RIP the consumer economy.
The honer guard has fired three rounds into the air. Now
we stand silently while the eulogy is given.
in black - because that is all any of us can afford these days.
The consumer economy is dead. Long live the consumer economy.
C
we stand silently while the eulogy is given.
On Sept. 7, the government seized mortgage titansWhile the bugler plays taps, we slowly walk away all dressed
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Eight days later,
investment bank Lehman Brothers filed for
bankruptcy, sparking a global financial panic that
threatened to topple blue-chip financial
institutions around the world. In the several months
that followed, governments from Washington to
Beijing responded with unprecedented intervention
into financial markets and across their economies,
seeking to stop the wreckage and stem the damage.
One year later, the easy-money system that financed
the boom era from the 1980s until a year ago is
smashed. Once-ravenous U.S. consumers are saving
money and paying down debt. Banks are building
reserves and hoarding cash. And governments are
fashioning a new global financial order.
Congress and the Obama administration have lost
faith in self-regulated markets. Together, they're
writing the most sweeping new regulations over
finance since the Great Depression. And in this
ever-more-connected global economy, Washington is
working with its partners through the G-20 group of
nations to develop worldwide rules to govern
finance.
"Our objective is to design an economic framework
where we're going to have a more balanced pattern of
growth globally, less reliant on a buildup of
unsustainable borrowing . . . and not just here, but
around the world," said Treasury Secretary Timothy
Geithner.
The first faint signs that the U.S. economy may be
clawing its way back from the worst recession since
the Great Depression are only now starting to
appear, a year after the panic began. Similar
indications are sprouting in Europe, China and
Japan.
Still, economists concur that a quarter-century of
economic growth fueled by cheap credit is over. Many
analysts also think that an extended period of slow
job growth and suppressed wage growth will keep
consumers - and the businesses that sell to them -
in the dumps for years.
in black - because that is all any of us can afford these days.
The consumer economy is dead. Long live the consumer economy.
C
Advertisement
The age of the consumer driven economy may well be over, and I don't see that necessarily being a bad thing. Many of us (if not most) have too much "stuff." The cast offs are clogging our landfills, it costs money to insure all of our "treasures," it wastes precious resources to make it all, it requires larger houses and storage units to store it all, it blinds us to the more important parts of life...
The problem is, without it, what are people going to do for jobs? The financial crisis threw us into this new era before we should have gotten here. We've been forced to face the jobs question sooner than we might have otherwise, but it was bound to happen. Cheap oil is going away, and cheap oil has fueled the creation and distribution of all this stuff. It would have been nice if we could have transitioned slowly from a consumer-based economy into what-ever-the-next-economy-is-going-to-be economy, but we didn't get that chance...What will that next economy be? Beats the heck outta me!
September 9, 2009 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
My prediction is there will be a resurgent "more of the same" economy for awhile and then will come the needed crash. No transition is ever easy and I don't think we've let go enough yet. (wow, I've been pretty negative on TPM for the last couple days!)
September 9, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
You got it right, Matt. This life insurance bundling scam is going to be the next big thing to grow to enormity and bust. Get in early, and leave early, and you can make some money. You just have to know when to quit. Save yourself. Oh, and you have to know where to put that money while the rest of the world screams as their fortunes collapse under the illusion of a valuable asset turned worthless. ho knows what kinf of infrastructure we will have left by then, and what kind of quality of life there will be, but you'll have money and that's all you need, until it becomes worthless too.
Aww hell, now I've gone negative too!
September 9, 2009 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
lol. We all want to be rich, now. Problem is that if you weren't born with it, you have to work for it.
BTW, I've got a bundled blog advertising security conglomoratic derivative system that's guaranteed to double every penny every 10 months. Interested? ;)
September 10, 2009 2:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are so right in framing this as the death of the consumer economy. I have been wrestling with writing about this very topic within the context of the rise and fall of the middle class from about WWII to present.
The biggest thing to realize about this economy is that it was all a chimera for the middle class. We bought the goods: the big tv's; the cars; the McMansions; the RV's; etc. We were full partners in the growth of this economy, and we could prove it by the increasing number of possessions we "owned."
Yet, we owned little. We had sub-prime mortgages on 100% value (or even more in some instances!) of our homes. We maxed out credit debt. We went from one-income households to two. We thought it was the mountaintop that we saw above us almost within reach, when in truth it was the rim of the hole into which we had placed ourselves, and the hole kept getting wider and deeper.
This economy has been so incredibly unsustainable on way too many fronts. But it's going to take some severe cultural shifts to ever arrive at a just economy that works for us all. It ain't going to be easy!
Great post! And definitely rec'd!
September 9, 2009 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well with so many good paying jobs being sent overseas, in the search of the corporate holy grail of better profitability, and the housing bubble collapsing I don't see how we could consume like we used to.
There was talk about 'a comeback in the housing market' but I doubt they will go the full monty and reinflate the bubble. Until there are good paying jobs being created in the US economy again, which I am not holding my breath about, our consumer economy is kaput.
September 9, 2009 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Word is that the realtors are bundling home properties for foreign investment. Yeah, real estate is well if you don't mind selling to foreign investors who will rent and take their profits overseas.
September 9, 2009 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it's the death of the consumer economy. It's the death of the middle-class consumer economy. What is taking shape is a different consumer economy, where 99% of the population provides the goods and services for the top 1%. It's perfectly sustainable as long as we stick to the 'economic growth/trickle down' frame of reference.
September 9, 2009 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah but for how long. Even or especially the top 1% has a finite amount of "stuff" they really need or want. And what happens when they have reached their limits ? Even a Wall Street tycoon will only buy a certain number of Rolls Royces and Bentleys and McMansions etc.
