Reader Comments on When Belief in the System Fades Ed Munson I just turned 59 years of age, and by education and experience a professional civil engineer, who has lost faith in the system. I had a consulting firm in Central Florida from the late 1980's through 2000. My practice was in "developmental" engineering, predominantly for dozens of residential subdivisions. As the years passed I became more and more aware of the fact that I was helping to support a system of uncomfortable postage stamp lots covered with houses that so-called home builders would slam together. I noticed a change in the character of the developers that started showing up in my office-in 1998 these jokers were somehow getting people with "D Rated Credit" and fry cook jobs qualified to buy houses that cost at least five times annual earnings. I became more and more ashamed of the antics of other so-called professional engineers willing to short cut quality and diligence to capture developmental work. Due to the deadly combination of a bad marriage situation to ones' business partner, my practice crashed in 2000. I then went to the corporate world of civil engineering, and was astonished to see the mentality of loading up 60 to 80 hours of billable time on professional staff as the expected norm. If someone such as I were to dare to take the time necessary ethically and professionally to think through the engineering design of these projects, I was accused by upper management of taking too much time, and not having the necessary "sense of urgency". I began to see that their "sense of urgency" really equated to working double time for single time compensation, with little or no hope of pay increase or bonus consideration. Every day I was made to feel like some kind of archaic throwback by my careful, thought out approach to my projects. I really don't know where that my rambling is leading me, but I want to say that it has been a year since I packed it in for something new. My lovely wife (2 years now!) is a long time magazine publisher, and a singer/songwriter/musician. This was a wonderful match to the tuggings of my own heart --I am an artist/musician at heart. Her understanding and sensitivity to my emotional pain allowed me to walk off that old 40-year career path into new well-lit territory. In the last year we have a book being printed by an international publisher, are writing new music, performing everywhere while touring for weeks on end (a dream come true to that old youthful wanderlust of mine). My life opened up to new, delightful possiblities when I took the opportunity to walk away from work that had a large paycheck with such a price. I realize how true and magic one's life can be if he is able to follow his heart and joy. Our incomes have not been near mediocre monetarily, but the intangibles of freedom and happiness are unbelievable. Loss of faith in the system finally led me to make my own system, at least as much as I can while being immersed in the Matrix. Ed Munson Anne S. (from Switzerland) One big question that everyone turns away from is how much the US spends on Defense, lets call it wars. It is a very uncomfortable topic, if not downright taboo. I have often asked US citizens what % of their taxes goes to Defense, the usual response is "don’t know" and the highest figure I ever heard (in real life) is 25%! However, let’s set all that aside. Amongst the OECD countries, it is the US and Japan that taxes the capital and revenues of businesses the most heavily - a whopping 39%. It is followed by France, Canada and Belgium at 33-34, with the rest at around 30, Switzerland is last with 21. Low US taxes are a myth - except for "low taxes for rich individuals." The OECD website is replete with studies and papers on this topic - they always extoll low taxes, btw. (Numbers here are from them.) These high US taxes are according to me, the number one factor accounting for de-localisation, ‘globalization’ if one wills, off-shoring and so on. This facet is always ignored (the taboo on taxes) and replaced with the costs of labor, an obfuscation that serves to impress on Americans that they must compete with Chinese workers. On this topic, no sound numbers are readily available; a common rule of thumb in rare EU press articles is that more than 70% of US businesses that employ more than 150 - 500 people (the numbers are very shaky and variable, not to be trusted) have some kind of ‘foreign outpost’, ‘offshore account’, ‘foreign partnership’, ‘head office for the EU’, etc. Without it, they would not survive. They escape full US taxation in a legal way. Switzerland, for example has hundreds, if not thousands of US businesses or multinationals domiciled on its soil (21% tax, and rebates below that are even possible.) The recent flap about tax cheaters, the greedy individuals who hide their fortunes from the IRS, and the lists of ‘cooperating countries’ - - colored white, black or grey are another distraction. The number one clients of ‘fiscal paradises’ are banks themselves, multinationals, big businesses and even ‘social’ enterprises like pension funds. The personal fortunes of supposedly canny private individuals are negligible in comparison - which is why one can crack down on them! (Or pretend to for a while.) The end result, for the US, is that the powerful win. They pay taxes - to the Swiss, amongst others. And the IRS (in the case of Switzerland) has not bothered to collect what it is owed from private persons since 2001. (The qualified intermediary accords came in then, and Swiss banks collected the revenue/capital gains tax, of 30% this year, but never returned the sums to the US, they gave this money to the Swiss Gvmt. The IRS apparently didn’t care, or in any case never made any request..) But all this is complicated, and outside of my area of expertise. No references, sorry. What I want to impress on US citizens is that ‘Socialism’ - and in many countries it is, directly as in Switzerland, or thru representation as in France decided by the people themselves how much they will want to pay for what services - is simply an in/out accounting system that anyone can make a stab at totting up. Want free education, right up to Doctoral level? Costs so much, paid by all. Don’t want that? Not fair somehow? OK, then only primary and high school to 15 - but they gotta be good. And so on. Basic, ‘free’ medical care, paid for by the taxpayer - well then Docs can’t become millionaires and efforts have to be made to stop Big Pharma selling dangerous pills or home remedies at extravagant prices... It ain’t rocket science. It is paying for services...and chipping in for the common good, or sharing the burden as some might like to say. If lowly workers or small business people don’t earn enough to permit them to live, feed their children vegetables, etc. then a redistribution must take place... so the deeper questions are structural but in all cases it is the State’s role to even things out to some bearable position. In a so-called Democracy, that is. The key takeaway from Anna's commentary is: that the U.S. is a low-tax nation is indeed a myth--or perhaps that is too polite a phrase for a sustained campaign of disinformation. As always, the key question is: Cui bono? To whose benefit? Thank you to everyone who emailed me in the past two weeks. I will try to respond to everyone over the next week. Your patience and understanding are greatly appreciated. If you'd like to watch me blink a lot and try desperately not to make a fool of myself answering very tough questions, you might enjoy: Dangerous Minds w/ Richard Metzger Episode 1 Part 1 (interviewing Charles Hugh Smith) Dangerous Minds w/ Richard Metzger Episode 1 Part 2
April 10, 2009
Here are two wide-ranging and incisive reader comments on Survival+ 10: When Belief in the System Fades (April 9, 2009):I want to thank you so much for the wonderful site that you have been producing. I found your site topic of today, Survival+ 10: When Belief in the System Fades, so closely describes how that I think and feel that I had a momentary feeling that you had been spying on me for years!
www.tonibrownband.comCharles, I am chipping in here because Americans have been so indoctrinated by false assumptions and crazed slogans in the area of taxes and the redistributive (if any) role of the State that it appears that many have simply lost the capacity to digest simple facts. So an educational effort has to be undertaken, and I try not to miss a chance to hammer home some points.
Thank you, Ed and Anne, for your commentaries. The experience of being pounded for billable hours until you drop will resonate with many wage-earners, including many attorneys, as will the experience of being hurried to do substandard work. Freedom and happiness do have a price, and the irony is that some losing their jobs might eventually find it more a liberating transition to a downsized life than an MSM-framed tragedy.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Survival+ 10: When Belief in the System Fades Back on March 12, 2008, I posted When Belief in the System Fades, which likened the faith of those pouring their lives into sustaining the status quo to religious belief. The entry drew a mixed reaction ranging from "you nailed it" to dismissal. Now that a year has passed and the global financial structure has succumbed to gravity, I wonder how many readers who dismissed it all would now modify their reaction. Certainly those receiving pink slips might ponder how suddenly faith in the system can be lost. The entire Survival+ analysis centers on trying to understand the multilayered ways the middle class is being squeezed to exhaustion / insolvency. My good friend G.F.B. (also a small business owner, as you could have guessed) likened the tax and fee-for-services (or whatever we deem a service, like you operating a business in our jurisdiction) system to a parasite and host. The parasite is careful not to extract too much, lest the host die. But sometimes parasites become so numerous and greedy that they end up killing the host and thus themselves. Perhaps the single key task of the Plutocracy/State (two sides of a single coin) is to convince the host (the middle class) to keep laboring despite the ever-increasing extraction of their earnings and wealth. The task requires an actively supported mythology (you too can be Bill Gates!) and a subtle cultivation of interlocking beliefs in the fairness and rightness of the system. The overriding faith that hard work and individual greed will both be rewarded as long as the middle class believer "keeps his nose clean," i.e. plays along with the set rules, is carefully nourished. If we withdraw from the 24/7 propaganda of the Mainstream Media, the absurdity of these constantly repeated themes becomes painfully clear. For example, "Socialism is bad and evil because it redistributes wealth." Well, now that's interesting, because Crony Capitalism does the same thing, gathering heavy taxes from the productive class and funneling it into the hands of a Plutocrat class who shoulder relatively modest tax burdens while reaping vast rewards via government contracts, bailouts. tax loopholes, special legislation, etc. In other words, the key difference between Euro-style Socialism and Crony Capitalism as perfected in the U.S. is the middle class receives few benefits from their onerous tax burdens. In much of Europe, college and medical care are mostly paid by taxes; here in the U.S. productive citizens pay stupendous taxes and yet they also pay tens of thousands of dollars for a university education and huge, wealth-destroying co-payments for medical care--if they even have insurance. This is truly Orwellian: the middle class is conned into supporting income redistribution which favors the super-rich and those paying no tax whatsoever (for instance, undocumented laborers). Nice gig if you can get it: reap the rewards, pay no taxes. Unfortunately, middle class wage-earners don't get that option. Here's another howler: "The U.S. healthcare system is the finest in the world." Ooh, I have to be careful not to laugh too hard--I can't afford to hurt myself. Just today my dermatologist prescribed a "been around for 20 years" topical cream to burn off the sun-damaged spots on my hands and arms. I've used this cream for a decade: Efudex is the brand name, and it's not some "new miracle drug" which cost billions to develop as per the pharmaceutical industry propaganda. Some years ago a small tube of the stuff cost an absurdly high $79. Then it jumped to an even more insane $120 for a few ounces of cream. Even though the patent has long expired, it jumped to $218 per tube a few years back. Guess the current price: $272 per small tube. How can any system justify a four-fold jump in the cost of a cream which was developed decades ago, other than rampant, uncontrolled greed ands avarice? (Needless to say my own self-paid bare-bones medical insurance has no drug, dental or eyewear coverage.) The pharmacist, herself a recent immigrant judging from her accent (I leave her ethnicity out other than to note she was non-Caucasian) shook her head and noted that in this country, you either have to be poor or rich. She added that undocumented workers get Medicaid (i.e. they pay nothing in taxes or fees) while people who have worked for decades get nothing. (Unless they hang on long enough to qualify for Medicare, of course, at 65.) Those fortunate enough to have excellent medical insurance would co-pay $5 or $15 for this $272 tube of cream, and never know how much it cost the insurer/employer. Far from being "the best system in the world," the exact opposite is true: without any doubt, the U.S. has the worst medical/sick-care system of all industrialized nations. If you think it's great, that's because your costs are being paid by someone else; try asking for the "real cost" of the meds and services you've received, or better yet, paying for them cash. Your faith is just how wonderful the system is will dissipate with truly amazing alacrity. The middle class citizens now losing their jobs are receiving just this "lesson" in how fast faith in the "best in the world" system can vanish as they face paying COBRA fees of $1,000 or more per month for stripped/simulacrum healthcare insurance, or find themselves without any healthcare at all. I reworked the theme for Survival+: At some point--perhaps a "tipping point" or just an erosion--the middle class bails out of the increasingly burdensome task of propping up the state and the Plutocracy. I call this phenomenon "When Belief in the System Fades." There are elites in every human culture (and in the social apes as well). But unlike a troop of chimps ruled by an alpha male, today's elites cannot operate the vast complex structure of the U.S. economy, government and society themselves. They need hundreds of thousands of well-educated, hard-working people to believe in the system of meritocracy, justice, opportunity, etc., people who will choose to invest their entire productive lives in sustaining the structure the elites influence/control. The corollary to this structural need for highly motivated, dedicated people to work the gears is that if their belief in the machine fades, then the machine grinds to a halt. In the Armed Forces, the key layer of staffing is in the middle: lieutenants, captains, chief petty officers, etc. If those non-coms and junior officers leave the service, the Force is essentially gutted, regardless of the generals and admirals and high-tech weaponry and the valor of the recruits. There is some evidence that just such a migration is occurring. In a large law firm, the essential layer is the hungry-to-be-partner attorneys who labor insane hours for years, enriching their bosses as they pursue the carrot of "partner." In the retail world, it is the store managers and assistant managers who keep the store running smoothly. In construction, it is the foremen/women and onsite supervisors who get the building built. In every case, the person takes on the burdens in the belief that their career will be enhanced and they will make more money/gain more prestige. Yes, we all understand this. But they also must believe in the structural fairness, justice, opportunity, security, meritocracy, etc. of the machine they willingly serve—even if their belief is subconscious or rarely in their conscious thoughts. This belief is far more vulnerable than the Powers That Be seem to understand. You see the alienation, the bitterness, the disbelief, in factory workers when the factory shuts down, and their livelihoods are gone—and all too often, so too are the pension and benefits they were promised. You see it in the face of an academic who worked long hours for years "on the tenure track," carrying much of the department's teaching load, when she/he is ultimately denied tenure. Thank you for working for $40,000 a year for years alongside people doing the same work for twice the salary; good night and good luck. When the most dedicated servants of the system awaken to the realization that they are not benefiting from their service as they'd once believed, that their near-religious faith in the System has been bruised by the grim knowledge that the few are benefiting from the lives and sacrifices of the many, then they simply quit, or move down the chain to an undemanding position. You can still work in law without having to bill 80 hours a week. You can resign your commission at 20 years and go live on a farm and leave all the headaches behind. You can resign from the commissions and boards and "career-enhancing" stuff you've crammed in after your regular hours. You can refuse the offer of the position of supervisor, or manager, or head of sales, because you now see the extra pay and phony prestige isn't worth it. In a way, a belief in the value, transparency, trust and reciprocity of the System is like a religious belief. The converts, the true believers, are the ones who work like crazy for the company, or the Force or the firm. And when the veil of illusion is tugged from their eyes, then the Believer does a reversal, and becomes a devout non-believer in the System. He or she drops out, moves to a lower position, or "retires" to some lower level of employment. One trigger of such destruction of belief in the worth of the System is the loss of a job or house—an event I unfortunately anticipate will become very common. "But don't these people have to work to support their lifestyles?" Yes they do, until they realize they can live on half the money they thought they needed as an absolute minimum. Not that most people choose this—they find out via bankruptcy or being laid off, or by watching their buddies and friends getting laid off (or killed/wounded) around them. Their belief in the goodness and reciprocity of the System—that if you work hard and keep your nose clean, we're gonna take good care of you—fades and then dies. Immigrants are by self-selection believers, and the rise from poverty to relative wealth they see around them offers visible proof that sacrificing one's productive life for the System is rewarding. But once you've reached the plateau of relative wealth, then the proposition becomes contingent on exactly what happens to you and your family. If your kids all get advanced degrees and they can't find a decent job in their chosen profession, then you start wondering. If you get laid off, despite your decades of selfless service, then you start wondering. If you get passed over in favor of some brown-noser, you start wondering. And then you realize you don't have to work 60 hours a week, or live in a big house. An apartment works just fine, and 30 hours a week is enough. Let somebody else step up and take all the heat and the guff and the never-catch-up endlessness of the work. At that point—a point I anticipate will come to pass in the next 5-10 years—then the Elites' machine grinds to a crawl. People don't have to throw their bodies on the gears of the machine—they just have to stop believing, stop taking that promotion, and stop wanting to trade their entire lives for a thin slice of more more more. If that day comes, then the social contract will have to be rewritten, or an entirely new set of Elites will have to emerge with a new social contract which people are willing to believe and trust. Another way of stating "when belief in the system fades" is this: when the Plutocracy over-reaches. As noted above, societies collapse not just from foreign invasion or drought or environmental implosion but when the productive citizenry realize it's easier to let the increasingly burdensome structure collapse of its own weight than continue to support it. Once the productive class removes its political and economic will to preserve the institutions via taxes, the institutions will fall. In our current situation, we can say that once the middle class opts out of the system, the burdens of Empire and entitlements will bring the Federal government to insolvency. The social contract between the government/state and the middle class in advanced post-industrial democracies is fundamentally this: we pay substantial taxes, and you the state will handle the infrastructure of our society via various costly bureaucracies which don't require our input or oversight: Department of Defense, the judiciary, highway maintenance, etc. But as the state over-reaches—and by that I mean the both the state over-extending its powers and its functionaries claiming ever-higher shares of the national income—then the social contract breaks down. The middle class is dealt ever-higher taxes and fees, yet it receives less and less benefit as the less productive class and the Elites leverage their patronage of the status quo at the expense of the middle class. The middle class sees their income as measured by purchasing power declining, even as the roads fall into juddering disrepair, the public education they counted on to educate their children falls under the costly sway of ideological fads and special interest groups and every bureaucracy slips into grandiose self-serving spending as oversight vanishes. The upper middle class which pays the majority of the taxes then finds itself in an unfamiliar and increasingly unsustainable bind. The unspoken social contract with the state not only guaranteed working roads and a responsive, efficient bureaucracy for the high taxes paid; the status quo was supposed to offer its citizenry free expression. The ideals of personal liberty translated into leisure to pursue individual interests and to indulge in personal expression via music, the arts, sports, etc. Now the middle class finds itself in an ever-tightening vise. To maintain its lifestyle and pay the higher taxes demanded by the state, it finds that leisure and the opportunity for free individual expression have diminished. Instead of expression, the middle class experiences the stress of financial insecurity and overwork. With growing resentment, it looks at the entitlements granted the less productive classes in exchange for their passive acceptance of the status quo, and the increasing share of national income and wealth garnered by the self-serving Plutocracy. In nations where the citizenry are still struggling for basic survival, free expression is not a key value; traditional restrictive "glues" of the social order like arranged marriage and unquestioned gender inequality hold firm sway. In terms of human nature, we might surmise that these traditional societies are perched so close to the edge of survival that innovation is simply too risky; the potential gains do not outweigh the potential disruptions to a fragile, precarious order. In advanced post-industrial societies, on the other hand, innovation and transformation of the economy and institutions are seen as essential adaptations; failure to compete globally via innovation is recognized as a sure path to national poverty. There is a certain irony in the political and economic decline of the middle class. The very success of the middle class in becoming productive enough to gain leisure and the opportunity for individual expression was won at the cost of relinquishing involvement and oversight of the state. Freed of the restraint of oversight, the state was free to extend its powers, and its functionaries were free to feed on the rising taxes paid by the productive class. Now that the middle class finds itself squeezed on all sides, it has only three choices, none positive: Unfortunately for the middle class, today's "democracy" has been reduced to a sad simulacrum. When 97% of the incumbents win re-election via gerrymandering and propaganda (the remaining 3% either resigning in disgrace or dying in office) then exactly what is this "democracy"? Any middle class attempt to build a meaningful political voice will be fiercely resisted by the state and its employees and dependents. "Class warfare" will be invoked, not between the Plutocracy and the middle class, which would at least reflect reality. No, the state and the Plutocracy will task the propaganda machine of the Mainstream Corporate Media to place the conflict between the middle class and the less-productive class (those not productive enough to pay much taxes). Any claim to lessen the burden on an increasingly overwhelmed middle class will be shaped into an attack on the inalienable rights to various entitlements at the state's expense. It is in the self-interests of the Plutocracy and state to gin up a phony "class war" to distract the middle class from their true opponents: the state and its masters in the Plutocracy. We need only look at the millions of prescriptions for anti-anxiety and anti-depressant medications to measure the toll this ever-increasing burden is taking on the middle class. For each productive individual, opting out is far easier than trying to engage in a long, exhausting political battle. After all, the Plutocracy has immense resources and a huge stake in the outcome, as do state employees and those receiving benefits without paying taxes. Each of these constituencies recognizes the fight to maintain the status quo (i.e. to keep the middle class productive and paying the lion's share of the taxes) is a fight to the death. Thus the Plutocracy will pull out all stops to defend its influence, just as the public unions and beneficiaries of state largesse will throw their entire forces into maintaining the status quo. Meanwhile, the middle class productive taxpayer has less at stake; just another junk fee to pay, just another 10% surtax, etc. Pressed by the demands of commute, career, debt, family, etc., the productive citizen has little or no time or energy for a protracted political battle. So the Elite, the state and its beneficiaries will always win. But what neither the state, nor its public employees or its beneficiaries of government largesse understand is that by denying the middle class some respite and some stake in the political division of the tax revenues, they are insuring the middle class will eventually opt out and let the system collapse. It will simply not be worth the cost or the effort to maintain these top-heavy, high-cost institutions. Another irony is that the Plutocracy and the state will attempt to define the battle as "preserving our institutions" and "our middle class entitlements." Sadly, truthfulness plays little role in this structural political battle. We might ask: if the middle class was garnering such stupendous entitlements and benefits, then why are they so stressed, so unhappy, so burdened and so alienated, not just from their state but from themselves? Having been promised free expression and individual liberty, they find instead that they are essentially debt-serfs, working either to pay off debt owed to the Manor Houses of the Plutocracy or crushing taxes and junk fees owed the state. Some of this can be attributed to structural changes in the very nature of post-industrial work (see "End of Work"), but much can be laid on the divergence of the interests of the state and the Plutocracy from the interests of the middle class which supports them. So deep is the alienation and confusion that the middle class citizen, anxiety-ridden, staggering beneath worrisome debt and an ever-rising workload, popping countless bottles of psychotropic prescription drugs to maintain a semblance of "normalcy," blames their own inadequacies for their deep unhappiness and inability to bear the burdens imposed by the broken social contract. Indeed, opting out isn't just the best choice for many; it may be the only choice that enables sanity and a return to free individual expression. Once you're distracted by debt and overwork, you lose track of what's been lost. As always, we must ask: cui bono? To whose benefit? Certainly not the unhappy debt-serf. Yet so powerful are the simulacrum of democracy, prosperity, etc., many believe they are indeed working for their own goals and glory. But if this were true, why are they so unhappy, so burdened, so alienated and so perplexed by their own unhappiness? Would anyone choose this if they were truly acting on their own behalf? Thank you to everyone who emailed me in the past two weeks. I will try to respond to everyone over the next week. Your patience and understanding are greatly appreciated. If you'd like to watch me blink a lot and try desperately not to make a fool of myself answering very tough questions, you might enjoy: Dangerous Minds w/ Richard Metzger Episode 1 Part 1 (interviewing Charles Hugh Smith) Dangerous Minds w/ Richard Metzger Episode 1 Part 2 Dangerous Minds w/ Richard Metzger Episode 1 Part 3 Dangerous Minds w/ Richard Metzger Episode 1 Part 4 Thank you, Nancy Z. ($10), for your much-appreciated generous contribution to this site. I am greatly honored by your support and readership.
April 9, 2009
Though I just announced that I'd be straying from Survival+ for a few days,Survival+ 9: Squeezing the Middle Class (April 7, 2009) required a follow-up.
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
A Meandering Update
April 8, 2009
Thank you very sincerely to all who tolerated the sporadic posts and non-existent email replies of the past two weeks. Making matters even worse, I have been struggling to construct a comprehensive analysis of the multi-layered crises we face ahead, and not always successfully as patient readers already know who have tried to read the Survival+ posts without glazing over....
Now that I am back at my desk, I can report that I spent the past few weeks in rural Hawaii without wifi networks or even a dialup Internet connection. No, it's not my "bugout" hideaway, though it could certainly fill that role nicely--not because it's so remote or defensible but because it's a sparsely populated island with tremendous undeveloped agricultural potential, and my wife's family is close by. That offers us a network of reciprocal support in tough times--the ultimate "security" in my opinion.
Since I have roughly split my adult life between California and Hawaii, and since I have lived on three of the seven inhabited Hawaiian Islands and went to high school and university there, I can claim some passing knowledge of the Island State.
Thus I don't consider it hyperbole to suggest that Hawaii offers an apt metaphor for the U.S., and indeed the entire industrialized global economy. Honolulu is the most isolated metropolis in the world, lying some 2,500 miles from any source of petroleum, industrial goods, non-native foods, etc.
What strikes this observer is the immense distance between the residents' unconscious confidence in the supply chain which fuels and feeds the islands' 1.2 million people and the actual extreme fragility of that supply chain. Having thought obsessively about the issues raised in Survival+ for months, I am sobered by the reality that a mere week without the steady arrival of oil tankers and ships loaded with foodstuffs would render Oahu/Honolulu vulerable to shortages and perhaps outright rationing--and if the supply chain disruption lasted longer than a week or two, hunger and civil disorder would become distinct possibilities.
How different is the nation? Perhaps not as much as most believe. The vaunted Strategic Oil Reserve holds some 600 million barrels of oil--a princely sounding quantity until you divide it by the 20 million barrels the U.S. consumes every day. Thus the U.S. holds a mere month of oil in reserve. Yes, there are millions of barrels in other commercial storage facilities, but even 1.2 billion barrels is only two months' supply.
Even more crazy-making is the fact that the islands have grown increasingly dependent on the Mainland for such basic food items as milk and eggs. Where a mere decade ago, the islands boasted numerous dairies and egg farms, the last dairy closed last year. A major egg farm on the Island of Hawaii recently closed after almost 20 years in business, a victim of rising costs and state/county neglect/disinterest.
Instead of raising official alarms, the demise of fundamental agricultural production has elicited either yawns--Mainland milk is cheaper--or the sort of handwringing which passes for official "concern."
Knowledgeable private citizens such as Richard Ha (please see his website in the right sidebar) are deeply concerned, and are trying to raise awareness about the need for what they term "food security"--that is, food which is grown in the islands for local consumption.
But the state and county governments have offered only lip-service encouragement--the kind which costs nothing and accomplishes even less.
Again--how different is the rest of the nation? How dependent are we on food and fuel trucked over great distances from elsewhere? The dependence of the U.S. as a whole on liquid petroluem fuel is essentially 100%.
The state of Hawaii, like many other local governments, touts a goal of generating 50% of the state's energy from alternative sources by 2030, but the actual costs and planning are left harmlessly vague. Maybe private investors will step up and make it happen, blah blah blah. California announced a "million solar roofs" goal a few years ago, but how many units have been installed? What resources have been devoted to making this ambitious goal a reality?
Plans to lay undersea electrical transmission cables from Lanai to Oahu are being bandied about, with a price tag drifting from $600 million to $2 billion--obviously just wild guesses. Meanwhile, a significant number of the 100,000+ roofs on Oahu could be covered with solar panels for the same amount of money being discussed for a cable which would waste up to a third of the energy transmitted and generate not a single kilowatt.
This pie-in-the-sky, "a new technology will save us from actually having to adapt to a new reality" is compelling not just in Hawaii but everywhere. As I have endlessly noted here, all the pie-in-the-sky technologies other than photovoltaic and other solar technolgies are far from scaling up to replace oil. At least distributed solar has the advantage of tapping into the existing electrical grid, but without some new storage technology it must be backed up at night by fossil fuels or nuclear power. Perhaps wind and tidal sources can contribute significant percentages of 24/7 power, but scaling these up poses enormous challenges.
In other words, a smug faith that some new technology will magically blossom in time to avoid a decline in petroleum is not a substitute for the hard tradeoffs and sacrifices which must be made now to be ready for that decline, which could occur within a decade or even sooner.
Like the nation as a whole, Hawaii's economy has been dependent on real estate development/speculation and cheap oil for the past 50 years. A "plan B" to these fast-disappearing sources of growth is nowhere in sight. The entire point of the Survival+ exercise was to examine the models of finance, economic growth and governance which served up 20 years of real prosperity (1946-1966), 15 years of post-industrial malaise (1967-1981) and 25 years of essentially bogus debt-based prosperity (1982-2007).
If these models are failing, what's our Plan B? The TV "news" (that is, an entertainment "if it bleeds, it leads" simulacrum of news) was busy touting the opening of Victoria's Secret in a Honolulu mall as the savior of the faltering Hawaiian economy (tourism down 12% or more from a year ago) and boasting that real estate prices have only fallen 5% in the past year--never mind the pages of foreclosures filling the back pages of the local papers--as if tourism and speculative real estate development will be coming back shortly.
How different is California, Florida, et al.? Not much. Like superstitious cargo-cult believers in remote South Seas islands who hoped to spark a return of the World War II plenty with appeals to stone radios and other talismans, the U.S. citizenry hoping for the return of debt-based, cheap-oil "good times" are doomed to the bitter realization that superstitition is no substitute for an appreciation of the extreme fragility of the supply chain--both physical and financial--which feeds our consumerist economy.
In an attempt not to drive off yet more readers, I will give Survival+ a break and return to the site's usual scattershot, semi-random coverage of various diverse topics.
Thank you, Sander B. ($20), for your very generous contribution to this site. I am greatly honored by your support and readership.
Survival+ 9: Squeezing the Middle Class
April 7, 2009
As noted above, the Roman Empire's decline can be traced to a variety of causes. But we can summarize them collectively as the middle class being squeezed to death by the over-reach of the state and its Plutocracy/Elites rulers.
Stated another way: as the Elites' interests diverge from those of the society as a whole, the middle class is caught in an economic and political vice between the state and its "powers behind the throne" Plutocracy and the large (and politically dangerous) underclass dependent on the largesse of the state. As each class (the Plutocracy and the class of less productive citizenry) become ever more dependent on the state's power and revenues for their privileges and entitlements, they demand the state's share of national income expand at the expense of the middle class.
Since the Plutocracy and the underclass both need the state's power (to exclude the Elites from service or taxes) and revenues (to fund "rights to entitlements"), they will fight ferociously and ceaselessly for their share of the dwindling national income. The middle class, distracted by the pressures to remain productive in a declining economy, have neither the time, will, capital or organization to match the upper and lower classes' desperate squeezing.
As a result, the middle class loses the political battle and either opts out (what I call "Voluntary Poverty" ) or simply collapses into penury/poverty, joining the underclass.
It is important to refute one of the state's primary emotional points of leverage in demanding an ever-larger proportion of national income: we need this to help the poor. A close examination of the roughly $3 trillion Federal budget and the $1.5 trillion budgets of local government reveals that programs which directly alleviate the direct consequences of poverty such as hunger and lack of shelter (food stamps, now called SNAP and Section 8 housing vouchers, for example) are essentially trivial percentages of all government outlays.
For instance, the entire food stamp program (SNAP) serves approximately 30 million people at a cost of just over $30 billion—a mere 1% of Federal outlays. Section 8 Housing Vouchers costs about $16 billion—less than one-half percent of Federal outlays. The entire Housing and Urban Development department which also serves the homeless is about 1% of Federal outlays.
Add in programs with successful track records like Head Start and at most perhaps 5% of all tax revenues and government borrowing actually directly aid the poverty-stricken. So where does the rest of it go? To behemoth programs like Medicare $700 billion and rising at double-digit rates year after year), of which private analysis suggest 50% is waste and fraud, and a huge percentage of the balance either harms or does not improve patient health.
It is, however, very profitable for pharmaceutical companies and other vendors. Consider that approximately 1% of the citizenry control 2/3 of the productive assets of the U.S., and the question cui bono—to whose benefit are $4.5 trillion in taxes levied? Is quickly answered: not the poor. Sadly, the poverty-stricken are the "moral justification" marketed by various Elites to justify their own stupendous take of ever-rising state revenues and debt issues.
The Artifice of Political Ideologies
From this long-range cyclical perspective, the artificial nature of political ideology is starkly revealed. The Right focuses all its attention and ire on the insatiable appetite of the state for more power and revenue, while the Left focuses all its attention and ire on the insatiable appetite of the Plutocracy for increased privilege and wealth. Unknown to the ideological adherents, each is one side of a single coin.
While the Left focuses on the plight of an underclass distracted by the "bread" provided by the state and the "circuses" provided by the Mainstream Corporate Media, the Right focuses on the diminishment of rights and income which results from the state's ever-increasing taxes and regulatory powers.
Neither side sees that the insatiable appetite of the state and Plutocracy are one in the same. As both are blind to the causal structures, each seeks to defend its chosen champion (the Left, the state, the Right, the Plutocracy) from the slings and arrows cast by the ideological "opponents".
A handful of Revolutionaries fantasize about the underclass grabbing power from both the state and the Plutocracy, but since the underclass is by definition not productive enough to tax, there is little to entice the middle class to join their revolution. For they foresee they will have to pay for the costs of the "revolution" just as they carried most of the weight of the old state/Plutocracy. This is the classic "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" situation in which a new Plutocracy simply replaces the old one.
Libertarians, in their haste to focus on the rights of the individual to unfettered political and economic liberties, fail to notice that the Plutocracy is delighted to encourage their focus. For a nation of subservient debt-serfs can exist quite peaceably in a low-tax state dominated and controlled by a Plutocracy.
Indeed, a semi-feudal state founded on debt-serfdom has the luxury of offering generous political and economic liberties to its indentured citizenry—as long as they don't join together to challenge the perquisites, privileges and wealth of the Plutocracy.
In this analysis, the Plutocracy is well-served by a politics of experience which neatly dices the political ideological spectrum into various non-threatening and mutually distracting slices of rancor and illusion.
Democracy, Empire, Socialism, Self-Regulating Markets
Since the middle class is the foundation of the state (by paying the taxes and providing political support for regulations and infrastructure), then questions of democracy, markets and empire directly affect the squeezing of the middle class.
While this discussion may seem far afield from practical responses to the intersecting crises we face, it is actually of paramount importance. For if the American state/Empire over-reaches globally, and the Plutocracy over-reaches domestically, then the middle class must either respond in its own defense or collapse beneath rising taxes.
The state and its Elites will defend the status quo very robustly and perseverently, overriding or simply ignoring middle class attempts to limit its power.
We should pause here to remind ourselves that the politics of experience, the "obvious" incentives and assumptions which we do not even notice, such is their "naturalness," masks the actual mechanics of this destruction of the middle class.
Thus the state will argue that regulation protects everyone (even if it doesn't, and is riddled with profitable loopholes that served Elites' interests behind a sham transparency), the "underprivileged" "need" various services and benefits (even if the supposedly "necessary" benefits like bilingual classes fail in their stated objective) and an ever-increasing public payroll is needed to "serve the public."
The question of who pays for all this is left uneasily unsaid; the Elites will pay a much smaller percentage of their income than the middle class, and as a result their share of the national income continues to rise as the middle class founders.
The Elites will quietly voice their needs in the hushed halls of power, confident that media transparency (recall that they own or control the mainstream media) will be a simulacrum of transparency, a sham to satisfy the easily distracted public.
Thus it is not at all clear that democracy and Empire, that is, geopolitical hegemony, are compatible. Nor is it clear that centralized state planning (socialism) and democracy are entirely compatible, either (please see The Road to Serfdom by F. A. Hayek).
Why? Socialism always contains the potential for "the tyranny of the many" which concerned many of our Founding Fathers. If 51% of the citizenry is receiving benefits or free services from the government, they can essentially dominate the oppressed productive class via the ballot box.
Put another way: the percentage of people who will gladly accept free money or services is virtually 100%, while the percentage of those willing to risk their time and capital for productive enterprise is considerably less than 100%. Thus the less-productive benefactors of government largess (socialism) can extract ever-higher taxes from the remaining productive members of the society, until the productive members either collapse into penury as in the late Roman Empire, or they opt out of supporting the unsustainable burdens imposed on them by the tyranny of the state's more numerous benefactors.
Why should we care about what sounds like an academic debate?
The answer is that the compatibility of democracy, socialism and Empire are vital issues for all of us seeking liberty, security and prosperity for a variety of reasons.
Democracy offers the middle-class some modicum of power. If democracy is undermined, the middle class has essentially no power. The fall of Rome provides an excellent template.
Empire costs a great deal of money that must be raised by taxes, mostly on the middle class. Thus Imperial overreach in the form of costly wars with little to no payoff (a classic example of marginal returns) ends up overburdening the middle class. This is precisely what occurred in the decline and fall of Rome.
Central planning/government control of assets and revenues favors the politically influential Plutocracy over the middle class, as government ends up serving the Plutocracy's interests under the cover of expanding benefits to the less productive.
Government regulations intended to rein in global corporations end up strangling middle-class entrepreneurs as the Plutocracy arranges for loopholes and exclusions which the middle-class cannot exploit.
Government overreach insures that multiple government agencies and regulatory bodies create conflicting, overlapping layers of authority and decision-making, crippling middle-class entrepreneurship with bureaucratic sclerosis.
One example of too many governmental stakeholders resulting in bureaucratic sclerosis is the astonishingly time-consuming and arduous process of adding a new railway station in California. Everyone agreed that "smart growth" and common-sense transportation planning required an additional railway stop to serve commuters living in a new medium-density community on an existing rail line. Despite the obvious need and the will of the people as expressed by a general plan voted into law, the process is now in Year Nine with no resolution in sight due to the staggering number of governmental and private "stakeholders" /agencies with some say over the rail lines and station.
It is amazing that anything at all gets accomplished in the U.S. when situations such as this are examined in detail. As always, the proper context is the high cost to the middle class when political approval by various overlapping governmental stakeholders and Elites is required. Democracy has in effect been undermined by an ever-expanding government of overlapping authorities and ever-higher fees and taxes and a Plutocracy that gains exclusions and loopholes via political influence.
The Fantasy of Self-Regulated Markets
The fantasy that markets can be effectively self-regulated is encouraged by the self-serving Plutocracy and its "free market" enthusiasts in the MSM, as unregulated markets enable the fullest expression of greed, fraud, legerdemain and chicanery. No better proof of this can be found than the insiders' exploitation of the mortgage/housing/credit bubble's excesses of lies and leverage. Please read Fiasco: The Inside Story of a Wall Street Trader and Greed, Fraud & Ignorance: A Subprime Insider's Look at the Mortgage Collapse for more on these topics.
Put another way: "free" markets require transparency of inputs, competitors, pricing, value, ingredients, etc. Without transparency, then customers/participants' decisions cannot be sound. Yet transparency offers no competitive advantage, while secrecy and obfuscation offer tremendous competitive advantages. For example, an arcane and duplicitous property appraisal is a simulacrum of transparency, manipulating data to support a bogus valuation in order to qualify for a mortgage. A transparently false appraisal would not support the fraudulent mortgage or the immense profit it generated for everyone involved.
The mortgage itself is written in such a fashion that its true costs are obscured—the very opposite of transparency. Thus, the mortgage/leverage/derivative/ratings bubble of fraud and greed depended on obscurity and obfuscation, and indeed, market participants lost competitive advantage in terms of profit if they dared choose transparency.
This is why it is specious to claim an unregulated finance-based economy will regulate itself. Though the government is by nature attempting to expand at the expense of the citizenry, that doesn't mean there is no need for governmental regulation. It simply means the regulations must be strong yet simple: transparency in all matters, no exceptions.
The classic examination of how self-regulating markets turn everything and everyone into commodities ripe for exploitation is The Great Transformation by Karl Polanyi.
The big losers in the fantasy of self-regulating markets are the middle class; the Plutocracy buys itself exclusions. The costs of dysfunctional markets eventually end up on the backs of the middle class while the outsized profits end up in the pockets of the Elites. Profits are privatized and losses are socialized, i.e. borne by the middle class taxpayers. Like the Roman citizens granted free bread and endless public entertainments, the less productive citizens are pleased to support the status quo (simply by remaining passive) as the status quo has effectively bought them off with "bread and circuses."
Markets, The Commons and Lifecycle Costs
Just as we must be careful of government because of its inherent self-interest and vulnerability to influence/control by the Plutocracy, we must be careful not to assume that markets are effective at setting prices in all settings just because they work in limited, short-term contexts.
The reason for our caution: markets are incapable of pricing the full social, medical and environmental costs of a product's entire lifecycle. Thus coal is priced by its demand as fuel and the cost to extract it from the earth. But if coal is burned in great quantities, as in China, then the air quality becomes adverse to human health.
People breathing such particulate-polluted air are far more likely to die from respiratory diseases than those who don't breathe such toxin-laden air. So shouldn't the cost of treating millions of people and the loss of millions of man-years of productive labor be priced into the cost of mining and burning coal?
And suppose the cost of restoring strip-mined areas to some semblance of its pre-mined natural state was built into the cost of mining surface coal. What would the price per ton be then?
Markets will never price in the full lifecycle and social/environmental costs on their own; self-regulated markets are about reaping maximum short-term profits, not seeking out long-term costs which competitors might be able to shirk. The full lifecycle costs of any product are often ambiguous; how do we price in the cost of restoring a landscape when we don't yet know the cost of doing so?
In both socialist/Communist nations like China and "free market" capitalist nations like the U.S., the market effectively shunts all these "common area" costs of doing business onto private individuals who had no choice in the matter (of the air they breathe or the power source they purchase electricity from) or onto the government which must then shoulder the healthcare and environmental costs via taxes on productive citizens.
Following our precept that all markets require transparency above all else, we find that the Plutocracy engineers obscure tax credits and subsidies for its industries, masking the true cost behind these government tax breaks. Thus the citizenry will find the task of sorting out the real benefits of transparent solar subsidies and obscure nuclear power/gas-oil subsidies quite difficult. This is of course quite purposeful; transparency may create a well-oiled marketplace but obscurity and obfuscation generate much larger profits.
The analog to this is monopoly. If one enterprise (or a handful in collusion) gains near-total control of a market, then the profits to be gained are immensely greater than those earned in a highly competitive market. This is why Marx posited that the drive to monopoly is inherent to capitalism. And of course a monopoly on information also generates far more handsome profits than transparency. This is why we find both government and its hidden masters, the Plutocracy, are constantly seeking to bury the truth at every turn, and why each fights transparency so fiercely.
To expect the state not to seek expansion as its self-interest, to expect wealthy citizens not to seek to influence the state to align policy with their own interests, to expect capitalism not to trend to monopoly, to expect markets not to shun transparency in favor of obfuscation and secrecy—these are all akin to expecting gravity to cease pulling us to earth. These are what we might call ontological forces, forces which are built into the very nature of the state, capitalism, markets and thus into human nature itself.
This is why we have to be careful not to fall for the seductive artifice of ideology as we choose responses to the multiple challenges ahead. Neither the market nor the state is an answer; each is as much a part of the problem as it is a part of the solution.
Political Disunity Squeezes the Middle Class
In Collapse of Complex Systems: Incremental Change and Collapse I address how political disunity ends up crushing the middle class's wealth and political influence (reprinted here).
In The Fall of the Roman Empire , author Michael Grant identified political disunity as one the one key causes of the fall of the Western Roman Empire (Rome).
One engine of such disunity and squabbling, of course, is a deep-denial complacency: if a large percentage of the ruling class/citizenry sees nothing wrong, or counts on feeble "reforms" to resolve mounting global challenges, then they will hobble those seeking systemic, sweeping changes required to survive the challenges.
Another key reason for this crippling disunity is the resistance of the plutocracy/underclass recipients to any change in the status quo. It may strike some as ironic that the two ends of the political spectrum are united in one goal: fiercely resisting any shifting of largesse/benefits. At the top, the "fortunate 400" in Roman society paid less and less tax as the crises mounted, while 300,000 fortunates at the bottom rung continued to draw free bread and 170 days of free public entertainment in Rome as the Empire collapsed inward on Rome.
We see plentiful evidence of both trends around us. The number of recent political appointees who felt paying taxes was for plebeians is not just embarrassing, it's indicative of a broad cultural trend; and it seems many of the riots we read about in western Europe stem from proposed cuts in what are essentially "bread and circuses" welfare benefits which the Empire can no longer afford to shower on its less-productive (non-tax paying) residents.
As the plutocracy contributes less and less to the finances of a heavily burdened central government, wealth disparity rises. This trend has been firmly in place for years. For 'Fortunate 400,' a Tumbling Tax Rate (Wall Street Journal)
As in fast-declining Rome, the plutocracy is pleased to wield its wealth and influence to insure it pays 17% tax rate (much, much less when tax-free municipal bonds are counted as income) while the productive elements of the economy are saddled with 40%-50% tax burdens.
Also as in headed-to-oblivion Rome, the plutocracy no longer contributes its sons and daughters to military service; that is left to the poor.
Lastly, rigid ideological camps are creating disunity as the middle (and the middle class) are eroded. Thus we have a Congress which united under pressure to give $700 billion in borrowed money to the banks under a Republican administration, and now under a Democratic administration the Republicans in Congress have belatedly discovered a deep desire for fiscal prudence--a desire which they mysteriously lacked for the 8 years of the borrow-and-spend Bush administration.
Though it is impossible to summarize the wealth of information in Jared Diamond's monumental Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed , it seems that the inability to see the underlying fragility of the environmental base of the economy was a key factor in the collapse of the cultures Diamond examines.
In an eerily similar way, the Plutocracy in the U.S. is essentially blind to the extreme fragility of the global energy complex, global fresh water supply, global soil reserves and the global public health system. As many authors have detailed, a global economy without abundant cheap fossil fuels will be unable to feed and maintain 6.5 billion humans.
Though neither Grant nor Diamond mentions this specifically, I note that the Roman plutocracy/ central leadership obviously hoped that additional regulations and edicts would somehow turn the tide. I see the same over-reliance on legal mechanisms, edicts and policy tweaks in the U.S. today. A Congress of attorneys rather unsurprisingly is enamored of legalisms and policy tweaks, and a plutocracy and welfare class wary of any reduction in benefits and tax breaks is pleased to hope tweaks and tucks will somehow maintain a crumbling status quo.
But as Donella Meadows outlined in her seminal paper, Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System (Sustainability Institute), adjusting the perameters of a system has limited effects. What this means is that fiddling around with "reforms" like increasing the fee paid by Medicare recipients by $10 will never make Medicare financially sustainable.
Ditto tweaking the gas mileage of the U.S. fleet by a mile or two, and 99.9% of all the other "reforms" proposed and fought over.
What we have in essence is an over-regulated, overly complex, cost-heavy structure which we attempt to "fix" by adding further layers of complexity and overhead costs. The idea that these incremental approaches can change the fundamental structural flaws is simply false; their net effect will be to hasten the collapse of the systems they seek to repair. This is what I call The Seductive Illusion of Incremental Change (May 13, 2008).
As noted before, Tainter's The Collapse of Complex Societies suggests that at some point the citizenry of failing societies more or less choose to let their unsustainable systems topple rather than continue the draining attempt to support the burden.
Disunity, complacency, growing wealth disparity, rising military and taxation burdens, fragile environmental foundations—all these need only a sustained drought or energy shortage to tumble like dominoes.
Other essays on this topic:
What Won't Change
The Middle Class Is Crumbling
Complacency and The Will To Radical Reform
Complacency and Scalability Traps
If you'd like to see how inarticulate I am 'live,' then you may be amused by My interview with Richard Metzger on BoingBoing.net. Richard was kind enough to interview me via video-Skype and edit the results into four 6-7-minute segments.
NOTE: My computer/web time continues to be extremely limited; my apologies for the inability to respond to emails for the next week.
Sunday, April 05, 2009
Survival+ 8: The Forces Behind Cycles of History
April 6, 2009
There are two basic critiques of historical cycles:
1 .Cycles are essentially arbitrary, an order extracted from random data to support a priori claims (i.e. finding data to support pre-selected positions)
2. Without an explanation of the causal mechanisms which power the cycles, then cycles cannot be predictive
The first argument has the strength of skepticism but the weakness of forced obscurity. Anyone looking at displays of prices over time notices patterns; the question is whether they are regular enough to suggest underlying causes are at work.
For example, if we discern cycles of crop prices, we might look first at crop yields and population growth, that is, supply and demand. We might next profitably look for regular variations in weather (rain/drought, warm/cool, etc.) which might explain why crop yields rose or fell in what appear to be cycles.
Taking the investigation one step further, we might look at the sun's energy output and the orbital variations in the planet's rotation around the sun. And indeed, we would find an imperfect but discernable cycle of sunspot activity that correlates to weather and crop yields.
The more inputs/feedback loops there are in a system, then naturally the more complex the interactions between all the "moving parts" will be. Nonetheless, within the "noise" of weather data various long-term patterns do emerge.
So if we are positing cycles in human history which we claim predictably repeat, what are the causal mechanisms for these cycles?
Environmental/demographic overreach. Like all other organisms, humans tend to fill every available niche to the maximum carrying capacity of that environment. This cause is explored in The Great Wave: Price Revolutions and the Rhythm of History. In essence, humans expand their population and resource extraction right up to the high-tide line. Then, when the tide recedes--as it inevitably does in droughts and other weather patterns, resource depletion, etc.—humans are suddenly faced with starvation/pandemics and endless conflicts over remaining diminishing resources.
State overreach. States tend to expand whenever the opportunity presents itself as the spoils of conquest (not necessarily of territory but of markets) outweigh the costs. States also relentlessly expand their share of the national income via higher taxation.
Plutocracy overreach. As the state expands, the Plutocracy leverages its growing wealth into greater power over state functions. With no natural limits on its power or share of the national income, the Plutocracy inevitably overreaches, taking so much of the national income and wealth that the middle class, the backbone of the state's tax revenues and support, breaks down. Caught between the pincers of ever-more onerous taxes and the state-granted privileges of the Plutocracy, the middle class is driven into penury and insolvency.
The four-generation cycle of forgetfulness. As individuals, we tend to truly trust only what we have experienced directly or heard directly from parents and grandparents. As a result, the follies of excess and overreach that caused declines or collapses in previous generations are forgotten in the passage of four generations, or roughly 80 years. Even cultures with written histories exhibit this pattern. Please read The Fourth Turning for more on this topic.
Marginal returns. Expansions run out steam for many reasons, but exhaustion of resources and increasingly marginal returns on investment are proximate causes. (see below)
Illusion of incremental change. As trends run out steam and reverse course, the state and Plutocracy respond with incremental changes which they hope will reverse the decline without affecting their power, wealth and privilege. Alas, merely adjusting the parameters in a failing system is not enough to rescue it from collapse. (see below)
Once the costs of Empire/expansion rise above the value of the spoils gained, the state is caught between the demands of its ever-growing army of bureaucrats and dependents for higher tax revenues and the demands of the Plutocracy for greater tax relief and more privilege.
As individual leaders within the state are inevitably beholden to sponsors in the Plutocracy, such appeals cannot be denied. Given the inevitable rise of state powers and taxation, the leaders are loath to cut either their powers or their power base—the bureaucracies and dependent citizenry that both feed on rising tax revenues.
As a result, the relatively powerless but productive middle class is squeezed for more taxes to spare the Plutocracy and those dependent on state largesse from any pain. This is the inevitable result of state and Plutocracy overreach.
In an effort to forestall the collapse of its middle class while still increasing revenues, the state inevitably turns to two mechanisms: borrowing vast sums from foreign lenders and debasing the currency to create the illusion of increasing revenues/money supply.
Just as inevitably, the state eventually defaults on its foreign debt, and the currency collapses in value and is replaced with a new "good money" currency. In the decline/collapse phase, the impoverished middle class, a powerless underclass and a recalcitrant Plutocracy do battle for the diminished resources and state powers.
In cases such as the French Revolution, the Plutocracy is overthrown, however briefly, and replaced with a "revolutionary" ascendant class of political plutocrats. In cases such as the American Revolution, the middle class joins with enlightened segments of the Plutocracy to achieve a more balanced state structure. The Plutocracy agrees to these limits not out of selfless noblesse oblige but out of a long-range understanding that political and financial stability serves its self-interests.
Increasingly Marginal Returns Lead to Collapse
One of the structural impediments to fashioning a true prosperity from the ashes of the bogus prosperity now imploding is marginal returns and the illusion of incremental change, two key topics I have covered in Marginal Returns Trigger Implosion , The U.S. Economy: Increasingly Marginal Returns (2009) , The Seductive Illusion of Incremental Change (2008) and Incremental Change and Collapse .
Author/thinker Jeremy Rifkin describes this mechanism extremely well in his fascinating book The Hydrogen Economy . He illustrates the concept on a global scale by using the Roman Empire as an example.
Rome's early conquests yielded huge returns on "investment": large tracts of fertile cropland, significant treasure, productive populaces, etc. But as time progressed, more and more of the Empires' wealth flowed to the citizenry of Rome, and conquests of distant lands such as Britain yielded less and less return; garrisoning these distant territories began costing more than they produced.
Eventually even holding onto the now-exhausted croplands and restive populations exceeded Rome's dwindling wealth, and the Empire collapsed. There are many ways of accounting for empire-collapse, be it Roman or Mayan, but certainly "marginal returns" describes one element.
Here is how Rifkin applies the concept to U.S. farming practices:
The pesticides also destroy the remaining soil. The soil contains millions of microscopic bacteria, fungi, algae, and protozoa, as well as worms and anthropods. These organisms maintain the fertility and structure of the soil. Pesticides destroy these organisms and their complex habitats, hastening the process of soil depletion and erosion.
American farms lose more than four billion tons of topsoil annually, much of it because of the high-tech farming practices introduced over the past half century. By the 1970s, the U.S. had lost more than one-third of its agricultural topsoil. The depletion and erosion, in turn, have required the use of ever-increasing amounts of petrochemical fertilizers to maintain agricultural output. Marginal returns have set in. More and more energy inputs are required to produce smaller gains in net energy yield...
The Seductive Illusion of Incremental Change
An apt summary of the principle can be found in the ancient Chinese saying, "the journey of a thousand li starts with a single step." We all know small changes can eventually make profound changes in a system or person's life. For instance, lose a pound a week and in a year one has lost 50 pounds. As a society, increasing the efficiency of buildings and homes, one at a time, can add up to stupendous savings of energy and money.
The illusion is in the happy story that incremental changes will fix a fundamentally broken system. If a person doesn't profoundly change their understanding of self, diet, nutrition, self-image, identity, marketing, exercise and discipline, then the likelihood of incremental changes in their lifestyle producing profound long-term results is unfortunately low. The same can be said for a wastrel, profligate economy that wastes energy on a vast scale or an economy addicted to cheap, abundant credit.
In systems analysis, incremental change is likened to adjusting the perameters of a system. But as Donella Meadows outlined in her seminal paper, Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System (Sustainability Institute), adjusting the perameters of a system has limited effects. What this means is that fiddling around with "reforms" like increasing the fee paid by Medicare recipients by $10 will never make Medicare financially sustainable.
As an example of how the forces discussed above work in the real world, consider:
Food Shortages, Rising Prices, Stagnant Wages: Welcome to the 13th Century .
Human history is not just a chaotic cacophony; if we pay attention, we observe rhythms and structures. The reason is as obvious as it is profound. Like all species of life on earth, humanity has been structured/selected via complex adaptations to survive and reproduce within various ecological niches. That our social structures and our histories share certain characteristics over historical time is common sense.
History, like an individual, is unique even as it shares characteristics with previous eras. Without studying history, we are prone to both arrogance and insecurity. Unaware of the past, we proudly reckon we've gone beyond the reach of cyclical history; and then, when the cycle turns and we are adrift and fearful, then we feel inadequate to the task of righting the sinking ship.
History properly studied renders us humble about our ability to control nature and events, and confident that we too can survive bad times.
Which brings me once again to The Great Wave: Price Revolutions and the Rhythm of History by historian David Hackett Fischer (recommended by reader Cheryl A., who kindly sent me a copy of the book.)
In Fischer's well-documented view, there is a grand cycle of prices and wages that turn on the simple but profound law of supply and demand; all else is detail.
As a people prosper and multiply, the demand for goods like food and energy outstrips supply, causing eras of rising prices. Long periods of stable prices (supply increases along with demand) beget rising wages and widespread prosperity. Once population and financial demand outstrip supply of food and energy--a situation often triggered by a series of catastrophically poor harvests--then the stability decays into instability as shortages develop and prices spike.
These junctures of great poverty, insecurity and unrest set the stage for wars, revolutions and pandemics.
It is remarkable indeed that the very conditions so troubling us now were also present in the price rises of the 13th, 16th and 18th centuries. Unfortunately, those cycles did not have Disney endings: the turmoil of the 13th century brought war and a series of plagues which killed 40% of Europe's population; the 16th century's era of rising prices tilled fertile ground for war, and the 18th century's violent revolutions and resultant wars can be traced directly to the unrest caused by spiking prices.
(The very day that prices for bread reached their peak in Paris, an angry mob tore down the Bastille prison, launching the French Revolution.)
After a gloriously long run of stable prices in the 19th century--prices were essentially unchanged in Britain between 1820 and 1900--The 20th century was one of steadily increasing prices. Fischer takes great pains to demolish the ideologically appealing notion that all inflation is monetary; the supply of money (gold and silver) rose spectacularly in the 19th century but prices barely budged. In a similar fashion, eras of rising prices have seen stable money supplies. Yes, monetary expansion can play a part, but Fischer has done his homework, and population growth is a far stronger correlation than money supply.
