17 May 2008

Our Phony Economy

It sounds incredible, but when this nation drills its oil and mines its coal, the national accounts treat this as an addition to the national wealth rather than a subtraction from it. The result is like a car with a gas gauge that goes up as the fuel tank empties. The national accounts portray a nation getting richer when it is in fact draining itself dry. The purpose of an economy is to meet human needs in such a way that life becomes in some respect richer and better in the process. Building more cars would seem productive, but more cars can mean more traffic and therefore a transportation system which is less productive. The medical system is the same. The aim should be healthy people, not the sale of more medical services and drugs. Now, however, we assess the economic contribution of the medical system on the basis of treatments rather than results. Economists see nothing wrong with this. They see no problem that the medical system is expected to produce 30 to 40% of new jobs over the next thirty years. "We have to spend our money on something," shrugged a Stanford economist to the New York Times. This is more insanity. Next we will be hearing about "disease-led recovery." To stimulate the economy we will have to encourage people to be sick so that the economy can be well. Conservation of energy can do more for this nation much sooner than production of energy will. It is folly to use corn for fuel, using 20% of a food crop to produce a drop in a bucket...a drop which uses as much fuel to produce as it gives up. Lobbyists, oil executives and automobile manufacturers don't want us to conserve...raising CAFE standards to 45 mpg is possible within two years. There were cars manufactured in the late 70s and early 80s which achieved those numbers...and technology has advanced since then. But, we've allowed ourselves to be lulled into going backwards. An energy shock could destroy this nation because we (and our government) are ill prepared to withstand it. The time to act is now, not tomorrow...not next year. GW Bush missed a golden opportunity on 9/11...and we're paying at the pump...and in our national debt...and in our preparation for our own national security. To allow his policies to continue ala John McCain would be insanity. GDP as a measurement of the health of the nation is absurd. Growth for growth's sake, whether it is expenditures on gambling, cancer treatments, medical expenses due to obesity, pharmaceuticals, violent video games, war munitions, day care centers, child psychologists...is completely inane. A stay at home parent, according to GDP, is a non-contributor. An organic garden and meals made at home are non contributors. Walking in the evening with your family doesn't contribute to the 'health of the economy'... Simon Kuznets, who studied the economy and its component parts at the behest of Congress in 1932, wrote in The New Republic in 1962 that in evaluating growth "distinctions must be kept in mind between quantity and quality of growth, between its costs and return, and between the short and long run...Goals for 'more' growth should specify more growth of what and for what." If you are going to "stimulate" the economy, in other words, could we at least have a little debate over what exactly you are going to stimulate? (Thanks to Jonathon Rowe, co-director of a community organizing group in California...and Harper's Magazine)

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

LATE SHOW WITH DAVID LETTERMAN
ACT 6:
ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR. - environment crusader and bestselling author. His latest essay can be found in the May issue of Vanity Fair and is entitled "The Next President's First Task."
Dave is concerned about climate change and wonders if there is any good about climate change. All we ever hear is bad news. Kennedy points out that they can now grow cabbage in Greenland, but doesn't offer much more benefits than that. Have we gone too far? Is it too late to make a difference? Kennedy says it is not too late, and the good news is that everything we do to try to reduce global warming will ultimately result in greater national security, more prosperity, and cleaner water and air.
A company called VantagePoint is rewiring Israel, making their entire system of transportation electric and not fuel-based.
Iceland: in 1970, Iceland was the poorest country in Europe. They were 100% dependent on imported coal and oil. They now get 90% of the energy that runs the country from geothermal and they are now the 4th richest country in the world. Switzerland imposed a $150/ton tax on carbon. Entrepreneurs flooded into the country with alternative energy companies, creating energy from garbage. Today, Switzerland is the 6th richest country in the world.
California is our most prosperous state. It is also the most fuel efficient state. We need to de-carbonize our economy off oil and coal. Our dependence on oil is the #1 detriment to our freedom and prosperity.
Kennedy believes that a true free market would get us going in the right direction. Right now, the U.S. government subsidizes oil with a trillion dollars a year. The same is true for coal and nuclear. With those kind of subsidies, wind, solar, geothermal or hydro power can't compete.
Wind and solar energy offers the greatest possibilities in America, and he calls the Midwest "The Saudi Arabia of wind power." Now that is exciting.
Solar Energy - if we put solar panels on 19% of the uninhabited, barren desert we have out west, it could provide all of our nation's power, even if every American drove an electric car. We could do this for a fraction of the price of what we pay to subsidize oil, and not only would we be free of oil, we be free our dependence on the oil producing regions of the world.
I like Robert Kenney, Jr's approach. He knows the dangers of climate change, but to convince people to change, to convince those with the power to make real change, he knows he has to appeal to their need to make a profit. You have to appeal to their greed, not their sense of decency. He didn't really talk about the dangers of global warming; he talked about how much money we could save, and make, by getting off coal and oil and capturing the power of the sun and wind and water. He knows he can't convince people to change to save the world. He knows he can convince people to change by promising it would make them a lot of money. And if the world is saved along the way, so much the better.

lostinthewoods said...

While I agree, in a sense, until NASCAR is a race run with electric cars nothing will have really changed...Tesla's high powered electric sports car attests to that appeal. However, greed as a motivator is getting old...really old. Especially when CEOs make hundreds of times the salary of their workers, who create the wealth...and war profiteers are robbing this nation's treasury, while offshoring their books. I don't think that people should be poor, but they could be happy with less materialism and stuff...and more connection with each other. A sense of place is forgotten in this country to a great extent and with it the sense of community which comes from having ties, long lasting ties.

Things will change, either voluntarily and in a flowing, easy manner...or we will be dragged kicking and screaming. Wars too often seem to be the answer to people's greed and desires.

Paradoxically, the shut-down of the AMOC and the resulting cooling of Europe will be the best proof of global warming.

As TS Eliot said in The Hollow Men,  "  This is the way the world ends     Not with a bang but a whimper" We know not what changes...