I doubt that we'll agree on this one,
but let's try. Also because what I want to say is quite long, I thought this warranted a new post.
Karl raises matter of the planetary oil reserve.
Given our dependence on oil for everything - food, transportation,
heating, manufacturing, all of our plastic products, most of our
clothing, etc, it is of utmost importance how we approach the
question of the oil reserve. To a significant extent, our survival depends on us getting it right. Basically, there are two points of view.
- That there is a 100 year reserve, and that given human ingenuity, we will have found alternatives to oil long before those 100 years are up. Whatever adjustments are necessary will be created and motivated by the Market. Hakunmatta. Business as usual has worked in the past. It will work now too.
- That the 100 year reserve figure is not helpful because the overwhelming portion of that oil is either under deep ocean, tied up in shale, tied up as bitumen, or under arctic sea ice. Technologies exist and are being developed to extract that oil, but the trend line for energy cost of extracting oil is firmly in the upward direction. In other words, it may well be technologically possible to extract all of that oil, but there is no reason to believe it will be done more efficiently. The efficiency of extracting oil may well improve, but the oil that is being accessed is always more difficult to access and extract, so the trend line continues down, no matter greater efficiencies in oil extraction. So long before all oil is extracted, we will no longer be extracting it, simply because it takes too much energy to extract the oil.
I think I can understand why current Conservatives have adopted option 1, but it makes no sense to me. It makes no sense to me, because if I hear the conservatives correctly, they are saying that taking a more cautious approach to the use of oil means that we would be going into uncharted territory economically. We simply do not know what effect that would have on our economies, so we don't want to go there. In fact conservatives are absolutely convinced that it would be devastating for the economy. We can't afford to go there, they say. Furthermore, the current conservatives say that the way we have been treating the environment in the past has not devastated the environment so far, so why should it have any significant negative effect on the environment in the future.
To that I say, the signs are everywhere that the environment is groaning under the pressure created by our current lifestyle, most particularly our extraction and use of fossil fuels, and that unless remedial action is going to be taken, the environment will crack. Stage one thinking believes the economy is king. Thinking beyond stage one acknowledges that in the end, the environment trumps the economy.
I will be interested in hearing why you think today's conservatives have abandoned thinking beyond stage one on this one, but I think it is because conservatism today has completely embraced big business, or is it the other way around. I'm not sure. So whatever big business says is good for big business, is then, practically by definition, also good for conservatives. Big Tobacco (some years ago) and now Big Oil define the truth for conservatives.
It was not always that way. In the US think of Lincoln and Eisenhower, in Canada think of Joe Clark and Preston Manning.
So Karl, in essence I could agree with you (although I do not find the conservative/liberal distinction helpful) - conservatives with their bias towards standards are more likely to think beyond stage one than liberals with their bias towards compassion. But today's expressions of conservatism -- no way. Today's conservatives (at the political level) are absolutely socked into stage one thinking on all the important issues of the day. Were you to say the liberals are no better, I would need to agree with you.
The longer I continue these conversations, the more I become convinced that for me, at least, the liberal/conservative divide is not helpful. If it is helpful for you, Karl, that's fine.
ReplyDeleteFor example, when the two large automakers were in trouble (Ford was not) and they were asking for government bailout money, had I been asked then to vote for a party, without a doubt I would have voted conservative, even though I normally do not. Why I thought (and think) this is such an important issue can be another conversation. As a matter of fact, we had a conservative government when that occurred, and they, much to my disappointment, bailed out the automakers -- which points to another problem.
The liberal conservative divide is less useful if we look at what politicians do in practice, I agree. However, its the principals I am talking about. I define myself as a conservative, and if a politician is a conservative in name only, and votes in BIg Government solutions like a liberal, I say he is wrong. Clearly, if a liberal in name, has conservative principals, I would much prefer them. Romney in principal says he was against the auto bailout. Obama was in favor of it, and continues to point to the decision as something positive (even though it cost taxpayers money, while the bank bailout has been fully paid back).
