View Full Version : The Great Disruption
pinkytoe
10-12-11, 10:46am
I am reading this book now wherein the author lays out his hypothesis that our current growth-obsessed capitalist system is reaching its financial and ecological limits and will lead to catastrophic events if we don't make changes immediately in both areas. Witness all the financial and environmental oddities going on. Witness worldwide protests by those who feel down-trodden which he states as one of the beginning "events" in the downward spiral. It is an interesting read about how our future will play out on its current course. What do you think?
A number of sites have been warning of something similar for the past few years. These are some that I have found over the years who give some insight and some approaches to dealing with changes ahead. There will be many others, I am sure.
http://www.energybulletin.net/
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/
http://www.chrismartenson.com/
I wish I were smarter and didn't have reading problems. (I just can't read up on this stuff, so I just proceed with "feelings").
I just feel that the U.S. got off on a bad start, with the initial most driven immigrants having a particular economic notion and everyone jumped on the bandwagon after that. Seems like nobody's thinking of anything different, or any other kind of "economic" paradigm, other than the course we're on. Seems like nobody has ever questioned where this economic model would lead. I look around and it looks like zombie land.......everybody just charging forward with the same old, same old crap........"progress", "economic growth and development". they truly seem like zombies to me and I find it very scary.
And the citizens have been trained to keep this monster going. I guess I'm fairly pessimistic about changing the course, without a catastrophic motivator. We really don't know any other way, unfortunately. And those of us who would be open to a new way, are in such a minority.
Thanks for those links razz. I was able to read one of them and liked it. Its about our need for a "Green Tea Party".
No sensible person should argue that changes are not in order. At the same time gloom and doom don't do anybody any good. Our society is growth obsessed, but I would argue that capitalism is not necessarily that way. Any proper capitalist is a long term planner and any long term planner knows that you have to have a sustainable model to insure future income. When you get right down to it, its not hard to argue that capitalism is the most sustainable economic system there is.
An economy as large as the US requires sustainability across the board to have a future. Everybody, including capitalists, knows the environment HAS to be sustained in a long term plan or else we will run out of resources. The problem is that producers are in a better position to respond to demand than they are to create it. If consumers switch to more conscientious choices producers will quickly respond with more and more choices. If the new plug-in Prius becomes the hottest selling car in the world how long do you think it will take every other auto manufacturer to introduce their version?
As far as protests around the globe I don't really remember a time when someone, somewhere wasn't protesting because they felt down-trodden. If enough people feel that way things should change. A little revolution isn't necessarily a bad thing (unless you're the king), but societal shifts don't mean the end of days.
I read "The Limits to Growth" back in the 70's and have listened to all of the other collapse prediction doomsdayers ever since. I'm sure it's coming some day, but think it will be more like a thief in the night.
Gardenarian
10-12-11, 6:20pm
There's an article in today's New York Times discussing this: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/12/opinion/theres-something-happening-here.html
There's an article in today's New York Times discussing this: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/12/opinion/theres-something-happening-here.html
While it was an interesting article to read, so thanks for posting the link, I think that T. Friedman has missed the point of the protests.
When inflation is so much higher than the non-existent interest rates, jobs are scarce and not everyone is PHD material but have lost their jobs or need employment to support basic life expenses, it makes sense that those who are raking in the gravy through fraud and malfeasance that people will protest. So many at this stage are going through this experience that this protest has a diverse base. This is not about optimism or its lack, not about some a well-to-do nerd talking or debating about shifts or other but how do we, the Everyman, pay our bills to survive? How do the savers or seniors receiving such low interest rates cope with comparatively rampant inflation?
Tom needs to get out of his ivory tower.
ApatheticNoMore
10-13-11, 10:20am
When inflation is so much higher than the non-existent interest rates, jobs are scarce and not everyone is PHD material but have lost their jobs or need employment to support basic life expenses, it makes sense that those who are raking in the gravy through fraud and malfeasance that people will protest. So many at this stage are going through this experience that this protest has a diverse base. This is not about optimism or its lack, not about some a well-to-do nerd talking or debating about shifts or other but how do we, the Everyman, pay our bills to survive?
+ 1 The revolution will not be Tom Friedmanized! :)
But to tap this flow effectively, every country, company and individual needs to be constantly growing their talents.
