Given the widespread and stubborn refusal by most Americans to accept the eventualities of climate change disaster and the more immediate peaking of global oil production, I have found myself wishing for clear signals from nature and the market that would bolster the arguments of myself and others who appreciate the implications of such things. My wish springs from the frustration I feel as I observe the national "discussion" and my desire for it to transcend the "discussion's" most moronic elements to something more urgent. Seeing as the people who make the "discussion" especially moronic are the very same people who seem to base their opinions about these two subjects on whether or not they personally experience hot or cold weather or high gas prices I have come to hope for events that will force the issue and change the "discussion". My modest summer wish list therefore is based on what I believe is needed to jar my thicker headed compatriots enough to get them to realize that which is a clearly demonstrated reality.
The first wish I have is that this summer will be so hot that multiple high temperature records across the continental United States are smashed to pieces. It should be hot enough to make most anyone very uncomfortable but not so hot to cause anyone to die. Many Americans alive today need to feel very uncomfortable; to feel hot, sweaty, and perturbed, coupled with a sense of dread as the unpleasantness of the heat seems to have no end. All Americans should feel as northerners do in January who long for the end of winter and respite from the cold. Autumn should be embraced the way spring is embraced after winter.
My second and final wish is for gasoline prices to pole vault $3.00 a gallon and perhaps land somewhere in the $3.30-50 range in early summer then stay there. You're likely to hear many voiced and/or muttered expletives referring to the excretory functions, the sexual organs or sexual activity, or using the lords name in vain, which means you should cover your children's ears when getting gasoline this summer if this wish of mine comes to pass.
These two wishes in fact have pretty good chances of coming true. Oblivious to the heat waves that struck the southern hemisphere during it's summer, the northern hemisphere saw some cold but generally unremarkable winter temperatures, over a thirty year average, due to the Arctic Oscillation having entered it's negative phase. The Arctic Oscillation is a normal occurrence that effects weather patterns in the northern hemisphere so should not be seen as evidence of global warming. However, arctic temperatures were anywhere from 9-13 degrees F above normal this winter, which is a lot, and should be seen as evidence of global warming. The result of all of this is that the northern hemisphere really got screwed out of a globally warmed winter because of the Arctic Oscillation and were left wondering about the reality of global warming.
As for the coming summer, the main driver of temperature will be El Nino. The Pacific Ocean entered the El Nino phase last fall and will probably make this summer very hot and wet. As of last November (I haven't looked recently) surface temperature readings in the Pacific were some of the highest ever recorded. The worrisome part about this is that the bigger and more destructive storms over the continent that accompany El Nino years will probably be a constant news feature. Not to make this a farmer's almanac or anything, I'd say that folks living in the middle of the continent and in the deep South should make sure the tornado shelter is ready to roll.
The price of gas is likely to go up because of the actions of refiners. Whether the price of oil goes up or not, the refiners are in serious need of profit. The $70-80 a barrel range for the price of oil doesn't seem to support the $2.50 or so per gallon gasoline that most Americans have been paying for the past several months. Or the $2.72 I saw earlier today. Another reason is that there is a gasoline glut in the market because demand in the U.S. has fallen so much. So refiners seem to be in a strange supply-demand situation. There is too much gas on the market, forcing prices down, but the price of oil is high. It should be interesting to see how people interpret this. Will they call the speculators before congress to explain themselves? Will they clamor for new refining capacity? Or will they see it as a new normal that Americans will have to adapt to? The lesson I would like for them to get is this: If Americans want to drill for more oil they will pay more for gas, and if they want cheap gas they will have to use less. That sums up the predicament we find ourselves in.
This summer, then, whenever you hear someone swearing through his teeth about high gas prices, turn to him or her and say "Hey, if you want cheap gas, then you gotta stop usin' it". It might help if you say it in your best Jeff Spicoli imitation to add insult to injury. Likewise, when temperatures have reached unbearable levels, track down you're favorite global warming denier and ask "how's that global cooling treating you?"
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Stand Up and Get Real
American politics has become terminally warped by the influence of money infused into the system by corporate self-interest and disinformation campaigns funded by them through "think tanks" who only think about how dish up a distorted reality for popular consumption. Primarily, almost exclusively, the seizure of political power by corporations, particularily Wall Street but really by any of the major industries, has been paved by Republican ideology and actions. The drive to deregulate industry, the gutting of any measure taken to make corporations responsible for the negative impacts of their activities, through litigation or through pricing, and to strengthen corporate influence over the political sphere have all been championed by Republicans. The Republican Party represents the core obstruction to doing what is necessary for this country to avoid an epochal shitstorm.
Given this, whatever adaptations people may take over the coming years are not likely to have much assistance from the Federal government, at least in the near term. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think so. Until there is a dramatic change in how the American people and the political leaders view our present situation as a nation, constructive action by governments is likely to come mainly from state and local governments based on whatever circumstances they find themselves facing. This is likely to be limited, too, given the severe budgetary problems of almost any government you can think of. But at least the smaller governments will be more responsive to the needs of their people and will be better able to guide a transition from the global to the local economies I see happening now and continuing for decades into the future.
Having said that, I understand the political impossibility at this juncture for my views to be aired before the political establishment. No politician that I know of has gotten elected holding the bummer views I have regarding the material impossibilty of the future most Americans regard as normal. Nonetheless, I'd like to provide two criticisms of the Democratic Party positions which I think are no longer viable or are otherwise counterproductive and may be a way to break the political logjam with conservatives. I won't hold my breath on that one.
The most immediately controversial subject on which I disagree with most Democrats is immigration. The U.S. is projected to reach somewhere around 450 million people by mid-century. We should not celebrate this. Immigrants seeking the American dream will wind up creating a whole new army of American consumers and suburban inhabitants. This cannot be allowed to happen. The population globally is already too large by a factor of at least three for reasons I've touched on in previous posts. Trying to extend our way of life to other nations will hasten an ecological disaster. Also, the United States should not attempt to relieve population pressures in other countries by taking on immgrants but instead should throw our effort exclusively into assisting these other nations attempts to reduce fertility rates through family planning programs and reduce poverty. Democrats should recognize that we as a nation will not be richer, stronger, or happier with more people.
Democrats should also recognize that some sizable proportion of the relative largesse that the U.S. currently possesses is based on the bubbled valuation of the economy and the drawing of resources and labor of other countries and cannot be counted on to fund large projects. This translates to a broad diminishment of our expectations due to what is possible financially. I don't mean to say that programs like a national health insurance program funded by taxpayers isn't the best idea. It is. What I have in mind is infrastructure. We will have to make some trade-offs regarding transportation, among other things, that will require political courage like they've hitherto been unwilling to demonstrate. A serious response to global warming and energy security requires that ultimately we give up the automotive way of life. I realize Americans love their cars, but Americans have to be realistic, and some frank and honest leadership has to be tried to lead or drag Americans into the future. The hidden cost of the GM bail-out is that we effectively chose cars over trains. It was an opportunity cost.
What these two critiques have in common is that they both pertain to growth. As time goes on, it is more apparent that the U.S. is, and has been, putting more effort into maintaining our global position than we are benefitting from it. Extending our presence around the world, growing the empire, so to speak, will only make it worse. On balance, we are spending more than we earn. That much is obvious. But to disengage from the effort to globalize the American system means that we would have to accept a reduced geopolitical and economic situation and all the dislocation, power vacuums, and loss of status that goes along with it. This is the consensus reality Americans will ultimately have to face. It'll happen one way or another and we should embark on a policy of managed decline.
There's more I'd like to say on this. One point that I didn't include is on tramsportation and how we should spend our money. Instead of building one or two high speed rail lines between amjor cities, we should electrify the entire rail system for passenger trains that top out at 80-100 mph. The cost of high speed rail is much greater than slower rail, and the energy use follows an exponential curve upwards starting at around 100 mph. Money we use for highways should be transferred to this purpose. The system of roads will have to be scaled down and made cheaper. Michigan has already begun this process by converting several paved country roads to gravel. From where i'm sitting in Minneapolis, the streets are as bad as I've ever seen them. A resurfacing of my street, Xerxes, done last summer is already wearing away. It needed to be repaved but apparently that's not in the cards. Xerxes is a quite busy two-lane through street to the freeway. My suspension is killing me.
In general, I think Democrats, and perhaps most Americans, hold the view that the U.S. shouldn't try to extend it's reach into more and more regions of the world. At the same time, I think that the benefits of our global reach feeds the expectations of liberals like they do anyone else and should be taken into account. The Democratic party has to find a way to get out from under the thumb of big money and special interests that favors whichever party is more willing to do something for them. Beyond the question of whether Democrats can compete with Republicans if the party eschews corporate money for the sake of integrity, it is the only way for us to act on what needs to be acted on. But Americans also need to appreciate that if we do so, it will not be all good. It will mean a wholesale scaling down of the entire American enterprise to something much more modest and much less complex.
