Gnashing my teeth over globalization

Can economic democracy make the global economy more sustainable?

Posted by Jon Rynn (Guest Contributor) at 1:32 PM on 07 Jan 2008

Worried about more coal plants, carbon emissions from transportation, and a crumbling infrastructure? Evidence provided by several recent reports point to one of the least explored causes of these problems: globalization, that is, the transfer of manufacturing capacity from developed to developing countries, particularly China.

The mechanisms differ. The U.S. and Europe, which could manufacture using environmentally benign techniques, instead use old, polluting technologies that wreck China's environment and increase global carbon emissions. The 70,000 cargo ships that ply the seas moving all of the globalized goods emit more than twice as much carbon as all airline traffic. And because major corporations no longer feel tied to their local communities, they also no longer lobby governments for a world-class infrastructure.

Now, I recently proposed that it would be a good thing to manufacture locally (and Ryan Avent took me to task for saying so). But what I want to propose is not protectionism, but the idea that if local companies were employee-owned and -operated, the problems I describe in this post would go away -- as utopian as that may first sound.

But first to the NYT article, "China Grabs West's Smoke-Spewing Factories":

Of China's total carbon emissions, which by some estimates now exceed those of the United States, just over a third are incurred in the course of making products for foreign consumers ... A study by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University found that if all the goods that the United States imported between 1997 and 2004 had been produced domestically, America's carbon emissions would have been 30 percent higher ... Germany is China's mirror image. Polluting factories have migrated abroad. Coal mining has withered. Since 1990, Germany has reduced its annual carbon emissions by 19 percent.

So the U.S. is not the only villain in this piece; even the "green" Germans are taking advantage. Both countries could make steel in a much cleaner way than China, but:

... steel pollutes more than any other industry in China, perhaps in the world ... Despite a government-mandated efficiency drive, steel will use 11 percent more power this year than last, fully one-tenth of the country's total energy supply, according to the China Iron and Steel Association ... Along with aluminum and cement, steel is the biggest reason China added 90 gigawatts of generation capacity this year, the third year in a row in which it will increase its power output by more than the total capacity of Britain. About 85 percent of those new power plants burn coal.

So next time you start gnashing your teeth about all of those damned coal plants in China, look at the new gizmo you just bought.

And it's not like the Chinese don't understand that they're being polluted to death:

The country's central planning agency recently barred purchases of some used industrial equipment from abroad, requiring companies to install newer energy-efficient systems. It has canceled many incentives devised to promote exports, especially for companies that guzzle energy and pollute heavily. Officials have warned companies that breaking environmental laws will cost them their export licenses.

But they are being driven hard by good ol' market incentives, which is why the following quote blows my mind:

Chen Kexin, an economist with China's Ministry of Commerce, said weak environmental laws and still inexpensive power, even more than low labor costs, had enabled Chinese steel makers to undercut prices elsewhere. "The shortfall of environmental protection is one of the main reasons why our exports are cheaper," Mr. Chen said. "This is hardly an 'edge' that we should be proud of."

So it's not the 50 cents an hour that's driving their exports, it's the cheap coal!

They're put on cargo ships that spew even more carbon into the air, according to recent studies:

Carbon dioxide emissions from shipping are double those of aviation and increasing at an alarming rate which will have a serious impact on global warming, according to research by the industry and European academics.

Separate studies suggest that maritime carbon dioxide emissions are not only higher than previously thought, but could rise by as much as 75% in the next 15 to 20 years if world trade continues to grow and no action is taken ... Annual emissions from shipping range between 600 and 800m tonnes of carbon dioxide, or up to 5% of the global total. This is nearly double Britain's total emissions and more than all African countries combined.

Once the steel gets here, is it used to build high-speed trains or rebuild bridges? Well, according to the N.Y. Times article, "Private Cash Sets Agenda for Urban Infrastructure," it's more likely to go into a university, hospital, or museum that is endowed by the growing wealth of our billionaire class. That's because the former patrons of local infrastructure, major corporations, have flown the coop:

Government investment nationwide has lagged for several reasons, say business leaders, academics and public officials...Perhaps most important, big businesses no longer put as much clout and attention behind public infrastructure investments. In an earlier era, corporations, many with deep roots in local communities, lobbied government for the railroads, highways and many other facilities they needed to operate successfully. And they served as a crucial fountain of local tax revenue ... "If you had 30 C.E.O.'s saying, 'Damn it, we need new bridges or faster trains,' then that would happen," said Peter R. Orszag, director of the Congressional Budget Office. "The fact of the matter is that public infrastructure spending does not have much momentum behind it at all." ... But companies are more mobile today. And many of the urban manufacturers most dependent on public infrastructure have moved or gone out of business.

