Living Car Free - "We can't afford a green economy..."

As I was reading an interview (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/12/29/14550/289) in Grist with John Passacantando, the outgoing president of Greenpeace, USA, this exchange really stood out. I've been hearing a lot of people lately saying that we can't afford to build a green economy right now because of the economic crisis. I thought his answer was right on.

Grist: While we're hearing people talk about green stimulus and green economy and all of that, you still hear people argue that we can't afford it, that this is not the right time.

Passacantando: For people who say, "We can't afford to do it," I would just say, "Based on what math?" Because you could also have said that we couldn't afford what we've done in the last 10 years. We couldn't afford the population of automobiles on the road to be overly heavy and inefficient. We did it. We couldn't afford to lose 4,000 people and over 100,000 Iraqis to protect oil supplies to the U.S. to drive those overly heavy and inefficient automobiles. We couldn't afford to let the banks make really bad loans, and then package them up, disguise them, and sell them off around the world. We couldn't afford to do any of that, but we did it all, and we're paying for it now. But we don't want to do more of that. So now if you use real math, math that's rooted in ecology, maybe we could do something that we need and that we can afford.

There is no reason why it couldn't happen and create millions of new jobs. The problem is that the profit motivated, grow or die system we call capitalism and environmental sustainability are in direct conflict with each other. Protecting the environment is a direct loss of profits. The interests of the environment and the common being fall way way way below the interests of the power/money holding capitalists. I don't foresee any remotely sustainable culture being possible without radical changes to this economic and power system.

We can't afford not to "go green", and money is certainly not in short supply. I think that the only way to make any substantial lasting change is to start holding these power holders accountable and take power back to the people. Otherwise things are just going to keep going as they're going. :\

I don't know if returning power to the people is the solution. if that were the case we'd have super low taxes and no macro policies. we need to empower people who are capable of doing what people don't like when its the right thing to do.

I don't know if returning power to the people is the solution. if that were the case we'd have super low taxes and no macro policies. we need to empower people who are capable of doing what people don't like when its the right thing to do.

I think this has already been implemented in every socialist country of the world.

I don't think I want that in the US.

I would tend to agree with Passacantando.

However, when you have something as loosely defined as " the green economy" and a "green" stimulus. I would argue there are a number of these green initiatives that we can well do without. For example, "clean coal technology". I think we can't afford it. Or a rapid conversion of the automobile fleet to gasoline-hybrid power trains. I don't think we can afford that either. Or introducing biofuelds like E85. I'm certainly sure we can't afford that one either.

We can afford to make investments in wind and solar technology where they make sense. We can re-organize our society so that we are less dependent on petroleum products. At least, we can afford to make some serious efforts in that direction.

Lastly, we can do a number of things that won't cost very much at all. For example, we could urge (ok,,, maybe I should say coerce) people and organizations to stop wasting precious resources like electricity, petroleum, metals, land, forests, etc. Why wouldn't we be able to afford this?

We couldn't afford to lose 4,000 people and over 100,000 Iraqis to protect oil supplies to the U.S. to drive those overly heavy and inefficient automobiles.

Wow, Iraqis aren't people!

No they're just collateral damage.

...we need to empower people who are capable of doing what people don't like when its the right thing to do.

If not that, at least try to understand that there are special interest groups out there willing to use hot button social issues like abortion and gay marriage to protect their economic dominance.

What does this country have extra money for? LOL! Folks we'll never have any money so might as well borrow more and build the 'Green' economy anyway before we invade Iran or some other nation and all the money goes there. By the way, the 'Green' economy will be the greatest and most costly experiment in history and will create only a fraction of the jobs we need. Job creation starts with manfacturing products in this country, anything else is wishful thinking.

I was thinking about Obama's idea of massive spending for additional highway construction to jump start the economy. The idea behind this is that more highways will start a housing boom and increase spending and consumption just like in the good old days. Folks, this is what got us in trouble in the first place and with all the capital gone, it's highly unlikely we are going to see the type of real estate construction we had the past 8 years. Those new roads and bridges will be highways to nowhere.

The money should be spent on public transportation but you can't jump start the economy with trains and buses can you?

the 'Green' economy will be the greatest and most costly experiment in history and will create only a fraction of the jobs we need. Job creation starts with manfacturing products in this country, anything else is wishful thinking.

"greening" the economy will require massive overauls of infrastructure and retrofitting using new technologies. The last time we saw anything of that magnitude attempted was WWII, coinciding with the end of the Depression and kicking off a boom.