Given this, whatever adaptations people may take over the coming years are not likely to have much assistance from the Federal government, at least in the near term. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think so. Until there is a dramatic change in how the American people and the political leaders view our present situation as a nation, constructive action by governments is likely to come mainly from state and local governments based on whatever circumstances they find themselves facing. This is likely to be limited, too, given the severe budgetary problems of almost any government you can think of. But at least the smaller governments will be more responsive to the needs of their people and will be better able to guide a transition from the global to the local economies I see happening now and continuing for decades into the future.
Having said that, I understand the political impossibility at this juncture for my views to be aired before the political establishment. No politician that I know of has gotten elected holding the bummer views I have regarding the material impossibilty of the future most Americans regard as normal. Nonetheless, I'd like to provide two criticisms of the Democratic Party positions which I think are no longer viable or are otherwise counterproductive and may be a way to break the political logjam with conservatives. I won't hold my breath on that one.
The most immediately controversial subject on which I disagree with most Democrats is immigration. The U.S. is projected to reach somewhere around 450 million people by mid-century. We should not celebrate this. Immigrants seeking the American dream will wind up creating a whole new army of American consumers and suburban inhabitants. This cannot be allowed to happen. The population globally is already too large by a factor of at least three for reasons I've touched on in previous posts. Trying to extend our way of life to other nations will hasten an ecological disaster. Also, the United States should not attempt to relieve population pressures in other countries by taking on immgrants but instead should throw our effort exclusively into assisting these other nations attempts to reduce fertility rates through family planning programs and reduce poverty. Democrats should recognize that we as a nation will not be richer, stronger, or happier with more people.
Democrats should also recognize that some sizable proportion of the relative largesse that the U.S. currently possesses is based on the bubbled valuation of the economy and the drawing of resources and labor of other countries and cannot be counted on to fund large projects. This translates to a broad diminishment of our expectations due to what is possible financially. I don't mean to say that programs like a national health insurance program funded by taxpayers isn't the best idea. It is. What I have in mind is infrastructure. We will have to make some trade-offs regarding transportation, among other things, that will require political courage like they've hitherto been unwilling to demonstrate. A serious response to global warming and energy security requires that ultimately we give up the automotive way of life. I realize Americans love their cars, but Americans have to be realistic, and some frank and honest leadership has to be tried to lead or drag Americans into the future. The hidden cost of the GM bail-out is that we effectively chose cars over trains. It was an opportunity cost.
What these two critiques have in common is that they both pertain to growth. As time goes on, it is more apparent that the U.S. is, and has been, putting more effort into maintaining our global position than we are benefitting from it. Extending our presence around the world, growing the empire, so to speak, will only make it worse. On balance, we are spending more than we earn. That much is obvious. But to disengage from the effort to globalize the American system means that we would have to accept a reduced geopolitical and economic situation and all the dislocation, power vacuums, and loss of status that goes along with it. This is the consensus reality Americans will ultimately have to face. It'll happen one way or another and we should embark on a policy of managed decline.
There's more I'd like to say on this. One point that I didn't include is on tramsportation and how we should spend our money. Instead of building one or two high speed rail lines between amjor cities, we should electrify the entire rail system for passenger trains that top out at 80-100 mph. The cost of high speed rail is much greater than slower rail, and the energy use follows an exponential curve upwards starting at around 100 mph. Money we use for highways should be transferred to this purpose. The system of roads will have to be scaled down and made cheaper. Michigan has already begun this process by converting several paved country roads to gravel. From where i'm sitting in Minneapolis, the streets are as bad as I've ever seen them. A resurfacing of my street, Xerxes, done last summer is already wearing away. It needed to be repaved but apparently that's not in the cards. Xerxes is a quite busy two-lane through street to the freeway. My suspension is killing me.
