It's time to panic

Brad DeLong notes that this week’s employment figures are cause for panic. What he suggests, actually, isn’t merely panic, but “PANIC!!”

But given our current employment crisis, I think a third exclamation point may be required.

We’ve got 13.9 million Americans who can’t find work. That’s cause for alarm — cause for all out panic and the kind of try-everything-possible-right-now response that panic inspires.

Panic is sometimes not a bad thing. It’s often underrated. Because sometimes panic works.

Think of President Bill Clinton and the foiled millennium bomb plot. Clinton and his administration don’t get enough credit for preventing that massive attack. That’s probably partly because, before 9/11, we didn’t really appreciate what it was that had been avoided. And it’s probably also partly because an attack that doesn’t happen seems like a non-event and, therefore, not news.

But part of the reason also that Clinton doesn’t get appropriate credit for averting that attack is that he and his administration didn’t succeed because of a brilliant strategy, an effective program or a winning plan.

They succeeded because they panicked. They were, in Richard Clarke’s memorable phrase, “running around with their hair on fire.” They didn’t know what to do so they did everything they possibly could, all at once. That can be inefficient.  It’s better to have a plan or a program or a strategy or a focused approach.

But in the absence of those, panic.

When the consequences of inaction are intolerable, panic is appropriate and necessary.

We’ve got an employment crisis. We’ve got 13.9 million Americans who can’t find work and our economy only added a measly 54,000 jobs in May.

It’s time to panic. It’s probably even time to PANIC!!!

The following aren’t my best ideas for job creation. Those would be things like repairing our roads and bridges, upgrading our energy infrastructure, attending to our national deferred maintenance and front-loading our preparations for the future.

But these seven ideas would also work. Probably. Maybe. They would put people to work.

They may sound goofy, and they probably are goofy. But none of them is as goofy as the status quo. None of them is as goofy as the current situation in which 13.9 million Americans can’t find work and our political leaders are more concerned with deficits than with the unemployment inflating those deficits. In the midst of an employment crisis, politicians are arguing about budget cutting.

That’s cruelly absurd. My ideas here are merely eccentric.

1. Sunday Mail Delivery

Yes, I know, the U.S. Postal Service is currently planning to phase out Saturday delivery. That’s a reasonable cost-cutting step given the reduction in physical postage due to the increasing use of the Internet. But it’s a completely unreasonable idea right now, with nearly 14 million jobless Americans. With 9 percent unemployment we should be hiring more letter carriers, not planning to lay off any of the ones we’ve already got.

And if anybody gripes about “Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy,” just remind them that that commandment also says “six days shalt thou labor.” They can’t pretend to care about that commandment if they’re complicit in and complacent about forcing millions of their neighbors to violate it.

2. Major League Baseball Expansion

The National League Central has six teams. Four of the other divisions have only five, and the American League West only four. It seems to me we need six more teams.

That would mean another 486 home games a year in stadiums that will need to be built and staffed. Then there’s the 30-player roster for each team (I’m adding five players to the current 25-man roster — job creation is the goal here), coaching staffs, trainers, etc., all multiplied again by the teams at the various levels of the farm system.

Baseball fans will, rightly, point out that big-league talent is already stretched pretty thin. If there isn’t enough middle-relief pitching to go around for 30 teams, how ugly would it get with 36?

They have a point. Which is why this can only happen once the U.S. ends economic sanctions against Cuba — the key factor in this proposal. That would likely provide an economic boost in other ways as well (for both countries), but our immediate concern here is that some of the world’s greatest untapped baseball talent is sitting there, 90 miles from Florida, just waiting for the politicians to get out of the way.

And anyway this seemed more practical than my other plan to address the employment crisis through sports: The USQL professional arena quidditch league.

3. Urban Rooftops

We’ll start this project in 30 major cities, selected on the basis of: 1) high unemployment, and 2) high average temperature.

Commercial buildings and residential buildings over a certain size threshhold will be given two choices for their roofs: Paint or plants? If they choose the former, then a team of our newly hired roof-painters will show up to paint their roof white. If they choose the latter, then a team of our newly hired roofscapers will show up to plant a rooftop garden.

After finishing every roof in those first 30 cities, the project will move north until we hit Bar Harbor or full employment, whichever comes first.

4. The National Shakespeare Traveling Companies

Any school with more than, say, a third of its students qualifying for the federal school lunch program will also qualify for up to three performances a year from one of the National Shakespeare Traveling Companies touring the nation. One comedy, one tragedy, one history. (I’m thinking “Twelfth Night,” “Hamlet” and “Henry V” for the first season, but that’s negotiable.)

Granted, this won’t directly create tens of thousands of jobs — although with cast, crew and support teams for 100 separate companies, it will create thousands of them. And hundreds of those jobs will be for actors — actors who will be hitting the road and leaving behind a job opening in retail or the restaurant business, allowing those businesses, in turn, to hire others to replace them.

Plus all those kids would get to see some quality Shakespeare. I’m not really sure how that would help with our employment crisis, but what the heck, it can’t hurt.

5. Hammer of the Gods

Every couple of weeks I hear yet another guest on Coast to Coast AM going on about some “ancient astronaut” theory that a superior race of aliens must have built the pyramids of ancient Egypt because we humans couldn’t possibly have done so on our own with the technology we had at the time.

One way to put an end to such nonsense, it seems to me, would be to go all Thor Heyerdahl and actually build a bona fide pyramid using only the materials and technologies that ancient Egyptians had at their disposal. From what I understand, this project should employ tens of thousands of people.

I figure the desert outside of Las Vegas, Nev., would be ideal. There’s plenty of cheap housing available for newly hired rock-haulers and stone masons. And there’d be a built-in tourist market ready to go for the pyramid itself once its completed. (Yes, Vegas already has a pyramid, but not an authentic one.) The accompanying reality TV show should also employ a few dozen more people and could even help to defray the expense.

(Geologists: Is the requisite stone available anywhere near Vegas?)

6. The No Lines at the DMV Law

No one likes going to their state’s Department of Motor Vehicles. The lines are long, the service is glacially slow, the experience is tedious and unpleasant. (Growing up, I used to think this was only true in New Jersey. I’ve since learned it’s true everywhere — it’s just worse in Jersey.)

So let’s change that. The goal is simple and could even prove popular: No more than a 10-minute wait at any DMV office. And it should be a pleasant, enjoyable 10 minutes.

What would that require in terms of hiring new staff? Double the current staffing levels? Triple?

With nearly 14 million people in need of employment ASAP, it’s best to err on the side of extravagance. And after all, this is the No Lines at the DMV Law, not the Making Sure No DMV Clerk Is Ever Idle for Five Minutes Law.

I’m guessing this would mean jobs for tens of thousands of people nationwide. And that’s just the DMV clerks, I’m not even counting the barristas and live DJs. (Not all the time, of course. DMV offices could employ a live DJ on, say, Mondays and Wednesdays. The rest of the week they could play recorded tracks from the new National Musicians Corps.)

7. Music and Art Classes in Public Schools

Under this plan, every school from kindergarten through 12th grade would be required to teach students art and music. That would require every school to hire, at a minimum, an art teacher and a music teacher.

Those of you who are older may remember that American public schools used to have art teachers and music teachers, back before most American public schools laid them off due to budget cuts and to the theory that art and music were just fads and wouldn’t really be of practical use for young people who were being trained to grow up to be the kind of cramped, self-centered jackwagons who vote against every referendum, forcing schools to cut their budgets and lay off art and music teachers.

For school districts reluctant to embrace the revival of art and music programs and the rehiring of art and music staff I have a two-pronged strategy of political persuasion. The first step is to demagogue all sorts of heated post-hoc arguments, like the school prayer people do, blaming everything bad that has ever happened since on the elimination of art and music programs. The second step involves hidden speakers and a nonstop tape loop playing the audio from Mr. Holland’s Opus.

Those are my ideas. You probably have some better ones.

Sadly, however, our elected officials say they don’t. They say there’s nothing they can do about our employment crisis and nothing to be done.

Nearly 14 million Americans unable to work is regrettable, they say, but there’s no need to panic.

  • http://aaron.acephalo.us/ Aaron Em

    “…all those performing type things that you have to learn and practice and
    train for–can only really be learned by children of higher class
    families.”

    I get what you’re saying, but that is some singularly infelicitous phrasing right there.

    My solution? Forget asking for volunteers; they’ll go in well-meaning and eager, burn out, and come out embittered and cynical and very unlikely to participate in a similar enterprise again. Print more fiat currency. Use it to pay teachers, who are already willing to work their lungs out or they wouldn’t be teachers. If I’m not mistaken, this is what is known as “job creation”. People fight over taxes too much and we haven’t the time to put up with that, and there’s so much wealth-generating labor going untapped right now that a properly applied infusion of fiat cash will pay for itself at the very least, and quite possibly gain value besides.