ReplyDeleteWhat do you fear more, big government or big business? To me, its a no brainer, yet it appears clear that liberals fear big business more (given their policies promote a bigger government). You continually bring up big business as something negative that we should fear. I don't disagree, that big business is more likely to be corrupting than a small business, but that logic holds for government as well right? Can big business force you to buy their products, like taxation forces you to give up your money? Can big business shut down free speech? Can big business imprison you? Can big business murder its citizens? Did Coke kill millions of Russians and Ukranians or did a big government? Oh wait, there were no private businesses in communist Russia.
I think that you are agreed on one thing here: That the government bailout of auto manufactureres was a bad thing. We had a conservative in name party provide a bailout and a left leaning government provided a bailout. It may well be that had Romney been President he would also bailout as a governing party is always more pragmatic than the opposition party.
ReplyDeleteWe can all point to and have pointed to examples where left and right have seemed to cross over. I can see that K is not talking ab out liberal or conservative party leaders but liberal or conservative principles. These principles could be carried out by either ruling leader because when one rules one makes many compromises.
obviously Big Governemnt has much more impact on the citizen than does Big Business. One still has a free will to avoid shopping at Wal-mart but one does not have the free will to disobey laws without punishment. the bigger the government the more laws, rules and regulations that provide opportunity for it's citizens to mis-step.
To keep in mind: Both sides have intelligent compassionate people advocating their point of view, both sides have corrupt idiots.
Karl, ...... Your question BIG Busiess or BIG Government?? BOTH As Busines grows it becomesmore corrupt and more powerful no fifferent than governmnet..look at our friends at Monsatan.. How they have controlled peoples lives and how they have controlled governments. No I don't know if all the facts espoused by shows such as Food Inc are true, but I am fairly aware of the pressure our own company has experienced as we not really even oppose, but only try to slow down the mighty "Right" of BIG BUSINESS.(see roundup ready afalfa)It seems that Big Business(and BIG Governmt) so quickly forget that it is small and medium size business that generates most of the wealth of the country. let's bring this a little closer to home.
ReplyDeleteOur local government is considering the banning of recreational use of herbicides, blaming it for the decline inquality of the water in Lake Winnipeg. The little guy takes it on the chin. In fact the US is responsible for much of the contamination of the red river yet where is canada when it comes to trying to enforce u.sam to clean it up? Then we have government rather than alowing hog farmers to improve and upgrade declare a moratrorium - not that that matters as BiG Business controls the market so much that they condone the senseless slaughter of thousands of weanlings and manage to have the government supervise it knowing full well in a year we may all very well be paying double for hog products. I am very much simplifying (cause I don't type well and I on Freedom 75 plan)but we are very much aware of the strong move for vertical integration in certain agricultural industries by BIG Business. Ok now that I am not getting any turkey(you could tell) I am going to enjoy Ham. Happy Thanksgiving God Bless
Karl K.
confused - no worries me too!! :)
I completely agree with you Lori, but this begs the question of how do we as a society limit the power and impact of the corrupt idiots [really psychopaths], whether they be in [big or small] government or [big or small] business. I don't have that answer, but I think only a very selective reading of history would allow us to say keeping government small limits the power of these idiots and psychopaths. It is much more complicated than that.
ReplyDeleteKarl points to Lenin, Stalin and Mao, and he is completely correct. Government does more killing than big business but that does not mean that big business does not kill: witness the Pakistan sweatshop fire that killed 300 workers last month or the Deep Water Horizon incident, to name the two most obvious that come to mind. And yes KK, Monsanto's hands are not blood free either.
But more to the point, big business (however you define it) recruits governments to do the killing for them. Duvalier in Haiti, Franco in Spain, Somoza in Nicaragua, Marcos in the Philippines, Batista in
Cuba, Nigeria [and Shell], Pinochet in Chile, Saudi Arabia today, Bahrain today, again to name but the right wing regimes with much blood on their hands that come to mind easily. Congo is a hell hole today because of businesses that thrive on the purchase of conflict minerals. The killing in Afghanistan and Iraq was initiated by Bush and perpetuated by Obama, but surely both were lobbied to do what they did by the Military Industrial Complex (MIC = Big Business).
No doubt there is very significant evil in the world today (this is nothing new), and to suggest that it is in the purview of either government or business is probably not a helpful distinction.