Race Condition

Guest

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:: Unreserved apology, Ibis, for the earlier ad hominem remark.

Ah no, it's not really an ad hominem. If you think I don't know my arse from my elbow about economics, that's pretty relevant when discussing economics!

I would still be very interested to hear your response to my last but one post... Very Happy

Guest

Earth on course for eco 'crunch'

"If our demands on the planet continue to increase at the same rate, by the mid-2030s we would need the equivalent of two planets to maintain our lifestyles," said WWF International director-general James Leape.

Guest

One for the trendy graphs thread from that BBC link ..

Race Condition - Page 5 _45152028_foot_print_country_466

I'd say the likes of John Gormley couldn't care a feck about the tightened budget as it has collapsed or will collapse spending, i.e. consumption i.e. pollution. Isn't it time that economies got a bit more basic or started looking at the basics of their systems like their resource usage and consumption anyway ? I'm thinking water again - we're greedy in the West and often inefficient and I hope this new money agreement this Bretton Woods II includes environmental resources in the price of goods.

I'm convinced that this would do many things including protecting the environment or flagrant abuse of natural resources - it would also help stabilise economic bubbles and perhaps entice green bubbles. It might also create a lot more work but work might be more manual-based. I don't mind digging up roads to fix the plumbing if I have to though - better exercise than they gym eh ?

Guest

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

Earth on course for eco 'crunch'

[

Quote :: i]"If our demands on the planet continue to increase at the same rate, by the mid-2030s we would need the equivalent of two planets to maintain our lifestyles," said WWF International director-general James Leape.[/i]

He said the more than $2 trillion (£1.2 trillion) lost on stocks and shares was dwarfed by the up to $4.5 trillion worth of resources destroyed forever each year.

The report's Living Planet Index, which is an attempt to measure the health of worldwide biodiversity, showed an average decline of about 30% from 1970 to 2005 in 3,309 populations of 1,235 species.

An index for the tropics shows an average 51% decline over the same period in 1,333 populations of 585 species.

A new index for water consumption showed that for countries such as the UK, the average "water footprint" was far greater than people realised, with thousands of litres used to produce goods such as beef, sugar and cotton shirts.

"In Britain, almost two thirds [62%] of the average water footprint comes from use abroad to produce goods we consume," said Mr Leape.

A whole paradigm shift is required in relation to the way we live and the resources we consume. Contraction due to the recession will not be enough, and is a wasteful, impermanent and destructive way to reduce impacts. If it isn't dealt with voluntarily, rapidly and seriously there clearly will be an involuntary species collapse anyway, if not a species wipe-out caused by resource war. We are running out of time. Reduced consumption and waste and new technologies have to be a big part of this, and that in turn has implications for the kind of growth based economies we have.

Guest

Dire economic forecast for the Eurozone for next year - in Ecological terms is this bad news or good news scratch

It's only from Breaking News but I'm sure it's at least half ways accurate:

Quote :: The European economy will “grind to a standstill” next year, the European Commission warned today.

EU-wide economic growth of 2.9% in 2007 will more than halve to 1.4% by the end of this year and plunge to just 0.2% in 2009, according to the autumn forecast on the situation in the 27 member states.

Unemployment is expected to rise by about 1% next year after being at its lowest for a decade.

“The economic horizon has now significantly darkened as the EU economy is hit by the financial crisis that deepened during the autumn and is now taking a toll on business and consumer confidence,” said EU Economic and Monetary Affairs Commissioner Joaquin Almunia.

He said emerging economies were holding up better than the EU or America, but were unlikely to escape unscathed.

And he called for co-ordinated EU action to support the economy, just as member states had co-operated to bail out the financial sector.

The sharp drop in growth to 1.4% this year compares with just 0.9% in the UK as the economy slows.

Today’s forecast predicts a gradual UK recovery in 2010 to annual growth of about 0.5% – compared with average growth across the EU recovering to 1.1% in 2010.

In 2007 EU economic growth was running at 2.9%, with six million new jobs created in 2007-2008.

A Commission statement today warned bluntly: “In 2009 the EU economy is expected to grind to a standstill.” http://www.breakingnews.ie/World/mhideyojojmh/

Italy has 0.3% growth these days and I'd say life goes on over there and France has 2% growth and I'd say plenty of people still get up in the morning and eat a horse-stuffed croissant with a big bowl of coffee for breakfast. What's the brain-haemorraging over the need for growth when dire consequences are feared to ensue with huge levels of unemployment (8% Rolling Eyes

) and reduced productivity and low or negative growth?

This isn't a bad thing at all and I'm convinced that unemployment and growth will need to be seriously redefined now if our world resources are being eaten away by ourselves to such a point that we are endangering ourselves as a species. Pollution is linked to consumption which is linked to production which requires employed droves. How do we get around our hang up about employment ?

Subject: Re: Race Condition Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:57 pm

I think I'll patent the word finiteism, as soon as I figure out how to spell it.

Guest

Earlier in this thread I posted a link to the Ian Angus's article "The Myth of the Tragedy of the Commons"*

Here's a link from Ian Angus's blog on an update which is "A reply to criticisms and questions about my article on Garrett Hardin’s influential essay"

Of particular interest, imo, is the mention of the Hutterite colonies and "regulating activity without the state or
the market".

Once Again: ‘The Myth of the Tragedy of the Commons’

http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=576

Quote :: As Derek Wall points out, such blindness to non-capitalist social structures is widespread in mainstream social science:

“The commons is important
because it provides a way of regulating activity without the state or
the market…. Throughout history, the commons has been the dominant form
of regulation providing an alternative almost universally ignored by
economists who are reluctant to admit that substitutes to the market
and the state even exist.” (Wall 2005: p. 184)

*

Pax wrote:: I think this is just more of Hardin's unfortunate myth, as I mentioned on another thread here on MN.

The Myth of the Tragedy of the Commons
http://www.monthlyreview.org/mrzine/angus250808.html

Guest

Pax wrote:

Earlier in this thread I posted a link to the Ian Angus's article "The Myth of the Tragedy of the Commons"*

Here's a link from Ian Angus's blog on an update which is "A reply to criticisms and questions about my article on Garrett Hardin’s influential essay"

Of particular interest, imo, is the mention of the Hutterite colonies and "regulating activity without the state or
the market".

Once Again: ‘The Myth of the Tragedy of the Commons’

http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=576

Quote :: As Derek Wall points out, such blindness to non-capitalist social structures is widespread in mainstream social science:

“The commons is important
because it provides a way of regulating activity without the state or
the market…. Throughout history, the commons has been the dominant form
of regulation providing an alternative almost universally ignored by
economists who are reluctant to admit that substitutes to the market
and the state even exist.” (Wall 2005: p. 184)

*

Pax wrote:: I think this is just more of Hardin's unfortunate myth, as I mentioned on another thread here on MN.

The Myth of the Tragedy of the Commons
http://www.monthlyreview.org/mrzine/angus250808.html

Thanks Pax: I read those articles. I can see the sense in them - good examples are given (although not in depth) of communally managed "unowned" or shared natural resources.
Essentially, they are self policed. Engels doesn't say what happens to someone who transgresses the "Mark", but I assume it was effective one way or another.
The oceans are a tougher problem. I think I already mentioned the "friendship" traps used in lobster pots in West Cork that allow the small ones to walk free, but when it comes to wider fisheries, there is no sign of self policing and fish stocks have been fished beyond the point of collapse in a number of cases. The Newfoundland cod that Irish migrants fished is a case in point.

Is it possible that there are good and bad instances of communal management and mismanagement, depending on the wider pressures and opportunities and on social conditions generally? Do you think there is a natural rule that communal management is more sustainable than private ownership? How could successful communal management of the oceans be achieved? - the Common Fisheries policy has been a disaster (albeit related to a profit driven system).

Guest

cactus flower wrote:: Thanks Pax: I read those articles. I can see the sense in them - good examples are given (although not in depth) of communally managed "unowned" or shared natural resources.
Essentially, they are self policed. Engels doesn't say what happens to someone who transgresses the "Mark", but I assume it was effective one way or another.
The oceans are a tougher problem. I think I already mentioned the "friendship" traps used in lobster pots in West Cork that allow the small ones to walk free, but when it comes to wider fisheries, there is no sign of self policing and fish stocks have been fished beyond the point of collapse in a number of cases. The Newfoundland cod that Irish migrants fished is a case in point.

Is it possible that there are good and bad instances of communal management and mismanagement, depending on the wider pressures and opportunities and on social conditions generally? Do you think there is a natural rule that communal management is more sustainable than private ownership? How could successful communal management of the oceans be achieved? - the Common Fisheries policy has been a disaster (albeit related to a profit driven system).

Self-policing or community pressure (or shaming) can go a long way when people transgress but I think you'd need well thought out economic institutions for such an economy to work in harmony with the environment and be efficient. You'd also need to price resources and pollutants and internalise negative costs which are externalised today. Then the socially and environmentally optimal level is part of the planning process which makes it self-regulating.

I'm not sure if there's a natural rule that communal management is more sustainable than private ownership, if there is maybe it's that enclosure and private ownership biases our nature towards that which is less sustainable? This then snowballs in terms of externalities into a 'norm' which is outside that which we would be at without private ownership and markets.

But re communal management, it all goes back to remuneration and consumption and people having decision making input in proportion to how they're affected. I think if you remunerate for output, and/or for profit, then you incentivise growth, growth which is now clearly incompatible with finite resources, -- just look at that New Scientist graph!, or the EU's fishing resources which are now being taken from Africa thanks to Mandelson and unfair trade policies.

However if you remunerate according to effort (which is easily done when you've balanced job complexes --just count the hours!) then you remove the inequality factor between and within communities which impels people to choose greater resource use or pollution emissions than is required. They are less likely to go over the proverbial 'mark'. And nobody should be so poor and desperate within such a community that they cannot afford to prioritise environmental preservation over material consumption. You also significantly reduce conspicuous consumption for similar reasons. And in a wider context because of the lack of malicious advertising pushing further consumption.

So if a fishing community decides to engage in their yearly plan (which can be updated throughout the year) and too many fishermen decide to go over the 'mark' (which I would imagine in this case would be decided at federation scope rather than just individual consumer and worker councils, and with scientific data) then that would be represented and counted as part of the social cost of their proposal. The estimates and ongoing accuracy of that 'mark' level would be much more accurate than with a market and the measurement process is actually incentive compatible.

I linked to the participatory model earlier* but such institutions, or similar ones, could certainly be incorporated into resource management in a commons environment here and without the state or the market regulating it.

http://www.greens.org/s-r/34/34-18.html

Quote :: ....The annual participatory planning process provides much improvement over market systems. Under traditional assumptions the above procedure will: (1) reduce pollution to “efficient” levels, (2) satisfy the “polluter pays principle,” (3) compensate the actual victims of pollution for the damage they suffer, and (4) induce worker and consumer councils and federations to truthfully reveal the benefits and costs of pollution. In other words, the procedure is what economists call “incentive compatible.”....

Guest

Ah - I now see why you're so hot against the whole 'tragedy of the commons' problem - you see it as a gateway to private ownership of shared resources, because the "tragedy of the commons" is that commons are not managed properly...

I will have to bear that in mind - when I was studying environmental resource management the "tragedy of the commons" was always taken to be a difficulty arising from the lack of communal management, and to which the solution was informed communal management by stakeholders.

Guest

ibis wrote:: Ah - I now see why you're so hot against the whole 'tragedy of the commons' problem - you see it as a gateway to private ownership of shared resources, because the "tragedy of the commons" is that commons are not managed properly...

I will have to bear that in mind - when I was studying environmental resource management the "tragedy of the commons" was always taken to be a difficulty arising from the lack of communal management, and to which the solution was informed communal management by stakeholders.

Without having read anything Pax has referred to before, the idea that private ownership was the best way of ensuring that renewable natural resources were not quarried out might be an obvious one. That argument only holds up if you ignore the real workings of the market - it makes every sense to quarry a resource out to maximise profit, and then move on to a completely different enterprise.

Guest

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:: Ah - I now see why you're so hot against the whole 'tragedy of the commons' problem - you see it as a gateway to private ownership of shared resources, because the "tragedy of the commons" is that commons are not managed properly...

I will have to bear that in mind - when I was studying environmental resource management the "tragedy of the commons" was always taken to be a difficulty arising from the lack of communal management, and to which the solution was informed communal management by stakeholders.

Without having read anything Pax has referred to before, the idea that private ownership was the best way of ensuring that renewable natural resources were not quarried out might be an obvious one. That argument only holds up if you ignore the real workings of the market - it makes every sense to quarry a resource out to maximise profit, and then move on to a completely different enterprise.

That's true for a capital-driven enterprise (although it ignores the role of built-up expertise). It wouldn't be the case for a capital-using one. Only in areas where the former have a market advantage over the latter will the former predominate.

Private ownership is one possible solution to inadequately managed commons, but often the most difficult to implement in any sustainable way - a standard pitfall would the on-sale of the resulting smallholdings to a capital-driven exploitation company. It's always better to look for stakeholders with a long-term interest in the resource.

Guest

[quote="ibis"]

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:: Ah - I now see why you're so hot against the whole 'tragedy of the commons' problem - you see it as a gateway to private ownership of shared resources, because the "tragedy of the commons" is that commons are not managed properly...

I will have to bear that in mind - when I was studying environmental resource management the "tragedy of the commons" was always taken to be a difficulty arising from the lack of communal management, and to which the solution was informed communal management by stakeholders.

Without having read anything Pax has referred to before, the idea that private ownership was the best way of ensuring that renewable natural resources were not quarried out might be an obvious one. That argument only holds up if you ignore the real workings of the market - it makes every sense to quarry a resource out to maximise profit, and then move on to a completely different enterprise.

Quote :: That's true for a capital-driven enterprise (although it ignores the role of built-up expertise). It wouldn't be the case for a capital-using one. Only in areas where the former have a market advantage over the latter will the former predominate.

What do you mean by those terms, Ibis?

Quote :: Private ownership is one possible solution to inadequately managed commons, but often the most difficult to implement in any sustainable way - a standard pitfall would the on-sale of the resulting smallholdings to a capital-driven exploitation company. It's always better to look for stakeholders with a long-term interest in the resource.

Surely the long term tendency is for the financial power and economies of scale of large scale firms with the capacity to raise capital to take over the small lads. Look at what happens to privatised shareholdings like Eircom, or the privatised dairy co-ops. Small holdings have to compete with the big firms in the market and can't survive unless they have a unique selling point for which there is a market. You have to assume that there is a long term tendency for the big fish with shareholders to digest the little ones without?

Guest

[quote="cactus flower"]

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:: Ah - I now see why you're so hot against the whole 'tragedy of the commons' problem - you see it as a gateway to private ownership of shared resources, because the "tragedy of the commons" is that commons are not managed properly...

I will have to bear that in mind - when I was studying environmental resource management the "tragedy of the commons" was always taken to be a difficulty arising from the lack of communal management, and to which the solution was informed communal management by stakeholders.

Without having read anything Pax has referred to before, the idea that private ownership was the best way of ensuring that renewable natural resources were not quarried out might be an obvious one. That argument only holds up if you ignore the real workings of the market - it makes every sense to quarry a resource out to maximise profit, and then move on to a completely different enterprise.

Quote :: That's true for a capital-driven enterprise (although it ignores the role of built-up expertise). It wouldn't be the case for a capital-using one. Only in areas where the former have a market advantage over the latter will the former predominate.

What do you mean by those terms, Ibis?

I'm trying to distinguish between a business which requires a capital input to make it happen, but whose aim is not to enrich those who put in the capital (most privately owned businesses), and businesses where the whole point is to provide a return on capital. Otherwise we're left unable to draw a line between a fisherman who requires capital for his boat - and is therefore part of the capitalist system, but intending to fish as a lifetime activity - and a company whose chosen method of providing return on capital is fishing, but which would happily switch to forestry if that provided a better return after switchover costs.

The former is obviously someone with a long-term stake in the resource, the latter is not - hence the distinction in this instance.

cactus flower wrote:

Quote :: Private ownership is one possible solution to inadequately managed commons, but often the most difficult to implement in any sustainable way - a standard pitfall would the on-sale of the resulting smallholdings to a capital-driven exploitation company. It's always better to look for stakeholders with a long-term interest in the resource.

Surely the long term tendency is for the financial power and economies of scale of large scale firms with the capacity to raise capital to take over the small lads. Look at what happens to privatised shareholdings like Eircom, or the privatised dairy co-ops. Small holdings have to compete with the big firms in the market and can't survive unless they have a unique selling point for which there is a market. You have to assume that there is a long term tendency for the big fish with shareholders to digest the little ones without?

It's by no means inevitable. There are markets that offer no real economies of scale, there are markets where the barriers to entry are so low that there are always small new companies, there are markets where small businesses are legally protected, markets where the return simply isn't sufficient to produce any company big enough to swallow others...the list of conditions is endless. The majority of businesses in every economy worldwide are small businesses, and that's where the majority of people work. Big companies are rather the exception than the rule, really, except in a few fields where network effects are vital (operating systems, for example, telecoms).

Guest

Unemployment, employment, production, consumption, production, consumption, unemployment, employment ... etc. etc.

There might have to be a sudden crystallizing paradigm shift that changes our societies suddenly and fundamentally with regard to resources. To be Just, wouldn't this solution have to emerge spontaneously rather than be forced through design via a top-down, Fascisistic sweep ? How likely is that spontaneous crystallisation to happen and what would the mechanics of that be ? People are losing jobs left right and centre which should be a bad thing but is it ? Mortgage interest is also coming down and anyhow is money owed as critical a problem as a voracious construction/consumption bubble that threatens everyone through resource depletion and pollution ?