    We aren’t going to do anything like that, of course. But we could.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=561563236 Kenneth R. Morefield

    I realize that some of this is tongue-in-cheek, but doesn’t MLB expansion assume that the people who would be on those teams or staffing those positions would be currently unemployed? Wouldn’t it be more likely that minor league teams and players such as Buffalo would we promoted? Would the vacancies trickle down (hey, now there are more minor league jobs?) or would those jobs go away because even fewer people would go to minor league games in Norfolk if there were an MLB franchise in Richmond? Also, doesn’t that deteriorate the product which makes less people buy it? (A higher percentage of games will be meaningless, late season games between Pirates and Royals or Nationals and new Buffalo team that are 100 games out of first place? We’re assuming that if we change one thing, all other things will stay the same. So, for instance, if we have delivery on Sunday, maybe that drives up the cost of a stamp and even LESS people use the postal system and now there’s not enough work to go around. (Fallacious assumption is that if we are open for business that there is work to be done.) 

    P.S. I agree with what Lori said about the cost of the war. But, hey, let’s just try to make up that 10 billion a month by cutting PBS and breaking up those teachers’ unions. 

  • Dr. Rocketscience

    WG_IV said: “Not to mention the fact that baseball’s appeal is waning rapidly.”

    The two all-time highest years in attendance in MLB history were 2007 (79.5 M tickets sold) and 2008 (78.5 M tickets sold). In 2009 and 2010, in the midst of the Great Recession, attendance declined to 73.3 M (a 6.3% drop) and 73.1 M (a 0.7% drop), down to 2004 levels. For comparison, the lowest attendance in the last decade were in 2002 and 2003 at about 68.8 M. For further comparison, 1990′s attendance was 54.8 M.

    The Great Recession hasn’t been great for baseball, but it’s not exactly “waning rapidly” either.

  • Dr. Rocketscience

    7. Music and Art Classes in Public Schools

    Dude, I can’t seem to hold down a job as a Science teacher.

  • Anonymous

    I’m not sure where you got those numbers, but unfortunately undoing W’s tax cuts and immediately walking away from Iraq and Afghanistan wouldn’t come anywhere close to solving the deficit. Even magically replacing our health care system with a European one, plus those things, wouldn’t add up to the 2010 deficit. Pre-Reagan tax rates (assuming they didn’t trigger any negative effects whatsoever) plus all of the above might do it.

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

    Like I said, I wasn’t sure of em; it was just something I’d heard that sounded vaguely like it could work.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_VAV5XMWGZ4KTRQAL7PTWOBKBQE peter

    Hey, if it worked for the USSR it can work for us…

    (Note- this preceding comment is mostly facetious and a little bit damn serious)

  • hf

    What Aaron Em said about money being an illusion. As for inflation, I’ll repeat this until it sinks in: the current depression started when tons of paper wealth vanished, leading to a drop in yearly demand of $1.2 trillion with a T. The stimulus put back one-eight of that amount (at least before this year). Do the math.

    And Robyrt, I don’t know how you arrived at that claim — in particular, I don’t know what decrease in cost you expect from a European health insurance system — but it looks to me like the deficit would in fact disappear. And various internet sources make it seem uncontroversial that magically rational health care policy could remove $700 billion with a B, which together with the rest would cut the 2010 deficit to nearly nothing in government terms. That assumes we continue to plug our ears and ignore where money comes from. Obviously I think we could do much better with truly rational behavior.

  • KevinC

    While we’re panicking, here are my ideas:

    1) The Peak Oil Response Mobilization Program

    This is a national mobilization, comparable to the mobilization for World War II, to completely retrofit and/or replace the nation’s infrastructure to be able to operate on renewable energy sources alone within 30 years, or some comparable time frame.  Walkable, highly enjoyable “Traditional Cities” with electric transit and trains joining them together, designed to be very energy-efficient (lots of insulation and sound insulation), and a renewables-based energy infrastructure.

    2) Create a “Cradle to Cradle” Economy

    Provide government grants to manufacturing companies to develop the technologies and designs to recycle obsolete versions of their products into new versions, so that the old ones don’t end up in landfills.  Change regulations so that a company has incentives to accept “trade-ins” of old products in exchange for significant (subsidized if necessary at first) discounts on the price of the new product.  Subsidies should be higher for the replacement of older products that use lots of energy/resources with newer, more efficient designs.  Companies should be encouraged to design products for ease of recycling at the end of their design life.  This will re-invigorate America’s manufacturing sector.

    3) Reinvent the Peace Corps

    The Peace Corps should be a “branch of service” that is as well-funded and supplied with advanced technology as any of the military branches.  The next time there is a major disaster, Peace Corps “forces” should be able to roar in on heavy-lift zeppelins carrying entire field hospitals, water purification systems, emergency shelter, food supplies, etc. 

    4) LARPA</b?

    Create and fund a new agency of government called the Livingry Advanced Research Projects Agency.  This is a "blue sky" research and development agency like DARPA, but its mission will be the application of human genius to "livingry," a Buckminster Fullerism for technologies that provide life-support (water purification systems, advanced shelter systems, etc.) rather than inventing more clever and expensive ways to kill people.  Technologies developed by LARPA could then be licensed to private companies for mass production.

    5) Explore and Colonize the Solar System

    We’re 10 years late for that manned mission to Jupiter.  Let’s get started!  Design a heavy-lift rocket with at least the capability of the Saturn V.  If possible, this new rocket should be designed to use a Space Shuttle Main Tank (the big reddish tank attached to Space Shuttles at launch).  Instead of sending the tanks to burn up over the Indian Ocean, this new launch system should be designed to provide that little bit of extra “oomph” needed to leave the tanks in low earth orbit.  The launches will be timed so that the tanks can be “captured” and assembled together to form large, inhabitable space stations and/or deep space exploration craft.

    The Germans launched over 3,000 V-2 rockets over the course of a few months in 1944-45.*  The U.S., with a much larger economy, ought to be able to achieve something like half that number in a year.  Mass production and economics of scale should bring down per-launch costs significantly from present rates, while we build a genuine spacefaring infrastructure.  Among other things, space stations and long-range crewed spacecraft will require the development of closed-cycle life-support systems.  Such a technology could be adapted for Earth-based use, enabling buildings, and entire cities to treat their own wastes and operate sustainably.  Other possible applications of large-scale space development include protection of Earth from asteroid impacts, and solar power satellites. 

    In addition, this enhanced space program and other initiatives like LARPA could be used to wean the major “defense” contractors from the business of war, so that their lobbying might would not continue to fuel a vast military-industrial complex.  As part of this aspect of the program, the Pentagon’s budget could be cut in half, with the savings used to make payments on the national debt.

    *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-2#Operational_history

  • konrad_arflane

    “But the problem is that the teachers have to charge money, and most of
    them have to ensure that their students don’t teach other people what
    they’re learning, because that would decrease the demand for services.”

    That doesn’t square AT ALL with any music teacher I’ve ever had (and I’ve had a lot), and I rather seriously doubt it applies to any field, really. For one thing, doing something and teaching someone else to do that thing are two different, though related, skillsets. And even if they weren’t, if you’re an adult professional, and you’re worried that the totality of your skill can be taught by someone who’s studied under you for a year or two, something is wrong with either your skill or your own opinion of it.

    But that’s all secondary to the fact that music teachers tend to be music teachers  because they love teaching, or music, or (usually) both. And I think that most people who love music with the intensity that is required to stick with it long enough to become good enough to teach it would agree with me in this: The world needs more music. It needs more musicians, and it needs more people for whom music isn’t just the stuff they play in supermarket PA systems, but something you have an opinion on and actively seek out.

    And the way to get there definitely isn’t to withhold the arcane secrets of playing Three Blind Mice on the recorder from the ravenous curiosity of the public at large.

  • Flying sardines

    Work to live not live to work you mean? Yes.

  • Flying sardines

    Some good ideas and thoughtful comments from folks here as usual. Plus Fred Clarke naturally.

    I agree with KevinC.

    I’d love to see us reaching for the Moon, the asteroids and Mars (Plus beyond) if possible again. NASA currently gets under 1% of the nation’s funding – think of all the amazing things it (& JPL) do now with the Hubble telescope, the Mars rovers (only one left now but after a great run), the ‘Cassini’ images and discoveries from Saturn, etc ..

    But we most need to get off fossil fuels and find better alternative ways of getting our energy. That’s a real WW-II sized project that I think is probably the single most urgent problem needing addressing. Also that needs doing globally.

    Employ more folks doing these things – & the mundane, litter-gathering, wall-painting, community caring stuff that so often gets overlooked.

    Yeah, that’s what we need to do. Yes, we may need to raise the riche’s taxes in order to do it. Sadly, no, it doesn’t seem likely to happen.   

  • Flying sardines

    Hmm .. instead of baseball might I suggest you pay Americans to learn to play cricket & then develop some nice cricket ovals instead!?

     (Joking!)

  • http://twitter.com/siandart siandart

    Unfortunately, as someone unable to spell implemented, you may not be a candidate for all of these programs. You could still haul stones for the Pyramid though!

  • Guest-again

    ‘but unfortunately undoing W’s tax cuts and immediately walking away
    from Iraq and Afghanistan wouldn’t come anywhere close to solving the
    deficit.’
    To update an old expression – a hundred billion dollars here, a hundred billion dollars there – at some point, it adds up to real money money.