A hollowed out manufacturing sector can no longer serve to lobby for things like high-speed trains because, instead of manufacturing in a less polluting way here, we're mucking up the Chinese environment and hauling thousands of polluting cargo ships around the world to do it instead.

At this point, it would probably help the central Chinese government to impose environmental standards on the production of goods imported into this country; China has always had a problem of enforcing the decisions made at the center, and no doubt belated efforts from Beijing are meeting resistance in the rest of the country.

But we should also consider the possibility that in order to create a sustainable global economy, we need to think in terms of continental production systems, not global ones. At a continental level, goods can move via electric freight trains, by far the most efficient way to transport goods; local pollution laws can take effect; and firms would be more concerned with their local circumstances.

Instead of using protectionist measures to create a sustainable continental economy, however, I want to suggest the idea that if firms were employee-owned and -controlled -- in other words, if they enjoyed workplace democracy -- then there would be little need for government intervention to force the localization of companies. Nobody is going to vote for a board of directors that will close their place of employment, and local employees will be more concerned with local environmental and infrastructural problems. The Mondragon Cooperative Corporation, based in the Basque region of Spain, has been a stellar example of the possibilities of a network of worker co-ops, including a co-op bank, that has thrived within its local community.

That model is certainly exportable to all countries, including the U.S. and China. It may be that economic democracy is a prerequisite of a sustainable global economy.

For story: Gnashing my teeth over globalization
32 Comments | Post a Comment

It's "Global" Warming...remember

There's another downside to "globalization": Power hungry Libs can use the threat of worldwide disaster to scare the public into giving up taxes.

The funny thing is, when you hear the phrase "Global Warming" everyone wants to run for the hills, or beg Klaatu to call off the disaster and we'll all be good boys and girls and buy Tata cars.

However, on a case by case basis, things seems pretty good weatherwise. I just talked to my parents in New York Sunday...they were "enjoying the warm weather".

So, that's what it is -- in the real world, people are having a good time with milder winters, but in the crazy horrorfest known as AGW we're all supposed to be clinging to lampposts and whatnot.

Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

by jabailo at 2:20 PM on 07 Jan 2008

to jabailo: you've got to be kidding right?

real world? while some of you are "enjoying the mild summers", willfully oblivious to the plight of others, the world's poorest are loosing their homes and their livelihood to flooding as a result of the rise in sea level. The conflicts in Darfur and other Affrican nations are related to warlords jockying for the ever diminishing water supply. Wake up and smell reality will ya? You're not the only person living on this planet. Perhaps you should turn off Fox news and pick up the IPCC report. If you're not going help solve the problem of climate change, then get out of the way of those willing to work to save this planet and your elitist, apathetic ass with it.

P.S. Bush's tax cuts don't benefit you so quick being his cronie.

by geobabe13 at 3:25 PM on 07 Jan 2008
[ Parent ]

jabailo...

Good weather?

A few weeks ago we almost broke the record for total snowfall in SW Wisconsin in December... after about 7 years of very little snow in December. It was in the teens.

Did you hear about the 100-car pile up in Wisconsin due to unusually heavy fog?

http://www.channel3000.com/news/14992174/detail.html

There are two dead people no longer enjoying the "good" weather.

Today, it is in the 40s and we are experiencing severe thunderstorms (torrential down pours, rolling thunder, wind, hail). Two tornados touched down and damaged houses... in January!

You've mentioned that this is going to be great for agriculture, that we'll be able to grow useful plants further north...

No, it is not the case. A lot of native plant species and cultivated plants depend on snow cover to protect them from damage from cold during January and February. Our record snow cover -- mentioned above -- is now almost gone.

Furthermore, certain species, like apple trees, require a certain amount of chilling each winter or they won't bear fruit. Warm winters could destroy orchards.