C
September 9, 2009 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's just not true, C. Do you know these people? The guy with three cars wants a plane, the guy with a pool wants the next guy's tennis court, that guy desperately wants a golf course, and that guy wants a personal landing-strip. Seven-star hotels are the new six star which were the new five star. More than ever, status is a matter of signaling through extravagant consumption. It's perfectly sustainable. And it's the path that the administration is, wittingly or unwittingly, taking us down.
September 9, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
An economy with a large middle class is unusual. In the case of the United States it arose due to the large supply of land and natural resources, the limited supply of labor to exploit it, and the success of the United States as supplier to the winning side in WW I and II.
The more normal distribution of incomes in society is to have a very large lower class, a smaller middle-class, and a very small upper class. This is typified by societies that are overpopulated, under resources, and haven't had recent wars or revolutions to homogenized the population. Latin America and India are good examples of where we are headed.
September 9, 2009 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting Merrill. Thanks. Are you saying this isn't a matter of politics, but more of demographic, geographic, factors? And that therefore there is something unavoidable about it. I dunno - a couple of (partial) counter-examples - Switzerland, Denmark, Singapore. Well, worth thinking about... if you got more on this line of thinking, be my guest.
September 9, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that the geographic and demographic factors not only shaped our economic system, but they also shaped our political system, although the two are somewhat independent.
The immigrant farmhand was not limited to a life as a farmhand on a noble's estate -- he could homestead 160 acres or buy land for a lot less than he could in Europe. The immigrant laborer was sought after, and his day's wages in the US bought more clothing, food, and lodging than they would in Europe.
Politically, the colonies couldn't establish the oppressive nation state typical of Europe. The peasants would walk west instead of submitting.
The expansion of the country between the Civil War and WW I set the stage for the United States to emerge from WW I and II with its manufacturing base intact and in a completely dominant economic position. High wages for workers, high output of goods for consumption, and high rates of exploitation of natural resources worked synergistically within a system where the US was the financial and industrial hegemon of the Western world.
However, in the last 4 decades or so, we have blown through a lot of our own resources (e.g. Texas oil), and we've spent a lot of the accumulated capital by not investing in our own country and by importing goods and services from abroad.
As resources decrease, population increases, and time passes, the US economic/political/social systems will become more complex, more structured, less equal, and more heirarchical. I used India and Latin America as examples, because these seem closer to the end state towards which large, complex societies naturally evolve.
The US is currently in an abnormal state, because of its short and unusual history as outlined above. Europe, Russia, China and Japan were recently disrupted by the removal of the nobility, the extensive destruction of wealth, and the execution of the remaining wealthy between 1914 and 1950, and they have not had time to move back to their previous state. But things like the emergence of the Russian oligarchs points in that direction.
Small states, the Swiss, Danes, and Singaporeans that you cite, can develop more egalitarian societies. In some cases, such as the Scandinavians, this is a reflection of ethnic uniformity and solidarity. In others, like the Swiss, it is a shared distaste for being ruled by their neighbors. Large, multi-ethnic nations are unlikely to evolve in their direction.
September 9, 2009 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gotta run again, but thanks for this. As usual, really interesting take.
September 9, 2009 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Geography is everything. Glad to see someone gets it.
September 9, 2009 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed.
September 9, 2009 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would go even farther, geography shaped our very evolution.
Jared Diamonds Guns, Germs, and steel is highly recommended. Particularly for understanding how Europe ended up ruling the world.
Highly recommended.
September 10, 2009 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I completely agree with Obey here. I think are heading towards an India model, or worse a Dubai model. Its eminently sustainable, in fact it is the historic norm. A few super rich, a splattering of middle class, and the rest of us eeking out a living.
September 9, 2009 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh and if you liked the last financial crisis - you're sure to love the next one.
Brought to you by the same folks who brought you the current fun - these wonderful folks at the Federal Reserve.
C
September 9, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see how 'reforms' avoid the next bubble bursting. They've 'solved' this crisis by guaranteeing all corporate debt and pumping up assets whose value was falling. It's just a transfer from private corporate balance sheets to the public balance sheet. The financial reform agenda is framed in such a way that it doesn't have an effect until the economy turns around. And the banks consequently have little incentive for the economy to turn around - they can make massive profits while progressively gouging whatever value is left in the rest of the economy.
Meanwhile the savings rate keeps falling for most Americans, jobs remain scarce, banks keep fleecing borrowers until they go bankrupt, and as a result the economy can't turn around. A bail-out is not a solution to the danger of your ship sinking, UNLESS YOU PLUG THE DAM HOLE.
September 9, 2009 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Plug the damn hole(s.) And therein lies the problem. Holes. Obey, we're running 5% too much of GDP into health. Got 3-5% too much tied up in the military. Got 2-5% bleeding out into oil. Then housing. Debt, consumer, corporate and public, that is sitting there ready to kill. People's "lost" savings/pensions to be made up. A trade deficit of 3%-5%.
There's no way to plug that many holes. Right now, they're praying to God that some of them fix themselves... some get tossed to future generations... some quietly go under, but without struggling or making too much noise... some survive on promises, some on threats....
I don't see it anymore. Haven't seen how this was supposed to work since the first wave broke. And now people think the CONSUMER is gonna make this tick? Come again? This is just daft. And our "leading minds" are tied up writing about "how economics got it wrong" and looking to smudge little patches on America's Godzilla Care system.
What a horrific waste of time.
September 9, 2009 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now they know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall?
September 9, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
No argument here.
C
September 9, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Arthur: Well I AM king...
Dennis: Oh, King, eh? Oh, very nice... And how'd you get that, eh? By exploiting the workers! By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society! If there's ever gonna be any progress in our society...
Woman: Denny, there's some lovely filth down here!
September 9, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's go to the original, shall we.
September 10, 2009 2:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Ellen. That was a great laugh.