    As for solving the ‘deficit’ – which one?

    The current account one? US current account deficit totaled 470.2bn last year, 3.2% of GDP ( http://en.mercopress.com/2011/03/17/us-current-account-deficit-totaled-470.2bn-last-year-3.2-of-gdp )

    The U.S. government one? ‘As of May 6, 2011, the Total Public Debt Outstanding of the United
    States of America was $14.32 trillion and was approximately 98% of
    calendar year 2010′s annual gross domestic product (GDP) of $14.66 trillion? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt )

    The apparently impossible to find number of state/local deficit, both current, accumulated, and projected?

  • Anonymous

    @Guest-again: Let me clarify the math, then. “The deficit” means the US federal budget deficit, because it’s the immediate cause of the national debt (not a deficit), nobody really cares about the trade deficit, and the state deficits are much smaller ($100-150 billion per year). Reversing the Bush tax cuts, plus cutting Afghanistan out of the budget (with other defense cuts to cover the cost of leaving) would raise about $450 billion/year. The magical health care fairy waves her wand and cuts federal Medicare and Medicaid spending in half, saving another $450 billion/year. Then world peace is achieved, creating an economic boom strong enough to provide jobs for the 1.5 million layoffs plus lost contracting jobs that occur when we eliminate the Department of Defense to the tune of another $600 billion. This is what it would take to eliminate the 2011 deficit, estimated to be $1.5 trillion.

    Yes, deficit reduction is useful – but it’s just reduction. Our budget problem is too large to be solved with easy answers.

  • Parisienne

    re. building that pyramid:Some people in France have actually embarked on a similar project. A load of historians have decided to build a mediaeval castle, using only the tools that were available at the time. Just because they thought it would be a cool thing to do, as far as I can tell. They only work in the summer (although if you built your pyramid in one of the toastier bits of the US you wouldn’t have to take a climate-related break over the winter) and I think the tourist revenues cover quite a lot of the cost – people don’t just pay to come visit when it’s finished, but they’ll pay to come and watch you building it as well, because, y’know, people pretending to be mediaeval peasants and craftsmen building a castle – what’s not to like?

  • Guest-again

    ‘nobody really cares about the trade deficit, and the state deficits are much smaller ($100-150 billion per year).’
    Yeah, a trade deficit of 400 hundred billion dollars is as easy to ignore as total state/local deficits of another hundred or two billion dollars. See what I meant – a hundred billion here, a hundred billion – at some point, it is real money. Though apparently, not yet, for some people.

    ‘Then world peace is achieved’
    This may be a surprise, but actually, not counting the odd civil war, occupation, and brutal suppression of various people attempting to overthrow a hated government, world peace has broken out – except for one country, which continues to bomb for peace.

    ‘plus lost contracting jobs that occur when we eliminate the Department of Defense to the tune of another $600 billion’
    I could quote Eisenhower here about how utterly incorrect that perspective is, but why bother? Anyone who thinks that 600 hundred billion dollars doesn’t represent a direct drain on many tens of millions of productive workers is already living in a framework that simply refuses to see that a standing military bankrupts nations -  just because a bunch of unruly revolutionaries, many of the them slaveholders, drew this conclusion doesn’t make them right, of course.

  • walden

    Grab a towel — now listen to some nice Vogon poetry.

  • http://aaron.acephalo.us/ Aaron Em

    Point of interest: There’s some precedent for your Peace Corps idea: the United States already has two civilian uniformed services, the Public Health Service and the NOAA’s commissioned corps. The Peace Corps could easily enough, I think, become a third such service, at least in its upper ranks. But I’m not sure that would be entirely desirable; since cultural intercourse is part of the purpose, you’d likely want to hang on to the current volunteer-based scheme, at least in part — perhaps you’d draw your enlisted ranks from volunteers and offer the best of them commissions, or something along those general lines.

    The thought occurs to me because I’ve lately been thinking about the possibilities which might inhere in a plan to nationalize every nuclear power reactor in the country, then give them to a “US Nucleonics Service” run by ex-naval nucleonics engineers and staffed by people they’ve trained to their own near-fanatical standards of safety and capability. I have no moral objection to private enterprise, and will happily permit the existing utilities to go on running their turbine halls and selling the electricity they generate. But I see absolutely no reason to go on leaving the responsibility for the reactors themselves, with their potentially catastrophic failure modes, in the hands of organizations distracted from their responsibilities by a profit motive — a policy responsible for the Three Mile Island and Fukushima accidents, among others.

    On another note, if you want to make human exploitation of space feasible, find us a way to LEO which doesn’t indefinitely depend on chemical rockets and which costs tens of dollars per kilogram, rather than thousands. That’s pretty much saying the same thing two different ways, given the amount of fuel a heavy lifter, a Saturn V or Proton, needs to get its payload to orbit. The Ares V wouldn’t have solved that problem, either — it’s not an engineering problem, it’s the basic fact of the matter: whether solid or liquid, chemical fuels are heavy, and there’s only so much energy you can cram into them before they blow up of their own accord, so there’s only so much lighter you can make them for a given delta-V requirement. Skyhooks will solve this problem if they can be made to work anywhere near as well as their advocates claim, but I’m not sure whether anyone who needs to be taken seriously is even looking at that idea.

    With regard to your first two ideas: I am not saying that such a radical re-engineering of an entire society is impossible to carry out successfully. But I can think of at least two such attempts in living memory which have ended in disastrous failure, both times harming or killing millions of innocent victims. And I don’t know of any point in history at which anyone has tried such a broad and fundamental change, and actually turned out able to make it work.

    I am therefore nervous of solutions which propose building an entirely new society in place of the one we’ve got now, especially when people start talking about an energy generation infrastructure made up solely of technologies whose capabilities are strictly circumscribed by their environment, which interact with that environment in ways we’ve yet to well understand, and which are largely untried and unproven at anything like the scale on which such a plan would require they be deployed. Such technologies have a valuable role to play, but they aren’t equal to the task on their own; in order to really shine, they need to be supported by a proven, reliable technology which we know through decades of experience is capable of sustaining our baseload electrical power needs — and that’s why I’ve been thinking about the idea of the US Nucleonics Corps.

  • Lori

    Can we inject a little reality into this discussion the Bush tax cuts? The issue is not just the package of tax cuts that the Bush administration pushed through in 2001 as their “due” for “winning” the election. There as been an enormous shift in the way this country collects taxes. It’s not just about the way the number of tax brackets have been reduced to insulate the ultra wealthy, although that’s a major issue. It’s not just about the constantly dropping top marginal tax rate, although that’s also a huge deal. The issue is what money we think should be taxed. 

    We have the greatest income inequality that we’ve had since the Great Depression. At the same time we’ve shifted the tax burden away from inherited wealth and investment income and almost entirely onto income from work. This is, not to put too fine a point on it, totally FUBAR. Anybody who tells you different is lying to you. 

    The blathering heads on the Right are always going on about how unfair it is that the top X% of earners pay X+Y% of the taxes. The exact figures used vary according to who is doing the talking, but the underlying point remains the same—high income folks are paying more than their share, they’re being gouged by the freeloaders. What none of them will ever acknowledge is that the top X% of earners actually own X+Z% of the wealth, where Z is a significantly larger number than Y. IOW, whining aside, the very wealthy are under-taxed. Also, the idea that one should pay more taxes for having a job than one pays sitting on one’s ass living off an inheritance and/or money made from derivatives is offensive. The hedge fund loophole is the epitome of this and that fact that we can’t get Congress to close it is a complete travesty. 

    If we want to deal with the deficit, not just now but in the long term, we do need to do a few fairly big things. IMO the biggest of those things is that we have to face the fact that our current tax system is not designed not to adequately fund any reasonable version of government. It can be argued that it’s designed to aid the return of feudalism, but it’s definitely not designed to fund a sensible government. The tax system that we have now is the completely predictable result of decades of indulging Grover Norquist’s “starve the beast” bullshit. If we want a national budget that isn’t drowning in red ink we’re going to have to find the will to tell him and all the rest of the Randroids to take a long walk off a short pier. Until we’re willing to do that all the talk about getting serious about the budget is just pointless bullshit. 

  • Lori

    Can we inject a little reality into this discussion the Bush tax cuts? The issue is not just the package of tax cuts that the Bush administration pushed through in 2001 as their “due” for “winning” the election. There as been an enormous shift in the way this country collects taxes. It’s not just about the way the number of tax brackets have been reduced to insulate the ultra wealthy, although that’s a major issue. It’s not just about the constantly dropping top marginal tax rate, although that’s also a huge deal. The issue is what money we think should be taxed. 

    We have the greatest income inequality that we’ve had since the Great Depression. At the same time we’ve shifted the tax burden away from inherited wealth and investment income and almost entirely onto income from work. This is, not to put too fine a point on it, totally FUBAR. Anybody who tells you different is lying to you. 

