Ian Bremmer’s Frightening Position on Climate Change
As I’ve mentioned, eminent American political scientist Ian Bremmer is an incredibly impressive guy; he entered college at 15, received his PhD in political science from Stanford at 24, and now stands as one of the most noteworthy figures on Earth when it comes to looking at the world at the macro level. His primary mission in life is evaluating all forms of risk on behalf of governments and transnational corporations, taking into consideration changing demographics, economic trends, shifting political power, military capability, as well as geophysical issues.
One of his main ideas is the concept of “G Zero,” meaning the growing power vacuum associated with the fall of the American Empire (I.e., the G7 is obsolete and the G20 never had a chance, being so mired with confusion and conflicting interests.) He also accepts the unfolding economic and geopolitical implications of climate change as inevitable.
Yet, merging these two ideas together yields some terrifying ideas. In a recent interview, Bremmer explains how and why the U.S. is doing so little in this regard, and how a considerable level of suffering is the unavoidable result: climate refugees from the poorer island nations, droughts that expand in both duration and severity, food shortages, and disappearing land masses associated with sea level rise.
He goes on to explain how, though most of the effects of climate change are negative, there are some positive consequences as well: the opening to navigation of the Northwest Passage, providing access to oil and other resources in the Arctic, the longer growing seasons in the north, the emergence of Greenland as an important destination for agriculture.
Yes, you heard that right: Bremmer deems that cheap access to new oil fields, a positive feedback loop that serves to quicken the pace at which the Earth is losing its capacity to support human life, is a good thing.
Given his profound understanding of all this, including the mechanism behind climate change, it’s hard to imagine how he can hold this position. In fact, I have to confess that it makes me a bit angry when intelligent people go on like this. One could argue that there is some element of good in the Taliban too, e.g., keeping ISIS out of Afghanistan, but this is insignificant when balanced against the former’s predilection for Jihad and its horrific treatment of women. As a result, reasonable people don’t promote both sides of a story like climate change or the Taliban.
Maybe I’m oversimplifying, or simply getting too upset over nothing. Both have been known to happen. I’d be interested in readers’ opinions.
With the worst case scenario of sea level rise and an increase in storm intensity along with new areas of extreme drought we will have to fall back on the life support systems made famous in science fiction like Dr. Who. A highly technical engineered environment, perhaps underground would support a sizable human population. It would of necessity be on a much smaller scale than the natural ecosystems we have grown to love. This transition would occur during a period of death and destruction leaving earth with a small but viable population. I think the government would run things like a benevolent scientific farmer who keeps the cattle well fed and watered. Scientific breeding would replace love and affection. Get ready for Brave New World.
Larry,
I’ve considered that such a scenario could occur and leave us with a much smaller population living in some sort of dystopia. It is too late to prevent global warming; it is already happening. All we can do is limit it to some extent, an extent that we cannot know at this time.
Global warming has both positive and negative feedbacks, some of which we probably don’t know about. If we are lucky, the consequences may be much less than expected, but the consequences could also be much greater than expected.
Fortunately, considering my age, I probably will not be around to experience the worst of it.
One- don’t be so sure you won’t be around and two even if not that doesn’t leave you with less responsibility maybe more…
Dear Mr. Bremmer
Your work and research are critical for gov’ts and large concerns. Fear can be a very healthy motivator as well. Suggesting that a positive outcome of global disaster might be acessibility to additional oil fields is a bit of black humor. A positive senario is also a poossibilty Much is being done to advance clean tech from Musk-Tesla to Bahargava-Stage 2 and around the world its making more sense and cents to go sustainable. What do you think about presenting several possiblities in order to give people options, because if’ this is going to happen then we have to do that’-but if disaster is the only option then either put ones head as deeply in the sand as possible or other such useful reactions are the only way to go. Mr. Bremmer, as you well know public opinion creates results at very least strongly influences outcomes.You are in the position to shape public opinion and contribute to minimizing severe damage. Thank you for attention.
Florine Gabai
http://beta.fortune.com/change-the-world-16
Of course it doesn’t leave me, or anyone else, with less responsibility. It would be incredibly selfish, although perhaps not uncommon, to be unconcerned with the welfare of the next generations.
However, I am continually frustrated by solutions which seem to be based on faith more than upon proven technologies.
There is nothing we cannot handle and technology is now being rediscovered and used to combat whatever idiots have done in the past. Unfortunately many brilliant scholars have not been given vital data and with unsound or downright false data they get wrong answers. All the ingredients are available to handle any situation. We just need to get our act together and remove the idiots from any kind of control. The answers are available if you look!!!
I like your enthusiasm: “The answers are available if you look!!!” But do you mind sharing them with us?