However, when you have something as loosely defined as " the green economy" and a "green" stimulus. I would argue there are a number of these green initiatives that we can well do without. For example, "clean coal technology". I think we can't afford it. Or a rapid conversion of the automobile fleet to gasoline-hybrid power trains. I don't think we can afford that either. Or introducing biofuelds like E85. I'm certainly sure we can't afford that one either.


Agreed.

We don't have money for this 'Green' economy which is nothing more than plan to keep our "happy motoring' lifestyle which is unsustainable in the first place. We are going to spend hundreds of billions building new highways and bridges while converting our autos into 'Green' vehicles with the intention of keeping us driving cheaply for the next 1,000 years.

I've said this before that we are headed into a deep recession so get ready. I like Obama but these ideas are a dead end.

Agreed.

We don't have money for this 'Green' economy which is nothing more than plan to keep our "happy motoring' lifestyle which is unsustainable in the first place. We are going to spend hundreds of billions building new highways and bridges while converting our autos into 'Green' vehicles with the intention of keeping us driving cheaply for the next 1,000 years.

I've said this before that we are headed into a deep recession so get ready. I like Obama but these ideas are a dead end.

I don't think it's the intention of the Obama administration to build more highways to nowhere, or more shopping malls, or even to assure that everyone gets to keep two cars in their spacious garages. I think he means to fix the roads and bridges we already have, which desperately need to be repaired and upgraded anyway, and to expand our rapid transit infrastructure. I hope he also lives up to his promise to invest a lot of money in our energy infrastructure to make it less fossil-fuel oriented. All of these things are good ideas, and, if the bridges, road surfaces, trains, maybe some of the cars, solar panels and wind turbines are all made by American workers, then, yes, it can be a very big step in getting us out of the really huge hole we've dug for ourselves.

I agree with the earlier poster who noted that there's a fundamental flaw in our current economic system: our businesses depend on infinite growth to keep stockholders happy, but infinite growth is simply not possible in a finite ecosystem. This is truly the elephant in the room. If we don't have the sense and the courage to totally modify the way we do business, and do this fairly soon, we're going to quickly reach a set of conditions for which our few remaining descendants will curse our memory.

I agree with the earlier poster who noted that there's a fundamental flaw in our current economic system: our businesses depend on infinite growth to keep stockholders happy, but infinite growth is simply not possible in a finite ecosystem. This is truly the elephant in the room. If we don't have the sense and the courage to totally modify the way we do business, and do this fairly soon, we're going to quickly reach a set of conditions for which our few remaining descendants will curse our memory.
Our economic model of having a return on investment doesn't depend on infinite growth. I think we have been using resource consumption to make our lives easier but that isn't the only way to improve our lives. Maybe my thoughts have been polluted by quality assurance principles but I see our economic model depending on infinite improvement rather than growth. Some people seem to think consuming more is the only way to improve our lives. For example I was talking to a government economist who flat out said as though it were fact that the only way peoples lives are improved in poorer countries is by using more energy. This guy helps shape US policy. This is based on historical data from industrialization. I tried to argue with him from the personal level pointing out that I now use way less energy than I did when I owned a car and my life has improved. I got him to concede that there is something to be said for efficiency but that's it. Anyway, most of us operate within the economy on a personal level- our decisions individually have little effect on whether or not the US engages in resource wars. As a personal investment, we can improve our lives and use fewer resources. We have to invest time in learning to live differently and maybe purchase some different items and the return on that investment is a better life and maybe more money in the bank. Some of us need to invest some effort in learning some new skills like reading bus schedules and biking and walking skills. It seems to me that the concept of making an investment now for greater returns in the future doesn't depend on resource extraction, its just that resource extraction and polluting your neighbors environment has been an easy policy.

I don't think it's the intention of the Obama administration to build more highways to nowhere, or more shopping malls, or even to assure that everyone gets to keep two cars in their spacious garages. I think he means to fix the roads and bridges we already have, which desperately need to be repaired and upgraded anyway, and to expand our rapid transit infrastructure. I hope he also lives up to his promise to invest a lot of money in our energy infrastructure to make it less fossil-fuel oriented. All of these things are good ideas, and, if the bridges, road surfaces, trains, maybe some of the cars, solar panels and wind turbines are all made by American workers, then, yes, it can be a very big step in getting us out of the really huge hole we've dug for ourselves.

I agree with the earlier poster who noted that there's a fundamental flaw in our current economic system: our businesses depend on infinite growth to keep stockholders happy, but infinite growth is simply not possible in a finite ecosystem. This is truly the elephant in the room. If we don't have the sense and the courage to totally modify the way we do business, and do this fairly soon, we're going to quickly reach a set of conditions for which our few remaining descendants will curse our memory.

