Being No. 1 Is Causing Us Trouble
I was struck by RDF's comment in response to John's excellent post on "the security trap":
"China will shortly shift from making cheap stuff for export to making better quality stuff for internal markets. They won't need us anymore. The US needs to plan for a transition from empire to one major power among several, including Japan, China, India and the EU. It is even possible that the old Soviet sphere will re-emerge as an economic zone some day.
The old empires of Spain, England, France, etc. didn't go quietly off the world stage, but they went just the same. We can plan for an orderly transition to a sustainable society or we can expect social unrest and a continual effort to use military power to stem the tide. Excessive militarism has already diverted half our federal budget from infrastructure development and social programs to this useless sector."
Let's think about the world s/he posits for a moment -- a world in which the U.S., EU, India, China, Japan, and perhaps Russia are all major powers. Is that such a terrible vision? Imagine now that China and Russia are either democratic or moving gradually that way. What would we be so afraid of? More importantly, why would it matter to us so vitally to try to be so much more powerful than anyone else in that system -- in the words of the National Security Strategy, "to have no peer competitor"? We would want enough military and economic capacity to defend ourselves, of course. And enough to project military force when necessary either to defend ourselves or to engage in genuinely humanitarian interventions -- in which case we would likely have company any way.
But since when does America have such an obsession with being and staying no. 1?
We were happy enough even to be counted as a great power in the 19th and the first half of the 20th century. And we didn't object to the Soviet Union's status as a superpower per se, but rather its status as a superpower with an ideology bent on our destruction. The mantra of American foreign policy has been about values, and about having sufficient power to protect and promote those values, not about power for its own sake.
More practically, do we really think we are going to be able to be the sole superpower in 100 or even 50 years, with not one but two countries rising that have up to five or six times our population, an equivalent land mass, and extraordinary economic potential? We should indeed be anticipating a transition to a new multipolar order. But we should also be embracing and managing that transition, writing the rules and building the institutions that will continue our own power while integrating new powers in as orderly and cooperative way as possible. After all, we all will have plenty to contend with together, and we will need all the help we can get.
Who is this post directed towards? The U.S. government, TPM readers in general, RDF?
Can you site someone who is saying the U.S. should be number one just to be number one? From what I understand, some people in the government and in intelligence agencies are wanting the U.S. to stay powerful precisely because, rightly or wrongly, they do not see Russia (or China) moving in the direction of democracy and they think a confrontation could come with China over Taiwan, among other things. Others want the U.S. to stay number 1 because they think the U.S. model is superior to other models (again, rightly or wrongly).
Have you ever been to Brussels' EU propaganda park and seen the brochures designed to promote EU-ness? Much of it is "this is how we're better than the U.S." I don't necessarily see anything wrong with their self-promotion, though it is a bit odd that they have to convince their own citizens of their relevance, but they believe (as I'm certain you do) that they have a better system, and they would like to see others follow it and that's why they want to be number 1 as well. That's why they have those 5 year plans or whatever to be number one in economics, number one in research, etc.
April 22, 2006 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
As John Ikenberry has written elsewhere, much of the international order as currently constituted is the result of U.S. leadership. The institutions that make up this order serve the american interest which usually causes Americans to continue to support it. If there is a return to multipolarity one of two things can happen. One, the order may be contracted to a smaller sphere where the U.S. is the dominant force. Two, the order stays broad but others have more influence, the institutions serve U.S. interests less, domestic support ebbs, and order erodes. Then, what most liberals write about-- a multilateral institutional order-- will be and remain out of reach. That, it seems to me, should be one reason to support the continuation of primacy.
Secondly, it appears to me at least that it is a mistake to assume that even if China, Russia, and others become democratic that they will also be liberal like us. Surely that is the lesson of Russia now. Also, china today is less democratic/ representative than Germany was in the 1870-1914 period. In fact, many of the debates now ongoing about China also occured about Wilhelme Germany. My point is that before we begin to say multipolarity is okay we would want greater guarantees that the new poles will be liberal democratic. I can't see that happening in my lifetime.
Thirdly, I would point out that many academics, particularly on the Democratic side, have made a career out of betting against American power. This is a recurring theme during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Some conservatives, such as Nixon, also fell into this trap. On the other hand, those who were bullish, like Reagan, were not only right but more tapped into American public opinion. Bottom line: pessimism and accommodation to a diminishment of U.S. power is probably a vote loser and more likely to be wrong than right.