Hi Craig- bremmer@eurasiagroup.net =Ian Bremmer
No quick fixes but solar is expanding quickly, all growth estimates on the clean tech industry are extremely positive, water purifaction and desalination is constantly improving, a lot of influential companies are contributing to global welfare. So with the help of Heaven, (it’s a good time to pray – seeing that they are no real atheists in the foxholes), we may be able to curb global warming and minimize damage. At this point avoiding devasting consequences all together does not seem realistic… There are many battles to be waged before winning a war such as community-city programs to increase the use of clean energy, buying electric-solar cars (ex. Tesla or Nissan Leaf), lobbying for state aid to individuals, etc.
bremmer@eurasiagroup.net
http://beta.fortune.com/change-the-world-16
you ve just described a best case scenario, not a worst case.
This seems a bit sci-fi to me but indignation or at least surprise when an academic comes up with this kind of thing, but if we are going to over simplfy let’s go for it! why not write or phone Mr.Bremmer not to express our outrage but to suggest there are other options, especially with a growing number or concerns concentrating on a solution, such as Musk- Tesla also see 50 companies doing something to change the world…
A person can be brilliant and still not see the forest for the trees.
That said, perhaps he feels compelled to point to some silver lining to our regrettable disruption of the global climate, because his view is that insufficient mobilization is occurring against that disruption, and he therefore feels it’s inevitable.
However, like you, I fail to understand how that silver lining (easy access to prehistoric toxins buried at our poles) seems to him to be anything but a tightening garrote around the throat of the biosphere.
Perhaps he regards it as a Malthusian ‘good’ to bring civilization more quickly to a close and start a new humanless chapter in our planet’s history. Lacking further data on his position, that’s the only way I see logic applying to it.
True. There are people who are actively rooting for the apocalypse called for in Revelations. I thought this was an urban myth until I met some of them personally; they’re for real.
Quote
“Bremmer explains how and why the U.S. is doing so little in this regard and how a considerable level of suffering is the unavoidable result: climate refugees from the poorer island nations, droughts that expand in both duration and severity, food shortages, and disappearing land masses associated with sea level rise.”
Well there is nothing we dont already know (or think we know) in that little gem. So how can comments like that from Bremmer expand and steer the debate into positive territory? They can’t.
I dont share Bremmer’s attitude about inevitable and unavoidable calamity being cast in stone.
That’s defeatist, demonstrates little creative thinking, and shows why Bremmer would not be a good candidate to sit on a select board of forward thinkers tasked by the American people to come up with guaranteed solutions to major problems, remembering that failure on this particular problem is not an option.
The truth is that the current grave circumstances are in fact an opportunity of staggering proportions for the brave the bold and the best of the best. And that is the message that America’s “commentators” need to get out there, then quickly fill in the gaps with some meaningful and arousing speeches backed by bold and demanding policy initiatives to mobilise a new age nation building project of epic proportions.
Let’s get the show on the road, instead of wasting time on incessant rabble rousing banter. At this point in human history the world is anticipating and looking for the US to step up to plate, perform, and in doing so establish its position as leaders in global technological reform.
Lawrence Coomber
Spot on Lawrence!
An opportunity of staggering proportions is an understatement.
Why don’t similar minded people network to push this agenda.
The players in every major industry should be reevaluating business as usual.
Bremmer seems to be following his basic assumptions to a logical conclusion without any outside moral or ethical distractions. It is sometimes true that brilliant people will follow the money and tell employers what they want to hear.
Once you start with the idea that Global climate change is inevitable you begin to ask what resources may be left. It is as if someone entered a movie theater and shot the person sitting next to you, but dropped their gun. Shouldn’t you pick it up to “defend yourself?” Initially it may seem like a tempting and good idea. Unless … you somehow also asked yourself if you have any idea what to do with it and how to avoid being taken for the killer yourself.
Humans traditionally don’t do well with temptingly good ideas that can lead to bad results. Maybe that is why we have a story about an apple.
There is a group that hopes to see the world population reduced to below 2 billion. Global climate change could easily accomplish this. The last time humanity suffered global climate population reduction we are told humanity was reduced to about 1500 breeding pairs. (about 75,000 years ago due to the Toba super volcano eruption in Indonesia http://www.mosselbayman.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12:humanity-twice-survived-total-extinction-in-mossel-bay&catid=2:pages )
Unfortunately this kind of future has to also assume our present level of technology would somehow survive as the population is cut by 75% or more. And the people considering this kind of future don’t really think that they are going to sacrifice themselves, but perhaps we should offer an honory Darwin award.
This picture of a brave new world may somehow overlook the “useless” ship-hands and dock workers who died from diseases that result from global warming and lack of health care … and so world wide transportation and the “global economy” slows to a stop.
Not to be thwarted, they then suggest that they are stockpiling necessary goods now. Ok, for how long? As with the previous Mosal bay story some predict our climate may be changed for more than 1000 years. I hope they have a big closet.