It remains to be seen what the Obama Administration is actually willing to fund. There are stories about how states and municipalities are coming up with a grab bag of the usual construction projects - in some cases airport expansion projects were thrown in the mix.

As to the limits to growth, most people still aren't willing to admit that this is a problem that we are facing in the near term. The vast majority of people want Obama to "fix" the old system so it can continue on for a while longer. I haven't seen any place where Obama himself states his views in this area, but even if he were in agreement that this was a problem that we are facing, the very question is such a political minefield that it would be unlikely that he would have much to say about it in a public forum.

...... but even if he were in agreement that this was a problem that we are facing, the very question is such a political minefield that it would be unlikely that he would have much to say about it in a public forum.

Our culture has degenerated from one where we feel free to express opinions to keeping our opinions quiet for fear of the secret military tribunals to not even asking questions. Years ago, back in engineering school we were admonished to first answer the question "Why do this project?" before trying to answer "How do we do this best?" We were also warned of the fallacy of reinforcing failure or "don't throw good money after bad". If the car or consumer culture of suburbia isn't working out, the politicians shouldn't be reinforcing it, they should be questioning why there isn't a better way to structure our lives. I recall that Obama promoted "change". He should be in a good position to question why we should continue pushing the car culture on everyone. I don't know about politicians, Bush rode a bike for exercise and if he looked out his window he'd see people in DC using bikes for transportation, you'd think he'd put two and two together and get a clue. Obama will look out those same windows, see people getting around without cars, he'll probably be stuck in the same car-dependent rut as Bush.

If the car or consumer culture of suburbia isn't working out, the politicians shouldn't be reinforcing it, they should be questioning why there isn't a better way to structure our lives.

A lot of people only look at the minutae. They think that one more road project will solve their problems, and then life will be good again. They don't see that it is a larger systemic problem, and they aren't willing to give up on the old paradigm.

I'd like to see significant tax credits for weatherizing homes and businesses and make buildings more efficient. This would stimulate job growth that can't be shipped overseas. And the savings in energy would make it unnecessary to build all the coal fired generating plants that are in the process of being built.

there's a fundamental flaw in our current economic system: our businesses depend on infinite growth to keep stockholders happy, but infinite growth is simply not possible in a finite ecosystem. This is truly the elephant in the room. If we don't have the sense and the courage to totally modify the way we do business, and do this fairly soon, we're going to quickly reach a set of conditions for which our few remaining descendants will curse our memory.

+1

They might as well get a running start on cursing us now.

jim

David Suzuki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Suzuki) in this PDF lecture transcript (http://www.commonwealthfoundation.com/uploads/documents/Commonwealth%20Lecture%202008%20for%20web.pdf) states:


Economics and ecology are words built on the same root – ‘eco’ – from the Greek word ‘oikos’ meaning home. Ecology is the study of home. Economics is the management of home. What ecologists try to do is to determine the conditions and principles that govern life’s ability to flourish and survive.

Now I would have thought any other group in society would want the ecologists to hurry up and find out exactly what those conditions and principles are, so that we can design our systems to live within them. But not economists. We have elevated the economy above everything else and this, I think, is the crisis we face.

The economic system that has been foisted on people around the world is so fundamentally flawed that it is inevitably destructive. We must put the ‘eco’ back into economics and realise what the conditions and principles are for true sustainable living.

He talks about it a bit over half way through this podcast (http://www.davidsuzuki.org/files/podcasts/DSF_podcast_32_2008-03-17.mp3) as well.

By the way, the 'Green' economy will be the greatest and most costly experiment in history and will create only a fraction of the jobs we need. Job creation starts with manfacturing products in this country, anything else is wishful thinking.


(?!) Local manufacturing is part of a green economy.

Two words: carbon tax. It addresses all the issues.

(?!) Local manufacturing is part of a green economy.

LOL! You got me! ;-)

I tried to make a point that all this borrowing for a 'Green Economy' is not going to generate the jobs we need. China, Japan and Europe all guard their manufacturing jobs with import taxes, anti-dumping laws, VAT, import quotas, and other tax subsidation. They don't do this by happenstance because they know the overall wealth of a nation depends on large part of how much it exports in proportion to its imports.

You're right, more manufacturing is not going to create a green economy. However, it would create the jobs growth needed to reverse the massive numbers of unemployement.