To some degree some progress happens naturally, but this sounds exhausting. Mostly because:
It calls on us to learn faster by working together and to pull out of ourselves more of our true potential, both individually and collectively
But how much more potential is there left to pull? Aren't you going back to a dry well? And I don't even mean environmentally, just talking human resources, aren't people exhausted just doing what they are doing? Full time work, commutes (for half the people in my anecdotal experience, these seem to be long ones), raising kids. Never mind many people are ALREADY taking night classes etc. to learn faster or whatever that is supposed to be. And these are often people WITH degrees!!! (going back for the masters etc.) Did you know that Friedman? Do you spend any time around working people? What suffers from all this exhausting scheduling that is: COMMUNITY, people's social relationships with each other, friendships. These are the first things sacrificed. Noone has time for these things. In some cases even people's relationship with their children and spouses suffer and they become some parent or spouse who is barely there etc.. And anyone who doesn't have kids because they say they don't have time for kids in addition to their already booked schedule IS PROBABLY TELLING THE TRUTH, short of a very different lifestyle it doesn't seem doable.
You know Google wants it's employees to innovate but it allows them to dedicate around 10% I believe it is of their paid work time for such innovation (I care less about the exact details of employment at google than for this principle though, this is a very wise principle IMO). Piling ever more innovation on top of poeple's already busy schedules is just whacked. Now me, little old me, I am going to improve my skills etc. because I'm less than thrilled with my current situation (and it is not about the money, that's satisfactory although not stupendous). But understand while I work and commute I don't have kids, I'm not caretaking any elderly parents currently, I'm not pursuing a formal degree right now, I basically am not working any overtime for the most part (many people are), and I know community building and human relationships take equal if not higher priority to any so called personal work skills improvement. Such things may be very low priority in Freidman's world, but um I don't want your world Tom!!!! Surely a better world than that is possible :) In fact I'd take my chances and throw my lot with the OWS people any day over that. (Of course it goes without saying there will be no time to cook healthy or exercise in Tom's world, everyone in it will probably be sick. Nor any time to be politically informed of course).
I am reading this book now wherein the author lays out his hypothesis that our current growth-obsessed capitalist system is reaching its financial and ecological limits and will lead to catastrophic events if we don't make changes immediately in both areas. Witness all the financial and environmental oddities going on. Witness worldwide protests by those who feel down-trodden which he states as one of the beginning "events" in the downward spiral. It is an interesting read about how our future will play out on its current course. What do you think?
Haven't read all the replies yet so hope I'm not repeating. The world population will be reaching 7 billion soon (most in China and India) and it is expected to reach 10 billion by 2050 - sooner in some estimates, later in other's - but growing exponentially by all estimates rather then shrinking or remaining the same. With this kind of population growth, most in developing or impoverished nations, you will see even more environmental and social decay throughout the world as well as in our own backyards I believe. It will take a huge portion of the population to willing change their ways in order to effect any meaningful positive impact on the planet and the lives of everyone IMHO. Seems like everyone wants to be a consumer just like us in the states. 7 billion people yearning and striving for a McMansion in the 'burbs and a Lexis in the driveway.
No sensible person should argue that changes are not in order. At the same time gloom and doom don't do anybody any good. Our society is growth obsessed, but I would argue that capitalism is not necessarily that way. Any proper capitalist is a long term planner and any long term planner knows that you have to have a sustainable model to insure future income. When you get right down to it, its not hard to argue that capitalism is the most sustainable economic system there is.
How long has it been since we've had a true capitalist or free market economy? I don't have an answer to that, but what we have today certainly isn't it. We have an oligarchy, an economy skewed by chrony-ism, and a country as a whole that seems to be turning into a welfare nation. And let's not forget that fiat currency is backed by faith in the government alone. Whether it's a dollar, a yen, or a euro, it's all paper and thin air.
I don't think anyone is arguing against capitalism. Many of today's protestors are probably too young to ever have experienced it.
ApatheticNoMore
10-13-11, 10:59pm
How long has it been since we've had a true capitalist or free market economy? I don't have an answer to that, but what we have today certainly isn't it.
Truthfully I think the TARP bailouts marked the start of some sort of phase shift. Nah it wasn't a purely capitalist economy before or anything, but if you only focus on absolutes you will miss significant shift in degrees. The government openly bailed out the banks, the Federal Reserve bailed out the whole world (quite seriously the U.S. federal reserve bailed out companies and banks throughout the world), the housing market now in large part involves the federal government (30-40% of loans now are FHA backed), etc.
Truthfully I think the TARP bailouts marked the start of some sort of phase shift. Nah it wasn't a purely capitalist economy before or anything, but if you only focus on absolutes you will miss significant shift in degrees. The government openly bailed out the banks, the Federal Reserve bailed out the whole world (quite seriously the U.S. federal reserve bailed out companies and banks throughout the world), the housing market now in large part involves the federal government (30-40% of loans now are FHA backed), etc.