September 10, 2009 2:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
The "consumer economy" is really the "cheap energy economy" where items are purchased because you can mass produce them. The thing that sustains this type of economy is population growth -- because there is only so much stuff a sustainable population can purchase.
It has allowed nearly all of us, even the poor, to command *huge* wealth by the standards of European kings just 200 years ago. It has also caused each of us in this economy to grow our "presence footprint" (even a homeless person in America has a carbon footprint 2x the size of the average world citizen).
It was this industrial revolution, the ability to produce machines to do work in vast quantities, that led to more and more progressive ideas (as human labor wasn't needed to keep things going). What we take for granted as social norms today -- dare I say "rights"? -- is based on the fact that we have harnessed the finite energy sources on Earth, which took hundreds of millions of years to build up, in just 150 years. But, the very idea of a consumer economy is unsustainable since we live on a finite planet with finite resources.
The death of the "cheap energy economy" will also be a very rude awakening for all people, not just those in the middle and lower classes. In the United States, huge amounts of knowledge has been lost. What people consider "low tech" agrarian knowledge is rather high-tech indeed. We just happen to be biased these days by the shiniest object offered to us. Worse still, the "cheap energy economy" was required to keep the population as large as it is (with it's advances in science, engineering, and medicine). This means all our personal footprints will become smaller -- and the wealthy will go back to living those conditions of the European kings and queens which all of us had outstripped long ago.
For it is those with access to quality land, with discernible skills, that will be wealthy in the future. It would be wise to learn your farming, and craftsmanship now -- for human labor will soon be required to keep things moving forward again.
It is not the death of the consumer economy -- it's the end of the industrial revolution itself.
And all that came with it.
September 9, 2009 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think you will get an argument from anyone on this board...that's gotta be a first! Congrats!
September 9, 2009 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I'm not sure I'd take that bet, Dorn... but thanks! ;-)
September 9, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed, but you gotta factor in debt too. All we really were producing was a pile of debt: national, consumer, financial, environmental. You can call it the "cheap energy economy", and I agree, but you can also call it the "borrow ourselves to hell" economy.
Both economies had absolutely no forethought about sustainability and future ramifications. An increasing savings rate could signal a slight shift in priorities--just like slightly increasing CAFE standards. But a slight shift isn't really enough is it?
September 9, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
You may want to read James Kunstler's chapter on "Money" in THE LONG EMERGENCY. It's a lengthy and interesting discussion about what enabled the type of debt you talk about. Debt is created with the idea of paying it off -- and to pay it off requires you to have more in the future than the present. So to secure the debt, the expectation will have to be that things in the future will be better than in the past (e.g. that's not "sustainability" that's growth!) Only cheap energy allowed the assumption to be accepted as the social "norm". Without a 2-3% expected annual growth of the economy, no one would issue any debt at all.
September 9, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
You really like the depressing reads, don't you? :) Actually, that book's on my list. One never has enough time to read or do everything, I guess.
September 9, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Human civilization's uneven development is a function of the use (or not) of higher technologies and increasing energy flux density sources of power (water, wood, wind, coal, coke, oil and nat. gas, fission). We can develop third generation nuclear fission plants and then on to nuclear fusion and matter/antimatter, or our civilization will die. Billions of people will die. The resources of this planet are finite, true. But the universe is infinite. The resources that are easy to develop are those left near the top of the earth's crust by the combination of abiotic and biotic processes. Much of those have been dug and scraped up. Lesser quality resources exist, necessitating higher technology and energy densities to be applied to recovering them.
What this also necessitates is a science-driver approach to our economy. Make a goal of colonizing our solar system. We have almost finished the space station. We should then industrialize the moon. From that base with a low gravity environment, we can mine Helium 3 for fusion energy production and for the fusion rockets needed to reach Mars and beyond (we won't be able to reach beyond the moon with chemical rockets), manufacturing the spacecraft either in space or on the moon. The technologies we need to master in order to accomplish this, along with the investments required, will spill back into the economy the same way the Apollo mission did, with a 10-15 to 1 return on investment.
This can be done only if we end the rule of Monetarism on the planet. The Monetarist/Globalization imperial system is dead, kaput, bankrupt. It must be put thru bankruptcy, writing off trillions in bad debt, CDO's, dirivatives and the like. In its place, something like FDR's (not Keynes) original conception of a fixed-exchange rate Bretton Woods credit system run by the consent of sovereign governments (not central banks or private banks/interests) must come into being. Credits can then be issued for the needed 25-50 year capital investments for global infrastructure development to lift the third world into the first, solve our energy, pollution and food problems, and launch us into the next frontier - colonizing near space.
September 9, 2009 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Much of what you say is not even supported technologically speaking. (We can't even have a long termed sustained fusion reaction for power, let alone shrink it for a rocket engine.) And your whole notion of "mining the universe" is technologically not feasible since you require those riches be brought back to Earth -- and that's the very hard part, making them too expensive to go after in the first place. (This is the reason people are now musing about only 1-way trips to Mars.)
Note, too, that the International Space Station is essentially going to be abandoned the moment it is finished. Laypeople think there is real science going onboard, but not so much. It's mostly an observational deck. It's also still protected by the Earth's atmosphere. Our experience with the hazards of deep space (e.g. where you can cook an astronaut via solar flares and such) is very limited: from Apollo 8 to Apollo 17 -- nearly exactly 4 short years. Longest exposure to real space by a human? 12 days.
Nevertheless, there are two key ideas that are demonstratively overstated by you:
a) Have a 25-50 year time frame: We are presently past peak oil and simply do not have the time to use our present energy to sustain what we do have, much less build new things.
b) All-at-once re-monetize the entire world and come out with a stable social structure with which to build the technological fantasy you propose.
