The evidence for a long-term economic decline

This blogger thinks the economy is into a long-term down trend. It could be that not everyone sees this; it may depend upon the color of hat you wear. If you are retired with a good defined benefit pension it may be more difficult to see a down trend than if you are a young person trying to find an unskilled job that pays enough to cover rent, food, entertainment and a little saving to get married and buy a house.

Some of the evidence relates to the resource base. There are lots of energy and mineral resources left on the planet. The problem is that we have used up the easiest accessible resources and what is left is difficult to extract and will take so much energy they are useless. Another type of evidence is geographic and long-term in nature. This includes famine, epidemic, uncontrolled migration, state failure and climate change.

dog-3277416_1920One of the difficulties is that we are used to seeing the economy as a straight line going up. Economics students learn about regression analysis which takes a number of data points and calculates the best straight line that indicates their direction. Using the slope of this line one can project the trend into the future. It is assumed the trend is up.

Another approach about which I did not learn until after I had completed my formal study of economics is fractal analysis. Fractals are lines that go up and down with a series of ups an downs within each. Like a seashore. Fractal analysis tries to identify major turning points in the ups and downs. The mathematics is not well-known. It involves the concept of fractal dimension which can be calculated by the formula two minus the Hurst exponent. If economists used this approach it would be much easier to accept the possibility our economy is going into a long-term down trend and their forecasts would be more accurate but not always what most people want to hear.

What then is the evidence for the long-term future?

In economic theory changes in prices are signals to producers to increase or decrease production. Increasing prices also indicate a shortage of a good and we have been experiencing a lot high prices for some basic goods. It may be that we need more information about prices relative to each other. Maybe our economic data collection has been to support our views on economic growth and is not sufficient to give us a clear picture of relative prices.

In recent discussions about energy a lot has been said about peak oil and solar. Maybe we do not have to worry about oil shortages because the cost of solar has been coming down and will soon be able to replace oil. This may well happen and it may have an interesting effect on economic decision-making. We as individuals will be able to make the basic decisions about solar use in place of bankers who now decide what oil projects go ahead and who gets to do them. The down side of this is that if a lot of oil infrastructure becomes obsolete and has to be written off a lot of the money supply will disappear and the lack of money will cause a lot of suffering to a lot of people.

In spite of all the talk about a service economy we still need lots of minerals for food, shelter and transportation. High prices indicate we have used up the most easily available mineral resources. The future may depend upon recycling and here the picture is cloudy. Recycling takes a lot of energy and the high cost may force us to reduce our use of minerals. Water is another issue. There are parts of the world where water shortages are becoming a serious problem.

Another indication of a declining economy is the trend to tiny houses, shared accommodation, young people continuing to live with their parents and even homelessness. It used to be that non-union working people could expect to live in a detached house with a front and back garden.

Most of the evidence for a down economy identified in the first part of this post has to do with the availability of energy and mineral resources. There are also some long-term geographic trends which could also cause mankind some serious problems.

The guideline here comes from a book by historian Ian Morris called Why the West Rules – For Now: The Patterns of History, and What They Reveal About the Future.

Morris’s book is a good summary of the long-term history of the world. Using evidence from a number of disciplines he shows how geography has influenced the rise and decline of civilizations. His perspective is much longer than most of us are familiar with.

He identifies what he calls the five horsemen of the apocalypse – famine, epidemic, uncontrolled migration, state failure and climate change and shows how these have combined to produce disastrous, centuries-long collapses and dark ages. Are we exempt from the consequences of these problems?

We are already familiar with these trends. The question is are they strong enough to cause us problems or are they gaining strength?  For me, a retired person living in Canada, they are mostly academic but for many people around the world they are very real and very serious.

Some people argue this planet is capable of providing enough food for the current population, especially if we reduce waste. Even so the situation is rather precarious and we should be paying a lot more attention to what is happening in agriculture. Monoculture, factory farming of animals and the use of pesticides could easily threaten our food supply.