IMO, the worst thing that ever happened to the USA, a true seismic shift, was abandoning the gold standard altogether in 1973. From that time on, the Fed was free to manipulate currency as it saw fit, which is sheer hubris, again, IMO.
Income tax is another means by which we are all manipulated. The governments (I include states and other taxing authorities) can encourage or discourage the types of investments we choose and any number of other choices. Liquor and cigarettes have been traditionally heavily taxed because many political officals buy into the idea that drinking and smoking are "sinful". The same goes for illegal drugs and controlled substances. If heroin were available by prescription at CVS or Walgreen's, drug-related crimes would vanish along with the very high profits that are being made today by both street hoodlums and organized crime. And I might add, all the health related problems that addicts incurr from contaminated street drugs, unsterile needles, and prostitution would disappear as well. I don't know how much money would be saved by eliminating the never-ending "war against drugs" and the health problems incurred by uninsured addicts, but I think 'a big chunk' would be a safe guess.
We no longer have a government of the people, we have a government by the rich for the rich, and much of it is being funded by fiat currency and self-serving laws. >:(
I read "The Limits to Growth" back in the 70's and have listened to all of the other collapse prediction doomsdayers ever since. I'm sure it's coming some day, but think it will be more like a thief in the night.
Follow up on that one with Beyond the Limits. A brilliant book..
ApatheticNoMore
10-14-11, 9:21am
If heroin were available by prescription at CVS or Walgreen's, drug-related crimes would vanish along with the very high profits that are being made today by both street hoodlums and organized crime.
Off topic, but basically is :), hillbilly heroine, opiates in pill form (could even be ground down and injected - yea completely crazy but). And get this addictive drugs that basically fall into around two classifications: opiates and downers or relaxants (valium, xanax, soma, etc.) are the most WIDELY sold prescription drugs in the country. This is not including anti-depressants, even though 10% of the population is on anti-depressants, anti-depressants are generally not addictive and a different category of drugs. This is just purely drugs with major addictive and black market potential. The best selling prescription drugs in America. And that's what the American pharmaceutical industry really is. Oh I'm not saying they bring in the most profit, I don't know that information (for all I know massively expensive AIDs treatments or something are most profitable), I've only heard about sales. More sales than anti-depressants despite their ridiculously wide use, more sales than blood pressure meds, more sales than antibiotics (at least to humans), more sales even than birth control I guess (more addicts than people having sex, I don't know :)). Wow fathom that when you fathom the pharm industry. Legalized dope dealing and the middle man to the black market.
IMO, the worst thing that ever happened to the USA, a true seismic shift, was abandoning the gold standard altogether in 1973. From that time on, the Fed was free to manipulate currency as it saw fit, which is sheer hubris, again, IMO.
Tying currency, and thus the economy, to gold had some inherent problems. Not the least of those was that the economy could only expand at the rate at which gold was discovered and produced. For 150 years or so that worked fine because the country was slowly expanding and discovering new gold buried under new land. Economic expansion suddenly increased exponentially soon after fossil fuel use became widespread. It increased exponentially again when the computer age came about. Gold production has not followed suit. It is not absurd to argue that sticking with the gold standard and thereby helping pull in the reigns during the last century would have had some benefits, but I know I enjoy the trappings of the 21st century that came about during those periods of expansion.
Fiat currency is a farce, but the US is certainly the biggest benefactor of that system. Other countries tie their fortunes to our currency and our economy because they need us as a trading partner. While the assets of the US no longer officially back our currency, everyone knows we have enough assets to hold an auction and get out of debt tomorrow. Think about what the land under all our military bases around the world would be worth. How about drilling rights in ANWR? Yellowstone Park? Its not that we want to sell or should sell off these assets, but the point is we could because those assets have real value. The darker side of fiat currency is, of course, that the Fed could simply start the presses and print enough money to pay debt. If you want to take it to the ridiculous, but legal, extreme we could simply stamp out a platinum coin with a valuation of $500 billion, hand it to the Chinese and say "thanks guys". Now that would be hubris!
How long has it been since we've had a true capitalist or free market economy?
1933 - pre-New Deal probably - if then..if ever.
Tying currency, and thus the economy, to gold had some inherent problems. Not the least of those was that the economy could only expand at the rate at which gold was discovered and produced. For 150 years or so that worked fine because the country was slowly expanding and discovering new gold buried under new land. Economic expansion suddenly increased exponentially soon after fossil fuel use became widespread....
Where does this leave us? In a civilization built on cheap energy, which is rapidly getting more and more expensive, an important factor in our current economic upheaval that's being ignored. What happens when oil gets too expensive for the peasants to afford? Or anybody, for that matter. Is exponential expansion of the economy a good thing? I have my doubts.