For example I was talking to a government economist who flat out said as though it were fact that the only way peoples lives are improved in poorer countries is by using more energy. This guy helps shape US policy. This is based on historical data from industrialization. I tried to argue with him from the personal level pointing out that I now use way less energy than I did when I owned a car and my life has improved.

He's right in that people improve their lives with greater consumption of energy. However, improvement does not always mean better. People just can't imagine a world without autos and one with very little energy. However, we are going to go kicking and screaming into the next century with most of our current energy sources exhausted or in severe decline.

This economist can't imagine a world without cars. However, 150 years from now, the world will be car free just as they were 150 years ago. That's the good news.

LOL! You got me! ;-)
You're right, more manufacturing is not going to create a green economy. However, it would create the jobs growth needed to reverse the massive numbers of unemployement.

Local manufacturing, particularly small-scale manufacturing for a local market, would fit exactly in the idea of a green economy, wouldn't it? I realize this wouldn't work for the "economy-of-scale" manufacturing strategy. However, if the price of goods coming from abroad were adjusted to reflect environmental damage in the manufacture and transportation of the goods, I think the price would rise and local manufacturing would be in a more favorable position.

A good example of this would be if the price of bikes manufactured in Taiwan were to rise suddenly due to the cost of transportation and if the cost of labor in Taiwan would rise (for whatever reason), small-scale builders in the US -- most of whom now are into custom builds -- would be at an advantage. Of course, there are undoubtedly many things local bike builders could implement that would get them out of onesy-twosy custom builds and into something closer to actual manufacturing.

You're right, more manufacturing is not going to create a green economy. However, it would create the jobs growth needed to reverse the massive numbers of unemployement.

My point is that in a green economy, manufacturing would occur locally. Cheap oil has allowed us to have an affordable non-green economy, because we can sprawl out and commute as far as we want, or travel whenever we feel like it, or ship goods all over the world with ease. However, in the face of rising energy prices (they're only in a temporary lull right now) a green economy with local manufacturing, less air traffic and intercontinental travelling, more public transit, denser cities, and overall more efficient use of energy, will turn out to be much more affordable than a fossil fuel economy.

Two words: carbon tax. It addresses all the issues.

Make it a revenue neutral carbon tax, and you won't be putting a dampening effect on the economy by raising taxes.

When the economy is good, they say "Why fix it if it ain't broke?" and now they can't afford it? <sigh>

I'm sure stuff like this drives all of us with any sort of ecological inclination absolutely crazy.

My point is that in a green economy, manufacturing would occur locally. Cheap oil has allowed us to have an affordable non-green economy, because we can sprawl out and commute as far as we want, or travel whenever we feel like it, or ship goods all over the world with ease. However, in the face of rising energy prices (they're only in a temporary lull right now) a green economy with local manufacturing, less air traffic and intercontinental travelling, more public transit, denser cities, and overall more efficient use of energy, will turn out to be much more affordable than a fossil fuel economy.

Some authors (Bill McKibben for one) have pointed out that an "eco-economy" focused on local communities will also help solve social, spiritual and existential problems that many individuals are experiencing in the current materialistic economy.

This economist can't imagine a world without cars. However, 150 years from now, the world will be car free just as they were 150 years ago. That's the good news.

Bull.

As much I'd love for that to be true, there is no way the automobile will no longer used in 150 years. They may be electric, in fact I'm sure they will - but a car-free utopia in the USA is not anywhere near 150 years off. Our country is a big freaking place and the rail system to support it without cars would have to be absolutely massive. Good dream, but no freakin' way.

Bull.

As much I'd love for that to be true, there is no way the automobile will no longer used in 150 years. They may be electric, in fact I'm sure they will - but a car-free utopia in the USA is not anywhere near 150 years off. Our country is a big freaking place and the rail system to support it without cars would have to be absolutely massive. Good dream, but no freakin' way.

What...you never heard of jet packs?

seriously, there will be many alternatives other than trains and private cars. I agree that we may never (and probably should never) be entirely carfree, but I bet on at least 90 % carfree, maybe 98 %. Already, many urban areas could be carfree with no additional investment in infrastructure.

More accurately, we can't afford a bureaucratically controlled economy. Whether we're gonna be "green" or not is really up to us.
Ya think the Powers That Be will ever give up their limos and private jets?

What...you never heard of jet packs?
Already, many urban areas could be carfree with no additional investment in infrastructure.

Those are not he problem. It is the entire middle 75% of the country.

Bull.

As much I'd love for that to be true, there is no way the automobile will no longer used in 150 years. They may be electric, in fact I'm sure they will - but a car-free utopia in the USA is not anywhere near 150 years off. Our country is a big freaking place and the rail system to support it without cars would have to be absolutely massive. Good dream, but no freakin' way.

150 years is a long hard look in any crystal ball. The USA managed to survive for the first 125 years without automobiles. I think it did rather well, too.

I was looking at some British film footage the other day on the A&S forum (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=499239). It showed a major urban center in England around the turn of the century[edit: actually 1921]. Interesting... hardly a car in sight. But lots of bikes!! :)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=wyzOY7NKEwI&feature=channel_page

Our economic model of having a return on investment doesn't depend on infinite growth.

Actually, in a capitalist system like ours, it totally depends on growing your market. Dell is a useful example. In the late 1990s, they were a darling of Wall Street, because their market was expanding, the company was growing, and their profits were good. A key word here is, they were growing. Later on, after the market had matured, growth was much slower. Dell was still making money, they were still selling a lot of computers, and paying their very productive employees, but investors lost interest, because their growth had slowed to a crawl. Dell's stock plummeted, and, at this point, of course, the company is not healthy. They failed to keep investors happy, and paid the price. Their story can be repeated endlessly at this point.

All this points to an interesting feature of the system we've built for ourselves: There is a relatively small, but rich and powerful, segment of the population who are, well, capitalists. These capitalists (people with capital) want to give business ventures money, so those businesses can buy stuff and hire people to expand their businesses. In exchange, they want a share of the profits that result from that increased business. In other words, they want to benefit from the labor of people who have to work, without actually having to work themselves. This system is beneficial, but only up to a point. It needs to experience constant growth in order to function: if there's no incentive to grow rapidly at all costs, the capitalists can be taken out of the equation. If your business is steady, but not growing, you can still pay your bills and pay your employees, but there's not much left over to pay the guy who bought your stock. Obviously, the capitalists aren't very enthusiastic about that scenario, because then they'd have to actually, you know, work for a living.

If this sounds horribly Marxist to you, maybe you should reevaluate how horrible Marx actually was. Personally, I'm on the verge of a major paradigm shift. After the last few months, and the total destruction of both my 401K and IRA, and constant low-level fear about my continued employment, combined with the very public, even shameless, spectacle of the US Treasury Secretary stealing $700 billion dollars from taxpayers and giving it to his financier friends with virtually no strings attached, and recent news of a succession of SEC managers now in the employ of large investment banks, I'm full to bursting with Bolshevik tendencies. Shoot those b*stards. Shoot them all.

Actually, in a capitalist system like ours, it totally depends on growing your market. Dell is a useful example. In the late 1990s, they were a darling of Wall Street, because their market was expanding, the company was growing, and their profits were good. A key word here is, they were growing. Later on, after the market had matured, growth was much slower. Dell was still making money, they were still selling a lot of computers, and paying their very productive employees, but investors lost interest, because their growth had slowed to a crawl. Dell's stock plummeted, and, at this point, of course, the company is not healthy. They failed to keep investors happy, and paid the price. Their story can be repeated endlessly at this point.

All this points to an interesting feature of the system we've built for ourselves: There is a relatively small, but rich and powerful, segment of the population who are, well, capitalists. These capitalists (people with capital) want to give business ventures money, so those businesses can buy stuff and hire people to expand their businesses. In exchange, they want a share of the profits that result from that increased business. In other words, they want to benefit from the labor of people who have to work, without actually having to work themselves. This system is beneficial, but only up to a point. It needs to experience constant growth in order to function: if there's no incentive to grow rapidly at all costs, the capitalists can be taken out of the equation. If your business is steady, but not growing, you can still pay your bills and pay your employees, but there's not much left over to pay the guy who bought your stock. Obviously, the capitalists aren't very enthusiastic about that scenario, because then they'd have to actually, you know, work for a living.

If this sounds horribly Marxist to you, maybe you should reevaluate how horrible Marx actually was. Personally, I'm on the verge of a major paradigm shift. After the last few months, and the total destruction of both my 401K and IRA, and constant low-level fear about my continued employment, combined with the very public, even shameless, spectacle of the US Treasury Secretary stealing $700 billion dollars from taxpayers and giving it to his financier friends with virtually no strings attached, and recent news of a succession of SEC managers now in the employ of large investment banks, I'm full to bursting with Bolshevik tendencies. Shoot those b*stards. Shoot them all.

One small problem, communism has been proven not to work. Just ask the Russians. I do agree with you that all these financiers got away with murder and should have been punished either with jail time or couple of "lead deposits.":(

Actually, in a capitalist system like ours, it totally depends on growing your market.....
I pretty much agree except the part about capitalists disappearing in a sustainable system. I can imagine sustainable economies where changes for the better occur and capitalists skim profit from investing in causing the improvements. For example if an individual in an imaginary primitive island economy invests in a device for extending his or her reach to pick fruit from the high branches. That individual can reap the profit of having more fruit to trade for fish. A primitive capitalist can support the fruit picker while making the device in return for some fruit after it has been made. After all the fruit pickers follow suite the value of the investment decreases. Just like your dell example. The dell example could have occurred in a constant market with dell grabbing market share and the money capitalists still getting their profit right?

I really don't understand why the people who gave up their pensions for IRA's and 401ks on the promise that its a better deal than defined benefit pensions don't feel swindled and demand justice. I clearly remember getting that deer in headlights silence from the sharpie who came to my ex company and told us we'd do better in IRAs. I asked the simple question: "Since our old pension benefitted from professional management AND from the money left over from the people who die early or leave before vesting, how can a simple non-professional who is ignorant of Wall Street do better?". His answer was that blank look and deafening silence. Then he mumbled something about no management fees and my family being able to inherit the leftovers. Well if you're a rich wall street financier who manages retirement funds by skimming a percent for passing them on to another swindler you'll have leftovers but not the company driver or the secretary. Well, some of us are used to simple living but still it looks like the government is run by a bunch of crooks.

I asked the simple question: "Since our old pension benefitted from professional management AND from the money left over from the people who die early or leave before vesting, how can a simple non-professional who is ignorant of Wall Street do better?". His answer was that blank look and deafening silence. Then he mumbled something about no management fees and my family being able to inherit the leftovers.

Professional investment managers consistently underperform broadly based index funds. Hell, professionals are the ones who were investing in mortgage backed securities. I never put any in my 401k! Also, there are a lot of examples of companies going bankrupt and defined benefit pension plans being significantly cut. I, personally, prefer defined contribution plans for these two reasons.

I really don't understand why the people who gave up their pensions for IRA's and 401ks on the promise that its a better deal than defined benefit pensions don't feel swindled and demand justice.

Companies have been dropping their defined benefit pension plans across the board. The last company I worked for dropped theirs and forced everyone on 401K plans because it was far less expensive to deal with. People have no idea what we gave up when companies moved to 401K plans because they practically guarantee everyone will continue to work the rest of their lives or retire with social security being their primary source of income.

To say the 401K plan has been a disaster is an understatement. I started one in my first job in 1992 and watched it lose almost a fourth of it's value in 10 years. In the past recession, I stopped putting money and noticed how SLOWLY the plan was growing each month. To my surprise, it was my constant automatic investment in the fund that made the plan APPEAR like it was making money! LOL!

I calculated the fund was making about 2 -3% interest during the best of times. But if you read the prospectus, the plan historically made 18% on it's money! It was a joke.

150 years is a long hard look in any crystal ball. The USA managed to survive for the first 125 years without automobiles. I think it did rather well, too.

I was looking at some British film footage the other day on the A&S forum (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=499239). It showed a major urban center in England around the turn of the century[edit: actually 1921]. Interesting... hardly a car in sight. But lots of bikes!! :)



Actually, this one is better because many towns are going to resemble it in about 150 years from now. I only wish I were alive to see it!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpU4DgefFPo&feature=related

Professional investment managers consistently underperform broadly based index funds.

This is an odd statistical question, a broadly based index fund is an average, but when I read about this comparison the professionals are judged on a percentile basis as in something like 70% of professionals don't beat the S&P 500 index. I never see what the average professional who only invests in the stocks in the index does compared with the index. And I never see a definition of professional. You should be skeptical whenever someone compares a percent with an average especially where the average can include a few very large numbers that skew it. For example if Bill Gates were a member of this forum then the average income of members would be much much larger than the income of 90% of the people on this forum- but the example is talking about the same people in both cases. So the relevant numbers that I've never seen are the returns on trades in the index performed by professionals compared with the returns on trades in the index performed by amateurs. The activity of the professionals helps define the overall performance of the index.

The relationship to living car free is that people with an agenda try to manipulate the data reporting by comparing percentages with averages "The average income of a car-free person in Manhattan is higher than the incomes of 70% of all car owners- they're an elite group of parasites who should have their bikes and shoes taxed to pay for the streets they use." That kind of thing.

Actually, in a capitalist system like ours, it totally depends on growing your market.

.....

All this points to an interesting feature of the system we've built for ourselves: There is a relatively small, but rich and powerful, segment of the population who are, well, capitalists. These capitalists (people with capital) want to give business ventures money, so those businesses can buy stuff and hire people to expand their businesses. In exchange, they want a share of the profits that result from that increased business. In other words, they want to benefit from the labor of people who have to work, without actually having to work themselves. This system is beneficial, but only up to a point. It needs to experience constant growth in order to function: if there's no incentive to grow rapidly at all costs, the capitalists can be taken out of the equation. If your business is steady, but not growing, you can still pay your bills and pay your employees, but there's not much left over to pay the guy who bought your stock. Obviously, the capitalists aren't very enthusiastic about that scenario, because then they'd have to actually, you know, work for a living.

If this sounds horribly Marxist to you, maybe you should reevaluate how horrible Marx actually was. Personally, I'm on the verge of a major paradigm shift. After the last few months, and the total destruction of both my 401K and IRA, and constant low-level fear about my continued employment, combined with the very public, even shameless, spectacle of the US Treasury Secretary stealing $700 billion dollars from taxpayers and giving it to his financier friends with virtually no strings attached, and recent news of a succession of SEC managers now in the employ of large investment banks, I'm full to bursting with Bolshevik tendencies. Shoot those b*stards. Shoot them all.

Interesting post.

But aren't folks who sink money into 401k programs capitalists of a sort? We have been conditioned to think of the market as a means of gettting 8 or 10 percent returns (or higher...) when we know that over the long haul, such consistent returns would be mathematically impossible.

We hear a lot about poor individuals investors getting their asses handed to them lately, but we forget that these same investors have been doing pretty good since 2002.

We contributors to IRAs and 401Ks ought to bear in mind the same lesson you mention in your post. You can sink money into these vehicles, but we aren't going to get filthy rich off it.

But aren't folks who sink money into 401k programs capitalists of a sort? We have been conditioned to think of the market as a means of gettting 8 or 10 percent returns (or higher...) when we know that over the long haul, such consistent returns would be mathematically impossible.

We hear a lot about poor individuals investors getting their asses handed to them lately, but we forget that these same investors have been doing pretty good since 2002.

We contributors to IRAs and 401ks ought to bear in mind the same lesson you mention in your post. You can sink money into these vehicles, but we aren't going to get filthy rich off it.

Well, yes, folks who sink money into 401ks are capitalists of a sort. But people participating in 401K programs don't really have a choice. I certainly didn't; it's not like my employer gave me a choice between a pension and a 410k and I jumped all over the 401k. (I knew it was shaky, which is why, in my ignorant foolishness, I also started an IRA.) 401k's have pretty much totally replaced pensions because they cost the employers less, no surprise there. So, they're basically just one more reason why certain financiers, CFOs, and the MBAs who do their evil bidding, all need to be shot. (Or at least hauled before a congressional committee consisting of persons more intelligent than Nancy Pelosi.)

One small problem, communism has been proven not to work. Just ask the Russians. I do agree with you that all these financiers got away with murder and should have been punished either with jail time or couple of "lead deposits.":(

What the Russians practiced was Marxism not true Communism. I don't thing any country has actually been able to pull off true communism...it goes against human nature and the A-type personality:lol:

Aaron:)

150 years is a long hard look in any crystal ball. The USA managed to survive for the first 125 years without automobiles. I think it did rather well, too.

I was looking at some British film footage the other day on the A&S forum (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=499239). It showed a major urban center in England around the turn of the century[edit: actually 1921]. Interesting... hardly a car in sight. But lots of bikes!! :)


And this was at a time when the UK was the mightiest superpower in the world. And the most productive industrial nation.

My point is that in a green economy, manufacturing would occur locally. Cheap oil has allowed us to have an affordable non-green economy, because we can sprawl out and commute as far as we want, or travel whenever we feel like it, or ship goods all over the world with ease. However, in the face of rising energy prices (they're only in a temporary lull right now) a green economy with local manufacturing, less air traffic and intercontinental travelling, more public transit, denser cities, and overall more efficient use of energy, will turn out to be much more affordable than a fossil fuel economy.

The problem is that the price of oil does not reflect the true cost of using it. Costs like, environmental destruction, wars to protect supply, subsidies, tax credits, etc... If these costs were even partially reflected in the price of oil and oil related products in the US, then there would be economic incentives to find less destructive alternatives.

I agree with the post about Carbon Tax. As an companion, there should be a reduction in income taxes. Stop taxing productive work, and tax destructive behavior.

What the Russians practiced was Marxism not true Communism.