Sadly the primary qualification to be a world shaker and mover (and able to buy smart people) seems to be almost unqualified wealth. It is unfortunate that wealth does not also automatically bring wisdom and true vision.
Well Breath of Wind, it is a good thing that sufficient numbers of us including your good self, have learned a lot from the Toba super volcano eruption in Indonesia, sufficiently to make better decisions in the current era. So let’s get on with it then without further ado.
Lawrence Coomber
Lawrence, If you are sarcastic about sarcasm is that then a serious double negative?
Craig, presently putting on my devil’s advocate costume, you may recall that I have in the past taken issue in various comments on your blog with both the use of natural gas and atomic energy as devices to “save us” from climate change.
You seem outraged by Bremmer’s recognizing as an “advantage” of global warming the ability to access more fossil fuels. At least the use of natural gas has been justified on the basis of it being a “lessor evil” than coal.
There seems to be some similar logic between Bremmer starting with the hypothesis that climate change is inevitable and seeking the energy that remains and the position that we should avoid coal so we should move to natural gas.
In each case the choice produces more harm but seems preferable to the anticipated result of doing nothing. You previously seem to accept the logic of one but are outraged by the other. Perhaps the outrage or acceptance is not strictly due to the rationality of the arguments but something else.
Breath on the Wind
Thank you for your interesting, thought provoking and well constructed post.
Bremmer is well paid to have views like this. The people he consults for are resistant to change and are enriched by business as usual. So he has to provide them with the “opportunities” in the disaster their exploitation is creating.
Thanks for this very interesting insight. Sadly, this is the case with a great number of top consultants to moneyed interests. I recall hearing a lecture given by oil consultant Daniel Yergin at UCSB of all places, during which didn’t mention a word about climate change or the many other dangers associated with the continued reliance on fossil fuels. It’s sad, especially insofar as many of these bright people are going to live long enough to see the horrors they have imposed on our civilization. They’re not going to be too happy with themselves and their life’s work.
The near term effect of global warming that we do know about and could be quite negative is the release of methane from the permafrost in the Arctic regions. Since methane is a small, light molecule it may drift into space fairly quickly and not build up in the atmosphere to the point of suffocating us. The green house effect would be increased by methane in our atmosphere even if it was transient and on its way out. Even at age 73 I figure that some of these effects could affect my life before I expire.
Would methane really be likely to drift into space and be lost? Helium does which is why the atmosphere contains no helium even though the earth is continually releasing helium, but methane is heavier than that.
Helium has an atomic weight of only 4, so it can easily achieve escape velocity.
Methane, i.e., CH4, as a molecular weight of 16.
Water vapor, i.e., H2O, has a molecular weight if 18.
One might suppose that if methane molecules could achieve escape velocity, water vapor molecules could too since its molecular weight isn’t much greater. It would be interesting to check this out.
I had assumed that the short resident life of methane was the result of its combining with O2, but perhaps not.
Frank, the reason that methane “disappears” in the atmosphere is not because it drifts into space but that it will break down due to exposure with radiation, ozone, and oxygen. The process is described in this article under “2.3 methane sinks” http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/energy/downloads/methaneuk/chapter02.pdf I suspect however that the numbers used in the article are now outdated.
Breath,
That’s what I suspected although I wasn’t sure.
As one of the resident pragmatists, I provide a sketchy outline as follows:
1) Humanity is in deep trouble along multiple pathways in addition to climate change. Craig’s many readers can easily enumerate these.
2) Those who currently fight the “good fight”, the Steyer’s of the developed world, will, for a time, be the sole response. Most of us are simply cheerleaders.
3) OECD (developed world) governments will not respond with the required depth and seriousness until the various calamities are plain enough even to the daytime soap opera viewer.
4) The opportunity of staggering proportions will finally be engaged in by a number of players.
5) At this point, absent truly unlimited commercially available energy, many noble dragon slayers both commercial and sovereign will suffer defeat.
6) Back around point 3), the less developed world will be suffering every possible setback in and of biblical proportions. Those with greater resources will respond to the humanitarian need at heretofore unprecedented levels. Unfortunately, it is not possible to do enough – the math simply doesn’t work.
7) Somewhere in this timeline, everything gets so desperate such that those with resources will only help themselves. Nationalism grows to an even greater degree than at present.
8) The inevitability of potable water scarcity, loss of arable land for food growth, ocean acidification and associated ecological collapse, continued forest and rain forest loss with the associated droughts this will engender, high daytime temperatures sufficient to drive a significant fraction of humanity indoors and the associated loss in productivity that brings, etc., will make sea level rise look like a trivial problem. Oh yeah – the California agricultural phenomenon will collapse as the majority of it again becomes an inland sea.