The threat of epidemics is always with us and the more people are crowded onto this planet, the greater is the threat. We are lucky public health practitioners have been able to quickly control recent outbreaks.

Migration has been a big problem for Asia, Africa and Europe. It is also an enough of an issue for some Americans to want to build a fence and take children from their parents.

Climate change was a major issue until we realized how many plastic straws we are using. Stopping the use of plastic straws will be a lot easier than dealing with climate change but will not stop the changes from taking place. At least people will be doing something.

This blogger has found the concept of state failure difficult, fascinating and intriguing. It is a complex issue because justice is one of the most important functions of government. At the same time many people demand of government legislation that is exploitive because it restricts competition. This is a conflict of government responsibilities in which the exploiters tend to win. The balance between the two is by degrees and changes through time.

You will notice I said justice rather than law and order. I believe one of the indicators of state failure is that so many people, including The Economist and the Supreme Court of Canada, talk of law and order rather than justice. Law and order is easier to define and enforce. If some government were to pass legislation saying police are required to kill a thousand people at random each year, would we still be supporting law and order. The president of the United States has been quoted as encouraging police brutality and to me this sounds like encouraging them to kill at random. Maybe Trump is an indicator of American state failure.

There are lots of laws that are not just. Anything that tries to force the values, morals or religion of one group on everyone has to be unjust. There are lots of laws that are not written but which are enforced ruthlessly by the public, the media and the courts. For example, men are evil and any expression of male sexuality should be punished. Fathers are expected to walk away from their children without emotions. Men should not be emotional under any circumstances.

Governments like to reward their supporters and to purchase votes and/or support. It is easy to get governments to pass exploitive economic legislation and to get them to provide handouts to protect people from natural disasters and their own stupidity. A lot of government is supporting and encouraging special interests, often at the expense of everyone. Some people want minimum government but want their own interests protected,

As the economy goes more and more into decline it will be more and more difficult to provide handouts and this will be seen as state breakdown. Governments around the world are facing riots as fuel and food subsidies become difficult to maintain.

This conflict between justice and the exploitive demands of special interest may be pushing all governments into a state of failure.

In this post we have looked at a number of resource based and geographic indicators that the economy is on a down trend.

Here are some other indicators:

Unemployment

High public debt

The rise of radical left and radical right political movements

High interest rates

Non-performing loads held by banks

Falling standards of living – however one defines them

Expensive education

High crime rates

Crowded public transportation

Homeless people

People are losing confidence in their banks

Business people are will to exploit their customers for the sake of profit

Every time I read a news report at least one item supports the idea that the whole world is going into a long-term down trend. There are loads of problems with the resource base and if we go short we will not be able to sustain the standard of living to which we have become accustomed.

There are always positives and negatives. In terms of economic growth the negatives appear overwhelming. This guy has read about hunters and gatherers and believes it is possible for people to arrange their production of goods and services for long-term sustainability. It will require a major rethink of values. It will be a challenge.

 

 

 

 

This blogger thinks the economy is into a long-term down trend. It could be that not everyone sees this; it may depend upon the color of hat you wear. If you are retired with a good defined benefit pension it may be more difficult to see a downtrend than if you are a young person trying to find an unskilled job that pays enough to cover rent, food, entertainment and a little saving to get married and buy a house.

Some of the evidence relates to the resource base. There are lots of energy and mineral resources left on the planet. The problem is that we have used up the easiest accessible resources and what is left is difficult to extract and will take so much energy they are useless. Another type of evidence is geographic and long-term in nature. This includes famine, epidemic, uncontrolled migration, state failure and climate change.

One of the difficulties is that we are used to seeing the economy as a straight line going up. Economics students learn about regression analysis which takes a number of data points and calculates the best straight line that indicates their direction. Using the slope of this line one can project the trend into the future. It is assumed the trend is up.