    The blathering heads on the Right are always going on about how unfair it is that the top X% of earners pay X+Y% of the taxes. The exact figures used vary according to who is doing the talking, but the underlying point remains the same—high income folks are paying more than their share, they’re being gouged by the freeloaders. What none of them will ever acknowledge is that the top X% of earners actually own X+Z% of the wealth, where Z is a significantly larger number than Y. IOW, whining aside, the very wealthy are under-taxed. Also, the idea that one should pay more taxes for having a job than one pays sitting on one’s ass living off an inheritance and/or money made from derivatives is offensive. The hedge fund loophole is the epitome of this and that fact that we can’t get Congress to close it is a complete travesty. 

    If we want to deal with the deficit, not just now but in the long term, we do need to do a few fairly big things. IMO the biggest of those things is that we have to face the fact that our current tax system is not designed not to adequately fund any reasonable version of government. It can be argued that it’s designed to aid the return of feudalism, but it’s definitely not designed to fund a sensible government. The tax system that we have now is the completely predictable result of decades of indulging Grover Norquist’s “starve the beast” bullshit. If we want a national budget that isn’t drowning in red ink we’re going to have to find the will to tell him and all the rest of the Randroids to take a long walk off a short pier. Until we’re willing to do that all the talk about getting serious about the budget is just pointless bullshit. 

  • Anonymous

    And the laughably-named one makes his appearance!  Made the Great Transition, we see!  How ya doin’, FF?  Gainfully employed, makin’ some scratch while your boss gets paids ten times more, and his boss a hundred times?  Coo’, coo’.  Just reassure yourself that your boss’s boss is worth more tan you by a hundred times and it’ll be easier to deal with.   =)

    So, about that supply-side economics you’re touting.  We tried it for thirty years.  Where’s the 99-100% employment?  Where’s the prosperity?  Where’s the chicken in every pot and the car in every garage?

    Yeah, didn’t think so.

    Go back under your rock.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    I’ve posted this before, but it’s still relevant:


    Yes We Can Put Americans Back to Work. We Probably Won’t, Though.
     (A short history of the WPA, and why it was a Good Thing.) 

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    But those unemployed folks can’t afford to travel…

  • http://guy-who-reads.blogspot.com/ Mike Timonin

    But those unemployed folks can’t afford to travel…

    They can’t afford to re-locate, but travel is still moderately possible, if done collectively.

  • http://guy-who-reads.blogspot.com/ Mike Timonin

    So, I’m in Missouri (it DOES exist!) looking at Truman’s papers. This is relevant, I promise. In the late 1940s, the US did this whole game. Republicans took the House and the Senate, and decided it was time to balance the budget, and cut taxes. Truman was all for balanced budgets, but wanted to continue New Deal social services, and had plans for Universal Military Training, and wanted full employment, and etc etc, so didn’t want to cut taxes. It was a huge political struggle.

    On the plus side, we (The nation) survived that, so we’ll probably get through this too. On the down side, it’s depressing, as always, that we (as a nation) have to have this fight ever generation or so.

  • http://guy-who-reads.blogspot.com/ Mike Timonin

    Y’think? If the Ds would fragment into three parties, the Rs would fragment into about two dozen, the same way fundamentalist churches do. They only hold a coalition together at all because they have to, and it’s fraying at the seams.

    I honestly don’t think the Reps will fragment – they’re a lot better at keeping their membership tightly on message and such. The Dems have been a “Big Tent” party since the 1930s, and they’ve fragmented a couple of times since then – look at the 1948 election, for instance.

  • Lori

     I honestly don’t think the Reps will fragment – they’re a lot better at keeping their membership tightly on message and such. 

     

    The Tea Party folks are severely straining this. The party power structure was A-OK with them “gong rogue” when that got the GOP back in control of the House. They’re less thrilled that the Teas continue to wander off the reservation. Combine that with the failure of the Ryan Plan and things are not so comfortable at the GOP table these days. Certainly no more happy and harmonious than at the Dem table. 

    The Tea Party exists on the fault line in the Right Wing coalition. The talk is all about money and taxes and small government, but their most consistent legislative priority is the social conservatives favorite—the war on women. 

    Fault lines are where earthquakes happen and I’m not sure that the Teas don’t have the GOP headed there. Look at the way Newt Gingrinch desperately tried to pander to them and then got eviscerated by TPTB. The way the Right deals with Sarah Palin is endlessly fascinating to me for much the same reason. The push-pull is very telling. 

    That said, people having been talking about the extremes of the GOP pulling apart for years and it hasn’t happened. It’s possible that they’ll be able to keep pulling the rabbit out of the hat. I suspect that a lot will depend on the results of next year’s election. The GOP presidential field is like a clown car at a particularly sad circus, but plenty of Republicans still expect to retake the White House on the strength of the yeomen work they’ve done keeping the unemployment rate high. If they lose the White House and the governorship gains they made in 2010 things could get ugly in the GOP tent. If they also lose the House I suspect all hell may break loose in the GOP.

  • Albanaeon

    Yes, there is tons of suitable stone near Vegas for such a project.  However if anyone tries to touch my beloved Uncompaghre for a pyramid, I’m chasing them away with a pickaxe.  Useful projects, like repairing trails, removing invasive species, etc. will be heartily approved.

  • Albanaeon

    Yes, there is tons of suitable stone near Vegas for such a project.  However if anyone tries to touch my beloved Uncompaghre for a pyramid, I’m chasing them away with a pickaxe.  Useful projects, like repairing trails, removing invasive species, etc. will be heartily approved.

  • Dan Audy

    I think that the right has an inherent advantage into maintaining their coalition compared to the left.  Conservatives are inherently authoritarian in their attitudes and as long as their particular leader (be they religious or financial) tell them to keep working together they will though they might grumble about it while doing so.  Liberals on the other hand value independant thought and discussion much more highly (though the organisers still tend towards Authoritarianism and often suffer cults of personality too) which creates disruptive attitudes and suffer one of two extremes with little middle ground (1) a tendency to be unwilling to compromise their beliefs to actually accomplish anything or (2) an unwillingness to fight for their beliefs and compromise in order to be ‘nice’ and expect their opponents to return the favour.

    Brad Hicks actually has a really interesting series of posts on when the Evangelicals sold their souls to the financial conservatives to save themselves from the Commies http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/2004/11/28/

  • Lori

    I absolutely agree that the Right has an inherent advantage over the Left when it comes to holding together a fractious coalition. I just don’t think that advantage means that the Right can hold a coalition together indefinitely against any and all internal pressures. I think it’s possible that by empowering the Tea Party they’ve gone a bridge too far. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/ron.biggs Ron Biggs

    We the
    people will allow our government to institutionalize in benefits for business
    because it’s from business the jobs come, and keeping businesses happy and
    healthy will result in their producing jobs, which keep the economy (the rest
    of us) happy and healthy.  Right?  It’s a type of insurance program
    or health-maintenance program.  A closed
    system, an ecosystem of interdependencies.

    “Trickle Down” — we’re heaping in the benefits and getting
    a trickle of return.  Good enough … UNTIL we need the insurance program to
    pay out; good enough UNTIL, not only are we not getting jobs from this
    political contract, but now they’re trying cut the things we put in
    place to support the common social good because those things cost money that is
    not in the system because there are no jobs, revenue from people working
    (taxes) and a robust economy (people spending money and greasing the machine)
    from a healthy, working system that must all work together for it to work at
    all.

     

    Giving big business and the rich tax breaks & other benefits was
    done to keep them healthy
    in order for the trickle-down machine to work correctly: to keep us healthy, right? The insurance payment
    that isn’t paying back when we need it. “Them with the jobs” need to live up to
    their contract. Shareholders need also to understand that their investment was
    an investment in an insurance contract, for which they bear the risk, NOT the working
    people.

     

    It’s not called “trickle-down” for no reason. There’s a reservoir up
    there that isn’t being tapped. The cure for unemployment & even the deficit
    is jobs, not crippling cuts. With the benefits (the infrastructures, tax
    breaks, loop holes, etc.) institutionalized for “them with the jobs” (big
    business), it’s really, really time for them to live up to their part of the
    bargain. The spigot that governs the flow needs to be opened for less trickle
    and more volume. Why should the people on whose back the economy is actually
    built — for whose BENEFIT the economy exists — suffer from the insufferable
    greed at the top and then accept the blame with “it’s all your fault because
    each individual is responsible for himself.”

     

     

  • http://www.facebook.com/ron.biggs Ron Biggs

    We the
    people will allow our government to institutionalize in benefits for business
    because it’s from business the jobs come, and keeping businesses happy and
    healthy will result in their producing jobs, which keep the economy (the rest
    of us) happy and healthy.  Right?  It’s a type of insurance program
    or health-maintenance program.  A closed
    system, an ecosystem of interdependencies.

    “Trickle Down” — we’re heaping in the benefits and getting
    a trickle of return.  Good enough … UNTIL we need the insurance program to
    pay out; good enough UNTIL, not only are we not getting jobs from this
    political contract, but now they’re trying cut the things we put in
    place to support the common social good because those things cost money that is
    not in the system because there are no jobs, revenue from people working
    (taxes) and a robust economy (people spending money and greasing the machine)
    from a healthy, working system that must all work together for it to work at
    all.