In general, I think Democrats, and perhaps most Americans, hold the view that the U.S. shouldn't try to extend it's reach into more and more regions of the world. At the same time, I think that the benefits of our global reach feeds the expectations of liberals like they do anyone else and should be taken into account. The Democratic party has to find a way to get out from under the thumb of big money and special interests that favors whichever party is more willing to do something for them. Beyond the question of whether Democrats can compete with Republicans if the party eschews corporate money for the sake of integrity, it is the only way for us to act on what needs to be acted on. But Americans also need to appreciate that if we do so, it will not be all good. It will mean a wholesale scaling down of the entire American enterprise to something much more modest and much less complex.
Friday, February 5, 2010
The Politics of Decline
It's not a mystery to anyone who watches the political goings-on in Washington D.C. and elsewhere that the two parties are in terminal gridlock over not only what to do but over what is the reality we should be doing something about. Perhaps the only consensus to be found is that the position of these United States is very tenuous. I call the gridlock "terminal" because as each party is prevented from putting forth any program based on it's version of reality in a meaningful way, the efficacy of the differing programs can never be fully measured. The result is a stasis at a time when the systems that the country have operated by for decades are showing their age and in serious need of a revamp. But rather than plumb the depths of the revamping I would like instead to survey the two parties basic assumptions as I understand them currently and argue why I believe a fundamental clearinghouse of many of these assumptions is in order.
Again, in the spirit of full disclosure, I am a Democrat who has never voted for a Republican ever. And, if it matters, I supported Hillary Clinton in the Minnesota Caucus in 2008. As far as what I think is real I'll refer you to the 20-odd blog entries I've posted below. It is a Leger of what people are not talking about.
Republicans and Democrats are not, I believe, two sides of the same coin. The fights, the antagonism, the bodily loathing and disgust with one another are all real enough. The two parties represent different beliefs, understandings, values, attitudes, and whatever else that are often irreconcilable. In good times, that can be an amusing sideshow to the work that is done in Washington, as long as things are moving forward.
Now things are very different. The two parties are, and have been, polarized to the point of this terminal gridlock and it's hard to say how that could be broken. It's possible that a third candidate from a third party, probably someone claiming the center, will come in 2012. This could begin the breaking down of the two party duality and perhaps providing a voice for the disenchanted voter. If the Republican Party continues it's purification efforts, then it would be the far right party. The Democrats, on the other hand, are primarily centrist as it is, the way I see it, and it's difficult to see how it would play out if someone claiming the center challenged Obama.
Given my grim outlook generally, events are likely to be the driving factor in determining what voters will be looking for in a candidate. If the economy doesn't produce jobs, or, as is equally likely, begins a debt-deflation brought on by a massive and rapid deleveraging of assets, something that surely must happen, then people will lose confidence in the two parties. In fact, the economy could go south for so many reasons beyond the control of the government that the chance of a prolonged recession or a depression is highly likely. A property bubble in China, sovereign debt in a dozen or two countries, derivative market meltdown, or the strong probability of a multitude of asset bubbles created by all the cheap money in the system popping all at once as soon as interest rates rise or demand continues to drop could take down the tightly wound and interconnected global economy. Or, closer to home so to speak, the second wave of housing bubble craziness, this time in the form of option ARM mortgages resetting starting in earnest in the second half of 2010, will cause prices to drop and defaults on derivatives, causing a meltdown like that of 2008.
In the midst of all of this turbulence, the parties will be seen to have no explanation, at least one which has been presented in the lead-up to the land mine laden future we are entering. Trust in government could plummet in such a scenario. If no third party candidate emerges, then people might try the Republicans for another round. This is likely to be short lived. The Republicans have no positive program for government. The free market, limited government belief, emphasizing self-reliance and chastising the welfare state as having instilled moral weakness in society might not please the ears of the formerly employed without the prospect of finding a job and sound callous to those who still have one. It also precludes making reasonable investments by the government in the physical and social infrastructure based on an outsized belief in the ultimate futility of those investments by virtue of their having been made by government. We will see how this belief stands up in the face of the capital destruction that occurs in a deflation.
The popular will during the 1930's led, in effect, to the rejection of unfettered capitalism. The modus operandi for the next five decades was to share broadly the gains made through economic growth. The Republicans have, as a part of their political agenda, dismantled to the extent possible the New Deal reforms made under Roosevelt that sought to correct the economic imbalances of the time. To the extent the Republicans were successful, we have seen a corresponding increase in the amount of wealth rise up to the already rich. Rhetorically, the main claim is that individuals earn their money, not the government, and individuals should keep what they earn. The effect has been to enable the wealthy to dominate the political sphere. Up to about 2008, the decline of the middle class had been relative. Now it is absolute. The justification for megariches in the hands of experts, and the conspicuous consumption as a mode of social interaction, should become an embarrassment of riches , an uncouth display of fabulousness that won't likely be stood for by the folks dropping out of the broad middle class. It will be hard for Republicans to convince voters that they are better off by letting the rich keep their money when so many others are suffering.
There is more to say about the Republicans on the question of the ideological positions they take. In the spirit of fairness I will take on the Democrats in the next post and what I think are the unteneble positions to take in a resource constrained world.
Again, in the spirit of full disclosure, I am a Democrat who has never voted for a Republican ever. And, if it matters, I supported Hillary Clinton in the Minnesota Caucus in 2008. As far as what I think is real I'll refer you to the 20-odd blog entries I've posted below. It is a Leger of what people are not talking about.
Republicans and Democrats are not, I believe, two sides of the same coin. The fights, the antagonism, the bodily loathing and disgust with one another are all real enough. The two parties represent different beliefs, understandings, values, attitudes, and whatever else that are often irreconcilable. In good times, that can be an amusing sideshow to the work that is done in Washington, as long as things are moving forward.
Now things are very different. The two parties are, and have been, polarized to the point of this terminal gridlock and it's hard to say how that could be broken. It's possible that a third candidate from a third party, probably someone claiming the center, will come in 2012. This could begin the breaking down of the two party duality and perhaps providing a voice for the disenchanted voter. If the Republican Party continues it's purification efforts, then it would be the far right party. The Democrats, on the other hand, are primarily centrist as it is, the way I see it, and it's difficult to see how it would play out if someone claiming the center challenged Obama.
Given my grim outlook generally, events are likely to be the driving factor in determining what voters will be looking for in a candidate. If the economy doesn't produce jobs, or, as is equally likely, begins a debt-deflation brought on by a massive and rapid deleveraging of assets, something that surely must happen, then people will lose confidence in the two parties. In fact, the economy could go south for so many reasons beyond the control of the government that the chance of a prolonged recession or a depression is highly likely. A property bubble in China, sovereign debt in a dozen or two countries, derivative market meltdown, or the strong probability of a multitude of asset bubbles created by all the cheap money in the system popping all at once as soon as interest rates rise or demand continues to drop could take down the tightly wound and interconnected global economy. Or, closer to home so to speak, the second wave of housing bubble craziness, this time in the form of option ARM mortgages resetting starting in earnest in the second half of 2010, will cause prices to drop and defaults on derivatives, causing a meltdown like that of 2008.
In the midst of all of this turbulence, the parties will be seen to have no explanation, at least one which has been presented in the lead-up to the land mine laden future we are entering. Trust in government could plummet in such a scenario. If no third party candidate emerges, then people might try the Republicans for another round. This is likely to be short lived. The Republicans have no positive program for government. The free market, limited government belief, emphasizing self-reliance and chastising the welfare state as having instilled moral weakness in society might not please the ears of the formerly employed without the prospect of finding a job and sound callous to those who still have one. It also precludes making reasonable investments by the government in the physical and social infrastructure based on an outsized belief in the ultimate futility of those investments by virtue of their having been made by government. We will see how this belief stands up in the face of the capital destruction that occurs in a deflation.
The popular will during the 1930's led, in effect, to the rejection of unfettered capitalism. The modus operandi for the next five decades was to share broadly the gains made through economic growth. The Republicans have, as a part of their political agenda, dismantled to the extent possible the New Deal reforms made under Roosevelt that sought to correct the economic imbalances of the time. To the extent the Republicans were successful, we have seen a corresponding increase in the amount of wealth rise up to the already rich. Rhetorically, the main claim is that individuals earn their money, not the government, and individuals should keep what they earn. The effect has been to enable the wealthy to dominate the political sphere. Up to about 2008, the decline of the middle class had been relative. Now it is absolute. The justification for megariches in the hands of experts, and the conspicuous consumption as a mode of social interaction, should become an embarrassment of riches , an uncouth display of fabulousness that won't likely be stood for by the folks dropping out of the broad middle class. It will be hard for Republicans to convince voters that they are better off by letting the rich keep their money when so many others are suffering.
There is more to say about the Republicans on the question of the ideological positions they take. In the spirit of fairness I will take on the Democrats in the next post and what I think are the unteneble positions to take in a resource constrained world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)