9) All of this, coupled with the disease and starvation and warfare that massively displaced populations always create, will result in some significant loss of world population. I would hesitate to predict any percentage because humanity is awesomely resilient. People survive in conditions that many of us assume death to be imminent.
10) It is *highly* unlikely that the USA will in some fashion stave off this scenario. On that score, my reasoning is simple. Whatever we invent needs to be given to the world pro bono publico in order for it to work for all, including us. Earth is a spaceship with a single compartment. I have incredibly little faith in our system to do this. Of course, its quite easy to be wrong there. I hope I am.
That’s Arlene Allen, ladies and gentlemen, one of the first people who engaged with 2GreenEnergy at its inception, and one of the most intelligent people I know.
What you write here is so on track with what any wise person would predict. Yes, I hope that you and I are both wrong.
I guess the only thing I would say is to challenge your point #2 above, i.e., you and I are not merely cheerleaders. We have the power to change the world, or at least we have to duty to act as if that were so. I’m not quitting, and, knowing you as long as I have, I don’t think you are either.
Water molecules would escape earth gravity based on its low molecular weight except for the fact that is a polar molecule. Methane is nonpolar. Water forms droplets which increases particle mass.
Backtracking on methane escape. After Googling a lot of respectable sites I have concluded that methane does not have quite enough kinetic energy even at the high end of the velocitydistribution to escape earths gravity. But as Frank commented earlier, it does react with hydroxyl free radicals in the upper atmosphere. This does keep it from piling up as much as it would without this mechanism. It is still a nasty problem and contributes to the green house effect.
Maybe that gentleman is just suffering a form of hopelessness. Maybe he has formed this somewhat acceptable view of what our world could become, because of the road our collective humanity seems to be taking regardless of the evidence (which he understands better than most), and for a brief moment this is a way that he can cope. I can understand the frustation it creeps around my mind at times. I hope he reflects on the negative future view he presented and uses it to build strength for the fight. Craig, remember hope is one of our great natural resources and people like youself, your many contributors, and the growing wave of awareness will wash away the virus of hopelessness replacing it with the oppurtunities of creating solutions.
Really great Discussion………
excellent parrallel, thanks for the perspective.
It’s like commending the nazis for keeping trains on time
Exactly! Good analogy.
intelligence wisdom do not always overlap.
Nicely put; there seem to be a lot of folks you agree with you.
The scary part is that what Arlene has written dovetails so (depressingly) nicely into Walter M. Miller Jr.’s dystopian “Canticle of Leibowitz”. (And an echo of the chorus of “where have all the flowers gone”… “When will they ever learn …) I tried for years to get people in my community talking about this – and they steadfastly ignored me as they drove away, each in their own minivan to their 4,000 sq.ft. poorly insulated, inefficient homes.
Sometimes I’m glad I’m in my late ’60’s – I won’t have to live through most of what’s coming…
I’ve certainly had that thought as well. I shudder when I see families with little kids. At this point, one has to think that the future for most people on this planet is going to be pretty bleak. Having said that, I’m not giving up.
Some of us will get to say, “I told you so.”. However, that would not undo the damage.
It’s funny; I think about that all the time. And yes, it’s precious little consolation.
Well, I’m in my late 70s so its even less likely that I’ll live to see the worst of it. On the other hand, a male relative of mine died on his 99th birthday so I may live to see the beginning of the serious problems.
I hope you live that long–but that things turn out OK.
In addition to environmentalism itself, there are lots of good things that could happen, chiefly new technology for energy and meat production.
It may become possible to grow meat in laboratories instead of with animals. Presumably that would be more efficient and less environmentally destructive. It would also eliminate the cruelty to animals objection to meat eating. Meanwhile, people can at least reduce the amount of meat they eat; many people have already done that.
In watching olde Perry Mason programs on TV, one notices that one of life’s luxuries was having a big steak for dinner. That is less common today. Now restaurants often have a list of items having meat as only a part of the item rather than the primary part. So, we’re moving in the right direction.
All this is totally true. Synthetic meat is coming along very quickly.
Despairing or not, we can’t give up. I have grand-nieces and -nephews. One of them is already in love.
Like you, I teach and I talk (although to a much smaller audience). And I hope there are thousands/millions of others, unknown to us, doing the same – that there is this massive “group” quietly being “subversive”
“Live, then, and be happy, beloved children of my heart, and never forget, that until the day God will deign to reveal the future to man, all human wisdom is contained in these two words, ‘Wait and Hope.” (Dumas, “Count of Monte Christo.)(Sorry, I couldn’t resist. I just reached this point in the Librivox recording … )
Truly beautiful, Roger.
Good for you for not giving up.
Although it is too late to prevent damaging climate change, we can reduce its magnitude to some extent. There is also much that can be done to increase the number of people who will be able to live with it.
