I don't know Kub, you seem intent on telling me I'm wrong.
OK, I'm wrong.
Now that we have that out of the way, how about you instruct me on what we will have after oil?
PeakOil is You
Energy Intensity
Re: Energy Intensity
by Pops » Mon 05 Sep 2011, 18:50:12
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
-
Pops - Elite
- Posts: 19746
- Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
- Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac
Re: Energy Intensity
by Plantagenet » Mon 05 Sep 2011, 18:54:51
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'c')apitalism cannot survive in a no growth scenario.... we have no choice but to bring average global growth to a halt........ and grind along in a sort of stasis ....we’ve been treated to a preview of what a no-growth stasis economy would look like under capitalism. It’s not a pretty sight: capital destruction, mass unemployment, devastated communities, foreclosures, spreading poverty and homelessness, school closures, and environmental considerations shunted aside in the all-out effort to restore growth. That is “stasis” under capitalism....there is no public support out there for a capitalist steady-state economy.... a steady-state capitalist economy....“no growth” just means no jobs.. limits to growth ... if there is no growth
You are missing the crux of the peak oil problem.
The "no-growth" scenario you are so concerned with will probably only last a few years, while oil production is on a plateau. Once oil production starts to drop we will have DECREASING global oil production and most countries will have to deal with SHRINKING economies for decades to come.
The period of "no-growth" we are in now will seem like a picnic compared to what is likely to come as countries try to cope with shrinking economies
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
-
Plantagenet - Expert
- Posts: 26765
- Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
- Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Re: Energy Intensity
by Pops » Mon 05 Sep 2011, 20:19:45
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', ']')No, his point was that capitalism cannot survive in a no growth scenario. Not that growth is a choice:
He is arguing with the proponents of no-growth who DO see it as an option, Kub. Right in the first para of section 1 he says:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')or Jackson, Simms and Johnson as for Daly, growth is seen to be entirely subjective, optional, not built into capitalist economies.
I agree that opting out of capitalistic consumerism is not an option while energy is cheap because no one would choose it - we are greedy.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kub', 'T')he author also mentions energy and states that even if we replaced all of those oil slaves with clean renewable energy, we would still have a problem:
But the problem is that we can not replace FFs, Kub, that's the whole point. Any scenario with anything close to todays energy use will not be valid in 30 years for sure and I believe much less.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kub', 'Y')ou missed the flipside of the coin to all of that monkey greed. Sure, you can take tell the shareholders to piss off, the consumers they can't have anymore toys. But in the same breath, you are also advocating all of the associated ills that occur when a capitalist economy goes into stasis or reverse:
Ah ha, I see the hang up, you think I'm advocating for voluntary no-growth capitalism!
I'm not advocating it, I'm saying negative growth is inevitable!
So, now that we have that clarified, after PO and the end of growth obviously some other system will prevail - I'm saying private ownership and free markets will still be possible and no one in all these discussions has shown why they would not. All that is ever offered is "growth is required for capital accumulation".
I'm saying we won't give a rip about "acumulation" because we'll be trying to keep a roof over our heads!
Not playing the stock market, not running up the card via fractional reserve banking, not taking our dividends and buying a place on Martha's Vineyard, just individuals profiting from their own labor and assets.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kub', 'I') think you misread what that author was saying there. He wasn't listing those things as a viable alternative to growth capitalism.
Ditto above, I don't care about growth capitalism, it's over or soon to be over due to the end of cheap energy. One more time, I'm not advocating for no-growth capitalism in a cheap energy environment.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kub', 'I')f all of a sudden we have legions of unemployed because the growth sector of capitalism is shrinking and laying off workers, do you expect all of them to start or work for mom & pop shops?
We will have legions, Kub, they are growing as we speak and the economy is already shrinking (except for the Fed's jiggering that makes GDP appear to grow).
And yes the "structurally unemployed" will of necessity find a way to earn a living because they will have no alternative.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kub', ' ')Remember the earlier quote that for every job opening there were seven applicants? These guys don't have the capital to start their own business. And even if they did, if all of a sudden there was suddenly six new competitors springing up for existing mom & pop shops, how long would they stay in business?