Dreaming is good, hallucinating not so much.
September 9, 2009 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
If all humans had your mindset we would have never progressed beyond the caves. We need to do these things or civilization will DIE. I suggest that immanent death tends to focus one's attention, and/or a society's. That said, I am not at all confident that humankind still possesses the moral fiber to survive and thrive; I am just presenting an avenue for that survival. I guess I could cheerlead for mass genocide and a return to feudalism, but that's not my cup of tea.
September 9, 2009 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually since I've personally made development and inventions that I'm 100% sure impact your life (if you live in the United States), you are wrong.
In fact, it's quite the reverse. If all the humans had been like you, gone about without really thinking things through, we would still be living in caves -- but have nicer dreams, I suppose.
The more rational our discussion, the faster we can figure out the real issues and move forward. You won't be able to cram for the exam that's coming. It requires long term discipline. Just as a simple idea: we should be preparing now for airplanes to go away, and rebuilding our basic railway system. (I'm not talking high-tech bullet trains... I'm talking about merely reviving tracks laid long ago.)
Indeed, the idea-hype-boom-bust cycle is what prevents the really decent -- but perhaps not as sexy -- ideas from gaining the real capital they need. It's good for short term business needs (it makes money if you know when to get out) but wastes valuable capital on the shinier but ultimately impractical things.
September 9, 2009 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
(clearthinker is a secret agent astronaut millionaire in real life.)
September 9, 2009 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah baby.
September 9, 2009 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Links? I am interested. Please say more.
September 10, 2009 2:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, even saving ourselves with high-tech requires the cooperation of countries that may not want to cooperate.
September 9, 2009 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ambrose Evans Pritchard, leading spokesman for the empire's campaign for global feudalism.
September 9, 2009 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely agree! And a part of that is using tools that do not require an energy source (other than our own and solar.) I'm not sure, given my full life expectancy I will see it, but I do believe it is coming...
The only thing that could possibly halt it IMHO is the potential changeover to natural gas, which appears to plentiful, giving us enough time to come up w/ another power source (possibly nuclear?)
September 9, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unless you are 80 years old, you'll live to see this collapse.
Nuclear fission (not fusion!) is a practical option -- sort of. There are serious issues about where to store the waste as well as some highly political issues as well. (Google "Yucca Mountain" for just a glimpse.)
However, aircraft require energy sources of greater densities than batteries can provide -- high grade, highly refined kerosene. So, you will easily live to see the end of air travel in all likelihood.
September 9, 2009 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can use the waste heat of the fission reactors (actually the waste heat of the turbines) to power algae farms. The algae farms can turn sunlight, water and carbon dioxide into biofuels suitable for airplane use. It may be fairly expensive, and its use in cars may be prohibitive, but air travel can continue.
That said, I'd expect that there would be a lot less air travel. Broadband communications and collaboration technologies should replace most business air travel. Since business travel tends to subsidize low fares for leisure travel, its decline will cause leisure fares to rise substantially. So leisure travel is also sure to drop.
September 9, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's likely that algae will be a partial answer for liquid fuels. It's also likely that most of that fuel will go to military equipment, cooking and lighting, and shipping.
I find it extremely unlikely that fission reactors will contribute a big fraction of energy in the future because nuclear plants are so capital (energy) intensive and because refining fissionable materials is so energy intensive.
In my admittedly pessimistic view, we will continue to use way too much coal, cause much more climate change, and be placed under increasing physical duress. The wind turbines that we install along with the passive solar systems will be the most likely source of the bulk of what little renewable energy that we'll have available.
September 9, 2009 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
May I suggest some reading?
Article 1: U.S. Biofuel Boom Running on Empty (AUGUST 27, 2009)
Aritcle 2: Renewable Energy, Meet the New Nimbys (SEPTEMBER 4, 2009) (And remember that Ted Kennedy and environmentalists are NIMBYs as well.)
I haven't even gotten to the technical challenges in algae growth -- from scale up of process, to where you are going to do it. I recently talked with someone high up in USDA who talked of growing it in Arizona and Nevada -- two of the states under the most stress for water!
Most energy ideas don't encompass the whole picture... and as it turns out, lab demonstrations of feasibility is about the smallest piece of anything. Ironically, what should be easiest to solve, is the most difficult: human behavior and reaction. In other words, politics.
September 9, 2009 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Algae to jet fuel production may not be economic today, with crude at around $70/barrel, and it is probably true that we will exploit much of the Orinoco tar belt and the Athabascan tar sands before we get to algae.
Environmentalism is a feature of the consumer economy. Fundamentally, what the environmentalist is saying is that "I'm rich enough that I want to buy my stuff from somewhere else, and not have to deal with the mess here". So when the US was rich, we could clean up our air by importing steel instead of having smelters in the US, reduce our smog by importing platinum to build catalytic convertors into every car, clean up our water by importing all the chemicals that we need, and reduce our solid waste polution by exporting all our electronic junk for disassembly overseas.
Environmentalism will not outlast consumerism, other than among the very hard core.
Given a choic between a nuclear reactor and freezing in the dark, most people will choose the nuclear reactor.
September 9, 2009 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey CT and anyone else still reading I have been trying to complete a post on Algae fuel if you have good links please send them along.
September 10, 2009 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm still reading.
You've got cojones to ask me for help after you keep telling me how little I know for months now!
September 10, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
We'll also see pressure on municipal governments to allow domestic animals in the suburbs. I'm talking about chickens, rabbits, and maybe pigs, cows and goats.
September 9, 2009 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget horses!
Actually, I think we will simply see local governments no longer able to enforce present statutes on these issues -- especially as they become a practical necessity.
September 9, 2009 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you really think we are only 5-10 years away? I would have thought it would be more like 20-30...
September 9, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the oil is running out.