Extremely huge amounts of non-CO2 emitting power are essential. It will be needed for air conditioning and sea water desalination. It will also have to be reliable and scaled up at an unprecedented rate.
Craig,
Careful reading of most of the comments responding to Ian Bremmer’s opinions seem to favour an dismal apocalyptic future.
Research reveals that for the entire history of human civilization, an impending apocalypse has been an enormously popular prediction.
The fact that none has actually occurred, and the human race trundles on growing more prosperous, more in control of it’s destiny, ever expanding its scientific and technical knowledge, never daunts the doomsayers.
Interestingly, these prophets of doom seldom involve themselves in doing any about averting disaster (apart from self-serving advocacy).
Most of the high minded waffle spouted by academics, is not only meaningless but unsupportable.
Recently Travis Rieder, a faculty member at Johns Hopkins University’s Berman Institute of Bioethics sagely opined;
“Children, especially American born children in particular, are a burden to the world’s climate.A child born in America is far guiltier than a child born in an impoverished country”
This drivel was not only accepted by his audience of climate elitists and fellow true believers, acolytes etc, but his solution for coercive population control applauded.
(if Donald Trump suggested cohesive population control, he would quite rightly be derided as a potential Nazi, but when it’s suggested by a liberal academic, wrapped in environmentalism, it’s applauded )
Now hating people is hardly believers in centrally planned societies, or the regressive advocacy of climate elites, futurists, despots etc.
The Club of Rome, M.King Hubbert, Paul Ehrlich in his book ‘The Population Bomb’ Margaret Sanger’s call for eugenics or Lester Brown’s “Full Planet, Empty Plate” ,are all just the latest in a long line of frightened academics and would be apocalyptic prophets, ranging from the barking mad to delusional.
Th once very popular Paul Ehrlich is an excellent example. Not one of his many predictions ever eventuated.
Contrary to his predictions, food supply per person has dramatically increased and the rate of population growth declined since 1950.
Climate doomsayers always conclude people are the problem. In fact, people are the planet’s greatest resource.
The human species is incredibly resilient and adaptive. When our and Technology proves to have harmful side effects, we develop new counter-measures. Western democratic/elected representative societies are strong because that are very flexible and adaptive.
Right now, there are thousands of scientists, engineers etc, working to develop new technology, and mitigate the harmful effects of older, but still essential, technology.
Millions of people working in all aspects of industry, law makers, public servants, regulators, and entrepreneurs across a vast landscape of humanity are working for a better future in very positive and practical ways.
Thankfully, most are far too busy contributing, building and enjoying human progress to contemplate doomsday scenario’s outside of the entertainment realm of science fiction.
Human science, technology and organization will always forestall any apocalypse, not perfectly, not enough to create Utopia but enough to sustain human progress on a human scale.
Marco, a well stated case opposing the proposition that “we are all doomed.” It is also possible that so much optimism may be like the person falling from the tall building and saying at each floor, “OK so far.”
I do notice that we tend to focus on the material rather than attitudes. It is as if we are collectively saying that what we believe is of no consequence and all importance must be placed in what we do.
It is a very modern and “scientific” perspective. But I couldn’t help but notice that some refer to their age with the postscript that they should or should not be affected by the consequences of global warming. I muse that this is the same attitude that drove us to this an environmental crisis. People believe that what they earn and the wealth that they acquire must be accomplished and enjoyed in their lifetime. What does not seem to immediately affect them is of little or no concern.
These are attitudes that have helped to drive an environmental crisis. Marco you draw on a history to suggest a future. This is another attitude with lots of use. But used well we must take stock of any differences.
In previous times, when we have depleted or exceeded resources, or when when we have excessively polluted an area we could simply relocate. If there were already people there we could conquer them and take their resources.
Everywhere there seems to be fewer resources, more people, more pollution and it is less acceptable to simply take other people’s resources. Perhaps we do live in a world with different circumstances than in the past and this will require us to change more than simply past solutions, a few material affects but just perhaps we also need to change a few of our attitudes.
Good points here. Please see what I just wrote on the subject: http://www.2greenenergy.com/2016/08/29/collapse-human-civilization/.
@ Breath on the Wind
Those who fail to learn the lessons of history, will be doomed to repeat them.
“Everywhere there seems to be fewer resources”
This is a very popular truism among Climate elitists and doomsday advocates. But, just how true is this widely accepted belief ?
Each generation witnesses previous unimaginable examples of human ingenuity and resourcefulness to discover and develop new resources that completely alter the dynamics of human resistance.
That’s the real reserve of “resources”, human ingenuity.
Nor is human civilization producing more pollution. In the 19th and early twentieth century London was famous for it’s sulfurous “pea soup fogs”, which no longer exist.
Prior to the advent of the automobile, 30,000 children in London (the same in all cities to a proportion) died annually from horse encephalitis.
