Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Growth - elephant in the room

That's just utopian theory, having very little bearing on reality.

If you want to know just how dependent on government 'the market' is, just consider the way the state was forced to bailout the banks, and economies in general, during the recent fiasco.

Maybe so, but it's still the most useful point from which to start any understanding of the market. If you don't start with the actual market forces then you're bound to end up with your cause and effect all mixed up.

I agree that the bailout was a massive market failure.

Arguably, the government should have let things just play out.

I can see what you're getting at but you are repeatedly overstating your case.

The market and the government are both independent and interdependent.

f you ascribe all power to one or the other you miss the bigger picture and found your analysis on a distorted premise.
 
Political optimism is the European worldview? That's news to me.



Of course it is. All the progressive ideologies are European in origin. Many non-western belief systems don't even recognise the concept of human progress.
 
Arguably, the government should have let things just play out.

Yeah that would have worked really well when we all woke up one day and found we couldnt get any access to money or perform other financial transactions, markets and business frozen, catastrophe.

If you ascribe all power to one or the other you miss the bigger picture and found your analysis on a distorted premise.

I dont think anybody is denying that markets have power, but I certainly dont know where people get their faith in the power of markets to solve great challenges from. I have little time for those who would leave the fate of humanity to the marketplace, or deny its weaknesses. Its easy to play a game where some ideal market free from meddling would sort everything out, and all the failures of the market can be blamed on government intervention or other distortions. In reality nobody has been able to demonstrate to me that markets could handle the truth about peak oil without melting down, causing unnecessary grief and preventing the conditions needed to invest in a new infrastructure based on different energy sources. Rather I contend that one possible outcome of peak oil transition is that some insane free market ideologies will die, government will step in to take some of the required actions for it is not hampered by the same sort of sentiments that markets are, whilst smaller, more local & free markets may prosper in the areas of life where markets make sense.

Last time I checked the government print the money and enforce the laws that create the conditions necessary for stupid market ideologies to thrive.
 
Maybe so, but it's still the most useful point from which to start any understanding of the market. If you don't start with the actual market forces then you're bound to end up with your cause and effect all mixed up.

I agree that the bailout was a massive market failure.

Arguably, the government should have let things just play out.

I can see what you're getting at but you are repeatedly overstating your case.

The market and the government are both independent and interdependent.

f you ascribe all power to one or the other you miss the bigger picture and found your analysis on a distorted premise.



John Gray (who, as is well known was once some kind of adviser to Thatcher) puts it better than I can:

'Even in its heyday it (the free market) was a misnomer. It was created by state coercion and depended at every point in its workings on the power of government. By the First World War the free market had ceased to exist in its most extreme form because it did not meet human needs-including the need for personal freedom... The free market that developed in Britain in the mid mid-19th century did not occur by chance. Nor contrary to the mythic history propogated by the New Right, did it emerge from a long process of unplanned evolution. It was an artefact of power and statecraft. In Japan, Russia, Germany, and in the United States throughout the decades of protectionism state intervention has been a key factor in economic development... Free market governments model their policies on the era of laissez-faire-the mid-19th century period in which government claimed that it did not intervene in economic life. In reality, a laissez-faire economy-that is to say, an economy in which markets are deregulated and put beyond the possibility of political and social control-cannot be reinvented... In nineteenth century England , the free market ran aground on enduring human needs for economic security. In the 20th century, the liberal economic order perished violently in the wars and dictatorships of the 1930s. That catacylsm was the precondition of post-war prosperity and political stability. In the 1930s the free market proved to be an inherently unstable instiution . Built by design and artifice it fell apart in confusion and chaos.'
 
Peak Oil

The whole scenario of resource depletion and peak oil depresses me. I would like to think that we could transition to a sustainable economy and that it would have some anarchist hallmarks but I don't really know if that is possible.

I have signed up to email alerts from my local branch of the Transition Towns movement but haven't been able to make any of their events yet. None of the main political parties are talking about Peak Oil at the moment.

I find the whole situation quite scary.
 
John Gray (who, as is well known was once some kind of adviser to Thatcher) puts it better than I can:

'Even in its heyday it (the free market) was a misnomer. It was created by state coercion and depended at every point in its workings on the power of government. By the First World War the free market had ceased to exist in its most extreme form because it did not meet human needs-including the need for personal freedom... The free market that developed in Britain in the mid mid-19th century did not occur by chance. Nor contrary to the mythic history propogated by the New Right, did it emerge from a long process of unplanned evolution. It was an artefact of power and statecraft. In Japan, Russia, Germany, and in the United States throughout the decades of protectionism state intervention has been a key factor in economic development... Free market governments model their policies on the era of laissez-faire-the mid-19th century period in which government claimed that it did not intervene in economic life. In reality, a laissez-faire economy-that is to say, an economy in which markets are deregulated and put beyond the possibility of political and social control-cannot be reinvented... In nineteenth century England , the free market ran aground on enduring human needs for economic security. In the 20th century, the liberal economic order perished violently in the wars and dictatorships of the 1930s. That catacylsm was the precondition of post-war prosperity and political stability. In the 1930s the free market proved to be an inherently unstable instiution . Built by design and artifice it fell apart in confusion and chaos.'