     

    Giving big business and the rich tax breaks & other benefits was
    done to keep them healthy
    in order for the trickle-down machine to work correctly: to keep us healthy, right? The insurance payment
    that isn’t paying back when we need it. “Them with the jobs” need to live up to
    their contract. Shareholders need also to understand that their investment was
    an investment in an insurance contract, for which they bear the risk, NOT the working
    people.

     

    It’s not called “trickle-down” for no reason. There’s a reservoir up
    there that isn’t being tapped. The cure for unemployment & even the deficit
    is jobs, not crippling cuts. With the benefits (the infrastructures, tax
    breaks, loop holes, etc.) institutionalized for “them with the jobs” (big
    business), it’s really, really time for them to live up to their part of the
    bargain. The spigot that governs the flow needs to be opened for less trickle
    and more volume. Why should the people on whose back the economy is actually
    built — for whose BENEFIT the economy exists — suffer from the insufferable
    greed at the top and then accept the blame with “it’s all your fault because
    each individual is responsible for himself.”

     

     

  • Anonymous

      Lunch Meat, before the mid-1960s people learned to dance either in the community, by going to dances and learning through osmosis and in school because social dancing was a relatively common elective. Knowledge of dance was that important. Dancing also seemed to a more common entertainment option before the mid-1960s for people of all ages. 

       Than something in the mid-1960s changed this. My personal theory was that the changes in rock during the mid to late 1960s divorced dancing from pop music in an unprecedented way. Before that time, nearly all types of popular music were supposed to be danced to. Early rock was no exception. You either swung to the fast rock songs or did some form of slow dance to the slow rock songs. As rock music grew more sophisticated, it became more rare to actually dance to it. You could sway the beat of Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds but I doubt that anybody asked somebody to slow dance with them to the song. This seems to have led to a sharp decrease in the number of people who actually know how to dance. 

  • In_words

    I run a very small landscaping company in an area in which there is little (if any) immigrant labor available. We’ve run ads in multiple venues looking for employees with only two requirement: a high school diploma and a current, valid driver’s license with a clean driving record. Many have applied, been hired and lasted (on average) about two weeks. The job is simple. Show up for work on time, every day. Cut grass. Cleanup shrub beds. Weed. You get the idea. Our new hires start at $10/hr. We pay overtime and most weeks there’s at least 5-10 hours of overtime available.
    So why don’t they last more than two weeks? Because they have to work. Physically. Consistently. Not text someone or update their facebook or cruise the Internet on their cellphones all day. They don’t last because you can’t get up and work all day if you’ve been up all night playing games on the computer or watching one of the five hundred channels of reality tv that they can somehow afford to pay for (yet somehow can’t afford to sacrifice any percentage of a paycheck for health insurance).
    Finding honest, hard working employees has been our biggest challenge for over thirty years and with the current glut of unemployed people looking for work you’d think it would have become easier to fill our crews instead of harder. Dream on. The majority of those we’ve hired aren’t looking so much for a job as they’re desperately seeking a paycheck.
    Until we get back to the basic concept of actually working for a living, I suspect you’ll continue to see the number of unemployed rise.

  • KevinC

    I kinda like your idea of a U.S. Nucleonics Corps.  With a name like that, they ought to be issued Rocketpunk Era silver suits as uniforms, with a balls-and-orbits atom logo emblazoned on the chest. :D   To be more serious, I’m more than a little dubious about nuclear power, since it involves producing materials that will remain toxic and dangerous for many thousands of years.  On the other hand, we have already produced large amounts of such materials–in particular, the nuclear arsenals of the major powers.  IMO, weapons-grade nuclear materials are a resource that ought to be depleted, for peaceful purposes, about as quickly as can be arranged.

    With regard to your first two ideas: I am not saying that it is
    impossible successfully to accomplish such a radical re-engineering of
    an entire society. But I can think of at least two such attempts in
    living memory which have ended in disastrous failure, both times harming
    or killing millions of innocent victims. And I don’t know of any point
    in history at which anyone has tried such a broad and fundamental
    change, and actually turned out able to make it work.

    Unless there is an infinite amount of liquid fossil fuel on Earth, and burning unlimited amounts of fossil fuel will have no catastrophic consequences for Earth’s climate, the changes I’m talking about will happen anyway.  The only question is, can they be made deliberately while solving the unemployment problem, or will they happen as a result of an involuntary collapse of the current paradigm.  If the present Car Culture and endless exponential economic growth on a finite planet isn’t sustainable, it isn’t sustainable.  If something can’t go on forever, it will stop.

    Since my idea is about reshaping the built environment (cities, streets, rail lines) rather than trying to reshape people into a New Soviet Man or some equivalent, I don’t see where an issue of “killing millions of innocent victims” Chairman Mao style even arises.  If Americans demand their God-given right to Hummers and Suburban Hell,* they’ll get to keep them until the Free Market ™ finally clobbers them over the heads with a price signal derived from the growing scarcity of oil, and the climate has had all it can stands, and can’t stands no more.  I think the transition that would happen then (when there is far less concentrated energy available in fossil fuels to help with the rebuilding effort) will involve a lot more hardship than doing it now, on purpose.

    *I’ve linked here to a site called New World Economics, which IMO does a great job of explaining why Traditional Cities (the kind of cities people have built since Catal Huyuk–narrow streets for people, not cars, buildings side by side) are better than the current suburban arrangement, with pictures that really get the point across.  Unfortunately several of the articles are tainted with casual sexism.  He’s a dOOd trying to convince other dOOds to give up their cars, and some of his arguments are laced with male privilege.

    But here is one where he makes the case without the sexism, pointing to the Wizards’ society in Harry Potter as an example of life in a carfree society.

  • Dan Audy

    To be fair going most people are fairly inactive and going from an office style job, retail, or just around the house to doing moderate to highly physical labour for 8 hours a day is incredibly hard on the body.  Even wanting to work hard is often insufficient against the physical demands suddenly put on a body that is unprepared and inexperienced at doing so. 

    You honestly might get better results by hiring people on part time (either half days or alternating days on and off) for the first month or so.  Make it clear that this is an adjustment period and that if they can’t hack full days after 4 weeks then they will be dismissed.  We have an entire culture that minimizes physical labour in everyway possible (thus why you can run a business doing it for others) and it takes time for the body to adjust to the stress and effort required to do so.  You are doing both yourself and them a disservice by expecting them to be capable of the work before their body has had time to adapt.

  • http://aaron.acephalo.us/ Aaron Em

    Whoa, whoa, whoa, I’m not saying let’s stick with fossil fuels forever.

    I’m saying that your first two points necessarily imply the kind of social change I’m talking about — be honest with yourself: do you really believe we can convert our entire culture from individual cars to mass transportation without the equivalent of a Cultural Revolution or a Great Leap Forward? Because I don’t, and I can’t see how anyone sensibly could.

    Look, I’m a “forward thinker”, okay? I was a progressive, at least until I decided I was sick of putting up with smug atheist Quakers all the damn time, I still agree with progressives on most things. I think we need to make the switch to mass transit. I am also a smoker. If I won’t quit that on my own even though I know damn well the change would do me a lot of good, what makes you think it’ll be easier to pry people’s hands off the steering wheel, when they disagree there’s a problem if they even know there’s an argument? Maybe it won’t take as much effort as it does to, say, pry people off the land their families have owned for generations and make them go work on state farms instead. But I suspect it’d be more like that than different. Power technology and agricultural technology aren’t the same, of course, but it strikes me that the pure-renewable design is no more tried or proven now than the state farm design was then — and again I say: look how well that worked out.

    So what I’m saying is, if we’re going to have this Great Leap Forward that you’re advocating whether you realize it or not, why don’t we do everything we can to hedge our bets? If the pure-renewable stuff works out like it’s supposed to, great! We’ll decommission the nuclear plants early. But if the pure-renewable stuff doesn’t work out, we’re going to need some way to keep the lights on, or we’re going to see a whole lot of people die in a hurry.

    Nuclear is a proven technology; with the right culture and a lack of perverse incentives, nuclear can be operated safely — and that “toxic and dangerous materials” problem isn’t one, really, because as long as the stuff is hot, it’s still fuel, just waiting for us to build a reactor that can use it. (That’s the ideal solution to the problem of storing so-called “waste” — where better to keep it than inside a pressure vessel, which contains it and puts it to economic use at the same time?) And that’s why I’m saying, if we’re going to take a Great Leap, at least let’s tie a nuclear safety rope around ourselves first, so if the other side of the canyon turns out farther than it looks then at least we’ve just got a hard, slow, and dangerous job of climbing ahead of us, instead of being splattered all over the desert.

  • Ursula L

    To add to Dan’s good advice about your new employees needing time for their bodies to gain the strength and endurance for this type of work, I’ll add that the training you give your employees needs to be more than just showing them how to do the work itself.  They also need training on how to take care of themselves in order to be able to do this type of work. 