These are just two examples from countless numbers of improvements. The advent of plastics, advances ceramics, silicon, graphene, carbon fibre and literally millions of products we take for granted are the new “resources”, overlooked by doomsayers.
Thanks for the reply. I noticed the new post after I completed comments here.
I see your points Marco and can add to them. Electric cars in NYC at around 1910 were popular because of the pollution… There were so many horses on the streets that about 10,000 dead horses had to be removed from the streets annually. http://www.banhdc.org/archives/ch-hist-19711000.html
What we consider pollution and what we consider essential resources can change over time. Still valuable land, potable water, appropriate sanitation are basic necessities that are unlikely to change. Over time we have shifted from Earth, stone and wood to steel, concrete, and plastics. Tomorrow we may be using carbon fibre, graphene, and ceramics, but these changes happen over hundreds of years primarily because buildings last much longer than consumer goods.
While you may not feel the pinch of water shortages in your corner of the world but globally shortages are predicted: https://www.yahoo.com/news/un-warns-world-could-40-percent-water-shortfall-102838336.html?ref=gs This is due to the decline in both glacial run off and ancient aquifers. There is really no substitute for potable water, although there are alternative methods to acquire water in some places and conservation methods that may be used more widely.
We would have run short on food supplies long ago if we had not started eating oil… using petrochemicals for fertilizer, pesticides and pharmaceuticals. What will happen if we can’t use oil?
Perhaps in your lifetime you have not noticed any increase in traffic. In a nearby location here some places have gone from rarely a car to gridlock 24/7 Space on our highways is also a “resource.” When new roads are built they also immediately become clogged with vehicles. Do you anticipate teleportation will resolve this crisis in the near term future?
I would agree that given time and money we can be very resourceful. Unfortunately both time and money can be serious constraints and absolutely reasons for failure. Privately hording resources and wealth can also lead to a general collapse of a society. (Sorry preppers.)
“There is a time for every season.” We may be looking toward a time when the trust and commonality that binds a society together breaks down and the Winter of our world is coming. We live in interesting times.
@ Breath on the Wind
No,, I don’t anticipate teleportation, but the law of supply and demand is stronger than you believe.
No one ever said human progress would proceed logically or without mishap. Rigid, “centrally planned ‘ economies stagnate and become dysfunctional due to inflexibility and restrictions on individual creativity.
“Privately hording resources and wealth can also lead to a general collapse of a society”.
Individual “wealth” doesn’t really exist. The are no Scrooge McDucks with giant vault containing cash. The “wealth” of individuals is re-invested in the economy.
Private capital must continually seek investment opportunities or the value of the capital will diminish. Even those who spend extravagantly, are participating in wealth creation and voluntary wealth redistribution. The devastation of the City of Detroit is the result of ill-considered government policies and a lack of leadership by it’s inhabitants.
Socialized Housing in the forms of giant “projects” in the US or tower blocks in the UK, have proved to be a disaster for the communities, simply changing a flexible slum into a permanent ghetto.
My younger son lives in a New York apartment building. Essentially, there is no real difference between his building and a housing project such as the Manhattanville housing project in Harlem in New York. The difference is not the building but the people.
My son’s building reflects the care and discipline of the community that owns and occupies the building. The Manhattanville housing project in Harlem in New York reflects the attitudes and aspirations of the people in that community.
It’s all too easy to make excuses for failure. In reality it’s those very excuses that allow people accept failure and become condemned to a life of failed aspirations.
( Incidentally, ‘concrete’ was invented by the Romans)
“a time when the trust and commonality that binds a society together breaks down and the Winter of our world is coming”
Well yes, and a giant meteor may hit the planet, or an unknown virus may exterminate all higher forms of life, or….., a thousand other exciting disasters science fiction writers are so fond of portraying. The life of planet is finite, one day it will end.
Fortunately, not just yet 🙂
Here is what I see as an example of individual wealth which was accumulated to the extreme disadvantage of the subjects:
http://www.saint-petersburg.com/pushkin/catherine-palace/
And here is an example closer to home:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3303819/Inside-Donald-Trump-s-100m-penthouse-lots-marble-gold-rimmed-cups-son-s-toy-personalized-Mercedes-15-000-book-risqu-statues.html
It is unclear how their wealth was re-invested into the economy to the benefit of others.
Frank,
I think like many, you miss the point. You see the creation of ‘wealth’ as a sort of moral exercise, instead of being simply a transference of wealth and value adding.
By creating an extravagant style of dwelling, Donald Trump transferred, increased and created wealth.
The employment of those who created and planned each of the huge number of facets of the dwelling, those who built it and all the ah,..objects d’art in the furnishing, those who will be required to maintain and repair the creation, those who over the years photograph, write about the apartment.
Donald Trump’s overblown home will go on providing economic activity for many years to come. Who knows one day like many other such extravagances it may become a treasured museum.