Finally, American stategy in the first half of the 20th century left threats unaddressed until it was almost too late. The cost of the required adjustment was enormous in blood and treasure. I would be reluctant to embrace that as a model. If, as liberals, we believe in universal values, there is also another imperative to shape the world as much as we can.
April 22, 2006 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't necessarily see anything wrong with their self-promotion, though it is a bit odd that they have to convince their own citizens of their relevance[...]
But of course they do.
Imagine that US states are more or less sovereign countries and there is a very weak (you could say anemic) federal government. Wouldn't that federal govt. try to convince Americans of the relevance of America as a whole? Because if America as a whole is important, then so is the federal government...
April 23, 2006 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
In principle, you are correct. "Amerika uber alles" is not really a national principle. On the other hand, history shows that the process of giving up the number one spot is rarely a comfortable one for the country surrendering the position. Britain managed it quite nicely, but only because the new number one was extremely well disposed toward it.
Noel
April 23, 2006 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
But since when does America have such an obsession with being and staying no. 1?
If nations act in their self-interest and there are potential conflicts of interest, then being the most powerful nation has it's advantages:
1. It's easier to protect yourself against another nations' doing something against your self-interest
2. You can get your way when something is in your self-interest but not in the interest of a competing nation
Of course, exerting one's will against the will of others is likely to create enemies, forcing you to spend much of your time trying to remain "number one" and to prevent others from challenging your power. Cooperation with others--i.e., seeking common interests and compromise--might turn out to be a better strategy than trying to dominate others.
A third approach would be to withdraw into isolationism. But in today's global economy, ignoring the rest of the world and focusing inward is no longer practical. In fact, the global economy will increasingly demand global institutions. National regulations on business activities, for instance, are increasingly ineffective as businesses act globally, outside the control of any single nation. Increasingly, nations will need to cooperate together--and to do this, they will need some kind of global government (a republic of nations) to allow for this cooperation. The era of independent nation states may be coming to an end.
April 23, 2006 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a good time to consider what a country gets out of being perceived as "No. 1." Looking at the U.S. since ca. 1990 (by which time there was universal agreement that the U.S. was the world's sole hyperpower), can anyone name even one major benefit of U.S. dominance? Is the U.S. in 2006 any safer, richer or more feared and respected anywhere in the world than it was in 1990? Meanwhile, look at all the (distant) No. 2's if you want examples of "safer, richer, more feared and respected" countries.
April 23, 2006 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
even the notion of a democratic china is a joke. high-tech totalitarianism is all they are developing in china, their human rights record is the worst on the planet.
nobody would see dysfunctional regimes such as iran or warring african states as being standard bearers for democracy anytime soon, so why people continually place such hopes upon china escapes me. china is continually able to get away with their abuses simply by virtue of their size.
we didn't see george bush make any move to ask china to stop counterfeiting CDs, even though the RIAA in the US is zealously prosecuting teenagers who fileshare.
unfortunately, mr bush's flawed policies have sent debt spiralling and china are proving the main beneficiaries. mr bush has done more for the chinese people in 6 years than the american. thoughts of continued US primacy will lay in tatters in a hurry if this keeps on.
April 23, 2006 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
This isn't the "world series" we are discussing here. Although a true world sports championship might divert a lot of our phony patriotism to better ends. Imagine our 50 states acting as we, as a nation, do. California would be number one, would be establishing military bases in various other states to "project power", and would, of course, want to pick the governors for all of the states that have oil. Isn't that absurd?
We need to view the world as we view our own states. We are all members of the human race, and all of our countries should be equal partners on this planet. Just as some of the states in our country are much poorer than others, some of the countries in the world are much poorer than others. If we have good foreign policies there will be no military efforts to equalize our economies, but there will be economic competitions, and there will be shifts of wealth from wealthy countries to poor countries. That is the world we need to work towards.
Hoppy in Sacramento
April 23, 2006 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't have to imagine it, I just need to look up 1860-1865. That's how we convinced the states and their citizens of the relevance of the federal government.
Also, JoC's commnent is spot on and its a huge reason why I'm so freaked out about a Chinese rise to power. Rightly or wrongly as JoC said, the things I see make me believe that it is in our best interests and in the best interests of the world if we remain number one. Albeit with Bush, Rummy and all his ilk thrown in prison like they belong.
April 23, 2006 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
As to pessimism, I think this kind of thing was occurring in the 1970s and 1980s when the US was going through some tough economic times (at least intermittenly) and the West German and Japanese economies were going great guns. Not so much in the '90s as far as I know - or at least after 92/93 or so.
But there is a major difference now. Not so much that I see the US going in the toilet or anything, because I don't - its going to remain preeminent for another decade or so. But because China is just a much more serious long term player than Japan or Germany ever could have been. The very size of their population and landmass - which, at the end of the day, is the basic building block upon which any country's power needs to rest, at least in the modern era - puts them in a category fundamentally different from that of Japan. Also, Japan's miltary and its strategic relationship to the US was very different than that of China's today.
April 23, 2006 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
That would be "wrongly", then. What's important is that human rights-respecting democracies remain preponderantly powerful, not that the US do so. In any case, if the US does intend to retain its position at the apex, blowing all its money on the military is a misguided way to do it.
Happy talk is not the way to gain the confidence of the people. - Zalmay Khalilzad, US Ambassador to Iraq
April 23, 2006 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
The choice isn't really between seeking to be number one and seeking to cooperate with others. The rational strategy is to seek your own interests in concert with others, while also pursuing your own interests where they conflict with others', but not drawing too much attention to the latter. You should always talk peace and common interests, even when you may subtly be pursuing your own interests in ways detrimental to others. This is the Chinese way, the way of Sun-Tzu, and the way of Bill Gates. (Who holds the record for using the phrase "win-win" the most times in an hour? It's a tie: Bill Gates and Hu Jintao. Neither is particularly known for being uncompetitive.)
George W. Bush, by highlighting his conflicts with others, swaggering, exercising maximum braggadocio and minimum diplomacy, and seeking conflict even where none need exist, has shown the world why he's such a successful nationalist-divisive politician and such a lousy corporate CEO.
Happy talk is not the way to gain the confidence of the people. - Zalmay Khalilzad, US Ambassador to Iraq
April 24, 2006 1:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
The human rights record of Saudi Arabia is considerably worse than that of China. Not to mention Sudan, obviously.
There is only one explanation for why someone would have a positive view of China's cultural and political potential in the future: they must have traveled to China.
Happy talk is not the way to gain the confidence of the people. - Zalmay Khalilzad, US Ambassador to Iraq
April 24, 2006 1:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
In particular, I fail to understand why the US must feel compelled to retard the rise of China, why there is such eagerness for conflict with them among neocons. The Chinese are not expansionist and are not threatening their neighbors.
April 24, 2006 5:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
While we extoll competition between our businesses and individual citizens, no particular business or individual shows much eagerness to face it. Most businesses would prefer a market with one seller, themselves.
The question is whether to try and suppress competition or just outperform it. The latter is sounder policy. If you have a better product and price than your competitors, they become your customers. If you suppress the competition, they become your enemies.
April 24, 2006 5:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
But we should also be embracing and managing that transition
Are you aware of current gas prices, of the debate between Simmons and Yergin, of the latest report from Aramco on the rate of decline of Saudi oil fields? Are you willing to give up your house and car, your kids fancy education, most of your income and trade your middle-class life style for a third-world one? Are you willing to embrace that transition?
Are you even conscious...because you seem to me to be a poster-child for idiocy.
April 24, 2006 5:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
This isn't the "world series" we are discussing here.
Thank you, thank you, thank you! This whole notion of who is #1 is categorically the most ridiculous waste of time and energy.
We have early Clinton advisers - Robert Reich, you know who you are - to thank for popularizing the flawed concept of how nations "compete", a concept which any half-competent economist can expose as policy hucksterism. (It works politically of course, but that is another matter altogether.)
Bottom line: countries do not compete. They vie for influence, they jostle for popularity, but in no realistic sense do countries compete. Btw, the idea that a country of 300 million can in the long run dominate economically a country of 6 billion, once it has mobilized its factors of production, is beyond ridiculous. And as an aside, check out the Swiss, a small but extremely wealthy nation that assiduously avoids "competing"...
There are two types of influence worth having on the world stage - one is straightforward economic muscle, and the other is moral authority. Military might is vastly over-rated (except to petty tyrants).
In terms of the latter, King George, through his Neocon/Jacobite revolution and with his caveman diplomacy has guaranteed we've lost that for the foreseeable future. These days, it's hard to imagine other nations taking us at our word.
In terms of the former, we've still got quite bit of that. Access to US markets remains the holy grail for foreign companies looking to expand internationally. And of course, the dollar is the world's reserve currency.
But King George, with his caveman economic policies, is attacking this too. The fact is we are eroding our economic strengths - by bankrupting the middle class and mortgaging our future - at the same time as we are watching China build theirs. There's been little doubt that China would assume a prominence on the global stage at some point in the future - what's the famous Hong Kong adage... something like "China is coming back after a couple of bad centuries".
The only relevant question with respect to China is how we will co-exist when it inevitably draws level in terms its global pull. And at the moment, we are in an undesirable position of being reliant on China taking our interests into consideration so that they do not make decisions that may hurt us. To be clear - China is unlikely to be motivated to take decisions purely in order to hurt us; however we might just, as a result of our own recklessness, become collateral damage in China's inexorable progress.
So to sum up King George's macro legacy, he's left us short of moral authority, and he's left us short-stacked when China's economic clout will be more keenly felt on the world stage.
Heckuva job.
April 24, 2006 6:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I seem to remember that when Howard Dean was running for president and said something that implied that America might not always be the only superpower in the world this was jumped on by everyone as some sort of major blunder.
Fred in Vermont
April 24, 2006 6:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is nice to find oneself quoted as the jumping off point of a diary, but I think everyone overlooked the key concept that I was trying to call attention to:
"an orderly transition to a sustainable society".
The US, and the rest of the industrialized world, still believes in a model of economic growth as a way to solve society's problems. This is different from the type of economic growth needed in the third world which is aimed at lifting people out of poverty.
We have enough "stuff" in this country that everyone could live a comfortable lifestyle. It is just unevenly distributed. Rather than address the issues of inequality, it is easier for politicians to promise that growth will improve the lot of the underclass. That this has never happened (peacefully) in 2000 years is ignored.
With six percent of the world's population and a consumption of an estimated 40% of the resources we are on a collision course with the worldwide demands for raw materials (what I call nature's bounty). We need to start planning for a time when the US will only be able to make use of a sustainable amount of nature's bounty.
At present the government (following the unstated will of the people, I might add) is following a course that will allow the US to continue to command as much raw material as it wants. This includes a large military, a space based weapons program (do a search on "rods from God"), and a first-strike nuclear program. Can a strong military succeed in securing unlimited world resources? I don't know, but as I originally stated it never worked in the past for an extended period of time.
If you are interested in the concepts of sustainable development (I call it a steady-state society) I suggest reading Herman Daly. A good overview of his ideas here.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
April 24, 2006 6:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Aside from the personal attack, I am not sure what you are getting at.
If we get past oil soon we'll have much more spare money for our children's education, etc. Doesn't seem to be any way to avid dealing with that either, which is the meaning of "embracing" used here. It does not mean accepting, but anticipating and acting on the expectation.
Brazil is an example to follow, with its fleet of flex-fuel cars and sugar-cane ethanol. They expect full energy self-sufficency in 6 months.
April 24, 2006 6:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anne-Marie
Has there ever been a president who has not said the United States is the number one power in the world more, fill in the blank, than any other nation? The issue might be better how the United States helps shapes the world.
The Soviet Union was a competitor to the United States and once it acquired nuclear weapons a serious determinant of American actions. Now the United States has a number of competitors China, India, Russia but do they have to be enemies? I hesitate to say Bush's biggest error, he has so many, has been to try to put the world back into the chessboard mentality of the Cold War. Todays' world can have many significant nations that experience economic growth while not despoiling the environment and it need not be a zero sum game.
However, do you believe this is possible without the United States leadership? Korea, both of them and China are suspicious of Japan and Japan is skeptical of China. China, India and Pakistan seem to be working on a working arrangement but they have fought wars with each other. The EU is as much about keeping Germany in check as it is about economics. Africa, the Middle East are ignored except when oil is at issue and Latin America seems to be about immigration and not about large markets and producers. To draw a straight line and say that China will dominate ignores the error of such lines. The issue is not about being number one it is about globalization of both benefits and risks and only the United States can help shape that discussion.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
April 24, 2006 6:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry for the second post but Jim Griffin who writes for RealMoney.com and is an economic consultand money manager for ING wrote today on the pas de deux between China and the United States. Whether it requires the United States to be number 1 I don't know but it certainly requires the United States not to treat China as an enemy.
