[Guest]

A world recession is almost certain
A depression probable

I was thinking today about where I work and what would happen to all the employee's making things and providing services

Conventional logic would suggest as the economy shrinks companies will shed jobs and close factories
Loss making firms would go out of business

This would be happenning on a mass scale, banks/credit card companies would be calling in debts. Massive unemployment, no jobs and no money for bills. This is a recipe for chaos

How about this:
1. Government sets up food distribution ageny

This employs workers to farm and distribute a basic livable diet to everyone in the nation free of charge
It would be plain and boring food but people would then not need to fear going hungry. And as Bob said, 'a hungry man is an angry man'

An immediate freeze on mortgage and rent payments. A draconian system would inhibit house moves and prevent exoduses, but housing would be free
The only losers would be lending companies (who cares about them), and landlords, but they would only lose profits
Everyone would then have a free place to live

A mass program of cost cutting would then dramatically increase purchasing power
It costs me £1200 a month to live, cut this to £250 and one hell of a difference

This means companies can afford to CUT wages and keep their workers employed

The government could take over any company that is bankrupt and force it to keep running
They would then analyse whether in light of peak oil it there was any point - if not then close it

Next create public works schemes and manual jobs to keep people busy

This sounds like communism right?
What alternative is there - a free market solution would cast millions into poverty and anarchy

Communism went wrong because it wasn't democratic
With democracy and capitalism style efficiency in the management it could be our best hope for a stable transition

Martin

[jato]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his sounds like communism right?
What alternative is there - a free market solution would cast millions into poverty and anarchy

Communism went wrong because it wasn't democratic
With democracy and capitalism style efficiency in the management it could be our best hope for a stable transition

[jato]

Forgot...

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')- a free market solution would cast millions into poverty and anarchy

[Jack]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Anonymous', 'T')he only losers would be lending companies (who cares about them), and landlords, but they would only lose profits
Everyone would then have a free place to live

[TopCat]

Will communism create food where there is none? Will communism make the earth suddenly capable of supporting 6+ billion people without oil to artificially sustain such a population?

If nature says that there is enough food for 2 billion people when oil production is back to the 1930 level in 2025, then 4 billion must exit and no matter what political system is imposed upon us, 4 billion must die.

My view is that no political system will work, but what will work worst is communism. It has the record for creating the least production and the most poverty. Historically freedom has worket the best, but if you think that the current US system is freedom, then I challenge your perceptive abilities on this count also.

[TrueKaiser]

comunism like capatalism both work realy well in the local level. but for a national system they sucked.

[Chicagoan]

I believe the United States [i]is[i/] heading for civil war. As long as the markets are doing well, we all get along, or at least tolerate each other. Take away that prosperity, and many people will turn to extreme political movements of various sorts. Remember that the Germans elected Hitler.

Politics in the US has become increasingly polarized. Bush represents the far right and Kerry the far left. Congress votes strictly along party lines. Instead of debating the issues, both presidential canidates resorted to vicous smear campaigns. It was almost as bad as a flame war on a political internet forum. The public bought into it. People were stealing campaign signs and vandalizing property over this election. It is absolute madness.

Americans are divided. It is not just red states vs blue states. It is urban vs rural, religion vs secularism. How long will it be before it becomes socialism vs fascism? The politicians are turning Americans against each other.

[trespam]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Chicagoan', 'P')olitics in the US has become increasingly polarized. Bush represents the far right and Kerry the far left. Congress votes strictly along party lines. Instead of debating the issues, both presidential canidates resorted to vicous smear campaigns. It was almost as bad as a flame war on a political internet forum. The public bought into it. People were stealing campaign signs and vandalizing property over this election. It is absolute madness.

Americans are divided. It is not just red states vs blue states. It is urban vs rural, religion vs secularism. How long will it be before it becomes socialism vs fascism? The politicians are turning Americans against each other.

[Chicagoan]

Kerry is about as liberal is you can get and still be elected. Look at his voting record and tell me he is not liberal.

Yes, we have been divided in the past. But we have never faced peak oil before. America was built on capitalism and now we have to find a new way.

I don't think you are putting things in context either. Remember the civil war? Without oil, this country will be much larger. Sectional differences will widen. The USA is too big, both population and size wise, to survive as a democratic republic IMO. I am not a total doom and gloomer like some forumers are. But we do face some extremely difficult times.

[trespam]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Chicagoan', 'K')erry is about as liberal is you can get and still be elected. Look at his voting record and tell me he is not liberal.

Yes, we have been divided in the past. But we have never faced peak oil before. America was built on capitalism and now we have to find a new way.

I don't think you are putting things in context either. Remember the civil war? Without oil, this country will be much larger. Sectional differences will widen. The USA is too big, both population and size wise, to survive as a democratic republic IMO. I am not a total doom and gloomer like some forumers are. But we do face some extremely difficult times.