They didn't even practice Marxism. Marx was very specific: Feudalism--> Capitalism --> Socialism --> Communism. He was also very specific that it was a natural progression and the it could not be rushed. Russia (the USSR) tried to skip the Capitalism step with a predictable outcome.

They didn't even practice Marxism. Marx was very specific: Feudalism--> Capitalism --> Socialism --> Communism. He was also very specific that it was a natural progression and the it could not be rushed. Russia (the USSR) tried to skip the Capitalism step with a predictable outcome.
Out of curiosity, how did colonialism fit into the natural progression? Were the colonies, since their economies were already centrally planned, supposed to go directly to Socialism or were they supposed to begin at Fuedalism? Was the central planning supposed to be part of the process or was that something Lenin tacked on? Marx must have thought about the colonies since he lived in England for a time. My friends who grew up in soviet style economies don't seem to know much about the theory, they're just full of tales of injustice, corruption and wasted lives. I get the image of a day-to-day life of exigencies, such as bribing, black market dealing, shirking and hoarding which became worse as the soviet style economies moved into the free market system and the original revolutionaries died off.

I just skimmed over most this thread....but the stimulus will never work. Because the conservatives in our government will never allow it to be big enough to work. That is what happened during the great depression. The second crash in '37 was caused by the fiscal hawks forcing FDR to cut all the public works programs and spending by well over 50%.

Listen to Krugman, progressive economies only work if you spend BIG, spending a little will not work.

And the only long term solution to our problem is to bring manufacturing back to the US. We were the manufacturing powerhouse after WWII. Not anymore. You can't keep importing more than you are exporting forever, the country is literally bleeding money, it is unsustainable. This consumer driven economy squeezes the middle class for all its worth, and it can not last.

We have to spend HUGE to get out of this mess, not just fixing our infrastructure, we have to manufacture green technologies here and sell them to the rest of the world, and there is no eon who can invest the money to do that but the government, and $600 billion wouldn't come anywhere close to making that happen. 600 billion will barely fix our roads.

And spending the stimulus on our crumbling road based infrastructure is the worst mistake we could ever make, it's just continuing the cycle we are in, and will further encourage suburban sprawl.

It is time to invest in high speed rail in this nation, it is LUDICROUS that we haven't yet. But with all the political pull the airlines and car companies have in this country it won't happen.

We are Rome, this is the end.

What the Russians practiced was Marxism not true Communism. I don't thing any country has actually been able to pull off true communism...it goes against human nature and the A-type personality:lol:

Aaron:)

True. The only really end that would be worthwhile is true self-ownership, where nobody is beholden to another, and nobody... no matter how nice their office or how many votes they were able to cajole, buy, or otherwise gain... could force you to do anything without your permission.
Communism, or any other 'ism, can only work if the ENTIRE populace agreed and willingly participated. Hell, there hasn't been a truly Capitalist nation on the planet either. The U.S. is, at best, a heavily regulated merchantilist system. The more heavily regulated business gets, the higher the cost of admission, which is *exactly* what control-freak CEOs like to see, as it locks out those pesky individuals who might want to compete with 'em. Folks like DeLorean and Tucker may be good examples, though I can't tell you everything about their situations.

I tend to fall on the more optimistic side, as I believe that if people were truly free to make their own decisions, they would tend to do a better job than a bunch of power-mad bureaucrats and their corporate lapdogs (or vice-versa... I think it works both ways, myself).

True. The only really end that would be worthwhile is true self-ownership, where nobody is beholden to another, and nobody... no matter how nice their office or how many votes they were able to cajole, buy, or otherwise gain... could force you to do anything without your permission.
Communism, or any other 'ism, can only work if the ENTIRE populace agreed and willingly participated. Hell, there hasn't been a truly Capitalist nation on the planet either. The U.S. is, at best, a heavily regulated merchantilist system. The more heavily regulated business gets, the higher the cost of admission, which is *exactly* what control-freak CEOs like to see, as it locks out those pesky individuals who might want to compete with 'em. Folks like DeLorean and Tucker may be good examples, though I can't tell you everything about their situations.

I tend to fall on the more optimistic side, as I believe that if people were truly free to make their own decisions, they would tend to do a better job than a bunch of power-mad bureaucrats and their corporate lapdogs (or vice-versa... I think it works both ways, myself).

I am convinced that the real change this time around will have to come from the bottom up. There is no way in hell that some overpaid clown in DC can tell me what is best for me and my family. Communes had their advantages (and disadvantages);) The federal government has become bloated and over reaching, well past IMHO what our forefathers envisioned.

Aaron:)