Imagine $5/gal gasoline.
We were essentially there in California about a year ago. Remember what a crisis that was becoming?
A series of escalating crises will compound each other, and easily within the next 5-10 years.
Remember how quickly the global markets melted down just a year ago? Literally overnight? And remember the quality of decisions that were made to stem the associated carnage?
September 9, 2009 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had a prof who described the Industrial Revolution as a mindset that predated a lot of the machinery that we associate with the term.
Will the decline of our fossil-fueled, consumer economy cause an end of industrial production? We may have a backlash against technology, but while many people may perish, I think the survivors are unlikely to stop making things in an organized fashion. They may stop shrink-wrapping them in plastic, though.
September 9, 2009 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I agree, Donal, people talk of "two" industrial revolutions... the rise of the mercantile class during the Renaissance is clearly linked to the beginnings of the first one. And the Dutch built their empire on wind and water power. But the one that brought us the current riches is clearly linked to fossil-fuels.
I think we would agree that we aren't going back to the stone ages... but the unprecedented and remarkable exponential rise in material wealth and comfort since, say, 1800, can easily go away. And it will sure feel like going back to the stone ages -- especially after the massive die-off of humans who won't be able to get food and water.
September 9, 2009 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is more that we still live like poor people with a lot of gadgets and stuff, than that we are wealthy.
If you are wealthy like a king, you can support a large number of retainers, including your counselors, advisors, accountants, estate managers, your household staff, your master of the hunt, varous grooms, etc. down to the lowliest serfs on your lands.
Only a very small slice of the top tier of US wealthy are rich enough to have more than a few dozen employees.
The middle class makes do with a pool boy, a landscaping service, and a tax preparer.
September 9, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You presently have
a) machines for transportation that are better than horses and walking (even bicycles aren't that old an idea!)
b) machines to wash/dry your clothes
c) access to a water supply (at least in wealthier countries) without any personal investment in the overhead
d) access to a food supply without any personal investment in the overhead
When was the last time you had to make clothing?
When was the last time you had to sleep on a straw mattress?
When was the last time you have to light a candle to see in the dark?
And I haven't even mentioned the idea of telecommunication and medicines (which includes purification of food and water sources).
Some of the things around you are so built into your lifestyle, you've forgotten that they are even there.
September 9, 2009 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll give you the medicines. Those leeches are nasty.
September 9, 2009 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are missing the point. Let me try again:
Would you rather sleep on your modern mattress which supports your back better or the kings mattress as you've described?
Would you rather have light bulbs like you do today, or candles like the kings had them?
Would you like your sanitation for your toilets like you do today, or deal with the outhouses like the kings had them?
You are confusing the issue of "who cleans my toilet?" with the for more important issue that you have sanitary, indoor plumbing which the kings didn't have.
As I said, so much of our lifestyle is wrapped up with these marvels that it's difficult to remember that they are there.
September 9, 2009 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point that I was trying to make, perhaps too obtusely, is that great wealth is not the ability to buy stuff.
Great wealth is the ability to make other people do stuff.
September 9, 2009 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's sad you see it in this limited Marxist way.
Let's put it another way:
We are alone in the desert. I have a gallon of water. You have none. I have great wealth -- but there is little I need you to do.
September 9, 2009 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
All this assumes, of course...that our planet - the earth - will remain essentially the same with out any major disasters. Unfortunately history says other wise.
And even small catastrophes can have a large impact.
C
September 9, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, you are correct, of course. Global warming will change agricultural patterns in unusual ways.
I suggest people also familiarize themselves with the thermohaline cycle. Or, simply put, as yourself why the latitude of Europe is so high and yet the climate is reasonable? (Britain is essentially north of the entire continental United States!)
But you have to educated people in steps. Step one is that (a) we won't be able to invent our way out of what's coming and (b) it's coming sooner then you think.
September 9, 2009 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's some implications for your point b: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/JustOneThing/story?id=8457650
September 9, 2009 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely. Most people don't realize that the earth is a comlex system that life has delicately balanced to fit into... and that human activity has changed the rate at which the earth's ecosystems evolve. And our changes are too fast for life to be able to follow the changes in the ecosystems. Including us!
September 9, 2009 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
So THAT's why Bush wanted to go to the moon....
September 10, 2009 2:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's why the Bushes and others have bought up land hear a large aquifer, the Guaraní, in SA.
September 10, 2009 7:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
My goodness C!!! Quite a reaction on this.
One of my friends here commented in Seaton's fine post that THE SCAB SHOULD SIMPLY BE RIPPED OFF.
A neat metaphor. We had a chance, a chance to change this economy forever to the good one year ago.
ha
After what really went down over the last year in two administrations, I aint feelin any better, how about you?
September 9, 2009 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, in time this will all work out. We will, at some future time, devise a way to provide more energy than we can possibly use and we'll also advance medical science and live to well over 100. When we'll get to these points I don't know. They are however, inevitable. The trick will be in getting there and meeting the needs of the entire world before we make too big a mess of it or before we get so desperate in our need we kill all the life on the planet. I happen to think we'll get there before it's too late. I'm confident though that it'll be messy along the way. Just as it has always been.
September 9, 2009 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
On what grounds can you make this claim:
Inevitable? Inevitable??? What exactly is your professional background in science, medicine, or technology to even make a statement like this?
September 9, 2009 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well you know the old saying "Those who say it can't be done should never interrupt those that are doing it."
Things that could not be dine :
Electric light
Radio
Nuclear power
Brain surgery
Space travel
Television
telephone
....
C
September 9, 2009 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course. But now watch out for Luddite backlash.
September 9, 2009 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I rest my case (see below).
September 9, 2009 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
You post is very dangerous for giving people false comfort where there is none.