My favorite economics author is Herman Daly. He advocates a steady state economy. Check out the website: http://steadystate.org/
Where does this leave us? In a civilization built on cheap energy, which is rapidly getting more and more expensive, an important factor in our current economic upheaval that's being ignored. What happens when oil gets too expensive for the peasants to afford? Or anybody, for that matter. Is exponential expansion of the economy a good thing? I have my doubts.
Very good questions. The economist Fritz Schumacher wrote about these things 40 years ago and a collection of his essays, 'Small is Beautiful - economics as if people mattered' has been republished recently. A little dated in some ways, but still extremely relevant - treating finite resources as if they are renewable, the consequences of mainstream economics only being able to measure happiness in terms of GDP, these things haven't changed since he was writing. The chapter called 'Buddhist Economics' is worth the purchase price on its own.
I also recommend 'Prosperity without Growth', by another economist called Tim Jackson. He did a TED talk which is well worth watching - his thoughts on prosperity and consumerism are very interesting:
http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_jackson_s_economic_reality_check.html
My favorite economics author is Herman Daly. He advocates a steady state economy. Check out the website: http://steadystate.org/
Thank you redfox, I recognise Daly's name, but I didn't know about steady state economics, which sounds like it raises many of the same questions as Prosperity without Growth. I shall spend some time looking at that, and in exchange I'll recommend another website that you may find interesting, which is the New Economics Foundation:
http://www.neweconomics.org/
The website is subtitled 'economics as if people and the planet mattered', which gives you a fair idea of what to expect.
Kevin
HappyHiker
10-15-11, 11:38am
I'm no economist but I see, in my mind's eye, our globe's ever-increasing population of consumer and wanna-be consumers nibbling away at the earth like a little pack of hungry Pac Man-like piranhas...our little world gets smaller and smaller, resources get more and more depleted, until poof! our home planet vanishes as a speck of wind-blown dust, finally reduced to nothingness.
There was a rather brilliant book on this topic, written by William R. Catton, Jr., in 1982 (with a forward by Stewart Udall) entitled Overshoot. "Overshoot's" definition is "growth beyond an area's carrying capacity, leading to...die-off."
Influenced by this book, and others, my new Kindle e-novel, Falling Through Time, is a post-apocalyptic sci-fi book set in a future post-die-off world. It's a more gentle, less dire future than many in the same genre. Mankind lives! Ever the optimist am I.
I'm no economist but I see, in my mind's eye, our globe's ever-increasing population of consumer and wanna-be consumers nibbling away at the earth like a little pack of hungry Pac Man-like piranhas...
Or perhaps like a giant hamster...?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqwd_u6HkMo
http://youtu.be/Sqwd_u6HkMohttp://youtu.be/Sqwd_u6HkMo
HappyHiker
10-15-11, 2:11pm
Yep, exactly like that voracious, insatiable hamster! And the WHY economists think the economy can grow forever despite growing population and depleting resources is an enigma wrapped in a mystery to me...it defies logic, doesn't it? And infuriates me...and saddens me. Any hope for change and sanity...or are we on a path to ...?
Where does this leave us? In a civilization built on cheap energy, which is rapidly getting more and more expensive, an important factor in our current economic upheaval that's being ignored. What happens when oil gets too expensive for the peasants to afford? Or anybody, for that matter. Is exponential expansion of the economy a good thing? I have my doubts.
In a funny way cheap energy is at least a large part of both the problem and the solution. Fossil fuels have allowed civilization to progress farther technologically in a little over a century that in all the millenia before. It is by ten thousand fold the cheapest slave in history. I am in complete agreement, however, that continued exponential expansion can't be a good thing.
As far as managing resources we HAVE to look at things we really do have a virtually unlimited supply of. In the energy field solar, wind and tidal flows come immediately to mind. The problem with having our fossil fuel slave is that we've dropped the ball developing technology that can replace it. We need our exponential leaps to come in the form of efficient ways to convert those resources to electricity and more efficient ways to use it once the conversion is made. It's not too late, but we are definitely at the point where we need leaders with a vision to step up and turn the ship.
A huge worry on a planet of 7 billion is food. You asked what happens when oil gets too expensive for the poor to afford? I believe that is already happening. Look at sub-Saharan Africa. Surely among the poorest people in the world and starvation is rampant. Current models of agriculture are not in any way sustainable long term, but for now our ag runs on oil. If the people in Africa could afford it they could purchase all the equipment and chemicals available to grow food (and probably to desalinate sea water for irrigation). They simply don't have anything of monetary value to sell or trade and so they starve.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.