    You might do well to start and end the day with stretching exercises, to schedule in suitable breaks to make sure your employees are drinking enough and not overheating on hot days, and focus on teaching them to pace themselves for a full days work, rather than thinking that they have to constantly work as fast as possible. 

    Also just letting them know that this type of work is physically demanding, and that it might help to take a pain killer at night before bed and to expect some aches and pains that will get better as they get used to it will help.  It’s easy, when you’re new to this type of work, to think that it will stay painful forever, and knowing that it gets better, and that it is okay to do things to feel better until you can handle it, can make a big difference in being able to mentally cope.

    If, as an employer, your employees are physically unable to keep up with your work demands, you’re doing it wrong.  Either you aren’t training them properly for the work, or you’re expecting more work than is reasonable or a type of work that isn’t reasonable.

  • https://profiles.google.com/ravanan101 Ravanan

    What we should be doing is transitioning to the fully renewable energy sources, not as a quick switch, but as a gradual change. This should probably take us 10-15 years (or more) of actually working at it. As we invest into these new energy technologies we can get a clearer idea of their long-term large-scale applicability. Among other things, we should be HEAVILY investing in research for new forms of energy storage.
    Imagine if we could store large amounts of electricity with minimal loss for months or years? It’s basically the only technical barrier right now to the mass production of full electric cars. If solar cells became the default suburban roofing option? Yeah, we could maintain our current lifestyle. Heck, if every suburban home in America installed solar panel roofing (yes, even in Seattle), we’d reduce our dependence on non-renewable energy by a huge amount and could keep our suburban hells.

    We have the technology. We can rebuild him. Er. I think our biggest energy priorities right now should be:
    1. Improve solar paneling. If we can get even mild gains in efficiency (10-20% higher efficiency), massive gains in production (the price point needs to come down substantially–by 1/2 to 3/4, at least–and the government should be aggressively subsidizing purchases as well), then the cost effectiveness of solar will overwhelm traditional energy production in most places in the country. This is priority number one because this goal is realistic, and currently in sight.
    2. Improve energy storage techniques. This will hopefully make full electric cars feasible and will reduce our need for power plants even more tremendously than solar paneling. This is a lower priority, however, because it is much more hypothetical, as it not only involves perfecting existing techniques, but the scale necessary to reap the largest benefits will likely require some new TYPE of technology.
    3. Just in plants currently under construction, geothermal is due to nearly double in use by 2015. Geothermal energy is renewable, outputs very little CO2 (roughly 1/2 that of soy fuel). can operate continuously with breaks only for maintenance and repairs, and even given the restrictions on locations (within certain distances of tectonic fault lines), exploiting this resource alone could likely cover humanity’s energy needs for the next several thousand years, at least  It’s incredibly expensive to build though, and finding good sites is long and expensive. We should be improving those exploration techniques, and, until we can improve those techniques, increase geothermal heating usage.

  • KevinC

    I’m saying that your first two points necessarily imply the kind of
    social change I’m talking about — be honest with yourself: do you
    really believe we can convert our entire culture from individual cars to
    mass transportation without the equivalent of a Cultural Revolution or a Great Leap Forward? Because I don’t, and I can’t see how anyone sensibly could.

    Well, first of all, my posts were made in a context of “Let’s build a replica of the Great Pyramid in Vegas!”  Second, I do think you’re probably right that Americans won’t give up their cars until the Free Market(tm) forces them to do it with a price signal, or “Gaia” presses the issue with something like the Greenland ice sheet sliding into the ocean, and people in coastal cities have to switch to boats so they can row down what used to be their streets.  I just think those options will actually be worse than what would happen if we solved the unemployment problem by starting to re-build our built environment for a post-car world.

    It wouldn’t be something that happened instantly, and there would be no law requiring summary execution for anyone caught driving a car.  How many people were lined up against a wall and shot for refusing to give up horses and canals for railroads, or railroads for cars?  How did America become an automobile society in the first place?  Answer: the (gasp!) Federal Government poured huge amounts of money into building a gigantic, nationwide, freeway infrastructure, and local governments and property developers joined in (Levittown, etc.). 

    Nobody was forced at gunpoint to buy (and keep paying to maintain) an expensive personal vehicle instead of taking the tram across town or the train across country.  Governments just changed the built environment (freeways, wide multi-lane city streets and suburbs instead of rail lines, Really Narrow Streets, and city/town buildings side by side).  So, unless you can point to the American gulags that were built to enforce the Great Drive Forward, I honestly don’t get where you think I want to be Chairman Mao.

    The key point here is that America spent the last several decades creating a built environment that requires automobile ownership for just about everyone.  Our cities and transportation infrastructure are designed for cars, not people.  First you have to make streets wide enough for the roaring machines.  Then you have to put in buffers (e.g. “Green Space”) between the machines and “pedestrians” (a.k.a. people) and buildings to make the presence of the roadway tolerable.  Then you need to build parking lots to put the machines in when they’re not being used.  All of this spreads out the city, so that it becomes less walkable, so then more people have to drive, and the roadways need to be made wider to accommodate more traffic, and the vicious cycle repeats.

    On the other hand, if we were to solve the unemployment problem by doing a multi-decade changeover to rail, transit, and carfree cities designed around people rather than hulking machines, we could create a built environment that would work in a post-fossil fuel world without any more totalitarianism than was involved in creating the Car Culture.  Sure, there would need to be some promotion of the Traditional City concept, the same way The Future was marketed to us as a utopia of giant cars with wings and fins cruising along enormous superhighway overpasses. 

    As for nuclear energy, I agree with you that nuclear “waste” ought to be used as long as it’s producing any significant amount of energy.  If it’s being used, at least people are tending to it, and are more likely to pass down knowledge of its nature and risks.  Whereas if we try to throw it away (there is no such place as “Away”) by burying it, I think it’s a lot more likely to cause problems (leaking storage containers, surprises from nature, etc.) and be forgotten, thus becoming more dangerous to our descendants.

    However, I don’t think nuclear power can do anything to prop up the Car Culture that renewables couldn’t.  The last best hope for Car Culture is EV’s, and the super-batteries/hypercapacitors/flywheels/compressed air/hydrogen fuel cells they’d be running on would charge up as well from wind energy as nuclear.  Nuclear would (IMO) be best used to provide base load power, along with geothermal and hydroelectric.