Another approach about which I did not learn until after I had completed my formal study of economics is fractal analysis. Fractals are lines that go up and down with a series of ups an downs within each. Like a seashore. Fractal analysis tries to identify major turning points in the ups and downs. The mathematics is not well-known. It involves the concept of fractal dimension which can be calculated by the formula two minus the Hurst exponent. If economists used this approach it would be much easier to accept the possibility our economy is going into a long-term down trend and their forecasts would be more accurate but not always what most people want to hear.

What then is the evidence for the long-term future?

In economic theory changes in prices are signals to producers to increase or decrease production. Increasing prices also indicate a shortage of a good and we have been experieincing a lot high prices for some basic goods. It may be that we need more informtation about prices relative to each other. Maybe our economimc data colllection has been to support our views on economic growth and is not sufficient to giive us a clear picture of relative prices.

In recent discussions about energy a lot has been said about peak oil and solar. Maybe we do not have to worry about oil shortages because the cost of solar has been coming down and will soon be able to replace oil. This may well happen and it may have an interesting effect on economic decision making. We as indiivuduals will be able to make the basic decisons about solar use in place of bankers who now decide what oil projects go ahead and who gets to do them. The down side of this is that if a lot of oil infrastructure becomes obsolete and has to be written off a lot of the money supply will disappear and the lack of money will cause a lot of suffering to a lot of people.

In spite of all the talk about a service economy we still need lots of minerals for food, shelter and transporttation. High prices indicate we have used up the most easily available mineral resources. The future may depend upon recycling and here the picture is cloudy. Recycling takes a lot of energy and the high cost may force us to reduce our use of minerals. Water is another issu. There are parts of the world where water shortages are becoming a serious problem.

Another indication of a decling economy is the trend to tiny houses, shared accommodation, young people continuing to live with their parents and even homelessness. It used to be that non-union working people could expect to live in a detached house with a front and back garden.

Most of the evidence for a down economy identified in the first part of this post has to do with the availability of energy and mineral resources. There are also some long-term geographic trends which could also cause mankind some serious problems.

The guideline here comes from a book by historian Ian Morris called Why the West Rules – For Now: The Patterns of History, and What They Reveal About the Future.

Morris’s book is a good summary of the long-term history of the world. Using evidence from a number of disciplines he shows how geography has influenced the rise and decline of civilizations. His perspective is much longer than most of us are familiar with.

He identifies what he calls the five horsemen of the apocalypse – famine, epidemic, uncontrolled migration, state failure and climate change and shows how these have combined to produce disastrous, centuries-long collapses and dark ages. Are we exempt from the consequences of these problems?

We are already familiar with these trends. The question is are they strong enough to cause us problems or are they gaining strenth? For me, a retired person living in Canada, they are mostly academic but for many people around the world they are very real and very serious.

Some people argue this planet is capable of providing enough food for the current population, especially if we reduce waste. Even so the situation is rather precarious and we should be paying a lot more attention to what is happening in agriculture. Monoculture, factory farming of animals and the use of pesticides could easily threaten our food supply.

The threat of epidemics is always with us and the more people are crowded onto this planet, the greater is the threat. We are lucky public health practitioners have been able to quickly control recent outbreaks.

Migration has been a big problem for Asia, Africa and Europe. It is also an enough of an issue for some Americans to want to build a fence and take children from their parents.

Climate change was a major issue until we realized how many plastic straws we are using. Stopping the use of plastic straws will be a lot easier than dealing with climate change but will not stop the changes from taking place. At least people will be doing something.

This blogger has found the concept of state failure difficult, fascinating and intriguing. It is a complex issue because justice is one of the most important functions of government. At the same time many people demand of government legislation that is exploitive because it restricts competition. This is a conflict of governement responsibilities in which the exploiters tend to win. The balance between the two is by degrees and changes through time.

You will notice I said justice rather than law and order. I believe one of the indicators of state failure is that so many people, including The Economist and the Supreme Court of Canada, talk of law and order rather than justice. Law and order is easier to define and enforce. If some government were to pass legislation saying police are required to kill a thousand people at random each year, would we still be supporting law and order. The president of the United States has been quoted as encouraging police brutality and to me this sounds like encouraging them to kill at random. Maybe Trump is an indicator of American state failure.

