At the heart of the liberal project was the insistence that economics should trump politics—that the free market should determine policy in most matters, leaving governments only an administrative function. Of course that warm and cozy abstraction “the free market” meant in practice the kleptocratic corporate socialism of too-big-to-fail banks and subsidy-guzzling multinationals, which proceeded to pursue their own short-term benefit so recklessly that they’ve driven entire countries into the ground.
Monbiot is saying much the same, in a detailed piece here.
As usual, the left and centre (myself included) are beating ourselves up about where we went wrong. There are plenty of answers, but one of them is that we have simply been outspent. Not by a little, but by orders of magnitude. A few billion dollars spent on persuasion buys you all the politics you want.
(My bold)
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
How near do posters here think we are to some massive shift in the system, bigger than the so-called 'crisis' of 2008? (And will it be economic, I suppose is the other question?)
The confluence of ever-decreasing energy availability and ever-increasing debt must explode at some point. What is the next limit that we are approaching?
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
10 years tops before a major political/economic/military calamity. And by that, I mean on a scale comparable to WW2. Probably, all three will co-occur. In other words, within my working lifetime. This is no longer something I merely worry about vis-a-vis my kids. Though, the consequences for them are my greatest worry.
Yeah, it seems that, historically, war has grown and grown, achieving the horrendous bloodfest that was the 20th century.
The 21st surely has to top it!
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
I doubt the super powers will ever engage in another big war. As soon as one side gets trapped or starts to lose badly they will trot out their nukes and the other side knows it so will not attack in the first place. Defensive operations where the enemy has ample opportunity to retreat is the most they will engage in to keep the other side from taking over by default.
It's the religious nut jobs with nuclear tipped missiles we have to worry about.
Ilargi wrote: The world is changing rapidly and that will become even a lot more evident in 2017. The incumbent economic and political systems, as well as their proponents and cheerleaders, are on the way out. They have all failed miserably. What comes next will be profoundly chaotic for quite a while, and that will be perilous. There is not one single (belief) system to replace them, there will be many and they will often clash.
In some places, the political right will prevail, in others the left. In most, from the look of things, neither will, if only because at the end of the day both left and right are still part of incumbent systems. Europe has a number of elections coming up and in at least some of these, parties from outside the incumbent systems will come out on top.
Whether they can then go on to form governments is perhaps another story; the system will not give up easily. But it is done. Carney’s recipe of ‘some’ redistribution of wealth and acquiring new skills is widely shared in power circles, and that will be the system’s undoing. All it has to offer is more talk about more growth and more globalization, and while people protest only the latter, neither is on offer.
The chances of a peaceful transition to a new economic system is miniscule
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools - Douglas Adams.
The future will probably be like the past where the rich cosied themselves into an ever richer corner, refusing to pay any taxes, while the poor got ever poorer. As with the French Revolution the poor somewhere will crack and the rich will be strung up for their sins and their assets redistributed to an extent with the revolutionary leaders profiting most (for the risks they took, obviously!!). Elsewhere the rich will take note of the revolution and their friends' demise and bribe the poor of their countries to keep them quiet.
I went to a meeting of the Centre for the Understanding of Prosperity (CUSP) last week, Prof Tim Jackson being the leading light, and was talking to an academic there about the impossibility of continual economic growth. His contention was that growth can continue sustainably at the rate of harvest of the sun's energy.
Discuss?
It took me by surprise at the time but thinking on it now, we still have a finite environment, In nature, although the sun is continually heating the earth on one side the earth is usually losing about the same amount of heat on the other, dark side. So there is no net gain over time. As with the heat equation, other life forms are generally in balance over time. It would only seem to be humans who think that we can have more of the pie all the time with no adverse consequences.
kenneal - lagger wrote:His contention was that growth can continue sustainably at the rate of harvest of the sun's energy.
Discuss?
I guess he means 'growth' can happen if we increase our rate of harvest of the Sun's energy. It's an amazing flow, a tiny proportion of which is intercepted (by plants etc) to do work. We can continue to grow by increasing this amount. For example, if we genetically engineer crops so their photosynthesis is twice as efficient as now, we get 'growth'.
vtsnowedin wrote:I doubt the super powers will ever engage in another big war.
Oh yes they will. Neither of us know for sure; we only have history to go by.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
vtsnowedin wrote:I doubt the super powers will ever engage in another big war.
Oh yes they will. Neither of us know for sure; we only have history to go by.
I can't rule it out entirely but I think a full blown war is unlikely due both to the nuclear escalation danger and simply the fact that there is no profit potential. As late as WWII the instigators had visions of empire and enormous wealth being theirs if they were victorious. Today when you defeat a country you have to rebuild it at your expense. So war as the aggressor is totally pointless.
There's massive profit in it for those controlling the government.
Your sentence should read, "Today when you defeat a country you have to rebuild it at the taxpayers' expense".
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
kenneal - lagger wrote:His contention was that growth can continue sustainably at the rate of harvest of the sun's energy.
Discuss?
I guess he means 'growth' can happen if we increase our rate of harvest of the Sun's energy. It's an amazing flow, a tiny proportion of which is intercepted (by plants etc) to do work. We can continue to grow by increasing this amount. For example, if we genetically engineer crops so their photosynthesis is twice as efficient as now, we get 'growth'.
Could we define part of "Growth" as the act of changing the matter of the planet from something raw into something useful to us ? This can continue indefinitely, because as items wear out we can "grow" them into something else.
The other part of "Growth" is perhaps the intellectual creations, the knowledge of how to create both material objects and less tangible things like music, art, civilisation. This also can continue indefinitely.
kenneal - lagger wrote:His contention was that growth can continue sustainably at the rate of harvest of the sun's energy.
Discuss?
I guess he means 'growth' can happen if we increase our rate of harvest of the Sun's energy. It's an amazing flow, a tiny proportion of which is intercepted (by plants etc) to do work. We can continue to grow by increasing this amount. For example, if we genetically engineer crops so their photosynthesis is twice as efficient as now, we get 'growth'.
Are you being deliberately short sighted and cannot see that the more you skew the resources to "benefit" humans, the more you **** it up for all other species?
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
kenneal - lagger wrote:His contention was that growth can continue sustainably at the rate of harvest of the sun's energy.
Discuss?
I guess he means 'growth' can happen if we increase our rate of harvest of the Sun's energy. It's an amazing flow, a tiny proportion of which is intercepted (by plants etc) to do work. We can continue to grow by increasing this amount. For example, if we genetically engineer crops so their photosynthesis is twice as efficient as now, we get 'growth'.
Are you being deliberately short sighted and cannot see that the more you skew the resources to "benefit" humans, the more you **** it up for all other species?
Of course, I'm not saying it's a good idea! Just trying to understand what Ken's academic might have meant.