I fail to see how that lengthy quotation is relevant to my post.
 
Jesus wept. You wrote: and you can't see how the Gray quote is relevant?

No. I honestly can't.

Gray is writing about the laissez-faire free market ideology.

I'm writing about, among other things, the basic concept of the market.

It's not difficult.
 
Nice to see so many rationalists and objective types gathered together in his name - being all technicist and neutral and that. Todays readings are:

The world can, in effect, get along without natural resources-- Robert Solow - Nobel Prize winner in Economics - 'The Economics of Resources or the Resources of Economics.' Journal of Economic Literature 6 11. 1974

'On average, human beings create more than they use in their lifetimes. It has to be so or we would be an extinct species. This process is, as the physicists say, an invariancy. It applies to all metals, all fuels, all food, all measures of human welfare. It applies in all countries. It applies in all times.' Julian Simon and Norman Myers from "Scarcity or Abundance"? New York Norton. 1994. pp.133-134.

'The United States must overcome the materialistic fallacy the illusion that resources and capital are essentially things which can run out, rather than products of the human will and imagination which in freedom are inexhaustible.' --George Gilder
 
No. I honestly can't.

Gray is writing about the laissez-faire free market ideology.

I'm writing about, among other things, the basic concept of the market.

It's not difficult.

how do you have a concept of the market outside of a concept of private property?

Private property is a relationship between people, other people and things. It is, in itself, a form of government.
 
No. I honestly can't.

Gray is writing about the laissez-faire free market ideology.

I'm writing about, among other things, the basic concept of the market.

It's not difficult.

And what then, is this basic concept of the market? How does it relate to historical and contemporary society. Where did this basic concept come from? Have a look at the quote above for some possible answers.
 
how do you have a concept of the market outside of a concept of private property?

Private property is a relationship between people, other people and things. It is, in itself, a form of government.

That's a good point though I don't think a basic level of private property necessarily entails a system of government so much as a system of law.
 
And what then, is this basic concept of the market? How does it relate to historical and contemporary society. Where did this basic concept come from? Have a look at the quote above for some possible answers.

Interesting that you left out the first limb of that Solow quotation.

It is, in effect, what I have been arguing.
 
Interesting that you left out the first limb of that Solow quotation.

It is, in effect, what I have been arguing.

“If it is very easy to substitute other factors for natural resources, then there is in principle no problem - the world can, in effect, get along without natural resources, so exhaustion is just an event, not a catastrophe.”

You've been missing the 'if' out though haven't you? And the 'in principle'. If my uncle was my aunt....
 
Well, you're either arguing that it is really possible to deal with scarcity through technological developments or you're, as i said just saying wouldn't it be nice if it could. If you're only saying the latter then fine, no problem. I agree. I don't know anyone who wouldn't.

One of the problems with debates around issues like this is the apolitical technicism that often appears in the arguments of both sides. All these questions only have political answers - technology is not neutral.
 
Well, you're either arguing that it is really possible to deal with scarcity through technological developments or you're, as i said just saying wouldn't it be nice if it could. If you're only saying the latter then fine, no problem. I agree. I don't know anyone who wouldn't.

One of the problems with debates around issues like this is the apolitical technicism that often appears in the arguments of both sides. All these questions only have political answers - technology is not neutral.

I would agree that technological development is not neutral and that no-one can be sure that the resource-based issues will be met with technological development. On the other hand, recent history suggests that technological development can meet similar crises. Whether this is a trend or just a cluster of achievements is difficult to predict.

The problem that I have is with the sort of non-progressive attitude that seems to be gaining credence. It's a sort of back-to-the land catastrophist point of view that manages to combine a strange romanticism and misanthropy.

Arguing for negative growth, or being suspicious of growth in general without thinking through the practical consequences is a symptom of that.
 
technology can only increase efficiency, and that efficiency can never be greater than 1:1 so yes, there are limits to growth.
 
I would agree that technological development is not neutral and that no-one can be sure that the resource-based issues will be met with technological development. On the other hand, recent history suggests that technological development can meet similar crises. Whether this is a trend or just a cluster of achievements is difficult to predict.

The problem that I have is with the sort of non-progressive attitude that seems to be gaining credence. It's a sort of back-to-the land catastrophist point of view that manages to combine a strange romanticism and misanthropy.

Arguing for negative growth, or being suspicious of growth in general without thinking through the practical consequences is a symptom of that.

I share your concerns on the 2nd point - i don't agree with the mystic megs of either side, and i can see a self-reproducing damaging dynamic driving them apart in which each side retreat further into it's own pessimistic/optimistic form of technological/energy determinism and further and further away from politics, outside of which there are no answers.
 
The door opens. Are you talking ideally or historically.

doesn't really matter, does it? Even ideally, private property governs people, in that gives one class of people control over the basic necessities of life, obligating another class of people to submit to them (as classes).
 
doesn't really matter, does it? Even ideally, private property governs people, in that gives one class of people control over the basic necessities of life, obligating another class of people to submit to them (as classes).

I know that! I meant the door was open to explain exactly that...
 
I share your concerns on the 2nd point - i don't agree with the mystic megs of either side, and i can see a self-reproducing damaging dynamic driving them apart in which each side retreat further into it's own pessimistic/optimistic form of technological/energy determinism and further and further away from politics, outside of which there are no answers.

I think I know what you mean, there are certainly some dangers, but Im not sure if it will really lead us further away from politics, I expect it may have the opposite effect. Can you help me to understand determinism better? I dont know if its related but I do get very worried about anything that enables the 'there is no alternative' stuff to bind us to a certain path, and Im aware that my own position on the future of energy future may be a part of the problem in this regard.
 
I think I know what you mean, there are certainly some dangers, but Im not sure if it will really lead us further away from politics, I expect it may have the opposite effect. Can you help me to understand determinism better? I dont know if its related but I do get very worried about anything that enables the 'there is no alternative' stuff to bind us to a certain path, and Im aware that my own position on the future of energy future may be a part of the problem in this regard.

I know it's really bad form to just direct posters to a link or another article, but i also know that you're one of the posters very likely to actually read this - so i will. It puts the case (briefly) far better than i ever could - remembering to read the basket of these issues for 'peak oil' of course

George Caffentzis on the Peak Oil complex
 
The end is very hard to understand.

What we should be concerned about is that a new turn in the class struggle that brings together working classes in Latin America, Africa and Asia with rentier governments (e.g., in Venezuela) and ethnic organizations in the oil producing regions (e.g., in the Niger Delta) will be attacked using “Peak Oil” as an ideological cover in the same way that “nuclear non-proliferation” has been used to invade Iraq and threaten an invasion of Iran.

Who is aiming for working-classes in Latin America, Africa and Asia to be brought together with rentier governments?

Does the "Peak Oil" concept aim to destroy this?

The ending as I said makes no sense.
 
Isn't he saying that 'peak oil' can be used as a idealogical justification to attack a state that has been forced by its own working class to produce/ provide oil for domestic use rather than export for foreign governments?
 
Isn't he saying that 'peak oil' can be used as a idealogical justification to attack a state that has been forced by its own working class to produce/ provide oil for domestic use rather than export for foreign governments?

Yes, that's it exactly. It needs to be placed in the context of historical oil-producing nations and the demands that the 'oil-producing proletariat' put on international capital and their local states. (This is the whole midnight notes stuff). That the less interesting part as regards this thread though - the paragraphs before sums up what i was getting at more clearly:

Thus when workers struggle they create the conditions for the use of non-human energy and when these workers are producers of energy resources like oil, they become even more important in the equation. But Peak Oil theorists do not seem to be interested in the history of class struggle in and around the oil fields. The struggle they seem to be
concerned with is the “bidding war” or the “resource war” that will be ignited once the peak of oil production has been reached and the demand for oil increases, especially with the entrance of China and India as major producers for the world market. It is from this perspective that the older Leninist and Luxemburgist versions of capitalist imperialism (in this case struggling over the last drop of oil) have been revived by Leftists like Michael Klare and Bill Tabb, but curiously without taking working class struggle into account [(Klare 2002) and (Tabb 2007)].4

From the Peak Oil perspective, then, both Left and Right agree: Hubbert’s curve shows us that scarcity and apocalypse are nigh. Let us remember, however, that scarcity and apocalypse are capitalist business as usual (Caffentzis 1992). In capital's history thousands of scarcities have been created in order to impose work and make a profit.

Capital is not worried about scarcities per se (though individual capitalists might be, of course); the only scarcity it worries about is the lack of profit throughout the system. Nor is it worried about apocalypses. Capital has totally destroyed ecologies and human populations time and again to preserve and extend its rule. Hurling curses at it will not
stop the process.
 
Isn't he saying that 'peak oil' can be used as a idealogical justification to attack a state that has been forced by its own working class to produce/ provide oil for domestic use rather than export for foreign governments?

That's clearer - Peak Oil will be an excuse to attack the working classes.

Capital is not worried about scarcities per se (though individual capitalists might be, of course); the only scarcity it worries about is the lack of profit throughout the system. Nor is it worried about apocalypses. Capital has totally destroyed ecologies and human populations time and again to preserve and extend its rule. Hurling curses at it will not stop the process.

That's the important line of the important paragraph - capitalists will happily sacrifice whole populations where necessary look at the hundreds of thousands in Iraq or the Congo - trying to persuade capitalists to think 'longterm' by saying "we're all in it together" is a mug's game.
 
Back
Top Bottom