
Other than every single economist and critic claiming that growth is a fundamental principle to a healthy socialist economy. We have demonstrated in this thread, ironically it was Steve providing this evidence, that a stagnating economy worsens societal conditions. Stagnation leads to recessions and depressions and requires corrections to stimulate growth otherwise a catastrophic collapse may occur.
This is not a controversial opinion. This reflects reality.
Capitalism requires rewarding individual initiative, and allowing competition, while avoiding monopolies.
Bob
In your example, could we consider the growth of the antelope's family to be necessary to sustain the capitalist transaction? ;)
Terry
Eventually, of course the hunters count heads and figger that m >> n1+n2 and cut the throats of the n1+n2 and take all the meat.
"and the rest will perish"
or the rest will revolt.
sidd
Or with a bit of forethought everyone could have gotten together and set up some regs to keep the greedy from messing things up.
The argument that regulation is the answer to unbridled capitalism depends on the absence of a market in regulators. After all, if capitalist can buy and sell the regulators who are supposed to regulate them ...
Capitalism is great at creating markets. In fact, so great, that supressing the open market in regulators inevitably leads to a black market in regulators.
a capitalist, of course, might argue it is better to have an open market than a black market in regulators ... and look, the Supremes agree with them in Citizens United.
and a bureaucrat might say, I know, let's have regulators for the regulators. and markets in the regulators of the regulators, which of course needs regulators for the market in regulators of the regulators and ...
and the anarchist in me sez, burn it all down.
sidd
I see no good option other than governments owning the 'means'.
Perhaps very heavy taxes on the owners of the 'means' and using the tax money to create a universal basic income.
This is not something that could be done overnight, nor would it be needed overnight. A gradual process that might play out over a few decades as we have larger and large amounts of unneeded labor.
QuoteI was asking for an example of a capitalist economy static in size from beginning to end of it's tenure.
What would it matter if you found one or not? If a capitalist economy fails was it not capitalistic?
What if a socialist economy grows? Does that make it capitalistic?
I think capitalism and growth get confounded because capitalistic systems are so powerful and generally create growth whereas socialistic systems stagnate due to the lack of individual incentives.
QuoteSince the 1970s, say fifty years ago, wages and benefits have stagnated for the working classes as opposed to the rentiers in the USA.
This is a problem that needs to be addressed. The new tax legislation has made the problem even worse. The downslide of the middle class started with Reagan and his "trickle down on you" economics. It's something that we have to reverse.
QuoteIs endless growth not a core feature of capitalism?
Capitalism does not require growth.
But more empirically, can anyone point to an existing capitalist economy that does not grow ? Is there even a single example of such a beast ?
sidd
Blindingly obvious examples. Plenty. Japan's "lost decade" for one.
1) I still do not see a counterargument to Smith: that competetive markets drive growth
Of course competitive markets tend to drive growth. That's completely different from saying that growth is necessary for competitive markets to persist.
Capitalist theory says that all actors seek to maximize wealth and income. When an economy *can* grow, everyone acting within the system to maximize income and wealth has a tendency to create more overall income and wealth. With caveats, of course. Theft increases my wealth while adding nothing to total wealth, as an example.
The point here is that in capitalist systems, everyone continues to act to maximize their own wealth and income *regardless* of trends in total wealth and income.
Bankers, borrowers, landowners, corporate CEOs continue to make exactly the same *types* of actions whether total wealth or income is stagnant, increasing, decreasing, or in social disarray.
Recessions lead to alterations in risk-taking. Social disorder leads to risk minimization strategies. Still, everyone continues to maximize their own wealth and income.
Even if *everyone* experiences decreases in wealth and income, they *still* continue to make the same kinds of decisions, using persistent institutions and structures.
Capitalism does not require growth to persist. It's an empirical fact.
How can you be this dense. your argument is the equivalent of saying an engine doesn't need oil because it can run without it for short periods of time. And in the case of somalia, it doesn't need oil because an engine that's not running is still an engine.
Might growth be an outcome of people wanting more and not a result of the economic system in play?
No. Capitalism doesn't require growth. Politicians and the current debt-based economic system require growth.
I see no good option other than governments owning the 'means'.
Perhaps very heavy taxes on the owners of the 'means' and using the tax money to create a universal basic income.
This is not something that could be done overnight, nor would it be needed overnight. A gradual process that might play out over a few decades as we have larger and large amounts of unneeded labor.
70% of the U.S. economy is fueled by consumer spending. A universal income will result in more consumer spending and a rapidly expanding economy....more growth. Corporate profits will rise due to increased demand for goods and both will spur capital investment which will further growth. With such strong growth, we will have accomplished what every capitalistic country seeks to accomplish, rapidly rising wealth and prosperity for all.
I see no good option other than governments owning the 'means'.
Perhaps very heavy taxes on the owners of the 'means' and using the tax money to create a universal basic income.
This is not something that could be done overnight, nor would it be needed overnight. A gradual process that might play out over a few decades as we have larger and large amounts of unneeded labor.
70% of the U.S. economy is fueled by consumer spending. A universal income will result in more consumer spending and a rapidly expanding economy....more growth. Corporate profits will rise due to increased demand for goods and both will spur capital investment which will further growth. With such strong growth, we will have accomplished what every capitalistic country seeks to accomplish, rapidly rising wealth and prosperity for all.
That depends on the size of the income. If it's set at a minimal existence (no frills) then the impact should be little. Those now on various social support programs would find their lives little changed in terms of discretionary spending money. People who receive the income in addition to what they now earn would likely find their taxes rising.
The desire for growth is not unique to capitalism. Socialism also seeks growth in order to improve the conditions of the people living within the system. That means that we can't use growth as a definer of capitalism.
Is growth required for a capitalistic economy to survive? Well, if the economy shrinks enough the economy will collapse. Same holds for socialist economies, which seem to create conditions that bring a higher risk of collapse.
We may not see capitalist economies that are stable over long periods of time but that does not prove that a non-growing, stable state capitalist economy would collapse. Landlords would simply get the same amount of rent over the years and pay the same for a bunch of carrots at the market.
Capitalism is very good at growing economies so we rarely, if ever, see a stagnant capitalistic economy. But that does not prove that one would not be possible and does not prove that a growing economy is part of the definition of capitalism.
The savings rate for the bottom 50% of Americans is nearly non existent. Every single dollar of additional income will result in multiple dollars of additional spending as these dollars change hands rapidly.
Socialist states are simply another way for a nation to organize itself within the system of capitalism. All of the attributes of a capitalistic country are still in place. Socialism is nothing more than an institutional response to the effects of unfettered capitalism.
Capital accumulation requires growth and borrowing only occurs when returns from the investment are in excess of the cost of capital. Capital is never lent if the prospects of getting the money back with a fair return is not possible.
-snip- The distinction between socialism and capitalism is not as powerful as the ideologues would have us believe. They are both growth systems with the predominant difference being how the pie is divided. snipThe real distinction is that in capitalism man ruthlessly exploits man, in socialism it's the other way round.
The real distinction is that in capitalism man ruthlessly exploits man, in socialism it's the other way round.
QuoteThe real distinction is that in capitalism man ruthlessly exploits man, in socialism it's the other way round.
Love it!
The desire for growth is not unique to capitalism. Socialism also seeks growth in order to improve the conditions of the people living within the system. That means that we can't use growth as a definer of capitalism.
Is growth required for a capitalistic economy to survive? Well, if the economy shrinks enough the economy will collapse. Same holds for socialist economies, which seem to create conditions that bring a higher risk of collapse.
We may not see capitalist economies that are stable over long periods of time but that does not prove that a non-growing, stable state capitalist economy would collapse. Landlords would simply get the same amount of rent over the years and pay the same for a bunch of carrots a
Capitalism is very good at growing economies so we rarely, if ever, see a stagnant capitalistic economy. But that does not prove that one would not be possible and does not prove that a growing economy is part of the definition of capitalism.t the market.
The desire for growth is not unique to capitalism. Socialism also seeks growth in order to improve the conditions of the people living within the system. That means that we can't use growth as a definer of capitalism.
Capital accumulation requires growth and borrowing only occurs when returns from the investment are in excess of the cost of capital. Capital is never lent if the prospects of getting the money back with a fair return is not possible.
Not quite true. Plenty of lending happens on the basis of debtor's current positive cash flow, with no expectation of "growth."
It's undeniably true that actors in a capitalist system *seek* growth. It's also undeniably true that when an economy fails to grow, the institutions of capitalism persist anyway.
Capital accumulation requires growth and borrowing only occurs when returns from the investment are in excess of the cost of capital. Capital is never lent if the prospects of getting the money back with a fair return is not possible.
Not quite true. Plenty of lending happens on the basis of debtor's current positive cash flow, with no expectation of "growth."
It's undeniably true that actors in a capitalist system *seek* growth. It's also undeniably true that when an economy fails to grow, the institutions of capitalism persist anyway.
Please private message me where I can get a 0% interest loan. I promise I won't tell anyone!
The desire for growth is not unique to capitalism. Socialism also seeks growth in order to improve the conditions of the people living within the system. That means that we can't use growth as a definer of capitalism.
Is growth required for a capitalistic economy to survive? Well, if the economy shrinks enough the economy will collapse. Same holds for socialist economies, which seem to create conditions that bring a higher risk of collapse.
We may not see capitalist economies that are stable over long periods of time but that does not prove that a non-growing, stable state capitalist economy would collapse. Landlords would simply get the same amount of rent over the years and pay the same for a bunch of carrots a
Capitalism is very good at growing economies so we rarely, if ever, see a stagnant capitalistic economy. But that does not prove that one would not be possible and does not prove that a growing economy is part of the definition of capitalism.t the market.
Bob, you managed to completely contradict yourself. In a single post, only a paragraph apart. Impressive.
You keep trying to envision a hypothetical non-growth capitalist system, and I keep on telling you, it's not possible.
If there is no growth, there is no profit motive. If there is no profit motive, then the transactions are either equitable, or slavery/serfdom/feudalism is in place. Do me a favor, try realistically imagine the world you keep on creating:
Farmer: "hello sir landlord, thank you for inheriting all this land and making me pay rent. Here are the carrots I spent all day laboring in the sun for. I really enjoy working extremely hard while you spend your days collecting rent. I hope I can find a way to pay rent when a drought comes. I was thinking of expanding my farm to pay you more carrots in case drought comes. Unfortunately I live in Bob Wallace's magical world of no growth and I will not do that"
Landlord: "Hello young farmer. I would not like any more money and expand my empire. But thank you for the offer. I also am not interested in buying any guards to protect me from peasant revolt, because you love working for me. All is well in the world. I hope this drought does not come!"
If there is no growth, there is no profit motive.
QuoteSocialist states are simply another way for a nation to organize itself within the system of capitalism. All of the attributes of a capitalistic country are still in place. Socialism is nothing more than an institutional response to the effects of unfettered capitalism.
Nope. Here you just make scrambled eggs of the two economic systems.
"Socialism also seeks growth in order to improve the conditions of the people living within the system."
Isn't that beautiful? an economic system that grows to improve the conditions of the common people rather than accumulate wealth for shareholders & landlords?
QuoteSocialist states are simply another way for a nation to organize itself within the system of capitalism. All of the attributes of a capitalistic country are still in place. Socialism is nothing more than an institutional response to the effects of unfettered capitalism.
Nope. Here you just make scrambled eggs of the two economic systems.
Well, I thought this would be quite right. One main idea of Socialism is the idea that capital should be owned by the working class, that incomes should be shared. Look at the fruits : China, Vietnam, Cuba... you still have companies that need a market, incomes, production, growth... you have a state owned capital that is some kind of huge monopoly.
What is a "pure socialist economy" ?
sidd
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole
That's why you saw China, USSR, Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea resorting to repressive practices in order to keep thing moving along. And not moving along very well.
Is there a "pure socialist economy" anywhere in the world ? now or earlier ?
Cuba is a mixed economy with state preponderance. China also. Same with India. Russia is state controlled oligarchy. USA, UK are oligarchy controlled state. EU, Scandanavia are semi socialist, semi capitalist.
sidd
The Nordic countries are mixed economies.That's a bland term when new private owners have earned several hundred billion on the purchase of state-owned companies over the last decades. A lot of production has been moved abroad and common wealth has been moved to a small capital-strong group = capitialism.
Are you arguing that growth or striving for growth is unique to capitalism?
If not then growth is common among economic systems therefore growth is not part of the definition of capitalism that sets it apart from other systems.
Are you arguing that growth or striving for growth is unique to capitalism?
If not then growth is common among economic systems therefore growth is not part of the definition of capitalism that sets it apart from other systems.
Countries that U.S. ideologues choose to call socialist have central banks, private business, universities etc. and, in my mind, are all part of the same growth system. If you would like to give it another name, I am fine with this. The developing world is rapidly integrating into this growth system, southeast Asia, China and India as well as parts of Africa. Central and South America are largely integrated into this growth system as well.
The only societies I can think of that don't grow are agricultural societies. This is mainly related to the fact that land is limited. There was a long period in Japan, but middle age in Europe also didn't grow so much, just like native societies in the Americas and in the Artic. Don't know about the other parts of the world.
There are no mixed economies or I simply fail to understand what that name describes.
A mixed economic system protects private property and allows a level of economic freedom in the use of capital, but also allows for governments to interfere in economic activities in order to achieve social aims.
Many wealthy nations achieve a range of social objectives that together can provide a good life for their people, as outlined by the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. But to do so, they exceed their share of the earth's natural resources and surpass environmental impact limits needed to safeguard the planet, according to a recent study (top right of main graph). Less wealthy nations use resources more modestly and have lower impacts but meet fewer of the social goals (bottom left of main graph). The solution: “Wealthy nations can consume less, with no loss in quality of life,” says study leader Daniel W. O'Neill of the University of Leeds in England. That would free up resources for less wealthy nations to improve lives (circular charts) while still keeping within safe environmental boundaries.
Are you arguing that growth or striving for growth is unique to capitalism?
If not then growth is common among economic systems therefore growth is not part of the definition of capitalism that sets it apart from other systems.
Countries that U.S. ideologues choose to call socialist have central banks, private business, universities etc. and, in my mind, are all part of the same growth system. If you would like to give it another name, I am fine with this. The developing world is rapidly integrating into this growth system, southeast Asia, China and India as well as parts of Africa. Central and South America are largely integrated into this growth system as well.
You did not answer my question.
The 'another name' is a mixed economy. Neither 100% capitalist nore 100% socialist.
Let's get back to the basic discussion. Is growth legitimately part of the definition of a capitalist economy? Something that sets a capitalist economy different from a socialist economy? Or is growth both systems typically strive to create?
Can Humans Live Well without Pillaging the Planet?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-humans-live-well-without-pillaging-the-planet/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-humans-live-well-without-pillaging-the-planet/)QuoteMany wealthy nations achieve a range of social objectives that together can provide a good life for their people, as outlined by the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. But to do so, they exceed their share of the earth's natural resources and surpass environmental impact limits needed to safeguard the planet, according to a recent study (top right of main graph). Less wealthy nations use resources more modestly and have lower impacts but meet fewer of the social goals (bottom left of main graph). The solution: “Wealthy nations can consume less, with no loss in quality of life,” says study leader Daniel W. O'Neill of the University of Leeds in England. That would free up resources for less wealthy nations to improve lives (circular charts) while still keeping within safe environmental boundaries.
Attaching top half in low res and the higher res image from the article.
The virtues of the free market that are espoused and held dear by Americans can be simplified to "Just don't get in the way of me getting mine."
Is it necessary to tar everyone in a country based on the behavior of some?
We need to get away from the exponential part. Like now, today. Many more here are starting to realize that but I still don't see a real transformation happening.
Rule of 72. Divide 72 by annual percent to get a rough approximation of years or my years to get a rough approximation of rate.
Growth is fine as long as we move to renewable energy and sustainable inputs.
(Before someone starts going all hair on fire, "sustainable" creates limits which don't allow unlimited growth.)
QuoteThe virtues of the free market that are espoused and held dear by Americans can be simplified to "Just don't get in the way of me getting mine."
Is it necessary to tar everyone in a country based on the behavior of some?
Rule of 72. Divide 72 by annual percent to get a rough approximation of years or by years to get a rough approximation of rate.
Growth is fine as long as we move to renewable energy and sustainable inputs.
(Before someone starts going all hair on fire, "sustainable" creates limits which don't allow unlimited growth.)
A more equitable distribution of a fixed or slightly shrinking pie is essential if humanity is to solve the problem. Looking at U.S. political discourse and the general trends, you will have to excuse my pessimism. This more equitable distribution needs to be within nations and between nations.Ramen!
QuoteThe virtues of the free market that are espoused and held dear by Americans can be simplified to "Just don't get in the way of me getting mine."
Is it necessary to tar everyone in a country based on the behavior of some?
I have a bottomless tar bucket and a deep well of cynicism.
Bob
Do we need ANY growth from this point forward?
I believe it's obvious that we require redistribution, but I don't see that growth in itself is required, or even advantageous.
Elon Wants to whisk us effortlessly from LA to San Francisco in a tube. I'd rather he'd sponsor a bicycle race, or sailing regatta from one port city to the other.
If you need to be 400 miles away from where you are before lunch, you probably didn't plan your itinerary too well. :)
Terry
QuoteThe virtues of the free market that are espoused and held dear by Americans can be simplified to "Just don't get in the way of me getting mine."
Is it necessary to tar everyone in a country based on the behavior of some?
I have a bottomless tar bucket and a deep well of cynicism.
How about telling me your nationality so I can smear you with a generalization?
Do people who live without clean water and electricity need growth?
Do people who are starving to death need more growth?
QuoteThe virtues of the free market that are espoused and held dear by Americans can be simplified to "Just don't get in the way of me getting mine."
Is it necessary to tar everyone in a country based on the behavior of some?
I have a bottomless tar bucket and a deep well of cynicism.
How about telling me your nationality so I can smear you with a generalization?
U.S. citizen
QuoteThe virtues of the free market that are espoused and held dear by Americans can be simplified to "Just don't get in the way of me getting mine."
Is it necessary to tar everyone in a country based on the behavior of some?
I have a bottomless tar bucket and a deep well of cynicism.
How about telling me your nationality so I can smear you with a generalization?
U.S. citizen
So you're one of the "Just don't get in the way of me getting mine." greedy Americans....
A very good way for the greedy to get more is to gain control over the government.
I was reading about battery technology today, and it was really interesting to see how our tax dollars subsidize the research, then the profits fall solely on the businesses.
You'll have researches develop a new technology using publicly funded lab equipment and knowledge. They would find a breakthrough, and start a company. Than they would find investors and buyers for their product. The investors would outline certain requirements, as well as who would receive their initial product (especially if the investor has a certain stake, such a car company wanting the battery for themselves). During this time, they would carefully protect their technology from outside eyes, as well as patent the technology so nobody else could develop it.
God damn capitalism is efficient. socialize costs, privatize profits.
I was reading about battery technology today, and it was really interesting to see how our tax dollars subsidize the research, then the profits fall solely on the businesses.
You'll have researches develop a new technology using publicly funded lab equipment and knowledge. They would find a breakthrough, and start a company. Than they would find investors and buyers for their product. The investors would outline certain requirements, as well as who would receive their initial product (especially if the investor has a certain stake, such a car company wanting the battery for themselves). During this time, they would carefully protect their technology from outside eyes, as well as patent the technology so nobody else could develop it.
God damn capitalism is efficient. socialize costs, privatize profits.
Important research findings are patented and licensing is sold to corporations that want to use those findings. It isn't given away.
Of course a capitalist might say, "What have the future generations done for me, anyway. Fuck 'em."
"well, i guess i'll explain it to you. There's this thing called shareholder value......"
I was reading about battery technology today, and it was really interesting to see how our tax dollars subsidize the research, then the profits fall solely on the businesses.
You'll have researches develop a new technology using publicly funded lab equipment and knowledge. They would find a breakthrough, and start a company. Than they would find investors and buyers for their product. The investors would outline certain requirements, as well as who would receive their initial product (especially if the investor has a certain stake, such a car company wanting the battery for themselves). During this time, they would carefully protect their technology from outside eyes, as well as patent the technology so nobody else could develop it.
God damn capitalism is efficient. socialize costs, privatize profits.
Important research findings are patented and licensing is sold to corporations that want to use those findings. It isn't given away.
Come on Bob, how obtuse do you have to be.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/06/bad-science
But as we see, human growth is killing the planet.
thanks bob, for completely missing my point. or purposely ignoring it. I don't know.Quote"well, i guess i'll explain it to you. There's this thing called shareholder value......"
Have you seen what has happened to the value of coal shares?
We are in the early days of a transition off fossil fuels. The economic advantage of renewable energy has happened only in the last few years.
(https://vgy.me/DY6oGe.png)
We've reached the point at which is no longer makes economic sense to build coal plants. We're not quite to the point at which EVs are as cheap to purchase as ICEVs. When we get there we should see oil share value drop like what has happened with coal.
Wind, solar, storage, and EVs are going to be the growth stocks going forward.
You may find yourself huddled around the fire in the post-apocalyptic hellscape 50 years from now but with every drop in wind, solar, and storage (including EV batteries) the odds drop.
Master Thesis in Business Administration, School of Business and Economics,
Linnaeus University, 4FE03E, 2013
Authors: Andrée Söderlindh och Martin Holgersson
Supervisor: Anna Stafsudd
Examiner: Sven-Olof Collin
Title: Shareholder Value – The American way and the Swedish game to play?
Background: Shareholder value has its origin in the American corporate governance system and has been the subject of great debate over the last few decades. The proponents claim that it creates economic efficiency while the critics argue that maximization of shareholder value jeopardizes the long term survival of companies. However, the debate in Sweden already seems to have forgotten the question of how embedded the ideology really is and what´s leading its way.
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to explain if and how the ideology has spread in Swedish publicly listed companies.
Method: The study has a deductive research approach to explain the diffusion of the ideology. The underlying theory is based on social network theory, new institutional theory, resource dependence theory and upper echelon theory. The quantitative method relies on Swedish network-, ownership-, board- and financial data from 1995, 2000, 2005 and 2010.
Conclusions: The results show that shareholder value has developed and been established in Swedish companies between 1995 and 2005. The study has found evidence that suggests that the development can primarily be linked to board networks and international exposure. However, the results also indicate that an underlying effect can be traced to the two leading business groups in Sweden.
zizek, I have concerns about your ability to understand English.
zizek, I have concerns about your ability to understand English.
My Dear Bob,
I made a post describing the absurdity of how a handful of incredibly powerful individuals have complete control over the fate of humanity (please ignore my hyperbole). I then made another post that was supposed to be a humorous fictional account of the tragedy.
And instead of addressing the main point of my post. You know, how we live in a society that it's totally okay and normal that the fate of 7 billion people can be controlled by a handful of people. You respond by doing this:
*puts on top hat and monocle*
"actually Zizek, in post #423 of Re: If not Capitalism... then What? And, How? the man mentions the word shareholder value. "
*snorts*
"Interesting that you bring that up"
*scrambles around to find lecture stick. pulls down graph titled: Renewable Energy - Historical Costs *
"as you can see, costs of renewable have been going down. I can draw a conclusion that the oil and coal will no longer hold any value for shareholders."
*turns to the audience, straightens collar, puffs up chest*
"And so what does this mean? Well, that Zizek's account of the future is completed disconnected from our reality. No projections suggest there will be any apocalypse, or huddling, or storytelling. My friends, the markets will fix everything. No need to be worried"
I wanted to post this early but I didn't want to take away from my original point:
Peabody Energy, the largest coal companies in the world, Has seen a net income of 732 million compared to its gross of 4.7 billion. That sure is a huge amount of value that can be extracted from fossil fuels. Hopefully climate change can wait until they become unprofitable!
Since Peabody's restructuring in 2016, They've almost doubled their stock! from $23/share to as high as $42. It's honestly amazing what a bank does for shareholder value when they get their hands on a bankrupt business.
Bob, your american exceptionalism keeps distracting you from realizing there's *checks google* 7 billion other people living on the planet!
Bob, your american exceptionalism keeps distracting you from realizing there's *checks google* 7 billion other people living on the planet!
Perhaps you could point out to me how my American exceptionalism is blinding me to the rest of the planet?
Yes, electricity generated by coal has dropped dramatically in the U.S. but this is primarily due to a dramatic increase in natural gas generation, not renewables.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=25392
And these aren't predictions. This is hard data.
Bob, your american exceptionalism keeps distracting you from realizing there's *checks google* 7 billion other people living on the planet!
Perhaps you could point out to me how my American exceptionalism is blinding me to the rest of the planet?
I think he is suggesting that any reduction in coal consumption in the U.S. is dwarfed by growth in coal consumption overseas.
Yes, electricity generated by coal has dropped dramatically in the U.S. but this is primarily due to a dramatic increase in natural gas generation, not renewables.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=25392
And these aren't predictions. This is hard data.
Do you not understand that this is a good thing?
Gas plants are highly dispatchable, unlike coal plants. Turning off gas plants when wind and solar are producing saves gas. Trying to go from high coal penetration levels of coal to high penetration levels of wind and solar without a fill-in would be very difficult. And, so far, storage is too expensive.
I still see no basis for any American exceptionalism...
Bob
Natural gas, at least natural gas obtained without fracking, is superior to any of the other so called fossil fuels. Turn in on, turn it up, turn it down, shut it off. - Can't do that with coal.
Methane is going to keep bubbling up no matter what we do, and burning it in usefull pursuits is much better than letting it escape, or flaring it off.
Putin has been pushing for natural gas fueled cars and trucks throughout Russia. With no fracking it might be significantly cleaner than petrol or diesel. Not comparable to EVs powered by solar, hydro or wind, but...
https://www.rt.com/business/414447-russia-natural-gas-fuel-putin/
Terry
Gas plants are highly dispatchable, unlike coal plants. Turning off gas plants when wind and solar are producing saves gas. Trying to go from high coal penetration levels of coal to high penetration levels of wind and solar without a fill-in would be very difficult.
Methane is going to keep bubbling up no matter what we do, and burning it in usefull pursuits is much better than letting it escape, or flaring it off.
Bob
Natural gas, at least natural gas obtained without fracking, is superior to any of the other so called fossil fuels. Turn in on, turn it up, turn it down, shut it off. - Can't do that with coal.
Methane is going to keep bubbling up no matter what we do, and burning it in usefull pursuits is much better than letting it escape, or flaring it off.
Putin has been pushing for natural gas fueled cars and trucks throughout Russia. With no fracking it might be significantly cleaner than petrol or diesel. Not comparable to EVs powered by solar, hydro or wind, but...
https://www.rt.com/business/414447-russia-natural-gas-fuel-putin/
Terry
The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that in 2017, about 16.76 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of dry natural gas was produced from shale resources in the United States. This was about 60% of total U.S. dry natural gas production in 2017.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=907&t=8
Not a pretty process...
Hydraulic fracturing involves the high-pressure injection of 'fracking fluid' (primarily water, containing sand or other proppants suspended with the aid of thickening agents) into a wellbore to create cracks in the deep-rock formations through which natural gas will flow more freely. When the hydraulic pressure is removed from the well, small grains of hydraulic fracturing proppants (either sand or aluminium oxide) hold the fractures open.
Our natural gas production miracle is an environmental disaster and the fact that it can be done economically means the disaster will continue.
Same amount of CO2 from the methane, less from coal.Is that true per BTU? - Regardless CH4 is a much worse GHG for at least 100 years, and burning coal creates a myriad of problems in addition to producing CO2.
"In fact, gas is now almost 45% of U.S. power generation capacity, and climbing toward 50%. From 2017-2020, we will be installing 80,000 megawatts of new gas capacity, or almost a 20% increase in just a few years with even more coming. The entire country is turning to gas, and new regulations to cut greenhouse gas emissions favor natural gas. The ability of wind and solar power, augmented by battery storage, to displace, not supplement, natural gas, is typically overstated."
Same amount of CO2 from the methane, less from coal.Is that true per BTU? - Regardless CH4 is a much worse GHG for at least 100 years, and burning coal creates a myriad of problems in addition to producing CO2.
Buffet and Gates large investments in rail might not be worth much without them hauling coal from mine to generator or to a sea port. Will they allow those dollars to side silently into the night?
Terry
Thanks for the data. :)
Methane/natural gas emits about 50% as much CO2 per MWh as does coal. Replacing coal with oil well methane which would otherwise be flared off or simply allowed to escape into the atmosphere seems like a major improvement.
I do not worry about Buffet and Gates. They might lose some money but they won't try to take over the US government as the Koch brothers and the Mercers.
At this point in time we do not have all the options we'd like:
a) Do the same we've been doing.
b) Do something better than what we've been doing.
c) Do the perfect.
Option 'c' is not an option we have. Our best option is to go with 'b' and work our way toward 'c'.
https://business.directenergy.com/blog/2017/July/eia-electricity-generation-trends
But that does not mean that we will see NG generation increase. We aren't seeing NG generation growing now. What we are seeing is fossil fuel generation dropping.
(https://vgy.me/W3Q6Ju.png)
We can't simply close coal plants. Wind and solar are not 24/365 and we don't have storage to fill in around them. We could build more pump-up hydro but it's more expensive than a CCNG plant and, like it or not, what we do is highly influenced by economics. (emphasis mine)
At this point in time we do not have all the options we'd like:
a) Do the same we've been doing.
b) Do something better than what we've been doing.
c) Do the perfect.
Option 'c' is not an option we have. Our best option is to go with 'b' and work our way toward 'c'.
Hmmmm.....
a) Do the same we've been doing. (Current mix of fuels) Kills us.
b) Do something better than what we've been doing. (Ramp up natural gas) Kills us but at least we can say we tried.
c) Do the perfect. (Marshall plan to convert to renewables by 2030) We live but it's hard so let's choose option a or b.
I'll assume an error. You say NG generation is not growing and then post a chart for all fossil fuels?
The simple fact is that natural gas generation of electricity is rising rapidly and investment in new natural gas capacity is going to result in future increases, locking these increases in for decades to come.
Your chart - did you look at how while NG is rising coal is falling?
Do you fully understand the difference between capacity and generation?
Natural gas capacity has been rising but generation is not growing at the same rate.
We aren't seeing NG generation growing now.
Your chart - did you look at how while NG is rising coal is falling?
Uh, no. I can't read charts. I just like the pretty colors. That one line for natural gas does, however, show that NG generation has been rising rapidly at double the rate of renewables.Do you fully understand the difference between capacity and generation?
I'm a member of the baby boomer generation. That much I know for sure. But when it comes to natural gas, both generation and capacity are rising rapidly, more rapidly than any other form, including solar and wind.Natural gas capacity has been rising but generation is not growing at the same rate.
Correct, so when you said this in the previous post...We aren't seeing NG generation growing now.
...and then posted it with a misleading chart (shown below) that showed fossil fuel generation declining, is this because you can't read a chart or were you attempting to mislead?
and then posted it with a misleading chart (shown below) that showed fossil fuel generation declining, is this because you can't read a chart or were you attempting to mislead?
But when it comes to natural gas, both generation and capacity are rising rapidly, more rapidly than any other form, including solar and wind.
Bob.
I have no doubt you are bright and well informed. Everything I've read that you have posted suggests this. While I said I would assume the comment was in error, I am certain you knew the chart did not say what you suggested and I am certain you are aware that NG generation is rising rapidly.
Bob, No matter how much evidence we present, you will find something to nitpick. There is no winning with you. You are never wrong.
Bob, No matter how much evidence we present, you will find something to nitpick. There is no winning with you. You are never wrong.
Coal. You used the tiny blip of reduced coal use an indicator that the markets are working.
(https://d33wubrfki0l68.cloudfront.net/3fc6be951260a764781873465c5a3c35bdf86aeb/313bf/exports/coal-production-by-region_v1_850x600.svg)
How long have we known about climate change? How long has hydro, wind, solar been economical? How the hell am I supposed to come to the conclusion that the markets are responding appropriately?
And I sure as hell hope the 1.2 billion Africans forget to industrialize. Maybe we'll round them up and make them build turbine blades for us. Like the good 'ol days. Nobody seemed to have a problem when we bombed Libya back into the stone age. I'm so happy I'm young enough to experience Africa's Fate. I'm sure it won't be horrible. I'm sure it'll be fine. The markets will save them. Everything is fine.
Also. Everyone forget one critical aspect about NG: it's used for heating and industry as well. Not just electrical production. Far cheaper to have a gas furnace in your house than baseboard heaters. Look at production numbers rather than TWh to get a better idea of NG growth
(https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2017.02.22/chart2.png)
I'm sure you'll have something to nitpick.
Bob, No matter how much evidence we present, you will find something to nitpick. There is no winning with you. You are never wrong.
My guess is he is an employee for an energy company and his job is to post here.
Facts:
1) Natural gas generation plants are being rapidly built in the U.S.
2) Domestic natural gas production is increasing so rapidly due to dramatic improvements in fracking technology that it is far in excess of domestic demand.
3) Exports of natural gas are expanding rapidly.
4) As fracking technologies improve and they are rapidly improving, the costs of natural gas production continues to drop which is causing a dramatic increase in proven reserves as more gas becomes economical to extract.
The good news?
Coal generation of electricity is in a long term and irreversible decline.
The bad news?
The explosion of natural gas production, low cost because of rapidly improving fracking technologies, is resulting in massive degradation of our environment and delaying the absolute essential conversion to renewables if we are to avoid a climate catastrophe.
Even easier and faster. Make doing the wrong thing illegal. Typically ensures 99% compliance overnight
Now imagine this chemical cocktail percolating into your water supply.
But as Bob has stated. We need to be realistic. For us to continue our lifestyle, we need to accept the long term poisoning of our water supply.
I would suggest instead (have suggested in fact) that we need to absolutely accept that our lifestyles must change to avoid disaster.
Or extreme fantasies like westerners telling Africans, Indians, Indonesians, Bangladeshis, and the Chinese if they all put a solar panel on the roof of their village huts they'll become an economic superpower on the back of renewable energy.
QuoteEven easier and faster. Make doing the wrong thing illegal. Typically ensures 99% compliance overnight
Stupid approach.
Then you can prove it is stupid. Logic is logical.
If it was stupid then murder, bank robbery, rape, corporate fraud, insider trading, bigamy, drunk driving, speeding, tax evasion and causing environmental damage wouldn't be illegal already.
"Let's all hold hands, sing a campfire song, and then do the right thing" crap. That does not work.
Let's all hold hands, sing a solar panel with a fracked gas refrain song, and then keep on consuming everything we can until we all drop dead. That'll work.
Doing the blatantly evil versus doing something less evil always necessitates doing something evil. Logic is logical. Ethics is ethical. There are no half measures only people's opinions vary and none of them are worth a dime if it means doing evil. Opinions are never equal. It depends ........ but volume and repetition is of no value. :)
The public supports universal health care (insurance). The public supports gay marriage & marriage equality. The public supports abortion rights for women. The public supports the govt minding it's own business when it comes to their own bodies, the right death with dignity, and smoking pot too.
Everything I listed would cause rapid reductions in GHG emissions in the US and contribute to saving the planet's climate system.
QuoteNow imagine this chemical cocktail percolating into your water supply.
But as Bob has stated. We need to be realistic. For us to continue our lifestyle, we need to accept the long term poisoning of our water supply.
I would suggest instead (have suggested in fact) that we need to absolutely accept that our lifestyles must change to avoid disaster.
Unfortunately we live in a world where we are often forced to choose between the bad and the somewhat less bad.
My impression is that contamination of groundwater is a small problem. Bad, but nothing like extreme climate change would bring to us. We can filter water and over time the chemicals will be diluted away.
Again, if you have another idea that might work then spell it out. Right now it looks like you are willing to bake the planet in order to avoid a small water pollution problem. And don't give me any of the "Let's all hold hands, sing a campfire song, and then do the right thing" crap. That does not work.
I would like to suggest that the choice is not between the bad (coal), less bad (natural gas) and the best (renewables). Due to dramatic improvements in fracking technology, the choice in the short term is between the less expensive (natural gas) and the more expensive (renewables).
So a wave of the hand and we dismiss the massive contamination of our drinking water.
I really don't have the time in the evenings, but that is simply not true at all.QuoteEven easier and faster. Make doing the wrong thing illegal. Typically ensures 99% compliance overnight
Stupid approach.
Then you can prove it is stupid. Logic is logical.
If it was stupid then murder, bank robbery, rape, corporate fraud, insider trading, bigamy, drunk driving, speeding, tax evasion and causing environmental damage wouldn't be illegal already.
The public supports legislation against murder, etc. Everything you list is something that causes "immediate" hurt.
The public will not support legislation that causes them to drastically change their lifestyle. Climate change is an "in the future" hurt. Humans don't do prevention very well.
If we let climate change continue then at some point down the road the pain will become powerful enough that people would support extreme legislation (but by then it would probably be too late).
The way out of this mess is to find acceptable, affordable alternatives to activities that produce greenhouse gases. The more acceptable and affordable the alternative, the faster we cut GHG gases.
BTW, we have the acceptable, affordable alternatives for most GHG emissions. A few nuts left to crack. Now we need to roll out the solutions faster.
We are not doing anywhere near what we should be doing. Not even in Sweden.Quotewe have to think differently
No, we have to speed up what we are now doing.
Simply stated, if we allow the efficient functioning of the market to determine what our electric generation will look like in 30 years, we are screwed.
We are not doing anywhere near what we should be doing. Not even in Sweden.
Sweden with ~90% "carbon free" energy today is a very good present day example here. We must think differently and change our lifestyles, there's no way around that, unless someone finds a magic way to remove carbon from the atmosphere.
Ban the living daylights out of fossil fuels and GHG emissions today. It will hurt, some companies and people will be financially destroyed, but the effects of climate change will hurt even more. If people don't realize that, like your sweet "all of the above guy" Rick Perry over there, too bad.
QuoteOr extreme fantasies like westerners telling Africans, Indians, Indonesians, Bangladeshis, and the Chinese if they all put a solar panel on the roof of their village huts they'll become an economic superpower on the back of renewable energy.
Sorry to burst your bubble, bippy, but solar is doing very well in less developed countries. Millions of households have moved from kerosene and candles to solar panels and LEDs. Lots of small grids have added solar and wind to their supply and now use their diesel generators as backup.
China is on track to see solar produce more electricity than nuclear and wind, moving solar into third place behind coal and hydro. That may happen in 2018.
Solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear are all ganging up to reduce Chinese coal use.
What's a 'bippy'? Is this a term of endearment where you're being nice and respectful?
Is this data reasonably close?
http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/CLIMATECHANGE-ACCORD/010030F50XV/index.html
% GHG emissions by nation
United States of America 17.89% Pop. 325.7 million (2017)
% per 100 million people = 5.49%
Australia 1.46% Pop. 24.13 million (2016)
% per 100 million people = 6.05%
Germany 2.56% Pop. 82.67 million (2016)
% per 100 million people = 3.09%
South Africa 1.46% Pop. 55.91 million (2016)
% per 100 million people = 2.61%
China 20.09% Pop. 1,379 million (2016)
% per 100 million people = 1.45%
Then we have countries such as
Indonesia 1.49% Pop. 261.1 million (2016)
% per 100 million people = 0.57%
Nigeria 0.57% Pop. 186 million (2016)
% per 100 million people = 0.31%
India 4.10% Pop. 1,324 million (2016)
% per 100 million people = 0.31%
Bangladesh 0.27% Pop. 163 million (2016)
% per 100 million people = 0.16%
No Fossil Fueled power stations or Nuclear plants for them? Only Renewable energy will they be allowed. Because "We" say so?
There is the actual reality of new Coal projects in “climate denying nation states” (?) like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Nigeria, Vietnam, Bosnia and Serbia.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/International_Chinese_coal_projects
Renewable Energy is clearly a winning strategy now! So cheap everyone is doing it now? Ah, no, that isn't true. When I look at the research and the data what I see is the major causes of the "problem" are those rich ex-colonial powers and highest consumer nations still today with over 1.5% of total GHG emissions per 100 million people, in particular the USA @ 5.49%/100mln as the most outstanding nation in producing damaging GHG Pollution on this planet bar none.
Let me know when the USA is able to cut it's GHG emissions across all sectors by at least 70% down to 1.5% per 100 mln people by using Renewable energy while continuing it's love affair with Gas/Oil Fracking. When the USA can show the world how this can be done "without immediate hurt" they might follow that lead. But that is impossible.
Renewable energy growth in the USA will never achieve even that 1.5% which is still way above zero-net emissions required before 2050. Because the US Public and the powers that be in the USA will never support such a change to THEIR "lifestyles" willingly. The USA will need to be FORCED into such drastic reductions in consumption, ff production, defense cuts and loss of it's economic/financial power. As will some others.
Or nothing will happen, nothing will change bar rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The logical and very highly likely only outcome at present.
QuoteSo a wave of the hand and we dismiss the massive contamination of our drinking water.
No. We have to make a hard choice. Global climate change disaster or locally contaminated water. Assuming we have to use hazardous chemicals to obtain some of the NG we need.
QuoteSo a wave of the hand and we dismiss the massive contamination of our drinking water.
No. We have to make a hard choice. Global climate change disaster or locally contaminated water. Assuming we have to use hazardous chemicals to obtain some of the NG we need.
You figure out how to be absolute dictator of the planet and then you can ban the living daylights out of fossil fuels and GHG emission on day one of your reign.
“I think public transport is painful. It sucks. Why do you want to get on something with a lot of other people, that doesn’t leave where you want it to leave, doesn’t start where you want it to start, doesn’t end where you want it to end? And it doesn’t go all the time.”
“It’s a pain in the ass,” he continued. “That’s why everyone doesn’t like it. And there’s like a bunch of random strangers, one of who might be a serial killer, OK, great. And so that’s why people like individualized transport, that goes where you want, when you want.”
When the audience member responded that public transportation seemed to work in Japan, Musk shot back, “What, where they cram people in the subway? That doesn’t sound great.”
The US increased its percent of electricity product with wind and solar by 1.7% in 2017. In 2017 the US generated 62.8% of their electricity with fossil fuels. At that rate it would take 36.9 years to replace all fossil fuel electricity with renewable energy. 2055.
What does this really mean? Assuming the above could happen and the numbers are reasonably correct.
Only the present 2018 level of electricity production has been replaced by renewable energy by 2055.
Renewable energy has not replaced any growth in electricity demand consumption between 2018 and 2055.
Renewable energy is not powering one more EV than it did in 2018.
Total Oil use has increased. Total Gas use has increased.
In your 'world' there are no Nuclear power plants.
Renewable energy has not replaced that 20% of electricity supply by 2055.
Renewable energy has no impact on increasing Land Use emissions.
Renewable energy has no impact on increasing Cement production.
Renewable energy has no impact on increasing Fertilizer production.
Renewable energy has no impact on increasing livestock production and related emissions.
Renewable energy has no impact on increasing production / demand of steel, aluminum, car manufacturing, white goods manufacturing, nor mining operations or building buildings and roads.
Renewable energy has no impact on increasing shipping of imports and exports nor internal transportation.
Renewable energy uptake in the USA has no impact on increasing economic activity in the other 191 nations of this world nor their higher consumption of US exports including military exports.
Despite this hypothetical Renewable energy increase in the electricity sector between 2018 and 2055 total GHG emissions of the USA (incl imports) increases. This Renewable energy scenario is not logical, not realistic, incomplete, and therefore it is a non-solution. Much more has to be done and change to achieve Net Zero GHG emissions in the USA by 2055. Anything less than Net Zero by then is a non-solution.
There is no need to take these comments personally. What's essential are genuine realistic solutions and systemic social cultural change.
You figure out how to be absolute dictator of the planet and then you can ban the living daylights out of fossil fuels and GHG emission on day one of your reign.
Don't you get it Bob? Don't you understand what we keep trying to say in this thread. We already live under a defacto dictatorship. America spends more than 1/2 trillion dollars a year on guns and bombs. those weapons are used to protect the 2000 or so billionaires who effectively control the entire world. But this dictatorship isn't telling us to turn off our lights or stop driving our cars. No, they want us to consume more, pollute more, destroy more. Anything that will make them more wealthy. They will burn this world to the fucking ground before they give up their wealth. And you keep on defending the system that lets them do this.
And you keep giving us this fatalist bullshit that we can't change the system. That it's hopeless. Because the typical american is impervious to change. How about you look in the mirror.
YOU. ARE. THE. PROBLEM.
YOU are the one who isn't willing to change. YOU are the one who endorses this exploitative system. and YOU are the one who mocks radical politics
(https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2016-02-20/socialismCapitalismAge.png)
I know many people my age who are looking for radical change. I know many people my age who are concerned for future. and I know many people who are sick of your generation's patronizing bullshit.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-5307647/Study-reveals-reasons-drop-car-ownership-young-people.html
My generation is the one who's driving less. Mostly because your generation sucked up all the wealth while our wages evaporated.
We we would rather ride public transit, And you would rather defend hyper-capitalist Elon MuskQuote“I think public transport is painful. It sucks. Why do you want to get on something with a lot of other people, that doesn’t leave where you want it to leave, doesn’t start where you want it to start, doesn’t end where you want it to end? And it doesn’t go all the time.”
“It’s a pain in the ass,” he continued. “That’s why everyone doesn’t like it. And there’s like a bunch of random strangers, one of who might be a serial killer, OK, great. And so that’s why people like individualized transport, that goes where you want, when you want.”
When the audience member responded that public transportation seemed to work in Japan, Musk shot back, “What, where they cram people in the subway? That doesn’t sound great.”
You figure out how to be absolute dictator of the planet and then you can ban the living daylights out of fossil fuels and GHG emission on day one of your reign.
Don't you get it Bob? Don't you understand what we keep trying to say in this thread. We already live under a defacto dictatorship. America spends more than 1/2 trillion dollars a year on guns and bombs. those weapons are used to protect the 2000 or so billionaires who effectively control the entire world. But this dictatorship isn't telling us to turn off our lights or stop driving our cars. No, they want us to consume more, pollute more, destroy more. Anything that will make them more wealthy. They will burn this world to the fucking ground before they give up their wealth. And you keep on defending the system that lets them do this.
And you keep giving us this fatalist bullshit that we can't change the system. That it's hopeless. Because the typical american is impervious to change. How about you look in the mirror.
YOU. ARE. THE. PROBLEM.
YOU are the one who isn't willing to change. YOU are the one who endorses this exploitative system. and YOU are the one who mocks radical politics
(https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2016-02-20/socialismCapitalismAge.png)
I know many people my age who are looking for radical change. I know many people my age who are concerned for future. and I know many people who are sick of your generation's patronizing bullshit.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-5307647/Study-reveals-reasons-drop-car-ownership-young-people.html
My generation is the one who's driving less. Mostly because your generation sucked up all the wealth while our wages evaporated.
We we would rather ride public transit, And you would rather defend hyper-capitalist Elon MuskQuote“I think public transport is painful. It sucks. Why do you want to get on something with a lot of other people, that doesn’t leave where you want it to leave, doesn’t start where you want it to start, doesn’t end where you want it to end? And it doesn’t go all the time.”
“It’s a pain in the ass,” he continued. “That’s why everyone doesn’t like it. And there’s like a bunch of random strangers, one of who might be a serial killer, OK, great. And so that’s why people like individualized transport, that goes where you want, when you want.”
When the audience member responded that public transportation seemed to work in Japan, Musk shot back, “What, where they cram people in the subway? That doesn’t sound great.”
I live in the United States. We have a marginally functional democracy which it overly influenced by the need for our elected officials to raise campaign funds. When I see someone claim that "We already live under a defacto dictatorship" I dismiss most of what they say because I seldom hear anything useful from a tinfoil capped exaggerator.
And when they make statements about "all billionaires" then they get demoted another step. Elon Musk is a billionaire. George Soros, Bill Gates and Richard Branson are billionaires. Tom Steyer is a billionaire as is Yvon Chouinard.
"And you keep giving us this fatalist bullshit that we can't change the system."
There's another mega-stupid claim. We have to change "the system" but unless we have economics working for us we will find it extremely hard,pretty much impossible.
The US increased its percent of electricity product with wind and solar by 1.7% in 2017. In 2017 the US generated 62.8% of their electricity with fossil fuels. At that rate it would take 36.9 years to replace all fossil fuel electricity with renewable energy. 2055.
What does this really mean? Assuming the above could happen and the numbers are reasonably correct.
Only the present 2018 level of electricity production has been replaced by renewable energy by 2055.
Renewable energy has not replaced any growth in electricity demand consumption between 2018 and 2055.
Renewable energy is not powering one more EV than it did in 2018.
Total Oil use has increased. Total Gas use has increased.
In your 'world' there are no Nuclear power plants.
Renewable energy has not replaced that 20% of electricity supply by 2055.
Renewable energy has no impact on increasing Land Use emissions.
Renewable energy has no impact on increasing Cement production.
Renewable energy has no impact on increasing Fertilizer production.
Renewable energy has no impact on increasing livestock production and related emissions.
Renewable energy has no impact on increasing production / demand of steel, aluminum, car manufacturing, white goods manufacturing, nor mining operations or building buildings and roads.
Renewable energy has no impact on increasing shipping of imports and exports nor internal transportation.
Renewable energy uptake in the USA has no impact on increasing economic activity in the other 191 nations of this world nor their higher consumption of US exports including military exports.
Despite this hypothetical Renewable energy increase in the electricity sector between 2018 and 2055 total GHG emissions of the USA (incl imports) increases. This Renewable energy scenario is not logical, not realistic, incomplete, and therefore it is a non-solution. Much more has to be done and change to achieve Net Zero GHG emissions in the USA by 2055. Anything less than Net Zero by then is a non-solution.
There is no need to take these comments personally. What's essential are genuine realistic solutions and systemic social cultural change.
"The US increased its percent of electricity product with wind and solar by 1.7% in 2017."
In 2016 the US generated 5.5% of its electricity with non-hydro renewables.
In 2017 that grew to 7.6%. An increase of 2.1%. 1.7% was a mistake, I read from the wrong column.
"Only the present 2018 level of electricity production has been replaced by renewable energy by 2055.
Renewable energy has not replaced any growth in electricity demand consumption between 2018 and 2055."
Sorry, I can't respond to those claims. I have no crystal ball that tells what conditions will be post today. Certainly not in 2055. (I hope you aren't basing your claim on EIA predictions.)
"Total Oil use has increased. Total Gas use has increased.
In your 'world' there are no Nuclear power plants. "
Natural gas has increased but that has been more than offset by decreases in coal use. Renewables are up and fossil fuels are down.
(https://vgy.me/izA0id.png)
Oil use will start dropping once we have affordable long range EVs.
It's unlikely the US will have more than three nuclear plants 20 years from now. The rest will have aged out and gone bankrupt far before then.
"Renewable energy is not powering one more EV than it did in 2018. "
This is 2018. I don't know what year you live in. But whatever. People who purchase EVs are more likely to put solar on their roofs than are other people. You claim has no merit.
All the cement, livestock stuff. I'm not going to spend time going through it item by item. I suspect you have a closed mind and it would simply be a waste of my time. I will say that renewable energy has already made an impact on some of those issues, is capable of dealing with others, and there are some problems that are yet to be solved.
Seriously? You can't follow what I was saying or what it meant, based on your quoted comment.
Not even that you have not accounted for what replaces all that Nuclear energy in the electricity supply market by 2055 if all are gone or only 4 are left. Or that you have not accounted for any increase in new EVs between 2018 and 2055 in your numbers? That the only thing you have done (whether it's 1.7% or 2.1% growth per year) is replacing FF electricity share as it was in 2018.
Sorry. I don't know what to say.
Bob. You have time to change your legacy. Nobody is going to look back and think fondly of the man who was a bootlicker for billionaires
Great discussion, guys, but when quoting each other, please, remove everything from the quote that isn't relevant to your reply. My finger hurts from scrolling.Great discussion, guys, but when quoting each other, please, remove everything from the quote that isn't relevant to your reply. My finger hurts from scrolling.Great discussion, guys, but when quoting each other, please, remove everything from the quote that isn't relevant to your reply. My finger hurts from scrolling.Great discussion, guys, but when quoting each other, please, remove everything from the quote that isn't relevant to your reply. My finger hurts from scrolling.Great discussion, guys, but when quoting each other, please, remove everything from the quote that isn't relevant to your reply. My finger hurts from scrolling.Great discussion, guys, but when quoting each other, please, remove everything from the quote that isn't relevant to your reply. My finger hurts from scrolling.
I really don't have the time in the evenings, but that is simply not true at all.QuoteEven easier and faster. Make doing the wrong thing illegal. Typically ensures 99% compliance overnight
Stupid approach.
Then you can prove it is stupid. Logic is logical.
If it was stupid then murder, bank robbery, rape, corporate fraud, insider trading, bigamy, drunk driving, speeding, tax evasion and causing environmental damage wouldn't be illegal already.
The public supports legislation against murder, etc. Everything you list is something that causes "immediate" hurt.
The public will not support legislation that causes them to drastically change their lifestyle. Climate change is an "in the future" hurt. Humans don't do prevention very well.
If we let climate change continue then at some point down the road the pain will become powerful enough that people would support extreme legislation (but by then it would probably be too late).
The way out of this mess is to find acceptable, affordable alternatives to activities that produce greenhouse gases. The more acceptable and affordable the alternative, the faster we cut GHG gases.
BTW, we have the acceptable, affordable alternatives for most GHG emissions. A few nuts left to crack. Now we need to roll out the solutions faster.
On a strictly personal basis you can get down to roughly 2 tonnes CO2eq today (excluding the societal emissions from wherever you live). On a nationwide scale it's theoretically possible to get down to roughly 2 tonnes CO2eq as well, given some time and effort. I have tried to show that in several posts in here over several years now. You are aware of some of those posts Bob.
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1102.msg155322.html#msg155322 (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1102.msg155322.html#msg155322)
And this was your reply, to the ending words from the recent video I posted here (and in the Paris thread) with Kevin Anderson:We are not doing anywhere near what we should be doing. Not even in Sweden.Quotewe have to think differently
No, we have to speed up what we are now doing.
Sweden with ~90% "carbon free" energy today is a very good present day example here. We must think differently and change our lifestyles, there's no way around that, unless someone finds a magic way to remove carbon from the atmosphere.
Ban the living daylights out of fossil fuels and GHG emissions today. It will hurt, some companies and people will be financially destroyed, but the effects of climate change will hurt even more. If people don't realize that, like your sweet "all of the above guy" Rick Perry over there, too bad.
QuoteWe are not doing anywhere near what we should be doing. Not even in Sweden.
Sweden with ~90% "carbon free" energy today is a very good present day example here. We must think differently and change our lifestyles, there's no way around that, unless someone finds a magic way to remove carbon from the atmosphere.
Ban the living daylights out of fossil fuels and GHG emissions today. It will hurt, some companies and people will be financially destroyed, but the effects of climate change will hurt even more. If people don't realize that, like your sweet "all of the above guy" Rick Perry over there, too bad.
You figure out how to be absolute dictator of the planet and then you can ban the living daylights out of fossil fuels and GHG emission on day one of your reign.
Later that day there will be an uprising and your throne will be toppled.
Get out in the real world. See how many people are willing to quit riding in fueled vehicles and cut their electricity use by 80%.
I already did that Bob, we westerners can't go below roughly 2 tonnes CO2eq. Is that short enough?
If it was so easy to replace FF electricity supply then we'd already have known exactly what to do 3 decades ago and the Fix would be in and unfolding in every nation already.
Of course it doesn't, it's on that dinner plate on the wall that disgusted you. If you decide to look at the different ingredients on that wall, you will find a more describing version of the attached image. It's obvious that the image relates to Sweden, because the US emissions would not fit on that scale. (Hint, we really should follow the blue line...)I already did that Bob, we westerners can't go below roughly 2 tonnes CO2eq. Is that short enough?
OK. I read your statement. I have no reply as it's just a claim you make. It makes no sense to me.
All I got was abuse and no genuine answers.
"Add a proper price tag on natural resources."Thank you for expressing that better than me, sidd.
Precisely. Price ecosystem services correctly. Then one of two things will happen.
a) we will discover we are bankrupt and do something about it
b) we will discover we are bankrupt and not
right now we are in
c) ignore ecosystem services in pricing
which is very profitable to very powerful interests. Therefore ecosystem services are ignored in markets.
sidd
QuoteAll I got was abuse and no genuine answers.
Oh, bullshit.
That's a fair point Bob. All I got was bullshit! ;D
Is ff usage increasing or decreasing, not as a percentage of the available mix, but as a quantity?
Terry
FF use in TWh peaked in 2007. Starting with 2007 here's how it's run through 2017.Thanks Bob.
2,992,238
2,926,731
2,726,452
2,883,361
2,788,867
2,782,023
2,738,797
2,738,114
2,732,531
2,649,968
2,520,515
the markets are working.
FF use in TWh peaked in 2007. Starting with 2007 here's how it's run through 2017.Thanks Bob.
2,992,238
2,926,731
2,726,452
2,883,361
2,788,867
2,782,023
2,738,797
2,738,114
2,732,531
2,649,968
2,520,515
Glad to see that the world's reliance on ff is headed in the right direction.
Still waiting for confirmation from Mauna Loa. ;)
Terry
Looking good bob!
(https://edmhdotme.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/screen-shot-2015-11-08-at-20-20-15.png)
Has anything changed since 2015?
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-co2-emissions-set-to-rise-2-percent-in-2017-following-three-year-plateau
naw. not really.
The markets are working. the markets are working. the markets are working. the markets are working. the markets are working. the markets are working. the markets are working. the markets are working. the markets are working. the markets are working.
It is my belief, supported by 40 plus years of personal experience, that most of humanity is comprised of decent, caring people. Collectively, It is my belief, supported by 40 plus years of personal experience, that most of humanity is comprised of decent, caring people. Collectively, these decent people, working diligently to take care of their families and to see that their children have lives better than their own, are driving us to the brink..
Instead unclear numbers without a findable source (I never found any post from May 23, 2018, 11:11:22 ) you could look at papers like this one (attached above first image below). They usually try to give references and clear sources for readers to look up on, if they wish to do so.Thanks Bob.
Look up the page to the chart I posted at May 23, 2018, 11:11:22.
FF use in TWh peaked in 2007. Starting with 2007 here's how it's run through 2017.
2,992,238
2,926,731
2,726,452
2,883,361
2,788,867
2,782,023
2,738,797
2,738,114
2,732,531
2,649,968
2,520,515
Glad to see that the world's reliance on ff is headed in the right direction.
Still waiting for confirmation from Mauna Loa. ;)
Terry
If CO 2 emissions stay flat for the next decades (green; 0% annual growth), then it may take 10 years before the estimated atmospheric concentrations would exceed the budget imbalance with a probability of 68% or more (and therefore could be detected) compared to a pathway of atmospheric concentrations consistent with growth in CO 2 emissions (orange, 1% per year similar to the emission pledges submitted to the Paris Agreement). This delay increases to 20 years for a 95% probability. If emissions declined faster than expected (blue, –1% per year), then a more marked change in atmospheric growth would be expected, and a much earlier detection.
Mitigation on Methadone: the trouble with negative emissionsKevin Anderson starts at ~20m.
With sixteen of the seventeen warmest years on record having occurred since 2000; with oceans both warming and acidifying; and with unequivocal scientific evidence that burning fossil fuels is the principal cause; – what can we do to rapidly reduce emissions?
This presentation will revisit the scale of the climate challenge, arguing that whilst the science of climate change has progressed, we obstinately refuse to acknowledge the rate at which our emissions from energy need to be reduced. The Paris Agreement exemplifies this duality – relying as it does on highly speculative negative emission technologies to balance incremental tweaks to a ‘business-as-usual’ model with rapidly dwindling carbon budgets for 2°C. Similarly, the eloquent rhetoric of green growth continues to eclipse analysis demonstrating the need for radical social as well as technical change.
Taking these issues head on, this seminar will outline a quantitative framing of mitigation, based on IPCC carbon budgets, before finishing with more qualitative examples of what a genuine low-carbon future may contain.
Looking good bob!
(https://edmhdotme.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/screen-shot-2015-11-08-at-20-20-15.png)
Has anything changed since 2015?
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-co2-emissions-set-to-rise-2-percent-in-2017-following-three-year-plateau
naw. not really.
The markets are working. the markets are working. the markets are working. the markets are working. the markets are working. the markets are working. the markets are working. the markets are working. the markets are working. the markets are working.
That graph doesn't tell us much of anything about whether the markets are working.
Instead unclear numbers without a findable source (I never found any post from May 23, 2018, 11:11:22 ) you could look at papers like this one (attached above first image below). They usually try to give references and clear sources for readers to look up on, if they wish to do so.
CO2 emissions are an unfortunate output of our economic activity so these CO2 graphs clearly show that the markets are operating efficiently as companies and individuals across the planet make decisions that contribute to their success and well being.
Sleepy all very relevant comments and information.
"Despite already having 40% nuclear, 40% hydro and 10% wind, to cut GHG emissions by 13% per year reducing them to Net Zero by 2035."
So what about the rest of the western world? Good question.
It's a total mystery (kind of) why such information simply does not register in so many people including those who do correctly see themselves as being well above above average "educated about global warming, energy use and climate change."
It don't compute :)
The solution to this existential crisis lies outside of capitalism and any effort to implement the solution will always meet resistance from businesses and individuals. This is why I am pessimistic about our future. The science of AGW is sound. The technology needed to solve the problem is available. The will to embrace the social change needed is lacking. We will need to be staring death in the face before we react and it will be too late.
The solution to this existential crisis lies outside of capitalism and any effort to implement the solution will always meet resistance from businesses and individuals.
"GTM Research did the math in a new report, Trends in Solar Technology and System Prices, which projects that utility scale fixed-tilt systems could reach 70 U.S. cents per watt by 2022.
....
For this analysis, pv magazine chose to increase the system cost above to 75¢/W to account for single-axis tracking. Our opinion is that this price is actually giving an extra penny or two, considering efficiency gains.
For capacity factor – we started with the 30.2% that we’re getting in California single-axis trackers last year and the year before, and we added 12.5% for the bifacial panel gain. That brought us to a capacity factor of 34%.
Next, we brought the capacity factor to 38%, an increase of about 11.8%. We did this because 20% bifacial solar panels mean an increase in panel efficiency of 17-25% from today’s product, and 38% seemed conservative.
Next we adjusted O&M costs to $7.50/kW to align with increases expected here as well. Currently, there are contracts sneaking out at $8-10/W – some influenced by the tax credit, some by super dense installation areas.
That leaves us with a simple, levelized cost of renewable energy at 1.5¢/kWh. This price does include profits for the utility scale developers.
And, if the solar power developer were to partner with a strategic tax equity investor who discounted the tax credit and depreciation by 25% – lowering the effective capital cost to 52¢/W to install, we get a price of 1.1¢/kWh. The cheapest electricity on the planet...."
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2018/05/25/the-path-to-us0-015-kwh-solar-power-and-lower/
This cannot be done within the capitalist framework, since capitalism always establishes a market in politicians. It must be done through political change.
All the changes mentioned such as FHA, EPA, SSA were done in the context of a political market much different than today.
Here is a list, in no particular order, of twenty of Obama’s notable achievements:
1) Jumpstarting the green economy. The stimulus provided $90 billion dollars for a bevy of green initiatives, including $29 billion for improving energy efficiency, $21 billion for renewable energy generation, $10 billion for the grid, $18 billion for rail, and several smaller initiatives.
2) EPA Endangerment Finding. For the first time, EPA made an official finding that greenhouse gases (GHGs) endanger human health and welfare. This finding was upheld by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals; the Supreme Court declined review.
3) GHG Standards for New Vehicles. EPA issued the “tailpipe” rule, cutting CO2 emissions from new cars by almost a billion tons. This was also upheld by the courts.
4) GHG Standards for Power Plants and Factories. At the same time as the “tailpipe” rule, EPA issued a rule requiring GHG cuts for major new facilities; most of that rule was upheld by the Supreme Court. More importantly, EPA issued the Clean Power Plan, addressing emissions from existing power plants. The legality of that rule is now before the D.C. Circuit.
#) Mercury Controls for Power Plants. Using its authority to regulate toxic chemicals, EPA established a rule cutting mercury emissions, which will save thousands of lives, primarily by cutting dangerous particulates. The rule is now in front of the D.C. Circuit on remand from the Supreme Court, but most of the industry has already complied.
5) Social Cost of Carbon. For the first time, the government tried to measure the harm that CO2 causes, for purposes of future cost-benefit analyses. The current figure is around $35 per ton.
6) National monuments. Obama has established more national monuments than any other president in history. They also cover more acreage than any previous president’s.
7) Oceans. Obama designated some 580,000 square miles off Hawaii as a national monument. He also cleaned up the mess from the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, twisting BP’s arm into setting up a compensation fund for victims, and then ultimately obtaining billions of dollars in criminal and civil penalties. He also reformed regulation of deepwater drilling after the disaster, with no help from Congress.
8) New environmental legislation. Obama signed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which finally fixed the nearly moribund Toxic Substance Control Act. He also signed the Food Modernization and Safety Act in 2011, which substantially strengthened the FDA’s power to safeguard the food supply. Given the near-total gridlock of today’s Congress, obtaining any new legislation is something of a minor miracle.
#) Interstate air pollution. EPA established its first major rule addressing interstate transport of particulates and ozone, something that had been attempted unsuccessfully by the Bush Administration. The major features of the rule have been upheld by the Supreme Court; some lesser matters are still before the D.C. Circuit.
9) Keystone XL Pipeline. Obama blocked construction of this pipeline to take Canadian tar sands oil to market. The pipeline had come to symbolize the profligate use of fossil fuels.
10) Mountaintop mining. In decisions in 2013 and 2016, the D.C. Circuit upheld the Obama EPA’s effort to curb mountain top mining, an extremely destructive variant on strip mining, even when that means withdrawing or modifying an existing permit.
11) Endangered species. As of April 2015 (the latest figures I could find), the Obama Administration had listed 299 species, bringing them under the protection of the Endangered Species Act. It had also delisted 12, and had 35 listings in progress.
12) Fracking. In 2015, the Administration issued new rules regulating fracking on public lands, designed to protect against groundwater pollution. This year, EPA followed up with rules to restrict methane emissions from natural gas operations.
13) Energy efficiency. In December 2015, the Department of Energy issued a standard governing commercial air conditioners and furnaces, which covers heating and cooling for about half of the country’s commercial space. The new rule is estimated to save a total of $167 billions in energy costs and reduce carbon emissions by 885 megatons.
14) International mercury agreement. The Obama Administration entered into the Minimata Convention on Mercury, which bans mercury mining and regulates mercury products, processes, and pollution.
15) Coal ash. EPA issued the first-ever regulation of coal-ash impoundments, imposing new requirements for structural integrity and for groundwater protection.
16) Stricter air quality standards. After dodging the issue in the run-up to the 2012 election, the Administration finally issued a new air quality standard for ozone, cutting the allowable level from 75 to 70 ppb. In 2013, EPA had also issued a new standard for particulates, cutting the permissible level of PM2.5 from 15 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) to 12 μg/m3.
17) Protecting wetlands. The Administration issued the Water of the United States (WOTUS) rule, which clarified the reach of federal jurisdiction over wetlands. The rule is now mired in litigation.
18) International climate negotiations. Last but far from least: President Obama succeeded in obtaining the 2009 Copenhagen Accord and more recently the 2015 Paris Agreement, the first international agreement including developing nation commitments to address emissions. Even more recently, the Administration was successful in negotiations to curb super-strong greenhouse gases using the Montreal Protocol and in negotiations for emissions limitations on commercial aviation.
"The protected need few of these common goods. They don’t have to worry about underperforming public schools, dilapidated mass-transit systems or jammed Social Security hotlines."
"Their money, their power, their lobbyists, their lawyers, their drive overwhelmed the institutions that were supposed to hold them accountable–government agencies, Congress, the courts."
"They simply got really, really good at taking advantage of what the American system gave them"
“American meritocracy has thus become precisely what it was invented to combat,”
The capitalism we suffer under now is rotten to the core.
Those sane people would be ones like Donnelly (D-IN), Heitkamp (D-ND), Manchin(D-WV), Nelson (D-FL), Shaheen (D-NH), Warner (D-VA) ? who voted a torturer for CIA head ?
" How about we dispense with the terms "capitalism" and "socialism". "
Because those terms mean something. I'd rather use the original terms. I do not agree with the definition of capitalism as "how human beings operate" or with socialism as "buyer's clubs."
sidd
1) How do we control the greedy and make sure everyone has a reasonable route to success?
2) What do we need to own/pay for in common?
3) We all agree that we need to take care of those who are not able to take care of themselves. Where do we set the limit of who gets help?
QuoteCO2 emissions are an unfortunate output of our economic activity so these CO2 graphs clearly show that the markets are operating efficiently as companies and individuals across the planet make decisions that contribute to their success and well being.
Iceland and Paraguay have 100% low carbon grids. Their economies grow without increasing CO2 emissions from electricity.
The CO2 problem is not growth but source of energy.
Iceland is unique in its access to geothermal energy and Paraguay has a per capita income that is 7% that of the U.S. Are you now trolling us?
I think that mechanism is already in place, taxes.
Etc.
Baby boomers/Period - Born in 1946 – 1964
When Reagan was elected in 1980 the Baby Boomers were aged between5434 years old and 16 years old.
to create an armed rebellion to overthrow the existing government and establish whatever utopian form of government you envision.
When the really stupid people fail to listen to the great wisdom presented, when all seems lost, then the only recourse left is to launch those conspiracy theory missiles. That'll fix 'em :)
(nice discussion, really top shelf)
This cannot be done within the capitalist framework, since capitalism always establishes a market in politicians. It must be done through political change.