  • BaseDeltaZero

    Basically the right wing simply does not give a rat’s ass about life in 20 years; and so all the long term things, and the problems we’ll be passing on to future generations just do not freaking matter.”
    And then they condemn the democrats for the same thing when they don’t want to dismantle government to pay for their tax cuts.
    “This is a national mobilization, comparable to the mobilization for World War II, to completely retrofit and/or replace the nation’s infrastructure to be able to operate on renewable energy sources alone within 30 years, or some comparable time frame.  Walkable, highly enjoyable “Traditional Cities” with electric transit and trains joining them together, designed to be very energy-efficient (lots of insulation and sound insulation), and a renewables-based energy infrastructure.”I agree with the concept of addressing the use of fossil fuel.  One possible means of doing, aside from use of space inefficient and expensive ‘green’ power technologies is the development of fusion technology.  The fuel is literally the most common substance in the universe, a gram of fused hydrogen produces as much energy as burning a million tons of coal, and unlike a conventional nuclear reactor, there is no risk of meltdown, and there are no dangerous waste or fuel products.  Scientists project that fusion technology will be available in 50 years or so, massive investment could probably reduce this number to well under 30.
    The ‘Traditional City’ stuff is nonsense, however.  Yeah, let’s all live in tiny hovels, that’ll solve everything.  It’s just the usual idealistic affection for the good ol’ days that were actually pretty horrible.
    “The Peace Corps should be a “branch of service” that is as well-funded and supplied with advanced technology as any of the military branches.  The next time there is a major disaster, Peace Corps “forces” should be able to roar in on heavy-lift zeppelins carrying entire field hospitals, water purification systems, emergency shelter, food supplies, etc.”
    Any plan that involves Zeppelins can’t be all bad.  I imagine modern technology could solve most of the problems inherent in a such a design… say, a Kevlar skin, to prevent tearing.  Although roaring sounds like a bit much.  Puttering in, perhaps?  No, wait…
    JET ZEPPELIN.Sorry, that was inappropriate…
    Anyways, basically, the plan is to transform the Peace Corps into the Special Rescue Service?  Sounds like a good plan to me.  The civilian duties of the Army Corp of Engineers and such could also be rolled into the new Peace Corp.  Although, speaking of it as a ‘branch of service’… what department would it be under?  I presume you don’t actually mean to make it part of the Defense Department… maybe something like Homeland Security or Interior?…ZEPPELIN!…
    “Create and fund a new agency of government called the Livingry Advanced Research Projects Agency.  This is a “blue sky” research and development agency like DARPA, but its mission will be the application of human genius to “livingry,” a Buckminster Fullerism for technologies that provide life-support (water purification systems, advanced shelter systems, etc.) rather than inventing more clever and expensive ways to kill people.  Technologies developed by LARPA could then be licensed to private companies for mass production.”Good idea, but ‘Livingry’ sounds terrible.  Coming up with a better name would be nice, not only because it sounds better, but also because it sounds better.
    “We’re 10 years late for that manned mission to Jupiter.  Let’s get started!”Hell yeah!  Now this I agree with.  Some possible projects in this category could be the construction of a space elevator or similar launch system, and construction of permanent, practical colonies in space or on the moon.  The private sector should be involved (not too involved, you can do nasty things with spacecraft, and frankly, I don’t trust them), of course, but NASA must lead the way.However…
    “The Germans launched over 3,000 V-2 rockets over the course of a few months in 1944-45.*  The U.S., with a much larger economy, ought to be able to achieve something like half that number in a year.”Ballistic Missiles =/= spacecraft
    “In addition, this enhanced space program and other initiatives like LARPA could be used to wean the major “defense” contractors from the business of war, so that their lobbying might would not continue to fuel a vast military-industrial complex.”How would this even work?  The defense contractors should be working on the business of war.  That’s what they’re for.  Besides, most of them don’t even build the kinds of thing a habitability project could use.  McDonnel Douglass, for instance, makes aircraft engines.  While NASA could certainly use that, I can’t think of anything but the most kit-bashed ways to apply that to water purification systems.
    “As part of this aspect of the program, the Pentagon’s budget could be cut in half, with the savings used to make payments on the national debt.”With sufficient trimming of waste, this could probably be accomplished without actually reducing force capabilities that much.  The military has a way of overspending obscenely on things that don’t actually make much sense.  That said, we should endeavor to maintain our conventional warfare capability, because frankly, the military needs something in between a scalpel and a wrecking ball.  Developing an at least marginally effective anti ballistic missile system would be nice, too.
    “This may be a surprise, but actually, not counting the odd civil war, occupation, and brutal suppression of various people attempting to overthrow a hated government, world peace has broken out – except for one country, which continues to bomb for peace.”Right.  So if you ignore all the wars, it’s actually quite peaceful!(And America is hardly the only country that wages wars… leaving aside all of NATO… do you remember the Russia/Georgia war?  How about North Korea, which while not actively at war, is definently flirting with it?
    “I could quote Eisenhower here about how utterly incorrect that perspective is, but why bother? Anyone who thinks that 600 hundred billion dollars doesn’t represent a direct drain on many tens of millions of productive workers is already living in a framework that simply refuses to see that a standing military bankrupts nations.”What?  You could probably find some country, somewhere, that went broke as a result of its standing military, but it’s unlikely.  In any case, *not* having a standing military gets nations obliterated.  The weapons necessary to fight modern war are extremely expensive, and extremely powerful.  A small militia can only do one thing against a modern profession army – die.  Sure, I suppose you could launch an insurgency, but any plan that includes ‘let them conquer us’ as one of its elements is probably a bad plan.  This has been the case pretty much throughout all of history, and modern technology hasn’t made it any better.
    “I kinda like your idea of a U.S. Nucleonics Corps.  With a name like that, they ought to be issued Rocketpunk Era silver suits as uniforms, with a balls-and-orbits atom logo emblazoned on the chest. :D ”I like that.  Silver jumpsuits, with a large atom logo on the back and a smaller one on the breast pocket.  I can’t really object to it, as frankly, generation of power is a government duty first and foremost, although I’d suggest, as a compromise, simply making Nucleonics Commissioners to oversee the operation of privately owned reactors – directly, not ‘inspected once every 6 months’.  That way the plants would be run and profitable for private enterprises, while still ultimately being under government control.
    “But here is one where he makes the case without the sexism, pointing to the Wizards’ society in Harry Potter as an example of life in a carfree society.”Hahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahaha… yeah, it’s a lot easier to be sustainable when you *have fucking magic*
    I’d rather live in the TSAB, even if there are sections that are a bit run down.  Clanagan looks like a nice enough place, with an abundance of seaside parks, markets, etc, and it’s huge.  Heck, the TSAB HQ is a *space station* and still has plenty of nice parks and open area.  It’s sustainable, it has plenty of green spaces, public areas, *and* cars, industry, and real buildings. It’s sustainable, modern, efficient, and best of all doesn’t require annihilating 90% of the population.
    “If the present Car Culture and endless exponential economic growth on a finite planet isn’t sustainable, it isn’t sustainable.  If something can’t go on forever, it will stop.”Obviously.  At which point it will be replaced by something else.  Like, say, electric cars.  OOGA BOOGA BOOGA!
    “Since my idea is about reshaping the built environment (cities, streets, rail lines) rather than trying to reshape people into a New Soviet Man or some equivalent, I don’t see where an issue of “killing millions of innocent victims” Chairman Mao style even arises.”You really think stripping away the infrastructure of modern civilization to 18th century levels *won’t* kill billions of people?
    This guy is literally just a fan of 16th century hovels, who for some reason has decided that because he likes them *everyone* needs to live in one. 
    “What we should be doing is transitioning to the fully renewable energy sources, not as a quick switch, but as a gradual change. This should probably take us 10-15 years.”What ‘fully renewable energy sources’?  Wind, and solar sure as hell aren’t.  Geothermal isn’t either.  Depending on your view of astrophysics, fusion *might* be…
    “It wouldn’t be something that happened instantly, and there would be no law requiring summary execution for anyone caught driving a car.  How many people were lined up against a wall and shot for refusing to give up horses and canals for railroads, or railroads for cars?”Does it occur to you that maybe most people gave up those things for a reason?
    “and be forgotten, thus becoming more dangerous to our descendants.”Bury it deep, and bury it anonymously.  Anyone with the technology to reach it knows better.  Primitive civilizations don’t typically dig thousands of feet down in the middle of nowhere.
    “However, I don’t think nuclear power can do anything to prop up the Car Culture that renewables couldn’t.  The last best hope for Car Culture is EV’s, and the super-batteries/hypercapacitors/flywheels/compressed air/hydrogen fuel cells they’d be running on would charge up as well from wind energy as nuclear.  Nuclear would (IMO) be best used to provide base load power, along with geothermal and hydroelectric.”If you’re that determined that cars are terrible, terrible evil, you’ll have to come up with something that’s better than them.  (Hint: It’s not walking).  I know that if your plan somehow succeeded, I’d have to walk an hour every day, easily, and frankly, I don’t fancy that idea… for starters.
    In any event, even if we’re going to speculate about a car-free future, it’s more likely to be arcologies than primitive thorps.  You can make an arcology that looks like a castle or dark age village if you want, but don’t try to force everyone else to do the same.

  • KevinC

    Base Delta Zero (an ironically apt username, as it is a reference to a method of laying waste to a planet…):

    Your post mashes up citations of my posts with others without attribution.  I’m not going to try to untangle the whole thicket.  Instead, I’ll just respond to what I think are your key points.

    One possible means of doing, aside from use of space inefficient and
    expensive ‘green’ power technologies is the development of fusion
    technology.  The fuel is literally the most common substance in the
    universe, a gram of fused hydrogen produces as much energy as burning a
    million tons of coal, and unlike a conventional nuclear reactor, there
    is no risk of meltdown, and there are no dangerous waste or fuel
    products.  Scientists project that fusion technology will be available
    in 50 years or so, massive investment could probably reduce this number
    to well under 30.

    Fusion is the energy of the future, and it always will be. :)   You do realize that fusion advocates were saying this exact same thing 50 years ago, right?  But OK, let’s say that 30-50 years from now, someone finally builds a demonstrator fusion reactor that can generate more energy than it needs to run, and keep going.  Brilliant!  Now you’ve got one incredibly expensive, incredibly complicated piece of machinery with no safety record (how will it do in an earthquake?), and likely with only a handful of people who might be considered qualified to run it–the original researchers.  “Quick!  Let’s build 10,000 of these things so we can keep our CARS running!”  Right.  What are the chances something like this could scale to the developing world?

    In order to ignite and maintain fusion, the fuel must be kept at extremely high temperatures and pressures.  As a matter of basic physics, anything at extreme temperature and pressure “wants” to disperse if it can.  Or in a word, “kaboom!”  To maintain a fusion reaction on Earth that isn’t a bomb, a delicate balancing act of containment with a “magnetic bottle” (a set of powerful, precisely shaped magnetic fields) is required.  Any little hiccup in this process–like an earthquake, a cyber attack, or a short in one of the electromagnets–and containment fails, perhaps resulting in damage to or destruction of some of that billion-dollar machinery.

    Given that starting and maintaining an artificial, controlled fusion reaction isn’t something we even know how to do in practice, betting the future of our civilization on it doesn’t make sense.  Maybe it’ll work without any unintended consequences and produce power too cheap to meter.  And maybe we’ll all finally get those jetpacks and flying cars we’ve been waiting for!

    “But here is one where he makes the case without the sexism,
    pointing to the Wizards’ society in Harry Potter as an example of life
    in a carfree society.”Hahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahaha… yeah, it’s
    a lot easier to be sustainable when you *have fucking magic*

    If you had bothered to read the link, you would have seen why the “magic” is irrelevant.  The main places the author talks about are real locations in England that were used for filming the movies.  Then you go and talk about some giant space station with “green space,” suburbia, and cars.  Yeah, we can build giant space stations like that without any “fucking magic!”  *eyeroll*

    Obviously.  At which point it will be replaced by something else.  Like, say, electric cars.  OOGA BOOGA BOOGA!

    Electric cars require rare earth elements that are currently mined mostly in China.  If the name doesn’t manage to give it away entirely, these elements are…well…rare.  Besides, any real electric car is going to look more like a Tata Nano than a Dodge Ram battlecruiser truck, and what Real, True American is gonna get caught dead in something like that?  Hey, maybe we can build SUV’s with fusion reactors!  BTW, you’re forgetting that the whole automobile infrastructure–roads, plastics, lubricants, etc.–is petroleum-based.  Also, getting everyone to drop $30,000 or more for a new electric car isn’t exactly going to be easy, either.

    “You really think stripping away the infrastructure of modern
    civilization to 18th century levels *won’t* kill billions of people?

    You mean, like the abject, 18th century squalor people in modern Paris, Venice, and Tokyo have to live in?  As if there were some law of physics that makes it impossible to include electricity, modern plumbing, broadband internet. etc. in anything but an automobile suburb?  It’s actually much easier and cheaper because the residences are closer together.  People fly across oceans to see Traditional Cities like Venice and Paris.  How many people do that so they can visit your shitty suburb?

    “If you’re that determined that cars are terrible, terrible evil, you’ll
    have to come up with something that’s better than them.  (Hint: It’s
    not walking).  I know that if your plan somehow succeeded, I’d have to
    walk an hour every day, easily, and frankly, I don’t fancy that idea.

    Well, of course.  Suburban Hell is bad, but Suburban Hell without a car is much worse.  The key is a built environment in which you don’t need a car except maybe for weekend outings and, as in modern Europe and Japan, there’d be easily-accessible trams, subways, and trains, so that you still wouldn’t need a car.

    In any event, even if we’re going to speculate about a car-free future,
    it’s more likely to be arcologies than primitive thorps.  You can make
    an arcology that looks like a castle or dark age village if you want,
    but don’t try to force everyone else to do the same.

    I don’t have anything against arcologies in principle.  As I understand it, elevators are the most efficient form of transport there is, because some of the energy used to send them up can be recovered (by using the motors as generators) on the way back down.  But, arcologies represent a lot of fancy and un-proven engineering.  There’s no reason a “subdivision of the future” couldn’t look like Equisheim–with electricity, modern plumbing, broadband internet and all the comforts of technological civilization.  If that’s too old fashioned looking, it could just as easily be sleek, futuristic houses under a transparent geodesic dome. 

    And BTW, I’m not trying to “force” anyone to do anything.  The finitude of oil and other natural resources isn’t optional.  It’s physics and arithmetic.  We can either find ways to operate a technological civilization with a widespread level of modern comfort using a lot less energy and physical resources (which is what I’m proposing), or we can just drive our civilization off a cliff, clinging fiercely to the unsustainable until it grinds to a halt and whatever replaces it has to be built by hand under circumstances of widespread economic and social collapse.  The latter (basically, the result of what you’re proposing, when it turns out fusion-powered SUV’s and gigantic space stations with suburbs, strip malls, and parking lots aren’t actually possible in the real world) is a lot more likely to result in the widespread death and suffering you’re talking about.  
    .

  • Base Delta Zero

    Testing, apologize for the inconvenience.

  • Base Delta Zero

    “Brilliant!  Now you’ve got one incredibly expensive, incredibly complicated piece of machinery with no safety record (how will it do in an earthquake?) and likely with only a handful of people who might be considered qualified to run it–the original researchers.  “Quick!  Let’s build 10,000 of these things so we can keep our CARS running!”  Right.”

    Once developed, technicians could be trained to operate the fusion reactors, and it’s not like a few more years of testing would be that big an impact.  Besides, this one wasn’t actually directed at you… I was more saying that massive investment into fusion power would be a worthy project… although, in retrospect, I suppose it wouldn’t create too many low-end jobs.
    In any case, it doesn’t matter where the electricity comes from.  Build a giant second-hand fusion array in space, or put in the ocean, or whatever.  That said…

    “Any little hiccup in this process–like an earthquake, a cyber attack, or a short in one of the electromagnets–and containment fails, perhaps resulting in damage to or destruction of some of that billion-dollar machinery.”

    Okay, an earthquake, I’ll grant.  As for the electromagnets, that’s what redundancy is for, but I can see that being somewhat difficult to manage.  But a cyber attack – why on earth would you put your fusion reactor controls on an open network?  This isn’t Star Trek.

    “What are the chances something like this could scale to the developing world?”

    It would depend on how the system worked… although I suspect that in 50 years, the developing world may be less developing than it is at present.

    Besides, any real electric car is going to look more like a Tata Nano than a Dodge Ram battlecruiser truck, and what Real, True American is gonna get caught dead in something like that?”

    Smaller cars are also an option, still retaining individual mobility with a reduced energy cost… they are, however, extremely unpleasant for taller/larger people.

    “If you had bothered to read the link, you would have seen why the “magic” is irrelevant.  The main places the author talks about are real locations in England that were used for filming the movies.  Then you go and talk about some giant space station with “green space,” suburbia, and cars.  Yeah, we can build giant space stations like that without any “fucking magic!”  *eyeroll*”

    I did bother to read the link.  That was the joke, genius.  The TSAB is also magical.  It is, however, not medieval in aesthetic, and frankly, I’d prefer it over the HP Wizarding World for a variety of reasons.

    As for the main point, yes, those are pretty pictures.  However, pretty pictures do not a society make.  Wizards, admittedly, have Floo Powder, which is a kind of public transport system, but they also have broomsticks, and they can teleport.  Both of those are a fairly decent analogue to automobiles.

    BTW, you’re forgetting that the whole automobile infrastructure–roads, plastics, lubricants, etc.–is petroleum-based.

    Because it’s not like anything but cars needs plastics or lubricants.  Or that plastics don’t contribute to carbon emissions, not generally being burned, and all.

    You mean, like the abject, 18th century squalor people in modern Paris, Venice, and Tokyo have to live in?

    I assume you’re saying that people do *not* live in squalor in these cities?  In which case, only one of them fits your traditional city model (well, actually none of them do, because Venice doesn’t have streets narrow or not, per se…).  It does have motorboats.

    As for the others…
    Paris: http://www.paris4travel.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Paris-at-night-by-photos4travel.jpg
    Tokyo: http://www.world-wallpaper.com/user-content/uploads/wall/o/68/Tokyo-Japan-City-Wallpaper.JPG
    Notice anything that seems to be conspicously not absent?

    For comparison, here’s NYC http://www.destination360.com/north-america/us/new-york/images/s/new-york-city.jpg

    And since you felt the need to insult it: http://ochlockoneepointeapartments.com/images/tallahassee-florida.jpg
    Now, admittedly, the latter two do seem to have a few more roads.  But it’s hardly a ‘Really Narrow Street’ (are the pretenious caps really necessary?), and they’re not absent of cars.

    People fly across oceans to see Traditional Cities like Venice and Paris.

    The above statement aside, the 5 most popular tourist cities are London, Bangkok, Paris, Singapore, and Hong Kong.  However, New York City is number six.  Venice is at #28.

    The key is a built environment in which you don’t need a car except maybe for weekend outings and…

     
    Great!  Except what you’re proposing isn’t an environment where you don’t need a car, but one where you can’t use a car.

    Well, of course.  Suburban Hell is bad, but Suburban Hell without a car is much worse.

    That’s my calculation with a ‘Traditional’ design, walking from my house (with all the houses stacked end to end), to the then-nearest bus stop.  Perhaps not entirely accurate… (it’s more like half an hour) but yeah.

    But, arcologies represent a lot of fancy and un-proven engineering.

    Well yes.  But they pack a much greater population density into an even smaller space, with less need for walking.  And you can include as many ‘on-call’ transportation systems as you need.
    Of course, if you don’t want to build up, you don’t have to, and could probably incorporate the arcology concept into a relatively low slung structure.

    There’s no reason a “subdivision of the future” couldn’t look like Equisheim

    (Population 1,572)
    And from your own website.
    http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2009/071909_files/eguisheim,%20alsace.jpgMy god… are those cars I see?

    The finitude of oil and other natural resources isn’t optional.

    I seem to recall reading about a project to generate oil from assorted biomass, in much the same manner as artificial diamonds are made, but I can’t seem to recall.  Besides, if these resources are so limited that the collapse of civilization is immenent, modern society cannot be sustained for more than a few hundred years without finding new sources…

    We can either find ways to operate a technological civilization with a widespread level of modern comfort using a lot less energy and physical resources (which is what I’m proposing),

    You made a proposal focused almost entirely on your hatred of cars and your aesthetic preferences for medieval villages.

    As for fusion powered SUVs, I don’t recall actually proposing that, but it sounds cool.  Can it fly, too?

  • http://twitter.com/ccdsmith ccdsmith

    I think that the idea is: if we hire all these people, they will pay into the tax pool, thereby increasing the amount collected. Done properly, it could be a zero-sum proposition.