There are lots of laws that are not just. Anything that tries to force the values, morals or religion of one group on everyone has to be unjust. There are lots of laws that are not written but which are enforced ruthlessly by the public, the media and the courts. For example, men are evil and any expression of male sexuality should be punished. Fathers are expected to walk away from their children without emotions. Men should not be emotional under any circumstances.

Governments like to reward their supporers and to purchase votes and/or support. It is easy to get govenrments to pass exploitive economic legislation and to get them to provide handouts to protect people from natural disasters and their own stupidity. A lot of government is supporting and encouraging special interests, often at the expense of everyone. Some people want minimum government but want their own interests protected,

As the economy goes more and more into decline it will be more and more difficult to provide handouts and this will be seen as state breakdown. Governments around the world are facing riots as fuel and food subidies become dificult to maintain.

This conflict between justice and the exploitive demands of special interest may pushing all governments into a state of failure.

In this post we have looked at a number of resource based and geographic indicators that the economy is on a down trend.

Here are some other indicators:

Unemployment

High public debt

The rise of radical left and radical right political movements

High interest rates

Non-performing loands held by banks

Falling standars of living – however one defines them

Expensive education

High crime rates

Crowded public transportation

Homeless people

People are losing confidence in their banks

Business people are will to exploit their customers for the sake of profit

Everytime I read a news report at least one item supports the idea that the whole world is going into a long-term down trend. There are loads of problems with the resource base and if we go short we will not be able to sustain the standard of living to which we have become accustomed.

There are always positives and negatives. In terms of economic growth the negatives appear overwhelming. This guy has read about hunters and gatherers and believes it is possible for people to arrange their production of goods and services for long-term sustainability. It will require a major rethink of values. It will be a challenge.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Fake promises in the next presidential election

It appears the next American presidential election will be a battle of fake promises as Donald Trump and a left-wing democrat appeal to American emotions.

Trump will almost certainly bases his campaign on the formula that worked last time; vague general promises (make America great again) and some easy to keep promises that appeal to his core supporters (move embassy to Jerusalem.). Most of his promises will be appeals to emotions.

White House Flag Democrates RepublicanThe democrats will base their campaign on a promise of full employment as reported in this recent article in The Economist. Full employment has been an American policy goal for a long time, If it were possible it would have been attained a long time ago. To promote it now is an emotional appeal to counter Trump’s emotional promises. And it is destined to failure and will probably destroy the economic future of a lot of Americans.

One could probably predict that both Trump and the democrat will come out of the election with DBS degrees. (The D stands for doctor and the rest all English speakers should know).

The main issue, which will not be acknowledged during the campaign, is the size of the resource base for future economic activity. This blogger believes there are loads of energy and mineral resources left on the planet. However, we have cherry picked those which are readily available. Those which are left are so difficult to extract they are for the most part useless for future economic development.

If this analysis is correct then promises of full employment will be impossible to keep. Attempting to keep them will accelerate the use of the remaining energy and mineral resources and bring forward a major economic collapse.

Another factor when employment is an issue is our commitment to the work ethic. Some people believe their salvation depends upon their working hard and others worry that some people will receive benefits which they have not earned or to which they are not entitled. Everyone must do their share.

This blogger believes the material standard of living to which we have become accustomed is based on the agricultural surplus which allows a few people to produce enough food for everyone. As this surplus is the result of several millenia of technological development it should be a part of our inheritance. All of us should be entitled to a standard of living equal to everyone else regardless of what we do with our time.

With our standard of living dependent upon jobs and with our psychological well-being also dependent up on our having a job, promises of full employment will have a very strong appeal to many Americans. The success of the promise depends upon the ability of the economy for even more growth. This blogger has serious doubts about that. I am old enough to remember when people were saying we will just have to get used to an unemployment rate of three per cent.