Let's discuss your examples:
Nuclear power? Fission? Too cheap to meter? Exactly when? Fusion? That doesn't even exist in a practical sense.
Space Travel? You mean a 12 day trip to the moon between solar cycles... which require we bring everything and 100's of ground based crew to track?
In fact, none of your examples fall into the "couldn't be done" category -- except maybe in your popular mythos. Kennedy's challenge about going to the moon was complex precisely because US engineers knew the Russian could probably beat us to everything else -- including lunar orbit and return -- and they knew this back in 1961!
If you really do read history, then you will know that most inventions -- even the successful ones -- never live up to their hyped promise. Or need I ask you about those flying cars from the 1939 World's Fair?
This is what James Kunstler calls the "wish-upon-a-star" fantasy. A person will do anything, anything not to deal with the specific fact that what we have is not only unsustainable, but can't be invented around. The longer we cling to these childish notions (which are 100% faith-based), the less time we have to restructure what is surely coming down the road.
Simple example: Water problems? No worries. Desalination exists. But does it? For the same cost as not using it? Of course not! Now start calculating what happens if water prices even rise by a few pennies per gallon (and that is still an outrageously optimistically cheap cost of the desalination).
The statement of thepeoplechoose was totally ignorant and very dangerous. I know. Because I have had occasion to straighten out policy based on it -- often as a shock to those who thought they were in the correct direction. They are going to implement bad policy based on unsubstantiated myths, wishes, and faith.
But if you still aren't convinced, may I suggest you revisit DonDi's recent blog on high tech and agriculture. He talks about some things in terms of politics, but the links, especially the video at the end that I provide, should give you an idea of just how well "better living through science" really is.
And I say this as someone with a professional background in this area.
September 9, 2009 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most of the inventions were brought about by people and NOT BUSINESS.
People like Edison, Lee DeForest, Nikolai Tesla, Farlo Farnsworth, Dr. Jarvic and on and on.
Individual electronic tinkerers were responsible for what has become the PC.
The only reason we do not have any today is because those that would invent are too busy just trying to make ends meet.
CT - You and you negative waves.
C
September 9, 2009 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't seem to have a grasp of either history nor technology transfer.
I'm not even sure what your point is except that you cling to some bucolic notion of the happy, lone, garage tinkerer.
1) Edison: was a business.
2) Tesla: First employed by Edison, then by Westingtonhouse. Business.
3) Farnsworth? Ripped off by Sarnoff. Invention so great business ran with it... your point?
Let's talk about Bardeen, Brittain, and their boss, Shockley: invented the transistor and the JFET. At AT&T... for a specific problem AT&T had.
Or what about Kilby and Noyce? Invented the integrated circuit, possibly the most significant invention in the last 50 years. Invented at TI and Fairchild.
You'll have to go back to Michael Faraday if you want the comforting notion of an encyclopedia salesman just doing his thing in his home laboratory... and reinventing much of science in the process.
And today, it's even worse than ever. With the demise of the industrial lab, the University has become our source of tech transfer -- with the clear conflict of interest: why publish if you can profit?
We've eaten our seed corn in that sense, but that's a whole other blog.
In the meantime, you can continue to confuse "reality" with "negativity".
Had I told you 18 months ago, the world markets would collapse essentially overnight, would you have said I was just being a chicken little?
September 9, 2009 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
1 Edison was an inverter. Did not make a dime and lost General Electric. Would have died broke if not for Henry Ford.
2 Tesla invented radio BY HIMSELF in his own lab.
3 Proved my point that business can only steal and coopt and has never in and of itself contributed a damn thing.
C
September 9, 2009 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Among other things Edison invented was the modern industrial for-profit laboratory. His goal was to commercialize electricity as much as possible... for profit. His biggest mistake was trying to compete with Westinghouse for electrical distribution. Edison wanted DC -- apocryphally it was believed that Edison couldn't handle the math on AC. Unfortunately for Edison someone who did understand AC (Tesla) worked for him but he left over a disagreement over pay.
George Westinghouse immediately hired Tesla.
By the way, do the company names Consolidated Edison or Westinghouse mean anything to you?
Telsa meanwhile went out on his own -- gathered investors -- to set up his own company (what you call his lab).
You need to educated yourself on this topic. Seriously, you are really ignorant on this topic and if this were anything but an Internet forum, you'd have no credible voice at all. This notion of the "pure, geeky inventor" is not only fanciful, it means you know precious few inventors. Steve Wozniak is the best example (and the only significant one that comes to mind) of what you want to talk about -- but he is the exception, not the rule.
September 9, 2009 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
C, you should know by now that no-one ever invents anything except for the money.
People who tinker and innovate for their own enjoyment is as ludicrous an idea as a doctor who would choose the profession because they wanted to help people and not the fat paycheck!
September 9, 2009 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's too bad you are Karl Marx, because if you weren't you'd know there were other reasons for money than pure profit.
Most inventors require significant capital to support their habit. That's why industries (used to) have industrial labs filled with PhDs.
You can typically still do interesting things in software because the overhead is relatively low. So you get Linus Torvalds and Shawn Fanning toiling alone and doing something amazing.
But we are living in the physical world. Issues of energy and biology and the like require capital.
You know, the type that business provides.
September 9, 2009 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Capital is an unnecessary and wasteful abstraction.
September 9, 2009 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
True to your name.
Except he wrote that back in 1867, when the notion of capital was very different than from today... as 1867 was near the very dawn of the industrial revolution.
By the way, the computer you typed your message on, the Internet, the electricity to run both and on and on and on?
Required capital. Both in private investment and government grants to universities.
September 9, 2009 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it required resources and labour.
September 9, 2009 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's only if you want actual inventions.
September 9, 2009 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Show me the catalog of free resources, please. There are a few items I definitely want to order.
