dagblog - Comments for "Playing God and Taking Shortcuts ..."

Hey, Malthus got a bad rap.

acanuck — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 07:20:28 +0000

Hey, Malthus got a bad rap. Just like Hobbes and Jonathan Swift.

I don't disagree that

DF — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 06:37:15 +0000

In reply to You're quite right. I should

I don't disagree that population growth drives many problems, but implementing policies to control population size seems rather difficult. There's some indication that population growth slows down in post-industrial societies, particularly when accompanied by education and health care. If there is a relationship here, then maybe it offers a way forward. Then again, perhaps this natural slowing of population growth may take too long on its own.

Way to get all Malthusian on us.

You're quite right. I should

acanuck — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 06:20:53 +0000

In reply to Whoa, that sounds almost as

You're quite right. I should have distinguished between what is the only efficient response and what has any practical political possibility. The Netherlands will probably disappear from the map, and the Indus and Ganges run dry, before world leaders summon the necessary courage to act.

Whoa, that sounds almost as

DF — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 05:48:31 +0000

In reply to It's not pessimism to

Whoa, that sounds almost as improbable as McCain's proposed spending freeze. How do we accomplish that feat?

It's not pessimism to

acanuck — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 05:31:18 +0000

In reply to egads!! 'time of troubles'?

It's not pessimism to conclude the financial meltdown is just the economic manifestation of the problem you point out: losing our bearings about what our place is on this Earth.

Since we needed the wake-up call, maybe it's best that it has come merely at the cost of paper wealth. It's only fair that current generations, who have been living highest on the bubble, take the major economic hit. There's a big debt load being carried forward, but that's fungible.

We've got interrelated problems: a stalled global economy, imminent resource depletion and runaway global warming. The quickest way to address all three is an immediate freeze on population growth. It will still take a generation for the benefits to kick in, but there's nothing else we can do that's anywhere near as efficient.

egads!! 'time of troubles'?

Deadman — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 22:47:55 +0000

In reply to Fundamental changes are

egads!! 'time of troubles'? Hundreds of millions starving and dying of thirst?? Entire continents dying? And even worse, DF saying we may need an economic timeout to think about 'what we really need??'

you guys are beginning to sound more pessimistic than me.

obviously, genghis thinks we're just gnashing our teeth. negative nattering nabobs, no better than the ebullient bulls who party hard when the markets are roaring.

He may be right, perhaps this will be nothing more than something not much worse than your run-of-the-mill recession, one that we can will away with a few trillion in well-placed, or perhaps not-so-well-placed, government outlays.

hell, i hope he's right, cuz the alternatives don't sound like much fun, but to my untrained, unscientific eye the data I've looked at, such as those debt-to-GDP charts I have linked to in the past (which don't begin to account for our true level of obligations, not to mention the trillions of dollars in additional derviative bets and insurance placed on that debt) strain the suggestion that this is a mere bump in the road that can be fixed with some simple Keynesian morphine.

I'm not forecasting the

DF — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 21:21:22 +0000

In reply to Unregulated energy markets -

I'm not forecasting the apocalypse, but what is your objection exactly? Is "grind to a halt" a rhetorical bridge too far? Is that not what happened to the credit system? When and if we get that system functioning again, what shape will that take? Will it represent a different course or will it more closely resemble attempts go back to back to dream land?

As the days go on, there is more and more of the outward appearance of a plutocratic oligarchy in America. There have been signs and symptoms of this sort of thing for years, but at no time in my life has it been so naked. Will these conditions persist? I see no indication from Obama, or anyone on his team, that this prospect is being taken seriously.

Even if the oligarchy could be broken and even if we can piece together a way to properly regulate the financial system going forward, there are other fundamental questions that remain. The Austrians/Libertarians/Ron Paul set are having a bit of a field day, delighting as their favored targets fail in much the way that they predict as inevitable. Though I don't agree with them, it's a valid question to ask what the meaning of money is when it's backed only by debt. It should be obvious that there are limits that must be placed on such a system. Perhaps the only thing that Tim Geithner has said of late that makes any sense is what he had to say about the necessity of capital reserves.