" Among the tentative conclusions that occur to me are that China's recent influence on global economic conditions can be extrapolated for some time yet, and that China will manage its currency for its own purposes. Its first purpose is to keep job growth booming in order to facilitate, with as much domestic tranquility as possible, the nation's transformation.
In short, the "unsustainable," mutually codependent, unbalanced goods-for-bonds trading relationship between China and the United States will be sustained for many months yet, and perhaps many years.
The scale of the global imbalance is such that it is not possible to feel easy about the range of time paths of adjustment that may lie ahead. Respected observers -- Paul Volcker, for example -- fear that a future financial crisis is implicit in today's tilted accounts.
That is one possibility, but President Hu left this observer with the sense that China's leadership is operating with whatever is the opposite of a short-term trader's mentality. The Chinese-American trading relationship has costs and benefits on both sides, and while it might be unsustainable in an accounting sense, its persistence will be determined on political terms.
So the bonds-for-goods trade between these two nations will remain in place, with positive effects on inflation and bond yields in this country. Marginal adjustments will happen, but the basic deal will persist because the United States, with a 4.7% unemployment rate, simply doesn't have the labor resources at home to produce everything that domestic demand requires. And China, to modernize at the pace its population requires, simply has to accept the counter-party risk that goes with its export-led growth."
[RealMoney.com www.thestreet.com/p/pf/rmoney/marketcommentary/10280937.html]
The creepy feeling, I suppose, is the sense that historic changes are inevitable, but that they won't be happening soon."
Daniel A. Greenbaum
April 24, 2006 7:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Aside from the personal attack
It's not a personal attack, it's a simple description...exactly what I would use if you told me you were doing financial planning based on the assumption that you would win the lottery next week.
If we get past oil soon we'll have much more spare money for our children's education, etc
We're not going to get past oil soon (or later). That's my point. Of course, there'll be ups and downs as markets respond to short term events but the days of cheap oil are over.Brazil is an example to follow, with its fleet of flex-fuel cars and sugar-cane ethanol. They expect full energy self-sufficency in 6 months.
You're as bad as the author if you believe such crap. Brazil may achieve self-sufficiency for the same reason other countries did; because it has oil fields which have not yet been developed...and because its economy is relatively undeveloped. Flex-fuel and sugar cane ethanol have nothing to do with it.Doesn't seem to be any way to avid dealing with that either, which is the meaning of "embracing" used here. It does not mean accepting, but anticipating and acting on the expectation.
We're trying to retain our power and wealth because it's better than losing them. No different than it is for companies and individuals...and these latter surely lose when their country loses.
What a loser you are! We're in a fight for survival of our way of life and you want to surrender. Well, go ahead. Give up your possessions and rights because others want them. But don't expect me to follow...or to treat you with respect.
April 24, 2006 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
The United States and the entire West reduced oil consumption in relative terms after the OPEC price shocks of the 1970s. It is one reason why our economy hasn't collapsed in the face of $75.00 a barrell of oil. If oil prices stay high or the United States launches a program of fossil fuel reduction why would you assume that the Tom Wright isn't correct?
Malthus, Paul Erlich and many others looked at the world and commodities and predicted disaster. Instead industrialization brought down population growth and inventions that has fed the world. It is silly to be sanguige but also dangerous to draw a straight line into the future.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
April 24, 2006 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
We can plan for an orderly transition to a sustainable society or we can expect social unrest and a continual effort to use military power to stem the tide.
This reminds of the communist claim that they could plan economies. The fact is we're doing the best we can to plan such a transition; that's what globalization and its associated structures are all about.
The problem is that there's no agreement to be had about who should suffer and who should gain, about how and when military force should be used, and about whether sustainability - in any form - is even possible.
Trying to paper that over with sappy appeals to "humanitarian" whatevers is just bullshit.
April 24, 2006 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Losers accept losing, which I'm not.
"Flex-fuel and sugar cane ethanol have nothing to do with it." Wrong. Brazil's oil production will acount for 30% of domestic energy use.
Accepting the status quo, that is, oil dominance, is the loser's game. I said nothing about giving up anything except old habits.
On what basis do you see no alternative to oil? The amount of energy falling as sunlight on the planet in one day equals the amount used by humans in one year. There is no energy shortage, only an equipment shortage, which is very responsive to demand. An artificial demand boost, through one incentive or another, would make us leaders in solar power instead of oil consumers. And unlike oil, solar power will only get cheaper for a very long time.
Only losers (or oil shareholders) depend on oil.
April 24, 2006 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
The world's democracies did some very effective planning at the Bretton Woods conference after WWII, establishing the modern currency exchange among other things.
You are still stuck in the zero-sum thinking that was defeated after the 1973 oil embargo. Industries found, after a few years of re-engineering, that they had lots of unused energy available in waste heat. The result was that electricity usage growth was flat for something like a decade, while industrial output increased steadily.
Currently there is about 200 gigawatts of unused power going up industrial smokestacks, equivalent to roughly 200 nuclear power plants. Secondary heat exchangers, already developed, can capture this energy. A side benefit is that the lower temperature of exhaust gases causes nasty metals like mercury or selenium to simply precipitate out, no scrubbers needed. A revival of "new-source review" would be an incentive for coal plants to upgrade.
No one need suffer.
April 24, 2006 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
The oil shocks of the '70s were very painful and we're still paying the price...just as we're still paying for the wars we've lost.
The new oil shocks look to be much more severe and of much greater duration. Still, conservation, rationalization of our transportation system, and technological advancement MAY enable us to avert disaster. But there will still be great pain and suffering.
Nobody's drawing a straight line to the future. Malthus and Ehrlich may have been wrong, or been only wrong in their timing and other details. We've seen plenty of very destructive wars over resource scarcity.
Tom Wright wants to base policy on the assumption that oil shocks will be minor and fairly easily overcome. The author thinks she sees a peaceful and easy transition to paradise. I say bullshit to both. We should base our policies on self-interest and the most realistic estimates of our situation...and that is as I've described (given the most recent Aramco estimates, Simmons analysis, and the best estimates of demand growth).
April 24, 2006 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am making no assumptions; I am pointing to data. I am also emphasizing our national interest.
Do you find something incorrect in my information?
We can build up our military or our power system. One of the two is a profitable investment, and the wise know which.
April 24, 2006 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll believe in a credible alternative to oil when I see one. Meanwhile all the world's economies find it absolutely essential - the more advanced, the more essential. All your examples are just pie in the sky.
Not that people aren't trying. It's worth trying. I live in an underground house, use passive solar gain for most of my heating and hot water, try to minimize my transportation costs, etc. But I don't kid myself.
April 24, 2006 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Being No. 1 Is Causing Us Trouble?
Bull Biscuits!
April 24, 2006 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
What data?
Do you really believe that we can easily obtain energy independence but don't do so because of some conspiracy of wealthy and powerful people? Do you really believe our leaders are sending our children to die rather than implement technologies which would result in decreased profits for oil companies, that these same companies wouldn't invest in such technologies?
Of course, I think your arguments are utter nonsense.
April 24, 2006 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now I'm completely confused. Your house is "pie in the sky"? Congrats on that--I'm renting and have to use what I have for now.
Commercially available solar panels are now up to 21% efficient. (Even low-effiiency solar is a good deal if it's cheap.) If houses in the Northeast, with weak sun and lots of cloudy days, tap groundwater they can improve their air-conditiong efficiency something like ten times, and find almost-free heat in winter.
The easy availability of oil in the recent past has made us lazy. There are huge efficiency improvements available in all fields. We can wait until the market forces the change, or act to accelerate it.
There's money to be made.
April 24, 2006 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did I say there was no planning or that planning was useless? Of course not. It's also worth noting that Bretton Woods planning did not solve all the worlds problems or produce a sustainable society.
Did I say that technological advancement was impossible or useless? Of course not. It's going on all the time and has been for at least 500 years. Meanwhile suffering has not come to an end, wars continue to be fought, scarcity is an ever-present demon devouring the hindmost.
Stop using these dumb examples of inefficiency. People are rewarded for efficient industrial processes. They implement them as fast as they can. You have only to look at the long list of companies which failed because they failed to keep up.
April 24, 2006 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's money to be made.
Try and make that money and you'll find out very fast what's pie-in-the-sky and what isn't.
April 24, 2006 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
People are making money now with wind installations; in Illinois we have 4 gigawatts either licensed or pending.
One of our posters here, el campesino, says his comapany has $50 million in scheduled solar-thermal commercial installations in the pipeline. In Germany, the hottest shares are in "green" energy ventures.
April 24, 2006 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink