As Doug said, "I’m hanging my head in shame that I haven’t done more."
So here's another try to get a message posted to LBO that doesn't contain the word s---. If this one gets rejected like the others I will resubmit it with the --- filled in.
Nature sets limits for us in addition to the limits we place on ourselves. Must it boil down to the theory that we are the only limit? No external limits exist that we can't overcome? That is very hard to believe. The denial of natural limits unites many Marxists and capitalists.
Barry Brooks
Durable Economics
We need to find what kind of economy can provide people's needs without making too much pollution and without running out of resources rapidly. Our present consumer economy has many nice features, yet it is basically at odds with resource stewardship.
Using durability to conserve will allow consumption to drop to sustainable levels. Cutting consumption will cut profits and paid jobs, but as durability is introduced people will be acquiring a stock of long-lasting goods. When we use durability to conserve any resulting fall in income is preceded by a fall in need for replacement goods.
The main function of he consumer economy is to provide the demand stimulation which leads to full employment. This growing demand has prevented machines from causing unemployment, and it has placed heavy demands on natural resources.
Wage labor has been surplus relative to local natural resources for a long time. In today's crowded world migration can no longer provide an escape from depleted local resources, and imported resources are no longer abundant and cheap. Even though we face a growing shortage of resources we still pretend that labor shortage is limiting production. Our fear of labor shortage is obsolete. Since the dawn of the industrial age it has been necessary to constantly find ways to increase consumption in order maintain full employment.
Most people agree that jobs are the only acceptable way to dole out money to the masses. Yet, when we create nearly full employment our powerful technology and out large supply of workers will always consume far too many resources for such hyper-activity to be sustainable. Only in our dreams is there no conflict between expanding the economy to make jobs and contracting the economy to conserve resources.
Our labor is surplus only relative to resources and the production of physical goods. Most people need a job that pays, and have little time left for the work of nurturing, caring and stewardship. There is plenty of important unpaid work to do, but we can't start doing it if we are all working full time to produce and consume as much as possible. Today we can do the work that makes a short-term dollar profit, while unpaid work is mostly neglected.
Our present views rarely include any awareness that wealth comes from nature and inheritance more than from any work we do. To make our system work under present conditions we must admit that human labor is no longer scarce because machines with computer control can replace most paid labor, even in services. Our claim on the resources which provide the base of both durable and perishable wealth can not be based on labor when paid jobs are rare.
We should expect to shift our dependence from wages toward unearned income as automation replaces more human labor. Our system already has unearned income, but for now it is only for a few. Ending our dependence on wages is one key to the locked doors of becoming sustainable. Unearned income combined can end our dependence on jobs.
The resource base of our income has always been unearned, because nature can not be paid for the resources we take. Thus, prices and wages are mostly about the division of labor among humans. That's why the labor theory of value is true.
As machines replace more human labor, wages costs fall along with the prices of manufactured goods. If all human labor could be replaced, then wage income would fall to zero leaving only income from profit. We will need to notice this basic trend soon so we can rethink our assumptions about our pretense that everyone should be busy busy busy "earning your living" just to be a good person.
High taxes on fuel aren't the best way to encourage conservation. High taxes on fuel will cause suffering and poverty, and people who can hardly afford to heat their houses can't afford to replace them with an efficient house either. Instead of taxing consumption, we need to support the low cost replacement of wasteful houses and cars with efficient models, and to make laws against the production of wasteful goods.
Whether our goal is to preserve the present pecking order or to help improve the lives of the poor, we must have a sustainable system to have hope for our families. The need to make jobs and the resulting excess growth are the causes of our high consumption, and high consumption is the reason our economic system is not sustainable. Growth is the common problem of all classes!
True conservation cuts consumption and that cuts production and that cuts real paying jobs and profits. It's not surprising that almost no one supports a sustainable economy. Without true conservation we can continue to squander scarce resources to exercise all our surplus labor. Without conservation we can have our giant SUVs. It is our plan to avoid change. But, more growth is really no plan at all in the face of looming changes.
Four basic ways to conserve resources are: increased efficiency, increased durability, recycling and by doing less. Conservation of perishables using recycling and efficiency are already our goals, but the use of durability to conserve has had little notice. Durability allows doing less without having less. Because durability has been neglected we have a lot to gain when we starting using durability to conserve. We can make deep cuts in consumption without sacrifice by designing new products to maximize their life time, efficiency and reparability.
We wouldn't need to encourage growth to make jobs if everyone got some small share of unearned income. A small income could provide a life of luxury in a system that doesn't need to be wasteful. A stable population using durability to conserve will have most wealth coming from inheritance.
If we could somehow accept unearned income for all classes then we could adjust the payments to stabilize wages. Without a need for hyper-activity and waste just to make jobs, real conservation could be allowed to shrink the economy and real incomes without any loss of living standards.
It's too common to hear the weird claim that our economy needs growth. It's like saying we need cancer. If we had unearned income we would no longer need growth to make jobs. If we had a stable population we would no longer need growth to provide for more people. If we used durability to conserve we would no longer need growth to raise our living standards. If earnings could regain the role lost to speculation we would no longer need growth to please the investor.
If everyone got some unearned income, wages would remain as a motivation and reward for those who choose to work. Our acceptance of unearned income could provide a mechanism allowing us to match the labor force to the real need for labor, instead of making jobs to match the labor force.
Barry Brooks