But what about growth? Exponential growth is not infinitely sustainable when it is predicated on finite inputs. If that's what we require of our national economy, then I don't see how it can be called "sustainable". We might put it back together well enough to cruise along for a while, but sooner or later we'll have to reckon with reality. Is there a single policy or set of policies that will fix this? I don't think so. Much of our collective desire for unlimited growth is cultural. I know of no way to mandate that culture change. Maybe what's required is not policy, but for people to evolve their values. What will motivate them to do this? I don't think anyone can say for sure, but perhaps we're about to go through an economic "time out" that will allow us to ponder basic questions like, "What do I really need?"

Fundamental changes are

acanuck — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 21:11:51 +0000

In reply to Well, I would argue that part

Fundamental changes are inevitable, but right now we need a down-and-dirty fix to minimize the harm to real people. I think Obama and other world leaders see this. However, damage control comes first.

It's a global problem, not just an American one. And it's significant that the countries that have got the most mileage out of the unending-economic-growth model are those that have tempered population growth correspondingly. First, the Europeans and North Americans, and more recently (by government fiat) the Chinese.

A finite planet cannot support infinite population growth. We are running out of non-renewable energy, arable land and water. And accelerating global warming is about to make the latter resource the crucial one. It's one thing to drown our coastal cities (and countries like Holland and Bangladesh). But once you've melted all the high-altitude glaciers, entire continents and subcontinents die. Hundreds of millions either starve or try to migrate. And where they move to, millions more starve.

On the bright side, once that catastrophe occurs, the concept of maintaining Earth's population at a lower, sustainable level will become axiomatic. (Even the pope will accept the imperative of birth control.)

We do need attitudes to change, and a global consciousness to emerge. The "time of troubles" we are entering is, unfortunately, what we need to get us to that point.

Unregulated energy markets -

Michael Wolraich — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 19:54:33 +0000

In reply to Well, I would argue that part

Unregulated energy markets - planned obsolescence - easy credit - struggling automakers. All problematic issues in the American market, but you haven't tied them together or explained how they represent the core flaw that will doom American growth. I'm sure that you can put together a more coherent challenge to the existing system, which I would be happy to read and discuss.

I certainly don't think that our system is perfect, but I approach apocalyptic forecasts during recessions with the same skepticism that I treat economics-defying exuberance during booms. If there is a crash for every bubble, so is there a period of overblown pessism for every period of irrational optimism.

But whatever the future holds, and whether this recession represents a fundamental flaw in the economy or just a bad cycle, there's no doubt that we could do things better, so suggest away...

Well, I would argue that part

DF — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 15:39:57 +0000

In reply to Holy economic miracles,

Well, I would argue that part of that process has begun right now. Judging this is highly dependent upon growth and how we decide to quantify it, but I think that we can probably agree that ideas like planned obsolescence don't represent sustainable measures in the long-term. Paired with consumer credit, Alfred P. Sloan, via GM, helped pioneer the basis of our modern consumer markets - buying things that we don't need with money that we don't have. How's that working out for GM and the old U.S. of A. right about now? Of course, the story is more complicated than these two components, both for GM and for America, but does anyone really doubt that these ideas have been a significant driving force as we lapped up credit to buy houses, boats, cars, televisions and other electronic goods without saving a dime?

My point above is that this wasn't a phenomenon that was born of the last few decades. It's deeply entrenched in the story of America during the 20th century. The name of the game has been the steady upward march of GDP and the DJIA. However, these numbers cannot grow ad infinitum unless we allow the meaning of these numbers to change as they do. Apparently, we've been quite willing to do this. To my mind, an interesting question is this: What would those numbers have looked like in absence of the falsehoods that we've now begun to reckon with? Are we looking at them now? Will we have to before this is all over?

An even more important question is: Where do we go from here? Do we try to put the old system back together or will we be ready to face the reality that things really can't come that easy forever? I have to admit that I'm growing more and more concerned that Obama et al. aren't prepared to push this thing forward. They appear to be heavily invested in trying to restart the old game, at least with respect for addressing the banking system. Maybe I'll be impressed yet, but the current outlook seems quite grim to me.

Maybe it's time to rethink what we really care about with respect for growth. We know full well that we can make the numbers look good, but do we want Enron to be the model for our nation? Many long-standing economic ideas are ripe for criticism right now.