The creation of this apartment provided a employment for a lot of highly skilled workers, and continues to create economic activity. There doesn’t need to be a philanthropic moral aspect to spending for wealth redistribution or the creation of economic activity.
All civilized wealth is illusory, once created it depends upon perception to maintain value.
Marco, it is a bit difficult to discern where to respond. Perhaps I am a bit tired but there seem to be a lot of words but fewer statements. But I can offer a few notes:
While I have never been fond of animation your idea of a “Scrooge McDucks with giant vault containing cash” seems somewhat unimaginative. Cash sitting in a vault has the quality of an investment that is not circulating in society. Similar investments could be a mattress stuffed with cash, a coin collection, a herd of horses or the land they graze upon. It could be a forest, or a ship at dock. Some investments cost money as they sit idle. With enough wealth someone could simply pay the cost and wait. If the hoard were liquid enough they could wait for a time of recession and purchase every asset they could at pennies on the dollar.
There are also stories of people and corporations who rather than seek an income from their holdings lower their prices of their goods to drive competition out of business then with a monopoly they can get any price they wish.
Ah, but I am sure you have never heard of this sort of thing. It is a beautiful world you live in where “individual wealth does not exist” and “private capital must continually seek investment opportunities.”
It is curious that you mention buildings in Manhattan. You suggest that it is the residents of the building who choose their environment. But I have heard that there is a housing shortage in that city. Lessor known is that there are 3 families that own most of the real estate. By your definition and understanding they also have no “individual wealth.”
While your son may live in a building collectively owned as a co-operative or a condominium the vast majority of residents are subject to whatever maintenance or lack that the landlord chooses to implement. Curiously lack of maintenance is a form of borrowing that has a visible effect upon the value of a building and the quality of life within but can be inescapable by tenants in a tight housing market. Private landlords can be just as capable of creating depressing housing as public projects.
While it is a common cliche to say that “concrete was invented by the Romans” their formula of concrete that could last for a 2000 years was lost. Modern concrete has a far shorter lifespan, but its use far is more pervasive.
I enjoy your references to farming. I suggest you stick with things with which you are familiar rather than speculate about foreign unknown investments or areas where you may have seen a passing reference.
@ Breath on the Wind
Thank you for your reply.
I wasn’t aware you didn’t know farming is not my primary source of income. Since I left the Army, my career has been devoted to Merchant (Investment) banking.
I’m primarily a financial analyst, although as a director I do have responsibility for deciding strategic investments, and attracting investors. I think I’ve enjoyed a reasonable degree of success as an international venture capitalist, although sometimes I regret being a little conservative.
It’s not a career I wanted, or would have chosen. Since circumstance decreed I couldn’t contentedly remain an army lawyer, I have tried to make a success in the finance industry. Success allowed me to pursue my interest in farming, and advancing in clean(er) technology.
Like many people, you seem to have an antiquated understanding of how wealth is created, and its illusory nature.
In the modern world wealth can never stand still. A coin collection is only of any monetary value when transacted. The increase or decrease in the transaction is when the value is measured, otherwise any value is an illusion.
The definition of “wealth” is much misunderstood, and means different things to different people. The best example that comes to mind is the famous tulip bubble of 1637. At the height of the investment craze, if you had owned just twenty tulip bulbs you would own the equivalent of 1000 times the average annual wage. Later that year, once the craze burst you would own twenty tulip bulbs worth less than twenty dollars !
It’s an erroneously held believe that wealth can be “redistributed’ evenly throughout the population, and still maintain a viable economy.
Last week I returned to Australia on a commercial airliner. The first class, business class and couch passengers, all shared the same aircraft, took off at the same time, and arrived at the same time.
The difference between first and third is largely illusory. A little more style, comfort and service but six times the price !
Now many would argue the money spent by the first class passengers could be spent on the poor. In reality, the poor would be worse off, since without first class there would be no surplus, while all those extra jobs catering for first class, including the seating and decor would evaporate, the loss of those incomes would impact other businesses and so on throughout the economy.
In fact the cost of a first class ticket is a very effective method of wealth redistribution. The price of the ticket is distributed throughout the entire economy.
But for the first, or tourist class passenger who snored through the entire fight, there is no real discernible difference :).
With a little research you would discover the top 20 NY landlords own approx 150,000 of the city’s approximately 4.2 million rental units. (not including public housing).
The majority of these landlords are public companies with a huge number of shareholders, investors and employees.
The Manhattanville housing project in Harlem is owned and operated by the City of New York Housing Authority. The level of crime, drugs, vandalism, filth and violence can’t be laid entirely at the feet of New York City Housing Authority. The participation and willingness of the approx 5000 inhabitants to tolerate such conditions is also to blame.
