100 Years of U.S. Consumer Spending: Data for the Nation

I heard a program on MPR today, including a representative to a Dep of Labor report "100 Years of U.S. Consumer Spending: Data for the Nation"
http://www.bls.gov/opub/uscs/home.htm

The most disturbing statement from the program was that in 100 years we'll be as many times more abundance then to now as compared from now to 1900, all thanks to technology.

I suppose it is easy to confuse technological progress and progress in accessing more cheap energy, and the two are not unrelated, but energy is what runs technology so it is more fundamental, and all the smart minds in the world won't be building much like what we've know unless we find an equivalently dense cheap substitute to fossil fuels.

SURE, we'll do SOMETHING, but will it be anything like what we have now? I have little faith - which is to say technology will make a difference only by necessity when everything we've done slowly grinds to a halt. The difference will be in brute survival skills - learning to do more with less and doing a lot less in the conversion!

So 100 years ago the average family was spending 80% on necessities, while now we're only spending 50% apparently. Big deal unless this wealth is properly "invested" in a future that can run without cheap energy.

I've not read the PDF reports in the link above, just linked it out of curiousity.

Endgame - who gets the toys?

At some point in the future, if not already in the present, there will be more demand for resources than supply, and there will have to be a process for deciding who gets what share.

We like to believe we live in an egalitarian society at many levels, and to the degree access to cheap energy allows wealth to all of us unknown to many a king in days of old, we can continue our illusion of equality and individual rights and justice for all.

If and when things get harder, a careless generosity will say we ought to share resources equally with all, whatever we have. Certainly this is true at the level of survival or revolution, but whenever there is something MORE than the bare necessities, sharing can't simply be done on a basis of equality, at least not when power is wielded without open public awareness.

Consider an indian reservation with a new casino. Does the community divide profits equally among members and let them do what they want with it? Or do the community leaders debate investments in "public good" that benefit all or most? Which is more egalitarian?

The capitalists might suggest the first (Maximize the wealth of the people so they'll thoughtlessly waste it on junk they don't need), and the socialists might suggest the second (assuming high-minded leaders thinking of the effects to the of "7th generation" and all that.)

Capitalists will call the Socialists "elitist" because it assumes the government knows better what to invest in than the people do. Socialists will call the capitalists exploitive because they only want to enrich the people to have more suckers to scam.

Well, perhaps my characterizations can tell you which side I'm on? Hmmmmm... Okay, I'm basically elitist, and too trusting that leaders can and will make decisions that benefit our collective future.

Well, it is funny, a mental reversal I made here, starting thinking of "share the wealth" as a egalitarian side, but recognizing the power that be will resist, whether for their own greed or good vision.

Probably as good to call capitalists and socialists as both interested in the concentration of wealth and power. Capitalists want power in corportations, and socialists want power in government. Neither is overly interested in sharing power.

It's a simple king of the hill game. Collect together your supporters, form an army and take as much power as you can get.

Anyway, it is curious to try to imagine how power may be wielded in the future, what priorities will be given resources, and which will be neglected.

And how will resources held by a small minority be protected against a suffering majority, or suffering strong minority.

Are "Walled communities" and paramilitary forces the answer? Obviously in the land of the lawless, but the wealthy can be as fearful of the government as anyone.

Oh, too depressing to imagine that scheming world of holding power.

For everything there is a season

I sometimes try to imagine what living "sustainably" might possibly mean.

I can consider running as an example. If I want to run a 100 meters, I can run very fast. Sustainability is only needed to be considered during the, well say 13 seconds it takes me to finish the race. I can deplete my muscles of oxygen because there'll bee time later to recover it.

Similarly if I'm running a 10 mile race, I can run without eating because my body can store enough energy to run that far without eating. There'll be time for eating later. AND if I'm chasing my prey, I suppose my running might get me my food as well!

What is sustainable depends on what time scale you have to recover the costs paid.

Well, if you consider humanity, all 6.5 billion of us, we can eat a lot of food, but we can't necessarily save a lot of food for many years, so we generally will try to grow the food we need to eat each year, with a little extra for security of bad weather and such.

If we hit a number of bad years in a row, our "sustainable" source of food may find itself unable to keep up with demand, and like all animals, we may start to starve, and if it continues too long, some of us will die.

I tend to agree with the opinion that using fossil fuels for growing crops is a bad idea, at least as a sole source of energy for our farming.

Fossil fuels can in the short run allow us an abundance of food, which allows our population to rise, and possibly above the level that can be sustained if our fossil fuel access is reduced, or if some other crisis limits our food production.

Maybe more people means more smart people learning ways to work around crises, or maybe just more mouths to feed.

I recognize I am a worrier. It is easier to see flaws in our way of life than it is to see what we'll do about it when the flaws become serious immediate threats.

Maybe 6.5 billion people is just part of "god's plan"? Or maybe we're approaching a new evolutionary step when a crisis will knock out 95% of humanity, and we need the genetic diversity to create the 5% whom will survive?

Much easier to be philosophical than to make decisions that may cause suffering and death in the future! Leaders make decisions on actions that risk immediate death and suffering. They also make decisions that can affect an unknown future.

Well, I'm glad I'm not a leader, but since maybe we have no leadership, I must accept some responsibility for my little corner of the world.

I can sit here well-feed, and comfortable. Meanwhile there are places on earth with others, like me, but not so lucky. Maybe it's all politics, not actually my responsibility to face poverty in my neighbors. I only remind myself of that to counter my own disbelief that harder times can fall upon me as well. I may be blessed, but I'm not any more special than others now suffering and hopeless.

Maybe times of abundance hold their own suffering, from which we can soon be relieved, or at least open up consciousness of fear that no longer serves the purpose that created it.