[Guest]

>If you are talking about the USA, you’re talking civil war. I would fight against a Communist power grab

I not talking about a power grab doofus
I just said democracy... but with a centrally managed economy

>So when the mortgages default en' masse, a great deal of paper will become (ahem) worthless. This will cause a financial panic that will make the great depression look like an ice cream social.

A financial panic YES
But people won't panic - they will have NO BILLS to worry about
They will have FOOD

The economy will tank anyway. Why fiddle while Rome burns?


>Will communism create food where there is none? Will communism make the earth suddenly capable of supporting 6+ billion people without oil to artificially sustain such a population?

No no no, communism will do none of this
We will have to try and invent our way out of it

I'm talking about economics in the short term after peak

>My view is that no political system will work, but what will work worst is communism

I'm NOT talking about communism
But a centrally managed system thats democratic
Computerised... efficient
But the state providing the BASICS for society to avoid ANARCHY

Look at it as a massive safety net
Instead of companies creating consumer goods let them create the means of survival

Martin

[Jack]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('trespam', '
')So I agree we have problems. We face some severe economic problems in the years ahead. And social problems along with it. And perhaps, just perhaps, the US will break up. So I don't take it lightly.

[jato]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')ow about this:
1. Government sets up food distribution agency

The government could take over any company that is bankrupt and force it to keep running

This employs workers to farm and distribute a basic livable diet to everyone in the nation free of charge
It would be plain and boring food but people would then not need to fear going hungry.

An immediate freeze on mortgage and rent payments. A draconian system would inhibit house moves and prevent exoduses, but housing would be free

Everyone would then have a free place to live

mass program of cost cutting would then dramatically increase purchasing power
It costs me £1200 a month to live, cut this to £250 and one hell of a difference

Next create public works schemes and manual jobs to keep people busy

Communism went wrong because it wasn't democratic
With democracy and capitalism style efficiency in the management it could be our best hope for a stable transition

[Bytesmiths]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John Kenneth Galbraith', 'C')ommunism is man exploiting his fellow man, whereas capitalism is exactly the opposite.

[Permanently_Baffled]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bytesmiths', '
')
Call it "communism" if you like -- that's just a label -- but what a waste of our cerebral cortex if we are not able to create a cooperative, steady-state society, and instead continue down the illusory path of unlimited growth, driven by greed!

[backstop]

PB -

Bytesmiths wrote:
Call it "communism" if you like -- that's just a label -- but what a waste of our cerebral cortex if we are not able to create a cooperative, steady-state society, and instead continue down the illusory path of unlimited growth, driven by greed!

PB wrote:
Nice post Bytesmiths. I think in the quote above you make a very good point. Cooperation isn't communism!! If countries are going to manage there way out of this problem there is undoubtley going to be cooperation, somthing which capitalist greed won't allow to happen!
________________________________________________

The position needs to be expressed a little more clearly, as this issue is at the core of what will be achieved with the circumstances and inclinations we face. Here's one attempt :

The extent to which countries are able to manage their way out of the problem of peak oil will reflect the degree of their co-operation internationally and intra-nationally. That co-operation will undoubtedly occur despite the conditioning to a self-serving 'capitalist' greed, (e.g UN.FCCC) with the proviso that there is a risk of privations in more decadent societies being exploited as a justification for new tyrrannical regimes within their own borders. (e.g. Neo-Cons game plan ?)

regards,

Backstop

[Licho]

Good aspect of communism/centrally planned economy is, that it can run in economically unstable world ruined by depression without major problems. It can set prices of everything (In utopian communism there should be no money in society, everyone works to his best for the good of society) and handle problems of peak oil with ease. At one point in history they simply discarded old money and erased bank accounts that were higher than certain value - and this was done while economy was operating normally with no impacts on production or life standards. In communism, money could be meaningless, because economy and production is managed directly.

Of course it's not efficient, but such economy can ensure that major essential products and services are produced and availiable to all people despite huge prices or low availiability of oil.
But in the long term it's very bad system. It encourages corruption, causes people to loose initiative and gives businesses and individuals little incentives for higher efficiency..

You had plans, and you were able to exceed plans (like producing 30% extra car tires, or producing 50% of extra meat that goes right to trash because there is no demand), whole business was given a medal and some small bonus, but in a world of restrained energy this would work against energy efficiency. Communism here was great at producing useless stuff, not producing enough of needed stuff and ruining environment. Some people still want it back, 20% are still voting communists because everyone had granted job, housing, health-care, education etc these days..

[Licho]

I think that many countries in mainland Europe are as left/communistic as possible while not ruining internationall competetivness of businesses completely. In most European countries total taxation is about 50-60% which is max system can handle..