September 9, 2009 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Capital is not what invented anything. Money is simply used as a standardized way to TRADE for resources and labor, but the money itself had NOTHING to do with invention.
Example: Lets say someone has a big pile of money, and wants someone to invent an automatic butt-wiper for him. He has the idea, but no mechanical or technical skill to effect the designs or construction with.
He hires a random person off the street to do it for him, likewise, with no mechanical or technical skill. No matter how much extra money he piles on this random person, he WILL NOT suddenly, and magically, have the ability to invent and build this thing!
The point I'm making here is that PEOPLE invent things. Sometimes they invent them while working FOR a business, but the business itself did NOT invent ANYTHING. Without people, business is a POINTLESS concept.
September 10, 2009 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
History is littered with people (experts even) who have had the clairvoyance of a bowling bowl when it came it the future.
"Drill for oil? You mean drill into the ground to try and find oil? You're crazy." -- Drillers who Edwin L. Drake tried to enlist to his project to drill for oil in 1859.
"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us." -- Western Union internal memo, 1876.
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." -- Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.
"Everything that can be invented has been invented." -- Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899.
‘It is an idle dream to imagine that automobiles will take the place of railways in the long distance movement of passengers.’-- American Railroad Congress, 1913
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." -- Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943.
‘This is the biggest fool thing we have ever done. The bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives.’ -- Admiral William D. Leahy, on the atomic bomb, 1945
‘Space travel is utter bilge.’ -- Dr. Richard van der Riet Woolley, Astronomer Royal, 1956
‘Man will never reach the moon, regardless of all the future scientific advances.’ -- Lee DeForest (inventor of vacuum tube/electronic valve), 1957
‘The concept is interesting and well-formed, but in order to better than a C, the idea must be feasible.’ -- Yale professor, marking paper by Fred Smith, Federal Express founder, on business principles later used in FedEx
Of the two, I'd say that tpc's predictions are much more likely than a return to farming and craftsmanship. We may advance messily and unevenly, but so far we have managed to advance throughout the various ages and centuries, despite the experts who predicted otherwise.
September 9, 2009 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know what I see, seashell?
A lot of people scared of being told that after they die they are worm meat.
Whether you are religious or not, I think you get my point.
You know what? Someday, monkey's might fly out of your butt! Prove me wrong!
This is why the country is in trouble: people refuse to believe that the ship really is sinking and there is plenty of evidence for it.
Perhaps it's time to read Orlov's blog on aliens saving us again.
September 9, 2009 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, at least you know that monkeys won't fly out of your butt, CT. What with the celery stuck in it and all.
September 9, 2009 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seashell,
You made me spit out my tea! I may never be able to enjoy a crisp stalk of celery again.
September 10, 2009 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
The crisp green celery stalks are probably OK, Aunt Sam. Anything else ... arse alert. :-)
(But I understand. I went off the entire salad for awhile today!)
September 10, 2009 6:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, I agree with you. But here's what I think folks are missing: fossil energy is too expensive to use--not in dollars, but in environmental damage. We will NEVER escape from this fact. The more energy that we use, the more pollutants we will pour into our world. This is an outgrowth of Newton's second law of thermodynamics. We will only generate usable energy by creating greater entropy. That entropy will take the form of life-destroying pollution and environmental chaos.
Our ONLY fate is to reduce our energy consumption to as close to zero as possible. One way or another. Even if we harvest sunlight directly, we will still be overshooting, but the species will last a lot longer.
We are going to die in greater numbers in this century than we have throughout the existence of our race. First, because there are more of us than at any time. But more importantly, because we are in the process of overshooting our fossil fuel resources exponentially, and in the process releasing toxins including carbon dioxide, mercury, sulfates, nitrites and nitrates, and heavy metals associated with coal fly ash.
Entropy will not allow us to remediate these pollutants because it will never be in any person's or group's economic interest.
We will go back to composting our own waste and spreading it on our own gardens. We will grow our own fruit and vegetables and wheat.
And as our energy resources become prohibitively expensive, we will lose most of our ability to improvise, because other people won't be able to afford to buy new things when old things will do.
September 10, 2009 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent comment, wish it were posted while this thread was more active, but I did enjoy reading it.
September 11, 2009 4:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
My career spans 40 years in metrology, the science of measurement (think NIST), aviation, factory automation and computing. I have had stints at every major US Aerospace manufacturer and been in more places globally working in technical disciplines than most people even know exist. I have watched technology evolve all my career and had opprotunity to see many aspects of it. I follow technical developments in several disciplines as part of my daily routine. The various things being worked on in laboratories all over the world assure what I have said will come to pass.
September 9, 2009 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know NIST very well. I assume you are in Boulder?
And your statement is even more 100% irresponsible because of your background.
"More energy than we can use?"
Provide a cogent argument for that, please?
Or are you just wishing on a star?
September 9, 2009 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you ever been in the bowels of a nuclear experimental reactor doing radiation hardness tesing for aerospace guideance sytems. I have. Have you ever worked to erect a factory automation system that closes it's doors for the mid shift and keeps running 100% production without anyone there. Or have you ever worked at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Or spent months at a time working in a company like Boeing or Pratt & Whitney. Or Leitz in Germany. And tons of other places doing a lot of very interesting things.
Have you taken a trip down the Rhine stopping at medieval castles and enjoying the wineries. Or stayed at a hostel in northern France and visited the Cathedrals in Strasbourg. Or lived in Japan, or Korea or England or Germany. Or been up in the mountains of Mexico at Puebla or Monterrey.
You know nothing of me or the things I know or have seen or have done. So kiss my ass.
September 9, 2009 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure you've enjoyed your life, and your world travel. Your list of engineer jobs is interesting but not particularly stellar as I'm sure you know yourself. All engineering jobs look like -- well -- engineering jobs. And I won't even broach the LANL reference.
And I never asked for any of this.
I asked for a cogent argument justifying what I claimed were your outrageous statements.
With your technical background, I really was expecting something.
Instead I got a mini-bio.
Care to try again?
September 9, 2009 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
A mini-bio, huh. Way more than we've ever gotten from you. Which makes him/her way more convincing. Just sayin'.
September 9, 2009 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, seashell, it impresses you because you see the world via personalities rather than arguments.
As usual, you are inconsistent. Were I to list my accomplishments, you wouldn't believe them anyway. But you believe TPC because you need to believe for the internal narrative you've concocted for yourself.
I find it highly ironic that, after this past weekend, all of a sudden, you know want to judge merits based on the personal!
If you want to try to actually respond to what I wrote, rather than post an inspiration email you received in 1998, please do.
September 9, 2009 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, my policy is always to simply make my point, engage in civilized discussion and never get into personal arguments with those who disagree with me. But in reading some of your pompous and condescending replies here, I just have to say: you are one annoying, egotistical twit. I'm sure in your own mind you are the one true polymath with all the answers to humankind's' ailments, but I ask you to consider that there are plenty of others in this world of good will and mental capacities equal to your own gargantuan intellect. Chill, dude.
September 10, 2009 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
And it has been civil. The problem (for you) is it appears you've run out of evidence to justify your position and so the debate can't proceed along those lines anymore. Hence your response.
September 10, 2009 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I kinda thought it was a good mini-bio, considering he'd been asked --- "What exactly is your professional background in science, medicine, or technology to even make a statement like this?"
Anyway, I also agree that it's entirely within our reach to solve the energy problem. But it's late in this blog's cycle, and there's a lot of racket round these parts, so I'll wait 'til another day for that.
September 10, 2009 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
That didn't take long to break your own request, quinn, did it!
I was perfectly satisfied with this first answer, when he said he worked at NIST. At least he had a technical background.
Then he came back with jobs he performed and trips he took. None of which were relevant to answering the question I clearly asked.
As for the energy thing -- go back to his quote. What you are talking about is not his quote -- not even close.
The fact is -- we see statements of belief without single shreds of evidence to back them up. It's much easier to do that in politics, but in science and engineering you can't fool nature.
September 10, 2009 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Long on drywall here, but short on studs, huh CT?
For all of your self-importance, Quinn was replying to me, not you.
It happens.
September 10, 2009 6:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know there are people all throughout the scientific community who have had a great deal of exposure to a great many things. When you have decades of observation of progress to all of this the synergies of advancements become apparent and it becomes quite easy to see the directions being taken. You evidently haven't had the luxury of that experience.
My career is drawing to a close but right now there are nanoscale lasers being developed with the goal to be introduced into the human body and controlled remotely to eradicate cancerous tissue. I have been in companies making hip and other joint replacements for individuals making exact three dimensional replicas of those joints for patients. I have crawled around underground water caverns in the Azores on the island of Terceira. Guess what. The water coursing through those caves has been traced and appears (eventually) in Howe caverns in New Mexico. And in the same place I have explored the extinct volcanic column that formed the island. What I most remember of that is the vivid greenery that has overgrown the column all the way down to darkness. I have never ever seen a green like that in all the world.
I could go on and on but the point is there are so many things of this wondrous world of ours that most people never have occasion to know of or see. But some of us have been lucky enough to see a lot. And that experience imparts understanding and knowledge. But what it really informs us of is science will continue to advance and benefit us all and permit some very obvious projections that are self evident. BTW the projections I've made aren't mine alone. They are quite common in the scientific community. It's unfortunate you have no idea of these things. Your loss.
September 10, 2009 4:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
My recollection was wrong. The caverns I was thinking of are Carlsbad Caverns in new Mexico. Howe Caverns are in NY.
September 10, 2009 6:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
You've had a wonderful career, tpc, congrats.
That's still not what the point is.
You said:
And I asked for your credentials because I couldn't believe someone would make such a dangerous statement which amounts to giving false comfort to laypeople at TPM. It reminds me of arguments where someone will say, "Why can't we break the light barrier? We broke the sound barrier, didn't we?" -- because they are seriously misinformed on the issue.
It is not surprising, however, that you are an older scientist given your comments. You were raised on the "Disney-fied" version of science (remember the "The Atom and You") coming after WWII where it was thought science would allow us to solve all of society's ills. If you go back and look at the end of The Atom and You, you'll see a promotion of the idea that we will someday be able to warm the globe and make Antartica a tropical paradise. Seriously. Take a look, it's there.
Today's scientists, who live in the shadow of what modern science and technology has wrought, intentional and otherwise, have a far greater respect for the complexities of systems -- and the smarter scientists naturally come at issues with a high sensitivity to how things touch upon politics and ethics... and unintended effects.
I'm not blaming you for your perspective -- it comes from a good place and you were a product of your times -- but I say this as a professional in the same area as you (who knows as fully as you the joy of exploring) that we are in times where real education of the public is required to push policy before it is too late. Your pie-in-the-sky, unsubstantiated statements make it that much harder to educate the public, hence my dismay.
I only note you weren't able to provide a rational for your statements, only some vague "hope" -- the same type people have that they will go to heaven when they die. The medium here, of course, allows you to skirt the question asked and look like a nice kindly older scientist. A+ for your debating skill, F for not answering the question.
September 10, 2009 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you ever . . . .
No -- but I've seen things.
September 10, 2009 2:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good one Ellen. Highly underrated flic. One of Harrison Ford's better performances.
C
September 10, 2009 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I immediately thought of that upon reading tpc's comment. Of course, in BLADE RUNNER, it fit the context of the situation. ;-)
September 10, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
And it will be some clown in his garage that will do it.
C
September 9, 2009 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink