More politics of peak oil

One can be forgiven for not understanding the state of our world today in terms of oil and its availability. A new article in Forbes assures us that peak oil is off, that the world is awash in oil. Meanwhile, an article from the current issue of The Economist claims the opposite: that oil supply is insufficient to keep up with demand. Meanwhile, the president is blaming high prices on those nasty speculators. So which of these competing claims is a person to believe? For the uninitiated, peak oil is the point in time when maximum extraction of the world's oil endowment is reached. Since oil is a finite resource, we can exploit it in increasing amounts until we can't any longer, and flows begin to decline.

Continue ReadingMore politics of peak oil

Where the free market fails

Democratic Underground nicely sums up where the "free market" approach works and doesn't work.  Here's where it works:

The Republican belief in privatization is based largely or totally on their faith in “free market” ideology. That ideology says that everything or almost everything works better, is more efficient, and is fairer when it is driven by a free market than when it is “dictated” by government. The rationale for this ideology is that in their quest for profits corporations are simultaneously motivated to produce quality products, and everyone benefits as a result. In other words, the corporate quest for profits happens to be a good thing for everyone.  Under some circumstances they are correct. For example, the entertainment industry is a good example of an activity where free market principles work well. The more entertaining the product produced by the industry, the more people will want to purchase it and the more money they will be willing to pay. The industry produces a quality product, they make a big profit, the people get what they pay for, and everyone is happy. Here's where it doesn't work:
  1. Activities that are an intrinsic function of government
  2. Activities where pertinent third parties are totally unrepresented in the transaction
  3. Monopolies
  4. Scarce resources which are essential to American citizens
  5. Situations where free market principles cannot operate because of lack of essential information
  6. Services which are required for the public’s welfare

Continue ReadingWhere the free market fails

The purported “free market”

Glenn Greenwald's comments regarding the vague terms that control our public policy provoked me to revisit the extremely vague term, "free market."   “Free market” is a prime example of a vague term that is used for formulating anti-public policy. It is routinely suggested by our alleged leaders that “free market” refers to the freedom to choose where to spend one’s money. On a day to day basis, this idea seems reasonable.  It evokes the image of people selecting fruits and vegetables at an open-air produce market. Modern "free market” policies extend far beyond individual buying decisions, however. In practice, government policies favoring the “free market” prohibit government from “freely” governing.  “Free market” policies allow those with large amounts of money to usurp government policy.  Policies that favor a wide-open "free market" take political power from ordinary citizens and hand that power to govern to large private for-profit corporations and wealthy individuals. “Free market” is a clever phrase for those who want an economic market that amounts to a baseball game without umpires, a market where corporations “freely” monopolize entire industries by scooping up the competitors, immunizing themselves from liability by buying favorable new laws, jacking up the prices and then giving the consumers the “freedom” to buy from among limited high-priced options.  Modern "free market" policies give financially powerful entities the "freedom" to operate free of any government oversight, and the "freedom" to tell consumers to take-it-or-leave-it. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingThe purported “free market”

Shock Doctrine: Take advantage of crises to ram through unpopular policies

Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine" is illustrated in this short video. The idea is that political leaders often take advantage of natural and manufactured crises--which cause many folks to become infantilized in response to the trauma--to ram through unpopular policies, quite often "free market" initiatives. Klein's idea has intrigued many, but also received mixed reviews from economists.

Continue ReadingShock Doctrine: Take advantage of crises to ram through unpopular policies