Laws of petropolitics?
Thomas Friedman proposes the "Laws of petropolitics" based on the idea basically that freedom and state control to oil wealth are related inversely, at least in countries without well-developed democratic institutions.
http://www.eande.tv/main/?date=051706
Basically it comes down to an idea that government is not responsible to the people if it has control over large amounts of wealth gained without work or taxes from the people.
It seems like a useful although dangerous generalization that can be abused by applying to all our political opponents and not to our friends.
I accept the generalization in the sense that power corrupts and easy wealth creates governments that is greased by any sort of easy wealth and then can bribe the people with trinkets to keep them distracted from interest in whose getting how much.
Power can be lost in revolution or civil war. It can also be lost by less violent democratic processes. Democracy itself can look good on the surface, but if money interests can largely control the results, then it's just an illusion, an illusion that can be maintained through legalized bribery.
Whether I think Friedman had got the right big picture, I accept his argument that the U.S. is in danger because we're dependent upon fossil fuels entering a world of demand exceeding supply, and if we don't take the lead, China or another country will, and we'll be left behind.
I'm more afraid than he is that things will turn bad BECAUSE nothing will replace what we've had, Friedman believes technical solutions will come from necessity and I can't disagree. He sees "huge profits" for those who take the risks into the new energies. I'm not convinced prices alone are sufficient incentive to act fast enough to face the dangers. Well, Friedman and I agree a large gasoline or oil tax is needed to encourage transition before the crisis.
Anyway, glad for the discussion, whatever progresss can happen. I expect things to still crash sooner than later whatever we try, but now is the time to see what options we have. I'd work more on the "lifeboat" side because I'm afraid of a period of depression where the entire economy fails to meet even basic needs.
It is funny, what "insurance" does a society need against system collapse? Who will insure the basic needs of the people for food and shelter and productive work? Obviously the government is responsible, although the government is actually a multitude of institutions from (1) Household, (2) Neighborhood, (3) City, (4) County, (5) State, (6) Country.
Traditionally the Federal government is considered responsible for large scale disasters and crises, like the hurricanes in New Orleans last year. I expect as things fall that more and more the federal government will retreat willingly or unwilling from expected obligations, and lower level goverment institutions will have to take up the slack.
Someday, maybe in 1000 years if we've not wrecked the earth, all the easy fossil energy will be gone and perhaps we'll be more democratic, or perhaps back to tribalism, who knows? Too bad I'll never find out...
http://www.eande.tv/main/?date=051706
Basically it comes down to an idea that government is not responsible to the people if it has control over large amounts of wealth gained without work or taxes from the people.
It seems like a useful although dangerous generalization that can be abused by applying to all our political opponents and not to our friends.
I accept the generalization in the sense that power corrupts and easy wealth creates governments that is greased by any sort of easy wealth and then can bribe the people with trinkets to keep them distracted from interest in whose getting how much.
Power can be lost in revolution or civil war. It can also be lost by less violent democratic processes. Democracy itself can look good on the surface, but if money interests can largely control the results, then it's just an illusion, an illusion that can be maintained through legalized bribery.
Whether I think Friedman had got the right big picture, I accept his argument that the U.S. is in danger because we're dependent upon fossil fuels entering a world of demand exceeding supply, and if we don't take the lead, China or another country will, and we'll be left behind.
I'm more afraid than he is that things will turn bad BECAUSE nothing will replace what we've had, Friedman believes technical solutions will come from necessity and I can't disagree. He sees "huge profits" for those who take the risks into the new energies. I'm not convinced prices alone are sufficient incentive to act fast enough to face the dangers. Well, Friedman and I agree a large gasoline or oil tax is needed to encourage transition before the crisis.
Anyway, glad for the discussion, whatever progresss can happen. I expect things to still crash sooner than later whatever we try, but now is the time to see what options we have. I'd work more on the "lifeboat" side because I'm afraid of a period of depression where the entire economy fails to meet even basic needs.
It is funny, what "insurance" does a society need against system collapse? Who will insure the basic needs of the people for food and shelter and productive work? Obviously the government is responsible, although the government is actually a multitude of institutions from (1) Household, (2) Neighborhood, (3) City, (4) County, (5) State, (6) Country.
Traditionally the Federal government is considered responsible for large scale disasters and crises, like the hurricanes in New Orleans last year. I expect as things fall that more and more the federal government will retreat willingly or unwilling from expected obligations, and lower level goverment institutions will have to take up the slack.
Someday, maybe in 1000 years if we've not wrecked the earth, all the easy fossil energy will be gone and perhaps we'll be more democratic, or perhaps back to tribalism, who knows? Too bad I'll never find out...
posted by Ares Olympus at 5:02 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home