It's going to be easier to arouse voters to demand better environmental regulations than to create an armed rebellion to overthrow the existing government and establish whatever utopian form of government you envision.
2) What do we need to own/pay for in common?
In the USA there is Border protection, immigration depts, Courts of Law, Police departments, the EPA, airline safety controls, street signs, fighting white collar crime, the Congress, the SCOTUS, climate change science, Patent Office, local parks, children playgrounds, firefighting, the United nations body and services, consumer protection Laws, the safety of Medical Drugs and Foods checks and balances etc, the costs associated with the Paris Agreement and the COSTS of reducing net total GHG emissions and fixing Land Use problems - not only in the USA but Globally?
Sorry just a short list added the previous items. Should I go on? There's more, much more.
whereas any reasonable educated person over 50 years old should already know there is absolutely no interrelationship nor connection between using the word "socialism" and Gulags or Stalin
That was THE point Bob. :P
In the context of the USA, judicial decisions culminating so far with Citizens United make that quite difficult. At present, both major parties fellate oligarchs, for that is the only way to retain power.
Or, like the last time, the voters could go with someone who promises to break things.
"who in the discussion was recommending an armed rebellion"
Nobody. Sedition was an accusation levelled at me, and i leave you to judge the evidence.
sidd
This cannot be done within the capitalist framework, since capitalism always establishes a market in politicians. It must be done through political change.
I know and absolutely agree SH, it's fairly easy to notice those who are always ready to provide the basis for their comments in here and those who are ignoring comments that do include external facts.
Instead unclear numbers without a findable source (I never found any post from May 23, 2018, 11:11:22 ) you could look at papers like this one (attached above first image below). They usually try to give references and clear sources for readers to look up on, if they wish to do so.
I always try to provide links to support any data that I reference. One reason I do this is the article or paper goes into far more detail than I can do in a comment and I want to provide the people reading my comment an opportunity to dig into a topic they find interesting.
This fracking hydraulic fluid article which I linked to earlier is one such resource, very detailed and informative. If you want to know why you should be frightened by the boom in fracking in the U.S., this is a must read. I must warn you in advance, it is 168 pages long.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-03/documents/fracfocus_analysis_report_and_appendices_final_032015_508_0.pdf
Please be clear. This boom in fracking is not because people are evil. It is because fracking natural gas is highly profitable and, as long as it remains so, fracking will continue to grow. This is why the efficient operations of the market (modern capitalism always seeks to maximize profit) will never get us where we need to go and, if it does, it will be far too late to save us.
The solution to this existential crisis lies outside of capitalism and any effort to implement the solution will always meet resistance from businesses and individuals. This is why I am pessimistic about our future. The science of AGW is sound. The technology needed to solve the problem is available. The will to embrace the social change needed is lacking. We will need to be staring death in the face before we react and it will be too late.
If change cannot be made within a capitalist framework what option is there but to overthrow the capitalist framework? What is there besides rebellion?
Political change is a normal function of internal and external politics. Rulers will be voted out, retire, or die while in power, and the new leader will make changes.
through irregular events, such as a coup d'etat or a rebellion.
Instead unclear numbers without a findable source (I never found any post from May 23, 2018, 11:11:22 )
I asked -
OK I get it. You're not a supporter of the American Revolution of 1776. You prefer allowing capitalism and market forces to generate positive change and solve huge social and global problems. I get that. Many adhere to the New Age Neoliberal Ideology and Libertarian Philosophy so you're not alone there. The Market Knows All religion of the 21st century. Might work.
OK I get it. You're not a supporter of the American Revolution of 1776. You prefer allowing capitalism and market forces to generate positive change and solve huge social and global problems. I get that. Many adhere to the New Age Neoliberal Ideology and Libertarian Philosophy so you're not alone there. The Market Knows All religion of the 21st century. Might work.
Neoliberalism or neo-liberalism[1] refers primarily to the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism.[2]:7 Those ideas include economic liberalization policies such as privatization, austerity, deregulation, free trade[3] and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society
QuoteInstead unclear numbers without a findable source (I never found any post from May 23, 2018, 11:11:22 )
Ah, I now see your problem. You did not read the May 23, 2018, 11:11:22 post which was written by ASILurker. In it he/she copies down my comment of same day 10:47:38. The one in which I state that my data source was the EIA.
Do you need a lesson in what TWh, percent and annual increase in percent mean? I assume you understand or were able to look up fossil fuel, nuclear, renewables, and total. And US = United States.
FF use in TWh peaked in 2007. Starting with 2007 here's how it's run through 2017.Thanks Bob.
2,992,238
2,926,731
2,726,452
2,883,361
2,788,867
2,782,023
2,738,797
2,738,114
2,732,531
2,649,968
2,520,515
Glad to see that the world's reliance on ff is headed in the right direction.
Still waiting for confirmation from Mauna Loa. ;)
Terry
Those are US numbers, not global Terry.
Sometimes I am joking. Or at least being light hearted. Sometimes I can't help myself and do what others are doing. But that usually goes over everyone's heads because they miss it. But if I said what I was doing it (or held up a sign) it would not be as funny or poignant a reflection. Either way I damned if I do and damned if it don't. Welcome to the world of internet discussions. :)
Trolling I am not.
You just proved that you don't understand time, or reply to comments you don't like, or read them, or watch videos presented to you. You just talk a lot.
QuoteYou just proved that you don't understand time, or reply to comments you don't like, or read them, or watch videos presented to you. You just talk a lot.
Sleepy, you took a single comment out of a conversation and upset yourself. Chill.
The date/time I gave was adequate to discover the source of my data - the EIA. Clearly stated in the chart. If you wanted the exact page all you had to do is ask. Those of us who spend time on energy issues know where that data is.
I clearly respond to comments I don't like. I'm responding to this one of yours.See answer above, it's three years worth of it...
As for watching videos, going to other sites to read something that someone thinks ought to be read - generally I'm not going to do it. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on an expedition trying to discover someone's point.
If there's an thought you think important then spell it out. Provide a link as backup and/or to give those interested access to more detail.Agree but that is merely you trolling again. You don't even follow your own words here.
Oh! And ya'll gotta lighten up. Everyone seems to be a little too self important right now and it's causing some dissension.
Besides, only my opinion counts. ;)
I wish you would all go and piss in another pot .. b.c.I am impressed at the rapid fulfillment of my wishes and now wish you all well ! :) b.c.
As the vanguard for the crowning glory of mankind, Americans feel compelled to export this wonderful system to peoples across the planet and if ya'll don't like it, you can stuff it. ::)
Portugal traded with India for much of the 16th century, before the Dutch and British EIC's were founded. Vasco da Gama reached India six years after Columbus made landfall in Puerto Rico in 1492.
As the vanguard for the crowning glory of mankind, Americans feel compelled to export this wonderful system to peoples across the planet and if ya'll don't like it, you can stuff it. ::)
Well, let's give credit where credit is due. Capitalism would still be puny and insignificant if it weren't for the invention of the Corporation. The Dutch have that credit, I believe.
Thanks, Dutchmen!
Vasco de Gama ? this guy ? early emissary of the rape to come:Yep.
Well, let's give credit where credit is due. Capitalism would still be puny and insignificant if it weren't for the invention of the Corporation. The Dutch have that credit, I believe.
Thanks, Dutchmen!
Well, let's give credit where credit is due. Capitalism would still be puny and insignificant if it weren't for the invention of the Corporation. The Dutch have that credit, I believe.
Thanks, Dutchmen!
You're welcome. We've also invented slavery, introduced guns to African tribes and helped sugar become the invisible master of western culture.
The state contingency stocks have also disappeared. At the beginning of the 1990s there were about 200 such spread across the country, but since the entry into the EU, the stocks are gone. According to a report by the Civil Defense Association, today's central warehouse for food - basically it's the food in our stores - would be emptied after about ten days.
In the 1980s Sweden was self-sufficient for all foods except for such products as coffee and bananas. Today, Swedish agriculture accounts for about half of the food we eat.
More than 40 percent of the cheese, just over 50 percent of the beef and a small portion of the vegetables and fruit are Swedish-produced, according to Statistics Sweden, SCB.
The ultimate responsibility for providing food security at local level, in extraordinary events in peacetime and heightened preparedness, lies in the municipalities.
Speaking of sugar (mentioned this before in here but failed to find this article yesterday). Sweden is only self-sufficient on flour, carrots and sugar.
The government argues that without a price, the living world is accorded no value, so irrational decisions are made. By costing nature, you ensure that it commands the investment and protection that other forms of capital attract. This thinking is based on a series of extraordinary misconceptions. Even the name reveals a confusion: natural capital is a contradiction in terms. Capital is properly understood as the human-made segment of wealth that is deployed in production to create further financial returns. Concepts such as natural capital, human capital or social capital can be used as metaphors or analogies, though even these are misleading. But the 25-year plan defines natural capital as “the air, water, soil and ecosystems that support all forms of life”. In other words, nature is capital. In reality, natural wealth and human-made capital are neither comparable nor interchangeable. If the soil is washed off the land, we cannot grow crops on a bed of derivatives.--
A similar fallacy applies to price. Unless something is redeemable for money, a pound or dollar sign placed in front of it is senseless: price represents an expectation of payment, in accordance with market rates. In pricing a river, a landscape or an ecosystem, either you are lining it up for sale, in which case the exercise is sinister, or you are not, in which case it is meaningless.
Still more deluded is the expectation that we can defend the living world through the mindset that’s destroying it. The notions that nature exists to serve us; that its value consists of the instrumental benefits we can extract; that this value can be measured in cash terms; and that what can’t be measured does not matter, have proved lethal to the rest of life on Earth. The way we name things and think about them – in other words the mental frames we use – helps determine the way we treat them.
.... the key to political success is to promote your own values, rather than appease the mindset you contest.The natural capital agenda reinforces the notion that nature has no value unless you can extract cash from it ... market values crowd out non-market values. Markets change the meaning of the things we discuss, replacing moral obligations with commercial relationships. This corrupts and degrades our intrinsic values and empties public life of moral argument.
....
The natural capital agenda is the definitive expression of our disengagement from the living world. First we lose our wildlife and natural wonders. Then we lose our connections with what remains of life on Earth. Then we lose the words that described what we once knew. Then we call it capital and give it a price. This approach is morally wrong, intellectually vacuous, emotionally alienating and self-defeating.
“Huge swathes of people spend their days performing jobs they secretly believe do not really need to be performed,” Graeber writes. The rise of automation has meant that fewer humans are needed in manufacturing and farming, but instead of this freeing up our time, we’ve seen those jobs replaced by “the ballooning of … the administrative sector up to and including the creation of whole new industries like financial services or telemarketing, or the unprecedented expansion of sectors like corporate law, academic and health administration, human resources and public relations.”https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-15/bullshit-jobs-by-david-graeber-review
Very loosely, a bulls--- job, by Graeber’s definition, is one that could be erased from the Earth and no one would be worse off. It’s also phenomenological. If you feel your job is bulls---, it probably is.
...
Meanwhile, says Graeber, practitioners in the fields that directly benefit mankind or offer personal fulfillment, such as teaching, caregiving, waiting, writing, performing carpentry, or making art, are (with the exception of some doctors) poorly paid and secretly resented by those forced to waste their time pursuing a paycheck. Being occupied for long hours of the day fulfilling tasks that, at best, are useless and, at worst, hurt others—building the aforementioned phone systems, foisting software on budget-starved elementary schools, creating paperwork morasses for the homeless—is “a profound psychological violence” that causes anxiety and depression. Basically, our collective soul is being crushed by a rise in what Graeber sees as make-work.
...