And Kerry would be far right in Europe I guess
Here, right means low regulations/low taxes/low budget, and left is social/high taxes and regulation party.
Christian party (in some countries blended with right, usually called christian democrats or people's party) is equal to USA conservative right and usually has some "moral" agenda too, but other parties hopefully don't mess with personal issues.

[EnlargedProstate]

So why would we need to avoid chaos?

This need to avoid chaos speaks more of the person worried about it than about the world. What is wrong with chaos? In fact, is not order just statistical abberations that can be seen in chaos? A deer runs out in front of my car and makes a mess of my grill; an insurance company predicts that a certain number of cars will be in deer collisions in the month of November; chaos becomes part of predictibility.

Those of us not over toilet trained have no little fear of chaos.

In fact, it is out of chaos that some of us will survive the end of the electric age. It is unlikely that those needing order to survive will be on the lifeboat, as the disorder will be unbearable for many, plus there will likely not be toilet paper.

[gg3]

What's wrong with chaos is that, in excess, it is highly entropic and works against the basic premises of civilization: to expand civil and human rights, produce and preserve lawful order, minimize violence, maximize accumulation of knowledge. In concrete terms it produces a vast excess of unnecessary suffering, and that's a moral wrong.

---

Back to Kerry for a moment here: I saw an analysis of his presidential platform that showed it was most similar to that of George Bush Senior. This doesn't strike me as "leftist."

Nor do balooning of federal deficits, expansion of government powers over individuals, and tampering with the Constitution for partisan gain, strike me as "conservative."

---

Trespam's posting #608 makes sense to me. And context is relevant here: things have been quite seriously worse before in a number of ways.

For example, in the 1930s it must have looked as if various forms of totalitarianism were the wave of the future, the choice was between fascism and communism, and democratic/parliamentary systems were basically obsolete if not doomed.

However that is no excuse for complacency.

---

Re. income differentials:

In the 1950s when the USA was at the undisputed world-leading economic power, the income differential between top and bottom was in the range of 30 or 40 to 1.

Today, the strongest economies are still in the range of 30 or 40 to 1.

The USA is in the range of 400 to 1 last time I checked, and we have lost most of our industrial production and were coasting on such trivia as the Mickey Mouse Empire and similar peripheral and derivative services. Much of our economy is based on "paper chasing paper." The whole "boom" of mergers and LBOs was frankly a crock of bullsh*t: just like oil companies merging and claiming "larger" reserves in the merged entities.

I'm going to advance explicitly a hypothesis that I've hinted at elsewhere on this board:

When income differential gets beyond a certain point, it produces a culture of decadent self-indulgence at the top, in which incentive is effectively killed, and performance no longer counts.

Killing incentive: Achieving significant personal wealth is a primary positive incentive in any market-based economy. However, above a certain point, the law of declining marginal utility takes effect: additional increments of wealth have progressively less and less reward-value. Conversely, the potential for loss of one's fortune is a primary negative incentive. But there again, above a certain point, further increases in personal wealth have the effect of completely insulating the individual from the downside risks of their business (and personal) decisions.

De-linking performance: When the positive feedback system (reward: increase of wealth) becomes meaningless, and the negative feedback system (penalty: loss of wealth) becomes ineffective, the result is an absence of the natural mechanisms that hold individuals accountable for their performance. This is an economic isotropy that resembles nothing so much as a welfare state with a guaranteed income, and it should not be surprising that the results are similar: lassitude and mediocrity, backed up with an onslaught of self-justifying PR.

Much has been said about how extreme income differentials kill incentive at the bottom, by creating a de-facto underclass with a chronic sense of economic disenfranchisement. This is probably true. But my point above is substantially different: that extreme income differentials most severely emasculate, evsicerate, and decorticate those who they purport to benefit!

Witness today's proliferation of so-called "rock-star CEOs" with track records that are mediocre at best. Witness the foul contagion of "risk-management culture" that perpetually seeks shelter from new ideas under a thatched roof of legal paperwork, and recoils in fear from any involvement with those forms of business that involve the physical production of physical goods. Witness the rise of staff functions over line functions, and the tendency for administrative apparatus to metastasize until it chokes off the innovation that is the lifeblood of industry. Witness the exceptions that prove the rule: you can count them on both hands and have a few fingers left over.

A modest experiment is in order.

The SEC should enact a regulation whereby the compensation scale in any publicly-traded corporation is limited to a maximum of 50 to 1. This means that if the least-paid employee collects $12,000 per year, the highest-paid collects $600,000 per year: enough to become a millionaire, after taxes, in less than five years; and enough to become independently wealthy in less than a decade.

Surely five to ten years of real work, exposed to the real consequences of one's performance, and climbing the gradient of incentive, are not too much to ask before granting the exclusive privilege of liberation from the messy realm of competition that is so often extolled as the paradigmatic locus of all human virtue!

Do we have the brains, the guts, and the gonads to try it? Or has the decadence of excess rotted our will entirely...?