The economic challenges facing the people of this world are overwhelming. Solutions will required a major rethinking of values about work and economic growth. An American presidential election would be an ideal time for a serious debate about the economic future.

The toughest part of this issue is how to deal with it. In the past I have voted for candidates with the least chance of winning because they have been the most honest. I have also deliberately spoiled by ballots. Both of these seem like a cop-out. I do not have the personality nor the skills to be a candidate let alone convince people of my economic policies. I do not even have the skills to go to election meetings and challenge the candidates. I also believe any candidate who tried to be honest would be nailed to the cross by fake election promises and appeals to emotions.

 

 

 

 

 

Economic growth, sustainability and degrowth

A lot of people realize there are problems with the economy but few if any understand what is happening. Therefore we have varied reactions. Many people cling to faith in economic growth, some are exploring the concept of sustainability and a few are looking at “degrowth”. This blogger thinks of the three approaches as points on the ray of a matrix.

Predicting the future is difficult although the shorter the term the easier it is. Economists are little help because most are paid directly by business people or indirectly through government. Very few people get away with telling the whole truth to the people who pay them. Most economists find it expedient to say what their employers want to hear and that is mostly that the economy will continue to grow and that there will be continuing profits.

Nor can we expect the truth from political leaders as their positions depend on maintaining the support of the people. It is hard to think of any government leader telling us we will have to tighten our belts and remaining in power. Are citizens mature enough to listen to that? It would be interesting to see a political leader try.

trafficOur recent economic memory is based on a tremendous use of energy and mineral resources. Not only have we fought two world wars we have also had the resources for an incredible standard a living in which the rich have grown richer and the rest of us have done okay. The result is we have a strong committment to economic growth and a belief that it will continue forever.

Many economists are fond of regression analysis because it assumes constant economic growth. It is a mathematical formula which takes a series of data points and calculates the best fitting straight line through them. It is generally assumed this line will angle up.

This guy thinks we would get a more truthful picture of what happens in the economy if we were to use fractal analysis. Fractals are series of ups and downs each with a subseries of ups and downs within them. The sea coasts are often used as examples. The mathematics of fractals is not as clear as regression analysis but there are some useful concepts. I am fairly certain those people who do “black box” analysis of stock markets are using fractal analysis. They are apparently having some success. The concept of fractal dimension can be calculated (two minus the Hurst exponent) and changes indicate a change in direction.

If we were to apply fractal analysis to economics it would be easier to see and accept ups and downs in the economy and easier to develop mechanisms to deal with them.

The word “sustainable” as applied to economic growth is a buzzword in some circles but I find it challenging as its meaning is not clear. I suspect it is mostly a cover for continued economic growth.

To the extent that some people use fewer energy and mineral resources it is good but I suspect that sustainable development maintains a committment to economic growth. Sustainable to me means going on forever and that is what a lot of people believe about economic growth.

The reality is that the quantity of goods and services we can produce and exchange depends upon the quantity of energy and mineral  resources we have and can retrieve with a reasonable expenditure of energy. The concept of sustainable development is probably 100 years too late.

Our committment to economic growth is so strong I am not aware of any career economist having thought about what happens when the economy goes into decline. This is unfortunate as the economy regularly goes into recession and this time it may be extended.

This blogger figures current economic problems are because we have used up the most accessible energy and mineral resources. Sure, there are lots left but they require massive amounts of energy to retrieve them. Solar may help but not yet. I fear that we will be forced into degrowth.

If so the challenge will be to figure out how do distribute fairly the goods and services we have, how to cope with leisure, how to create money that will not disappear during a crisis and how to not fight over the available resources.

Money will be a special problem as fractional reserve banking works only in times of economic growth. When growth stops and banks stop making loans  the money supply goes down and because it is fractional reserve the money supply goes down with a multiplier effect. Ouch. A super big ouch.

There are lots of anecdotal evidence from around the world that we are going into a down economy. This could easily be an explanation for a lot of the negative news, both economic and non-economic, to which we are becoming accustomed.