Graeber argues that the concept of selling off one’s time in increments is relatively new. Historically, he says, the idea “that one person’s time can belong to someone else is actually quite peculiar.” To the ancient Greeks, he claims, you were either a slave and your whole life was owned, or you sold a good (an eating utensil, food) that you created as you saw fit. He implicates the shift toward clock time in the Middle Ages as the culprit behind our collective acceptance of wage slavery. Whereas time was traditionally amorphous, determined by geographical distances or chemical transformations (as long as it takes for the bread to rise, the wheat to dry) clock towers and then pocket watches (disallowed in factories so bosses could cheat by meddling with the hour hands on clocks), turned time into discreet, barter-able chunks. Naturally, we’re built to work in bursts and then to celebrate and rest, just as Mother Nature ordained, not pace ourselves to produce at an even tempo for hours at a stretch, day after day, all week.
...
Graeber is also an activist, so he must be given some credit for not just honking off in an annoyingly self-satisfied tone; although he claims he’s not interested in suggesting policy (he is, after all, an anarchist), he does endorse Universal Basic Income as one solution.
Result is obvious but not known by most policymakers, journalists & public: #Renewables volume has drastically increased, but share in overall energy consumption hasn't. See @REN21 numbers for 2006 (note that accounting methods have changed since) http://www.ren21.net/renewables-2007-global-status-report/ … #GSR2018
Thanks for the handy charts, Sleepy!
Hey Sig, I just started that book about BS jobs. If you read it, let me know. Maybe it's worth a separate thread?
The discussion turns round and round between those who say the system is not good enough, but are powerless to change it as there is no public support. And those who say that the public has been hijacked by the system. And those who say that we are killing ourselves, and the market approach is way too slow. And those who say that we have to work with the system, the public and the market we got and try to at least achieve incremental change.
Should we leave it to the market and hope the market saves our bacon? Nope. We should do what we can to help push things along faster.
Should we embrace incremental change? Absolutely. That's pretty much how and progress is made. It's always incremental, just a question of how fast we move from one step to the next on our way to the goal.
I think people need to look for improvements, for incremental changes. That can help to keep one from becoming depressed and non-functional. And it can help us each spot places where we might be able to put our shoulder to the wheel and give a helpful shove.
Each and every one of us has complete free will.
This report investigates how a more circular economy can contribute to cutting CO2 emissions. It explores a broad range of opportunities for the four largest materials in terms of emissions (steel, plastics, aluminium, and cement) and two large use segments for these materials (passenger cars and buildings).PDF in the link.
The key conclusion is that a more circular economy can make deep cuts to emissions from heavy industry: in an ambitious scenario, as much as 296 million tons CO2 per year in the EU by 2050, out of 530 Mt in total – and some 3.6 billion tonnes per year globally. Making better use of the materials that already exist in the economy thus can take EU industry halfway towards net-zero emissions. Moreover, doing so often is economically attractive. Initiatives for a more circular economy therefore deserve a central place in EU climate and industrial policy.
Incrementalism in America........
Are we getting paid more? Some people are.
'A great item to have': flamethrowers sell like hot cakes at Elon Musk sale
The tech billionaire urges buyers to act responsibly as dozens queue up to get their hands on the $500 weapons
Many planned to resell the flamethrowers, which are already fetching more than $2,000 on eBay. “Anything Elon Musk does is a collector’s item,” said Alex Shame, 52, an engineer.
Tudor Melville, 62, who owns an electrical company, drove his Tesla from Arizona to collect 10 flamethrowers, nine of which he plans to sell.
Children probably should not use them, he said. “Well, as long as they point in the air, it’s fine.” He added: “My family thinks I’m nuts.”
Some misuse is inevitable, said buyers. “No doubt there’ll be some bad eggs out there who do something stupid,” said Carrillo.
Tabula, the fire-loving entrepreneur, said he had “a bad feeling” about abuses. That might explain, he said, why the Boring Company told customers to not open the boxes “until we were way off the premises”.
Jeremy Grantham, the longtime investor famous for calling the last two major bubbles in the market, is urging capitalists and "mainstream economists" to recognize the looming threat of climate change.https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/13/gmos-grantham-capitalists-need-to-wake-up-to-climate-change-reality.html
"Capitalism and mainstream economics simply cannot deal with these problems. Mainstream economics largely ignore [them]," Grantham, who co-founded GMO in 1977, said Tuesday in an impassioned speech at the Morningstar Investment Conference in Chicago. "We deforest the land, we degrade our soils, we pollute and overuse our water and we treat air like an open sewer, and we do it all off the balance sheet."
This negligence is due in large part to how short-sighted corporations can be, Grantham said. "Anything that happens to a corporation over 25 years out doesn't exist for them, therefore, as I like to say, grandchildren have no value" to them, he said.
The solution here is to regulate more tightly. If cleaner air, cleaner water, and avoiding extreme climate change are valuable to us then we need to establish regulations that control the behavior of companies.
Put a price on pollution and greenhouse emissions and capitalism and mainstream economics will deal with these problems.
Should I vote for the greens this autumn?
BAU environmentalists who wish to keep flying world wide, will never bell any cat.As a member of the England and Wales Green Party I obviously should say yes - if only as the least-worst option.
Don't know of any "free market", here's how our politicians dance:
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,347.msg158976.html#msg158976 (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,347.msg158976.html#msg158976)
Only the Danes can now stop NS II, but I don't think they will.
Should I vote for the greens this autumn?
It doesn't matter what I vote for to be honest.
"Weber's critique of capitalism is even broader. I think he views it as quintessentially destructive not only of democracy, but also, of course, of the sort of feudal aristocratic system which had preceded it. Capitalism is destructive because it has to eliminate the kind of custom /ˈmɔːreɪz/, political values, even institutions that present any kind of credible threat to the autonomy of the economy. And it's that--that's where the
battle lies. Capitalism wants an autonomous economy. They want a political order subservient to the needs of the economy."
There are only individuals and families acting in their own best interests, there is no society.
Capitalism is a description of how people operate.
It certainly *seems* so, when one is born into a capitalist society, and then lives as a consumer and worker. All actors are simply acting to maximize wealth and income, with apparent freedom as to who to work for and what to purchase.
capitalism has grown to be a powerful behemoth courtesy of a highly artificial legal construct--the corporation. More precisely, the "limited liability" company.
The owners are insulated from the natural consequences of their actions. If the venture sustains catastrophic losses, the owners are only out the money they've put in. If the corporation commits murder (and corporations have certainly been found guilty of murder and other crimes), the owners face no risk of prosecution.
The problem is not corporations. The problem is that in some cases we need to tighten and enforce regulations. And, I think, we need to see more of what we've seen with a VW exec convicted and sentenced to time in prison.
We've gone through a period of losing controls over businesses and not taxing upper level earners enough. It's time to move in the other direction.
It is certainly not the case that all people who live in more free economies are actors who work to maximize wealth and income. Many are quite happy to live more modest lives once they've reached a position of reasonable comfort. Heck, I retired at 44 because I had enough. Had I continued and did not run into a major disruptive event my net worth would be at least in the tens of millions of dollars. And I have multiple friends who have made the same "enough" decision.
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
The UBI idea is not dead. It’s still worth watching other experiments, especially the ones that actually provide a living income.https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/view/articles/2018-04-26/finland-s-basic-income-experiment-was-doomed-from-the-start
Rep. Joe Crowley (D-NY) became the first Democratic incumbent to lose his primary election Tuesday. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a 28-year-old socialist, ran an insurgent campaign focused on Medicare for all, abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and tuition-free higher education.
She has now taken down a man widely considered a candidate for the next Speaker should Democrats retake the House.
Crowley first took office in 1999, and Ocasio-Cortez marked his first challenger in 14 years. She garnered national attention as she has waged war against the congressman’s corporate donations and centrist policy record.
Despite the hype, Crowley, who represented New York’s 14th district, was widely considered a heavy favorite in the race.
Ocasio-Cortez consistently hit Crowley for not accurately representing the district, saying in a campaign ad — without naming him — that it’s “time we acknowledge that not all Democrats are the same.”
...“What the Bronx and Queens needs is Medicare for all, tuition-free public college, a federal jobs guarantee, and criminal justice reform. We can do it now.”
Some social problems are blatantly obvious in daily life, while others are longer-term, more corrosive and perhaps mostly invisible. Lately I’ve been worrying about a problem of the latter kind: the erosion of personal ownership and what that will mean for our loyalties to traditional American concepts of capitalism and private property.https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/view/articles/2018-08-12/american-ownership-society-is-changing-thanks-to-technology
The main culprits for the change are software and the internet. For instance, Amazon’s Kindle and other methods of online reading have revolutionized how Americans consume text. Fifteen years ago, people typically owned the books and magazines they were reading. Much less so now. If you look at the fine print, it turns out that you do not own the books on your Kindle. Amazon.com Inc. does.
I do not consider this much of a practical problem. Although Amazon could obliterate the books on my Kindle, this has happened only in a very small number of cases, typically involving account abuse. Still, this licensing of e-books, instead of stacking books on a shelf, has altered our psychological sense of how we connect to what we read – it is no longer truly “ours.”
The change in our relationship with physical objects does not stop there. We used to buy DVDs or video cassettes; now viewers stream movies or TV shows with Netflix. Even the company’s disc-mailing service is falling out of favor. Music lovers used to buy compact discs; now Spotify and YouTube are more commonly used to hear our favorite tunes.
The great American teenage dream used to be to own your own car. That is dwindling in favor of urban living, greater reliance on mass transit, cycling, walking and, of course, ride-sharing services such as Uber and Lyft.
Each of these changes is beneficial, yet I worry that Americans are, slowly but surely, losing their connection to the idea of private ownership. The nation was based on the notion that property ownership gives individuals a stake in the system. It set Americans apart from feudal peasants, taught us how property rights and incentives operate, and was a kind of training for future entrepreneurship. Do we not, as parents, often give our children pets or other valuable possessions to teach them basic lessons of life and stewardship?
We’re hardly at a point where American property has been abolished, but I am still nervous that we are finding ownership to be so inconvenient. The notion of “possessive individualism” is sometimes mocked, but in fact it is a significant source of autonomy and initiative. Perhaps we are becoming more communal and caring in positive ways, but it also seems to be more conformist and to generate fewer empire builders and entrepreneurs.
What about your iPhone, that all-essential life device? Surely you own that? Well, sort of. When Apple Inc. decides to change the operating software, sooner or later you have to go along with what they have selected. Gmail is due to change its overall look and functionality, maybe for the better, but again eventually this choice will not be yours either: It’s Google’s. The very economics of software encourage standardization, and changes over time, so de facto you rent much of what you use rather than owning it. I typed the draft of this column using Microsoft Word, and sooner or later my contract to use it will expire and I will have to renew.
Imagine the “internet of things” penetrating our homes more and more, through services like Amazon’s Alexa. We’ll have ovens and thermostats that you set with your voice, and a toilet and bathroom that periodically give you the equivalent of a medical check-up. Yes, you will still own the title to your physical house, but most of the value in that home you will in essence rent from outside companies or, in the case of municipal utilities, the government.
As for that iPhone, it is already clear that you do not have a full legal right to repair it, and indeed more and more devices are sold to consumers without giving them corresponding rights to fix or alter those goods and services. John Deere tractors are sold to farmers with plenty of software, and farmers have to hack into the tractor if they wish to fix it themselves. There is now a small but burgeoning “right to repair” political movement.
Does that sound like something our largely agrarian Founding Fathers might have been happy about? The libertarian political theorist might tell you that arrangement is simply freedom of contract in action. But the more commonsensical, broad libertarian intuitions of the American public encapsulate a more brutish and direct sense that some things we simply own and hold the rights to.
Those are intuitions which are growing increasingly disconnected from reality, and no one knows what lies on the other side of this social experiment.
"Do we not, as parents, often give our children pets or other valuable possessions to teach them basic lessons of life and stewardship?"
That sentence tells you all about the author right there.
sidd