Other plants are fine as long as the weather remains cold from the time they go dormant in the fall to the last frost in the spring... temperatures fluctuating between 5 and 50 degrees F on and off throughout winter are very hard on such plants. The occasional warm day is okay, but not this extended stuff.

There is a lot more to global climate change than the melting of polar caps and the flooding of coastal areas. It will severely change entire ecosystems and the ability of plants -- and the animals that depend on them, including us -- to survive where they are currently growing. It is not as simple as warmer weather means a bit longer growing season. Once it is warm enough to remove continuous winter snow cover, replace snow with alternating snow, sleet, or rain throughout the winter, or actually get warm enough for a few days and stimulate plants to start growing before sub-freezing weather sets in again, things are going to become very unpredictable.

Yes... it is natural... the Earth changes... but it will not be natural for humans. We can't even maintain a civilization's basic infrastructure. How are we going to adapt to a new climate if we don't start finding ways to buy a bit more time?

by wiscidea at 4:44 PM on 07 Jan 2008
[ Parent ]

Globalization is not the root cause of the problem

The root cause is the fact that people all over the world are still allowed to use the atmosphere as a free garbage dump for their CO2 emissions and toxic waste.

That's why we need a worldwide tax, no wait, tax is a bad word, let's call it a toxic waste dumping fee for waste products dumped into the atmosphere. There would be a rate for CO2, NOx, mercury, cadmium, lead, sulfur, etc. The fees would be set to match the best estimate of the cost of the damage done by each pollutant.

This would open up enormous new business opportunities. In the case of shipping we might eventually have companies making hydrogen fuel cell propulsion systems, mass produced modular nuclear propulsion systems, modern sail and kite propulsion systems.

The dumping fees could be used to accelerate the development of these new products.

Globalization would continue to improve quality of life for people all over the world without the global warming impacts described above.

Things Everybody Should Know About Energy

by BILL HANNAHAN at 5:46 PM on 07 Jan 2008

user fees

BILL wrote:

"That's why we need a worldwide tax, no wait, tax is a bad word, let's call it a toxic waste dumping fee for waste products dumped into the atmosphere."

BILL, excellent point. Re-frame all efforts to impose penalties on release of harmful chemicals by referring to them as "user fees". Republicans are all about user fees... for libraries, schools, roads, EMS, parks, access to lakes, et cetera. Surely, they would understand that the person using the air or water as a dump should pay for the privilege instead of demanding that already burdened wealthy... I mean... middle class ... taxpayers should have to pay for it.

Two thumbs up!

by wiscidea at 5:59 PM on 07 Jan 2008

co-ops

And thumbs up for Jon re: co-ops. Amen.

Erik

The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,200+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more

by Erik Hoffner at 6:20 PM on 07 Jan 2008

KA LEE FORN YA?

Once it is warm enough to remove continuous winter snow cover, replace snow with alternating snow, sleet, or rain throughout the winter, or actually get warm enough for a few days and stimulate plants to start growing before sub-freezing weather sets in again, things are going to become very unpredictable.

Wow! That sounds totally unknown -- an agriculture without snow...it sounds so like....California!

Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

by jabailo at 7:12 PM on 07 Jan 2008

jabailo

Just fine Mr. Bailo.

California all across North America. No problem, as long as you don't mind giving up certain agricultural products that actually depend on cold weather, either because the plant directly depends on cold weather to produce the desired fruit or seed, or indirectly depends on cold weather to wipe out pesky insects, eliminate other pests, or discourage certain fuzzy herbivores.

Furthermore, as long as you don't mind giving up on plants that don't handle a cold snap... there is going to be a bit of transition time where large parts of the country might not be suitable for our northern OR southern crops. But hey... if you have enough money, you might be able to buy the food you need and not worry about the starving millions.

I guess you are one of those folks who would be surprised to learn that not every plant grows in areas that are consistently free of cold.

Oh... by the way... if California is such a great place for growing food -- sunny and warm -- why are farmers worried about the loss of snow in the mountains that provide water for the fields, pumping their wetlands, rivers, and groundwater to oblivion, and coveting everyone else's water?

Perhaps there is no agriculture -- at least the current scale -- even in California without snow?

by wiscidea at 7:43 PM on 07 Jan 2008
[ Parent ]

A Simple Problem

If you make so-called "workplace democracy" a pre-requisite for a sustainable future, you are basically advocating doing nothing.

Here's why.

Changing from the various forms of corporate ownership and governance to a your utopian vision won't just happen overnight. There will be resistance. It won't always work. Governments and current corporate owners may have problems. And all the while that this fight is being fought (and it may not be won, remember, people have advocated this in the past and gotten nowhere (ie, they lost)), global warming won't be addressed.

So, it's a bad idea because it ends up being an excuse for doing nothing (well, no work place democracy? I may as well buy an SUV!).

Unless you have a plan for how to get there quickly, it won't happen.

And frankly, where is the broad based workers movement for "work place democracy"? I don't any evidence that most people care (and some may be outright opposed, it is not a perfect solution for all problems).

All of this is only in the US. In terms of other countries, how will you impose this solution, at gun point (or nuclear weapon point)? How do you get there without sounding like another imperialist (no, Jon, I am not accusing you of being an imperialist).

If we can't impose Democracy on Iraq, how will we impose it in millions of factories worldwide?

BTW, the same applies to a universal "tax", who will measure and collect it? The US Marines?? At gunpoint??

(One might consider Italy, where tax avoidance is a national pastime).

Nice dreams, but it is getting warm in here...

patrick in Beijing

by bookerly at 9:22 PM on 07 Jan 2008

One of three root causes.......................

.......... of humanity's distinctly human-induced predicament is unbridled, seemingly endlessly expanding economic globalization. The other two root causes are increasing, unrestrained per capita consumption of limited resources and skyrocketing global growth of absolute human population numbers.

Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/

by stevenearlsalmony at 6:16 AM on 08 Jan 2008

How about a zero-growth economic system?

From the Globe and Mail

http://tinyurl.com/273yg6

Getting ready for a no-growth future

DOUG SAUNDERS

January 5, 2008 at 12:05 AM EST

LONDON -- Can you do well without having more? In these austere and bloat-sapping weeks after the holidays, a lot of us find ourselves asking that question. And it's one that the whole world is pondering at the moment, since it appears that 2008, for many countries if not the whole world, will be a year without economic growth.

A non-growing economy is something we haven't experienced in 15 years or more. We usually associate it with unfortunate things: unemployment, rising poverty, reduced social mobility -- a worse chance for everyone.

But could there be a way to have a good life without growth? For the past 40-odd years, a handful of economists, environmentalists and assorted observers have been arguing that we can, and should, and ought to do so now.

The zero-growth movement, a product of the tumult of new thinking of the 1970s, is enjoying a significant renaissance today. There is renewed interest in the idea that humanity might be able to prosper without either economic or population growth (to the extent that those concepts can be separated), and that this may be a good idea.

It was 36 years ago that the Club of Rome published The Limits to Growth, which suggested that the population-driven growth in resource depletion was going to lead us to doom within a lifetime.

Five years later, economist Herman Daly came up with an idea he called "steady-state economics," which held that economic policy could be aimed to maintain our stock of resources rather than maximize growth. He suggested that we stop treating the depletion of the world's resources as "income" on our balance sheets and start looking at it as depreciation.

None of this was taken very seriously at the time. But two things have happened since then.

First, the crisis in climate change, and the realization that human inputs play some role, has made leaders everywhere realize that we are burning up the world's resources too fast. Some of Mr. Daly's fringe ideas have become tangible reality: He proposed that we should place an economic value on the depletion of resources; today, we have things such as the European Emission Trading Scheme, which tries to place a market price on pollution in order to reduce emissions.

Second, in the past four decades the quality of life for the world's poorest people has improved dramatically, as a result of smart policies in education and health that were made possible by that burning up of energy. Economists now largely agree that economic growth makes it possible to move large numbers of people out of poverty, if governments are willing to use that growth to pay for it.

If you stop one, must you stop the other? Without growth, must poverty increase? That's my central question here. In the seventies, that was an all-or-nothing matter: It looked as though we would keep increasing forever, ruining the world, and poverty was the only alternative. Today, thanks to those education and health programs, it looks like the world's population will stop growing in about 50 years -- that is, if we maintain enough prosperity to keep education and health levels growing. Will it require economic growth to get there?

