Why democracy will never work
An attempted controversial title I can't hope to defend, except sidewise.
Thinking about this in regards to global warming. The U.S. produces something around 25% of the world's CO2 releases, with under 5% of the world's population. If there's problems NOW, the problems will be worse if the rest of the world tries to catch up to us.
When we talk of "CO2 released per person" the U.S. leads the field by a long shot. Therefore any cutback lands squarely on us the hardest, and it's hard to defend the rest of the world even contemplating their own cutbacks as long as we're the leading "polluters".
In short, the reality of the world is an unequal distribution of wealth and power, and those with more will not be interested in "fair shares", or in reducing their wealth/consumption/power to meet the needs of the whole.
I can say that both depressingly, and questioningly. Surely people want to help make a difference, and the wealthy can feel as much responsibility as anyone, but it still comes down to what they're willing to give up.
Just imagine a "CO2 quota/credit" system where every PERSON the world got a quota to spend each year, and they could SELL that quota/credit to the highest bidder if they didn't need it. Imagine the giant sucking sound of 20% of the wealth of the U.S. being spent on importing credits to conver consumption, that on top of our already trade deficits.
Even if you're so benevolant to accept that, now think of your lazy pot smoking nephew sitting back on his "low-impact" lifestyle selling his "fair" given credits to avoid getting a job. I just try to think of an example of the freedom "entitlement" that a simple democratic ideal offers.
If we imagined a "world democracy", it means the U.S. interests stand worth 5% of the world's power with 5% of the population. Well we might fall to that someday, but not without a fight, not without draining every last drop of unsustainable natural resources within our bloody grasp.
Consider this lecture given, by fairly rational man against a "cap and trade" system for CO2:
http://www.eande.tv/transcript/574
Well, I don't even disagree with that. He says cap and trade means winners and losers in the competition for credits and the politically unviable options of any fair distribution system. He promotes direct carbon taxes as better, and I can consider that.
Where we differ, is that he is HONEST and admits U.S. MUST increase in energy usage to support our way of life, however much there's room for efficiency. He doesn't see our lifestyle as unsustainable but an entitlement we can't surrender.
His optimism lies in a place that I'm very skeptical about - the idea that our GNP continues to get less and less dependent upon energy. Somehow he's implying we're moving in the right direction by an abstract economic measure. Basically he thinks we're getting MORE PRODUCTIVE because there's more money flowing without costing energy.
I must question the nature of the GNP measure. If my company buys your company for $1 billion, is that sale in the GNP? I just don't know how you can ever compare absolutes from the real world to abstract measures of money flow. I think like statistics, economic numbers can perhaps be spun in ANY direction a person wants. If one curve is declining, just divide by another curve that is declining faster! I don't believe there's any incentive for honest measurements of the economy.
It would be nice to know the "truth" of such analyses - how they are spun, or what they hide to make their point.
If you say "Cutting CO2 by 20% will cost 50% of the GNP" - that is ultimately cut our annual incomes by 50%, yes, it looks bad, and maybe is politically unviable, but that doesn't mean the results are unacceptable if its were we need to be in the long run.
There's crazy things going on. It could be on on current path, we'd hit a severe depression in the year 2022, and if we do the right things, we'll hit a severe depression the year 2012. Well, whose to say which is better - if a depression is a "correction" to a market out of control, perhaps a sooner correction is better than later. But whose going to vote for that?
And just to end with my title question, I'm not excited by conspiracy, but really when it comes to power, I must hope there's some benevolant abuse on top where long term decisions are made acceptable through manipulation.
There's too much damned arrogance in America - a false sense of entitlement - in myself too surely. There's no reason to believe we can continue on our path, so if it takes some manipulation to change things, I'm not against it 100%.
If it wasn't for hurting the poorer nations, I'd vote for $300/bbl oil tomorrow, or in 6 months if you like. Demand destruction isn't a good way to run an economy, but people ought to be scared, and we ought to be taking the harder road sooner than later, whether peak oil or climate change or debt reduction.
Thinking about this in regards to global warming. The U.S. produces something around 25% of the world's CO2 releases, with under 5% of the world's population. If there's problems NOW, the problems will be worse if the rest of the world tries to catch up to us.
When we talk of "CO2 released per person" the U.S. leads the field by a long shot. Therefore any cutback lands squarely on us the hardest, and it's hard to defend the rest of the world even contemplating their own cutbacks as long as we're the leading "polluters".
In short, the reality of the world is an unequal distribution of wealth and power, and those with more will not be interested in "fair shares", or in reducing their wealth/consumption/power to meet the needs of the whole.
I can say that both depressingly, and questioningly. Surely people want to help make a difference, and the wealthy can feel as much responsibility as anyone, but it still comes down to what they're willing to give up.
Just imagine a "CO2 quota/credit" system where every PERSON the world got a quota to spend each year, and they could SELL that quota/credit to the highest bidder if they didn't need it. Imagine the giant sucking sound of 20% of the wealth of the U.S. being spent on importing credits to conver consumption, that on top of our already trade deficits.
Even if you're so benevolant to accept that, now think of your lazy pot smoking nephew sitting back on his "low-impact" lifestyle selling his "fair" given credits to avoid getting a job. I just try to think of an example of the freedom "entitlement" that a simple democratic ideal offers.
If we imagined a "world democracy", it means the U.S. interests stand worth 5% of the world's power with 5% of the population. Well we might fall to that someday, but not without a fight, not without draining every last drop of unsustainable natural resources within our bloody grasp.
Consider this lecture given, by fairly rational man against a "cap and trade" system for CO2:
http://www.eande.tv/transcript/574
Well, I don't even disagree with that. He says cap and trade means winners and losers in the competition for credits and the politically unviable options of any fair distribution system. He promotes direct carbon taxes as better, and I can consider that.
Where we differ, is that he is HONEST and admits U.S. MUST increase in energy usage to support our way of life, however much there's room for efficiency. He doesn't see our lifestyle as unsustainable but an entitlement we can't surrender.
His optimism lies in a place that I'm very skeptical about - the idea that our GNP continues to get less and less dependent upon energy. Somehow he's implying we're moving in the right direction by an abstract economic measure. Basically he thinks we're getting MORE PRODUCTIVE because there's more money flowing without costing energy.
I must question the nature of the GNP measure. If my company buys your company for $1 billion, is that sale in the GNP? I just don't know how you can ever compare absolutes from the real world to abstract measures of money flow. I think like statistics, economic numbers can perhaps be spun in ANY direction a person wants. If one curve is declining, just divide by another curve that is declining faster! I don't believe there's any incentive for honest measurements of the economy.
It would be nice to know the "truth" of such analyses - how they are spun, or what they hide to make their point.
If you say "Cutting CO2 by 20% will cost 50% of the GNP" - that is ultimately cut our annual incomes by 50%, yes, it looks bad, and maybe is politically unviable, but that doesn't mean the results are unacceptable if its were we need to be in the long run.
There's crazy things going on. It could be on on current path, we'd hit a severe depression in the year 2022, and if we do the right things, we'll hit a severe depression the year 2012. Well, whose to say which is better - if a depression is a "correction" to a market out of control, perhaps a sooner correction is better than later. But whose going to vote for that?
And just to end with my title question, I'm not excited by conspiracy, but really when it comes to power, I must hope there's some benevolant abuse on top where long term decisions are made acceptable through manipulation.
There's too much damned arrogance in America - a false sense of entitlement - in myself too surely. There's no reason to believe we can continue on our path, so if it takes some manipulation to change things, I'm not against it 100%.
If it wasn't for hurting the poorer nations, I'd vote for $300/bbl oil tomorrow, or in 6 months if you like. Demand destruction isn't a good way to run an economy, but people ought to be scared, and we ought to be taking the harder road sooner than later, whether peak oil or climate change or debt reduction.
posted by Ares Olympus at 6:25 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home