Monetary inflation can lead to hyperinflation, of course, but there are always mitigating factors in those circumstances. The long wave is not one of hyperinflation but of supply and demand imbalances undoing the social order.
Americans are inherently suspicious of anything that seems to threaten constraint of the American Will or Dream; thus it is not surprising that cycles of history are largely unknown in the U.S. As Fischer explains:
This collective amnesia is partly the consequence of an attitude widely shared among decision-makers in America, that history is more or less irrelevant to the urgent problems before them.
Fischer notes that he describes not cycles but waves, which are more variable and less predictable. (Surfers know to count waves, as they tend to arrive in sets.)
Is the sudden rise in the price of oil unique? Not at all. Energy in 1300 was firewood, and as Fischer relates, the cost of energy skyrocketed then, too:
In England from 1261 to 1320, the price of firewood and charcoal rose faster and farther than any other commodity. Close behind the soaring cost of energy came price-rises for food-stuffs of various kinds--particluarly for grain, meat and dairy products.
Talk about being ripped from the headlines: this describes our current situation remarkably well.
In response to this great rise in prices of essentials, both commoners and governments debased the currency. In their day, this meant shaving the edges of coins, or debasing new coins with non-precious metals. The debasement was an attempt to increase money to counteract the rise in prices, but it failed (of course). Every few decades, a new undebased coinage was released, and then the cycle of debasement began anew.
Just as insidiously, wages fell:
But as inflation continued in the mid-13th century, money wages began to lag behind. By the late 13th and early 14th centuries real wages were dropping at a rapid rate.
Hmm--sound familiar? Now guess what happened next:
At the same time that wages fell, rents and interest rose sharply. Returns to landowners generally kept pace with inflation or exceeded it.
This growing gap between returns to labor and capital was typical of price-revolutions in modern history. So also was its social result: a rapid growth of inequality that appeared in the late stages of every long inflation.
And what happened to government expenditures? It's deja vu all over again--deficits:
Yet another set of cultural responses to inflation created disparities of a different kind: fiscal imbalances between public income and expenditures. Governments fell deep into debt during the middle and later years of the 13th century.
Oh, and crime and illegitimacy also rose. Fischer summarizes the end-game of the price-rise wave thusly:
In the late 13th century, the medieval price-revolution entered another stage, marked by growing instability. Prices rose and fell in wild swings of increasing amplitude. Inequality increased at a rapid rate. Public deficits surged ever higher. The economy of Western Europe became dangerously vulnerable to stresses it might have managed more easily in other eras.
And there you have our future, writ large in the 13th, 16th and 18th century price-revolution waves which preceded ours. It is hubris in the extreme to think we have somehow morphed into some new kind of humanity far different from those people who tore down the Bastille in a great frustrated rage at prices for energy and bread they could no longer afford.
It is foolish to blame "speculators" for the rise in food and energy, when the human population has doubled in 40 years and the consumption of energy and food has exploded as a result. Yes, technology in the form of the Green Revolution enabled vastly greater yields per acre; and yields in many places can still be increased with fertilizers, improved seeds and so on.
But all of this was the result of cheap, easy-to-pump, readily available oil. All the miracles resulted from cheap oil, and now that it's gone--yes, yes, there is more, but it's not cheap or easy to pump--then we have to replace it with some other energy source.
But petroleum and natural gas are wonderfully adaptable energy sources, handy for making fertilizer, plastics, and other chemicals as well as for fuel. Both are readily stored and possess very high energy densities. Yes, Lithium-ion batteries also have a high energy density, but it isn't a matter of drilling a hole and complex lithium-ion batteries gush out. It takes tremendous energy and technology to fashion lithium-ion batteries, and as a result they're expensive.
If the market responds to the oil price-revolution with sufficient verve, capital and innovation, perhaps a rich brew of petroleum replacements will appear in mass production. But there is a peculiar feedback loop at work; there has to be enough energy on hand to build this new infrastructure of solar-cell factories, algae-to-biofuel plants and all the rest. If we consume all the cheap oil in a vain attempt to maintain the status quo, then the replacement becomes ever more costly. And then we have a price-revolution on our hands which looks eerily like the ones which swept Europe in the 13th, 16th and 18th centuries.
So where does this leave us? In Dude, We Are So Doomed, I noted the intersection of four long-term cycles (waves), which suggest that the era from the present (2009) to 2021 will be troubled indeed, and may result in a war, revolution or equivalent re-ordering of U.S. society and perhaps the world.
It doesn't take much thought to anticipate the post-cheap-petroleum era might be fraught with risk and turmoil as the transition--messy and unpredictable in some ways, but predictably messy in any event--takes place. Based on the history so painstakingly assembled by Fischer, we can anticipate:
--Ever higher prices for what I call the FEW Essentials: food, energy and water.
--Ever larger government deficits which end in bankruptcy/repudiation of debts/new issue of currency.
--Rising property/violent crime and illegitimacy.
--Rising interest rates (by a lot, not a little).
--Rising income inequality in favor of capital over labor.
--Continued debasement of the currency.
--Rising volatility of prices.
--Rising political unrest and turmoil (see "Insurrection" and "Revolution").
NOTE: My computer/web time continues to be extremely limited; my apologies for the inability to respond to emails for the next week.
Terms of Service
RE: European Union AI Act, and Our Use of Generative AI Tools and Agents Policy
All text on this site is composed by Charles Hugh Smith or by a credited guest-author. No Generative AI Tools are used in the composition / writing of any text or graphic content created by Charles Hugh Smith. This site deploys no AI agents or generative AI tools. This site is not responsible for the disclosures, use or non-use of AI agents or generative AI tools in advertisements displayed by Investing Channel or other ad placement services.
Audio files generated by text-to-audio transcription tools are identified as such.
Our Privacy Policy:
Correspondents' email is strictly confidential. This site does not collect digital data from visitors or distribute cookies. Advertisements served by third-party advertising networks such as Investing Channel may use cookies or collect information from visitors for the purpose of Interest-Based Advertising; if you wish to opt out of Interest-Based Advertising, please go to Opt out of interest-based advertising (The Network Advertising Initiative) If you have other privacy concerns relating to advertisements, please contact advertisers directly.
PRIVACY NOTICE FOR EEA INDIVIDUALS
This section covers disclosures on the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) for users residing within EEA only. GDPR replaces the existing Directive 95/46/ec, and aims at harmonizing data protection laws in the EU that are fit for purpose in the digital age. The primary objective of the GDPR is to give citizens back control of their personal data. Please follow the link below to access InvestingChannel's General Data Protection Notice.
https://stg.media.investingchannel.com/gdpr-notice/
Notice of Compliance with The California Consumer Protection Act
This site does not collect digital data from visitors or distribute cookies. Advertisements served by a third-party advertising network (Investing Channel) may use cookies or collect information from visitors for the purpose of Interest-Based Advertising. If you do not want any personal information that may be collected by third-party advertising to be sold, please follow the instructions on this page: Do Not Sell My Personal Information.
Regarding Cookies:
This site does not collect digital data from visitors or distribute cookies. Advertisements served by third-party advertising networks such as Investing Channel may use cookies or collect information from visitors for the purpose of Interest-Based Advertising; if you wish to opt out of Interest-Based Advertising, please go to Opt out of interest-based advertising (The Network Advertising Initiative) If you have other privacy concerns relating to advertisements, please contact advertisers directly.
Our Commission Policy:
Though I earn a small commission on Amazon.com books and gift certificates and gold (BullionVault) purchased via links on my site, I receive no fees or compensation for any other non-advertising links or content posted on my site.
Copyright Notice:
All original images (Drawings and Photographs), text (essays, books and works of fiction), audio and video recordings, musical compositions, graphic design, graphic design elements and HTML coding on this site are the copyrighted work of Charles Hugh Smith unless otherwise credited or noted. They are published as information for the private use of site visitors, and any reproduction or redistribution of this content or coding in any media in any format or distribution channel (text, audio, video/film, web) without the written permission of the copyright holder is strictly prohibited. All rights in all media reserved globally.