In my own city, (Melbourne) a previous conservative government provided low cost loans so public housing tenants could purchase their own unit in one of two tower block’s.
The incoming leftist government cancelled the sale of the second block and maintained the cheap rentals for the tenants. Over the years, the contrast has been dramatic. Although the occupants of both blocks have the same socio-economic backgrounds, ethnicity etc, the conditions of the buildings is very different.
Block one equals any of it’s privately owned neighbors providing it’s inhabitants with a quality lifestyle. Block two is plagued by graffiti, drugs, violence, vandalism, crime etc. Recently, with much regret, block one erected a large double fence and employed private security guards effectively separating the two tower blocks.
Nothing in human behavior is perfect. Wealth is relative and complex in a complex society. Economically prosperous nations encourage wealth redistribution by encouraging private spending and expansion of individual credit.
Governments benefit from consumer spending by increasing tax revenues and increased economic activity. This allows governments to expand services and infrastructure, creating more jobs etc.
Wealth isn’t “tied up” in a work of art, or whatever. The ‘wealth’ simply transferred to the vendor. The purchaser only owns the potential of wealth. An uncashed cheque is just a piece of paper until it’s potential is realized.
There will always be abuses in any economic system, but that just means it’s a system evolved to accommodate human frailties and aspirations.
Marco if you have a plan of making investments that promote wealth within society (in the economics sense) then you are to be commended for your altruistic goals. Perhaps you are so guided by your ideals that you don’t consider a possibility or history of scheming, manipulative or underhanded tricks in the pursuit of personal wealth. Sadly, my window faces another portion of the world inhabited by people with the names like Charles Ponzi, Bernie Madoff, and Lou Pearlman. http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/nation/10-of-the-biggest-ponzi-schemes-in-history/
Just as economics is a study under the broader heading of “social science” wealth can be considered in a “macro” as well as the “micro” or individual sense. But I will agree it is not as commonly understood in this way.
I like your farming references because they show your passion in a way that your investment references do not. Some don’t consider passion as yet another kind of wealth and only look to personal finance evidence of “success.”
You seem a perfect advocate for the economic concept of “trickle down economics” that has been a driving force in the US for more than 25 years of governmental policy. During that time we have seen the wealth of the US collected in a diminishing number of hands and the gap between the wealthy and the middle class increasing to 3ed world standards. As a social policy it seems a bit more like communism, an ideal that has no checks on human greed or sloth.
Viewed from a perspective of personal wealth, and financial security, I can understand this position. In more pious times some would justify their financial success by saying it was evidence of God’s favor. Now the cliche is to say that people have made a choice to be poor. But I rather doubt that gratitude for their freedom of choice is the first thought of an overweight passenger wedged into ever smaller seats in the “coach” section. There is more than one reason for that curtain behind the 1st class section.
“Wealth” is one of those things that varies dramatically depending upon where you stand. This is denied “a priori” by those who have it and accepted as “a posteriori” by those who don’t.
A curious thing I have notice is that with the acquisition of wealth comes an increasingly insular perspective. It is a conspiracy of human nature. Too many around the affluent will say whatever their employers want to hear in the hopes of some benefit. Even when told directly, “you are not getting the true story,” we all like to believe that we see the world in a correct or true way. Someone then has to struggle as if with an addiction to get past the misunderstandings. It is a wonder more are not taken in by ponzi schemes.
Breath on the Wind,
Nothing works in isolation. trickle down economics works extremely well, as long as regulators and governments encourage opportunity and competition.
There will always be the failures, either due to bad luck, circumstance, incompetence, inexperience or even dishonesty. There with always be the morally bereft and selfish. That goes with human nature.
Every day I witness the activities of people without consciences, but thankfully they are the minority. What cheers me greatly, is the activities of the majority who are enterprising innovators, visionary investors and people who are certainly wanting to make make money, but also want to improve society and build a better future.
I’m always reminded of a friend from university days, who spent a year in India among the poor. very idealistic and worthy, but when he told me he knew India but had disdained to visit the palaces, gardens and higher levels of Indian culture, I realized he had no knowledge of India,just an India he had invented.
The purchase of anything, intrinsic or extrinsic by anyone, rich or poor puts coined wealth into circulation. So there is a second chance as well as infinite more chances for value to be transferred from person to person.
Now the purchase of a marble statue may only benefit the sculptor and the middlemen but they have the opportunity to purchase food from farmers, clothes etc. it could be argued that purchasing a farm implement by the wealthy person instead of the statue would have a larger economic impact since the statue cannot directly produce more wealth unless you can charge an admission fee to see it. The farm implement can be rented out to produce food. If we start to pass laws about how people can spend their money, where a central committee is put in charge of determining the path to the greater good….. We have lost freedom and self determination. The free market allows for inefficiencies but in the end historically has produced more wealth for more people.