And what happens then? When the population stops growing, Mr. Daly's ideas will have their ultimate test: Without population growth, we surely won't have economic growth. No-growth economics, in our children's lifetimes, will become everyone's economics.

So the steady-state economists deserve a closer scrutiny: Not only do their ideas make more sense today, but they're an eerie portent of the future. What do they offer us? Can they suggest a way to make human life better without economic growth..........

by stevenearlsalmony at 6:24 AM on 08 Jan 2008

growth

Globalization questions are boring, but growth questions less so.

We are back to a narrow definition of growth in the Saunders piece and then the argument that it must stop. That's fine, when people remember that it is the defined form of growth that must stop.

The problem is that people tend to generalize the argument to their broader and personal ideas of growth. Some people believe, or fear, that any dollar for your child's college fund or your retirement fund must equally come from a despoiled earth. More tuition, more destruction.

The connection is actually non-linear, and proven to be so in the real world. Economies vary greatly on things like sustainability and energy intensity.

The "proofs" that we cannot grow, as we eliminate the unsustainable and encourage the sustainable are strange, theoretical, and floated on a raft of questionable assumptions.

... or they work by narrowly defining growth so that it can only be unsustainable.

by odograph at 8:19 AM on 08 Jan 2008

Shorter

"In 2006, 26.5 % of electricity generation in Iceland came from geothermal energy, 73.4 % from hydro power, and 0.1 % from fossil fuels"

Do we need Iceland to stop their growth? Or do we need to grow more like Iceland?

(re. "globalization" ... is it important we not trade with them?)

by odograph at 8:29 AM on 08 Jan 2008

The First Step

From Jon Rynn's title...

"Can economic democracy make the global economy more sustainable?"

Yes. Two important features of democracy are (1) informed citizens and (2) uniform laws.

The first step toward ending degradation of the environment due to globilization would uniform environment, safety, and labor standards so nations compete based on innovation and solving problems rather than dumping as much of their hazardous by-products on unsuspecting people as they can.

I would not call it protectionism if the United States or other nations simply demanded that all imported products and local products were manufactured or grown under that same set of rules designed to protect the environment and labor. It becomes protectionism when an additional tax is applied to and import or rules are relaxed for local products.

by wiscidea at 8:49 AM on 08 Jan 2008

Patrick, Steve, Eric, Bill and Odo --

Well, I never heard of workplace democracy advocates talking about imposing it by gunpoint! Hopefully that speaks well for those advocates.

Of course, I would not advocate waiting on global warming solutions while we all work toward workplace democracy paradise. Any long-term solutions will take...well, a long time. But I think that it is an important issue to raise, and one that environmentalists, and everyone else for that matter, should find interesting.

And yes, there is no global movement for it, but I still think it's a good idea obviously.

There actually is one example of almost imposing by gunpoint -- Germany. Germany has a "codetermination" set of laws, which though not exactly workplace democracy as I picture it, moves in that direction -- there was a history of it in Germany throughout the 20th century, and so when the ruling elite went kaput with the end of WWII, it was fairly easy to pass legislation.

So I'll ask you -- what would be a fast way to mitigate global warming? I've advocated trillion dollar programs in the past -- if those were implemented, by the way, it could be mandated that worker coops be encouraged with the money.

Steve -- I didn't know you were interested in globalization, what ideas do you have on that topic?

Eric -- Thanks!

Bill Hanahan -- I can see where carbon taxes might help with cargo ship emissions, but not with pollution being exported (i suppose you could have carbon taxes in China?) or abandoning domestic inftrastructure

Odo, I was not arguing against growth. Growth should occur in the context of continental economies, I'm arguing that globalization makes growth problems worse, as boring as that argument might be

by Jon Rynn at 8:55 AM on 08 Jan 2008

Continentalist!

heh

by odograph at 9:01 AM on 08 Jan 2008

lol, odo

by Jon Rynn at 9:03 AM on 08 Jan 2008

3% own 84%

Since 3% of the people own 84% of the "globe" why not buy an SUV?

A person driving an SUV who is presumably one of the 97% who essentially own nothing, is propably not making as major a contribution to pollution as the top tier.

Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

by jabailo at 9:12 AM on 08 Jan 2008

Mechanisms

Dear Jon,

The basic concept of work place democracy is endearing (as is the basic concept of worker control of the means of production). The devils tend to be in the details, which is probably why there isn't so much demand for either on a global scale.

My concern is that the issue become another "global warming distractor" (any one of a number of things that occupy time that could otherwise be spent in doing things that will actually impact global warming).

In America, there lacks

1) A coalition to fight for better mass transit. This could be separate from other environmental issues, but couched in terms of global warming. Seduce people away from SUVS.

2) A coalition to help promote renewal power technology world wide. Imagine spending even ten billions US dollars a year to help developing nations begin to build sustainable energy sources (more would be better, but something real to start would be good).

And there are many other things that can be done to build support for the kinds of change that America can make to contribute to reducing global warming. That has always been the appeal of the Apollo Project (what ever happened to them?).

While work place democracy sounds lovely, global warming is here and now.

patrick in Beijing

by bookerly at 10:10 PM on 08 Jan 2008

Patrick --

I've been pushing for more mass transit here much more than workplace democracy, actually -- I'm only now trying to work out how workplace democracy could fit into a sustainable civilization. I've always been very interested in workplace democracy as an obvious deepening of democracy in the world -- but I fully realize that it is a new concept for most people.

I do think, however, that most people can walk and chew gum at the same time, intellectually speaking, that is, we can discuss social changes that would lead to a sustainable world, as well as technical ones. And I certainly don't expect global warming deniers/delayers to all of a sudden take up the banner of workplace democracy as a way to distract attention.

I actually think that weaving things like workplace democracy into global mitigation strategies could improve our chances of fashioning a activist majority, because it would help to build the vision of a better future, as opposed to a future of "sacrifice". So if we paint a picture in which your workplace is much more secure, enjoyable and engaging, it might be part of a picture of a better world.

by Jon Rynn at 8:30 AM on 09 Jan 2008

growth and debt

Anyone interested in the "growth must stop" arguments might like the movie linked here:

Money as Debt

I followed the link called "a larger version of the entire video is available here."

The first half is a nice review of the reserve banking system, and the second veers into this argument that with resource constraints growth must stop. There is even a peak oil graph or two in the presentation.

I think the case they make is wrong, for reasons I've stated here, there, and elsewhere. It comes down to money being tied to debt, but NOT to a fixed amount of resources.

by odograph at 10:37 AM on 09 Jan 2008

Dear John Rynn....................

Dear John,

Thanks for your question of me regarding economic globalization. My field is psychology. I possess no expertise whatever in economics or the organization and management of the global political economy.

My generation of elders appears to be doing a woefully inadequate job of helping our children understand that the current, relentless, business-as-usual effort to grow the global economy, given the gigantic scale and anticipated growth rate of economic globalization, could soon become patently unsustainable on a small, finite planet with the size and make-up of Earth.

Hopefully, our children will somehow find the political will and the courage to restructure and regulate the global economy so that it functions in a sustainable way.

The human community includes more than 6.6 billion people now. By 2050, the UN Population Division projects a world population of over 9 billion people. That is an approximately 40% increase in absolute global human population numbers in the next 42 years. Can we reasonably and sensibly expect that Earth can sustain so many billions of people in the middle of this century? What scientific evidence, sound reasoning or common sense explanation can provide a foundation for expanding unbridled economic globalization even one more day, for increasing unrestrained per capita consumption beyond its present conspicuous level for one more week, and for condoning the projected addition of 70 to 80 million members of the human community in this year alone?

Sincerely,

Steve

Steve Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/

by stevenearlsalmony at 11:14 AM on 09 Jan 2008

unbridled economic globalization

Isn't globalization actually bridled by environmental laws? And haven't those laws spread? We worry that China's laws are woefully inadequate but they have laws and are expanding them.

I suspect some folks of disliking market economies (including Chinese communist market economies) and attacking them through environmentalism, rather than having environmental concerns first and foremost.

If you believe the environment, and sustainability, are key you should act directly to protect the environment and disallow non-sustainable practices.

Then, if some clever boy figures out how to be a green Bill Gates, more power to him.

(interestingly searching google for "china's richest man" yields "China's Richest Man: A Solar Magnate")

by odograph at 11:25 AM on 09 Jan 2008

Steve and Odo --

Steve --

You might have a better handle on economics than you might think. One of the most important breakthroughs in systems theory, I think, was the development of the Gestalt concepts, how the positioning or ordering of objects defines the structure of a system. This is much more in line with ecosystems paradigms than neoclassical economics ones, and speaks to the need to understand how different parts of the global political/economic/environmental systems relate to each other. It's only by understanding the functional relationships among the different systems in the global system that we can hope to create a sustainable civilization.

Odo -- it sort of doesn't matter what particular people "want" -- for instance, I don't like the whole car-centered nature of our society. Now, it may be that cars won't be at the center of our society in the future because of resource constraints. But I still have to make logical arguments to that effect, my personal "feelings" don't matter.

So if environmental crises force us to what I would consider a more just world, it's not because of some nefarious plot on my part (Michael Crichton not withstanding). Maybe the carburban, wasteful nature of society bothers alot of people because of an intuitive sensitivity that this sort of society is self-destructing. But in any event, all the arguments should be logical on their own merit.

by Jon Rynn at 12:36 PM on 09 Jan 2008

Jia Yo!

(Chinese for go on, a common cheer at athletic events, expect to hear it a lot this year!)

Actually, I am not sure most people can walk and chew gum at the same time (due to extensive dental work, I won't even try!!). It is difficult explaining how people could actually elect George Bush the second time (assuming he stole the election the first time, but won a heck of a lot more votes the second time). I am not convinced that even if there was work place democracy it would automatically lead to better judgment (and not be subject to manipulation). The failure of the Developed world "democracies" to address global warming with any degree of seriousness speaks poorly for it.

But go ahead, throw it into the mix once in a while. I feel about it like I feel about the "free market", the "level playing field", the "classless society" and various other social myths. They all sound pretty in theory, but in fact, none of them actually exist (my cynical old age speaking).

New subway systems, better buses, those I can see and feel. (and use!!).

I don't see much chance of progress in the US during the 2008 election season anyway. The rest of the world will have to chug along without American participation...

patrick in Beijing

by bookerly at 6:17 PM on 09 Jan 2008

Dump economics

Bill Hanahan -- I can see where carbon taxes might help with cargo ship emissions, but not with pollution being exported (i suppose you could have carbon taxes in China?) or abandoning domestic inftrastructure

Exactly right Jon.
If you take a load of trash to the city dump, you pay a fee to dump your load. If the dump has a back gate that is standing wide open, unguarded, business at the front gate will diminish as people learn about the back gate.

The Kyoto treaty had more back gates than front gates. Polluting industries and their jobs move to where the back gates are. It has to be a worldwide treaty. If the vast majority of countries agree to participate they can apply heavy pressure on the malingerers. Otherwise, batten down the hatches and prepare for global warming.

There is one other option. Develop clean, safe abundant sources of energy that are cheaper than fossil fuel. People will voluntarily switch as quickly as possible. That is why I support expanding funding of R&D for new energy sources 100 fold.

Things Everybody Should Know About Energy

by BILL HANNAHAN at 6:54 PM on 09 Jan 2008

A 'prime' example of voodoo economics.........

http://break.com/index/how-we-got-into-the-subprime-mess. ...

Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/

by stevenearlsalmony at 5:27 PM on 13 Jan 2008

second attempt to present voodoo economics........

http://break.com/index/how-we-got-into-the-subprime-mess. ...

by stevenearlsalmony at 5:29 PM on 13 Jan 2008

Last Attempt : on voodoo economics

http://break.com/index/how-we-got-into-the-subprime-mess. ...

by stevenearlsalmony at 5:35 PM on 13 Jan 2008

very funny, steve,

if a little choppy, probably a better analysis than you'll read in the mainstream media.

by Jon Rynn at 8:25 PM on 13 Jan 2008

A pity about the racism.

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

by spaceshaper at 7:01 AM on 14 Jan 2008

yeah, I noticed that...

...although the subprime mortgage brokers to whom they were referring did prey on minorities, and low-income minorities in particular, so maybe you could say it was part of the characters they were playing, but maybe not.

by Jon Rynn at 11:09 AM on 14 Jan 2008

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.