If we could get away from our committment to economic growth we could focus instead on happiness. This concept is impossible to measure although there is some evidence that people do not need a lot of material things to be happy.

What ever happens and wherever humanity ends up it looks as if we will experience a lot of human suffering. I would like for us to minimize the suffering and maximize the happiness.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Daydreaming reform: basic income, money and work ethic

To say we face an economic crisis is hardly controversial but the crisis is so severe that the reforms needed make Karl Marx look a part of the establishment.   The changes needed are radical beyond the comprehension of many people as they require more than just tweaking what we already have.

The basic problem is that we have used up most of the easily accessible energy and mineral resources.  Those that are left require so much energy to extract that they are almost useless.  There have been other times in economic history when humans have had to cope with resource shortages but these were temporary as more resources were waiting to be discovered.  This time the problem is not knowing where the resources are located but the cost/energy required to extract them.

The three basic changes are a basic universal income, the way in which we create money and overcoming the work ethic.  To accomplish anything all three reforms will be needed at the same time.  As there are so many conflicting vested interests this will be an impossibility.  Prove me wrong.  While these appear to be radical ideas, this writer did a degree in conventional economics at the University of British Columbia and has a strong commitment to a market economy.   The radical comes from wanting a market economy when a major feature of the current economy is that competition is restricted by government legislation.

The basis for an income scheme is the agricultural surplus resulting from all the technology which has developed at least since a farmer discovered he could produce more by using a collar on a horse rather than a harness on an ox.  Through the centuries the elite have confiscated most of the surplus with the use of force. Since the industrial revolution psychological tactics such as legal restrictions on competition,patents, copyright and the work ethic have been less messy.  The need for labour to man the empires has allowed workers to claim a share of the surplus.  As robots replace workers it will be interesting to see what happens to the agricultural surplus – and workers.

This writer would like to see the agricultural surplus treated as an inheritance to be shared equally by all the people of the world.  The way to distribute this inheritance is with a basic income scheme.  Some ideas as to how to do this are in the free e-book, Funny Money: Adapting to a Down economy, available from this weblog.

One of the advantages of an income scheme is that individuals would be able to take action on social and environmental issues related to their employment.  Workers would no longer have to work for exploitive employers and people who disagreed with a firm’s social or environmental policies would not have to bite their tongues for the sake of a pay check.

There is an old saying that money is the root of all evil.  When I studied the economics of money and banking I decided it was the lack of money that is the root of all evil.  I now think the way in which we create money is the root of all evil.

In most of the world’s economies money is created when the banks  make loans and because banks are generally required to keep a fraction of their deposits on reserve most loans become additional deposits in the banking system.  This is called fractional reserve money.  It is a problem because loans that have to be written off reduce the amount of money available, with a multiplier, and because interest is charged on the loans.  A sudden reduction in the money supply is the most difficult of all economic crises.   If all the loans outstanding had to be repaid at the same time there would not be enough money to repay the principle and the interest.  We would recognize the problem as a financial crisis.  This is why I titled my book Funny Money.  I encourage you to get a free copy from Smashwords for an explanation of this problem.

Money is useful because it is a tool which facilitates the exchange of goods and services especially when a lot of our exchanges are with strangers.  We have traditionally used gold or other material items as a basis for money.  Some people still talk about the gold standard although fractional reserve money is based on faith rather than gold.

A few small groups around the world have established what they call Local Exchange Trading Systems.  These people base their exchanges on credits.  You get a credit when you sell a good or service to another member and use credits when you purchase something.  I like this system because the credits are a form of money without the problems of fractional reserve and interest.  In my book I propose we adopt a national exchange trading system and combine it with credits from a guaranteed income scheme.  This would be using money as a tool rather than a commodity.  See the book for more details.

Adopting this system would be revolutionary because it would be a transfer of decision making power from bankers to individuals.  Under fractional reserve bankers get to make decisions about what projects get funded and who gets to do them.  A National Exchange Trading System would allow individuals to make these decisions as they decided what to do with their share of the agricultural surplus.  Some of us would use our share to vote for zero economic growth and more leisure activities.