Consumption, construction and production are dropping like lead balloons now if you look at the charts which, to me, show that a big bubbly 5 to 10 year wave of consumption is all of a sudden coming crashing down so maybe it should be allowed to spill out on the beach without us picking it up again and turning it into another big wave ?

In a 50-minute interview on Reality Report Jay Hansen (*) talks about many things - economics, science, technology, politics, resource depletion, Nuclear War and says he has pencilled a solution in an essay called "The Society of Sloth" which argues that only 5% of people need to work to keep our society going - otherwise we are impinging on each other's resources, diminishing them and threatening ourselves with extinction through war and pollution. He talks about his solution and his essay below in the interview but he says his own theory for the Society of Sloth is only a sketch of an idea and not thought out properly at all. I think it would be worth a discussion on whether or not this could be achieved, how it could happen and should it happen or is there another way ?

(*)
In the 1990s Jay Hanson's web site predicted with uncanny accuracy key trends of the early 21st century with respect to energy, the environment and geopolitics. What did he learn that most of us still don't know, and what does he foresee ahead of us?This program reviews the history and motivation behind Jay's work. With his background in computer programming, he is able to keenly parse a great deal of information into a logical framework, combining analyses of history, politics, biology, energy and economics into a generally horrific view of the future. Jay explains how he believes that until we face the causes of the crises upon us we will not overcome them. However, understanding is seriously hindered by self-deception and political expediency. As a contrast to the horrors of war and coercion he fears are upon us, he uses his knowledge of ecology and energy to envision a sustainable society--the difficulty he has is seeing a path to get there. Reality Report

Hansen's sites
www.dieoff.org
www.warsocialism.com

Subject: Re: Race Condition Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:46 am

Audi, the electronics industry in Ireland has been dropping like a lead balloon for 10 years.

In 1998 there were at least six PCB manufacturers in Ireland to cater for electronic hardware prototyping and low volume production, there are none now AFAIK. Ship Co. in Cork are still in business but have closed down their own PCB production and now outsource to Korea. They are effectively an agent now. 5 staff instead of 30.

Thankfully there are still a few good assembly companies around, but they are very expensive. I don't know how long they can survive ...

Guest

There are all sorts of markets out there for all sorts of stuff - tools like a hammer that you buy one of and have for twenty years or garden tools in general - they survive even when there is as much rust as there is tool. Or hoses - you buy one, it kinks and drives you mad for fifteen years so then you decide not to be so stingy and buy a yoke on a reel.

There's other stuff you get for your home, car or for your business and it either lasts you all your life or you dump it and get a new one every five years.

I don't understand the consumption of PCBs - are they like disposable razors ?

Guest

Irish Times this morning :--

Downturn means CO2 targets now achievable
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0207/1233867925621.html

Prof Convery said that as recently as September 2008, it was being forecast that GDP would continue to grow at a rate of at least 3 per cent. But less than five months later the ESRI concluded that GDP had already dropped by 9 per cent bringing us back to the 2005 income level.

“We are now unlikely to overshoot our Kyoto target in 2012, and won’t have to spend up to €300 million set aside to buy allowances to cover the overshoot,” said Prof Convery.

The Kyoto target for Ireland is 63 million tonnes of CO2 emissions per annum. During 2005 and 2006, emissions had risen to 70 million tonnes, making it seem likely that the State would have to buy carbon credits after 2012.

Under the ETS [European Emissions Trading Scheme], emitters are given a quota in the form of tonnes of emissions of CO2 gases each year. The overall number of tonnes allowed is limited. The companies covered under the ETS include power companies, cement and glass manufactures, steel manufacturers, pulp and paper manufactures.

However, under the pilot scheme of the ETS the price of carbon dropped from a high of €25 to zero when it became apparent that too many allowances had been allotted. Prof Convery also said that splitting the market into trading (subject to ETS) and non-trading (such as transport, agriculture, household and not subject to ETS) was also a disadvantage.

Under the second phase which began last year the overall supply of allowances dropped by 6.5 per cent, he said. He also said that the third phase, which begins in 2012, will be more robust, with airlines included for the first time.

However, in recent months the price of carbon has again fallen dramatically from a high of €26 to a little over €10.

Some Irish companies now had surpluses of carbon allowance to sell, he said. They included CRH, Platin (1½ million tonnes), Alumina in Limerick, (1.1 million tonnes), Quinn Cement (1.0 million tonnes) and CRH, Limerick (0.9 million tonnes).

» Cem Ozdemir Heads the German Greens - Does Race Matter in Politics?