It is fun to play games and imagine, less fun to need to change against my will by external forces.

May you live in interesting times.

Yes, but maybe not too interesting!

Speedbumps or mountains?

Speedbumps are those little hills they place in parking lots and backstreets to prevent people from driving too fast. They're part of a category of strategies called "Traffic calming".

As oil hits a new record high of $78/bbl today, apparently related to fears over violence in the middle east, what should we make of this?

Are these "speed bumps" designed to "slow us down" and convince us to use less oil for our own good?

Or is it a "Sword of Damocles", signing our future doom lest we change our ways ASAP?!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_of_Damocles

I suppose I'd say BOTH are true, and the Damocles myth seems appropriate, except with fossil fuels a good fraction of humanity has now collectively rise to the power of kings of old, and our place may be just as unstable as that sword hanging above the king's head by a hair.

The moral of the story is we're suppose to not envy the wealthy and aspire to a simple and happy life without great wealth, but also without great worries either.

I lean to accept this intepretation, but on the other hand, what power do I willingly turn down? Accepting power is one thing, and being dependent upon it is another. Well, so we can think. Am I dependent upon the A/C now cooling my evening? Probably not, but will I turn it off as long as I can afford it? Moderation? right?!

The first response to speed bumps is to slow down, but when you've past them, do you speed up again, or see the world differently?

My hope is we hit $150/bbl oil as soon as possible, of course with a minimum of human misery, but whatever it takes without overt mass destruction, I must say sooner the better.

Let us collectively "look up" and see the sword, even for a moment. That's a worthy lesson, although different responses are always possible. (Why doesn't that king just move his throne over a bit?!)

Anyway, a good day for the oil bull. May he keep rising and shine down on us his wisdom.

And may god have mercy on my sorry soul.

P.S. More fun imagination at:
http://www.fcnp.com/619/peakoil.htm The Peak Oil Crisis: Independence Day 2006 – America's last fling?

A piece of a smaller pie

In the upcoming era of reduced energy supply, we're all going to be getting a slice of a smaller pie.

Pessisism about the ability of ethanol production to replace even a fraction of our oil/gasoline consumption is a strong reminder:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060710/ap_on_sc/ethanol;_ylt=Ao0ZiwNVdWErZntXPuXH8loPLBIF;_ylu=X3oDMTA0cDJlYmhvBHNlYwM- Study: Ethanol won't solve energy problems
Ethanol is far from a cure-all for the nation's energy problems. It's not as environmentally friendly as some supporters claim and would supply only 12 percent of U.S. motoring fuel — even if every acre of corn were used.

Thoughtful people, when faced by reduced resources, will offer plans of sharing resources fairly. On the other hand capitalistic forces will say the market works best and we ought to let the world bid up energy prices as much as it takes to arrest unacceptable demand. Or in otherwords, someone's going to get screwed, but it's not going to be the rich!

I tend to think the conflict between wealth-interests and representative democracy will become the breaking point after which democracy will either lose, or become even more than now, just a word used to make people think they have a say in the dicisions being made for them.

I was thinking last night, seeing thee $2.97/gallon gas signs (while biking home from work), wondering what sellers ought to do. If I pay $1000 for a tanker to fill my station tanks, and I know the NEXT shipment will cost $2000 because of an energy scare, do I kindly keep my prices fixed until the next load comes in, or do I raise prices in anticipation? If I raise prices I'm "price-gouging", and if I don't, I might end up with empty tanks for a week until my next shipment comes in.

It is funny how competition is GOOD when there's a surplus, and BAD when there's shortages.

Anyway, I have to think shortages will come, even if short term. I mean we have the Strategic oil reserve, you know like 3 months of consumption, and longer when we're only replacing a fraction in a crisis, but you gotta know prices will go up no matter what, UNTIL we get a clue and find a fuel we can depend on without dictators and kings as our suppliers.

It sounds like electricity is now cheaper energy than oil, so I'd have to expect transportation will fast or slow move towards electricity, which means those prices will sooner or later catch up to gasoline and oil.

As much as I don't want the worst to happen, I am basically impatient for it. The sooner we hit reality, the sooner we can change directions. Even if reality means no more cheap transportation and a reduced global trade. Let's get it done, whatever we need!

Demand destruction?

On Sunday I paid for my girlfriend's minivan's gas tank fillup. $2.95/gallon, 24.4 gallons equals $69. At 22mpg, that can cover 536 miles, or $0.13/mile.

A good deal or a big hit on the checkbook? Both?

Economic theory says that as prices go up, people go to alternatives, or reduce their consumption.

Since I bicycle to work, and don't even own a car myself, not much room for reducing my demand, although perhaps I'm subsidizing my girlfriend's consumption. I asked her if she was considering a smaller vehicle, and she said she needs the space for her 3 kids and day care outings, and such.

On the other hand, she said she DOES drive less when costs are higher, and hopes prices will go down before her next fill up. The scary thing for me is she ends up driving on the last quarter tank often, filling up $5 at a time, so if there's a crisis and shortages, she'll be sitting on empty without gas to buy at any price!

I can't imagine all the little decisions going on with individual and family budgets. I fear there's more than a short list of people who "charge it" for fuel, and are letting themselves fall behind month by month, delaying decisions that will only get harder.

I'd think the government itself ought to accept the costs now to high prices and encourage/reward conservation, fuel efficiency.

I'd support higher prices NOW via fuel taxes, and subsidizing programs that reduce consumption. Easy to say for me when I have enough money, but harder for people getting by now.

Higher costs will liking keep coming until we find a scalable alternative of a comparable price.

My bet is $10/gallon equivalent is probably going to be consider a good deal soon enough, certainly within 5 years.