Many people feel guilty if they do not work continuously.  The work ethic and a distribution of the agricultural surplus via employment are the main motivators that keep our economy going. But the truth is that we do not need everyone to work full-time to provide foods, shelter and entertainment to everyone.  Most of the work people do is work for the sake of work and to maintain the empires of the one per cent.

The bushmen of the Kalahari desert in Africa are/were known for not being interested in material things and for not working hard.  But as hunters and gatherers they had no need to store food.  Any day of the year they could go out and collect the food they needed for that day.  When our ancestors moved to agricultural pursuits, they had to store food and this meant working at least at some times of the year.  We have now taken this need to an extreme.

One of the reasons work is so important is that most of us get our self-identity from our employment.  To save our resource base and to preserve the environment we will have to get our self-identity from other activities.  How about a leisure ethic which encourages people to perform operas, write poetry, write economic weblogs or many other useless things.

This blogger keeps by his computer a little statue of the Laughing Buddha to remind him not to take life too seriously.  Most of the time it works but when thinking about the current economic outlook it is hard to laugh.  Most of us think and act in our own short-term interests as opposed to the long-term in interests of our selves or our communities.  So long as that holds true the outlook is for a lot of human suffering.  But  what does it matter.  To quote a famous economist, in the long term we will all be dead.

 

Recycling is not enough

In this corner of the world recycling is almost universal.  Plastics, glass, metals, compost and drink containers are separated from the rest of the garbage.  Some people also take their own shopping bags to the supermarket.  The exceptions are that we have not mastered the technology of recycling energy and most of us continue to drive a lot

Unfortunately we are still experiencing environmental degradation, inflation and unemployment.  Recycling is not enough.  Its main function is to allow us to feel we are doing something. It allows us to ignore the real issues –  population levels and values.

I believe the most important way in to protect the environment is to reduce the number of people trying to live on this planet.  There are just too many people and I do not like the idea of saying some people should not have the same standard of living as others.  Who is to decide who gets shorted?

I also recognize it is a near impossibility as we cannot tell people not to have sex and not to have children.  What are the consequences of not taking action to reduce the population?  When the Europeans came to North America they brought with them some new diseases and close to 90 per cent of the native population died.  I understand there is some archaeological evidence that there was a similar population reduction in the Mediterranean some millenia ago.  If these precedents hold for us, then there is likely to be one hell of a stench.

We also need to get over our fear of death as so much energy and resources go into prolonging life.  Quite a few years ago The Economist reported that 80 per cent of health care spending is in the last six months of life.  I do not want to go into the 80 per cent and I hope that when my time comes I and those close to me will be able to accept it gracefully.

The other big challenge to protect  the environment deals with values many of which are a part of our committment to economic growth.

According to anthropologist James Suzman who recently published the book Affluence without Abundance, the most successful and long-lasting civilization was that of the Bushmen of the Kalahari desert.  These hunters and gatherers “worked” only ten to 15 hours a week.  As they relocated up to ten times a year they had little interest in material things and their society had high equality.  We cannot all go back to being hunters and gathers but we can choose some of their values and apply them to our daily lives.

If we really want to protect the environment then we should have fewer children, live in place, live a healthy lifestyle, have fewer and smaller toys, drive less, go easy on the travel and work as little as possible.  Recycling may make us feel we are doing something but it is not enough.

 

 

Why the joke should not be impeached

The biggest problem now facing Americans is the emotional fears of those of them who elected the joke currently occupying the oval office.  Getting rid of Donald Trump by impeachment or otherwise will solve nothing and may be even worse.

We have to give Trump credit for having the brains to get himself elected.  He identified some of the emotional issues which are giving Americans nightmares and promised to deal with those issues. Emotional fears are  difficult to deal with and it is probable that his proposed solutions will not solve anything.  But at least he is trying and people appreciate that.

This blogger thinks the fears are legitimate.  I believe the current economic turmoil is because we have used up the most easily accessible energy and mineral resources.  We are going to have to adapt to life without the abundance to which we have grown accustomed.  Most of us realize something not good is happening but we do not know what.  Many people are afraid.

One of the ways to deal with fear is to blame other people, especially people who are different.  Lots of people around the world, including Americans and Canadians, are doing this.  It is unfair and morally wrong but it is also natural to blame others for our problems. It is not only right-wing people who are afraid.  Bernie Saunders in the United States and Jeremy Corbyn in Britain have also attracted a lot of support with emotional appeals.

The best way to deal with these fears is to deal with the source problem.  However the problem is so serious and so difficult there is probably no solution.  We might be able to relieve things a little by changing our values, the way we create money and introducing a basic income plan.  These things would have to all be done at once and that is expecting a lot of human beings.

Another alternative might be to attack emotions with emotions and try to point out how people will themselves be hurt by blaming others.  Fighting fear with more fear could be dangerous.

Americans have very clear rules for replacing a president whose term is incomplete.  Whoever replaces him will be looking for support from the same people with the same emotions.  It might be better to have a joke in the Whitehouse rather than a serious far-right conservative.

The best way to deal with Donald Trump is to ignore him.

Brexit: the unilateral free trade option

 

As the British and the Europeans renegotiate the European Union following a British referendum a number of options are being considered.  What will not be considered is the option which would in the long term give the best standard of living – unilateral free trade.

For a long time this blogger has believed the best way to do free trade is for a country to do it on its own by removing all barriers to imports.  “Free trade” agreements are not free trade, they are negotiated trade.  To get the full benefits of the law of comparative advantage there must be no barriers to imports. There should be no import duties, no quotas and health and safety restrictions should be genuine rather than to restrict imports.

Unilateral free trade could easily be done by any country as each country has the right to control its imports.  This will leave them open to “dumping” or subsidies by trading partners.  If another country wants to subsidize our standard of living, then we should say, “Thank you very much”.

The case for free trade is based on the law of comparative advantage which says that two countries will be better off if they specialize in their most efficient production and trade even if one of the countries is more efficient in all trading items.  With our background we generally think of better off as meaning more economic growth but it could also mean more leisure time.  The law still applies.

There are two major problems with unilateral free traded – our  commitment to economic growth and the difficulty in making employment changes.

This blogger believes there will be little if any future economic growth because we have used up the easily accessible energy and mineral resources.  There are lots left on the surface of this planet but they are so difficult to extract they are mostly useless.  I also believe many people are aware of this economic uncertainty even if they do not understand what is happening.  This is probably behind the British vote for Brexit, the United States election of Donald Trump,  the increasing popularity of extreme left and right wing politicians and the rise of dictatorships around the world and a lot of other unpleasant developments.

The fear of losing one’s job is highly emotional and this is the second big problem with free trade.  Free trade means changes in production and this means some people will lose their jobs and have to find new employment.  The other side of this problem is that economic changes are a fact of life and will happen regardless of free trade.  We try to deal with changing market conditions with subsidies, import quotas, health and safety restrictions on imports and other trade restrictions. In the long term market forces usually win.

Under current economic conditions a lot of people are likely to lose their employment and a lot of people are going to suffer.  The challenge should be to facilitate the changes and reduce the suffering.  Most people are going to have to accept a lower standard of living.  This blogger believes the best way to adjust is to introduce a basic income plan.  For more discussion of this please see the rest of this weblog and my book Funny Money: Adapting to a Down Economy.

This guy believes the British and the Europeans would benefit if the British were to use the referendum as an opportunity for unilateral free trade.  I also would not want to be a part of the negotiating team as there is unlikely to be a consensus as to what degree of trade to negotiate.  There is so much fear, so many emotions and so many conflicting interests that it will be difficult to come up with something most people will be able to accept.  There is likely to be a lot of turmoil.

 

 

%d bloggers like this: